two_bit_score
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Messages
- 10,983
- Tractor
- John Deere 110 TLB, Diamond C 19LPX GN trailer
I'm not so sure.But I'm sure that's not the case.
I'm not so sure.But I'm sure that's not the case.
That’s kind my point though. I don’t think prepayment was a ‘policy’ as much as the means to keep the business running that perpetuated for far too long.
There was nothing ‘custom’ about EA products and they had been doing it as far as I can remember which is going in more than a decade. Sure, running into production delays and having some back orders from tome to time is part of running a successful business but to have your business model perpetually utilizing funds for your new order to fulfill half year old orders 100s ahead in the queue , and then hoping to have still have your funds at a later date to produce the product you paid for is nothing more than a quasi pyramid scheme whether intentional or not.For small purchases, payments are usually in advance. Especially if it is a rather custom build.
Larger purchases may have an up front deposit. But as the EV manufacturers are learning, they got many more deposits than actual purchases. At the same time, buyers are finding the price for the reserved vehicle was just a fantasy.
I have no problem with the concept of an up front price for an item entering the stream of custom builds.
What I'm reading is the problem that buyers paid for the attachments, and never received the product. A quite a different issue.
A minor correction may be in order here.My recollection of the story was the county/city building dept. failed their inspection and would not issue a CO due to building code violations. Then the finger pointing started between the company and contractor eventually ending up where it still is today. I may have some of those detail wrong and if I do I'm sure someone will correct me. There is no doubt both EA and the contractor have huge amounts of money tied up in all this.
There is no doubt both the lenders and the contractor have huge amounts of money tied up in all this.
Maybe Ted’s estimate of value of his business and real estate fraudulently induced lenders to grant loans that might have otherwise gone to competitors?A minor correction may be in order here.
Like, if you were holding $300k in payments, but had not paid (anccounted for) the expense of buying the materials or paying for labor to build the product in 5 months?They could probably show the income easily enough. The question is, did they properly book and disclose the future liabilities?