Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe they're moving all solar city liabilities into a new financing vessel to simplify their dept structures.
Although even if the new financing has significantly lower interest rates it doesn't make much sense if they still paid the full interest over the whole intended period.
I just can't see the logic behind what they're doing here.

A month ago, we raised over 1B in capital to reduce risk of a cash pinch jeopardizing the 3 launch.

Now, we're paying back a whole bunch of 2018 SCTY bonds early? Why?

Anybody know off hand how much money we're paying back to bondholders with full interest right now?

Unless it's a very small amount, the only thing I can figure is that the 1Q17 numbers are way rosier than expected, and we're no longer concerned about the 3 ramp.
 
I just can't see the logic behind what they're doing here.

A month ago, we raised over 1B in capital to reduce risk of a cash pinch jeopardizing the 3 launch.

Now, we're paying back a whole bunch of 2018 SCTY bonds early? Why?

Anybody know off hand how much money we're paying back to bondholders with full interest right now?

Unless it's a very small amount, the only thing I can figure is that the 1Q17 numbers are way rosier than expected, and we're no longer concerned about the 3 ramp.
I think that's the reason, yes.
 
I just can't see the logic behind what they're doing here.

A month ago, we raised over 1B in capital to reduce risk of a cash pinch jeopardizing the 3 launch.

Now, we're paying back a whole bunch of 2018 SCTY bonds early? Why?

Anybody know off hand how much money we're paying back to bondholders with full interest right now?

Unless it's a very small amount, the only thing I can figure is that the 1Q17 numbers are way rosier than expected, and we're no longer concerned about the 3 ramp.

Looking at the 10-K I'm seeing $205M of one kind of bonds due in 2018 and $230M of a different kind.
This filing showed up yesterday. These appear to be the closed out bond series. Can anyone find how many of these were issued?
SolarCity - Certification of Termination of Registration

3.00% Solar Bonds, Series 2014/3-3 - $10M

3.00% Solar Bonds, Series 2015/3-3 - $10M

4.40% Solar Bonds, Series 2016/9-1 - $100M, $90M of which was bought by SpaceX

6.50% Solar Bonds, Series 2016/13-18M - $124M, $100M of which was bought by Elon and friends.

So $244M it looks like to me. A bit more than $250M after interest payments. Oddly close in value to the equity portion of the cap raise from a couple weeks ago.

Anybody have any other plausible explanation for what is going on here?

Right now I'm thinking this should be hugely good news come Monday once the analysts have had all weekend to digest what's happened.
 
Last edited:
Update on the neural link article on waitbutwhy:
"New post coming the next next week, not the first next week, meaning the week of 4/10 – 4/17. The week that starts Monday 4/10 and ends Monday 4/17. The post will be up Monday 4/17. It’s long. I’m me it’s shitty."
 
I am a novice investor, so humor me. Can such a high level of short selling push the stock price down or does it not have an actual impact on the price of the stock because its a contract to buy/sell the stock at a certain price before a set date so the impact is baked in before the price actually changes?
 
I am a novice investor, so humor me. Can such a high level of short selling push the stock price down or does it not have an actual impact on the price of the stock because its a contract to buy/sell the stock at a certain price before a set date so the impact is baked in before the price actually changes?

Shorting isn't the type of contract you are referring to. That is an option contract. Shorting is borrowing shares of stock from someone (and paying them interest for what you borrowed), and selling them to another buyer on the market for cash with the intent of buying those shares back at a cheaper price once the share price has declined. Once the price declines, you use less cash to buy the shares back on the market, then return them to the lender and pocket the difference in what you sold the shares to the market at, and what you bought the shares back from the market at.

Shorting depresses the stock price because it essentially creates additional shares for the market to buy. For example, imagine a company has 10 shares and one guy has 5 of those shares and the rest of the market has 5 shares. If a short seller borrows 5 shares from the guy and sells them into the market, there are 5 more shares for the market to buy. Supply and demand obviously tells us that will depress the share price. Once those shares are bought, the market really holds 15 shares instead of the 10 shares that exist because the one guy still has the rights to 5 shares that he has lent, and the market has their original 5 shares, plus the 5 new shares that the short seller borrowed and sold into the market. If the short seller buys those shares back, the opposite supply and demand principle causes the price to rise.
 
