this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
102 points (92.5% liked)

[Dormant] Electric Vehicles

3201 readers
2 users here now

We have moved to:

!electricvehicles@slrpnk.net

A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.

Rules

  1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, casteism, speciesism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. No self-promotion.
  4. No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
  5. No trolling.
  6. Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I dont think it would be fair to call that a loss per vehicle then. When they built their first vehicles long long ago they also mustve been in the red for a while. Thats called "investing in company infrastructure" and not "selling at a loss".

The money is paid, the loss of money is over. Surely they are making a per vehicle profit already and it will just take some time to go overall positive for their investment.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I dont think it would be fair to call that a loss per vehicle then.

It's common to break down the cost of Fixed Asset Investment to per unit produced by the investment. I won't comment on whether it's "fair" or not but it is common and it's how the article arrived at this eye popping "loss per vehicle" number.

[–] dondelelcaro@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This is why the incremental cost of a unit are often a better measure for longer term profitability and decision making than the unit average cost, especially when you aren't factoring in the market size and ability to repurpose sunk costs in that unit average cost.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

Exactly, which is where the term "economies of scale" comes from.

More units = more economy

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ok i guess thats how it is, still weird because you rarely see a per product profit value in this sort of format. Seems like they enjoy crying over losses and staying silent over profits.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Seems like they enjoy crying over losses and staying silent over profits.

It's not in the actual report put out by Ford. It's a creation of the Journalist who wrote the article. So you are unhappy with Julian van der Merwe, the author of the article.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

Lol, the dude is literally a neck beard.

Cowboy Bebop rocks tho

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

That's how accounting works. You don't get to change the federally mandated accounting practices.

It's called GAAP

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gaap.asp