SolarCity (SCTY)

[electracity]

From reddit:

Recently having gotten tons of lease/ppa quotes myself. SolarCity was FAR and away the most expensive.
NRG, SunRun, Vivint, Sungevity, Trinity all were able to provide me with a deal way better than SolarCity was able to provide. SolarCity offered me $0.131/kWh with the 2.9% escalator. The rest all offered me in the range of $0.13 - $0.14/kWh with no escalator.
So if they're not trying to sell to morons, people are GOING to shop around. And they'll rather quickly realize that SolarCity is a bunch of ******** with their pricing. The escalator model doesn't work, it takes 5 minutes of research on Google to figure out that the "utility rate increase" they compare themselves too is highly unlikely to come true. SolarCity was "conservatively" comparing themselves to a 5% utility increase year over year.
Which basic math tells you it's not worth the risk. If my utility right now is about $0.15/kWh and SolarCity is $0.131 sure year one you're saving $0.02/kWh which honestly isn't even that much. I used about 14000 kWh in the last year. It's a different of about $266 in the first year.
Now... SolarCity is 100% guaranteed to increase year over year by 2.9%. Your local utility isn't guaranteed at all. It's an incredibly reasonable assumption that in 5 years you'll be paying SolarCity more money than you pay your local utility.
In no way does their escalator model make sense.
Now, on the other hand, I also got a quote from SunPower which was for a $0.109/kWh rate locked in with 0% escalator for 20 years. Now that's a lease that actually mathematically makes sense to a degree. You're saving about $575 in year one and odds are it'll either remain the same savings or increase as your utility increases.
And within a weeks worth of research I quickly figured out that many local companies will offer you $0/down loans with pretty solid rates to buy your system outright. Giving you the 30% federal credit and all of the SRECs and NetMetering benefits that come with the system. The system I'm working on getting conservatively projects (my numbers, not a salesman) to have a 100% payoff within the first 6 years. After that, it's pretty much all gravy with the way New Jersey's credits work out.
SolarCity is doomed if it doesn't change it's business practices quickly. Solar no longer costs $50-60,000 to get on your roof. They either need to start offering drastically cheaper leases or start being more honest and offering better ownership options. They quoted me $55,000 for an install with a 6.99% loan for 20 years. The company I'm going with is $32,500 with a 2.99% loan. That's not even close, it's literally almost half price for the exact same system. I understand being a larger company you have more overhead then a local company. But that's a BIG ****ING difference. Especially considering that SolarCity manufacturers their own panels and mounting systems which should give them an even bigger difference in their overhead and allow for cheaper installations. But they don't, because they're greedy.
They're in the same place that CircuitCity and Best Buy were in 5 years ago. CircuitCity was forced out of business due to companies like Amazon and TigerDirect offering better pricing online with free shipping. Best Buy almost went out of business but they adapted, they started offering Amazon price matching, allowing you to just go to the store and get your item this minute for the same cheaper price of Amazon. And now their stock is better than it's been in a decade. SolarCity needs to make a similar shift in marketing or they'll slowly die and fade away just like CircuitCity did years ago.

Why are we on /r/solar not talking about the SolarCity stock plummeting? : solar

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Especially considering that SolarCity manufacturers their own panels and mounting systems which should give them an even bigger difference in their overhead and allow for cheaper installations. But they don't, because they're greedy.

This is a good example of how knowing a little bit about something can be worse than knowing nothing.

You've added nearly nothing to the conversation this week, clogging up the thread with little one liner posts that have no point or value. SBenson has spent time and effort posing questions to interested posters and they're now pages back. I've asked politely and will again, if you could collect your thoughts into succinct and less frequent posts it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

Currently trading well below present retained value. Also currently trading well below where Elon increased his stake. If SolarCity goes bankrupt, the entire Solar industry will go bankrupt. SolaeCity has allies that are unlikely to allow that to happen.

It's only a matter of time until investors realize that state utilities aren't going to be allowed to kill the solar industry.

1) In some states, the utilities are prohibited from owning more than a specific percent of solar and grid storage installations. They are required to contract it out.

2) This would be a no brainier anti-trust lawsuit.

3) My bet is the first residential Powerwall deliveries will go to solar customers in Nevada.

4) Nevada will not set a precident for other states.

