Jump to content

Ford Follows Tesla By Opening EV Patents To Rivals


RV_

Recommended Posts

Ford wants to be paid though. However their commitment to EV production will startle the diehard change avoiders/deniers.

 

Excerpt:

 

"Ford Motor (NYSE:F)is offering its electric vehicle patents to competing automakers amid slumping gas prices that have made EVs less attractive to many consumers.

 

Its move is similar to what Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) did in June 2014 when it made its portfolio of EV patents, estimated in the hundreds, openly available to rivals. Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk said in a blog post at the time that "all our patents belong to you."

 

Ford Motor filed for more than 400 EV patents last year alone, more than 20% of the total 2,000 patents it applied for in 2014. In all, Ford has more than 650 EV patents and about 1,000 patents pending.

The company didn't specify what fee competing automakers would be charged for the patents.

 

It made it clear, though, that it's moving ahead with efforts to build electric vehicles. It will add about 200 EV engineers this year and move EV development to a newly dedicated facility, Ford Engineering Laboratories, which originally was home to Henry Ford's first laboratories.

Kevin Layden, director of Ford electrification programs, said: "The way to provide the best technology is through constant development and progress. By sharing our research with other companies, we will accelerate the growth of electrified vehicle technology and deliver even better products to customers."

 

More about the other four automakers doing the same here: http://news.investors.com/052815-754618-ford-opens-electric-vehicle-patents-to-others.htm?ven=yahoocp&src=aurlled&ven=yahoo

 

Tesla is rising because I think it becomes increasingly obvious who will control the world battery supply. For those still clinging to hopes that the Tesla efforts will fail are now seeing the results of Tesla releasing their patents because they were getting little to no competition. They debuted their roadster in 2008 into full preordered paid in full production. It took the big automakers seeing it coming two years to come up with the Leaf, the only actual EV in full production in 2010 other than Tesla. The hybrid Volt does not count since we had the Prius hybrid since what, 2000?

 

I would think Ford would finally start to come out with something. Too bad they all needed Musk's help first. Just five years ago folks were saying EVs would never be mainstream. Musk should really come out and ask if the others "Need some salt with that crow boys?"

 

BTW the loan that Tesla got from the DOE and paid off in one year? You know the 500 million so much hay was made about? Ford borrowed nearly $5.9 billion from the same DOE loan program, in the same year as Tesla, and sure hasn't paid it back yet. Nor changed the world markets along the way. Here's the link to the Ford DOE loan: http://energy.gov/lpo/ford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Ford has existed for over a hundred years by manufacturing and selling vehicles and earning profits rather than relying solely on huge government subsidies for every vehicle it sells.

 

The article below gives a very good review of how Tesla exists even though it would lose tens of thousands of dollars on every vehicle if it had to do business on the same basis as Ford.

 

And that loan repayment -- funded by the sale of stock, not through profits and specifically carried out to ensure that the government (taxpayers) would not be able to profit from the Tesla stock

 

warrants they held (also discussed in the following article).

 

Yes, Tesla is successful, not as a manufacturer and seller, but as a huge taxpayer subsidy machine.

 

 

 

 

National Review January 26,2015 By Philip Kerpen

 

 

 

 

Tesla and Its Subsidies

 

 

 

 

 

Most of the taxpayers who are subsidizing Tesla cars cannot afford to buy one.

 

 

 

It’s natural to assume the enemy of your enemy is your friend, especially when the enemy in question is big government. So it should come as no surprise that many conservatives have rallied

 

to the side of Elon Musk and his electric-car company, Tesla Motors, in their fights to change state auto-retailing laws so they can sell vehicles directly to consumers, without using franchised

 

auto dealerships.

 

 

 

Bans on direct sales don’t make much sense, and it would be great to have a less regulated automotive market. But it is dangerous to allow Tesla to portray itself as a free-market champion,

 

because the company is actually a prodigious harvester of government favors and handouts.

 

 

 

Tesla’s flagship automobile, the Model S, would not only fail to make money in a free market, it would likely bankrupt any company that tried. As the Los Angeles Times reported, Tesla’s “cars

 

themselves aren’t making the company any money.” A Model S with a typical options package sells for more than $100,000, but that is literally tens of thousands of dollars less than it costs to

 

manufacture and sell.

 

 

 

How, then, does Tesla make its money?

 

 

 

The direct subsidies for purchasers, to encourage them to buy “clean-energy” vehicles, are fairly well-known: a $7,500 federal tax credit and a wide variety of state-level incentive programs.

 

 

 

Less well-known are the hidden subsidies that flow directly to Tesla, thanks to “zero-emission vehicle” (ZEV) credits. ZEV credits are a mandate dreamed up by the bureaucrats at the California

 

Air Resources Board (CARB), which requires manufacturers to build and dealers to sell an arbitrary number of “zero-emission” vehicles each year. (Note that these vehicles are actually “zero-

 

emission” only in the unlikely event that the electricity used by the car comes from a zero-emission source — which, of course, would also be heavily subsidized.)

