ReportWire

Tag: Electric vehicles

  • Judge who nixed Musk’s pay package hears arguments on massive fee request from plaintiff lawyers

    Judge who nixed Musk’s pay package hears arguments on massive fee request from plaintiff lawyers

    [ad_1]

    WILMINGTON, Del. — A Delaware judge heard arguments Monday over a massive and unprecedented fee request by lawyers who successfully argued that a massive and unprecedented pay package for Tesla CEO Elon Musk was illegal and should be voided.

    Attorneys for a Tesla stockholder who challenged Musk’s 2018 compensation package are asking Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick to award them legal fees in the form of stock in the electric vehicle company valued at more than $7 billion at current trading prices. The 2018 compensation package for Musk that was rescinded by the judge was potentially worth more than $55 billion.

    After a full day of expert-witness testimony and arguments by attorneys, McCormick gave no indication on when she would rule on the fee request.

    The fee amount sought by plaintiffs’ attorneys dwarfs the current record $688 million in legal fees awarded in 2008 in litigation stemming from the collapse of Enron.

    Attorneys for the Tesla shareholder argue that their work resulted in the “massive” benefit of returning shares to Tesla that otherwise would have gone to Musk and diluted the stock held by other Tesla investors. They value that benefit at $51.4 billion, using the difference between the stock price at the time of McCormick’s January ruling and the strike price of some 304 million stock options granted to Musk.

    Attorney Greg Varallo told McCormick that he and his fellow plaintiff lawyers were simply asking for “a slice of the value pie we created.”

    “We did battle with the very best,” Varallo added. “Litigation against Tesla is never easy. There are companies who play by the rules every day, and then there are companies like Tesla.”

    The plaintiff attorneys argue that their fee request is “conservative” under Delaware law. Instead of a typical 33% fee recovery, they note that they are seeking only 11% of the shares now available to Tesla as the result of Musk’s options being rescinded by McCormick’s ruling. The judge agreed with the shareholder lawyers’ argument that Musk engineered the landmark 2018 pay package in sham negotiations with directors who were not independent.

    Following the court ruling, Tesla shareholders met in June and ratified Musk’s 2018 pay package for a second time. McCormick made clear, however, that the June vote would not be considered in determining the request for attorney fees. It instead will be the subject of a separate hearing in early August.

    Meanwhile, some opponents of the fee request argue that the plaintiff attorneys deserve no fee at all because they did not bestow any economic benefit on Tesla and instead may have even harmed the company. Opponents contend that the purported reversal of share dilution among Tesla stockholders is not a benefit to the Austin, Texas-based company itself and cannot be used to justify the fee request. They also note that the fee request fails to quantify or subtract potential negative consequences of the ruling, including the need to find a new way to compensate Musk for six years of non-salaried service to Tesla since 2018.

    “The market did not react like this rescission remedy bestowed any benefit,” defense attorney John Reed told McCormick, noting that Tesla’s market capitalization dropped by $15 billion after her ruling.

    Some critics argue that any fee award should be based only on the number of hours the plaintiff attorneys worked, and a reasonable hourly rate. Adding a multiplier to incentivize attorneys who work on a contingency basis in corporate disputes might also be appropriate, they have suggested. That approach could still result in a fee award of tens of millions of dollars. The current fee request equates to an hourly rate of about $288,000 for plaintiff attorneys and would result in an “unwholesome windfall,” according to opponents.

    Acknowledging the criticism that the fee request has received, plaintiff attorneys in a recent court filing proposed an alternative fee structure. Under that scenario, they would be willing to accept $1.44 billion in cash, equating to an hourly fee of about $74,000.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tesla shares wipe out loss for the year with 27% rally this week

    Tesla shares wipe out loss for the year with 27% rally this week

    [ad_1]

    Elon Musk attends “Exploring the New Frontiers of Innovation: Mark Read in Conversation with Elon Musk” during the Cannes Lions International Festival Of Creativity 2024 – Day Three in Cannes, France, on June 19, 2024.

    Marc Piasecki | Getty Images

    Tesla’s stock price rose enough on Friday to wipe out its loss for the year and bring its gain for the week to 27%.

    Shares of the electric vehicle maker closed Friday at $251.55. They ended last year at $248.48, and proceeded to fall as low as $138.80 in April.

    The latest rally was sparked by a better-than-expected deliveries report for the second quarter on Tuesday. While deliveries still dropped 4.8% from a year earlier, the falloff was less steep than the first-quarter decline, and gave investors reasons for optimism heading into the second half.

    In April, Tesla shares hit a 52-week low after a string of troubling developments. Sales in the core automotive business fell in the first quarter, the company downsized through sweeping layoffs and there were reports that Tesla had scrapped plans to soon produce a low-cost family car at its Texas factory.

    Tesla is set to deliver second-quarter financial results after the bell on July 23. Automotive gross margins are likely to be in focus.

    Since last year, Tesla has been offering extensive discounts and incentives to attract customers to its aging lineup of EVs, including its popular entry-level Model 3 sedans, Model Y crossover utility vehicles and its more expensive flagship Model S sedans and Model X SUVs.

    In late 2023, Tesla started selling its angular Cybertruck. A Tesla Cybertruck account on social media site X posted on Thursday that the truck had become the bestselling fully electric pickup in the U.S. in the second quarter.

    Ford reported sales of its fully electric model, the F-150 Lightning, totaling 7,902 in the second quarter and 15,645 through June of this year.

    Tesla did not respond to CNBC’s request for more information.

    Beyond the upcoming earnings report, Cantor Fitzgerald analysts wrote in a note on Tuesday that they expect a marketing event — Tesla’s Robotaxi Day — early next month to be a catalyst for the stock.

    “TSLA has previously disclosed plans for a Robotaxi (or Cybercab), which the company plans to unveil on August 8,” they wrote. “Although we don’t expect this segment to launch prior to 2027, we do expect it to be a meaningful business segment for the company over the long term.”

    Still, Cantor Fitzgerald expects Tesla to deliver fewer cars this year than last. The firm has a price target of $230 on Tesla and recommends buying the stock.

    While Tesla has bounced back, it is lagging behind the broader market for the year. The Nasdaq is up 22% in 2024, and the S&P 500 has gained 17%. Tesla is now up 1.2%.

    A recent Axios Harris poll found the company is experiencing brand deterioration that is at least partly due to Musk’s “antics” and “political rants.” A New York Times survey out this week also said Musk’s “polarizing statements” and “political activity” are driving away some “left-leaning consumers.”

    Tesla is also still years delayed in delivering software that can turn its existing vehicles into self-driving cars. Musk announced on Oct. 19, 2016, that all Tesla cars being produced at that time had the necessary hardware to make them self-driving. But in late June, he said another hardware and sensor setup is on the way to enable that capability.

    WATCH: Tesla deliveries are being ‘overanalyzed’

    Tesla deliveries are being 'overanalyzed' by investors, says RBC Capital's Tom Narayan

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Europe is slapping tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. Here’s what to know.

    Europe is slapping tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. Here’s what to know.

    [ad_1]

    FRANKFURT, Germany — The European Union is imposing sharply higher customs duties on electric vehicles imported from China. EVs are the latest flash point in a broader trade dispute over Chinese government subsidies and Beijing’s burgeoning exports of green technology to the 27-nation bloc.

    The higher duties go into effect on Friday, pending a final decision in four month’s time.

    Here are some basic facts about the EU’s planned customs duties:

    After an eight-month investigation, the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, found that companies making electric cars in China benefit from massive government help that means they can undercut rivals in the EU on prices, take a big market share and threaten European jobs.

    It announced the higher duties on June 12 and they go into effect from Friday. The duties are provisional, meaning they will be totaled up but won’t need to be paid until they’re confirmed by a vote of EU governments before Nov. 2. The EU will only collect the duties if there’s a further finding that the European auto industry would have suffered material harm without them.

    That gives the EU and the Chinese government time to negotiate. Talks have been held between Valdis Dombrovskis, the EU commissioner for the economy, and Chinese Trade Minister Wang Wentao, as well as at the level of technical experts.

    The higher duties are not a goal in themselves but “a means to correct an imbalance,” commission spokesman Eric Mamer said Thursday. “We certainly hope we can come to a solution which would allow us not to have to move forward on this path.”

    The rates, if applied, would be: 17.4% on cars from BYD, 19.9% on those from Geely and 37.6% for vehicles exported by China’s state-owned SAIC. Geely has brands including Polestar and Sweden’s Volvo, while SAIC owns Britain’s MG, one of Europe’s bestselling EV brands. Other EV manufacturers in China including Western companies such as Volkswagen, BMW and Tesla would be subject to duties of at least 20.8%. The commission mentioned that Tesla might get an “individually calculated” rate if duties are definitively imposed.

    Under EU rules it’s possible — though at present it seems unlikely — that the higher duties could be blocked ahead of the Nov. 2 effective date by vote of what the EU calls a “qualified majority” of countries. That means at least 15 of the 27 EU member governments representing at least 65% of the bloc’s population.

    Chinese-built electric cars jumped from 3.9% of the EV market in 2020 to 25% by September 2023, the commission said, in part by unfairly undercutting EU industry prices.

    The commission says companies in China accomplished that with the help of subsidies all along the chain of production, from cheap land for factories from local governments to below-market supplies of lithium and batteries from state-owned enterprises to tax breaks and below-interest financing from state-controlled banks.

