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

Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I appreciate a fresh view, but I still can't even buy into that. While I do acknowledge that it is cheaper to cut up the grid into smaller pieces in places like Australia where population density is extremely low, it will still be cheaper to install the solar modules on the ground, which won't be a problem in these far out places with lots of land. Even with 1000 houses, or 100 houses it is much cheaper to make 1 solar farm compared to running around installing solar on every house, you will have to connect all the houses into 1 grid anyway. Even with a single house, if you have the land for the panels it is probably cheaper to put them there compared to the roof and you will achieve better power output.
Well, for reference, residential ground-mounts are starting to pop up where I live (which isn't even *that* rural). Some people will pay a small premium for rooftop 'cause their roof was wasted space and (in the forest) is elevated above tree-shading level, but there's no reason to think that residential ground-mounts won't become common; I expect that they will.

People will also pay a premium for control (this is a documented thing) so people will pay for "their" solar and battery just because they distrust the utility company. This is an unstoppable market, and will continue even if the utility is somewhat cheaper. At current US residential-over-utility premiums for solar, which are obscene, this won't be a large market. If the residential-over-utility premium drops to Australian or German levels *as it really ought to*, this will be a significant market.

It's worth remembering that the residential-over-utility premium for solar in the US is stupid. It's made up of bullshit like installer profit, sales and marketing costs, profit for other elements of the supply chain, permitting and red tape costs, etc. The residential-over-utility premium is much, much lower in the Australia and Germany, and if you're doing any predictions about the future, you have to use the German or Australian numbers, not the US numbers.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: SW2Fiddler
You are correct. They've made it very confusing with the PPA, which effectively conceals the interest rate, but this is what's going on.


That *depends*. *Some* of them seem to have 20-year financing. Actually I really wish I had a breakdown of which funding for what panels will have to be refinanced when. This measures the extent of the risk exposure.



Yep. This is called "maturity mismatch risk". Every bank has it. If a bank issues a billion dollars in 30 year mortgages at 4% in the current environment where savings account deposit rates are 0%, and then 10 years later, savings account deposit rates rise to 5%, the bank is screwed. (The bank is also screwed if they are unable to get a billion dollars in deposits because depositors all go somewhere else.)

This is a risk factor for SolarCity because they do their own financing. I want them to get out of that business and have banks do the financing and take that risk.
Incorrect all around.

Solarcity finances installs from selling pieces of the reoocurring 20 year revenue streams from their assets under management. This is not a loan. Investors buy parts of the revenue streams. Investors also buy Investment tax credits and other solar related credits.

If you wanted to look at the complete value of a compete revenue stream sale, John Hancock just bought some at 3.25/watt. If Solarcity were to completely monetize all their revenue streams for 2016 installs, they could pull in $3.575bln in upfront cash. If they drop to projected $2.25/watt all-in-cost by 2017, while just maintaining flat no compounding growth of 1.1Gws of 2017 installs, they would clear $1.1bln *in profit* ... and... own *completely* year 20-30 residual value of the asset and customer relationship.

The wild assumptions on debt and just Solarcity's business in general are not helpful to anyone attempting to do dilligence on this deal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Dwdnjck and dakh
Close was literally the high of the day too.
Don't think anyone could have called that. Whoever said 'mild' green was wrong. I think we'll get another good day tomorrow. This was a good start to the week before Q2 numbers.

I did. I was directionally correct

Seems that we SHOULD see some continued relative strength this week leading up to Q2 delivery numbers. That announcement could be as soon as this Friday (July 1st). Even if the announcement comes as late as Tuesday July 5th, THIS Friday is basically the final day for the shorts to cover before the announcement.

My view is you'd have to be a complete idiot to hold a new short position in TSLA knowing that the Q2 delivery announcement is about to hit.

My view is Q2 will be a beat vs guidance of 17k deliveries

Disclosure: Long since 2012
 
Incorrect all around.
Actually, correct. You aren't even disagreeing with me, you're just showing ignorance about financing.

