Mullen Technologies, Inc. responded to an article posted online Tuesday, August 25, 2015 on the bizjournals.com website by Sacramento Business Journal Staff Writer, Allen Young. The response by the Mullen representative is below, with the original posting, in its’ entirety, from the Sacramento Business Journal following at the end.
Mullen is a private company focused on bringing emerging technology to the zero emission automobile industry. Mullen currently is marketing an all electric, four door sedan with a range of at least 180 miles for under $40,000, fully DOT, NHTSA and CARB certified. Mullen plans on introducing the 2016 700e at the Los Angeles Auto Show in November 2015. Also in the Mullen lineup are several DOT and CARB approved low speed vehicles, including the 100e, 100e4 and the 200e. These street legal low speed vehicles come complete with air conditioning, all required safety features and a range of up to 90 miles.
Mullen is committed to not only low cost, high quality product, but to being a fiscally responsible organization that values good business sense and refuses to spend indiscriminately or irresponsibly.
“I read your article on Tesla and Faraday Future today and was a little surprised at the stretch you made in comparing Faraday to Tesla.
Faraday is a concept with money and secrets. Your article seems to provide some credibility due to some big names that have joined the team, but your analysis lacks any real business or economic sense relating to the auto industry, how much it really costs to produce and certify automobiles, not to mention the time it takes, as well as the financial resources that ultimately need to get involved.
Faraday is a dream at this point. Three hundred employees at a cost of millions per month to create what? Perhaps another vehicle for the 1%? FF is blowing through money, they certainly have that in common with Tesla. Tesla only lost $300 million last year, with larger losses looming for 2016, which may be why TSLA is down nearly 25% in only two months. Is that the similarity with FF you didn’t mention? I get that you and your business journal website love Tesla, there is a lot to love I agree. However, blind romance swiftly departs when your eyes are opened to the real truth.
There is plenty of talk to go around regarding electric cars and the future technology. Trying to be the company that spends the most money and goes furthest into debt isn’t the type of company to be celebrated. That isn’t the type of company that should be compared to responsible businesses that have existing, real value and products in lieu of a paycheck for 300 people, not to mention all the secrets. FF isn’t a competitor to anyone yet, nor will they be for several years to come.
Comparing them to Tesla because of their location or their name (from a previous scientist) is just silly and reiterates the fact that there is no real comparison at all…..except their promotions department. Those guys at Tesla and FF earn their money for sure.
Check out a real company, with a real electric car line, with revenue, with orders, operating now in California. You just might be surprised. www.MullenUSA.com.
Thanks for your time and good luck.
Tesla rival seeking billion-dollar California factory? Here’s what we know
Aug 25, 2015, 6:45am PDT Updated Aug 25, 2015, 7:08am PDT
Allen Young Staff Writer Sacramento Business Journal
Could California finally drive off with a new billion-dollar factory for electric cars?
A secretive electric car developer recently announced that it’s scouting several locations for a new factory, fueling speculation about a state tax-credit race similar to last year’s push for Tesla’s gigafactory.
The company, Faraday Future, is based in Gardena, Calif., and now has over 300 employees, including some former executives from Tesla Motors, said spokesman Marcus Nelson. The company hopes to announce a location for a manufacturing plant sometime in the third quarter of 2015, and would bring cars to market in late 2017, Nelson said.
“We’re still actively talking to four states. We have talked to California, Nevada, Georgia and Louisiana,” he said.
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval told the Associated Press last week he has personally met with Faraday representatives about a potential location in Southern Nevada, but no deal has been made. A city representative from North Las Vegas confirmed to Business Journal that the city was attempting to lure the factory; more information was not immediately available.
Sandoval said it was still premature to say whether he would call in Nevada lawmakers to consider a tax credit deal. Last year, the Nevada governor called a special session that ended with $1.3 billion in incentives given to Tesla in exchange for the company building a massive factory outside of Reno.
In California, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development — the lead state agency on last year’s unsuccessful Tesla bid — did not comment Monday on Faraday Future.
Faraday Future, or FF, as the company refers to itself, has not disclosed its investors or its CEO. According to an emailed statement, the company is “actively working on establishing a global network of manufacturing facilities, beginning with the United States.”
The U.S. investment “will be in the billions, and the projected headcount has thousands of employees. At the moment the project is well-funded and not subject to any capital raising campaign,” wrote company officials.
Nelson confirmed a July Forbes story that the company had recruited several former Tesla executives. He added that it expects to hire up to 1,000 employees by the end of next year.
The company is based in a former Nissan facility in Gardena, not far from the SpaceX headquarters, said Nelson. Another Tesla similarity: The company is also named after a scientist. Michael Faraday was an 1800s English scientist with renowned contributions to the fields of electromagnetism and electrochemistry.
The Company relies upon the Safe Harbor Laws of 1933, 1934 and 1995 for all public news releases. Statements, which are not historical facts, are forward-looking statements. The company, through its management, makes forward-looking public statements concerning its expected future operations, performance and other developments. Such forward-looking statements are necessarily estimates reflecting the company’s best judgment based upon current information and involve a number of risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that other factors will not affect the accuracy of such forward-looking statements. It is impossible to identify all such factors. Factors which could cause actual results to differ materially from those estimated by the company include, but are not limited to, government regulation; managing and maintaining growth; the effect of adverse publicity; litigation; competition; and other factors which may be identified from time to time in the company’s public announcements.