CarCharging Group Reports Money-Losing First Half 2015 Financial Results

APR 23 2016 BY MARK KANE 27

CarCharging - Blink

CarCharging – Blink

CarCharging - Blink

CarCharging – Blink

CarCharging recently released its long-awaited financial results for the first and second quarter of 2015, after the year 2014 was closed with huge delay.

One of the largest charging infrastructure providers was again struggling with the difficulties of commercialization of its electric vehicle charging network – an amalgamation of several smaller (most unsuccessful netorks).

Again the loses were very high, and the company still isn’t profitable.  According to quarterly reports, the company lost $6.7 million in the first half compared to $12 million year the year prior.

That’s improvement, especially combined with increase of revenues from $1.28 million to $2.23 million.

“Highlights for the six months ended June 30, 2015* compared to the six months ended June 30, 2014 include:

  • Gross profits turned positive to $513,307 from a loss of ($1.56m)
  • EV Charging hardware sales grew over 4x to $405,979 from $98,721
  • EV Charging service fees grew 72% to $905,770 from $527,514
  • Net Operating Expenses were reduced by $3.33m to $7.20m from $10.54m
  • Total Loss from Operations was nearly reduced in half to $6.69m from $12.01m
  • Net Loss per Share was significantly reduced to (0.08) from (0.14)”

All in all, CarCharging remiains in the red and recently lost or gave away Nissan’s No-Charge-To-Charge program (depending on your prospective take on the situation). One thing is for sure, a lot of kWhs need to be dispenced at decent price to balance the over $70 million of accumulated deficit.

The stock (CCGI – real time quote here) was mostly unchanged when the report was released early this week, trading around the 40 cent mark on extremely low volumes, but curiously trended higher thereafter, ending the week at 70 cents, good for a market cap of almost $56 million.

Behold the dark cloud of disclosures!


As of June 30, 2015, the Company had a cash balance, a working capital deficiency and an accumulated deficit of $279,581, $15,302,565 and $70,825,957, respectively. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, the Company incurred a net loss of $2,338,799 and $6,020,832, respectively. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

Since inception, the Company’s operations have primarily been funded through proceeds received in equity and debt financings. Although management believes that the Company has access to capital resources, there are currently no commitments in place for new financing at this time, and there is no assurance that the Company will be able to obtain funds on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. There is also no assurance that the amount of funds the Company might raise will enable the Company to complete its development initiatives or attain profitable operations. If the Company is unable to obtain additional financing on a timely basis, it may have to curtail its development, marketing and promotional activities, which would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations, and ultimately the Company could be forced to discontinue its operations and liquidate.

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with U.S. GAAP, which contemplate continuation of the Company as a going concern and the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. The condensed consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustment that might become necessary should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern.

Subsequent to June 30, 2015, the Company received an aggregate of $2,580,040 through new sales of Series C Convertible Preferred Stock. In addition, pursuant to the Series C Convertible Preferred Stock securities purchase agreement entered into on March 11, 2016, an additional $2,250,000 is payable to the Company upon the completion of certain milestones, as specified in the agreement. There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in completing the milestones. The Company is currently funding its operations on a month-to-month basis. While there can be no assurance that it will be successful, the Company is in active negotiations to raise additional capital. See Note 12 – Subsequent Events for additional details.”

CarCharging Financial Results – For H1 2015

CarCharging Financial Results – For H1 2015

Categories: Charging

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

27 Comments on "CarCharging Group Reports Money-Losing First Half 2015 Financial Results"

newest oldest most voted

I wonder if there is a poll as to how many use blink and why. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one being used. I stop by to see if the broken ones are fixed, but they are reliably broken.

Tesla should buy them out & change the charger to Tesla superchargers instead of putting superchargers from scratch ..0nly.If Tesla likes where they are located …..

I use them when there isn’t an AeroVironment charger available. I travel enough to make the $20/month AV fee for unlimited use worth while so the $0.49/kWh cost for a Blink CHAdeMO charge is quite high so I avoid them if I can. I usually am in the Portland, OR to Seattle, WA I-5 corridor.

I avoid Blink’s network because Blink does not have a clue as to how to run a business and has crappy tech support, and crappy after-hours customer service. I love getting my zero balance email on the 30/31st of each month.

I don’t understand how oil producing companies want to sell gas to the consumer, but electricity producing companies do not want to sell electricity to EV’s at public charge points.

It seems to me the lack of profit to be made at these charge points is a real detriment to the expansion of EV’s, as millions of people do not have the option to charge at home.

It is simple, people charge at home as is cheaper. Equipment and maintenance are expensive and few clients at random times don’t create profit. I don’t see how you can use battery car if you can’t charge at home or your parking place. Charging at these “fast” stations all the time would be slow, cost more than gas and may be not good for your battery.

geeze …I don’t know ??/ elon..??what now??? A road tax?

Go on Plugshare and look at Eastern Tennessee. In a lot of areas Blink is the only option you have. I have ridden my Zero SR out there and a few are in great spots like restaurants. Smoky Mountain Brewery for example. But in other places like Duck, TN there is nothing to do and of course they don’t charge very fast either. In northern GA the Fromage restaurant had someone vandalize their Blink charger and it has since been replaced by a Clipper Creek. A good charger and good food to enjoy while you charge. Hope to get there this summer.