 

 

 

Tesla’s Model S generates four credits per unit sold. This means the company can sell $20,000 in ZEV credits to other manufacturers for each Model S sold — a cost borne by purchasers of

 

other cars.

 

 

 

And that amount used to be even higher. Because ZEV law is so arcane, Tesla was able to game the system for additional credits; for example, it was able to generate an additional three

 

credits per vehicle when it demonstrated to CARB that its batteries could theoretically be rapidly swapped. But in fact the battery-swapping pilot program is more than a year late getting started.

 

Nonetheless, those extra credits netted the company an additional $15,000 per car sold — and the company is now trying to get them reinstated.

 

 

 

In 2013, ZEV credits to Tesla totaled $129.8 million — to a company that lost $61.3 million for the year on its actual manufacturing and selling operations.

 

 

 

In 2014, Nevada lavished the company with one of the biggest corporate-welfare packages in history: In exchange for building a battery-manufacturing facility near Reno, Tesla will pay no

 

payroll or property taxes for ten years and no sales taxes for 20 years, and will receive $195 million in cash via “transferable tax credits,” which can be sold to other companies to satisfy their

 

Nevada tax bills. All of this amounts to a $1.3 billion giveaway.

 

 

 

Tesla and its apologists constantly tout the fact that the company paid off its hefty $465 million taxpayer-subsidized loan from the Department of Energy early, but they don’t explain why: Had

 

the loan not been paid early, the U.S. Treasury stood to grab a significant portion of the company’s increased stock price by exercising warrants. Capitalizing on the subsidy-stoked electric-car

 

mania that pumped its stock to record levels, Tesla issued $450 million in new stock to pay the loan early and cancel those warrants. The shrewd deal cost taxpayers about a billion dollars,

 

leading Scott Woolley to conclude: “Tesla is worse than Solyndra.”

 

 

 

Tesla has effectively socialized its costs through subsidized loans, tax credits, abatements, and regulatory schemes while privatizing its gains by canceling the warrants owned by taxpayers.

 

 

 

Every time a Tesla is sold, we witness a transfer of wealth to a rich hobbyist (most Teslas are their owners’ third or fourth car), while average Americans are on the hook for at least $30,000 in

 

federal and state subsidies. Tesla is more a regulatory arbitrageur than an auto manufacturer.

 

 

 

In its 2014 annual report, Tesla made clear that continued special tax benefits are critical to the company’s business plan: “Our growth depends in part on the availability and amounts of

 

government subsidies and economic incentives.”

 

 

 

Yet the company and Musk are now free-market heroes because they want to disrupt the franchised-dealer system? Sorry, but no. Prohibitions on direct vehicle sales are restraints of trade that

 

shouldn’t exist, but I have mixed feelings at best about repealing them for the purpose of making it easier for Tesla to fleece taxpayers.

 

 

 

As Mike Jackson, CEO of AutoNation, the largest U.S. auto-retailing company, aptly put it: “There’s a certain irony here that as Elon Musk complains about government intervention and

 

government protectionism, he wouldn’t exist without the government.”

 

 

 

When Tesla paid back its loan early to extinguish the warrants, Musk stated that he wanted to thank “the American taxpayer, from whom these funds originate. I hope we did you proud.” They

 

didn’t, and nobody should mistake Tesla for a friend of the free market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Ford has existed for over a hundred years by manufacturing and selling vehicles and earning profits rather than relying solely on huge government subsidies for every vehicle it sells.

 

 

Thanks for the laugh, I needed that. Ford borrowed $5.6 billion in the same DOE loan program Tesla only borrowed $1/2 billion from.

 

The auto industry bailout, you do remember that? Well Ford, GM, and Chrysler would not exist without TARP! The biggest taxpayer ripoff of the century.

 

"Ford's Bailout Proposal

Ford requested a $9 billion line-of-credit from the government, and a $5 billion loan from the Energy Department. It pledged to accelerate development of both hybrid and battery-powered vehicles, retool plants to increase production of smaller cars, close dealerships, and sell Volvo. Ford is in better shape than the other two because it had already mortgaged its assets in 2006 to raise $24.5 billion."

 

Source: http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/a/auto_bailout.htm

 

Now, please post the amount exactly, that the "warrants" Tesla avoided on early payoff of their $.5 billion loan cost from a real source, and the amount Ford is paying in warrants on their $6 billion loan exactly, on it's DOE loan from the same program and the same time as Tesla.

 

Oh, BTW Tesla made their loan for capital investment-new factory. Ford needed a complete government subsidy of their whole biz, all cars. A bailout from not being able to, as you put it "manufacturing and selling vehicles and earning profits rather than relying solely on huge government subsidies for every vehicle it sells."