Solarcity finances installs from selling pieces of the reoocurring 20 year revenue streams from their assets under management.
Yes, that's what I said. The problem there is the word "pieces". Which parts have been sold? Which parts are retained? How much profit was made on each sale? Totally unclear.

This is not a loan.
Sometimes it literally is; depends on how the financing is structured. Even when it isn't legally a loan, the economic value of it is equivalent to that of receiving a loan and paying it off with the revenue stream, in any case -- with the possible exception of default risk, but apparently SolarCity and not the buyer often retains the default risk (I'd love to have more clarity on this).

nvestors buy parts of the revenue streams. Investors also buy Investment tax credits and other solar related credits.

If you wanted to look at the complete value of a compete revenue stream sale, John Hancock just bought some at 3.25/watt.
Per watt is garbage. It's not meaningful. It *obscures* analysis by mixing apples with oranges.

What matters is comparing three things: the value of the revenue stream (which depends on whether it's a lease or a PPA, and in the case of a PPA depends on where the panels are located and the exact contract details of the PPA... not just the raw DC wattage of the panels), the cost of installation (which depends on many other things other than the raw DC wattage of the panels), and the income received for selling off the future income stream.

Look, maybe these things are great. Maybe SolarCity is clearing a 10% profit on every resale of a PPA income stream, and maybe the ABS are selling like hotcakes. But I *cannot tell* from the sort of numbers they've been releasing, which obscure the matter a great deal. And that's not good.
 
Last edited:
Actually, correct. You aren't even disagreeing with me, you're just showing ignorance about financing.


Yes, that's what I said. The problem there is the word "pieces". Which parts have been sold? Which parts are retained? How much profit was made on each sale? Totally unclear.


Sometimes it literally is; depends on how the financing is structured. Even when it isn't legally a loan, the economic value of it is equivalent to that of receiving a loan and paying it off with the revenue stream, in any case -- with the possible exception of default risk, but apparently SolarCity and not the buyer often retains the default risk (I'd love to have more clarity on this).


Per watt is garbage. It's not meaningful. It *obscures* analysis by mixing apples with oranges.

What matters is comparing three things: the value of the revenue stream (which depends on whether it's a lease or a PPA, and in the case of a PPA depends on where the panels are located and the exact contract details of the PPA... not just the raw DC wattage of the panels), the cost of installation (which depends on many other things other than the raw DC wattage of the panels), and the income received for selling off the future income stream.

As per BBB+ rating agency rating, Solarcity receives over 99% of all payments due on time on its revenue generating assets, average FICO score is 746. incredible quality, can't find much if anything better on the market today.

We could keep going around in circles, I guess we'all have to see who's right... respected independent auditors, institutional tax equity investors, and rating agencies... or you.

Due dilligence is key everyone, make your own judgments and conduct your own analysis...
 
  • Like
Reactions: kelly
But they've hired experts to do the work. Some here may be able to judge the experts, I am not. Further, if a board member with less substantial commitment to the company than Elon, for example, and two of them with a designated chairman that should be enough advice to the board. Selection of the experts is their most important step. I would expect these board members have only an editing function from now on.
 
Last edited:
Despite the mess with SCTY, $TSLA (-11.06%) outperforms $GM (-12.05%) and $FCAU (-16.88%) over the last month and is doing marginally worse than $F (-$9.86).
Just some perspective.
$tsla.jpg
 
Last edited:
Just as a legislative body can break up to form deliberative committees, so can a corporate board of directors. In this case, the two members of the SolarCity board without conflicts of interest regarding a merger were assigned to a committee.
There is no one on Solarcity's without a conflict of interest. All have investments in Tesla motors as well as investments in Solarcity. Has to be special committee of non board shareholders to consider the deal or not. If a deal is considered, it should be the right of this committee to consider competing offers.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Robertj
Status
Not open for further replies.