Another Obama Green Failure: WH knew electric car maker Fisker was faltering

RockX

Banned
The Obama administration was warned as early as 2010 that electric car maker Fisker Automotive Inc. was not meeting milestones set up for a half-billion dollar government loan, nearly a year before U.S. officials froze the financing after questions were raised about the company's statements, newly released documents show.

An Energy Department official said in a June 2010 email that Fisker's bid to draw on the federal loan may be jeopardized for failure to meet goals established by the Energy Department.


Despite that warning, Fisker continued to receive money until June 2011, when the Energy Department halted further funding. The agency did so after Fisker presented new information that called into question whether key milestones - including launch of the company's signature, $100,000 Karma hybrid - had been achieved, according to a credit report prepared by the Energy Department.


The December 2011 credit report said "DOE staff asked questions about the delays" in the launch of the Karma "and received varied and incomplete explanations," leading to the suspension of the loan. Fisker had received a total of $192 million of the $529 million loan before it was suspended.


In the June 2010 email, Sandra Claghorn, an official in the Energy Department loan program office, wrote that Fisker "may be in limbo due to a lack of compliance with financial covenants" set up by the department to protect taxpayers in the event of default. Another document, from April 2010, listed milestones that Fisker had not yet met.


Aoife McCarthy, a spokeswoman for the Energy Department, said the June 2010 email was taken out of context.

"The document shows that one person at a meeting discussed the possibility that Fisker might not meet a financial commitment" required by the Energy Department,

McCarthy said in an email late Tuesday. The department received the needed certification five days later and subsequently made the loan payment, she said.


The Associated Press obtained the Fisker documents ahead of a House hearing scheduled for Wednesday on the federal loan to the troubled car maker, which has laid off three-fourths of its workers amid continuing financial and production problems.


The potential loss of $171 million would be largest loss of federal loan money since the 2011 failure of solar panel maker Solyndra. That company's collapse, which came despite a $528 million loan from the Energy Department, has triggered criticism of the Obama administration's green energy program. Fisker received money from a similar loan program started under the Bush administration.


The Energy Department seized $21 million from Fisker this month as it continued to seek repayment from the car maker for the 2009 loan. A payment from Fisker was due Monday but was not made, an Energy Department official said.


A top Energy Department official said the department acted "decisively" to protect taxpayers' interests since Fisker's financial woes became clear nearly two years ago. In testimony prepared for Wednesday's hearing before a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee, Nicholas Whitcombe, former acting director of the car loan program, said the department stopped payments to Fisker in June 2011 after the company failed to meet milestones required in the loan agreement.


Since then, "the department has continued to communicate with Fisker as it has sought to revise its business plan and achieve profitability," Whitcombe said in prepared testimony. The Energy Department is "committed to ensuring that the taxpayers' interests are protected to the maximum extent possible," he added.


But Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the Oversight subcommittee on economic growth and regulation, said it is hard to understand why the Energy Department ever thought Fisker was a viable company that should receive taxpayer money.


"The Obama administration owes the American taxpayer an explanation as to why this bad loan was made in the first place, and what they are going to do to minimize the loss that taxpayers face," said Jordan, R-Ohio.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57581104/wh-knew-electric-car-maker-fisker-was-faltering-ap/

Who did not see this coming, it was only a matter of time.
 
You do know that it was the Bush administration that fronted him the millions, don't you?

Fisker said a high-ranking Energy Department official approached him in 2008 and asked him to apply for the loan
 
You do know that it was the Bush administration that fronted him the millions, don't you?

Why is it suddenly a big deal that some new businesses fail? I am sure there is a whole slew of businesses that have borrowed or obtained money from federal programs before, but now it s a major deal.
 
Why is it suddenly a big deal that some new businesses fail? I am sure there is a whole slew of businesses that have borrowed or obtained money from federal programs before, but now it s a major deal.

It's because that buhlack man's in charge.

der!
 
Yes...he does.

You know...just as an aside....the bailout that GMAC got(which was the division responsible for GM's failings...derivatives... again)? If I were in the oval office, I would have made that money contingent upon making the Volt a competitively priced alternative to the Prius.

Tell me something...if you were in the market for a hybrid....would you buy a Prius for $25k that gets 50mpg all day long.

Or a Volt that costs $40k+ that gets an estimated 75 or so, but has diminishing results for longer trips(the gas part gets 45mpg after the first 40 miles on charged batteries)?

I mean, I'd love to see the Volt work. It's a good idea...the price point is too high, and the way I understand it, the gas engine only acts as a generator to keep the batteries charged at 20% till you can plug it in again...you would think that they could use a more efficient engine that could do that...

Anyway... yeah...throwing good money after bad is never a good idea.
 
Yes...he does.

You know...just as an aside....the bailout that GMAC got(which was the division responsible for GM's failings...derivatives... again)? If I were in the oval office, I would have made that money contingent upon making the Volt a competitively priced alternative to the Prius.

