Romney Dubs Tesla, Fisker As "Losers", As Tesla Issues Stock To Stay Afloat
Viewers of last night’s Presidential debate may have caught Mitt Romney bad-mouthing Tesla and Fisker during his remarks. Meanwhile, Tesla’s new prospectus shows that they’re hardly out of the woods yet, financially speaking.
Last night, Gov. Romney delivered this barb to President Obama
“You put $90 billion — like 50 years’ worth of breaks — into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1,” said Romney. “I mean, I had a friend who said, you don’t just pick the winners and losers; you pick the losers.”
The remarks came right as Elon Musk and Tesla prepared another stock issue to raise so much needed cash. Tesla’s latest SEC filing declares that
Based upon our current financial forecast, we currently anticipate that if we do not raise the proceeds anticipated from this offering and do not otherwise adjust our operations accordingly or amend the DOE Loan Facility, we may not be compliant with the current ratio covenant for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2013. For the quarters ending September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2013, we currently anticipate that without taking advantage of additional revenue opportunities or making adjustments to our spending, we expect that we will need to seek an amendment from the DOE to modify the fixed charge coverage ratio covenant. Moreover, we currently anticipate that without raising capital in addition to this offering, we would need to seek an amendment from the DOE to modify the total liabilities to stockholder equity covenant for the quarter ending March 31, 2014 and the two subsequent quarters.
While Tesla will apparently become cash flow positive next month, the mainstream media has glossed over the fact that they are also in grave danger of being out of compliance with their DOE loans for as much as 18 months into the future. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter how good the Model S is. If it don’t make dollars, it don’t make sense.
More by Derek Kreindler
Comments
Join the conversation
The whole point of the Tesla "experiment" was 1. To produce sporty, beautiful cars with useable range and outstanding performance; these would serve to establish the company and the technology to: 2. Produce a much more affordable, "mainstream" EV that could (potentially) be purchased by many more people who could work an EV into their personal transportation requirements. This would reduce our reliance on oil (especially foreign stuff) for basic consumer transportation, and allow the strategic oil reserve to be saved for exactly that - as a "buffer" for the eventuality of a Mideast supply disruption, instead of a "political device" to be tapped into when the price gets too high. If there's an "ulterior motive" for the DOE, it's energy security, and drilling everywhere in US territory is not the only answer - a mufti-faceted approach that focuses on the supply AND the demand side only makes sense. There's political poison in these discussions that always seems to forget that we shouldn't be fighting wars all over the world to assure access to cheap fossil fuels, when the answer is so much cheaper and simpler: reduce the demand wherever possible. People who buy and use EV's for daily transportation will help increase the supply of oil, stabilize the price, and increase the security of the country by ensuring that the Strategic Oil Reserve is kept for defense purposes, at least until the DOD works out an alternate energy supply chain on their own. Edit: The US Government *could* have bought up say, the bankrupted makers of the Think! city car, and started their own company - then started selling subsidized cars at bargain-basement prices, thus undercutting the market (who wouldn't buy a $5000-dollar electric city car?) - but that wouldn't be very capitalistic, would it. So they try to work "within the system", and people cry foul. Can't please everyone, I guess. Edit-edit: Look at the supply shortage in California right now- refinery problems are causing the price to push to $5.00/gal, and people can't even get gas at that price - despite California's "aggressive" policies encouraging EV adoption, it isn't fast enough. Look to this example as what could happen *nationwide" if a supply disruption happens from the Middle East.
I also think many of you will change your tune when you've driven one. I've posted before about the addictive feeling of instant linear torque. I drive an E39 M5 that I am seriously considering replacing with a Tesla S in another year or so. Also, for people who complain about the price, Tesla has been much smarter than the american's or even the japanese by following the German model of technical development, where a high margin flagship luxury car is used as a development platform for all of the new technology that will filter down through the line over several years. BMW's schedule goes 7,5,3,1. Audi's A8, A6, A5, A4. This is a tried and true method for amortizing the cost of developing new technology over a model range. The Model S is slotted in between the 5 series/A6/E class and the the 7 series/A8. Tesla is attempting to copy Audi's spectacular success at copying BMWs hugely successful development schedule. The Chevy Volt should have been a Cadillac, and could have been a real competitor in that segment.