Fisker files Chapter 11 with about US$10m cash and unsold inventory
Fisker Inc. · Electric vehicles
The case in brief
Visible before detection
Checks that could have surfaced it, on hindsight
Unit economics & burn
Would have shown negative margin per vehicle and rising burn.
Can mislead when: Cost allocation is a judgement call. Kubr shows its assumptions and lets the user change them.
Operating-metric verification
Would have shown production running ahead of deliveries.
Can mislead when: Contract staff do not appear in EPFO. Vahan access needs licensed APIs. Some businesses have no physical trace.
Third-party confirmation
Would have confirmed partner and supplier positions directly.
Can mislead when: Counterparties can collude or ignore requests. A non-response is logged as a gap, never as a pass.
Governance signals
Would have flagged going-concern warnings.
Can mislead when: Private companies file late, so these signals are lagging. Kubr uses them to support other flags, not to prove anything alone.
Where Kubr services would have helped
Valuation context
Offered in India- C9 Would have shown negative margin per vehicle and rising burn.
- C11 Would have flagged going-concern warnings.
Financial diligence
Offered in India- C9 Would have shown negative margin per vehicle and rising burn.
- C10 Would have shown production running ahead of deliveries.
Model check
Offered in India- C9 Would have shown negative margin per vehicle and rising burn.
- C10 Would have shown production running ahead of deliveries.
Portfolio monitor
Offered in India- C10 Would have shown production running ahead of deliveries.
- C11 Would have flagged going-concern warnings.
Mapped from the checks each service runs. A hindsight reading of public records, not a promise that the failure would have been found.
Same pattern
A summary of public documents. It reports what the sources say. It is not Kubr's finding and not a statement of guilt.