Hacker News Reader

Comment by diggan | Hacker News Reader

> Under a deal reached in November 2020, Canoo reimburses Aquila Family Ventures, an entity owned by the CEO (Tony Aquila), for use of an aircraft. In 2023, Canoo spent $1.7 million on this reimbursement — that’s double the amount of revenue it generated. Canoo paid Aquila Family Ventures $1.3 million in 2022 and $1.8 million in 2021 for use of the aircraft.

I'm surprised there are any employees left at the company. If I saw that the CEO is actively funneling funds out of the company where we work, to their family's company, I'll be long gone.

View on HN

A former president only stayed at properties owned by his company, billing the government millions in extra overhead.

His voters love him.

And they say “if you don’t like it, leave!”. And so now we live in New Zealand.

How is it there ? Are earthquake and food (and mosquitoes in the bushes) as bad as the rumours say ? (serious question about the first 2)

Earthquake risk is similar to California, with very low (but not zero) risk in many places, e.g. Auckland.

The food is generally excellent in urban areas - cafe culture rules for those who can afford it.

Main issue is cost of living - housing and food costs are kind of silly relative to average income.

Mosquitos are really not an issue - people up north might have a different experience, but from Auckland on down, no one needs screens.

Thank you for sharing your experience! Big fan of Kiwis and so curious about the country. I really loved to hear first-hand experience.

Earthquakes - so far so good, but I grew up in LA and lived through multiple large-ish quakes (Northridge). One big difference is that many small rural towns only have one road in or out, so a quake could block the road, leaving you stranded, possibly without power. This is the case along the west coast of the South Island.

Food - groceries are pricey! It was surprisingly expensive given the lower wages here. CA seems to be catching up though!

Mosquitoes - comparable to LA, less than Sonoma County. Smaller too. But here on the South Island we also have sandflies. They vary by region. West Coast has them bad in some remote spots.

Thank you!

Must be nice to not be over 40 when the world implodes

Well I’m 40 and my partner is 45, but who knows how old we’ll be when/if the shit hits the fan.

I was just joking, because when I looked into immigrating to New Zealand, they had a point system penalized people for being over 40.

That’s totally true, but the point system is cool in that they give a massive boost to special skills like software development.

New Zealand is the most amazing country I've ever visited. Scenery wise, but also super nice people and politically sane (Andern in particular was great, too bad she left)

I'd live there too if it wasn't literally on the other side of the planet for me and I don't want to cause hundreds of tons of CO2 every time I want to see my family :'(

I'm not fan of the guy by any measure, but how is this any different than the government paying to make any president's existing properties places where a president and his massive entourage can stay? It's been done by every president I can remember aside from maybe Clinton because I don't remember him having any significant places.

Because of this part:

> billing the government

It's different because other presidents didn't then bill the government for the entourage to stay on a per-night basis for each stay.

An added bonus for Trump was that his properties were also accessible to the public, so he got to make extra $$$ from people who wanted to stay close to where the President was. No previous president had that kind of an arrangement.

What other President profited from government employees being forced to rent rooms at his hotels? You really have to be deep in the cult to not see a problem with this.

I'm not following. Do you think Obama and Bush were charging rent to the government for their personal residences or something? What other Presidents owned business entities that billed the government for services? It is mind boggling that the ethics of this need to be explained.

Regular reminder his voters are the minority and he’s never won a popular vote.

I have no interest in defending the man, but this argument triggers me. Do you also make sure to regularly remind people that those football players with Superbowl rings never won the world series?

Edit: the point is that the win condition is electoral votes. A rational actor will optimize for that, potentially at the expense of the popular vote even, and they will be more likely to win for it. In other words, don't have your quarterback spend his practice time in the batting cages if you want to win the super bowl.

A better analogy would be the ProBowl, not a different sport, in my opinion.

That doesn't matter because presidential campaigns aren't designed to get them the popular vote.

But more voters didn’t.

If he actually uses the jet for Canoo-related business, this is not unreasonable.

Assuming those trips may eventually lead to business deals, and that the amounts reimbursed are in line with free market prices, it is advantageous to Canoo.

Their CEO could be x% "more effective" (I know how abstract that sounds), ultimately benefiting the company, and maybe they even got a good deal ("hey, I own a jet, and it has to fly at least 200 times per year to cover its maintenance costs. If you allow me to use it for Canoo-related trips, which are anyway needed, and reimburse me, I'll charge you less than what netjets wold cost us. Deal? Y/N")

The real world tends to be more nuanced, but in principle it stands, at least until proven guilty/shady.

Ethics in the 21st century I guess. No, conflicts work the opposite way - assumed shady until cleared. Virtually every business works this way, especially ones with investors. Conflicts can of course be legitimately cleared, but not with just some hand-waving. It is no different than my company not allowing me to direct business to entities owned by myself or my family.

This is no unheard of. I worked at a company where the CEO got an interest-free loan from the company to buy his own jet, then charged the company to use it.

Of course that individual later pled guilty to a variety of federal crimes, so :shrug:

Adam Neumann comes to mind. Zero interest loan from WeWork to buy commercial properties, then lease them to WeWork.

Wework vibes

It may also be part and parcel of the market they're trying to play in.

If every other "car company" has a private jet ready to whisk the CEO anywhere in the world, you might look really silly to other companies who expect you to be able to make a near last minute meeting.

And if you're an employee, as long as you get paid you're likely not to care much about it.

>If I saw that the CEO is actively funneling funds out of the company...

He's not. He's funneling funds into the company. He's basically a billionaire investor who owned the jet before bailing out Canoo.

In what way is he funneling money into the company?

> The company generated $886,000 in revenue in 2023 compared to zero dollars in 2022 [...] In 2023, Canoo spent $1.7 million on this reimbursement — that’s double the amount of revenue it generated. Canoo paid Aquila Family Ventures $1.3 million in 2022 and $1.8 million in 2021 for use of the aircraft.

>Tony Aquila purchased 9 million shares of Canoo (GOEV) as part of a common stock subscription agreement.

https://finviz.com/insidertrading.ashx?oc=1399053&tc=7 shows him putting in $236m or so

> I'll be long gone.

Or maybe it's a case of "time to renegotiate my salary with that in mind". ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com