    The rapid growth in market share has sparked fears that Chinese cars will eventually threaten the EU’s ability to produce its own green technology needed to combat climate change, as well as the jobs of 2.5 million workers at risk in the auto industry and 10.3 million more people whose jobs depend indirectly on EV production.

    Subsidized solar panels from China have wiped out European producers — an experience that European governments don’t want to see repeated with their auto industry.

    Unusually, the commission acted on its own, without a complaint from the European auto industry. Industry leaders and Germany, home to BMW, Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz, have been skeptics about the subsidy investigation. That’s because many of the cars that will be hit with tariffs are made by European companies, and because China could retaliate against the auto industry or in other areas.

    The Biden administration is raising tariffs on Chinese EVs to 100% from the current 25%. At that level, the U.S. tariffs block virtually all Chinese EV imports.

    That’s not what Europe is trying to do.

    EU officials want affordable electric cars from abroad to achieve their goals of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 — but without the subsidies EU leaders see as unfair competition

    The planned tariffs are aimed at leveling the playing field by approximating the size of the excess or unfair subsidies available to Chinese carmakers.

    European countries subsidize electric cars, too. The question in trade disputes is whether subsidies are fair and available to all carmakers or distort the market in favor of one side.

    Chinese carmakers have learned to make electric vehicles cheaply amid ferocious price competition at home in the world’s largest car market.

    BYD’s Seal U Comfort model sells for the equivalent of 21,769 euros ($23,370) in China but 41,990 euros ($45,078) in Europe, according to Rhodium Group figures. The base model of BYD’s compact Seagull, due to arrive in Europe next year, sells for the equivalent of around $10,000 in China.

    It’s not clear what impact the duties will have on car prices. Chinese carmakers are able to make some cars so cheaply that they could absorb the duties in the form of lower profits instead of raising their prices.

    While consumers might benefit from cheaper Chinese cars in the short term, allowing unfair practices could eventually mean less competition and higher prices in the long term, the commission argues.

    Currently, Chinese carmakers often sell their vehicles in Europe at much higher prices than the same cars fetch in China, meaning they are favoring profits over market share, even given their recent market gains. Five of BYD’s six models would still earn a profit in Europe even at a 30% tariff, according to Rhodium Group calculations.

    The fear is Europe is that Chinese competitors will turn to lowering their prices closer to the ones they are charging in China. and gain an even bigger chunk of the market.

    Beijing was sharply critical of the higher duties when they were announced, calling them “a naked act of protectionism.”

    On Thursday, He Yadong, a spokesperson for the Chinese Commerce Ministry, said that the two sides had held several rounds of technical consultations and noted that a final EU ruling won’t be made for four months.

    “It is hoped that the European side and the Chinese side will move in the same direction, show sincerity, expedite the consultation process and reach a mutually acceptable solution as soon as possible on the basis of facts and rules,” he said at a weekly media briefing in Beijing.

    He also said that China hopes the EU will seriously listen to the voices of the European automakers and governments that have come out against the tariffs and avoid anti-subsidy measures that would harm cooperation between the Chinese and European auto industries.

    It’s not clear what agreement might look like. One move could be to agree on minimum prices for Chinese cars.

    China could retaliate against European products such as pork or brandy imports, or against European luxury car imports.

    Over the longer term, Chinese carmakers could avoid tariffs by making cars in Europe. BYD is building a plant in Hungary, while Chery has a joint venture to build cars in Spain’s Catalonia region.

    ___

    Moritsugu reported from Beijing.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China’s BYD inaugurates first plant in Thailand as it expands reach into Southeast Asia

    China’s BYD inaugurates first plant in Thailand as it expands reach into Southeast Asia

    [ad_1]

    BANGKOK — Chinese automaker BYD inaugurated its first electric vehicle plant in Thailand on Thursday, part of the company’s push into Southeast Asia while it also tackles wealthier markets in the U.S. and Europe.

    The factory’s opening comes on the same day that the European Union is expected to begin imposing higher tariffs on EVs made in China due to concerns over competition from the cheaper-priced imports.

    In the U.S., the Biden administration also is raising tariffs on Chinese EVs to 100% from the current 25%. The U.S. currently imports very few Chinese cars, but like the European Commission, it worries that subsidies hurt domestic companies and cost jobs.

    The new factory in Rayong, south of Bangkok, was built in just 16 months and has an annual production capacity of 150,000 vehicles. It makes several BYD models and also batteries and transmissions. Its opening on Thursday was marked with great fanfare and included the presentation of a BYD Dolphin, a compact hatchback, to a charitable foundation under the patronage of the Thai royal family.

    That vehicle was the 8 millionth vehicle manufactured by BYD, the company said.

    Thailand aims to have 30% of all vehicles made in the country be electric by 2030. One in every three EVs sold in Thailand is made by BYD, though most cars on the roads now are still gas or diesel powered.

    BYD, which stands for “Build Your Dreams,” sold 3 million vehicles last year and its exports more than tripled to 243,000. In the first half of this year, the company sold 1.6 million EVs.

    It sold 30,650 EVs in Thailand last year and plans for its new factory to make the Dolphin, Atto 3, Seal and Sealion 6 EV models.

    BYD says the new factory is expected to create 10,000 jobs. Apart from Thailand and China, BYD also has or is building factories in Brazil, Hungary and Uzbekistan.

    According to BYD, the Dolphin can run 490 kilometers (about 300 miles) on a single charge. During a recent auto show in Bangkok, models on display were priced at 859,999 baht ($23,700), though reports said BYD would be offering steep discounts in Thailand on vehicles made in the new factory.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Best Electric Kick Scooters

    The Best Electric Kick Scooters

    [ad_1]

    I’ve tested a ton of scooters. Not all of them deserve a spot above, but some are still worth considering. These are a few other good scooters I like, just not as much as the ones above.

    MiniMotors USA Dualtron Mini Special for $1,399: The instructions to assemble this scooter are vague, and a few steps aren’t even mentioned in the instruction booklet. (I found the handlebar grip hard to put on—rubbing alcohol is your friend.) This is also the first time I tried the MiniMotors Dualtron app, and honestly, it’s not beginner-friendly. None of the terms and functions are well explained. It’s not a scooter I’d suggest for newcomers, but once you get everything up and running, the riding experience is quite nice. It has a top speed of 35 mph, and while the company claims a 40-mile range, you can expect closer to 25 to 30 miles. It’ll handle slopes just fine, but I do find it weird that despite being fairly hefty (59 pounds), it has a max load capacity of 200 pounds.

    Segway P100S for $1,500: This Segway (8/10, WIRED Recommends) is 73 pounds but has a max speed of 24 mph, so it’s a little less intense than the Apollo or Dualtron Mini Special. At that speed, I was able to get 16 miles in with 35 percent left in the tank. If you limit the speed to 20 via the app, you should easily be able to get close to 20 or 25 miles. I just hate the loud turn signal.

    Fluidfreeride Fluid Mosquito for $849: If the lightweight Unagi Model One Voyager doesn’t interest you but you still want an ultra-lightweight scooter, then check out the Fluid Mosquito (7/10, WIRED Recommends). At just 29 pounds, it’s one of the lightest scooters in this guide and has a comfy, built-in grab handle for easy toting. It’s fast to fold and is powerful, with a top speed of 24 mph. But shaving down the weight on this nimble scooter does have drawbacks. The suspension is just OK—you’ll feel most of those bumps—and the wheels are narrow. The braking system works fine, but you might encounter some skidding if you make a sudden stop, and the range is lackluster (around 9 miles in my testing, going over the Brooklyn Bridge). There’s also no easy way to change speed modes on the fly; you set it before you ride.

    Niu KQi Air for $1,399: I was so excited to test this scooter, but my experience with it over several months is mixed. I still like it, but a few quirks hold it back from being a top pick. The KQi Air has a carbon fiber frame, allowing it to be a mere 26 pounds with a 20-mph top speed. That makes it the lightest scooter I have ever tested. It’s easy to fold and has turn signals, a slick app, and reliable regenerative braking. The range is a bit lackluster—I usually got just under 10 miles on a single charge, but it’s so lightweight that when it died on my way home once, I strapped it to a Citi Bike’s front basket and cycled home (don’t do this!). The ride quality is great, but I had issues with it refusing to connect to my phone until I disconnected the internal power cable in the stem. There’s a theft protection that sounds an alarm and slows down the scooter if someone tries to roll it away, but bizarrely, while you can permanently turn off the alarm, the only way to stop it from braking as you roll it is to turn the scooter on. My initial model also stopped working completely and wouldn’t turn on, so Niu had to send me a second model. Oh, and sometimes, during rides, the scooter slows down and doesn’t hit its top speed until a few minutes later. I suspect there’s some thermal issue causing this. Overall, there’s a lot of promise, but it’s just annoying.

    TurboAnt M10 Lite for $290: This is a perfectly fine budget scooter best for folks under 200 pounds. (I wasn’t able to hit its top speed of 16 mph.) The assembly requires a few extra steps (more things to screw in, like the rear mudguard). I was only able to get around 8 miles riding it, but I like that the folding system is quick, the display is bright, and it’s pretty light at 31 pounds. Just don’t take it up any steep hills.