 

And that was after Ford mortgaged its assets to raise money to not go broke in 2006! Two years later they need bailout in 2008's TARP, then a year later ask for an added 5.6 billion from the DOE loan.

 

And that loan to accelerate development of hybrid and electric vehicles? The funny part is Ford's fake PR announcement about making their patents available for a fee? Their only EV, the Focus Electric, gets 76 miles per charge? Oh yeah, lemme see free patents from Tesla for 250 mile range EVs, or buy Ford's patents use for 76 miles per charge/range vehicles. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Focus_Electric )

 

The funny is that they even tried to make it sound like they had EV patents worth licensing for money. Then your contention that Ford doesn't need subsidies when in fact . . . .

 

Srsly? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford will repay its loans by earning money on selling vehicles. Tesla will rely on huge government subsides on every vehicle it sells for its very existence.

 

And good on Ford for mortgaging whatever it had to,not going bankrupt,and not being a drag on taxpayers (loans that Ford repays are not a drag; ongoing subsidies on every Tesla car are). :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford will repay its loans by earning money on selling vehicles. Tesla will rely on huge government subsides on every vehicle it sells for its very existence.

 

And good on Ford for mortgaging whatever it had to,not going bankrupt,and not being a drag on taxpayers (loans that Ford repays are not a drag; ongoing subsidies on every Tesla car are). :-)

 

This thread I started was an information article about Ford offering their EV patents for sale. It was positive, albeit a bit skeptical of their 76 mile per charge technology actually bought by anyone. All you've provided was a repeat of big oil trying to keep saying the same lie over and over until some folks actually believe them. :rolleyes:

 

And now are digging a hole with statements that do not agree with facts once more. OK I will answer these assertions of yours once more.

BooneDocks,

Let me get this straight: You are saying that Ford is NOT going to participate in the $7500.00 tax credit for its EVs like all the other manufacturers selling in the US?????:rolleyes:

They are in debt, not Tesla, and take the same EV subsidies car for car that Tesla/Chrysler/GM/Toyota/Nissan/Mercedes/BMW/Kia/Hyundai buyers get.

Let's compare:

 

Ford

1. Ford had to mortgage its assets to save its ass-ets in 2006 to get $24.5 billion

2. Ford did not sell vehicles and make a profit so asked for a bailout under TARP in 2008 for $9 billion..

3. In 2009 they got another $5.9 billion in government loans.

4. Their EVs are subsidized exactly like everyone else.

5. Ford has not repaid any of the $39.1 billion of tax payer monies they borrowed to stay afloat after not making a profit since before 2006 to date that I know of.

 

 

Tesla

1. Tesla borrowed $.5 billion, paid it off.

2. Their EVs are subsidized exactly like everyone else.

3. Tesla is not taking loan subsidies to stay in business. Their EV customers get tax credits like all the other manufacturers including Ford.

As of now, if one were to be called a drag on the taxpayers of America, I would consider that facts prevail, and speak for themselves.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

.

5. Ford has not repaid any of the $39.1 billion of tax payer monies they borrowed to stay afloat after not making a profit since before 2006 to date that I know of.

 

 

My God, Derek. in the last 5 years Ford has made more than $40 BILLION of Net Income.

 

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Ford_Motor_Company_%28F%29/Data/Income_Statement#Income_Statement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Because normal business practice when you take out a loan is to repay it when it comes due. Debt is a big part of the capital structure of virtually all large Corporations and they issue new debt only when old debt is repaid (rolling it over).

 

Maybe you really don't understand what Tesla did and why. When they took out their Government loan that had to agree to many terms. One of the terms the Government demanded was warrants. For those that don't know,warrants are the right to buy common stock in the Company at a predetermined discounted price. A lender will give better other terms (e.g., interest rates) when they have the opportunity to participate in share price appreciation of the Company. The Government demanded warrants from Tesla for I think 3 million shares of common stock. Given the meteoric rise in Tesla stock,Tesla was suddenly looking at the prospect of having to sell those 3 million shares to the Government (taxpayers) at that now deeply discounted price only to then see the Treasury turn around and sell them at a profit of two to three hundred million dollars. Tesla did not want to give away this funding potential itself and see its other shares (like the ones you own) diluted and go down in price. So Tesla did the right thing for its shareholders -- it issued some new stock itself at full market value not the discounted share price of the warrants and paid off the loan negotiating that the Government would give up its warrants. Under these circumstances what would have been right for taxpayers would have been for Tesla not to pay off the loan and allow the Treasury to exercise its warrants and earn the windfall that Tesla had negotiated with them. I don't begrudge at all what Tesla did, but it is totally disingenuous to beat the taxpayers out of this windfall and then turn around and ballyhoo how they did this honorable, magnanimous, and patriotic thing in repaying their loan early. So when you thump your chest about how Tesla has repaid its Government loan and Ford hasn't -- someone needs to step in set the record straight.

