Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Almighty Buck Transportation United States

Tesla Motors Repays $465M Government Loan 9 Years Early 446

Posted by Soulskill
from the electric-money dept.
Tesla Motors announced today it has completely repaid the $465 million loan from the U.S. Department of Energy the company received in 2010. The funds were generated by Tesla through a recent sale of their stock, worth close to a billion dollars. The stock price had risen sharply after the company reported its first profitable quarter (and the stock still sits roughly 50% higher than before their earnings release). Today's payment of $451.8 million finished off both the loan's principal and its interest, nine years before the final payment was due. Tesla CEO Elon Musk said, 'I would like to thank the Department of Energy and the members of Congress and their staffs that worked hard to create the ATVM program, and particularly the American taxpayer from whom these funds originate. I hope we did you proud.'
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tesla Motors Repays $465M Government Loan 9 Years Early

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @06:32PM (#43798267)

    Finally!

    • by LocalH (28506) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @06:35PM (#43798309) Homepage

      And yet the thanks they get is the state of North Carolina (and probably others too, but NC is the one I've heard about recently) shitting all over them because they want to sell their vehicles directly to people instead of having to go through "third-party dealers".

      • by Fluffeh (1273756) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @07:04PM (#43798515)

        In Australia, we call it Tall Poppy Syndrome [wikipedia.org] where someone that is doing outstanding work is seen as a threat, a target and something to be cut back down to size. Though in this case, I would say that there is a hint of Schadenfreude [wikipedia.org] thrown into the mix as well.

        Basically, it's just sad and pathetic.

        • Re:It's about time! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @07:43PM (#43798777)

          It's also very much political. Elon Musk's and Tesla's success under this loan program means that it was a Good Idea, and the Republicans don't want ANYTHING that President Obama or the Democrats have been involved in to be considered a success. They want all these loans to fail as proof that Keynesian economics is flawed, that the very idea of the government loaning money to renewable energy ventures (rather than their own buddies, Big Oil) is doomed to failure.

          The GOP is so out of their minds with insane rage that they would do anything to ensure that no progress is made under a Democratic administration, even if it means Americans have to suffer a prolonged recovery. They want the sole credit. They also want to make everyone forget that it was their own policies of deregulation that caused the economy to tank in the first place, so that their buddies on Wall Street can make even more money without being held accountable. The only kind of capitalism that these assholes want is the kind that makes THEM richer. That means pumping more oil, for one.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @09:02PM (#43799317)

            Your post is incorrect. Speaking as a blatant republican and businessman, I don't want the U.S. to invest in loan guarantees for fly by night operations that have absolutely no chance of success. Elon Musk, who successfully founded Paypal, knows how to run a company, had a real business plan and had a legitimate chance to make a long term profit was worthy of a federal loan guarantee. Solyndra is what we are trying to prevent.

            BTW - good work rewriting history - lax lending standards / pushing acceptance of sub-prime loans that caused the housing crisis and recession were not caused by republicans. This shouldn't be a news flash...

            • Re:It's about time! (Score:5, Interesting)

              by mattack2 (1165421) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @10:06PM (#43799633)

              I don't want the government to lose money either, but investing in clean tech, with possibility of failure, seems better to me than investing in oil companies or subsidizing corn syrup.

              Yes, I would rather get rid of ALL subsidies, but unfortunately I don't think that's going to happen.

            • by WaywardGeek (1480513) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @10:30PM (#43799771) Journal

              Speaking as a blatant democrat and businessman, I agree with your first paragraph. Tesla had a good chance. I cheered the decision to extend the government backed loan. They'd already produced the most successful electric car in my lifetime, losing not too much money in the process, while developing core competencies - the drive train and battery packs. The basic principle that government should invest where there is a track record of success falls on deaf ears in Washington. Companies like Fisker did not meet this threshold, and Solyndra was essentially an idea on paper, worth more research, but not a half billion dollars. I think a 1 in 3 success rate is about the best we could expect from government investments, regardless of the party in charge. No VCs I know of have a 1 in 3 success rate. Still... Fisker was a doomed investment. I was pissed when I heard of it. I'm just glad we never gave them the second half of the money.