    Gotrax Apex for $350: The Apex is 32 pounds and easy to fold up. It has an integrated bell and a digital display that shows your speed and battery life, and it can go up to 15 mph. The Apex is reliable—I’ve gone to coffee shops, remote video shoots with a backpack full of camera gear, and the grocery store—though it’s not the smoothest ride. The 250-watt motor struggles with any slight incline, and slopes drain the battery fast. The battery usually doled out around 9 miles for me. I’m also tall, and I had to constantly outstretch my arms to reach the handlebars. You’ll want to tighten the rear disc brake; it works fine, but I wouldn’t have minded more stopping power.

    Gotrax GX2 for $1,499: The GX2 is akin to the Apollo Phantom and Segway P100S in that it’s 76 pounds and packs a lot of power and range. This gunmetal scooter looks a bit like a Transformer and can hit a max speed of 35 mph via the dual 800-watt motors, but I usually rode it at 20 mph. It took me to midtown and back to Brooklyn (a total of 18.4 miles) with some juice left over. I hate carrying it up and down the stairs, because the stem is super thick, making it difficult to grasp. When you’re waiting at a light, the GX2 also switches to Parking mode after a few seconds, so you constantly have to remember to press the mode button to switch it to the driving gear. It’s super annoying, and Gotrax says there’s no way to disable it. I am a little concerned about build quality—the motor makes a noise as if something is brushing against it, and this sound disappears if I lightly press the left brake lever while riding. The latch to keep the stem upright comes down too easily, despite a sliding lock mechanism to keep it in place; Gotrax says it might just be that it’s installed too tightly. If you see any of these issues, I recommend reaching out to Gotrax and going to a local scooter shop to have them take a look.

    Navee S65 for $1,099: Navee is a relatively new brand growing its presence in the US, and I had a great time using the S65 (7/10, WIRED Recommends). I was able to regularly complete 16-mile round trips at 20 mph, but that pretty much depleted the battery. It has great acceleration, thanks to its geared hub motor, and it climbs slopes with ease, but this also makes it very loud. The motor’s sound disappears if you’re in a noisy city like New York, but it can make you self-conscious on quiet streets. It’s 53 pounds, so it’s heavier than our top pick despite a similar range, and its customer service is up in the air since it’s so new. Still, I had fun riding it.

    Evolv Terra for $1,231: I enjoyed my time with the Evolv Terra (7/10, WIRED Recommends). It’s 53 pounds and thanks to the thin stem, not too annoying to carry. It’s powerful, with the potential to go as fast as 31 miles per hour when you engage both 600-watt motors (check your local speed laws first!). Otherwise, you can cruise along at 20 mph as I did on the second gear speed setting (there are three in total) with the single motor. Range is pretty average, with around two bars left on the meter after 15 miles, so it can potentially last more than 20 miles, especially if you’re conservative with its speeds. The suspension is OK but the solid tires on rougher roads can feel quite bumpy. The fenders also seemed pretty useless to me as, after a wet ride post-rain, my back was covered in specks of dirt kicked up from the rear tire. The stem’s angle was also a little too close to my body, and the lack of a thumb throttle meant my wrist hurt after long rides. You can tweak the angle of the throttle and brakes to improve this though.

    Radio Flyer S533 for $599: Honestly, I’m surprised at how well this scooter did in my tests. The folding mechanism is just a latch and a sleeve you pull down to keep the latch from coming undone while you ride. It’s super easy to fold and unfold, and lightweight at 30 pounds. It’s not a commuter scooter by any means—my range hovered under 8 miles on a single charge—and despite exceeding its 220-pound load capacity, I averaged around 14 mph of its 16 mph top speed. It’s a nice little scooter for going to the post office, grocery store, or Cinnabon when my wife asks for a cinnamon roll. However, its price doesn’t match its power and performance; it should be cheaper. It’s also worth noting that the first model the company sent me didn’t turn on and the second model had a deflated front tire. Inflating it was a quick affair and I haven’t had problems since.

    Apollo Air Pro (2022) for $899: I have not tested the new 2024 model, but the Apollo Air Pro (2022) was a perfectly fine scooter (6/10, WIRED Review); I just don’t think it’s worth the high price. It goes up to 21 mph, and I was able to ride it for about 13 to 15 miles before it died. You get all the accouterments, like a front light and bell, and there’s app connectivity to tweak settings to your liking. However, the app is required to unlock the Air Pro’s true speed—otherwise, you’re restricted to 12 mph. I’m more miffed at the folding mechanism, which is more work than it should be. It also doesn’t accelerate too fast and, despite its 39-pound weight, is uncomfortable to carry due to its thick stem.

    [ad_2]

    Julian Chokkattu

    Source link

  • US new-vehicle sales barely rose in the second quarter as buyers balked at still-high prices

    US new-vehicle sales barely rose in the second quarter as buyers balked at still-high prices

    [ad_1]

    DETROIT — U.S. new-vehicle sales rose only slightly in the second quarter, despite larger discounts and slightly lower prices.

    But brisker sales could be on the horizon: Auto industry analysts say they expect prices to drop further and there’s a possibility of interest-rate cuts that would make taking out a loan for a new vehicle more affordable.

    Overall, U.S. sales were up only 0.1% compared to a year ago, as still-high prices kept many potential buyers out of the market, according to preliminary tallies Tuesday by Motorintelligence.com.

    Sales were crimped in late June, when cyberattacks knocked out software from CDK Global that dealerships use to do sales paperwork. CDK said most dealers were back up by Tuesday afternoon, but companies such as General Motors said the problem pushed some deliveries into the third quarter.

    Analysts say inventories on dealer lots are building, especially for pickup trucks and other higher-priced vehicles.

    Discounts vary by demand for vehicles, with smaller, less-expensive models and gas-electric hybrids generally being in shorter supply. Many customers are delaying purchases, figuring that bigger discounts are coming.

    “Waiting may be the optimal strategy here,” said Cox Automotive Senior Economist Charlie Chesbrough.

    Toyota, which sells many popular gas-electric hybrids, posted a 9.2% sales increase from April through June. Honda sales were up 2.7%, while General Motors posted just a 0.3% gain and Hyundai reported a 1.8% increase. Subaru had a 5.4% sales gain.

    Sales at Stellantis fell 20.7% in the second quarter, with the Ram brand off 26% and Jeep sales falling 19%. Nissan sales fell 3.1%, while Kia was down 1.6%.

    Together, automakers reported selling roughly 4.13 million new vehicles from April through June. That’s on pace to reach forecasts of nearly 16 million for the year, a little above last year’s 15.6 million.

    Ivan Drury, director of insights at Edmunds.com, said interest rates for new vehicles are averaging just above 7%, a high number for people who bought or leased vehicles years ago but now find they need to replace their rides.

    Many, he said, are going for what few lower-priced vehicles remain in the mid- to upper- $20,000 range.

    “The stuff that’s very affordable, that’s where it’s at,” said Drury. “You really have to have an attractive product at an attractive price for it to move today.”

    For instance, sales of the Chevrolet Trax compact SUV, which starts at $20,400 excluding shipping, were up 152.7% during the quarter.

    Kevin Roberts, director of analytics for the CarGurus auto site, said automakers want to keep making higher-profit SUVs and trucks when a big chunk of buyers are after less-expensive vehicles such as compact sedans.

    “You’re seeing people search more and more for affordable vehicles. You’re seeing people searching for under $30K,” Roberts said.

    The U.S. industry, he said, is at an inflection point where automakers will have to add discounts to get the prices down, or they’ll have to change what they produce to “try to get more attractive price points and try to keep those inventory levels lighter.”

    A move toward lower prices, though, could hurt Detroit automakers, which exited the lower-priced small and midsize sedan markets years ago after having trouble making money on the vehicles.

    Ever since the coronavirus pandemic began early in 2020, autos have been in short supply as a shortage of vital computer chips hobbled production. Coupled with strong demand, the lack of cars drove average prices to a peak of near $50,000 by December of 2022.

    But this year, chip supplies improved, production is up and supplies are on the rise. In June, dealers had about 3 million vehicles in stock, 55% more than a year ago, according to Cox.

    As a result, average selling prices dropped 1% to about $48,400 last month. That’s 3% below than the peak of near $50,000 in December of 2022 but still 20% higher than before the pandemic.

    Of the vehicles that sit on dealer lots the longest, all are big pickups or SUVs made by Detroit automakers. Stellantis’ Ram 1500 tops the list, remaining at dealers for 141 days, CarGurus said.

    Deals can be had on vehicles that sit on lots longer, Roberts said. For example, 6% of national dealer new vehicle sales listings are from the 2023 model year.

    U.S. electric vehicle sales overall rose 7% during the first half of the year to 599,134, Motorintelligence reported. EVs accounted for 7.6% of the U.S. new vehicle market, about the same as it was for all of last year. Lease deals, which include federal tax credits, helped to boost sales.

    Sales of gas-electric hybrids skyrocketed 35.3% from January through June to 715,768, eclipsing electric vehicle sales. Plug in hybrids, which can go a short distance on battery power before a gas-electric powertrain kicks in, also saw a big increase. Sales were up 24% to 159,399. Both are alternatives for people who fear running out of juice with an EV.

