Nikola went from $30bn EV hope to bankrupt penny stock in just five years – what went wrong?
'I don't care that they stole my idea... I care that they don't have any of their own'. So said Nikola Tesla, the famous engineer and inventor of the 18- and 1900s so associated with progress in the world of energy.
Of course, his name is also notable for it being used as the brand of a particular electric vehicle production company in America...no, not that one, the other one.
Nikola perhaps didn't steal any ideas, but they were certainly one of the businesses to ride the coattails of the originals, and now become one of several which have disappeared from the EV sphere, the stock market, indeed the entire world soon enough. And, while stealing ideas wasn't an issue, embellishing the ones they had was.
A US-listed organisation which was valued at over $30bn (£23.8bn) under five years ago, Nikola yesterday filed for bankruptcy protection after having all-but run out of cash, accruing huge debts and producing far too few actual vehicles.
Like others EV manufacturers, 'market and macroeconomic factors' impacted Nikola, said CEO Steve Girsky. With the company having promised thousands of vehicles when it floated, both battery-powered and hydrogen fuel cell powered, Nikola ultimately delivered fewer than 400 trucks last year. From being valued in the same range as Ford, shares sunk on Wednesday to below 50 cents.
As far as stock market hype stories go, it's certainly a cautionary tale as well as a disappointing one.
Internal and external problems alike
Nikola now has a cash balance of just $47m, but debts of over $350m. The company has tried 'to raise capital, reduce our liabilities, clean up our balance sheet and preserve cash to sustain our operations,' but has been unable to do so, added Mr Girsky. A sell-down of assets and intellectual property remains its only course of action to preserve some value for creditors, then the company will effectively cease to be, beyond some support for trucks on the road.
There are so many factors at play here it's impossible to pick out the one most to blame, but along with the EV market not growing as strongly as hoped, Nikola had its own internal issues.
A report from short selling hedge fund Hindenburg Research accused Nikola of faking progress regarding their trucks and, ultimately, Nikola's founder Trevor Milton was arrested and has been sentenced to four years in prison, a decision that the FT notes remains under appeal. The company also paid out $125m (£99m) in 2021 to settle a case against it by the SEC, with the Guardian reporting Nikola did not admit any wrongdoing.
In June 2020 the company floated on the Nasdaq exchange and on the third day of trading the share price surged over 100 per cent.
Talk of billions of dollars worth of orders and expectation fuelled mega hype that this EV maker could challenge Tesla and others; instead it has lost 99.7 per cent of share price value over the past year.
Wednesday's 39 per cent drop from what was already then a 99 per cent 12-month loss merely serves as a reminder that no matter how low shares go, there's always the possibility for another drop - or total wipeout.
Future legacy
Danni Hewson, head of financial analysis at AJ Bell, reasoned that in another political landscape there may have been a turnaround story, but instead they go the way of Fisker, Arrival and Lordstown Motors.
'For a time, Nikola was the poster child of EV usurpers. An investor favourite, it looked like the real deal and even vied with Ford for market cap. Buoyed by interest from General Motors, it was lapping other pandemic start-ups. But then came allegations of fraud which sowed more than a few seeds of doubt and most certainly played a part in GMs sudden lack of interest,' said Ms. Hewson.
'Whether the tarnished company could have turned things around if interest rates hadn't shot up and if EV take-up in the US had been as fulsome as had been predicted is for business students to weigh up in time, but with many of its pandemic cohort such as Lordstown Motors also hitting the skids it's clear it would have been a difficult job to do.
'What's also clear is that sentiment about EVs in the US was already shifting even before the return of Donald Trump to the White House, with many legacy automakers rolling back their electric dreams. The sheer scale of those long, winding highways means building the infrastructure needed to facilitate a large-scale EV revolution will be a hugely expensive task, and one that will require businesses and politicians to share in the determination to get the job done.'
As for the long game in the EV battle, Ms Hewson notes that Nikola's IP 'could present an opportunity' in the future, for the work done so far particularly in the hydrogen trucks sphere.
But a lack of commercial success there and the practical problems with putting infrastructure in place for widespread success means that remains very much a long-term dream, for now. It certainly didn't come soon enough for Nikola, or for those who invested in it.
Another Nikola Tesla-attributed quote is: 'You may live to see man-made horrors beyond your comprehension.'