 

[SBenson]

Thanks for your analysis. I want to make sure I understand you correctly. You are saying they have a serious cash flow problem even if they don't grow any more. This is due to the inability to borrow enough to cover the cost of new installations? Why don't you think they can use the "PowerCo portfolio Pre-Tax Unlevered NPV Less Debt" to finance more debt? In this case, what are the "natural limits to how much they can borrow and at what pace?" Why wouldn't the natural limits increase with the Unlevered NPV Less Debt? Why didn't they run into these limits before now? What has changed? I'm not denying anything you've said. I'm just trying to understand.

Thanks again.

Just to preface: I am an ex-bull, who lost big. I have no stake in this game anymore. I am only doing this for 'fun' (for lack of a better word). I don't have an accounting background, I am a software guy.

Looks like you put in a bunch of inter-related questions. Let me start with the central question:

Why don't you think they can use the "PowerCo portfolio Pre-Tax Unlevered NPV Less Debt" to finance more debt?

First, elephant in the room: that number has massive renewal 'assumed' cashflows. Those 'assumed' cashflows can neither be sold or financed. Man, if only I can sell/finance 'hope'. lol.

So we need to look at the contracted portion of the cashflows instead. As a crude first start, we can start with cutting the 'PowerCo Portfolio’s Pre-Tax Unlevered NPV remaining' by half and then subtract the non-recourse debt.

Here is the table to make it easier for you:

Period		2014 Q1	2014 Q2	2014 Q3	2014 Q4	2015 Q1	2015 Q2	2015 Q3	2015 Q4
PowerCo Portfolio’s Pre-Tax Unlevered NPV remaining	$M	$1,030	$1,212	$1,445	$1,735	$2,032	$2,391	$2,790	$3,235
Estimated actual contracted NPV with proper discounting	$515	$606	$723	$868	$1,016	$1,196	$1,395	$1,618
Debt – Non-Recourse	$M	($206)	($324)	($448)	($485)	($617)	($731)	($1,013)	($1,242)
Net left NPV that can be potentially financed		$309	$282	$275	$383	$399	$465	$382	$376

.
The last line represents what is still left that possibly could still be financed (borrowed against). If you want, you can change the assumption on how much is contracted vs how much is not. But this is the general idea.

Now the next step, why do I not think they can use the last line to raise more cash ?

The answer is simple: If they could, they would have.

The latest ABS offer for $57.45mln is a dead give away that they run out of the financeable portions on the cashflows.

In Q3 CC and multiple calls before that management kept saying that we will see bigger and more frequent ABS. This ABS thing is very attractive for SolarCity because it's non-recourse and the cost of capital is quite cheap. They will try to exploit it as much as they can without doubt. So why only a measly $57.45mln? It's smaller than any deal they have ever done before, by far!

The simple logical answer is the rest of the portfolio/cashflows are not financeable this way for whatever reason. There could be many reasons for it, maybe the deals are over-capitalized by design. Maybe market doesn't take outer year cash flows. Maybe market doesn't like contracts from certain states, or certain fico scores, or certain demographics. We simply don't know. But really, if they could raise more cash this way they would have.

The latest $57.45mln deal makes it disappointingly obvious that they hit the limits.

Next question: "Why wouldn't the natural limits increase with the Unlevered NPV Less Debt?"

Yes, as they install more, the portfolio increases and they can finance more (hopefully). But the overall debt (both recourse and non-recourse) has been increasing at such a staggering pace that it is very unlikely that the non-recourse debt will be able to support the kind of cashflow needs. See my other tables in previous posts for deeper insights.

In my view, it's a dead surety that they won't be able to do 1.25GW. That kind of volume not only needs greater capital for the installs itself, but the so called DevCo needs to be scaledup to be able to do it with additional capital. Here is another illustrative slicing of data:

Period		2014 Q4	2015 Q4	Change
Debt and Cash:
Debt – Recourse	$M	($143.70)	($602.50)	$458.80
Debt – Convertible	$M	($796.00)	($909.00)	$113.00
Cash & Short-Term Investments	$M	$642.70	$393.90	$248.80
Current Portfolio Value
Cumulative MW Deployed under Energy Contracts – EoP	GW	1	1.7
PowerCo Portfolio’s Pre-Tax Unlevered NPV remaining	$M	$1,735	$3,235
Debt – Non-Recourse	$M	($485)	($1,242)	$757.00
PowerCo portfolio Pre-Tax Unlevered NPV Less Debt	$M	$1,250	$1,993
Total				$1,577.60

They had to spend $1.5 BILLION dollars in 2015, above and beyond any incoming cash (customer payments, itc, srecs), to do 870MWs of installs. This year they are talking 1.25GW of installs. How much cash would they need to spend? $2Bil? 2.5Bil? It's anybody's guess. Try to model it out as a fun exercise. But they can't raise capital anywhere close to that. Guaranteed.


