After Fisker defaulted on a $192-million federal loan in April and the DOE seized $21 million from the automaker’s bank accounts, the DOE sold Fisker’s outstanding $168-million debt on the open market in November, where Hybrid Tech snatched it up for $25 million. While the DOE said it required bidders to commit to American-based manufacturing and that Hybrid Tech said it would build the Karma in the U.S., the debt sale effectively leaves it unable to control Fisker as a new company, in whatever form it takes. Now that a Delaware judge has ordered Fisker’s assets to be sold at a public auction, it remains unclear whether the new owner can guarantee U.S. jobs.
This sounds like another looting being carried out by the US “justice system”.
Hybrid Tech might just as well write off its $25 million investment.
And where does this leave purchasers of Fisker cars who might need spare parts and
repairs at some point? Sounds like a perfect goat-f*** to me.
“… it remains unclear whether the new owner can guarantee U.S. jobs.”
There’s nothing like a little comedy in the morning! The new owners can guarantee American jobs IF de gummint will SUBSIDIZE those jobs 100%.
I truly hope and pray the New Owners will approach the U.S. government in a very loud and public manner,and blackmail them into paying all the costs of manufacturing that dog in the USA.
Hell, at this point, what’s a few more billion down the toilet?
Read the paper edition of this month’s C&D. I’ve made the comment on many non-automotive discussion boards that the best of today’s pure electrics is no more capable than what was available in the 1930’s. I was being overly generous. CD raced a Tesla Model S from Ann Arbor, Michigan to Long Island, New York. The Tesla beat the 1915 Model T in the article by about an hour. Worse, the trip took 3 times what it takes according to Google Maps.
It’s also the same distance as from Elkhart, Indiana to New York. In 1994, we took less than 30 hours, including an overnight stay to travel the same route. In a diesel pick-up. Pulling a 40 ft. holiday trailer.
Even assuming a rapid escalation in electric range or charging speeds, they’re still 20 years from competing head-to-head with today’s cars. As for tomorrow’s cars, who knows?
“Hybrid Tech might just as well write off its $25 million investment.”
John, they bought 168 million bucks worth of DEBT for 25 million, so they will more than recoup that 25 mil
“……..they bought 168 million bucks worth of DEBT for 25 million,……”
Debt ain’t no asset……
People, governments, and eco-enthusiasts keep focusing on, investing OUR tax money in, and extolling the wonders of electric VEHICLES. But the issue, the problem, the technological barrier has always been and REMAINS batteries, not “cars”.
As Bill Greenwood hints at above, BATTERY technology (including that from Canada’s much beloved Ballard in BC) has not made many commercially viable “great leaps forward” since before WW2; NONE are looming over the horizon despite the enthusiasm of the green left for spending OUR tax money chasing THEIR Utopian fantasies.
Batteries for electric cars are VERY HEAVY, and take a LOT of time to re-charge with ever-more expensive electricity from the conventional power grid. Those salient FACTS have not changed in the past 50+ years.
Due to the abandonment of the old “Stop and Frisk” law, lawmakers have to come up with a new policy to help the taxpayer from being robbed.
It’s called “Stop the Fisker”.
When you combine Green Clowns, Green gubmint, and silly Green Electric Cars, the
foreordained results should not be a surprise to anyone with normal brain function.
Karma is such a bitch
“Debt ain’t no asset……”
Depends on whose ledger you’re reading.
Davers is absolutely right. The failing of the electric car has nothing to do with the car or the powertrain. It’s all about the battery and its very low energy density. And battery technology significantly more modern than lead-acid hasn’t helped much. Laptops exploding in front of you? Boeing’s problems with the 787 Dreamliner? All battery failures.
sasq, obviously you ain’t well versed in bus. or accounting, quite often when a company is being dissolved the biggest “asset” it has is it’s debt. Fact is that there are cases when one company takes over another company it is for that very reason.
Debt is an asset if Obama is writing another 1/2 billion check
like he did with Tesla and Solyndra. These companies were never
meant to make money, they were created to pay back mega donors
with hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars.
The new owners will loot the company and declare bankruptcy
like Solyndra, or ask for a government bailout like Tesla.
The insanely brazen, like Elon Musk of Tesla is now bilking
the taxpayers of California for tens of millions in phony
“Carbon credits.”
“bought” debt is an asset to any company that is turning a good profit, they can then write it down and reduce their tax burden doing so
nme666
yup , got in in one
If someone want’s an electric car for whatever reason, then the market will supply the demand. My objection is using taxpayers money to subsidize the companies making them or to reduce the price for the buyer. Let a free market decide.
Can someone explain why there remain ANY assets for sale? Why would they have not already been liquidated against the debt?
Hell, I just looked up the details of the Car And Driver story.
The Model T had to go an extra 46 over the 719 miles the Tesla
drove because the Ford could not run at modern freeway speeds.
The Tesla was sidelined for 10 hours for (2) battery charges.
Where the hell is that 400 mile range Elon?
Meanwhile, even though the Model T suffered a few minor break-
downs, it came damn close to beating the Tesla if it went mile for
mile against the Tesla. For the most part, it just kept going like the friggen’ Energizer bunny.
Yeah I’m knew/know all that…..
But I still consider it creative book-keeping.
Indeed. There are a wide variety of vehicles which use electrical power, as has been
discussed previously on this forum. One of the most common is the forklift truck
used in warehouses. If the economics were there, these would morph into road
vehicles. They haven’t.
As Leonard Jones says above, most of these companies were set up, and received heavy
government subsidies, for the purpose of making massive donations to the Democratic
Party. Otherwise, if they had good ideas, they could have and would have relied on
private capital.
No, it is not creative book keeping.
You start out with a car that can cruise at 1-1/2 to 2 x the speed
of the Model T. Assuming the Tesla was was a conventional car,
it could make the trip at 60MPH with a single refueling. With
a refueling stop of ten minutes, the trip would last 12 hours and
10 minutes.
Being an electric car, the Tesla had to spend TEN HOURS plugged
into a charger. So, if the Tesla averaged 60MPH, the trip took
22 hours.
Imagine taking the family on a cross country trip, where after
every 6 hours you drive, you have to recharge for 5 hours. And
this is with the big high voltage industrial chargers.
Electric cars are only practical for short range travel so long
as there is no breakthrough in Lithium Ion battery power density.