Shorting depresses the stock price because it essentially creates additional shares for the market to buy. For example, imagine a company has 10 shares and one guy has 5 of those shares and the rest of the market has 5 shares. If a short seller borrows 5 shares from the guy and sells them into the market, there are 5 more shares for the market to buy.

Thanks, that makes sense. The huge short interested actually holds down price by increasing the number of shares available to resale that would normally not be available because they are owned by someone else. If the price keeps going up, it would make sense that even more shorts would pour in because there is a much fall that they could bet on.

Since I own shares at Fidelity, are they lending out my shares? Can I stop them if they are? I am assuming there is a time limit as to when they have to buy/sell so the price keeps going up and they keep losing money, the lender forces them to close out the position at some point and this is where you start to see a short squeeze when this happens to lots of shorts?
 
Thanks, that makes sense. The huge short interested actually holds down price by increasing the number of shares available to resale that would normally not be available because they are owned by someone else. If the price keeps going up, it would make sense that even more shorts would pour in because there is a much fall that they could bet on.

Since I own shares at Fidelity, are they lending out my shares? Can I stop them if they are? I am assuming there is a time limit as to when they have to buy/sell so the price keeps going up and they keep losing money, the lender forces them to close out the position at some point and this is where you start to see a short squeeze when this happens to lots of shorts?

They can not lend your shares without your permission. If you have a margin account, that generally grants them permission to loan your shares. Personally I am unclear on if they can lend your shares in a margin account if you aren't currently using any margin. If you have a margin acct, just call your broker and ask them not to lend your shares.
 
Not sure if someone has mentioned this, but I can't imagine Tesla doing Semi (or Tesla Logistics) without putting solar panels on trailers.

A very and possibly wrong calculation is this:
2,45large * 13,60long = 33,32 m^2 of trailer roof
0,75(kwh produced in a day on average per m^2)*33, 32= 24,99Kwh.

So we'd have 25Kwh produced per day by Semi that drives during the day.
Not exceptional, but not insignificant either.

Of course, I put the first numbers I found on Wikipedia, feel free to correct me, I'm bad at calculationg stuff.

I had the very same thought... large flat trailer roofs...
 
  • Like
Reactions: aubreymcfato
Thanks, that makes sense. The huge short interested actually holds down price by increasing the number of shares available to resale that would normally not be available because they are owned by someone else. If the price keeps going up, it would make sense that even more shorts would pour in because there is a much fall that they could bet on.

Since I own shares at Fidelity, are they lending out my shares? Can I stop them if they are? I am assuming there is a time limit as to when they have to buy/sell so the price keeps going up and they keep losing money, the lender forces them to close out the position at some point and this is where you start to see a short squeeze when this happens to lots of shorts?

As already indicated, Fidelity can only lend your shares if you are holding them on margin. Part of your margin agreement is that the brokerage can lend out your shares (in some reasonable sense, they are both your shares and the brokerages).

If you're not on margin, then no - Fidelity can't lend them out.

You DO have the option of contact Fidelity Capital Management (took me awhile to find out the name) and ask them to invite you into their Fully Paid Lending Program. This is the program that many of us have taken advantage of to make our shares available to Fidelity to borrow, so that Fidelity can lend them out. When Fidelity borrows my shares to lend them to short sellers, they pay me 60% of the interest that they get paid. So if the short seller is paying 2% to Fidelity to borrow shares,then Fidelity will be paying me 1.2% to borrow my shares. Of course, Fidelity prefers to lend out all of the margin account shares first, so they can keep the whole 2% for themselves :)

As of today (and for about a month now), none of my shares have been lent out by Fidelity. They were pretty consistently lent out every day for roughly 3 months before that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
Looking at the 10-K I'm seeing $205M of one kind of bonds due in 2018 and $230M of a different kind.
This filing showed up yesterday. These appear to be the closed out bond series. Can anyone find how many of these were issued?
SolarCity - Certification of Termination of Registration

3.00% Solar Bonds, Series 2014/3-3 - $10M

3.00% Solar Bonds, Series 2015/3-3 - $10M

4.40% Solar Bonds, Series 2016/9-1 - $100M, $90M of which was bought by SpaceX

6.50% Solar Bonds, Series 2016/13-18M - $124M, $100M of which was bought by Elon and friends.

So $244M it looks like to me. A bit more than $250M after interest payments. Oddly close in value to the equity portion of the cap raise from a couple weeks ago.

Anybody have any other plausible explanation for what is going on here?

Right now I'm thinking this should be hugely good news come Monday once the analysts have had all weekend to digest what's happened.