 

Ford didn't go bankrupt. It didn't have the Government wipe out its debts and give it a capital structure including billions in equity to emerge from bankruptcy (GM) or have its debts wiped out so it could be sold to Fiat (Chrysler). Ford retained all its debts and is repaying them when they come due (but no it isn't repaying 20 year loans in 3 years just to rid itself of terms it wishes it hadn't agreed to). But one big thing did happen to Ford after GM and Chrysler went bankrupt -- investors lost their appetite to provide loans to Ford after being burned completely on their loans to GM and Chrysler. Even first secured creditors to GM and Chrysler received absolutely nothing out of the bankruptcy the way the Treasury structured the bankruptcies. It was an unprecedented action in a bankruptcy to totally ignore secured creditors -- one that made lenders quake in their boots about ever providing more loans. Under these circumstances, maybe it was more than a bit justified that the Treasury and Energy found a way to provide some loans to a Company who had done whatever it took to avoid its own bankruptcy and not have a single employee or creditor stiffed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it legal to pay off your loans early like I do and Tesla did? ;)

 

As an investor in Tesla, which is up $50 over about six weeks ago, I applaud every move they have made. You sir, sound like sour grapes. .

 

I well understand warrants, that's why I asked you to show how much the feds made on Ford's to date.

 

I hope you, and Ford make big bucks selling their 76 mile per charge technology, as they continue to do what you call government subsidizing by Ford's insistence on encouraging taxpayers to take a $7500.00 tax credit on the Ford EVs for sale. Shameless!

 

Nice try on the propaganda piece.

 

Keep digging that hole.

 

Don't like Tesla? That takes four words. Perhaps whenever I post articles of interest to the rest of us about the EV industry, alternative fuels, and tech breakthroughs in solar, wind, and battery technology you might have something to actually contribute. Maybe you just haven't found the right alternative innovations for you. Perhaps the AIRPod? It runs on hot air!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said Tesla did right by its shareholders paying off its loans early to avoid the warrants. So, yes it is legal. Just don't tout it beyond its self serving purposes and cast aspersions on companies who legally see their loans to term. How is that possibly sour grapes?

 

And please you can debate much better than merely spewing a bunch of insults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has Telsa actually paid off the loan? My understanding is that they have announced that they intend to pay it off in 2017, five years early. If they do so they will avoid the warrant problem since the government can exercise the warrants between December 2018 and December 2022.

 

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11887521/1/the-governments-buffettless-tesla-warrants.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said Tesla did right by its shareholders paying off its loans early to avoid the warrants. So, yes it is legal. Just don't tout it beyond its self serving purposes and cast aspersions on companies who legally see their loans to term. How is that possibly sour grapes?

 

And please you can debate much better than merely spewing a bunch of insults.

 

You sour grape'd the answer in the question. What specific insults were spewed? :rolleyes:;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good article Mark, I'd read that one. It uses the real facts not a one sided agenda, despite structuring them to agree with the folks trying to carry forward big oil agendas.

 

For example:

 

"All Excerpts below, and throughout this post in bold and italics are from your article Mark.:

 

"He definitely goes where there is government money," said Dan Dolev, an analyst at Jefferies Equity Research. "That's a great strategy, but the government will cut you off one day."

The figure compiled by The Times comprises a variety of government incentives, including grants, tax breaks, factory construction, discounted loans and environmental credits that Tesla can sell. It also includes tax credits and rebates to buyers of solar panels and electric cars.

A looming question is whether the companies are moving toward self-sufficiency — as Dolev believes — and whether they can slash development costs before the public largesse ends."

 

I and many others also agree with Dolev, the analyst of Jefferies Equity Research, as many of the major investment firms do.

 

The figures are both straight up and misleading at the same time, and could be read out of context. However, that may not have been intentional. For example he starts out with a total received in incentives some actual subsidies. He states at the very start in sentences two and three that:

 

"he's built those companies with the help of billions in government subsidies."

Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups."

 

But it isn't until later he makes clear that the "total" of the subsidies was over a long ten year time frame. And that much of the subsidies were from states seeking for them to build factories in their states for the jobs they will bring.

 

"The subsidies have generally been disclosed in public records and company filings. But the full scope of the public assistance hasn't been tallied because it has been granted over time from different levels of government."

 

OK, now we have the full scope of the "public assistance" everyone is talking about. The total for all three Musk companies over ten years is $4.9 billion. I support Musk because of the real jobs creation, and a proven track record that puts Musk's companies head and shoulders above a start up like Elio motors, who has a factory and local support for the jobs, but they can't seem to meet any promised deadlines. Musk pretty much stands alone in working 24/7 to achieve his goals, which are simple. To make pollution free cheap energy a reality. To enable space exploration at least to Mars. And to provide improved batteries to enable individual, micro grid, and enterprise energy storage, a reality reaping a downward price spiral as the economies of scale continues to ramp up.