              As for the second part, yes democrats pushed for bad loans, but unregulated banks got unregulated insurance on unregulated derivatives, while everyone knew that they were all too big to fail. That lack of regulation on businesses that the government will give a trillion dollars to before allowing to fail is the GOP's fault. There's blame to go around, and that's not rewriting history. Still, good post overall.

            • I don't want the U.S. to invest in loan guarantees for fly by night operations that have absolutely no chance of success.

              So like Goldman Sachs, AIG, Wells Fargo, Bank of America et al?
          • Re:It's about time! (Score:5, Informative)

            by dog77 (1005249) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @09:02PM (#43799319)
            Oddly enough the loan program was established under the Bush administration.

            From wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors [wikipedia.org] http://www.drivingtoday.com/news_this_week/2009-07-17-4337-driving/index.html#axzz2U4akRe2c [drivingtoday.com]

            The low-interest loans are not related to the "bailout" funds that GM and Chrysler have received, nor are they related to the 2009 economic stimulus package. The Department of Energy loan program was created in 2007 during the George Bush administration in order to get more fuel-efficient vehicle options to U.S. consumers and to decrease the country's dependence on foreign oil.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            And the fact you were voted 5 interesting for being a bigot shows how absolutly worthless /. comments are.

            Now for the deregulation TRUTH [nytimes.com] how it was the DNC that refuesed to let Bush add regulations to prevent the collapse. But then again the truth doesn't ever seem to line up with DNC talking points, so keep spewing your bigioted BS lies.

          • by dywolf (2673597)

            yes it was ALL THE REPUBLICANS.
            Except...the program was established by Bush.
            And the DOE overseeing it is largely apolitical, neither right nor left.

            so your statements tell us more about your own bias and mental filters, than it does about the actual story.

        • Its a sign of things to come for the economy though. If electric cars take over the market, the demand for car maintenance will collapse. Thats a big chunk of the job market in some areas and there will have to be some adjustment.

          • by Jeremi (14640) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @02:05AM (#43800591) Homepage

            If electric cars take over the market, the demand for car maintenance will collapse. Thats a big chunk of the job market in some areas and there will have to be some adjustment.

            We should all have such problems. Also if they find the cure for cancer, a lot of oncologists will be out of a job. It's still a big net win for society in either case.

            • If electric cars take over the market, the demand for car maintenance will collapse. Thats a big chunk of the job market in some areas and there will have to be some adjustment.

              We should all have such problems. Also if they find the cure for cancer, a lot of oncologists will be out of a job. It's still a big net win for society in either case.

              Thats right but mechanics will still complain and vote for measures to preserve the status quo.

      • Re:It's about time! (Score:4, Informative)

        by sgt scrub (869860) <saintium@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @07:29PM (#43798693)

        Texas is working on banning them too. I wonder if other companies that received loans are running into walls created by state and local governments with republican majorities.

        • by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @08:39PM (#43799155) Journal

          I'd leave partisanship out of it--I'm pretty sure it's more about money from car dealers both via campaign contributions and taxes.

          Think of it this way--that car lot takes up a lot property. Property gets taxed at a local level. There were a bunch of localities that had problems when their Pontiac and Saturn dealerships closed down. People start buying cars over the Internet and not through local dealers, there goes those dealers and their local taxes. I'm sure there are plenty of cities who'd rather not see that happen.

      • by Radtastic (671622) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @07:35PM (#43798747)
        Texas also has pushed back on the manufacturer-direct model

        http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/20/autos/telsa-car-dealers/index.html [cnn.com]

        I especially take offense with this argument:

        "When manufacturers discontinue a brand -- such as Pontiac, Mercury, Oldsmobile or Saturn -- auto dealers still remain to help the customer,"

        In reality, if Tesla were to go out of business, individual mechanics would open shop assuming there was a business demand. If there wasn't any demand, then it wouldn't matter if the sale originally involved a dealer or not. (Unless said former-dealer was unclear on the concept of business.)