Tell me something...if you were in the market for a hybrid....would you buy a Prius for $25k that gets 50mpg all day long.

Or a Volt that costs $40k+ that gets an estimated 75 or so, but has diminishing results for longer trips(the gas part gets 45mpg after the first 40 miles on charged batteries)?

I mean, I'd love to see the Volt work. It's a good idea...the price point is too high, and the way I understand it, the gas engine only acts as a generator to keep the batteries charged at 20% till you can plug it in again...you would think that they could use a more efficient engine that could do that...

Anyway... yeah...throwing good money after bad is never a good idea.

You're waaaaaay too late to this conversation.

It took years for the Prius to make money. Give GM time. Especially with this coming out in a month or so.

 
Why is it suddenly a big deal that some new businesses fail? I am sure there is a whole slew of businesses that have borrowed or obtained money from federal programs before, but now it s a major deal.

Because it's public money being used, and the beneficiaries of this largess are being picked by politicians, not consumers.

Why is it that liberals only complain of crony capitalism when it's Republicans who do it?
 
Why is it suddenly a big deal that some new businesses fail? I am sure there is a whole slew of businesses that have borrowed or obtained money from federal programs before, but now it s a major deal.

Not sure about Fisker, but Solyndra was a bad investment before they made it. Their business model was dependent upon high silicon prices. At the time of the loan silicon prices were falling fast. That is a big deal. To fund something that is obviously bad simply because you want a feel good story for the media. Either that or the Obama admin is blatantly ignorant.
 
You're waaaaaay too late to this conversation.

It took years for the Prius to make money. Give GM time. Especially with this coming out in a month or so.



yeah, I am sure GM will make a ton of money off that caddy. If the Volt cost $40k and looked like a pos... what do you think the Caddy will cost?
 
You're waaaaaay too late to this conversation.

It took years for the Prius to make money. Give GM time. Especially with this coming out in a month or so.


Sorry...GM could have offset the cost of the Volt by spreading some of it across the rest of the fleet, the tax incentives that Obama put in place, and by eating a portion of it.
 
Sorry...GM could have offset the cost of the Volt by spreading some of it across the rest of the fleet, the tax incentives that Obama put in place, and by eating a portion of it.

They did, just like Toyota did. Except Toyota had a lot more money when development of the Prius started in 1995 than GM after the crash. Yet the Prius still took ten years before it made any kind of profit for Toyota.
 
Yes...he does.

You know...just as an aside....the bailout that GMAC got(which was the division responsible for GM's failings...derivatives... again)? If I were in the oval office, I would have made that money contingent upon making the Volt a competitively priced alternative to the Prius.

Tell me something...if you were in the market for a hybrid....would you buy a Prius for $25k that gets 50mpg all day long.

Or a Volt that costs $40k+ that gets an estimated 75 or so, but has diminishing results for longer trips(the gas part gets 45mpg after the first 40 miles on charged batteries)?

I mean, I'd love to see the Volt work. It's a good idea...the price point is too high, and the way I understand it, the gas engine only acts as a generator to keep the batteries charged at 20% till you can plug it in again...you would think that they could use a more efficient engine that could do that...

Anyway... yeah...throwing good money after bad is never a good idea.

No wonder you could only get a job as a gobblement worker. Not only are you a low information voter you are a fucking idiot with no concept of business or economics.

Go build an electric car if you are so fucking smart and got it all figgered out. I am sure the nigger in the white house will front you a half billion
 
No wonder you could only get a job as a gobblement worker. Not only are you a low information voter you are a fucking idiot with no concept of business or economics.

Go build an electric car if you are so fucking smart and got it all figgered out. I am sure the nigger in the white house will front you a half billion

I got a better idea....go fist yourself.
 
Sorry...GM could have offset the cost of the Volt by spreading some of it across the rest of the fleet, the tax incentives that Obama put in place, and by eating a portion of it.
You think a company just coming out of BK is going to just 'eat' costs? Have you ever talked with anyone who runs a business?
 
It is when you say shit like this:
The Solyndra money came from the Bush administration too.

No, it did not. It was done in Sept 2009. The process started earlier, but it was not approved until Sept 2009.

Even if it had, that doesn't make my comment any more about Obama's race. You just enjoying focusing on the color of a persons skin.
 
Why is it suddenly a big deal that some new businesses fail? I am sure there is a whole slew of businesses that have borrowed or obtained money from federal programs before, but now it s a major deal.

Exactly right.

These kinds of threads are among the most airheaded on the site, imo.
 
Exactly right.

These kinds of threads are among the most airheaded on the site, imo.

The above is the very type of airheaded comments that provide us with daily comedy.

It isn't that 'new businesses fail'. It is that the government used our tax dollars to fund a business that was already failing at the time of funding. The writing was on the wall months prior, yet they still went through with the loan. That is incompetence.
 
Back
Top