Next question: "Why didn't they run into these limits before now? What has changed?"

My simple explanation is numbers became bigger to a point it is unsustainable. You can always grow your debts up to a point. But then you can't.

The ability to borrow non-recourse debt I believe will be somewhat linear to the portfolio size. But the recourse debt is where the problem is. The ability to borrow there depends on the vagaries of the market. If they were to come to the bond market today, they will be charged north of 20% interest! given how their debt is trading in the market. I also think that the rest of the assets, like warehouses and inventories, don't scale the same way for borrowing as non-recourse debt does. But they need both kinds of debt to be able to accomplish that 1.25GWs.

Here too we have a dead give away from the management itself. They want to sell a portion of the assets (contracts). Why would they want to fundamentally change the business model, if they can happily borrow money instead?

Somebody ought to model out how the dynamic changes when they slow the growth rate. The debt binge we are seeing is partly due to rocket-ship growth in 2015. So how less of a capital strain would it be if they were to grow slower (or not at all). Nevertheless all indications we see don't point to anything rosy.

PS: Take a look at the first post in this series. The last row in the table represents the 'debt burden'. It is an approximation of contracted-debt vs contracted-revenue. Does the trend look sustainable?

 

[electracity]

Currently trading well below present retained value. Also currently trading well below where Elon increased his stake. If SolarCity goes bankrupt, the entire Solar industry will go bankrupt. SolaeCity has allies that are unlikely to allow that to happen.

I thought solarcity stopped using retained value.
There are many solar companies. The weak will fail. If solarcity fails, or has 50% market share, it won't make a difference in how much solar is installed in the U.S. over the next five years.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

If SolarCity fails, the entire solar industry fails. This won't happen.

If SolarCity needs cash, Bank of America, Google, Apple, or Morgan Stanley will grant them access to as much as they need. So many entities are setting aside tens/hundreds of billions to invest in Solar Projects.

- - - Updated - - -


Kyndell Nunley– ‏@KyndellNews3LV

Hundreds bussed in by SolarCity for rally.Will PUC grandfather in existing customers under old solar rules? @News3LV












10:29 AM - 12 Feb 2016 from Nevada, USA
5 RETWEETS5 LIKES

 

[electracity]

You understand these people had their net metering removed, right?

Nevada solar customers sue SolarCity over marketing - VEGAS INC

 

[TheTalkingMule]

The latest ABS offer for $57.45mln is a dead give away that they run out of the financeable portions on the cashflows.

In Q3 CC and multiple calls before that management kept saying that we will see bigger and more frequent ABS. This ABS thing is very attractive for SolarCity because it's non-recourse and the cost of capital is quite cheap. They will try to exploit it as much as they can without doubt. So why only a measly $57.45mln? It's smaller than any deal they have ever done before, by far!

Isn't this question relatively easily answered? These ABS offerings are tied to installations. Ideally they should be bundling and offering at a fairly regular pace, so far I believe we're on 5 or 6 if I'm not mistaken. Can we not guesstimate how many installs have not been monetized?

#4 was in mid-August for $128.5M, then there was the $185M one from a few weeks ago, not sure if that was #5 or #6. I still don't see where this smaller one fits in.

From what I understand these offerings have had far more demand than supply and they're basically financing at greater than 100% of the cost of install. Why should we be worried about that? Or even more....why would that be anything other than easy so long as the installations are all 740+ credit folks?

If anything, we need to start thinking about the subprime versions of this that are certainly in the mail and will lead to the next mortgage-backed bubble. Think SolerCitee.

- - - Updated - - -

If SolarCity fails, the entire solar industry fails. This won't happen.

If SolarCity needs cash, Bank of America, Google, Apple, or Morgan Stanley will grant them access to as much as they need. So many entities are setting aside tens/hundreds of billions to invest in Solar Projects.

Ah, no....they won't. Banks will lend as long as it makes sense and they make money. Fortunately, solar makes sense and makes money.

 

[Foghat]

I wish I logged in before I came to this thread because I accidentally read a poster's post that's on my ignore list... so, once again, I find myself suckered into responding to something wasting my time.