Can’t help but notice that “compensation” is ~2/3 of “operating expenses” and larger than “total revenue” alone.

Clearly the business model to date has some challenges with addressing compensation, not including other operating expenses.

I would imagine it is hard to make money when your chargers are always broken.

I got a blink card only to find out that DC fast charging only supported chademo and so was useless for my VW e-Golf relying on CCS instead. Support didn’t care and said there was no roadmap for anything except chademo. Their level 2 charger was more expensive than chargepoint which VW had provided cards for with the EGolf, so I never used Blink.

I got an NRG EVGo card and used them about 10 times a year to fill up my 24kWh battery on longer trips.

Should ask for the deposit back before they go bankrupt.

Throughout my region, the Pacific Northwest, the Blink network is a mess. Chargers are usually vandalized or don’t work correctly. The large fast chargers are always dripping something black from the upper part where the pointless video display is on the lower half. You can only charge one car at a time, even though there are two plugs. If they get fixed, they usually are broken again within a week.

On the other hand, AeroVironment is excellent throughout the area. Even though they only have one fast charge plug, they are reliable.

Blink, or whatever they are called now is doing a great job at discouraging electric car adoption through a poorly engineered, poorly designed, poorly maintained network of badly needed charging stations.

We don’t need a lot of underutilized L2 chargers, we need a dense network of CCS and Chademo.

Oh, and by the way, unlimited charging at AeroVironment L3 chargers for only $20 a month is a bargain. I love it.

My thoughts exactly.

In my 2 years of Leaf ownership (er. . I mean “leasership”) I have found Aerovironment to be “always” functional.
Any problems have only needed a phone call to AV and a remote reboot.

One exception to the Blink rule: Wilsonville, OR. Always seems to work and has new Chademo plugs which don’t have the pesky push-button-release.

I never venture into territory where Blink would be the only option for getting back home.

$0.49 per klw in florida lol not stupid enough to use that

Goes to show it’s really up to the carmakers to roll out the infrastructure as there is no money in it for third parties. People buying a GM Bolt will find out what that means as GM has no interest in getting involved with quick charge support itself.

Tesla managed to turn the infrastructure lemon into lemonade by using the “free for life” slogan as a marketing tool and of course the widely and systematically rolled out Supercharger network is what helps it sell cars in large numbers.

Hang on, the biggest revenue is charging services – but they lost 57K on that alone.
Then to make it worse their compensation is 2.5 times total revenue.
Difficult to see how they can exist for another whole year.

The good news is that when Blink / Car Charging finally fails for the second time, I think it will be for keeps.

Well is that good? What if no one picks them up when they go down? That’s a lot of chargers that will go off line. :-/

My experiences with the Blink chargers have been pretty ordinary. I do prefer chargepoint though.

In my opinion it’s good because Blink chargers are the epitome of poor performance, giving EVs a bad name.

I think Blink service is ok with their texting when done charging and clear billing. Compared to eVgo billing and features, Blink is far better. If their fee is $0.20/kWh and stations are more reliable (actually working), I might use them from time to time. But at $0.50/kWh, I’d have to be stranded without hope for AAA to use them.

As for takeover, maybe the utilities could buy them out and price them more competitively.

Well of course they won’t make profit. There are basically no evs on the road yet. Pretty much every car is a freaking fossil. Did they expect to make profit?

$.49/kWh hour for Level 2 is simply too much money(that’s what they had been charging out here in Philly for a long time). There is no other way to put it; many people are not looking to FREE as the answer but neither do they wish to be so blatantly ripped off. Maybe you just cannot open up a network and expect to make a profit. It might very well be that the only viable network is Tesla’s for the simple fact that they are not trying to make money off of customers every time they plug in. Tesla already has the customers’ money. Each and every story dealing with charging infrastructure only further emphasizes the point that Tesla does it right and GM’s position on not investing in one for the Bolt EV could be a death blow to the Bolt EV. I hope not, I think the car can be a winner, but drivers will need charging support.

Maybe it’s too much, but if the seller goes bust at those prices, perhaps it’s telling you something about how much convenience charging really costs.

And now you see why the non-luxury automakers are not entering the charging network business.

When you can’t charge $2000/head at the outset, charging networks are not a particularly good business model. Furthermore, whether Tesla’s network scales up to mass-market availability has yet to be seen.

Tesla is correct to try to correct revenue for the charging network at some point in the transaction cycle. But right now the $2k fee charged to lux car buyers is not enough. If you dig into Tesla’s filings it’s clear the SC network is a net money loser. And it is far less likely that a buyer of a putative $30-40k car will happily expend $2k of Net Present Value for the SC privilege. Tesla will have to alter the economics of the charging model both to make it palatable to buyers and to avoid growing costs (yes, by all means credit them for taking the first serious shot at this challenge: I’m not picking on the SC concept). As for “fair” pricing per charge energy used, the numbers speak for themselves. There is a non-trivial CapEx that must be depreciated as well as an associated cost of money. Real estate is not free, nor are all the administrative costs of running the business. And it is not likely that charging times align with the cheapest power available in EV-rich markets: in other words, wholesale power for these EVSEs is going to cost a lot more than the national… Read more »

I meant for the first sentence to read “collect revenue”