    Earlier Tuesday, Tesla reported that its second-quarter global sales fell 4.8%, with a 6.6% decline in the first half of the year. The company doesn’t break out U.S. sales. Ford releases its sales numbers on Wednesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Polestar Is Bracing for the EV Tariff Wars. It May Not Emerge Unscathed

    Polestar Is Bracing for the EV Tariff Wars. It May Not Emerge Unscathed

    [ad_1]

    After major investor Volvo decided to decrease its stake and cut funding for Polestar early this year, the EV company went in search of $1.3 billion of new funding. It raised a $950 million lifeline three-year loan from a banking syndicate led by BNP Paribas, and told investors it has plans to continue raising the rest of the funds this year. Volvo parent company Geely Holdings, a Chinese company whose investment portfolio includes Levc, Lotus, and Smart, became the second-largest shareholder of the company, while Volvo retained 18 percent and is still owed $1 billion through an outstanding convertible loan.

    The plan, Polestar told investors, is to target double digit margins by the end of the year, and in its latest earning call, investors were told that the company is “working intensely” to improve cashflow and still has plans to break even by the latter part of 2025. The company’s new facility in South Carolina will play a big part in whether this can be achieved: Analysts expect that it will help with production volume and would qualify its EVs for the US EV tax credit of up to $7,500 depending on the specs of the vehicle, which would hopefully appeal to its customer base. Questions have been raised about whether Polestar will decide to hold off selling the Polestar 4 in the US until it can swap its production over to South Korea in 2025, and therefore avoid the China tariffs.

    “There is increased competition, and interest rates have increased significantly, which is why a lot of these companies like Polestar are still having challenges ramping up,” says Andres Sheppard, senior equity analyst at financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald.

    Yet Polestar’s adjusted financial results for 2023, released on Friday after a long delay, somewhat dampen its prospects: Its net losses grew to $1.17 billion, operating losses ballooned by more than 11 percent from $1.29 billion to $1.46 billion, and its revenue dropped by 3 percent to $2.38 billion. These losses were not offset by a 6 percent uptick in car sales. Polestar missed its sales target of 60,000 vehicles (lowered from 80,000 earlier in 2023), delivering 54,600 vehicles last year.

    The late arrival of these results was itself a warning sign: If their release had extended into July, Polestar was at risk of being delisted on Nasdaq, a consequence of missing required financial deadlines. The delays have been linked to accounting misstatements.

    The company’s share price has suffered a steady decline in the past year, and at premarket open Tuesday had dropped by 8 percent, which Ingenlath said is “not fair.” “We see our current share price does not reflect the value of our company—not now and in the future,” he told investors.

    This means that the gap between where Polestar is and where it wants to be is wider than expected. Projected revenue figures collated by market analysis firm Pitchbook show the company is targeting £3.51 billion ($4.43 billion) in revenue this year, and growing that by 145.5 percent to £8.62 billion ($10.9 billion) by 2026. This would be an ambitious feat for the current global head of sales, Kristian Elvefors, the former managing director of Volvo in the UK who took over from Mike Whittington earlier this year. Elvefors has a plan to expand the company’s retail footprint across Asia, Europe, and Latin America in 2025, and to allow customers to configure and order cars online. Troubling, though, is the news that car rental giant Hertz has pressed pause on plans to buy tens of thousands of cars from Polestar this year, rowing back an estimated $3 billion agreement bartered in 2022 that promised to make up a quarter of its fleet with Polestars by 2024.

    [ad_2]

    Jeremy White, Natasha Bernal

    Source link

  • Audi Q6 E-tron Review: AI-Enabled, Serious Comfort

    Audi Q6 E-tron Review: AI-Enabled, Serious Comfort

    [ad_1]

    The operating system has been developed well, and is largely easy to use, but there is a lot going on. And that’s not all. The Edition 1 model comes with an additional 10.9-inch display for the passenger, which can stream YouTube, show the navigation, or change the music. We found this to be novel but a bit limited. The navigation, for example, works well but is pointless when it shows on the main screen next to it.

    Photograph: Audi

    Audi Q6 ETron

    Photograph: Audi

    Then there’s the HUD, which now comes with augmented reality. Part of the “Sound and Vision pack,” an expensive option, it overlays directions onto the road you see in front of you, moving as you do, all the while showing your regular HUD features including speed, speed limit, and turn-by-turn signals.

    With the driving assistance systems turned on, it also displays in “danger red” when you’re getting too close to the side of the road, when you need to brake for upcoming speed limits, as well as brake warnings to ensure you don’t drive into the car in front.

    With use we’re sure this all becomes less distracting, but the overall feeling was more overwhelming than helpful. The Chat GPT-integrated Audi voice assistant might be able to teach you how to use it, but this reviewer would rather turn it all off and enjoy the sweet ride comfort.

    The interior is an otherwise pleasant place to be, although there is too much cheap-feeling plastic. The doors in particular feature a large plastic inlay where you control the windows, as well as a plastic storage section, which feels very out of place. The SQ6’s as-standard nappa leather, diamond-stitched seats are very attractive. But the cost is less so.

    Speaking of which, prices start at £64,200 ($81,200) for the Q6 e-tron and jump sharply upwards to £92,950 ($117,500) for the top-of-the-range SQ6.

    Audi Q6 ETron

    Photograph: Audi

    The Q6 and SQ6 e-tron don’t reinvent the wheel, and while quick in a straight line, they aren’t as sporty as they make out. Where they shine is with the effortless ride comfort and class-leading range, which if we’re being honest is perhaps more important, shifting the goalposts slightly but assuredly.

    [ad_2]

    Charlie Thomas

    Source link

  • Fisker Went Bankrupt. What Do Its EV Owners Do Next?

    Fisker Went Bankrupt. What Do Its EV Owners Do Next?

    [ad_1]

    It was the last week in June, and José De Bardi hadn’t gotten much sleep. The trouble had really kicked off on June 18, about a week earlier, when the electric vehicle company Fisker announced it had filed for bankruptcy protection. Now some 6,400 Fisker owners like De Bardi wondered: What will happen to their cars in the future?

    The bankruptcy “lit a fire,” De Bardi says. “We had to get organized if we had any chance of representing owners’ interests.” Within days, he and a handful of other Fisker vehicle owners had established a nonprofit organization called the Fisker Owners Association, dedicated to keeping their cars running. (Hence, the lack of sleep.) By the end of the month, 1,200 owners—representing nearly a fifth of total Fisker cars sold—had registered through the group’s website, De Bardi says.

    Fisker vehicle owners’ questions are mostly practical. Fisker began shipping the Ocean, its electric SUV—priced to start at $41,000 and ranging up to $70,0000—last year. Immediately, the vehicles were found to have serious build quality shortcomings and software issues, including a less-than-responsive central touchscreen. (WIRED’s reviewer declined to rate the vehicle entirely, calling it “just not ready yet.”)

    Owners reported that some of the most serious issues, including a difficult-to-use brake hold and Bluetooth connectivity problems, were ironed out through software updates. But owners sometimes complained that it was tricky to get their vehicles serviced or repaired, because there weren’t enough certified Fisker repairers and technicians. Fisker initially launched with a Tesla-like “direct to consumer” model that eschewed the traditional “middleman” dealerships often seen in the US. But in January, the company began to sign dealerships to a new Fisker network, citing ballooning costs associated with the direct model.

    Even now, as the carcass of Fisker gets picked over, the EVs still have niggling problems—window cracks, dysfunctional key fobs, sudden connectivity blackouts—and will unquestionably need servicing and spare parts to keep them running into the future. Without Fisker, the company, to provide that, what are owners to do?

    The FOA is still in the early stages of figuring it out. A small band of volunteers have worked around the clock to define the problems owners might face down the road—legal questions about their vehicle financing; issues with the car’s app; finding parts—and start solving them. These people have full-time jobs, too. De Bardi, for example, who lives in the UK and has headed up the European owners’ efforts, is also the CTO of a telecommunications firm.

    Experts say Fisker owners’ situation is looking increasingly tricky. Automotive companies have a playbook to handle bankruptcies, developed during the 2008 financial crisis, which led General Motors and Chrysler to file for Chapter 11 protection, as Fisker has. Thanks in part to support from the US government, those automakers were able to honor their vehicles’ warranties as the companies restructured.

    But in legal proceedings in Delaware this month, Fisker’s situation looked more dire. Lawyers for the firm’s creditors argued that Fisker should have filed for bankruptcy late last year. And Fisker plans to sell its remaining inventory, some 4,000 vehicles, to a firm that leases electric vehicles to New York City Uber and Lyft drivers, lawyers told the court.

    [ad_2]

    Aarian Marshall

    Source link

  • Say Hello to Creator-Built AI Chatbots on Instagram

    Say Hello to Creator-Built AI Chatbots on Instagram

    [ad_1]

    In case you thought Instagram influencers couldn’t get anymore online, they’re soon going to have the ability to make AI versions of themselves that you can interact with at all times.

    The announcement came from the mouth of a chain-clad Mark Zuckerberg, who shared his thoughts about AI and who gets to control the technology in an interview with YouTuber Kane Sutter, aka Kallaway. (He also said Meta has holographic AR glasses coming soon, but let’s save that for another time.)

    The AI chatbots will be made in collaboration with a handful of Instagram creators that Meta has partnered with. Zuckerberg says the feature is in the test phase and will roll out to various Instagram users slowly. It is not yet clear exactly what form these AI chatbots will take, but it seems the creators that Meta is partnering with will build their characters in the company’s AI studio, so they will likely operate a lot like the AI Characters that Meta debuted last year.

    If this all goes according to plan, you’ll soon be able to go into your Instagram DMs and chat with AI simulacra of your favorite influencers. File this one away in the “What could possibly go wrong?” folder.

