-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
I wonder if there is any double counting between
John H. N. Fisher (7) --> 14,367,790
Draper Fisher Jurvetson (14) --> 14,967,241
Especially given this:
(7) Includes 7,440,718 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund IX, L.P., 70 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund IX Partners, L.P., 201,637 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Partners IX, LLC, 1,173,770 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund X, L.P., 50 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund X Partners, L.P., 35,864 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Partners X, LLC, 5,051,859 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Growth Fund 2006, L.P., 408,429 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Partners Growth Fund 2006, LLC, 53,247 shares held of record by the John H. N. Fisher and Jennifer Caldwell Living Trust dated 1/7/00, as amended and restated on 3/27/08, and 2,146 shares held of record by JHNF Investment LLC. John H. N. Fisher is one of several managing directors of the general partner entities of these funds that directly hold shares and as such Mr. Fisher may be deemed to have voting and investment power with respect to such shares. Mr. Fisher disclaims beneficial ownership with respect to such shares except to the extent of his pecuniary interest therein. The address for all entities above is 2882 Sand Hill Road, Suite 150, Menlo Park, California 94025.
(14) As of November 14, 2013, the reporting date of the most recent Schedule 13D/A filed with the SEC pursuant to the Exchange Act on November 16, 2013, entities associated with Draper Fisher Jurvetson were deemed to have shared voting and dispositive power with respect to 14,967,241 shares. The address of the entities associated with Draper Fisher Jurvetson is 2882 Sand Hill Road, Suite 150, Menlo Park, California 94025.
John H. N. Fisher (7) --> 14,367,790
Draper Fisher Jurvetson (14) --> 14,967,241
Especially given this:
(7) Includes 7,440,718 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund IX, L.P., 70 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund IX Partners, L.P., 201,637 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Partners IX, LLC, 1,173,770 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund X, L.P., 50 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund X Partners, L.P., 35,864 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Partners X, LLC, 5,051,859 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Growth Fund 2006, L.P., 408,429 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Partners Growth Fund 2006, LLC, 53,247 shares held of record by the John H. N. Fisher and Jennifer Caldwell Living Trust dated 1/7/00, as amended and restated on 3/27/08, and 2,146 shares held of record by JHNF Investment LLC. John H. N. Fisher is one of several managing directors of the general partner entities of these funds that directly hold shares and as such Mr. Fisher may be deemed to have voting and investment power with respect to such shares. Mr. Fisher disclaims beneficial ownership with respect to such shares except to the extent of his pecuniary interest therein. The address for all entities above is 2882 Sand Hill Road, Suite 150, Menlo Park, California 94025.
(14) As of November 14, 2013, the reporting date of the most recent Schedule 13D/A filed with the SEC pursuant to the Exchange Act on November 16, 2013, entities associated with Draper Fisher Jurvetson were deemed to have shared voting and dispositive power with respect to 14,967,241 shares. The address of the entities associated with Draper Fisher Jurvetson is 2882 Sand Hill Road, Suite 150, Menlo Park, California 94025.
Chickenlittle
Banned
Henry, I'd love to know if SCTY stock price was ever this close to the 200 day moving average when releasing earnings? I have a feeling as long as the price holds above the 200 day MA the shorts will start bailing. They will get bored and the earnings report could easily make them rush for the exits if it's even remotely positive. We're seeing a lot of negative news out on SCTY with lawsuits and value discussion. We're not seeing good news out of the company lately so this quiet time is keeping the stock down. I see a good ER coming and a short covering rally. With 71% of the stock held by insiders and 23% of it sold short, that spells trouble for the shorts in a big way on any strength, whether news related or ER.
Here in MA they by default SCTY does get the SRECs. HOWEVER, if you ask nicely, they will quote a system where the customer gets the SRECs.
Shares Outstanding[SIZE=-1][SUP]5[/SUP][/SIZE]:91.50M
% Held by Insiders[SIZE=-1][SUP]1[/SUP][/SIZE]:73.30%
% Held by Institutions[SIZE=-1][SUP]1[/SUP][/SIZE]:7.60%
Shares Short (as of Mar 31, 2014)[SIZE=-1][SUP]3[/SUP][/SIZE]:10.74M
Short % of Float (as of Mar 31, 2014)[SIZE=-1][SUP]3[/SUP][/SIZE]:49.90%
Short 49%? That can't be right? Holy cow talk about a short squeeze.