        • by Spoke (6112) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @08:12PM (#43798955)

          I especially take offense with this argument:

          "When manufacturers discontinue a brand -- such as Pontiac, Mercury, Oldsmobile or Saturn -- auto dealers still remain to help the customer,"

          In reality, if Tesla were to go out of business, individual mechanics would open shop assuming there was a business demand. If there wasn't any demand, then it wouldn't matter if the sale originally involved a dealer or not. (Unless said former-dealer was unclear on the concept of business.)

          Exactly. The dealer model hasn't exactly helped Fisker any - while all the dealers remain, they all want exorbitant amounts of money to do any work on the vehicle. And an independent group has surfaced offering support [autoblog.com] for the vehicles regardless - but of course, you still have to pay.

          Now you have the result of owners having paid thousands more because of the extra middle man - and certainly the extra middle man didn't help Fisker's profitability any, either.

      • by ChrisMaple (607946) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @07:47PM (#43798819)
        Dealers are a huge lobby and major contributors in all states. This is a clear case of entrenched influence against the public interest, in opposition to individual rights.
        • by riverat1 (1048260) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @10:35PM (#43799789)

          If local bookstores and video stores had the same amount of political clout as auto dealers then Amazon and NetFlix wouldn't be able to sell in those states either.

        • by Virtucon (127420) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @12:28AM (#43800269)

          Well you're forgetting the revenue side of things from dealers. Not that Tesla couldn't do the same thing up to a point.

          Car Sales generate very lucrative sales taxes as well as vehicle registration fees etc. Dealerships must have licenses and in some states, state approval to operate (read: $$$ in the state coffers)

          Dealers make heavy investments in their franchise, meaning that they'll employ workers and have a presence that also generates lots of sales tax revenue from parts/maintenance and resale.

          Most states also want a local "neck to wring" when it comes to things like lemon laws. If they're dealing with an out of state provider, it complicates their remediation process. Not that it's not impossible to enforce their laws on somebody selling something in state (uh, Internet Sales Taxes anyone?)

          But the cronyism that exists and has existed because car dealers contribute to political campaigns and get nice laws passed to prohibit competition.

          It's all about money and influence and like the Taxi Apps for example fighing DC and NYC to allow folks to order a cab their way or AirBnb for example running afoul with NYC, it goes to show how much red tape and regulation there is in our world.

          So, yes Car Dealerships are a huge

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        They need to run ad's in NC stating that everyone that has a NC home address can buy a Tesla out of state and Tesla will pay the sales tax.

        Tesla can flip a giant F-U to NC, and they really need to.

      • NPR's Planet Money had a great story about it just a few months ago.

        Dealers contribute a big share of state sales tax revenues — as much as 20 percent in some states — and they tend to be big local employers. That makes state and local legislators listen.

        It's definitely worth listening to the story, as there's a rich and interesting history that leads to the rather broken present reality in the States.

  • by tnk1 (899206) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @06:34PM (#43798299)

    Good job!

    So, when do they start making a car that I can afford to drive?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      The Tesla S is very affordable to drive. Many cents less per mile than a gasoline car.

      Your problem is purchasing, not paying for the electricity.

      • by tnk1 (899206) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @06:46PM (#43798385)

        Except for the cars that I have stolen, I factor in purchase price with operating costs when I determine whether I can afford to drive that vehicle.

        • What, is North Carolina stopping us from stealing Teslas now too?
        • by Firethorn (177587)

          The Model S is normally cheaper than the luxury competitors it's placed up against, IE Mercedes S Classes, BMW 7 Series, and Audi A8s.

          That doesn't mean that you can't find a gasoline vehicle with a lower TCO with the same driving patterns, but you're going to sacrifice 'luxury' for it.

          • by tnk1 (899206)

            Which will make me feel a lot better when I can afford a 7-series. Sometime next decade. Maybe.

            Anyway, point being, he just paid back a loan which, in effect, created a luxury car company. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, and it may actually help push electric cars forward, but I think his comment was meant to be a little bit of a "take that" to people who don't like government contracts like this given out. And I can't help but noticing that he still hasn't produced something that even the upper middle

            • by drinkypoo (153816)

              Anyway, point being, he just paid back a loan which, in effect, created a luxury car company.

