Where's Paul?

[Sailor Dog]

He didn't do anything wrong. He and his crew worked their asses off.

The Department of Energy's ATVM loan people led him on a long, long joke. They never intended to loan him a penny, as we can deduce from the June 2016 message from Elio saying the ATVM loan people mandated a new requirement: 66,000 verfied purchase orders instead of reservations (please, it was emailed to us as an update, I'm not looking it up again). At that point, all he could do was pray for a NASDAQ listing and a sale of stock, which apparently isn't going to happen. My guess is they ran out of money and can't pursue it now.

That loan was the goal, the lone goal. For no reason, it was withheld.

No one is interested in funding a car that can't make anyone as much money as simply investing in financial markets. No, not even with a trillion loosed by a tax cut. They aren't interested.

He gave up his marriage, his fortune, and his professional life, and I would think he's experiencing an emotional catastrophe, larger than people just waiting for a car. He hasn't hurt any of you, only himself, by trying to give you a car you could afford. So have some pity, people. You're not victims. He was and is your hero.

He tried, and he tried for you all. He wanted to build a cheap car for normal, non-rich people, and no one was interested in financing it because they couldn't begin to make a fortune doing that. The ATVM people stopped loaning money eight years or so back. They have billions to loan. They apparently aren't interested in doing any work.

This is a disaster for normal folk, because the trend is to build expensive cars for expensive people. The e-cars of the future are not going to be repairable by anyone but the manufacturer, and will be obsoleted by lack of software updates.

Three cheers for our champ. He gave it everything he had.

Beautifully written... Fortunately wrong about the outcome... ELIO in our driveways in 2019 & on.

 

[Rob Croson]

The added June 2016 new requirement for 66,000 *full purchase in advance* orders of all Elios was not required of Ford or Tesla or any of the others loan recipients.

I agree with what you are saying. Well, a lot of it, anyway. But these parts here I do have to dispute.

First, the DoE did not mandate "66,000 *full purchase in advance* orders". Elio was very clear and explicit that:
A) The DoE did no demand a specific number of reservations or commitments
B) The DoE did no demand any kind of purchase in advance
C) Elio Motors continually denied that there would be any kind of advance purchase program, and that they would not, in any way, accept pre-payment for a vehicle.

Elio was quite clear that the DoE stated that non-binding reservations were not a strong enough commitment in order to be used to demonstrate interest. Elio came up with the "locked in" deal to try to prove that commitment. I would be surprised if they hadn't worked out the details of that with the DoE, but we have no proof that this is true.

You are correct that EM was asked to prove interest in a way that Ford, Nissan, and Tesla were not. It should be blatantly obvious why this was true: These three companies were all massive manufacturing corporations with proven ability to produce and deliver product. EM is a startup who has never made anything, with no revenue, wishing to produce a new product for which no comparable market existed. And this was after the DoE got burned for hundreds of millions by another startup: Fisker Automotive. Elio needed to prove that there was a market for their product, and thus prove that they would have a way to pay back to the money would be borrowing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Ford, Nissan, and Tesla would be able to repay the loans.

So yes, I do agree with a lot of what you're saying. But the above quoted statements are simply not true.

 

[RSchneider]

When Tesla got the ATVM loan, they has sold 1500 roadsters. These were rollers made by lotus and Tesla put in the driveline. So, I wouldn't call them a massive manufacturing company at the time. Plus, it was 2 years before the model S was produced. The big difference for Tesla over Elio is that if Tesla would have went belly up, they could have repaid the loan. From looking at Elio, I doubt they would be able to. That's the step 2 where they cover due diligence. Just don't forget that you need to complete step 2 as it can;t be skipped. What we really should be saying is that Ford, Nissan and Tesla could have paid back the loan if they failed.

For the locked in deal where you have to buy the car, that came in at approximately 21.5K out of the 65.3K reservations. So out of the people that reserved an Elio, 33% stepped up to say that they will buy one. There was an incentive to lock in with a binding agreement yet only 33% went for the deal.