% Held by Insiders[SIZE=-1][SUP]1[/SUP][/SIZE]:73.30%
% Held by Institutions[SIZE=-1][SUP]1[/SUP][/SIZE]:7.60%
Shares Short (as of Mar 31, 2014)[SIZE=-1][SUP]3[/SUP][/SIZE]:10.74M
Short % of Float (as of Mar 31, 2014)[SIZE=-1][SUP]3[/SUP][/SIZE]:49.90%
Short 49%? That can't be right? Holy cow talk about a short squeeze.
Unlocking Solar Energy's Value as an Asset Class | Alternative Energy Stocks
interesting article about yeildco and securitization. The articles discussion of retained value supports the point HenryF makes about truly understanding the best metrics to assess value and health of Solarcity...
interesting article about yeildco and securitization. The articles discussion of retained value supports the point HenryF makes about truly understanding the best metrics to assess value and health of Solarcity...
Retained value is a really bad metric to use to value solar assets: it is garbage in, garbage out.
SUNE sees $0.48 of retained value for generation in years 21-30, but what if the panels don't work that long or degradation is a lot worse?
It seems like companies also use an arbitrary 6% discount rate, but why not 5% or 7%? A 1% change in discount rate will have a huge impact on retained value.
SPWR used to show retained value for its solar lease business as well, but has stopped doing it because it is a garbage metric. And SPWR's retained value per watt is a lot higher than SCTY, so they would have an incentive to use it to show that they are better. But they are coming up with different metrics to show to investors that are not misleading like retained value is.
SUNE builds projects so their projects will still be there after 20 years and producing energy, so their assumptions of retained value in years 21-30 is somewhat realistic.
SCTY on the other hand assumes that after 20-years all lessees will renew their leases with SCTY. This is a completely bogus assumption, because we have no idea what the world, and solar industry will like like in 20 years. If you take away this assumption and use a 7% discount rate instead of 6% then all of a sudden SCTY's retained value is half of what it claims.
Retained value is a just a way to mislead investors. Garbage in, garbage out.
futureproof - I am going to give you some really good investment advice for your personal benefit, so please don't take this the wrong way:
I think that you should be a little bit more open-minded in the solar sector. You are dangerously looking at everything with your SCTY-colored glasses on. SolarCity is a great company, and I am sure that they will do well in the future and continue to grow. But because Tom Werner, CEO of SunPower, did not use the word 'lease' in his CNBC interview does not mean that SPWR is no competition to SCTY. You are looking for holes, that don't exist, with the sole intent of spinning it into a SCTY positive. I don't think you are doing this intentionally, which makes it all the more dangerous for you as an investor. I would recommend that you look at the whole solar sector with an open mind, because if SCTY were to start falling apart (hypothetically speaking) then I am fairly certain that you would see it as a "buying opportunity" and that you would ride SCTY all the way down to $0.
There is 1 residential market, and it doesn't matter if you do lease, PPA, or cash sale; it is the same thing. Once a solar system goes up on a roof, it is over and that is one less potential customer. 99% of people don't have solar, and 99% of those have no idea if they would want a lease, PPA, or cash sale.
That said, SPWR just raised over $500m in a few short months to do "residential" solar systems. This is obviously all dedicated for leases, because you don't have to raise money to do cash sales, duh!
SPWR also said in their presentation that they will do 420MWp - 450MWp of residential in 2014, and this doesn't include DG or power plants. SCTY on the other hand will do 475MWp - 525MWp in 2014 in total, including DG and other. It doesn't matter if it is lease or cash sale, even though the vast majority will be lease, because it is direct competition to SCTY. SPWR's MWp is a lot more valuable than SCTY's MWp, because SWPR's 420MWp (low end) will produce more energy than SCTY's 525MWp (high end estimate).
Now lets not forget about other competitors: Vivint, Sunrun, RGSE, EON, NRG, other utilities, CSIQ, etc.
Everybody wants a piece of the residential market, because margins are too high and they are going to get squeezed in the future, especially when the 30% tax credit expires in a short 2.5 years.
Therefore, SPWR is going to do more in residential alone than SCTY will do in residential and DG combined in 2014. Then SPWR will do another 800MW in DG and power plants in 2014, and their growth rate is pretty impressive as well (it will double from 1GW to 2GW from 2013 to 2016). SPWR also has some potentially awesome C7 technology in its pocket that can increase growth rates exponentially.
So the real question is why is SPWR a $4.2b market cap, while SCTY is a $5.4b market cap?
IMO SPWR is a far better investment than SCTY, and I would be looking at them for the best risk/reward in solar. I am not saying that SCTY will not outperform them, but the risk is significantly higher in SCTY and they would have to retain what are IMO unsustainable growth rates in order to outperform SPWR as an investment.
This is just my honest opinion.