    Here’s some other consumer tech news from around the web.

    2 H2 2 Furious

    Extreme E, the off-road racing series that uses only electric vehicles for its high-speed shenanigans, is moving into another gear of power systems for its vehicles.

    The new series, called Extreme H, will be a race for hydrogen-powered cars only. Purpose-built for this series is the new Pioneer 25, a speedy racing car powered entirely by hydrogen. The Pioneer 25 can get up to 200 kph (124 mph), which is very zippy for an off-roading vehicle.

    The Pioneer is meant to usher in a new era of eco-friendlier motorsports, though there is some debate about how clean hydrogen power actually is.

    Hyundai Funday

    On the more affordable vehicle front, the Korean car company Hyundai has a new EV. The Hyundai Inster is a compact urban hatchback that can seat four people. It has a boxy look to it—similar to a Scion or a Mini Cooper—and boasts a projected range of up to 355 kilometers (220 miles). The Inster’s battery has a charge time of 4.5 hours for a full charge. It definitely isn’t a race car, as it tops out at 86 mph.

    The official price hasn’t been revealed yet, but according to AutoNews, the sticker should wind up being somewhere around $26,000. Or the foreign-currency equivalent of that, anyway; the Inster is not yet being released in the US. The car will land first in Korea, followed by Europe, the Middle East, and other countries in Asia.

    FCC U

    The US Federal Communications Commission is trying to make it easier for phone users to switch networks. A proposal put forth this week by FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel calls for mobile phone providers to unlock customers’ phones if they want to use the device on a different network. Lots of providers lock customers into their networks by pairing their devices with a subscription plan that keeps them on the network run by a particular carrier. If this guidance makes its way into reality, companies would be forced to unlock devices 60 days after being activated, which means you’d be free to switch carriers and take your phone with you.

    There’s no official ruling being put in place yet. This proposal is coming in the form of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which the FCC drafts to seek public comment on potential rulings in the future. The proposal itself isn’t public yet, but it might be after the FCC votes to move it along during its July 18 open meeting session.

    One Vape to Juul Them All

    Juul once held near-total dominance over the nicotine vaping industry. But when US regulators cracked down on the purveyors of the addictive nicotine dispensers (particularly ones that were the most popular among underage customers), Juul’s reign came to an end. Of course, that doesn’t mean demand for vaping is anywhere close to gone. Plenty of illegal operations have moved to fill that void, and it’s relatively easy to find vape pods for sale in the US that come from overseas distributors.

    This latest episode of WIRED’s Gadget Lab podcast features Leon Neyfakh and former WIRED associate editor Arielle Pardes, the hosts of the new podcast Backfired: The Vaping Wars. The show is all about what happened to the nicotine vaping industry, whether vapes are really better than cigarettes (yes, but you probably still shouldn’t puff on them), and what will happen in the future of vaping.

    [ad_2]

    Boone Ashworth

    Source link

  • Best used EV for families: Ford Mustang Mach-E – MoneySense

    Best used EV for families: Ford Mustang Mach-E – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    With excellent road manners, highly approachable safety and convenience technologies, affordable used-market pricing and access to a wide network of dealer service locations from coast to coast, the Mach-E is my top pick for growing families looking to add a flexible all-electric to their fleet, and an easy addition to our list of top used cars in Canada.

    Is the Mustang Mach-E a good car?

    Yes. On previous test drives of this machine, I’ve praised its quiet and comfortable highway ride, highly responsive and fuss-free infotainment system, excellent road manners, and quick charge-up times on longer road trips. 

    Don’t take my word for it, though: Car and Driver named the Mach-E EV of the Year in 2021, as well as an Editors’ Choice. Ford’s first foray into the electric SUV market also racked up trophies for design, range, value and style from other industry authorities like Autoguide, AutoWeek, Motor1 and AutoTrader.ca.

    In any configuration, expect Mach-E’s roomy and flexible cabin to readily adapt to your family’s changing needs. The rear seats are spacious and comfortable, folding seats add flexibility, and the cargo area’s relatively low load-in height provides easy access for small grocery helpers and family canines alike. There’s even a “frunk” under the Mach-E’s hood, providing additional storage space. 

    The Mach-E has a generous suite of the latest advanced safety and driver assistance tech as standard or optional, depending on the year and trim grade you’re considering. Safety-minded shoppers can rest easy with the Mach-E’s 2021 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) Top Safety Pick rating.

    Though the Mach-E is a seriously high-tech machine, it’s also one of the market’s most approachable. Interfaces and menus are easy to use and navigate, connectivity is a breeze, and driver-facing systems are logical to use and responsive. If a second-hand Mach-E will be your first new car in some time, you’ll be up to speed on how to work its one-pedal drive, enhanced charging features, drive modes and slick infotainment system in just a few drives.

    What’s under the hood?

    Marking the first expansion of the Mustang model lineup in 55 years, the new Mach-E came with various motor and battery configurations that gave shoppers access to both two- and four-wheel drive, as well as sub-models configured for maximum range, maximum performance or maximum affordability.

    Battery packs include both 70-kWh and 91-kWh options, with single-motor models running rear-wheel drive. 

    [ad_2]

    Justin Pritchard

    Source link

  • Best used hybrid sedan: Toyota Corolla Hybrid – MoneySense

    Best used hybrid sedan: Toyota Corolla Hybrid – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    Two motors electrify the Corolla Hybrid’s 1.8-litre gasoline engine, turning it into a hybrid engine. The electric motors are connected to the car’s wheels and engine via the transmission, and a battery used to store power for the hybrid engine is located beneath the rear seat.

    The hybrid engine’s electric motors can use electricity from the battery to drive the Corolla’s wheels, in part or in full. At any given moment, this can reduce or even eliminate the need for the gas engine to run, since the car can be driven entirely on electricity in some situations, and partly by electricity in many more. 

    By the way, that hybrid battery recharges automatically as you drive around, it never gets empty and there’s nothing to plug in. As long as there’s gas in the tank, you’re ready to drive.

    The hybrid system is totally automatic and requires no driver decision-making at any time. You can customize the driving experience with different drive modes, and an on-screen visual coach can be called up to help fine-tune the driver’s hybrid driving skills if they like.

    Expect considerably faster acceleration and smoother response versus a non-hybrid Corolla.

    Should you buy a used Corolla Hybrid?

    The Corolla has a pretty stellar reputation for delivering a no-nonsense ownership experience and strong long-term value, and tracking down a second-hand Corolla Hybrid with remaining factory warranty shouldn’t be much trouble.

    Shopping for a Certified Pre-Owned (CPO) vehicle, available only from authorized dealerships, can add peace of mind. To become CPO-certified, used cars must meet certain standards for quality and condition. You won’t get that assurance if buying from a private seller. (Learn more about buying new vs. used.)

    Are there any recalls for the Toyota Corolla Hybrid?

    Transport Canada lists a single recall for the Toyota Corolla Hybrid, for a seatbelt-related fault; it affected fewer than 1,000 cars in Canada. Before you buy a used Toyota Corolla Hybrid (or any car), check online or with your local dealer to see if any outstanding recalls apply to the model you’re considering. And if you do buy the car, contact the manufacturer to register as the new owner. This ensures that any future recall notices make their way to you quickly.

    Check the specific spare tire and mobility provisions included with the used Corolla Hybrid you’re considering, as some owners have sought accessory tire inflators or temporary spare tires to supplement the factory equipment. Specifically, some drivers prefer to carry a temporary spare tire instead of (or alongside) the factory-provided inflator kit. Your needs may vary depending on where and how you drive, but knowing what equipment you have (or need) in the event of a flat tire is important.

    [ad_2]

    Justin Pritchard

    Source link

  • Rivian shares soar on massive cash injection from Volkswagen, starting immediately with $1 billion

    Rivian shares soar on massive cash injection from Volkswagen, starting immediately with $1 billion

    [ad_1]

    Shares of Rivian soared 40% before markets opened Wednesday after Volkswagen vowed to invest $1 billion in the struggling electric vehicle maker immediately, and a potential total of up to $5 billion as part of a software development agreement.

    Rivian’s market value soared close to $86 billion shortly after it went public in 2021, but it is in dire need of funding to develop its next vehicle and it is bleeding money. Volkswagen needs help with its software, where Rivian is seen as a very strong player.

    Volkswagen will initially invest $1 billion in Rivian Automotive Inc., with plans to invest up to an additional $4 billion. That $4 billion includes an additional investment of up to $2 billion in Rivian’s common stock that’s expected to include two installments of $1 billion each in 2025 and 2026. An investment of $2 billion related to the joint venture is expected to be split between a payment at the inception of the joint venture and a loan available in 2026.

    “Not only is this partnership expected to bring our software and associated zonal architecture to an even broader market through Volkswagen Group’s global reach, but this partnership also is expected to help secure our capital needs for substantial growth,” Rivian founder and CEO RJ Scaringe said in a prepared statement.

    Both companies expect to lower their costs per vehicle produced while ramping up scale.

    Rivian plans to license existing intellectual property rights to the joint venture, allowing Volkswagen Group to use Rivian’s existing electrical architecture and software platform.

    “Our customers benefit from the targeted partnership with Rivian to create a leading technology architecture,” Volkswagen Group CEO Oliver Blume said. “Through our cooperation, we will bring the best solutions to our vehicles faster and at lower cost.”

