Could someone please explain what that means? Heard it a couple of times now.
If a car costs maybe $50,000 (a guess) then how come Ford lost $100,000 on each of them?
Does a Burger King Whopper cost $45 and sell for $5.50? Getting to be the other way around, though.
It's called creative accounting. They figure in how much profit they should have made and calculate the losses based on that figure instead of real life costs and sales. They have a fancy name for this accounting (the name escapes me right now) and it doesn't seem legal but they do it anyways.
They arevalso talking about the upfront costs that had to be sunk to get build the infrastructure. If these cats had sold, they might have still lost $100,000, but next year they might have only lost $80,000 because some of the infrastructure would have been paid for.
In tens years time, then these vehicles would have been profitable.
There are R&D costs and costs to build the manufacturing facilities, etc. Car plants are designed to crank out 300K+ cars a year. If a new car plant is only producing 50K cars a year, that is big trouble.
The $100k loss per vehicle includes all the funding to design, test, build plants, tooling etc needed to make the car. That would include government subsidies as well.
Had they sold every vehicle made that number would go down but normal people don’t want them.
Hmmm.... Ok, let’s try to get this through to you. If they are losing 100K per car then the car costs 100K more than the sales price. So none of the EVs cost 50K to make as you erroneously suggest. Lets say the EV MSRP was 60K. Then the cost to make the EV would have been 160K.
Using the overal headline numbers, then that means they sold only 13K EVs and lost 100K per car. 13K X 100K = 1.3B. That’s how many EVs it would take to lose 1.3B at 100K loss per EV.
Stupid companies. Stupid, stupid companies. Markets will hold them to task.
Now who will hold brain-dead Joe to task? Will you?