Print 17 comment(s) - last by navair2.. on Feb 24 at 9:15 PM

They don't want the automaker to end up like A123 Systems

After bankrupt battery company A123 Systems was (mostly) acquired by a Chinese company, two U.S. senators now worry that automaker Fisker Automotive will have the same fate.

Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and John Thune (R-South Dakota) have expressed concern that taxpayer dollars will support a company with foreign ownership if Fisker is acquired by a Chinese company.

"Senator Thune and I asked the Energy Department about potential foreign ownership of Fisker in June 2012. When we raised concerns about taxpayers supporting a company with foreign ownership, the Energy Department waved those concerns away," Grassley said. "Now, those concerns may soon become a reality. Like A123, this looks like another example of taxpayer dollars going to a failed experiment. Technology developed with American taxpayer subsidies should not be sold off to China. I hope there's at least some accountability at the Department of Energy, but given its track record, I'm not holding my breath."

It has been strongly suggested that two Chinese companies -- Geely Automotive and Dongfeng Motor Corp. -- are looking for a majority stake in Fisker. It has also been rumored that Fisker could move all of its auto production to China if it made a deal with a Chinese company.

Fisker Karma

A deal isn't expected to be made until next month at the earliest. Fisker made mention that it is considering offers from all over the world -- not just China.

Fisker received $529 million in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) loans in April 2010. The loans were part of a program to progress development of high-tech vehicles, where Fisker received $169 million for Karma plug-in engineering and $359 million for Nina production. The loans were also meant to revamp a closed General Motors plant in Wilmington, Delaware for Fisker EV production. 
However, Fisker fell a little behind on its production schedule, and in May 2011, DOE froze the loans due to "unmet milestones." Fisker had only drawn $193 million of it at that point.
In October 2012, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee decided to look into the original terms of its loan to Fisker Automotive, questioning whether DOE will step in to help the electric vehicle (EV) automaker if it goes bankrupt and investors are allowed to retrieve their money.

In December 2012, Fisker's battery maker A123 Systems was acquired by Chinese firm Wanxiang Group for about $260 million. A123 filed for bankruptcy in October 2012.

Earlier this month, Fisker said it hoped to restart production of its Karma plug-in "fairly soon" as it waits for A123 to come out of this bankruptcy situation.

Source: The Detroit News

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Clause left out?
By Shadowself on 2/21/2013 12:52:37 PM , Rating: 3
ALL of these loans should have come with a clause stating the loan was/is due immediately including all accrued interest -- plus a 10% or 20% additional penalty -- if the company to which the loan was given ever gets to 50% or more of non U.S. ownership before the loan is fully paid back. Hell, I'd even put into the clause that the penalty must be paid even if the company gets 50% or more foreign ownership within five years of the loan getting paid off.

RE: Clause left out?
By Flunk on 2/21/2013 12:59:26 PM , Rating: 1
What happened to the free market economy rhetoric? Reality too hard for you?

RE: Clause left out?
By BifurcatedBoat on 2/21/2013 1:21:43 PM , Rating: 3
Getting loans from the government isn't free-market.

RE: Clause left out?
By Florinator on 2/21/2013 2:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you can argue with China on the merits of a free-market economy, good luck!

RE: Clause left out?
By Shadowself on 2/21/2013 1:47:24 PM , Rating: 4
As stated by BifurcatedBoat, if you're going to take a U.S. Government guaranteed loan, you have removed yourself from a true "free market" economy.

Reality isn't too hard for me. I actually (well, I didn't do it alone, I just led the team) structured -- and received authorization for -- one of these loans for a company I was with well over a dozen years ago and for more than three times at what Fiskar's loan is capped -- and it wasn't through DOE (though they were involved from the outside).

These loans require specific legal authorizations, involvement of several different agencies and even OMB and CBO. In most cases people don't even think about the possibility of the company involved being taken out of the U.S. In some cases, something which I disagree with completely, the loan is to a non U.S. organization in the first place (in the 70s and 80s several of these loans were to non U.S. organizations).

However, if the loan is to a U.S. Company organizations like the OMB and CBO take into account the nature of the company when setting the interest rates (which are negotiable) and the fees (some of which are negotiable) -- and the calculation of risk versus potential benefit associated with the loan which goes into the interest and fee determinations.

If the company later becomes a foreign owned company and possibly will move production out of the U.S. this radically changes the risk versus benefit equation after the loan is issued/authorized. There needs to be something to re-balance the equation OR not allow the underlying situation to change while the loan is in effect.

RE: Clause left out?
By NellyFromMA on 2/21/2013 1:59:14 PM , Rating: 2
How dare you think with your own brain?!?! STOP! :)

RE: Clause left out?
By FITCamaro on 2/22/2013 7:55:43 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The government shouldn't even be giving out this money to begin with since it has no authority to play venture capitalist. But since it's going to, it should put strict restrictions around what happens when the company changes ownership, especially to entities in foreign nations. But we know these loans are more about pushing an agenda, not reasoned thinking or whether or not a company is actually viable or not.