 

He also fails to mention that some of that figure includes loans from the DOE, and other paid back and expired instruments.

 

Let's go back to the figure the Times gathered together as the "total" in subsidies over time for all three Musk companies?

 

"Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times."

 

Now for the perspective. This topic was about Ford's announcement that they were making their patents available (for a fee).

 

Tesla public largesse in ten years to date, according to the best sources? $4.9 Billion.

 

Ford's public largesse in just the last seven years? $5.6 billion and the nine billion line of credit? $14.6 billion in taxpayer bailouts and loans.

 

The $5.6 billion was to develop new technologies and was from the Energy Department’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program, started in 2008 and part of President Bush's TARP programs. Tesla borrowed from the same program and made a half billion dollar ATVM loan and paid it off nine years early.

 

In good conscience, and as honest brokers, who has done the most, with less, and is changing the way we derive energy, store it, and garner it for transport?

 

Ford or Tesla/SpaceX/Solar City?

 

While mention was made that Musk has secured:

 

"On a smaller scale, SpaceX, Musk's rocket company, cut a deal for about $20 million in economic development subsidies from Texas to construct a launch facility there. (Separate from incentives, SpaceX has won more than $5.5 billion in government contracts from NASA and the U.S. Air Force.)"

 

What the author did not say was that SpaceX got the contracts because of the bloated corporate short term vision of the ULA. Neither main company (Boeing/Lockheed) of the ULA (United Launch Alliance) built their own rocket engines to launch our USAF secret missions to space. They bought them from Russia! Putin angry over our objection to their incursion into the Ukraine denied the US companies any further engines!

 

Boeing and Lockheed left our ability to launch in the hands of our long time adversary and former KGB head Putin? I call that criminal cost cutting at the expense of our security. It was lucky that Musk's rocket engines were ready, are made in America by Americans, and not at the mercy of political tides, or corporate inertia. He will carry the missions out until the ULA has an engine certified which will be 2018. Then, I hope they have to bid for further contracts, and the one that costs taxpayers the least gets the future contracts.

 

In every respect, in today's hot world environment, Musk just happened to have rockets ready to take over USAF missions, now under contract, for the next three years exclusively. Three years because that is how long it will take the ULA to certify another engine for those missions.

 

I would dare say that SpaceX saved the near term eye in the sky capability of the United States and our allies.

 

So all of Musk's companies combined have been recipients of $4.9 billion over their entire lifetimes, and in that time have changed the belief that EVs can never go far, be fast, let alone be sexy. They built rockets and were the first private spacecraft to dock with the ISS. And now is launching both ISS resupply and USAF missions for much less than the ULA charged the US taxpayers by far. Care to do the research and math to figure if the taxpayers got their money's worth yet?

 

Ford, 5.6 billion, and they improved their factory efficiency and developed incrementally better fuel mileage for their ICE cars, and a 76 mile per charge EV.

 

The Musk group of companies manufacture the cars and most of the parts here in the US and all the jobs are here. No Russians building his rockets, getting those jobs. And SpaceX launches save millions annually compared to the ULA charges.

 

Guys, will the one or two of you who believe any car company or start up would even take free, let alone pay, for patents responsible for a car that goes a maximum of 76 miles a charge versus using Musk's technology free for 200-300 mile ranges at phenomenal speeds with fast charging, tell us which ones would, and why?

 

With all that money has Ford built out a worldwide network of Ford only charging stations their owners can use for free? The superchargers are Tesla only because the other patents can't handle Tesla charge rates.

 

All new and good for the country technologies require both private sharks and Venture capitalists. Few threaten to overturn interests as large as big oil. The articles are pumping out now because the Gigafactory is rapidly nearing production, and the battery backups, like the Roadsters, are sold out for the first year.

 

Does the above perspective force admission that just the one company you like, and claimed was not subsidized, is even more so than all three of Musk's?

 

The measure will be ten years down the road if we find Ford's improved factories and small incremental fuel efficiency gains for ICE vehicles are a major benefit to the US jobs and energy markets.

 

Thanks for the better informed article Mark.

 

Now I think I'm done here with the topic of Ford announcing they are willing to release (for a yet to be disclosed fee) their 76mile per charge patents, just like Tesla, except Musk gave away his patents because no real competition was developing.

 

Let's resume the conversation in a year after the Gigafactory is up and running, the Model X 4WD two motor, gull wing SUV is out and proven, and we see the first prototype Model 3 in testing.

 

Then let's see if Ford did more with ten times the DOE loan, and almost $10 billion more in taxpayer monies ($14.6 billion for Ford and $.5 billion for Tesla) nearly three times the taxpayer monies of Tesla, SpaceX, and Solar City combined building new factories and facilities all over the US.