Do you think it may have anything to do with this from p 35 of SCTY's 10k ?:

"As of December 31, 2016, we were in compliance with all financial covenants contained in our debt agreements, and we expect to remain in compliance with these financial covenants. However, if our assumptions prove inaccurate and we are unable to adjust our operating plan to comply with these financial covenants, then we could be in default under our debt agreements. In that circumstance, the amounts outstanding under our debt agreements could be accelerated, which would negatively impact our liquidity and capital resources. In particular, under the terms of our secured revolving credit facility, the occurrence of an event of default with respect to a credit facility (including both recourse and non-recourse indebtedness) having an aggregate principal amount of more than $10.0 million could trigger a cross-default that could result in the acceleration of or the taking of other remedies under our secured revolving credit facility. In addition, the occurrence of an event of default that results in the acceleration of more than $50.0 million of recourse indebtedness could trigger a cross-default that could result in the acceleration of or the taking of other remedies under our convertible senior notes.

Under the terms of our secured revolving credit facility, we are subject to the following financial covenants:

Interest Coverage Ratio: We are obligated to maintain an interest coverage ratio of at least 1.5-to-1 as of the end of each fiscal quarter. The interest coverage ratio is measured by dividing (a) an amount equal to the excess of (i) our trailing 12-month consolidated gross profit over (ii) 20% of our trailing 12-month consolidated general and administrative expenses by (b) our unconsolidated trailing 12-month cash interest charges excluding interest charges on non-recourse debt.

Unencumbered Liquidity: We are obligated to maintain unencumbered liquidity at an amount equal to at least 20% of the sum of (a) the amount committed under our secured revolving credit facility plus (b) the aggregate outstanding principal amount of Solar Bonds that mature prior to our secured revolving credit facility’s maturity date, as of the end of each month. However, unencumbered liquidity must always be greater than $50.0 million, as of the end of each month. Unencumbered liquidity is defined as our average daily balance of cash and cash equivalents, in deposit accounts controlled by the borrower or the guarantors of our secured revolving credit facility.

Under the terms of a borrowing by one of our subsidiaries, the subsidiary is obligated to maintain a debt service coverage ratio of at least 1.05-to-1 as of certain specified dates and periods. The debt service coverage ratio is measured by dividing (a) the specified cash receipts of the subsidiary less the specified cash payments made by the subsidiary in the period by (b) the scheduled principal payments due and payable by the subsidiary plus the interest payments due and payable by the subsidiary, at the end of the period."
 
Looking at the 10-K I'm seeing $205M of one kind of bonds due in 2018 and $230M of a different kind.
This filing showed up yesterday. These appear to be the closed out bond series. Can anyone find how many of these were issued?
SolarCity - Certification of Termination of Registration

3.00% Solar Bonds, Series 2014/3-3 - $10M

3.00% Solar Bonds, Series 2015/3-3 - $10M

4.40% Solar Bonds, Series 2016/9-1 - $100M, $90M of which was bought by SpaceX

6.50% Solar Bonds, Series 2016/13-18M - $124M, $100M of which was bought by Elon and friends.

So $244M it looks like to me. A bit more than $250M after interest payments. Oddly close in value to the equity portion of the cap raise from a couple weeks ago.

Anybody have any other plausible explanation for what is going on here?

Right now I'm thinking this should be hugely good news come Monday once the analysts have had all weekend to digest what's happened.

The optics are not that great on this deal, as SpaceX and Elon are the primary beneficiaries.

Of course when Elon was the one buying these deals, he was criticized then too.
 
Does anyone know or understand the purchase contracts between Panasonic and Tesla for the cell purchase at Giga factory, and solar panel purchase from Buffalo factory?
1. How many/amount to be purchased a month/quarter?
2. Price (if in contract), or pricing structure?

I'd think, Panasonic would like to make money on their investments in those two factories. This will set a floor to the prices of the solar panels and cells for Tesla.

I feel like something's cooking with Tesla lately regarding Elon Musk's tweets. Like, he seems like he wants to protect the SP.

I'm saying that because usually I was wondering why Elon doesn't tweet something when the SP was falling. Now it seems like his tweets are protecting the SP.
Without the tweets, SP would be ~$296, below the $300 psychological threshold, leaving a sour mood for the Tesla longs during the long Easter weekend. So Elon came to the rescue with many promises of the future. But he doesn't really care for the SP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.