              Well no. They created a car company. The next model which is being designed now is the normally-priced car. If they can stay in business long enough to build it, which seems likely, then we should see it roll out in a bit. We wouldn't have had to do this if the automakers had made EVs the first time around, e.g. during the EV-1 era... instead of flirting with them, then crushing them and declaring them undesirable, because they couldn't make service revenues on them. The two groups which stood to lose were

    • by GreatDrok (684119)

      "Good job!

      So, when do they start making a car that I can afford to drive?"

      You can afford to drive it - the cost of electricity per mile is far lower than the cost of petrol for the same distance. Your problem is you can't afford to *BUY* it. The good news is, those who can afford it are allowing the cost to come down as a result of mass production so the early adopters with deep pockets are subsidising the eventual more affordable versions for the rest of us.

      My main problem with electric cars isn't the fu

  • No, no (Score:5, Funny)

    by Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @06:35PM (#43798301)

    Electric cars will lead to nipples and other unamerican things.

    • by dublin (31215)

      Hmm, you never watched Charlie's Angels or the Bionic Woman, did you? Can't think of anything more Armerican...

      • Never had a wardrobe malfunction eh? Musk is the harbringer of nipples, mark my words! Cheery looking rosy ones, sultry dark slippery ones, weird puffy ones, those pointy-outy ones that could cost an eye if you move too quickly in cold weather, oh yes... /none too subtle jab at the good old cornfed mask the detractors tend to don

      • by Artifakt (700173)

        Wonder Woman - she's both even more Amurikan and nipplier!

    • Re:No, no (Score:5, Insightful)

      by girlintraining (1395911) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @06:55PM (#43798451)

      Electric cars will lead to nipples and other unamerican things.

      ... Like paying back your government loans instead of yelling "Too big to fail! ahahahaaha..." and running to some tropical island to take daily wealth showers and drink out of gold-lined cups. :/ They should be commended... it's a decidedly unamerican approach to business. Fiscal responsibility? It's like an F-word in Congress.

  • Nice. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nemyst (1383049) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @06:35PM (#43798305) Homepage
    I think this sends an excellent message to naysayers: Not all American startups with DOE loans end up like Solyndra.

    Bravo to Tesla, and let's hope the current trend continues. The US really could use some new blood in the automotive industry.
    • Re:Nice. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @06:37PM (#43798319)

      And, Solyndra ends up like Solyndra because we lost a subsidy battle with China.

      • Re:Nice. (Score:5, Informative)

        by morcego (260031) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @06:59PM (#43798477)

        And, Solyndra ends up like Solyndra because we lost a subsidy battle with China.

        I'm not sure if you are reporting the fact, or complaining about it. If you are just reporting it to provide accurate information, kudos for you. Not only are you are well informed, you have more common sense than most people I know (or know of), and please stop reading here :).

        I'm forced, however, to remember anyone who complains about "subsidy battles" that the USA is huge on subsides, and wages this battle against many countries, several times winning it. Orange/orange juice and corn are quick examples.

        Unfortunately, subsidies are a necessary evil, specially since they are, many times, not a tool to fight an external competitor, but to regulate the internal market. In this, no country is blameless.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ShanghaiBill (739463) *

        And, Solyndra ends up like Solyndra because we lost a subsidy battle with China.

        And we lost that battle because we were subsidizing a company using the wrong technology. Governments are terrible at "picking winners" and even worse at cutting their losses rather than shoveling good money after bad. If Solyndra had a good chance of success, they would have been able to attract private funding, and wouldn't have been asking for taxpayer money in the first place. Subsidizing basic R&D often makes sense. Subsidizing manufacturing does not.

        • by DogDude (805747)
          I don't hear anybody complaining about the Fed bailing out GM...
        • Re:Nice. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Alomex (148003) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @07:21PM (#43798647) Homepage

          Governments are terrible at "picking winners

          [citation needed]

          DOE funds had a better rate of return than Mitt Romney's investment fund as per widely reported figures during the election.

          • Re:Nice. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ShanghaiBill (739463) * on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @08:02PM (#43798899)

            DOE funds had a better rate of return than Mitt Romney's investment fund as per widely reported figures during the election.