First, I understand some fellow investors concerns and/or fears since the stock has gone down pretty much since they did the restatement back in February 2014 and at that point it was in $80s. It has been a bumpy ride with these quarterly reports since then. Each quarterly report seems to evolve as we go along this ride and that creates a bit of confusion which again adds to concerns/fears. Add in the macro events as well as pressures from some net metering/utility pressures and you have a few people on edge about whats going to happen to our money in the future. I'm no different in that sentiment.

However, it has and always will be about the company as a long term investment. Not a fly by day trade. An investment. So, for those that are putting money in scty to play the market, I am sorry to say, but you are not an investor. Period. No matter what you say or do, you are not an investor. If you want to talk about trading, create a separate thread. If you want to actually talk about investing in solarcity(or even Tesla for that matter) this is the place. There is a massive, massive difference in trading and investing. Here, on this thread, it is about investing.

Solarcity is a company that is navigating extremely high growth in a transitioning regulatory environment. It is very scary at times, but in the end, it will be positioned for very high success in the distributed energy market as well as next generation utility infrastructure that is currently at the early stages of development.

Remember the last stage before victory is "they fight you." Nevada and the few others are fighting tooth and nail with all their influence and capital to keep the status quo of their business model. But as anyone that understands fundamentals and how they apply to success, if there is a better technology and business model that does things better, it will ultimately win out. What we find here with solarcity, is that they will ultimately win out.

Now, as I've stated time and time again... and it doesn't seem to get through because of the extensive bias of a small, small minority of posters here chose to willfully ignore it because it doesn't fit their narrative for being on this thread.... solarcity is already solidifying the next generation "net metering" regime, if you will, for the entire distributed energy resources industry. They are building the software platform, the grid services, the energy storage, and solar(+smart inverter, smart thermostat, etc..) system, that will be at the center of this new "net metering" regime. Please read the gridx plan for California's IDP and understand today's business model within that context.

Also, here's some interesting facts: 80% of all solar -- all solar -- in the United states is lease or ppa. Now I can easily imagine why the propaganda is strong in saying lease/ppa is bad and buying is good because if buying only was the norm, 80% of the current market would be eliminated and all solar growth would slow down dramatically in competing for electricity sales revenue with the utility. I mean we've heard that lease/ppa people are ignorant/stupid, rooftop solar is subsidy for rich people, lease/ppa companies are dirty hustlers, etc.. you name it its been said here and keeps being repeated over and over, like a programmed robot. But yet 80% of all solar is lease'/ppa. At some point we have to ask ourselves honestly, what's the actual reality here. No smoke, what's really happening out there in the real world of rooftop solar, because it aint what the robots are flooding the threads with.

I wish I could get more in-depth in all aspects of solarcity as an investment, but I would be just repeating the massive amount of actual information already on this thread by many, many other posters here. Please, read the thread if you actually want to understand solarcity from top to bottom. I see far too much just air blast comments that have already been discussed just a few pages back.

I may be alone here, but I have done the long term homework and find solarcity is skating to where the puck is going to be, not where the puck has been. As an investor in a few companies, that what I look for in a strong investment and will continue to do so.

 

[electracity]

One beauty of a years long thread is that the quality of posters opinions can be evaluated.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Didn't realize we had ignore here, apologies.

Looks like Elon bought $10M or so in shares today.

 

[jhm]

The cash-cow for electric utilities is "demand Charging".

I remain convinced it is SolarCity's greatest opportunity.

Do we have any business owners on this forum that might want to add some color to what their electric bills (demand charges) are?

I helped a local high rise HOA sort through EV charging options and found that demand charges were just a few cents below $20/kW/month and energy was 9c/kWh. A single Powerpack could defeat upto 50 kW in demand charges, but let's suppose on average we could have defeated 30 kW. That would be a monthly savings of $600, which would pay for the $25k battery in 3.5 years. If part of a solar system, a 30% ITC could further reduce the cost. Moreover, in connection with solar, even more demand charges can be defeated. If there is also TOU energy rates or less than NEM feed in tariffs, the battery can also arb these rates without sacrificing the defeat of demand charges. So I think SolarCity can real clean utility clocks with this.

Speaking of commercial, this article is interesting. SolarCity posted this on Twitter so we know that they are thinking about the opportunities this implies. I'm very bullish on commercial.
Prologis, which runs warehouses, is a huge leader is solar energy. Huh?

 

[Jack6591]

I helped a local high rise HOA sort through EV charging options and found that demand charges were just a few cents below $20/kW/month and energy was 9c/kWh. A single Powerpack could defeat upto 50 kW in demand charges, but let's suppose on average we could have defeated 30 kW. That would be a monthly savings of $600, which would pay for the $25k battery in 3.5 years. If part of a solar system, a 30% ITC could further reduce the cost. Moreover, in connection with solar, even more demand charges can be defeated. If there is also TOU energy rates or less than NEM feed in tariffs, the battery can also arb these rates without sacrificing the defeat of demand charges. So I think SolarCity can real clean utility clocks with this.

Speaking of commercial, this article is interesting. SolarCity posted this on Twitter so we know that they are thinking about the opportunities this implies. I'm very bullish on commercial.
Prologis, which runs warehouses, is a huge leader is solar energy. Huh?

Over the course of the next year we will see demonstrable progress at SolarCity/Silevo's panel Gigafactory and Tesla's battery Gigafactory. Solar+Storage+Demand Logic dovetail into a disruptive business model. SolarCity is based in California where the majority of their workforce and capablities reside.

California Passes Huge Grid Energy Storage Mandate | Greentech Media

US Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Demand Response | Greentech Media

While the market has focused on Nevada's PUC "net metering" decision, California is defining the future of renewable energy. This is the perfect storm for Elon's master plan.

 

[anon]

Another thing to consider: if SolarCity is having trouble meeting targets this year, perhaps the plan is for Tesla and/or SpaceX to place a substantial order to help? Tesla will need solar at the Gigafactory and could become more aggressive in rolling out solar at superchargers. Then the Fremont and Lathrop facilities could start to use solar too (I don't think the Fremont factory currently has it, but please correct me if I am wrong). After all, there has been discussion on the forums of more batteries appearing at superchargers and at Lathrop, so it would make sense to add solar.

 

[dakh]

They had to spend $1.5 BILLION dollars in 2015, above and beyond any incoming cash (customer payments, itc, srecs), to do 870MWs of installs. This year they are talking 1.25GW of installs. How much cash would they need to spend? $2Bil? 2.5Bil? It's anybody's guess. Try to model it out as a fun exercise. But they can't raise capital anywhere close to that. Guaranteed.

The run rate they exited the year might be a lot higher than median, so just like with Tesla guidance it's possible that 1.25GW is simply what they already have the muscle to build without any further capex. Their installation cost is what, $1.9/W and dropping so yeah they'll need somewhere south of $2.4B. Jhm's math says customer price is about $2.7/W plus ITC. I don't see a problem here. You keep saying they won't be able to finance this, but I haven't seen this being justified in any way. Care to elaborate? In simple terms, clearly they're creating economic value here and the only question is how exactly is it getting monetized. Edit: just to be clear, it's a bit under a buck of value/watt, 1.25GW and current market cap is 1.7B. It's surprising to me SCTY is still trading and not taken off the market.

I see some other possible problems in your logic but I think I'll make a fool of myself with my lack of understanding of basic corporate finances so I won't talk about those.

- - - Updated - - -

Over the course of the next year we will see demonstrable progress at SolarCity/Silevo's panel Gigafactory and Tesla's battery Gigafactory. Solar+Storage+Demand Logic dovetail into a disruptive business model. SolarCity is based in California where the majority of their workforce and capablities reside.
While the market has focused on Nevada's PUC "net metering" decision, California is defining the future of renewable energy. This is the perfect storm for Elon's master plan.

Yep. Now the big question is when will the market recognize this.

 

[jhm]

Hello James, The math is pretty straightforward but I probably didn't explain it well enough.

The last-but-one line is simply half of "PowerCo Portfolio’s Pre-Tax Unlevered NPV remaining" line item. Basically this is my estimate of what actual contracted $s NPV with proper discounting would be.

The last line takes the last-but-one line, adds cash and subtracts ALL debts.

This might be a bit rough but here the goal is not to build a precise valuation model. But simply to show 'debt burden'.

Yes, totally agreed that liquidity should be the concern (if at all) and not solvency. But there is a HUGE point that you and TheTalkingMule are missing.

Looking at purely changes in Cash as a liquidity gauge is meaningful for a 'normal' company like Tesla. But not at all for SolarCity. In case of SolarCity the debt and cash are intricately related. Let me illustrate the point with real numbers.

Period		2015 Q3	2015 Q4	Change
Debt and Cash:
Debt – Recourse	$M	($522.00)	($602.50)	$80.50
Debt – Convertible	$M	($796.00)	($909.00)	$113.00
Cash & Short-Term Investments	$M	$418.40	$393.90	$24.50
Current Portfolio Value
Cumulative MW Deployed under Energy Contracts – EoP	GW	1.5	1.7
PowerCo Portfolio’s Pre-Tax Unlevered NPV remaining	$M	$2,790	$3,235
Debt – Non-Recourse	$M	($1,013)	($1,242)	$229.00
PowerCo portfolio Pre-Tax Unlevered NPV Less Debt	$M	$1,777	$1,993
Net increase in debt (all forms)				$422.50
Net-Expenses for the quarter				$447.00

Again all numbers from slide-1 except the last two rows.

As you see in the bottom-right cell that the net-expenses in Q4, above and beyond the incoming cash flow from consumers, was $447 million. It so happens that out of $447mil, $422.5mil was financed through increased borrowing. While a small amount of $24.5mil was spent from cash.

Now in a hypotetical scenario, if they borrowed only $200mln instead, the cash flow would be -$247mln. If say, they were able to borrow only $100mln, the cashflow would be -$347mil. Lets say they weren't able to procure any debt at all, the cash-flow would be the full -$447 million... I hope you see the point now. The change in cash is very directly related to the amount of borrowing.

This is where my original table becomes applicable as that demonstrates how high the debt has reached and sort of gives the clue that the debt trajectory is un-sustainable. If debt is unsustainable, and they are unable to procure much debt, then the cashflow will be dramatically negative.

In fact if debt stops for a mere single quarter, SolarCity will go bankrupt immediately! Their cash hoard won't be enough to sustain even a single quarter.

I have more to write but I will pause now to let this sink in.

Thanks, Benson. What you have illustrated here is the problem of negative free cash flow, which is never sustainable. Without a doubt SolarCity will have to begin generating positive FCF at some point in the future. It is not so much a problem of business model as it is a problem of maturity. Virtually all enterprises begin with negative cash flow before they reach the more sustainable state of free cash flow.

Becoming cash flow positive is a process, and it will take some time to achieve. I'd like to propose three markers along this path:

Net Cash Flow Positive: net cash flow is the change in cash and CE balances. This was just $24.5M outflow. So reversing this means that the cash position does not continue to deteriate each period. So liquidity risk becomes less severe.

DevCo Cash Flow Positive: ok I'm making this up, but there is an important distinction to make between the non-recourse debt that the PowerCo covers from customer contracts and the recourse debt and solar loans in the top section. DevCo debt is much riskier to shareholder and could be harder to obtain in times of distress. So the change in cash and DevCo debt I'd like to call DevCo Cash Flow. This was an outflow of $218M. Once this flow is reversed, SolarCity makes progress paying down debt that must be paid from earnings. The PowerCo debt still remains but it is paid by customers and is directly linked to asset creation. So I think DevCo CF positive may well be sustainable so long as the assets that SolarCity creates are truly more valuable than the non-recourse debt issued against them.

Free Cash Flow Positive. So FCF positive means that cash flow fully funds all growth and asset creation. At this point, SolarCity is in a position to start paying shareholders. Most depreciation is already bound out with the asset financing, so SolarCity is likely to be profitable as generates free cash flow. So paying dividend or stock repurchase become open options to reward shareholders. So we definitely want SolarCity to reach this milestone.

So this is the framework I have in mind. I think it can help us think more clearly about risks and track progress. If SolarCity were to achieve positive DevCo CF by Q4 this year, I would be delighted. At a minimum, management has promised positive net cash flow.

This framework can also help investors know when to invest in SolarCity. So may want to wait for different markers to be passed before investing or increasing their investments.

 

[Krugerrand]

Didn't realize we had ignore here, apologies.

Looks like Elon bought $10M or so in shares today.

For real? He just purchased a whack not long ago.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

For real? He just purchased a whack not long ago.

Not sure the total, just saw an SEC filing come across.

 

[electracity]

Good News! Musk bought $10 Million SCTY

Updated Numbers!

SCTY insiders sold $490,000,000 net in the last 12 months

 

[Jack6591]

Good News! Musk bought $10 Million SCTY

Updated Numbers!

SCTY insiders sold $490,000,000 net in the last 12 months

I have never regretted my silences.