While the fall of any particular business (probably) isn't quite what he had in mind, it might be the way the remaining Nikola shareholders are feeling these days.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal
Australia 's defense minister dismissed concerns Thursday that a deal between the U.S., Australia and Britain to provide his country with nuclear-powered submarines could be in jeopardy, following a report that the Pentagon had ordered a review. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles told Sky News Australia that he had known about the review of the deal 'for some time," saying that it was a 'very natural step for the incoming administration to take.' He noted that the UK's government also reviewed the deal, the centerpiece of a three-way alliance known as AUKUS after it was elected, and that his own government had looked at it as part of its own review of Australia's entire defense posture. "I think an incoming government having a look at this is something that they have a perfect right to do and we welcome it and we'll work with it,' he said. The deal, worth more than $200 billion, was signed between the three countries in 2021 under then President Joe Biden, designed to provide Australia, one of Washington's staunchest allies in the region, with greater maritime capabilities to counter China's increasingly strong navy. The deal also involves the U.S. selling several of its Virginia-class submarines to Australia to bridge the gap as the new submarines are being jointly built. In January, Australia made the first of six $500 million payments to the U.S. under the AUKUS deal, meant to bolster American submarine manufacturing. Marles met with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the sidelines of a defense conference in Singapore less than two weeks ago, and told reporters afterward that he had come away with 'a sense of confidence about the way in which AUKUS is proceeding.' 'AUKUS is on track and we are meeting all the timelines that are associated with it,' he said. 'We are very optimistic.' Hegseth's address to the defense forum made multiple mentions of cooperation with Australia but no reference to AUKUS, however, though he did later mention the deal when he was taking questions. Hegseth did urge allies in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defense spending, and underscored the need for a 'strong, resolute and capable network of allies and partners' as the U.S. seeks to counter China.
BBC News
4 hours ago
- BBC News
What is Aukus, the submarine deal between Australia, UK and US?
A multi-billion dollar submarine deal between long-standing allies - Australia, the UK and the US - has come under the spotlight after the Trump administration said it was reviewing how the deal fits in with its heavily-touted "America First" agenda. The Aukus security pact, Australia's biggest ever defence project, is set to play a key part in the country's ability to replace its ageing Collins-class submarine fleet - and, crucially, its military standing in the region. The 30-day review will be led by Elbridge Colby, who has previously been critical of Aukus. In a speech last year, he questioned why the US would give away "this crown jewel asset when we most need it". A US defence spokesperson said the review is about ensuring "this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda".Fears the review may torpedo the deal have been downplayed by the UK and Australia, with both saying the review is a normal process when a new government takes power. What is Aukus? Billed as a trilateral security partnership, the Aukus deal - worth £176bn ($239bn; A$368bn) over 30 years - involves two so-called pillars. Pillar 1 is about the supply and delivery of nuclear-powered attack submarines. Australia will buy three second-hand Virginia-class submarines from the US from 2032 with options to purchase two that, the plan is to design and build an entirely new nuclear-powered submarine model for the UK and Australian attack craft will be built in Britain and Australia to a British design, but use technology from all three 2 is about the allies collaborating on their "advanced capabilities". This involves sharing military expertise in areas such as long-range hypersonic missiles, undersea robotics and AI. What's the purpose of the deal? At its core, the deal is believed to be about countering China's growing presence in the Indo-Pacific region, and its role in rising tensions in disputed territories such as the South China none of the allies have directly pointed at China as a reason for the deal, the three countries have spoken about how regional security concerns have "grown significantly" in recent condemned the agreement as "extremely irresponsible" when it was first ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said it "seriously undermines regional peace and stability and intensifies the arms race". Who negotiated it? The deal was unveiled in September 2021 by three former leaders: Australia's Scott Morrison, the UK's Boris Johnson and the US's Joe Biden. The UK reviewed the security pact last year after Sir Keir Starmer's Labour government won the general election. What does Australia get out of it? For Australia, the deal represents a major upgrade to its military capabilities. The country is set to become just the second to receive Washington's elite nuclear propulsion technology, after the submarines will be able to operate further and faster than the country's existing diesel-engine fleet. They would also mean Australia would be able to carry out long-range strikes against enemies for the first the deal, sailors from the Royal Australian Navy are due to be sent to US and UK submarine bases to learn how to use the nuclear-powered submarines. What do the UK and US get out of it? From 2027, the pact will allow both the US and UK to base a small number of nuclear submarines in Perth, Western will also create about 7,000 jobs in Britain, with the design and construction of the new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines set to take place in the UK. The benefits for the US are less obvious - but sharing its defence technology could give the nation an opportunity to grow its presence in Asia-Pacific. Arming Australia has historically been viewed by Washington and Downing Street as essential to preserving peace in a region that is far from their own.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Trump ally to spearhead review that could torpedo Australia's defence plans