    Vehicles using the technology produced by the joint venture, first announced late Tuesday, are expected to be launched in the second half of the decade.

    Rivian, based in Irvine, California, made a splash during its stock market debut in 2021 as company shares spiked 53% and its market value neared $86 billion, greater than that of Ford and just below General Motors.

    Investors were searching for the next up-and-comer in the electric vehicle market, and Rivian already had some big-name backers.

    Rivian landed a contract with Amazon.com to produce 100,000 electric delivery vans, and a half-billion dollars from Ford.

    But Rivian has yet to turn a profit, and its stock has fallen from its lofty highs of a few years ago. To conserve cash, Rivian paused construction on a $5 billion electric truck plant in Georgia. Rivian said in March that there was no timetable for restarting work on the plant.

    The joint venture with Volkswagen could be the jolt that’s needed and Wedbush’s Dan Ives called the agreement a game changer for Rivian.

    “Rivian will leverage this opportunity by utilizing this robust capital roadmap to support future growth while vertically integrating its software platform and electrical architecture while achieving further cost savings and deliver improved vehicles down the line,” Ives said Wednesday in a research note.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The fight over Fisker’s assets is already heating up | TechCrunch

    The fight over Fisker’s assets is already heating up | TechCrunch

    [ad_1]

    Fisker is just a few days into its Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and the fight over its assets is already charged, with one lawyer claiming the startup has been liquidating assets “outside the court’s supervision.”

    At issue is the relationship between Fisker and its largest secured lender, Heights Capital Management, an affiliate of financial services company Susquehanna International Group. Heights loaned Fisker more than $500 million in 2023 (with the option to convert that debt to stock in the startup) at a time when the company’s financial distress was looming behind the scenes.

    That funding was not originally secured by any assets. That changed after Fisker breached one of the covenants when it failed to file its third-quarter financial statements on time in late 2023. In exchange for waiving that breach, Fisker agreed to give Heights first-priority on all of its current and future assets, giving Heights considerable leverage. Heights not only gained pole position to determine what happens to the assets in the Chapter 11 proceedings, but also gave them the chance to tap a preferred restructuring officer to oversee the company’s slow descent into bankruptcy.

    Alex Lees, a lawyer from the firm Milbank who represents a group of unsecured creditors owed more than $600 million, said in the proceeding’s first hearing on Friday in Delaware Bankruptcy Court that it took “too long” to get to this point. He said Fisker’s tardy regulatory filing was a “minor technical default” that somehow led to the startup “basically hand[ing] the whole business over to Heights.”

    “We believe this was a terrible deal for [Fisker] and its creditors,” Lees said at the hearing. “The right thing to do would have been to file for bankruptcy months ago.” In the meantime, he said, Fisker has been “liquidating outside the court’s supervision” for the benefit of Heights in what he said amounts to “suspect activity.” Fisker has spent the run-up to the bankruptcy filing slashing prices and selling off vehicles.

    Scott Greissman, a lawyer representing the investment arm of Heights, said Lees’ comments were “completely inappropriate, completely unsupported,” and derided them as “designed as sound bites” meant to be picked up by the media.

    an”There may be a lot of disappointed creditors” in this case, Greissman said, “none more so than Heights.” He said Heights extended “an enormous amount of credit” to Fisker. He added later that even if Fisker is able to sell its entire remaining inventory — around 4,300 Ocean SUVs — such a sale “will maybe pay off a fraction of Heights’ secured debt,” which currently sits at more than $180 million.

    Lawyers told the court Friday that they have an agreement in principle to sell those Ocean SUVs to an unnamed vehicle leasing company. But it’s not immediately clear what other assets Fisker could sell in order to provide returns for other creditors. The company has claimed to have between $500 million and $1 billion in assets, but the filings so far have only detailed manufacturing equipment, including 180 assembly robots, an entire underbody line, a paint shop and other specialized tools.

    Lees was not alone in his concern over how Fisker wound up filing for bankruptcy. “I don’t know why it took this long,” Linda Richenderfer, a lawyer with the U.S. Trustee’s Office, said during the hearing. She also noted that she was still reviewing new filings late Thursday and in the hours before the hearing.

    She also expressed “great concern” that the case could convert to a straight Chapter 7 liquidation following the sale of the Ocean inventory, leaving other creditors fighting for scraps.

    Greissman said at one point that he agreed that Fisker “probably took more time” than needed to file for bankruptcy protection, and that some of these quarrels could have been “more easily resolved” if the case had started sooner. He even said he agrees with Richenderfer that “even with a fleet sale, Chapter 11 may not be sustainable.”

    The parties will meet again at the next hearing on June 27.

    Before he dismissed everyone, Judge Thomas Horan thanked all the parties involved for getting to the hearing “pretty cleanly” despite the rush of filings this week. He particularly called out the U.S. Trustee’s office for working under “really difficult circumstances” to “get their heads around” the case with “minimal controversy, in the scheme of things.”

    “I imagine there are a few people who want to catch up on some sleep now,” he said with a smile, as he ended the hearing.

    [ad_2]

    Sean O’Kane

    Source link

  • Fisker failed because it wasn’t ready to be a car company | TechCrunch

    Fisker failed because it wasn’t ready to be a car company | TechCrunch

    [ad_1]

    Two years ago, an employee at Fisker Inc. told me that the most pressing concern inside the EV startup was not whether its Ocean SUV would get built. Fisker was outsourcing the manufacturing of its first EV to highly respected automotive supplier Magna, after all. The startup’s November 2022 start-of-production target was aggressive, but not impossible for a company like Magna, which builds vehicles for the likes of BMW.

    Instead, this person said, employees were increasingly worried that Fisker wouldn’t be ready to handle all the problems that come after a company puts a car on the road. They were worried the focus was all on building the car and not on the company.

    The conversation stuck with me because Fisker founder and CEO Henrik Fisker had an automotive startup fail a decade ago for, arguably, this reason. That company, Fisker Automotive, got a hybrid sports car into the hands of a few thousand customers. But the company buckled soon after as it faced complaints about quality, the failure of its battery supplier, and a hurricane that literally sunk a ship full of vehicles.

    The employee’s warning that the new Fisker was heading down a similar path was striking and ultimately prescient. Fisker filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection this week after spending only just one year shipping its SUV to customers around the world. In large part, its undoing is directly tied to its inability to address the worries that employee raised in 2022.

    This person wasn’t alone. Dozens of others who worked at Fisker have echoed this sentiment to me in conversations since, nearly all of them on the condition of anonymity because they feared losing their jobs or retaliation from the company. Those conversations informed stories I reported on — the Ocean’s quality and service problems, Fisker’s internal chaos, and decisions from Henrik Fisker and his co-founder, wife, CFO and COO, Geeta Gupta-Fisker, that dragged the company down.

    Most all of them told me about how the lack of preparedness ran deep and permeated almost every division of the company, as I’ve previously reported for TechCrunch and Bloomberg News.

    The software powering the Ocean SUV was underbaked. It contributed to the delay of the launch of the SUV, and it even kneecapped the very first delivery in May 2023, which Fisker had to turn around and troubleshoot shortly after handing it over. A similar thing happened when the company made its first deliveries in the U.S. in June 2023, when one of its board members’ SUVs lost power shortly after taking delivery.

    The company shipped far fewer Ocean SUVs than it originally projected. Even after it lowered its target for 2023 multiple times, it still struggled to hit its internal sales goals. Sales employees have recounted stories of calling potential customers repeatedly in hopes of selling vehicles because so few new leads were coming in. Others wound up pitching in to sell cars even if they worked in completely different departments.

    Many customers who did take delivery of their Ocean ran into problems like sudden power loss, trouble with the braking system, glitchy key fobs, problematic door handles that could temporarily lock them in or out of the car, and buggy software. (The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened four investigations into the Ocean.)

    Fisker struggled with the quality of some of its suppliers, and employees have said it did not build out a proper buffer of spare parts. This put extra pressure on the people in charge of trying to fix the cars as they ran into problems, and ultimately led to the company plucking parts from not only Magna’s production line in Austria, but also from Henrik Fisker’s own car. (Fisker has denied these claims.)

    This whole time, lower- and midlevel employees went to great lengths to do what they could to help out the slow-growing customer base. One owner told me an employee took a phone call on their personal cell phone while at a funeral. Other employees relayed stories of workers doing company business while at the hospital. Many worked long days, nights and weekends — to the point where at least one hourly employee has filed a prospective class action over this very issue.

    The company itself admitted on multiple occasions that it did not have enough staff to handle the influx of customer service requests. This was another place where workers from other departments pitched in. Some are even still fielding customer calls today, despite having left Fisker weeks or months ago.

    Fisker struggled at the mundane-yet-serious work of being a public company, too. It lost track of around $16 million in customer payments at one point, thanks to messy internal accounting practices. It suffered multiple delays in its required reporting to the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of those delays allowed one of the company’s largest lenders to eventually take the reins in the final months.

    Despite all this, Fisker is still touting its speed to market as an accomplishment as it begins the bankruptcy process. “Fisker has made incredible progress since our founding, bringing the Ocean SUV to market twice as fast as expected in the auto industry,” a nameless spokesperson said in a press release about the Chapter 11 filing.

    This ephemeral corporate representative goes on to say that Fisker “faced various market and macroeconomic headwinds that have impacted our ability to operate efficiently.” While that is certainly true to an extent, there is otherwise no introspection about the myriad issues that got the company to this moment in time.