RE: Clause left out?
By Mint on 2/22/2013 10:20:23 AM , Rating: 2
So which would you prefer?

A123 being sold off only to US buyers, resulting in the gov't loan not being paid off?

Or would you rather have the Chinese buy it, reimbursing the taxpayer with interest?

And don't cop out with a suggestion of no loans in the first place. That would mean no US manufacturing attempts at all and just basing in China from the beginning.

RE: Clause left out?
By dsx724 on 2/21/2013 1:23:07 PM , Rating: 1
Assets are liquidated to pay back the loan providers. Otherwise the US Government wouldn't get a dime back. Loans have inherent risk or otherwise they'd be called deposits. Loans can't be enforced on bankrupt companies if they have no assets to repay the loan. The Chinese bidders are simply bidding on an item at auction.

RE: Clause left out?
By Shadowself on 2/21/2013 1:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
To my knowledge Fiskar has not declared bankruptcy. Additionally, there are several forms of bankruptcy, very few of which actually liquidate the company, kill off virtually all debts and dispose of assets.

There are many different U.S. Government liens (including loans) that get around even liquidations, most IRS liens are like that, to name just one U.S. Government agency with those types of liens.

So yes, there are U.S. Government obligations that can be forced upon any company even if it has no assets -- and forced upon any company that buys either the company or its assets.

And, the Chinese "bidders" are not buying something at auction. From everything I've read, they are interested in buying controlling interest in the company itself. Fiskar isn't liquidating/dissolving the company then selling off specific assets to several different bidders.

RE: Clause left out?
By Mint on 2/21/2013 1:33:18 PM , Rating: 2
That's not what's happening to Fisker. They aren't bankrupt, at least not yet.

A123 did go bankrupt, but fetched $260 million. That's about twice the size of the drawn funds from their DOE loan. Either its going to be paid back with the proceeds of the puchase (which just got cleared by the Feds), or Wanxiang Group took ownership of the loan as part of the whole package.

By StormyKnight on 2/21/2013 1:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
This battery company was an investor in Fisker Automotive. They've been bought out by the Chinese. Now the Chinese are interested in buying Fisker. Perhaps it is cheaper for them to purchase the company rather than steal their secrets via hacking. Who knows? Everyone should cast a wary eye towards our Chinese "friends". Their economy is steadily growing as is their defense spending, while our economy is virtually at a standstill. And our defense spending? Well, lets just say the current administration is beginning to hollow it out so more social programs can be created, increased and overfunded. Oh heck, let them have the battery put-put car company. Maybe they can turn it into a high end golfcart company...

RE: A123
By ritualm on 2/21/2013 3:50:54 PM , Rating: 3
America stopped being the defacto economic engine of the world when it started outsourcing its manufacturing jobs to China. All this talk about 'Saving Private Fisker [from China]' is too little, too late.

By TSS on 2/21/2013 2:40:35 PM , Rating: 2
Bunch of humbug and hogwash about nothing. Getting votes on the anti-china sentiment. Since both parties have no problem borrowing more dollars from the chinese who have a direct line to the treasury for gods sake. Not a word about the $1,2 trillion the chinese could just dump if they wanted to sending the dollar into hyperinflation at any point in time.

I'm sure that's perfectly safe. So let's ban them trying to buy failed US companies with even more money, which are located in the US so could be nationalized again at any point in time should the chinese become more hostile and cannot be transfered at the push of a button like dollars.

I'm sure these people have the nations best interest in mind. The senators i mean, not china. China's evil. Unless they pay you.

RE: Humbug
By Mint on 2/21/2013 5:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
Not a word about the $1,2 trillion the chinese could just dump if they wanted to sending the dollar into hyperinflation at any point in time.
This is such a nonsense argument.

Dump to whom? And for what? If they buy US IPOs or build real estate or US goods/services, it's investment into the US economy. If they buy existing assets like stocks/gold/real estate or exchange currency, those US dollars become someone else's problem and nothing changes.

And how on earth would China gain anything by destroying $1.2T of currency that it owns, or killing the purchase power of its biggest buyer of exports and helping the US rebuild domestic manufacturing?

By navair2 on 2/24/2013 9:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
You know, for a country that espouses communist ideals, China sure is going about things in a decidedly UNcommunist way. Maybe they're trying to hold things together by combining the politics of communism with the "free" market of capitalism.

From what I've heard of Marxism, the two are mutually exclusive; So how in the world can they call themselves "communist"? LOL.

Now for the clincher: America, you did this to yourselves by buying imports and allowing the global market access to your buying power....and you wonder where all your jobs went.

Isn't this what Republicans want?
By Mint on 2/21/2013 12:48:36 PM , Rating: 1
A purchase of the company takes ownership of its liabilities, too. Unless the parent company goes bankrupt (highly unlikely because if they were near such a situation I don't see why they would use precious capital to pay off Fisker owners), they're going to pay off the loans.

Can't have it both ways. If you're against fostering local development through gov't loans, then you have no problem with a foreign bidder taking ownership.

"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Most Popular ArticlesTop 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM
Free Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki