-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
There is growing pessimism about the ITC renewal, which is probably part of the selloff. Consider SC with 13,000 employees and no ITC. Yikes. The PPA companies without installer employers are better positioned for the ITC ending. They will have a large pool of skilled installers bidding on their sales.
As always distorting the facts. In-house installers are the cheapest way to get panels installed. You do not cut costs by adding a middleman
It doesn't matter if you buy before or after: it's 30 days on either side (assuming that you are talking about paying taxes in the US and not somewhere else).
Hypothetical Example) I own 500 shares with an average cost of $40. I bought 10 January 2016 call options, with a strike price of $50, and sell all my shares. If I sell the 500 shares after I have purchased the 10 calls, I will have a loss of around $5000 as of today.
Using this hypothetical example, what specific part of the "wash sale rule" says I can't write off the loss if the calls were purchased before the sale of the stock?
I thought the wash sale rule only means you can't realize a loss if you buy back shares sold at a loss, or something substantially identical, within 30 days. Am I missing something?
Tax Loss Harvesting - Fidelity
Last edited:
jhm
Well-Known Member
Is this their contract manufacturer? They are actually building out their own fab in Mexico. They have also fully automated their power optimizer line. They will be looking to replicate that in other settings.
For example, I could see the Riverbend plant including an optimizer line. This component would then be directly installed on their panels. Additionally, their may be some opportunity to include an inverter line in the Gigafactory. That is, certain Powerwalls could be built with integrated inverters. For SolarCity it would be very cool to source their own panels with optimizers and pair them with Powerwalls with integrated inverters. This would minimize installation time in the field and overall logistics.
They definitely have bigger plans than just using a contract manufacturer. However, optimizers and inverters do not make a very broad range of products. So it is hard to see longevity.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
That's precisely why it's more like an 80-90% chance of straight renewal. There's legitimate regional political pressure to extend this and keep those people employed. The German economy stalled out the minute Merkel slammed the brakes on their feed in tariff.
Something will be done. Best case scenario is an extension with a longterm locked in step down. That's what really ratchets up the installs as people hustle to get project in each year before the subsidy steps down again.
I would like to see a 5 point step down per year (25-20-15 etc). That would provide an incentive each year to buy, but not so much to ruin the next year. There's no reason to maintain 30% in my opinion. It was dumb to set up a cliff.
jhm
Well-Known Member
Do you think that solar developers can keep driving down the fully installed cost about 5% per year so that there is about 0 inflation? Fasted decline, slower? I'm just curious about your outlook.
My impression is that 5 point steps down would leave just a little bit of inflation so that consumer prices go up about a point each year. This would allow utilities to keep escalating their rates, and it would knock out any advantage in waiting a year to get solar.
Personally I think I would prefer a 2 point step down over 15 years. I think this is a little more in line with the time it will take to get deep penetration of renewables in the grid. But certainly in the long run I want ITC to go away. I think most of us agree on that.
In any case I'd be content with a 5 point step down over 6 years.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
100% agreed, but since when do we do anything logically in Congress? I'll take 5 points every 2 years with DoE install targets to pause the step-down as needed.
The German feed in tariff model was so elegantly simple. Give solar and wind grid priority 24/7, start at paying consumers $.68/Watt for feed in juice and drop it down as rapidly as possible. Now they're at $.12 and people are moving on to batteries, they'll be off coal before you know it. It looks like Hawaii is doing something relatively similar.
Just took a peek to see where wholesale year-ahead electricity prices are at for Germany and they're under EUR30 per mWh. 5 years in a row of plummeting wholesale prices while retail prices remain high(though down 1% this year). The two largest legacy utility power providers are down 33% and 48% this year after an even worse 2014, they're essentially never going to make money again.
Anyone who says grid power costs to consumers in the US is going to go down due to cheap solar has their head in the sand.
Yeah, Flextronics does their manufacturing, but if they are getting away from that, awesome. Where is this info?
Didn't see it in their earnings: http://investors.solaredge.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=253935&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2106761
Thats not true and the real long term winners will be holding scty in the future imho
Last edited:
Mild-mannered Moderator here -
Keep to the investment angle. Keep personal digs and personal boastings out; they've got absolutely no belonging here. In fact, come the end of the weekend, a fair number of the prior posts might be found only in snippiness.
Keep to the investment angle. Keep personal digs and personal boastings out; they've got absolutely no belonging here. In fact, come the end of the weekend, a fair number of the prior posts might be found only in snippiness.
jhm
Well-Known Member
It came out three months ago FQ4 2015 shareholder presentation.
- - - Updated - - -
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NTkyNjM5fENoaWxkSUQ9MzAwNzY5fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1
Actually, there is very little discussion in this. I believe the discussion was in the conference call.
jhm
Well-Known Member
Let me see if I understand this. Wholesale prices are so low that power producers cannot cover their fixed cost. Meanwhile retail power is still quite high as grid operators seek to cover their fixed costs. The retail price is still high enough that consumers are induced to defect load. The spread between feed in tariffs and retail tariffs is so high that those with solar are flocking to buy batteries so that the can virtually grid defect.
That is quite a mess. Because utilities are not making retail rates competitive with distributed power this is isolating power generators from the retail market. The high cost of T&D is killing the producers. Meanwhile, grid defection is shrinking the base over which T&D costs are spread. So residents pretty much have little choice but to defect from the grid.
This is a really horrible situation. The value that the gird creates is to facilitate the trading of power which can improve the economics for all participants. But when the grid is priced too high, that is it is priced above the exchange value it can create, then it destroys all possibility for trade. That is the transaction costs for trading are too high and this kills trading volume. Imagine trading stocks on an exchange that imposed a 100% transaction cost on every stock traded. The trading costs would overwhelm the value of the trade and no one would continue to trade in that exchange. That seems to be the problem when network costs are too high.
So how can Germany get out of this mess. One approach is a free market approach. Allow other entities to set up or buy their own transmission lines. This would introduce competion in the T&D space. First competitors would enter and start transmitting power at prices the market is willing to bear. Next, the incumbent network operators would have to take a loss on certain assets and begin to offer competitive rates. This would open up makes for presently stranded power produces so the wholesale market become viable again. Retail consumers would then benefit from affordable power and not be pressed to get solar. And finally those with solar would find buyers of their surplus power at prices potentially above the feed in tariff. Thus, they would not need so much storage while their neighbors would get cheaper power. Microgrids could be connected and trade with each other.
Another sort of solution would be to nationalize the grid and have the government subsidize a sufficiently low cost of transmission, like 1 c/kWh and allow virtual net metering for all parties. This approach would essentially tax the public and give greater benefit to the large power producers. So it would effectively be a subsidy to coal producers and the like.
So I tend to prefer the free market approach. Yes, it would impose losses on the incumbent network operators, but they have an untenable business model anyway. The soon they move to facilitate trade the sooner they can get to a sustainable business model. The price of transmission simply cannot be set above the cost of local generation, otherwise transmission fails to be an economic option. Power producers need to be particularly wary of this trap because it will leave them stranded from demand.
Perfectlogic
Member
EIA - Electricity Data
Looks like the utility rates actually have gone down y/y. Don't tell potential SCTY customers.
Looks like the utility rates actually have gone down y/y. Don't tell potential SCTY customers.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Were they already moved? Because I don't' see a single post worthy of being moved to snippiness. Other than this one of course....(not really, but I'm expecting it).
- Status
Similar threads