            Wrong. The DOE funds had a lower bankruptcy rate (8% vs 22%). That is NOT the same as a better rate of return. The government gives a loan, and loses it if the company goes bankrupt, and basically gets its money back if the company is successful. A private equity firm likewise loses its investment if the company goes bankrupt. But if the company is successful, a private equity firm can make many times its initial investment. Because of this asymmetry, PEs taking an equity stake, should and do make high risk investments than a lender would not. So the higher bankruptcy rate is expected. But the overall rate of return is still higher.

        • by dbIII (701233)
          Bankers typically know fuckall about the industries they are financing so can't tell something with no hope from a sure success. All they can do is look at similar ventures from the past and hope, which means people doing something new can usually forget about bankers. Venture capitalists on the other hand sometimes know a bit about a specific industry, but they've been rare since before 2008.
    • Re:Nice. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @07:00PM (#43798485)

      I think this sends an excellent message to naysayers: Not all American startups with DOE loans end up like Solyndra.

      In fact, of the 23 companies that received funding under the same program as Solyndra did, at least 19 of them are still in business - that's an 83% success rate. [cnn.com] When you factor in the fact that these were all loans that the free-market was too risk averse to take on itself, that number is pretty fantastic. Most venture capital funds are lucky to have a 10% success rate.

      • by turp182 (1020263)

        Link please, I would like to be informed but my kids have my attention for the time being, and my memory will lose the impetus to investigate after bedtime...

        • by ATMAvatar (648864)
          It largely depends on what you consider failure. WSJ cites that if you base success on breaking-even, 95% of start-ups fail [wsj.com], but if you base it on businesses failing so badly that investors are left with nothing at all, then it's closer to 30-40%.
    • by iceperson (582205)
      Unfortunately enough do that it's news when they don't...
    • I think this sends an excellent message to naysayers: Not all American startups with DOE loans end up like Solyndra.

      Keep in mind they didn't repay the loan out of revenue - they refinanced. (I.E. they sold bonds to repay the government loan.)

      Bravo to Tesla, and let's hope the current trend continues.

      Let's not count our chickens before they're hatched - Tesla is still saddled with over half a billion dollars in debt from this bond issue alone, and not so much currently in the way of income to cover

  • There's no market for electric cars. - Oil companies CEOs.

  • I could afford one...
  • .... until their prices become comparable in purchase price to an otherwise equivalent gas-powered car, instead of paying a premium for them that makes them more of a status symbol of luxury than a practical automobile.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @07:02PM (#43798497)

      This is exactly what the horse and buggy industry said when the first cars came on the road. "Ha! Petrol! Where do they think they will get it, once on the road?" and "People already have horses - who's going to want to buy an automobile when the buggy is so much cheaper??"

      • by mark-t (151149)
        Indeed... and it wasn't until the price actually *DID* come down that people really started buying them in any quantity.
    • by morcego (260031)

      .... until their prices become comparable in purchase price to an otherwise equivalent gas-powered car, instead of paying a premium for them that makes them more of a status symbol of luxury than a practical automobile.

      Gas cars where like this once. The market tends to regular itself, even if it takes some time. Unless the government fucks it up, specially the USPO. Lets just hope that is not the case.

      • Actually, battery-powered cars sort of dominated the automobile industry at first. Nobody seems to realize this.
    • Quite the contrary! (Score:5, Informative)

      by goruka (1721094) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @07:06PM (#43798529)
      I think history has proven this again and again I believe that the technology for electric cars for everyone is not quite there yet, so focusing on the luxury market segment they can generate enough demand to have the possibility to actually work on this technology and, eventually, drive the prices down.
      It's the same thing that happened with smartphones and other technologies, once the acutal product is there and proves to be profitable, technology advances much more strongly in that direction, helping to drive prices down and get more customers and markets.
    • by voidptr (609) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @07:19PM (#43798631) Homepage Journal

      The Model S is comparable in purchase price to an otherwise equivalent gas-powered car. It's a large, high performance luxury sedan, and other cars of that size, horsepower, and trim level run $75 - $100k as well.