Long-time Donald Trump ally and China hawk Elbridge 'Bridge' Colby will spearhead a US government review of the AUKUS submarine deal, as speculation mounts that the arrangement will be scrapped. The appointment, confirmed by a US defence official on Thursday, heightened expectations that the Trump administration will end or at least alter the deal under which Australia was to acquire nuclear-powered submarines to replace its current ageing fleet. Defence Minister Richard Marles downplayed the significance of a review, describing it as 'natural' given the policy was introduced by the Biden administration. But Shadow Defence Minister Angus Taylor has expressed serious reservations in the face of threatened abandonment. 'If AUKUS falls over, it is Australia that pays the price,' he said. 'We would face a dangerous gap in capability at a time when we lack the capacity to go it alone.' Australia jettisoned a deal to acquire French-made submarines - despite having spent almost $2.5billion - to instead join the deal with the US and UK governments. A collapse of the AUKUS deal would leave Australia to start from scratch in finding its next generation of submarines, with such deals taking many years between commissioning and completion. US Under Secretary of Defence Policy, Mr Colby will be at the helm during the period of review, as first reported by British publication the Financial Times. He has publicly spoken of his doubts about the strategic and cost value of the AUJUS deal. 'AUKUS, in principle, it is a great idea, but I have been very skeptical in practice,' Mr Colby posted on X in August last year. 'I remain skeptical, agnostic, as I put it, but more inclined based on new information I have gleaned. 'It would be crazy to have fewer SSNs Virginia class in the right place and time.' Asked to address this during a Senate hearing in March this year, prior to being approved as under secretary, he doubled down. Mr Colby said repeated that it was a 'great idea' but that the hope for an 'Australian capacity' for US military could not be dragged out over a lengthy time period. However he also referred to Australia as 'perhaps our closest ally in the world', noting that the Australian government has supported the US 'even in our less advisable wars'. 'It is a great idea for (Australia) to have attack submarines,' he told the committee. 'I think it should be the policy of the United States Government to do everything we can to make (AUKUS) work. 'This is getting back to restoring our defense industrial capacity so that we don't have to face these awful choices but rather can be in a position where we can produce not only for ourselves, but for our allies.' As of Thursday, he has not commented on his role overseeing the review of AUKUS but took to X to back the messaging of US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. '(Mr Hegseth's) Shangri-La Dialogue speech highlighted the Department of Defense's commonsense approach in the Indo-Pacific to achieve President Trump's Peace Through Strength and America First agenda.' He also fulfilled the label of 'China hawk' which media companies have given him, highlighting his concerns for the country's expanding influence in the Indo-Pacific region - an issue AUKUS was set up to counter. 'China's actions undermine peace and stability in the region,' he said, referencing its military build up and operations in the South China Sea and near Taiwan. 'These are the reasons driving the United States assessment that China is the most serious and pressing military threat,' he said. But, as a caveat, Mr Colby then quoted Mr Hegseth's recent statement that the US does not seek war or to 'dominate or strangle China'. The messaging is similar to that of the American defence official who confirmed to Daily Mail Australia that there would be a review of the AUKUS pact - and why. 'This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria,' they said. 'This means ensuring the highest readiness of our service members, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs,' the official said. In the seven-part thread, Mr Colby identified the US as an Indo-Pacific nation, commenting that prosperity and security of Americans is 'vitally linked with those of our allies and partners in the region'. Whatever his view on AUKUS, Mr Colby is not enthusiastic about formalising defence ties with a 'NATO-like' alliance in the region. 'I am not theologically opposed to it, Senator, but I have been skeptical,' he told the March hearing. 'Something may be building up to have more multilateralization in the region, but not the huge ambition of an Asia NATO,' he added. 'Especially because you have got Japan over here, India over here, Australia down here. Their circumstances are quite distinct.' Mr Colby is a long-time loyalist to Donald Trump and the US President's view of the world which is strongly critical of American involvement in overseas conflicts that do not serve US interests. During Trump's first term, he served from 2017 to 2018 as a deputy assistant secretary of defense. The key aim of his role was the reorientation of the defence department to prioritise the threat posed by China towards the US. Between Trump's terms, Mr Colby co-founded think tank The Marathon Initiative in 2019, which focused on preparing the US for an 'era of sustained great power competition'. A statement from the organisation when he was appointed back into the defense department praised Mr Colby's work shifting foreign policy away from the Middle East and Europe, towards China. 'He has worked persistently, persuasively, and intelligently to keep China at the forefront of the U.S. national security debate,' it said in April. 'His consistent message has been that America must prioritize the top threat facing the country—and that doing so will require tradeoffs. 'Bridge has sought to equip the United States with a coherent framework for ensuring its safety and prosperity against the most formidable rival in our history.'
