SFInvestor21
Member
Solarcity
First we have to talk about Solarcity since that is where Chanos and some of these same bad actors started here. I know Einhorn is at least another hedge fund mogul who is also short Tesla.
Solarcity was in essence a financial company. They were an arbitrage firm that profited from the difference between their borrow rate and their leasing rate to their customers. Now there was a bunch of noise and opaque accounting about how shareholder value should be calculated, net present value, renewal rates etc. So you can argue that it was worth $30 a share, or $20, or $10. But as far as keeping its doors open, as long as it could continue to borrow, and at a lower rate than it leased(and all the costs associated), their business can be profitable and continue to run. And in theory, their borrow rate should be determined by their ability to service this debt. In reality, it was determined by the market's confidence in their ability to service this debt, which is exactly where Chanos, wisely, began his attack.
When Chanos announced his short in August 2015, his thesis was that Solarcity was a subprime lender. That at any moment, Solarcity's customers could stop paying their bills. This was ignoring the fact that Solarcity customers had an average FICO score 750, compared to below 620 to be considered subprime. Not to mention unlike defaulting on a home mortgage, where when you are underwater enough it can make financial sense(not to mention you still get to live there for months), defaulting on payments to Solarcity would make no financial sense, because reverting back to your utility would cost more. That was the whole value proposition from Solarcity.
But that was not what this was about. Because Solarcity and the entire solar industry had real issues at that time, with huge uncertainty whether the Investment Tax Credit would get renewed, not to mention Sunedison collapse. Demand was uncertain, and Solarcity had to significantly cut back their growth, by half. The stock would have gone down with or without short sellers. But what Chanos was doing was exactly what he described in his own words about Fairfax, he was taking advantage of a bad situation, and using fear to create a "crisis of confidence". Solarcity, after all, was a financial company. And as Chanos knows too well, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy once investor confidence is broken.
View attachment 310733
The first highlighted area was when Chanos announced his short. Elon responded the next day and bought stock, as well as going on CNBC, iirc. The second highlighted area is an incredible similarity to the Fairfax story. Gordon Johnson, a solar analyst of Axiom Capital initiated coverage of Solarcity that day with a scathing Sell rating. This seem to set off the "waterfall" of Solarcity's decline. Over the next year, Johnson would publish report after report reiterating his bearish stance. This in itself is nothing of note, if anything, perhaps he was even right. Since Tesla acquired Solarcity, as we well know, Chanos has moved his short onto TSLA. Incredibly, Johnson is now no longer with Axiom and has moved to Vertical group. He is also now no longer a solar analyst and instead "specializes in Basic materials sector", which apparently also includes Tesla. He initiated coverage on April 9, 2018 with a Sell rating and currently is the owner of the lowest price target on the street at $99. He is constantly seen on CNBC, every time emphasizing the brilliant Bob Lutz-esque thesis of how much Tesla loses for every car sold.
So how would Solarcity have looked today without these short sellers? Well we know that the two other installers, Vivint and Sunrun are alive and well. In fact, Sunrun, who has the exact same business model as Solarcity did, same opaque accounting regarding NPV and renewal rates, who did not even pivot to loans from leases like the others did to conserve cash, is trading at an all time high.
Solarcity did have one major issue that was company specific. During this already difficult time for the entire industry, they were tied to the Buffalo Silevo plant, and all the cap ex costs associated. Would these costs have overwhelmed them? Could they have found financing to get them through? Especially now that we see the business model has proven viable after the fact? I don't know the answers to those questions. Perhaps they would have gone under either way. What I do know, or highly suspect, is that the negativity created by short sellers like Chanos and analysts like Johnson made certain that the capital markets were closed shut, to ensure that those questions never needed to be asked.
Solarcity is water under the bridge, and its fate debatable. But the same bad actors who attempted to take down Fairfax, the same bad actors who attempted and nearly(or perhaps they did) succeed in taking down Solarcity, have now moved on to Tesla.
*Not done yet*
Out of curiosity did you read the judgement issued that allowed the lawsuit to go forward related to Tesla’s acquisition of Solarcity??
It might change your mind about the company’s destiny. It had insufficient cash flow to service its debt and was a poorly run company. Musk controlled the entire acquisition process even though the board deferred the proposed acquisition several times. Musk bailed out SpaceX (who owned Solarcity bonds), himself and his relatives who all owned equity/bonds. Not ethical and shows poor governance.
