Jalopnik Claims Elio Has Only $100k In Bank, $123 Million In Debt

Officespaced said:

Quoting are we? Hmmm, let's get down to the basics then:

"In order to be financially eligible for an ATVM loan, an applicant must be financially viable without the receipt of additional federal funding for the proposed project."

https://energy.gov/lpo/services/atvm-loan-program

Fail!

Click to expand...

...."without the receipt of additional federal funding"....
The key word is "ADDITIONAL"!
In context, that means over and above the ATVM loan.

johnsnownw said:

I do think that's a possibility, but it's speculative. Elio stated that the DOE was requiring lock-ins, but they never stated that 65k was the threshold (as I remember it).

Click to expand...

Elio never stated the "lock-ins", was an EPA requirement, it's not. Self-imposed metric to show interest.

WilliamH said:

...."without the receipt of additional federal funding"....
The key word is "ADDITIONAL"!
In context, that means over and above the ATVM loan.

Click to expand...

They are $123 million in the hole as of 11/18/16 from the balance sheet. With just $100K in cash. What "additional" funds are you referring to? They have millions to go, just get to zero; above and beyond to get one wrench turning.

Officespaced said:

They are $123 million in the hole as on 11/18/16. What "additional" funds are you referring to? They have millions to just get to zero, above and beyond to get one wrench turning!

Click to expand...

So the United States is $20 trillion in the hole, and you, unless you have no mortgage or other debt, are in the hole to the extent that you have any. If you have any outstanding loans or other credit obligations then you, by your definition, would not be viable to receive any kind of loan.

The $123M is an accumulated deficit, not debt. They don't owe more than a fraction of that to anyone. But that's not really important here. The numbers that matter are the projected profit with "reasonable" costs and demand estimates compared to the the loan size and repayment schedule. If the former covers the latter with room to spare, they meet the qualification. It all depends on what assumptions the DOE and EM are using to calculate those values and whether they agree on them. Reading the tea leaves in EM's communications suggests that agreement may be the source of the 65k lock-in goal and request of a commitment to buy.

Officespaced said:

Quoting are we? Hmmm, let's get down to the basics then:

"In order to be financially eligible for an ATVM loan, an applicant must be financially viable without the receipt of additional federal funding for the proposed project."

https://energy.gov/lpo/services/atvm-loan-program

Fail!

Click to expand...

What exactly was your point in quoting my post and where exactly is the "fail" that you are referring to? I was responding to an earlier post that suggested mpg testing on a production-ready Elio was a technical prerequisite to qualifying for the ATVM. My post had nothing to do with meeting the financial eligibility requirements, which are a different set of requirements from the technical provisions. Apples and oranges; there is a difference.

Officespaced said:

Elio never stated the "lock-ins", was an EPA requirement, it's not. Self-imposed metric to show interest.

Click to expand...

The lock-ins? Yes they did. Very plainly and very specifically. In writing. Evidently you never got the email.

Officespaced said:

They are $123 million in the hole as of 11/18/16 from the balance sheet. With just $100K in cash. What "additional" funds are you referring to? They have millions to go, just get to zero; above and beyond to get one wrench turning.

Click to expand...

You miss-interpreted that sentence. And that's OK. Simple mistake. Quite a few members had miss-read it as well.
But I'm not even going to waste the energy to look up the many posts (including mine) that describe it's meaning.
Life is too short and honestly, you seem like the truth won't fit your agenda anyway. My question is...
Where were you when that very sentence was discussed over the last year and a half?
My suggestion is that you go back and do your homework with a few searches.

There seem to be quite a few reasons for a person to be objectively negative at this point.
However, the two items you mentioned are not justification for that because they just aren't true.

I don't think any of us have a definitive idea of how or when this DOT program will finalize out, or what the full extent of the challenges for all funding. So all of us are pretty much blowing smoke up each other's skirts.

None of this happens when WE want it to. That was like 6 months after we heard about it.

All I know for sure, EM isn't doing this for the money they can grab from people. Even Paul can make a much better living elsewhere. And the money doesn't go into pockets, they spend it on the actual effort. They really believe this is worth while and doable. And they have respectable resume's and activity backing up the whole effort.

Like everyone else I hate being blind about the details and the 'what's next'. It is what it is.

Back in post #71, JEBar made this statement: reminder : civil discussions of positives and negatives are welcome on this forum .... if/when it degenerates into an argument, it will be closed .... second reminder : stating opinions is one thing but presenting opinions as facts with no valid supporting data isn't permitted.... lastly : charges of misconduct based solely on opinion have no place in this community

It still stands; Officespaced, do you have some type of agenda or something? You appear to like making statements that push people's buttons; and you have pushed a number of them here. This argument ends here.