    Perhaps that will surface in the Chapter 11 proceedings, where the company looks to settle its debts (of which it claims to owe between $100 million and $500 million) and offload or otherwise restructure its assets (totaling between $500 million and $1 billion).

    What happens next will depend on how those proceedings go. Fisker always took an “asset-light” approach, likening itself to how Apple leveraged Foxconn to help build the iPhone into a global phenomenon. The problem with being asset-light is that it naturally means there is less to borrow against or sell when things break bad.

    Magna has stopped production of the Ocean and expects a $400 million revenue loss this year as a result. It’s unclear how much progress Fisker made on its future products, the sub-$30,000 Pear EV and the Alaska pickup. The engineering firm that was co-developing these vehicles with Fisker recently sued the startup, calling the projects into question.

    Fisker said in its press release that it will continue “reduced operations,” including “preserving customer programs, and compensating needed vendors on a go-forward basis.” In other words, it will continue to manage a bare-bones operation in case there is a willing buyer of the assets it’s putting up for sale in the Chapter 11 case.

    A decade ago, the bankrupt Fisker Automotive did find a buyer. It ultimately morphed into a startup known as Karma Automotive, which is still nominally around today. There have been similar outcomes lately. Three other EV startups that recently filed for bankruptcy — Lordstown Motors, Arrival and Electric Last Mile Solutions — were able to sell off assets to peer companies in the space.

    But the ultimate fate of this startup, and its assets, won’t change the fundamental problem: Fisker wasn’t ready to grapple with bringing a flawed car to market.

    [ad_2]

    Sean O’Kane

    Source link

  • Fisker Is Dead

    Fisker Is Dead

    [ad_1]

    Fisker filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection late on Monday, ending months of speculation over the future of the company. Now the EV maker is looking to sell its assets and restructure its debt after pausing production of is sole car model back in March.

    To anyone familiar with the Ocean all-electric SUV, the news of Fisker’s bankruptcy may have been predictable. WIRED tested the Fisker Ocean in July 2023 but, due to the obviously unfinished nature of the test car, was left in the unprecedented position of being unable to score or rate the EV. Our own test Ocean was plagued with squeaky pedals, an inoperative California mode (where the EV drops all its windows save the windscreen) forcing a switch in car mid-test, and poor handling.

    After manufacturing issues and cash flow problems, Fisker admitted during its quarterly earnings in February that it might not have enough money to survive another year, and decided to pause car production, initially for six weeks. Reports began claiming it had been considering a possible bankruptcy filing. Fisker reported that it made $273 million in sales last year but was more than $1 billion in debt. It also issued a warning that there was “substantial doubt” about its ability to stay in business. It never resumed production.

    The company, founded by car designer Henrik Fisker, was looking for a potential lifeboat. This resulted in negotiations with “a large automaker” for investment, joint development of one or more electric vehicle platforms, and to fund its North America manufacturing.

    Such negotiations, reportedly with Nissan, failed to conclude positively, an outcome signaled even at the time by Fisker itself as it issued a statement saying “any transaction would be subject to satisfaction of important conditions, including completion of due diligence and negotiation and execution of appropriate definitive agreements.” The collapse of these talks reportedly resulted in a loss of $350 million in funding.

    In the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in Delaware, Fisker has estimated assets of $500 million to $1 billion, and liabilities of $100 million to $500 million, and among its 20 largest creditors named Adobe, Google, and SAP.

    Fisker’s rapid decline is a far cry from recent success in 2020, when the company went public with a valuation of $2.9 billion, affording the EV maker more than $1 billion in cash.

    Since then, EV sales in the US have slowed more broadly, but Fisker has been especially badly affected. The company inevitably lost a degree of quality control when it ceded manufacturing to Canada-based supplier Magna, and subsequently build and software issues of its Ocean SUV surfaced. Since launch, the model has been dogged by quality problems, with owners citing sudden power losses, glitchy key fobs and sensors, and even allegations of hoods flying open.

    The Ocean’s myriad issues embarrassingly caught out Fisker staff, too, with board member Wendy Greuel losing power on a public road shortly after taking deliver of the EV. Similarly, according to a cache of internal documents viewed by TechCrunch, Geeta Gupta Fisker, the company’s chief financial officer, chief operating officer, and cofounder Henrik Fisker’s wife, also experienced a shutdown in power while driving an Ocean.

    Indeed, Fisker has had a checkered history beyond the Ocean. It was more than a decade ago when its eponymous owner, previously of BMW, Ford, and Aston Martin, last presented a car bearing his name. The Karma, a range-extender sports GT was dogged by problems, including a disastrous Consumer Reports test and fires. Fisker Automotive filed for bankruptcy in 2013.

    Initially choosing to operate a direct-to-consumer sales model, after handing over to customers less than half of the more than 10,000 vehicles it produced last year, Fisker reverted to a traditional dealership sales model in January. Then in March the company drastically cut prices on its Ocean models in a desperate attempt to shift inventory.

    Yesterday’s bankruptcy filing comes only a year after Fisker launched its Ocean all-electric vehicle to customers.

    [ad_2]

    Jeremy White

    Source link

  • Chinese premier focuses on critical minerals and clean energy on final day of Australian visit

    Chinese premier focuses on critical minerals and clean energy on final day of Australian visit

    [ad_1]

    MELBOURNE, Australia — Chinese Premier Li Qiang has ended his Australian tour on Tuesday in the west coast city of Perth where he has focused on China’s investment in critical minerals, clean energy and business links.

    Perth is the capital of Western Australia state, which provided 39% of the world’s iron ore last year. Iron ore is one of Australia’s most lucrative exports. Analysts say the commodity was spared the type of trade bans Beijing imposed on other Australian exports as bilateral relations soured three years ago because the steel-making ingredient was crucial to Chinese industrial growth.

    Li last week became the first Chinese premier to visit New Zealand then Australia in seven years. He left Perth late Tuesday for Malaysia, where he’ll be China’s first premier to visit since 2015.

    While in Perth, China’s second-most powerful leader after President Xi Jinping inspected iron ore miner Fortescue’s clean energy research facility.

    Fortescue’s chairman Andrew Forrest said Li was interested in the company’s plans to produce iron ore without carbon emissions and potentially “green iron.”

    “I think China chose us because it’s not just the best technology to go green in Australia, it’s the best technology to go green in the world and we’ve got real examples of it in trains, ship engines, trucks,” Forrest told The Associated Press before the visit.

    The Perth facility is testing technology on hydrogen, ammonia and batter power for trains, ships, trucks and heavy mining equipment.

    Li also visited Chinese-controlled Tianqi Lithium Energy Australia’s processing plant south of Perth to underscore China’s interest in investing in critical minerals. The plant produces battery-grade lithium hydroxide for electric vehicles.

    Australia shares U.S. concerns over China’s global dominance in critical minerals and control over supply chains in the renewable energy sector.

    Citing Australia’s national interests, Treasurer Jim Chalmers recently ordered five Chinese-linked companies to divest their shares in the rare earth mining company Northern Minerals.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wrote in an opinion piece published in Perth’s main newspaper, The West Australian, on Tuesday that his government was acting to ensure foreign investment “continues to serve our national interests.”

    “This includes reforming the foreign investment framework so that it’s more efficient, more transparent and more effective at managing risk,” Albanese wrote.

    Forrest said the national risk from Chinese investment in the critical minerals sector was overstated.

    “Australia should be producing all the critical minerals in the world because we’re a great mining country, so by all means let’s go in harder after critical minerals, but let’s not do it with panic because there is no reason for panic,” Forrest said.

    Qiang and Albanese flew to Perth in separate planes late Monday from the national capital Canberra where the two leaders held an official annual meeting with senior ministers in Parliament House.

    Both leaders attended a round table of business leaders in Perth representing resource companies including mining giants BHP and Rio Tinto.

    Business Council of Australia chief executive Bran Black said business dialogue was essential to the bilateral relations between the two free trading partners.

    “While there have been challenging times in the bilateral relationship between the two nations, I think it’s fair to say this is another positive point of progress,” Black told the meeting.

    “It shows that whilst the parameters of a bilateral relationship are set by governments, they will always be sustained by the quality of the personal relationships and especially those personal relationships that subsist on a business-to-business level,” Black added.

    Chinese premiers and Australian prime ministers met annually from 2013 until 2019, after which Beijing banned minister-to-minister contacts over the previous conservative government’s call for an independent investigation into the causes of and responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Relations had already been strained by Australian legislation that banned covert foreign interference in Australian politics and the exclusion of Chinese-owned telecommunications giant Huawei from rolling out the national 5G network due to security concerns.

    Beijing initiated a reset in relations after Albanese’s center-left Labor Party was elected in 2022.

    The annual meetings resumed when Albanese visited Beijing in November last year.

    Albanese revealed that his office had complained to the Chinese Embassy about the behavior of two officials during a media event with the two leaders after Monday’s meeting.

    Australia had “concerns” about two Chinese officials who stood in the way of cameras taking images of well-known Australian journalist Cheng Lei sitting with other reporters as the leaders spoke, Albanese said.

    Cheng spent more than three years in detention in China for breaking an embargo with a broadcast on a state-run TV network while she was based in Beijing. She was released last year after interventions by the Australian government and now works for Sky News Australia.