    • by godrik (1287354)

      I purchased a car recently, and purchase price was not my concern. Total cost of ownership, convenience were my concern.

  • by 50000BTU_barbecue (588132) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @07:02PM (#43798501) Homepage Journal
    I'd like an electric car. The one thing about living in Quebec is relatively affordable hydroelectricity. However I wonder how an electric car will fare in winter when 33% of the battery will go to heating. At least that's the number they mentionned for the electric buses they're trying in Laval, you have to almost cut the summer range in half for winter. The motors work harder too to cut across snow.
    • by kenaaker (774785) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @07:15PM (#43798605)
      I leased a Focus Electric and drove it through about half of this winter in Minnesota. I initially was only going to drive it through the easy months, but this winter gave me examples of almost every sort of ugly possibility.

      The car did well enough through all the ugliness that I'm going to use it year round. The range did drop off dramatically on the days when it was about 0 (F). But my commute is only 7 miles, so there was really no problem with using it for getting to work. The other thing that helped was that the car could be warmed up while it was still plugged in. I was also going to get a stage 2 charger installed, but with my typical daily use, the car is fully charged off 110 after midnight. I don't think I'll get a stage 2 charger until I get a second electric.

    • by s122604 (1018036) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @07:46PM (#43798801)
      I've always thought what they could do is incorporate a small, propane powered generator, like say around 2.0KW. To get an estimate of the size, honda makes a 2kw one that is about the size of a small suitcase, and weighs around 50lbs.

      Maybe make it a modular add-in that you can take in and out of the trunk. The generator is way too small to actively power the car, but it could be ran so that the heat of the motor could be used to warm the cabin (like all gas vehicles do today) when it is extremely cold. The electricity it provided would extend range much, but it would keep you out of resistive heat, which is a real waster.. It would also provide a means of emergency charging for a stranded vehicle

      I'd make it propane, because in a quality tank, the stuff lasts virtually forever, and it burns really clean.
  • While I think it's awesome that they did this, and it sends a powerful message, there seems to be another implied flaw in the plan...

    Perhaps the idea of the gub'mint giving them this loan was that it was to offset their startup/r&d/production costs in the early years before they were able to get to full on mass production (I mean large scale, like the level of other established & successful auto manufacturers). So much that with that offset, they would have been able to offer their vehicles to the

    • by turp182 (1020263)

      Maybe, but it's conservative spending and accounting that allow for such early payments.

      I appreciated the bullet points, and the government shouldn't be worried about future interest payments if it receives the provided capital ahead of schedule. At least they got paid back.

    • Tesla doesn't seem to be having much of a problem in terms of market penetration because their factory has barely been able to keep up with the people willing to simply purchase them over the internet or through convoluted sales venues that make the customers travel across several states or even from other countries and continents in order to make a purchase. Only recently has the delay from making a purchase to getting delivery even approached the logistical limits of the Tesla supply chain rather than dealing with the customer backlog and even paying other customers to "move to the front of the line" to get the delivery earlier.

      Simply put, if Tesla is charging what the market can bear on their product, they are simply practicing capitalism... something I didn't think was a crime in America.

      As for the government missing out on interest income, I think they are going to more than make up for that loss through corporate income taxes and taxes on the wages of the Tesla employees.... and federal excise taxes on the vehicles themselves. It might be in some weird theory a slight loss to the government, but not much. What it really did was give Tesla some short-term operating capital that allowed the company to be able to hire the employees at the old NUMMI plant at a time when they weren't selling cars.

      • by adolf (21054)

        Just because Tesla is having production issues, does not mean that they're not having problems in terms of market penetration.

        The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

  • From the Archives (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gencha (1020671) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @07:33PM (#43798733)
    In case anyone wants to read some of those "insightful comments" from 2010: http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/24/1947208/Tesla-Nabs-465M-Government-Loan-To-Build-Model-S [slashdot.org]
  • by manu0601 (2221348) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @09:31PM (#43799473)
    We see many situations where US companies spend their cash to reduce their capitalization instead of investing. I understand it means they have too much money in their hand. That is, they do not pay enough taxes.

"What the scientists have in their briefcases is terrifying." -- Nikita Khrushchev

Working...