 

Safe investing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think both Ford Motor Company and Tesla are great companies. As an investor I don’t like the stock of either company but that doesn’t mean I don’t like the companies themselves.

 

Not only do I think they are both great companies. . . I think they are the same companies. . . just in different centuries.

 

 

Not much more than 100 years ago Henry Ford had an idea that he felt would change the transportation industry from its then present state. And he was right. I would imagine at the time people thought he was nuts, but he had a vision that his contemporaries lacked. It sounds sort of like Elon Musk today.

Tesla may or may not change the automotive industry in the way Ford did. Only the future will tell. But you sure have to give Musk credit for stepping out there and taking a chance.

 

As for taking taxpayer money, I think any board of directors that does not take advantage of the best possible “cost of money” is doing their shareholders a great disservice and should be fired.

As a taxpayer I’m happy to see my taxes spent to move mankind forward. Both of these companies are paying or have paid these loans, which makes it even better.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife and I are both retirees of The Ford Motor Company. At the time of our retirements we had a combined 54 years of service. As employees and retirees we now have 72 years with Ford. We are also shareholders of Ford common stock. We loved Ford and still do. We were honored to work for Ford and we very much felt appreciated for our service. Even though it is a very large public corporation, it still has a definite family heritage and feel. The family name of our Company’s founder, Henry Ford, is on the building. The executive chairman of the Company is a great grandson of Henry Ford. Another great grandson is on the board of directors. Other ancestors of Henry are also employees. The Ford family holds 40% of the voting stock in the Company and has maintained a huge financial interest as well. Fords even own the Detroit Lions, but we try not to hold that against them too much.

 

The Ford oval is one of the great brand symbols all over the globe. Ford has a long history as one of the most admired and respected public companies. Ford is also repeatedly recognized as one of the most ethical companies in the world owing in no small part to employees who would not want to bring shame to the family name.

 

Ford brought transportation to the masses. Ford wanted its employees to be part of those car owning masses and raised their wages to the point where they could be. Ford was a huge supplier of military equipment to the War efforts of WWI and WWII. Ford has contributed many venerable vehicles to the annals of transportation – the Model T, Model A, Mustang, F-Series, and on and on.

 

We were honored back in 2003 to participate in the ceremonies on the grounds of the World Headquarters Building in Dearborn, Michigan.commemorating the 100th anniversary of the founding and 100 years of continuous operation of the company.

 

We were very proud that Ford positioned itself not to go bankrupt in the financial crises of 2006 – that it didn’t stiff any of its creditors or employees. And we are also proud that Ford has come back strong and has posted profits for six years running and has resumed dividend payments.

 

We are eligible to sponsor a limited number of people each year for a Company discount program on the purchase of new vehicles (X-plan). This is the same discount suppliers and others partners of Ford are eligible for. If any Escapees members would like to pursue this discount program, please send us a message through the forum messenger system. Unfortunately the program is not extended to the Class A or C chassis. Even if you don’t actually use the program, telling a dealer that you are eligible for X-Plan can help in your negotiations (you can determine what you are really being given for your trade, for example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim well said!

 

I never even connected those dots! Henry and Elon indeed do have a lot in common.

 

BooneDocks,

I don't see you pursuing the "Tesla lives off subsidies!" tabloid like accusations once you realized Ford took more than Tesla.

 

But as long as you want to believe spin spun badly and try to disrupt every post I make about Tesla and new tech investment opportunities, I will be happy to engage you with the facts, and context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok,

Here is a 2014 report from Motley Fool, and a video that came out this morning.

 

Excerpt:

 

10 Companies Receiving the Biggest Handouts From the Government

 

"Here are the 10 companies with the highest cumulative subsidy dollars received:

 

Company Subsidy Value Number of Subsidies

Boeing $13,174,075,797 137

 

Alcoa $5,635,305,059 91

Intel $3,867,492,085 58

 

General Motors $3,494,237,703 307

Ford $2,522,304,454 173

 

Source: Good Jobs First.

These 10 companies all tallied greater than $1.7 billion in cumulative subsidies. All told, according to Good Jobs First's data, 17 companies brought in more than $1 billion in subsidies and 182 hit the $100 million mark."

 

I just listed the top five. Tesla is nowhere on this 2014 list. The entire article is here: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/01/10-companies-receiving-the-biggest-handouts-from-t.aspx

 

Another group listed this years cumulative figures for the last ten years and in a CNBC video this morning reported that these are the top four recipients of taxpayer subsidies.

 

1. Boeing - $78B

 

2. Ford - $30B

 

3. General Motors - $54B

 

4. JP Morgan - $1.3T

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/video/companies-landing-subsidies-154100813.html

 

I fully expect a response about how these companies deserve or better use them because they are not startups.

