By on September 22, 2017

faraday future groundbreak

The honeymoon is over before it even began. The State of Nevada is ending its relationship with automaker Faraday Future, which once promised to build a vast and glorious manufacturing facility within its borders — in exchange for tax incentives.

Eschewing construction of its $1 billion promise in North Las Vegas due to financial woes, Faraday was insistent that it was going to begin construction on a smaller assembly plant before tackling the rest of the build site. According to the company, a bijou factory was to be the first phase of a multi-stage approach intended to bring the FF 91 swiftly to market.

In July, Faraday Future announced it would be placing that project on hold as well, but remained committed to using the Nevada site for long-term vehicle manufacturing. Until then, it said it would shift its business strategy “to position the company as the leader in user-ship personal mobility — a vehicle usage model that reimagines the way users access mobility.” If anyone knows what that gibberish means, we’d love to know. It’s been several months and we still can’t decipher that sentence into useful information. 

Apparently, Nevada wasn’t interested in waiting to see how Faraday progressed through its new identity or if “user-ship personal mobility” leadership has anything to do with building cars. According to The Nevada Independent, the startup sent a letter to the Governor’s Office of Economic Development which indicated it was giving up its status as a “qualified project.” Steve Hill, executive director of the GOED, indicated that Faraday had voluntarily abandoned its eligibility for a state tax abatement and infrastructure building package and issued a check for $16,200 — thus returning all the incentive money that it had received from the state.

Obviously, the state was happy to accept the terms of surrender.

“The Faraday project is basically dissolved at this point at absolutely no cost to the state and local governments,” said Hill.

About $620,000 of taxpayer money is just chilling in a trust fund with nowhere specific to go since the company was unable to uphold its end of the bargain. That money is likely to be routed into various state entities, says the Governor’s Office.

Congratulations are in order to Nevada State Treasurer Dan Schwartz, who as among the very first people to cry foul of his state’s arrangement with the aspiring automaker. He demanded that the GOED conduct an audit of Faraday earlier this year, which it agreed to. That investigation was scheduled to conclude sometime before autumn and may have had something to do with FF’s voluntary withdrawal.

While other outlets may indicate that this may not be the end for Faraday Future, we were willing to pronounce them dead months ago. Whatever it is we are witnessing now amounts to posthumous spasms.

Faraday may have finally secured a manufacturing plant in Hanford, California, and received some important fund-raising capital this summer, but the deck is stacked against it. The brand’s hype-driven existence didn’t mesh particularly well with how the business was actually ran.

The media has frequently outlined the company’s weird corporate connections to China’s LeEco, despite both firms repeated denial that founder Jia Yueting was anything more than a serious investor. However, earlier this week, FF employees confessed to The Verge that they had been designing vehicles for LeEco all along — making the partnerships’ repudiations all the more bewildering.

This Chinese connection has been a major thorn in Faraday’s side. Severe financial mismanagement has forced Jia to abandon projects and sell off assets to keep his core businesses afloat. He has even reduced his stake in LeEco to help support operations of the internet company. He now appears to have stopped funneling personal money into the business and rumors are stirring that he doesn’t even have enough left to pay off his own debts, let alone the debts of his many side projects.

Faraday looks to be left on its own, which is sad because they did provide an interesting prototype. But nobody is going to trust them to deliver on their car commitments when they’ve broken so many promises already. Besides, the amount of money it would take to make good on any one of them would be astronomical.

To quote Stephen King’s Pet Cemetery, “Sometimes, dead is better.”

[Image: Faraday Future]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

14 Comments on “Faraday Future Officially Ends Its Relationship With Nevada...”


  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    The best thing Nevada did was to build safeguards into the deal for just such shenanigans.

    Despite the criticisms and faults of Elon Musk, Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and many others, Faraday Future was doomed without a strong, visionary leader like one of these.

  • avatar
    notwhoithink

    “Until then, it said it would shift its business strategy “to position the company as the leader in user-ship personal mobility — a vehicle usage model that reimagines the way users access mobility.” If anyone knows what that gibberish means, we’d love to know.”

    It means that instead of “ownership” there will be “usership”. You don’t own the car, you use it in either a short-term usage rental, or something similar. Much like you do with Car2Go, or maybe Uber or Lyft. Or perhaps like that expensive Cadillac service that they launched in New York.

    Basically, everyone is thinking that they’re going to revolutionize car “ownership” by doing away with a long-term ownership model where the consumer is responsible for acquisition costs, finance payments, insurance, fuel, maintenance, repairs, etc. Instead they want to shift to a shorter-term usage/consumption-based model, sort of like cloud computing, where you basically pay a flat rate and get the use of a car without any of the headaches or complexity of ownership. The assumption being that their economies of scale can drive lower costs, and thereby lower pricing for consumers while still making a profit. I mean, after all, most of our cars are parked in a garage or driveway for 90% or more of the day. If instead of paying $500-$700/month for a car (and insurance, maintenance, etc), wouldn’t you rather just pay $300 month to know that you’ll have a car available whenever you need it?

    It doesn’t appeal to me at all, but it makes a certain kind of economic sense, and if it ends up being the Next Big Thing ™ then someone’s gonna make a ton of money on it.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      That was my reading of the mysterious sentence. I would simplify it to “We’re gonna imagine driverless taxis”. They have to imagine it, since they have no way to build them.

  • avatar
    ash78

    If only there a more upstanding entity to take Faraday Future’s place in this deal. Maybe North Korea with some H-bomb testing. That’s what Nevada does best.

  • avatar
    ClutchCarGo

    “The Faraday project is basically dissolved at this point at absolutely no cost to the state and local governments,” said Hill.

    What about the salaries of the state employees who devoted time to this project, and any outside agencies (like auditors, engineering and environmental firms) who were paid for their work? Did none of that cost NV anything? Maybe they consider it a wash since Faraday picked up the lunch tab.

  • avatar
    zip89123

    As a Nevadan, YAY !!!

    Now if we could just quit underwriting the Raiders ………

  • avatar
    Prove Your Humanity 2+9=?

    “to position the company as the leader in user-ship personal mobility — a vehicle usage model that reimagines the way users access mobility.”

    “We will be renting one-man rowboats on the shore of Lake Tahoe.”

  • avatar
    dwford

    So Nevada still comes out a winner. At least a bunch of construction workers got paid to push dirt around int he desert – at no cost to the taxpayer. Better than the usual government/private deals.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      More precisely, I believe the workers got paid, but their employers did not. Faraday Future still owes a pretty big debt to their contractors, which is why the contractors stopped working on the site some time ago.

  • avatar
    jacob_coulter

    I’d like to see federal legislation that taxes subsidies like this when states play these games.

    The small business owner gets screwed because they can’t hire the big gun lobbyists to get these tax breaks. So they have to make up the shortfall.

    Crony Capitalism.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      How does the federal government tax a state subsidy, which in most cases is reduced state taxes? Reduce federal subsidies to states for water, sewer, roads, unemployment benefits, medicaid?

  • avatar
    bpsorrel

    So it was a car rental project… I think that’s been done…… :)


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • brandloyalty: Suv’s have space underneath behind the rear wheels. The only other thing to put there is the gas...
  • Scoutdude: I don’t know that they wouldn’t be in the lead without the Hybrid version as many would have...
  • JMII: Lincoln? What’s that? Oh you mean Fords with more chrome and bigger wheels. Caddy at least has unique...
  • ajla: The Koreans and Jaguar have what you want.
  • brandloyalty: Power door locks and windows certainly add conveniece and have become acceptably reliable. Power locks...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States