Then, Nissan and Ford are paying back the loan on time, Tesla did it 9 years early. Plus the ATVM loan program makes money due to the interest that Ford and Nissan pay. Plus, the last ATVM loan given out was to VPG in 2011 for $50M and they went bankrupt. The DOE got back $7M or the $49M they already paid them. As you can see, the ATVM loan program last paid out in 2011, 3 years before Elio had applied for it. Driving home the point that it was a program that was not good on handing out loans or doing a good job. Why Elio would go that route makes about as much scene if he stated that his favorite uncle will loan him the money soon, but right now he's on life support and let's hope he wakes up so he can loan me the money.

 

[Travelbuzz1]

I agree with what you are saying. Well, a lot of it, anyway. But these parts here I do have to dispute.

First, the DoE did not mandate "66,000 *full purchase in advance* orders". Elio was very clear and explicit that:
A) The DoE did no demand a specific number of reservations or commitments
B) The DoE did no demand any kind of purchase in advance
C) Elio Motors continually denied that there would be any kind of advance purchase program, and that they would not, in any way, accept pre-payment for a vehicle.

Elio was quite clear that the DoE stated that non-binding reservations were not a strong enough commitment in order to be used to demonstrate interest. Elio came up with the "locked in" deal to try to prove that commitment. I would be surprised if they hadn't worked out the details of that with the DoE, but we have no proof that this is true.

You are correct that EM was asked to prove interest in a way that Ford, Nissan, and Tesla were not. It should be blatantly obvious why this was true: These three companies were all massive manufacturing corporations with proven ability to produce and deliver product. EM is a startup who has never made anything, with no revenue, wishing to produce a new product for which no comparable market existed. And this was after the DoE got burned for hundreds of millions by another startup: Fisker Automotive. Elio needed to prove that there was a market for their product, and thus prove that they would have a way to pay back to the money would be borrowing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Ford, Nissan, and Tesla would be able to repay the loans.

So yes, I do agree with a lot of what you're saying. But the above quoted statements are simply not true.

Elio was never betting they would get the loan and structured their efforts on finding finance, the ATVM loan was just a option. They have read all of the reports as you have and then some with regards to the ATVM loans.

 

[Rob Croson]

For the locked in deal where you have to buy the car, that came in at approximately 21.5K out of the 65.3K reservations. So out of the people that reserved an Elio, 33% stepped up to say that they will buy one. There was an incentive to lock in with a binding agreement yet only 33% went for the deal.

I wasn't aware that EM ever released the lock-in rate, or any actual numbers on how many had locked in. In fact, I'm fairly sure they specifically declined to release those numbers.

Also, lock-in was only available to all-ins, so the available pool of people who could lock-in was substantially less than 65.3k.

 

[KD]

I wasn't aware that EM ever released the lock-in rate, or any actual numbers on how many had locked in. In fact, I'm fairly sure they specifically declined to release those numbers.

Also, lock-in was only available to all-ins, so the available pool of people who could lock-in was substantially less than 65.3k.

Of which I R 1!

 

[Colo-Elio]

The ATVM loan was never going to happen under the past administration,
Nasdaq soon & get back on track!

 

[RSchneider]

I wasn't aware that EM ever released the lock-in rate, or any actual numbers on how many had locked in. In fact, I'm fairly sure they specifically declined to release those numbers.

Also, lock-in was only available to all-ins, so the available pool of people who could lock-in was substantially less than 65.3k.

On the Elio Motors website under the Investor Relations page, they have this:

As a special incentive if non-refundable reservation holders made a binding purchase commitment, the locked price is reduced to $7,000. As of March 31, 2017, the Company had received 65,255 total reservations, of which 36,435 had received the locked price of $7,300 and 21,204 had made a binding purchase commitment and had received the locked price of $7,000.

Looks like 21,204 did binding, 36,435 did not. That's 57,639 out of a total of 65,255. From the way I seen it, you could go to all in from want in and then do a binding for $7K. Once the deadline passed, then you were not allowed to do that.

Here's the link (look under the Market Testing paragraph):
https://ir.eliomotors.com/all-sec-filings/content/0001567619-17-001564/0001567619-17-001564.pdf

 

[Rob Croson]

Thanks for the link. I've never looked under the Investor Relations page.

 

[BADBOY]

Have it on good authority Paul is in my Elio styling and profiling.