Fisker Returns (or, Let's Get Everyone Wound Up About The Atvm Loan Program Again)

[Bilbo B]

Just saw a report that Fisker is possibly raising out of the ashes in the desert between LA and Palm Springs. Article says it's Chines owned now, but just the name is going to get the Flaming Torch and Pitch Fork crowd wound up about the entire ATVM program again. Talk about timing.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/06/21/new-fisker-ready-to-reopen-in-california/

 

[Rickb]

A rather small loan failure in the big scheme of a successful overall DOE loan Program. One should focus on the big picture, not all venture capital loans are 100% successful in any investment portfolio.

Fisker had beautiful styling, but lacked pulling the necessary engineering specs together to make it a reliable EV, unlike Tesla Motors.

 

[Coss]

Who owned it before?

 

[Rickb]

Who owned it before?

The Old Fisker was founded in 2007 by Henrik Fisker. Apparently Fisker's bankruptcy was in part a result of their battery supplier A123 going bankrupt which was owned by the Chinese Company that recently bought them out to create the New Fisker.

 

[satx]

One should focus on the big picture, not all venture capital loans are 100% successful in any investment portfolio.

US govt is better at "picking winners and losers" than private capital, and returns $Ms to govt treasury. The Repugs are, of course, LYING that govt shouldn't in the winner/loser business.

 

[Coss]

US govt is better at "picking winners and losers" than private capital, and returns $Ms to govt treasury. The Repugs are, of course, LYING that govt shouldn't in the winner/loser business.

Winner/loser .......... what do you think elections are?

 

[Coss]

The Old Fisker was founded in 2007 by Henrik Fisker. Apparently Fisker's bankruptcy was in part a result of their battery supplier A123 going bankrupt which was owned by the Chinese Company that recently bought them out to create the New Fisker.

Thanks Rick. Doesn't that seem a little "fishy" that the reason Fisker went out of business becomes the new owner? o_O

 

[AriLea]

It's probably worse than you think. I found this out from interactions that my brother had with some.

The Chinese greatly want to have leverage on the profits and the tech in EV tech ( or any ). And there are some big industry players involved. They have the desire to play big in the manufacturing of all tech. But the branding and marketing is a space-alien concept to them. Trust? Consumer trust? They have very little of their own so how can they understand that?

But also, certainly they don't intrinsically understand strategic risk taking as it exists in the west. Alibaba being a big exception, but that is headed by a solid visionary copying a successful model. Copy and duplicate plays well over there. A little too well.

It seems they first try and get advantageous partnerships in the US, and allow that to use up it's cash, but if that bottoms out ( and often does ), they try and exploit what's left anyway they can.

For that reason someone out there in China bought up Aptera materials, but not unsurprisingly, didn't go anywhere with that. It's possible that Aptera was used to scam-out private investors in China main. Or just wanted it off the table completely. Conspiracy alert! :-)

Over here, what they first will try and do is suck up as much investment as possible based on partnered plans between commercial entities, then they'll evaluate their next step. No promises ( that they'll stick with ) no quarter given. Absolutely everything built on sand. And no trust in any visions. They really have no idea the actual value of a brand. So they'll run at the drop of a hat. Or undermine it with over-the-fence deals elsewhere.

Zap/Zenn suffered greatly being all mixed up in those kinds of 'partnerships' (and mindset). As did anyone getting involved in an earnest role.

The Chinese seem to have no way to know, and they don't deeply care, if the US partner is just a scammer himself building on a dream built on private US investors. So the US partner doesn't totally consider that the Chinese side might pull out. They just want to hook their first offering and will deal with the aftermath later.

US made and US financed = more reliable branding. Canadian made and Canadian financed = good branding ( sometimes ).
US/or/Ca and Chinese mash-up = watch your wallet, taste it ( chemically test it ) before you eat it.
(depending on who the US brand is. Apple and Boeing for example, who run their own QA )

 

[Rickb]

Thanks Rick. Doesn't that seem a little "fishy" that the reason Fisker went out of business becomes the new owner? o_O

Very suspicious indeed!

 

[AriLea]

The odd thing is, everything changes at some point. Not always for the better.
With Fisker the Chinese are behaving just a little differently. They normally do not buy-out and resurrect a brand with their own money. Maybe they have so much that they are willing to up the game. The question is, will the brand survive with a viable character?

To tell the truth, I'm not very interested in yet another high-end luxury for the 1%. Now if they would produce an inexpensive - long range EV commuter for the 99%, K, now I'm interested.

But that's just me as an individual, less than 1% of the 1%.