 

However you've kept on repeating Ford's superiority in making a profit and not going bankrupt. ( just in debt for their government bailout.) I understand your loyalty to Ford. But no way can you justify it is fine for these companies to bleed the taxpayer because they are successfully doing it, or you like them. I believe that no company is big enough not to allow them to fail. And I see no distinction in taking 14 billion over two years as better than GM or Chrysler. If Ford did not need it, then why did they take it? You can't have it both ways.

 

I posted a comment that set you off. Why would Ford make a nonsense sounding press release that they are releasing their patents like Tesla did. Tesla stated unequivocally that they wanted competition and when that was not forthcoming in 2014 Musk released their patents and suddenly (what a coincidence!) car makers worldwide start announcing they will have a 200 mile per charge EV, three years later, in 2017.

 

I asked who would buy Ford's posted 76 mile range (64 actual by Car and Driver testing) EV technology, instead of using Tesla's 200-300 mile range technology.

 

I was just shocked at the weirdness of that announcement. I never mentioned subsidies. Then you posted that slanted article written by a Koch brothers minion who served as VP of one of their major propaganda outlets. Leave the politics out of it, it does not belong here nor is allowed. It is fact the they are big oil, and the background of the writer is as one of the VPs of one of their major outlets. That's all needed. Tesla is not anti big oil. Musk does not make up stories, he does something about it.

 

So since we are talking about who would buy their tech, let's talk actual miles per charge, and the car and driver 2014 roundup to test:

2014 Chevrolet Spark EV vs. 2013 Fiat 500E, 2014 Ford Focus Electric, 2013 Honda Fit EV, 2013 Nissan Leaf SL, 2013 Smart Fortwo ED Cabriolet.

 

Excerpt:

 

"The makers of the cars you see here were dragged kicking, screaming, and, in some cases, litigating into eligibility for this test. If truth were ever told, then these automakers would undoubtedly say that they’d rather not be here at all, thank you very much; that all of their accumulated business acumen and experience rages against the absurdity of a $37,000 Ford Focus with a 64-mile driving range.

 

Yet, here they are, with six compacts at similarly loony prices, and utility that amounts to, as senior online editor Ron Sessions says, “cars with one-gallon gas tanks that take five hours to fill.” Why do they even exist? Because government simply will not get off the industry’s back."

 

The whole Car and Driver review, which shows the mandates that led up to this are also covered in the full article here: http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-chevy-spark-ev-vs-fiat-500e-ford-focus-electric-honda-fit-ev-nissan-leaf-smart-fortwo-ed-comparison-test

 

If you would like to rail against the government on their backs for better economy and less pollution, please start another thread. The topic here was Ford's announcement that was hijacked for a very misleading article trying to make Tesla out as a government supported entity which I think has been shown to be very little and all paid back.

 

I did not start a debate on whether any subsidies are good or bad. But if I took the tone you showed here with the article you thought slew Tesla as a charity case, it would have become the old why do you talk about the speck in another's eye, when you have a beam in your own. But I did not, I just answered your assertions and questions, and asked you some questions.

 

So once more my questions for you. Not rhetorical because I'd like to know if I missed anything on the topic.

 

1. Who do you see interested in buying Ford's Technology?

 

2. Why?

 

3. If Ford is so successful, and making such profits, then why are they taking any subsidies?

 

4. Why haven't they paid them back. If you claim warrants see number 5.

 

5. If you claim taxpayers are getting more money back due to warrant purchases of stock at a predetermine price, please show the amount of those purchases, or promises, by Ford. I may have missed something and would live to be enlightened to something thus far has appeared to be more smoke and mirrors.

 

Finally, I never disparaged Ford, I even owned a 2009 Ranger briefly last year but went back to a Cummins diesel to tow with. However, you now know that Ford, if as you imply all subsidies are bad, which I never said nor implied, is dastardly by your yardstick. Can't be both ways.

 

How about agreeing with me that subsidies can be good to provide incentives to buy new products and employ more people. Subsidies for corporations making billions in profits is corporate welfare IMHO. Nothing ambiguous about saying - if you don't need it, don't take it. If you take it, don't try to cover it up by writing articles for the folks willing to cherry pick and not do their homework. There will always be someone who knows better, checks authors and sources, then reads both sides to see which is blowing hot air. Just about every time I see hot air, it is only coming from one side. Tesla supporters never wrote about Ford's subsidies and loans except when these intentionally misleading articles came out.

 

Thanks for the hijack into subsidies. I had no idea of the companies in the top 100 corporate subsidy recipients. They claim to use it to move forward, but few do make any demonstrable innovations with the subsidies. Some do good with the money, no doubt. Look what Musk did with just a $.5B loan he paid back 9 years early.

 

I did make fun of their press release that "we will do like Tesla did too (for a fee).??????"

 

Ben Franklin's words ring a bell here: “Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.”

