Bankrupt 2013 · over $850m raised
Better Place
An electric vehicle battery-swapping network that raised more than $850m and filed for bankruptcy in Israel in 2013, having built infrastructure ahead of the demand it required.
What happened
Better Place proposed to solve electric vehicle range anxiety with a network of stations where a depleted battery could be swapped for a charged one in minutes. Drivers would buy the car and subscribe to the battery service.
Founded in 2007, it raised more than $850m and built swap stations in Israel and Denmark. The model required three things to arrive together: the infrastructure, a car manufacturer willing to build vehicles with swappable batteries, and enough drivers to use them.
They did not arrive together. The company filed for bankruptcy in Israel in May 2013. Reporting at the time indicated it would have needed several more years and several hundred million dollars more to reach breakeven, and its assets were subsequently sold for a very small fraction of what had been invested.
The idea was not obviously wrong — battery swapping has since been deployed successfully in other markets. The company was wrong about sequencing, which is a different and more common failure.
Visible at the time
What an investor could have seen
These are things that were observable before the collapse, not hindsight dressed as foresight. Some failures genuinely could not be seen coming; where that is the case, this section says so rather than inventing a warning.
- A model requiring three separate parties to adopt simultaneously, none of which the company controlled.
- Heavy capital deployed into physical infrastructure before demand had been demonstrated at small scale.
- Dependence on a single vehicle manufacturer for the supply side of the network.
- A market — private car buying — where switching costs and habit are unusually strong.
For your own diligence
What to do differently
- Count the number of parties who must change behaviour for the model to work. Each additional one multiplies the risk, and a business that needs manufacturers, drivers and infrastructure to arrive together is three bets rather than one.
- Ask what happens if the infrastructure is built and demand is late. Physical capital cannot wait: it depreciates, it costs money to maintain, and it consumes the runway that would have funded patience.
- Distinguish a wrong idea from wrong sequencing. Battery swapping was viable; doing it before there were cars to swap was not. The diligence question is what has to be true first, not whether the end state is plausible.
- For an angel, capital-intensive infrastructure is usually the wrong shape entirely — the dilution across the funding rounds required makes an early position small long before the model is proven.
Checked, not remembered
Sources
Legal outcomes on these pages move — convictions are appealed, sentences reduced, pardons and commutations granted. Every status here is stated with the date it was accurate to, and every figure is traceable to the reporting linked below.
The mechanics
Terms this turns on
Better Place: common questions
Was battery swapping simply a bad idea?
How should an angel assess a business like this?
Keep reading