[Dr. Sivana]

How much of that is amortizing tooling and R & D costs? The first Saturns sold lost almost as much money with that kind of factoring. Now, if they NEVER sell, you have an EV version of the Edsel.

[DIRTYSECRET]

We can laugh at the do-gooders who bought them.

[bert]

now you have got it right. All the capital invested and all direct expense is charged to current revenue.

There is no mention of all the unsold and unsalable $70k to $130 k trucks on dealer lots

It is politically correct to charge the losses all to EV’s rather than the vaunted F 150’s

[sleepy_hollow]

We’re all driving Saturns now, right? Big success.

BTW, it does not matter how the accounting is done, amortization is simply a way of reducing the near-term impact of expenses (capital expenses). So, your logic is ill-founded.

If we just used a simplistic cash accounting approach, the losses would have been much larger per car now. However, future losses would be much less since the losses would have been accounted for up front.

Treating capital expenses using amortization dampens the losses. It is not exacerbating them by any means. Quite the opposite.

[Svartalfiar]

How much of that is amortizing tooling and R & D costs? The first Saturns sold lost almost as much money with that kind of factoring. Now, if they NEVER sell, you have an EV version of the Edsel.

That's been my question. The first EVERYTHING "lost" money. The real decider (ignoring qty for now), is are they making money on fabrication and operations, or is that also actually losing per vehicle?