    “When you look at the footage, it was a pretty clumsy attempt, frankly, by a couple of people to stand in between where the cameras were and where Cheng Lei was sitting,” Albanese said.

    “There should be no impediments to Australian journalists going about their job and we’ve made that clear to the Chinese Embassy,” Albanese added.

    Chinese-born Cheng told Sky News on Monday the officials “went to great lengths to block me from the cameras and to flank me.”

    “I’m only guessing that it’s to prevent me from saying something or doing something that they think would be a bad look. But that in itself was a bad look,” Cheng said.

    The embassy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Li and Albanese made statements during the press event but neither took questions from the assembled journalists.

    ___

    Follow AP’s coverage of Asia-Pacific news at https://apnews.com/hub/asia-pacific

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • McLaren’s Artura Spider Hybrid Is All Performance, and All Party

    McLaren’s Artura Spider Hybrid Is All Performance, and All Party

    [ad_1]

    While the world awaits Ferrari’s first all-electric car—due next year—archrival McLaren insists that the technology doesn’t yet exist to deliver an EV worthy of its name.

    Power clearly isn’t the problem, but weight is the enemy in Woking, McLaren’s UK headquarters, and batteries aren’t getting lighter fast enough. Going fully electric results in unacceptable compromises to a car’s dynamics, McLaren says.

    Light weight isn’t just a philosophy to these guys, it’s dogma, and, like all such things, that doesn’t suggest much in the way of progressive thinking. Until you arrive at a corner at, shall we say, a committed velocity in the new Artura Spider.

    Few cars are as fluid, balanced, and rewarding as this, a lissome-looking machine, which soon has you thinking like a racing driver: Plotting entry, apex, and exit, dallying with a trailing throttle or trying to dial out understeer. It gets right under your skin.

    McLaren doesn’t even rate fully electric steering as pure enough, and the Artura’s precision feel is undoubtedly helped by an old-school hydraulic setup. Apparently, it’s almost identical to the steering configuration in the 600 LT, which is nothing less than one of the greatest-handling cars ever made.

    Pimped P1 Power

    Photograph: McLaren Automotive

    Yet it would be a grave error to mistake McLaren for a tech refusenik. Far from it. Core to the Artura’s astonishing athleticism is its carbon-composite chassis (MCLA for short), which delivers both tremendous structural integrity and impressive lateral bending stiffness.

    It’s made in the company’s dedicated UK facility in Sheffield, and McLaren’s use of carbon fiber throughout its model range puts one over on Ferrari, Lamborghini and Porsche, all of whom reserve this costly material for their most expensive hypercars.

    The Artura is also a hybrid, deepening the company’s expertise in an area it first explored on 2013’s ground-breaking P1. The combustion engine is a 3.0-liter twin turbo V6, harnessed here to an axial flux e-motor, which is integrated into the gearbox’s bell housing.

    Improvements in the engine mapping have increased the overall power output to 690 brake horsepower, a rise of 20 bhp over Artura v1.0. Rather than a 90-degree V, the cylinders sit at a 120-degree angle, which reduces pressure losses in the exhaust. The twin turbos sit within in a “hot vee” configuration, which means they can spin faster with helpful consequences for throttle response.

    [ad_2]

    Jason Barlow

    Source link

  • How Elon Musk’s $44.9B Tesla pay package compares with the most generous plans for other U.S. CEOs

    How Elon Musk’s $44.9B Tesla pay package compares with the most generous plans for other U.S. CEOs

    [ad_1]

    Even though the median U.S. CEO pay package last year was nearly 200 times more than a worker in the middle of their company pay scales, Elon Musk’s record-setting Tesla compensation dwarfs them by comparison.

    Tesla shareholders on Thursday voted overwhelmingly in favor of restoring Musk’s 10-year pay plan, valued by the company in April at $44.9 billion. It was worth more early in the year, but Tesla’s stock value has fallen about 25% since then.

    The all-stock package, approved by the board and shareholders in 2018, rewards Musk for hitting milestones that include raising Tesla’s market value, pretax income and revenue.

    It had been tossed out by a Delaware judge in January who said the process for approving it was “deeply flawed.” The court ruled that Musk controlled the company’s board, and shareholders weren’t fully informed.

    But the company said Musk deserves the pay because he turned Tesla into the top-selling electric vehicle maker in the world, increasing its market value by billions.

    Even with the reapproval vote, Musk won’t get access to the stock options just yet. Tesla is expected to ask the judge to revisit her decision in light of the vote, and if she doesn’t, the company probably will appeal the ruling to Delaware’s Supreme Court. The whole process could take months.

    No matter the outcome, Musk’s package — the largest award to a CEO of a U.S. public company — is far above what’s been granted to other chief executives. Here’s how the package compares:

    WITH THE MEDIAN CEO PAY

    The median pay package for an S&P 500 U.S. CEO last year was $16.3 million, according to data analyzed for The Associated Press by Equilar. If you multiply that by 10 to get $163 million for a decade of work, Musk’s earnings still would be 275 times greater.

    In her January ruling that struck down the package, Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick wrote that Musk’s package, then worth about $56 billion, was 250 times larger than the median peer CEO’s pay plan.

    WITH INDIVIDUAL CEOS

    The top earner in the AP’s survey was Hock Tan, CEO of artificial intelligence company Broadcom Inc. His package, mostly consisting of stock awards, was valued at about $162 million, when given to Tan at the start of fiscal 2023. Thanks to a surging stock price, Broadcom in March valued Tan’s pay package, plus older options he hadn’t yet cashed in, at $767.7 million. That’s an amount easily eclipsed by Musk’s potential haul of 304 million shares worth almost $45 billion.

    Other CEOs at the top of AP’s survey are William Lansing of Fair Isaac Corp, ($66.3 million); Tim Cook of Apple Inc. ($63.2 million); Hamid Moghadam of Prologis Inc. ($50.9 million); and Ted Sarandos, co-CEO of Netflix ($49.8 million).

    Technically, Musk got no compensation last year because he didn’t get any stock options. But he stands to get even richer if his pay package goes through.

    WITH TESLA WORKERS

    It’s difficult to calculate what Musk’s annual pay would have been last year. The company says he got nothing. But if his compensation package makes it through the courts, his pay will be in the billions. According to the company’s proxy filing this year, the median annual pay of a non-CEO Tesla employee last year was $45,811.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Elon Musk’s $44.9B Tesla pay package compares with the most generous plans for other U.S. CEOs

    How Elon Musk’s $44.9B Tesla pay package compares with the most generous plans for other U.S. CEOs

    [ad_1]

    Even though the median U.S. CEO pay package last year was nearly 200 times more than a worker in the middle of their company pay scales, Elon Musk’s record-setting Tesla compensation dwarfs them by comparison.

    Tesla shareholders on Thursday voted overwhelmingly in favor of restoring Musk’s 10-year pay plan, valued by the company in April at $44.9 billion. It was worth more early in the year, but Tesla’s stock value has fallen about 25% since then.

    The all-stock package, approved by the board and shareholders in 2018, rewards Musk for hitting milestones that include raising Tesla’s market value, pretax income and revenue.

    It had been tossed out by a Delaware judge in January who said the process for approving it was “deeply flawed.” The court ruled that Musk controlled the company’s board, and shareholders weren’t fully informed.

    But the company said Musk deserves the pay because he turned Tesla into the top-selling electric vehicle maker in the world, increasing its market value by billions.

    Even with the reapproval vote, Musk won’t get access to the stock options just yet. Tesla is expected to ask the judge to revisit her decision in light of the vote, and if she doesn’t, the company probably will appeal the ruling to Delaware’s Supreme Court. The whole process could take months.

    No matter the outcome, Musk’s package — the largest award to a CEO of a U.S. public company — is far above what’s been granted to other chief executives. Here’s how the package compares:

    WITH THE MEDIAN CEO PAY

    The median pay package for an S&P 500 U.S. CEO last year was $16.3 million, according to data analyzed for The Associated Press by Equilar. If you multiply that by 10 to get $163 million for a decade of work, Musk’s earnings still would be 275 times greater.

    In her January ruling that struck down the package, Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick wrote that Musk’s package, then worth about $56 billion, was 250 times larger than the median peer CEO’s pay plan.

    WITH INDIVIDUAL CEOS

    The top earner in the AP’s survey was Hock Tan, CEO of artificial intelligence company Broadcom Inc. His package, mostly consisting of stock awards, was valued at about $162 million, when given to Tan at the start of fiscal 2023. Thanks to a surging stock price, Broadcom in March valued Tan’s pay package, plus older options he hadn’t yet cashed in, at $767.7 million. That’s an amount easily eclipsed by Musk’s potential haul of 304 million shares worth almost $45 billion.

    Other CEOs at the top of AP’s survey are William Lansing of Fair Isaac Corp, ($66.3 million); Tim Cook of Apple Inc. ($63.2 million); Hamid Moghadam of Prologis Inc. ($50.9 million); and Ted Sarandos, co-CEO of Netflix ($49.8 million).

    Technically, Musk got no compensation last year because he didn’t get any stock options. But he stands to get even richer if his pay package goes through.

    WITH TESLA WORKERS

    It’s difficult to calculate what Musk’s annual pay would have been last year. The company says he got nothing. But if his compensation package makes it through the courts, his pay will be in the billions. According to the company’s proxy filing this year, the median annual pay of a non-CEO Tesla employee last year was $45,811.

    [ad_2]

    Source link