 

When I hear subsidies are bad because Tesla took some and paid them back, I know the rest of the story because I was buying funds with all my salary in different sectors and paid particular attention to the DOE loans to advance tech, during the 2008/2009 financial and housing recession. And I know today that all the car companies are taking all of the subsidies that Tesla and their customers get too. But only seven years after Bush's TARP bailout I have not forgotten who claimed they were too big to fail. And no amount of rhetoric changes the failure of our auto makers at that point. There is no "well my company needed less than the other" that changes that failure. My memory is longer than three news cycles.

 

Lastly, you brought this hijack up trying to switch to a piece with facts, just not all the facts, which when said facts are included, make that article farcical in its delivering on intent. You opened up the world of big corporation subsidies. Thanks for the incentive, as my interests just went to EVs, renewables, and tech innovations that may be worth investing in for others who do their own due diligence. I'm all in on Tesla, and as soon as they IPO, SpaceX.

 

It's a great time to be alive! From phones to my tablet I'm typing this on, to my 60" flat screen TV! Fifteen years ago these did not exist. We could not stream video let alone in HD, and our phones never could take decent pictures or videos at all.

 

Don't take yourself so seriously. Or me. ;)

 

Safe investing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this from the authoritative source who said Ford hadn't made a profit since 2006 when the facts were they had made profits in each of the last six years and over $40 billion in the last five. Very authoritative. LOL. But keep bringing out those boogey men-- Big Oil, Koch Brothers, Fox News, Ruppert Murdock etc. Save us. And why don't you express those Government incentives per vehicle. Or is that because Tesla only built and sold less than 34,000 cars in all of last year? Why do you regale this forum so much with news of a company that can't even build and sell 150 vehicles per work day? Have fun with your posts! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually enjoy reading RV's posts,and following the links he provides. I also enjoy the insights other posters provide. I don't enjoy as much when discussion turns to sniping or personal attacks. We all have an opinion,and enjoy the ability to express it. I don't need to worry about the Boogie Man, I have a Mother in Law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually enjoy reading RV's posts,and following the links he provides. I also enjoy the insights other posters provide. I don't enjoy as much when discussion turns to sniping or personal attacks. We all have an opinion,and enjoy the ability to express it. I don't need to worry about the Boogie Man, I have a Mother in Law.

i am sorry for my part. I am sure it does sound like sniping. In reality, I don't really know what the interjection of "Big Oil" and "The Koch Brothers" had to do with the substance of the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this from the authoritative source who said Ford hadn't made a profit since 2006 when the facts were they had made profits in each of the last six years and over $40 billion in the last five. Very authoritative. LOL. But keep bringing out those boogey men-- Big Oil, Koch Brothers, Fox News, Ruppert Murdock etc. Save us. And why don't you express those Government incentives per vehicle. Or is that because Tesla only built and sold less than 34,000 cars in all of last year? Why do you regale this forum so much with news of a company that can't even build and sell 150 vehicles per work day? Have fun with your posts! :-)

2006-2015 = 9 years. No one said they didn't make a profit since 2006. But that they did not in 2006 saving assets by selling some, 2007 going down more, 2008 applying for TARP, 2009 DOE loan to make factories more efficient. It did for 2009-2015, which is six years. Please show me the place where I said they had not made profit 2006 to current. Never did.

 

Please point out where I mentioned Fox news, or Rupert Murdoch.

 

Your Tesla sniping of my post changes none of the profits we have made and will make. Nor do they change any facts, or context. Nor will they slow down the Gigafactory, battery backup for homes and industry, or prevent battery prices and technologies to bring them down to less than the costs for current ICE. Then we (as an investor we) tackle cheaper energy, and LEO mini Sats for cheaper faster wireless voice and data with as little or less lag than ground based cells and Internet.

 

Read the Musk is Rad article, I'll bump it so you can find it now that we are done with silly subsidy accusations, where your claims about Tesla turned out to be one tenth the subsidies taken by Ford.

 

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts." Sen. Daniel Moynihan.

 

"It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so." - Will Rogers

 

"If you don't like worms, why do you keep opening their cans?" - RV

 

Thanks Darryl,

I learned a lot too as I did know Ford took $5.6 billion from DOE. But I had not researched the actual amount of their TARP and other total subsidies over just ten years. $30 billion! But the others, Boeing, and in the Trillions to JP Morgan? You should check out the top 100 pdf file of the whole reports.

 

BD will be back.

 

tiny_gnat.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
RVers Online University

campgroundviews.com

Our program provides accurate individual wheel weights for your RV, toad, and tow vehicle, and will help you trim the pounds if you need to.

Dish For My RV.

RV Cable Grip

RV Cable Grip

All the water you need...No matter where you go

Country Thunder Iowa

Nomad Internet

Rv Share

RV Air.

Find out more or sign up for Escapees RV'ers Bootcamp.

Advertise your product or service here.

The Rvers- Now Streaming

RVTravel.com Logo



×
×
  • Create New...