Volt Birth Watch 157: GM's SEC Filing, Form 8-K, August 7, 2009

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

GM’s SEC Filing, Form 8-K, August 7, 2009 is 3100 pages long. Full marks, then, to someone at Autocar [UK] for reading the document and winkling-out this bit about the Volt’s viability (there’s that word again). Props, also, to our Justin Berkowitz for finding the unidentified source of Autocar’s report and doing same. It should be noted that SEC filings, like all corporate disclaimers, are obliged to moot the gloomiest possible scenario (i.e., CYA). Even so, this is pretty sobering stuff, considering it was released four days before the 230 mpg hoopla.

We intend to invest significant capital resources to support our products and to develop new technology. In addition, we are committed to invest heavily in alternative fuel and advanced propulsion technologies between 2009 and 2012, largely to support our planned expansion of hybrid and electric vehicles, consistent with our announced objective of being recognized as the industry leader in fuel efficiency. Moreover, if our future operations do not provide us with the liquidity we anticipate, we may be forced to reduce, delay or cancel our planned investments in new technology.

In some cases, the technologies that we plan to employ, such as hydrogen fuel cells and advanced battery technology are not yet commercially practical and depend on significant future technological advances by us and by suppliers. For example, we have announced that we intend to produce by November 2010 the Chevrolet Volt, an electric car, which requires battery technology that has not yet proven commercially viable. There can be no assurance that these advances will occur in a timely or feasible way, that the funds that we have budgeted for these purposes will be adequate or that we will be able to establish our right to these technologies. Moreover, our competitors and others are pursuing similar technologies and other competing technologies, in some cases with more money available, and there can be no assurance that they will not acquire similar or superior technologies sooner than we do or on an exclusive basis or at a significant price advantage.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 15 comments
  • Pch101 Pch101 on Aug 13, 2009
    This is saying that the battery technology has not yet proven commercially viable. That's just a factual statement. They've made a big deal about it, so they have to CYA by saying that the big deal may not turn out to be such a big deal, after all. They would say this no matter what. This is almost certainly a way to protect themselves against the VEBA and any future shareholders that they may have. If everything implodes, they just shrug and say, "We told ya so."
  • Mcs Mcs on Aug 13, 2009
    This is saying that the battery technology has not yet proven commercially viable. What are the chances of a Volt catching fire while charging in the middle of the night inside someones garage? That scenario would doom the car and GM.
  • V8fairy Not scared, but I would be reluctant to put my trust in it. The technology is just not quite there yet
  • V8fairy Headlights that switch on/off with the ignition - similar to the requirement that Sweden has- lights must run any time the car is on.Definitely knobs and buttons, touchscreens should only be for navigation and phone mirroring and configuration of non essential items like stereo balance/ fade etc>Bagpipes for following too close.A following distance warning system - I'd be happy to see made mandatory. And bagpipes would be a good choice for this, so hard to put up with!ABS probably should be a mandatory requirementI personally would like to have blind spot monitoring, although should absolutely NOT be mandatory. Is there a blind spot monitoring kit that could be rerofitted to a 1980 Cadillac?
  • IBx1 A manual transmission
  • Bd2 All these inane posts (often referencing Hyundai, Kia) the past week are by "Anal" who has been using my handle, so just ignore them...
  • 3-On-The-Tree I was disappointed that when I bought my 2002 Suzuki GSX1300R that the Europeans put a mandatory speed limiter on it from 197mph down to 186mph for the 2002 year U.S models.
Next