Good luck to everyone and happy investing!
VC Steve Jurvetson: Elon Musk is more capable than Steve Jobs was | VentureBeat | Entrepreneur | by Richard Byrne Reilly
Interesting article into the mindset/thoughts of a significant institutional investor in Solarcity... might help to understand the type of people/entities deeply embedded in Elon's ventures...
here's another(Antonio Gracias)...
Why one man invests millions in doughnuts and rocket ships | Voices
and another (JB Straubel)...
Tesla And Solar City Looking To 100% Renewable Grid Future | Inside EVs
and another(Elon himself on IPO day)...
Musk: SolarCity IPO Price Sought Wasn't Aggressive: Video - Bloomberg
Interesting article into the mindset/thoughts of a significant institutional investor in Solarcity... might help to understand the type of people/entities deeply embedded in Elon's ventures...
here's another(Antonio Gracias)...
Why one man invests millions in doughnuts and rocket ships | Voices
and another (JB Straubel)...
Tesla And Solar City Looking To 100% Renewable Grid Future | Inside EVs
and another(Elon himself on IPO day)...
Musk: SolarCity IPO Price Sought Wasn't Aggressive: Video - Bloomberg
Last edited:
Once again: high short interest does not mean that a short squeeze is imminent. Historically, stocks with high short interest underperform the market in general. This is a fact.
SCTY's short interest was at a record high of 11.3m shares as of trade date 3/10/14 with a stock price above $73. Since then the short interest has gone down to 9.6m as of trade date 4/10/14 and the stock has come crashing down to $55. Once again the shorts were correct in this case, made their money and exited their positions after riding the stock down 30% - 40%.
I have said this about short interest many times before, but when people look at high short interest all they see is an imminent short squeeze coming. Many times before, I warned about high short interest not being a good thing, and SCTY just proves my case here.
Same goes for TSLA: the short interest recently peaked on 2/25/14 with the stock at $248. Since then short interest has declined 20%, while the stock lost more than 20%.
High short interest does not mean that a short squeeze is coming.
Chickenlittle
Banned
i also believe i saw that spwr had 30,000 leases already. do you know the number for scty?
Haven't heard any public news on this yet... anyone got anything?
Also, JB Straubel is the keynote speaker at the 2014 Energy Storage Symposium May 21st...
2014 Silicon Valley Energy Storage Symposium
In addition to Solarcity news coming down the pike before then, should be interesting what he's going to highlight reference PV+ storage and the network effect...
And... Solarcity CEO Lyndon Rive and Nancy Pfund (4.6% Solarcity stakeholder) will speak at Fortune Brainstorm Green Conference 19-21May...
2014 Agenda | Fortune Conferences
Both conferences will be about a week after Solarcity's Q1 conf call, so might help keep SCTY in the positive news column going into June shareholder meeting (for all those interested in near term/post-quarterly stock performance).
Last edited:
I've never understood and have not participated in the Jobs-Musk conclusory of superior dialog. It can only be made from local perspectives. And drawing conclusions of 'capable' diminish one for the other unnecessarily. Elon has and will accomplish objectives Jobs could not; while concurrently Jobs' accomplishments in the use of technology applied to the Arts - Music, Animation, human communication and interaction, self fulfillment, etc. were different goals than Elon and required different (not lesser) skills. I see no point in concluding 'the best athlete' from 2 different sports. Neither man would condone those conclusions as I'm sure one would have equal respect for the other' accomplishments.
Chickenlittle
Banned
Here come the lawyers again. Same name Pomeranse firm that went after tesla. I think it's wrong advertising for clients by claiming how the target hurt them. I can see advertising the strength of a firm but not by claiming informing potential clients of the how they were hurt by the target without it being proved first. Are they immune to libel claims and damages if they encourage a case and lose? Would only seem fair since there can be damage by reducing share price.
And why are these ads published as stories? They are ads for clients. These firms get free advertising. If a news organization wanted to carry a story about these claims fine but these are just ads written by companies trying to get business
And why are these ads published as stories? They are ads for clients. These firms get free advertising. If a news organization wanted to carry a story about these claims fine but these are just ads written by companies trying to get business
Thank you Sleepy for your contributions to this thread. I would assume that SCTY provides an incentive to renew the lease in 20 years, otherwise it would be a bit ludicrous to include any value from that. No? Do they really use 6% discount rate to calculate the retained value of the leases? Forgive my lack of experience with economics, but does that strike you as odd when they are almost certainly using a higher rate to determine whether to pursue the lease in the first place? Or doesn't that matter?
6% is a fair discount rate and I have nothing against that number; SUNE also uses 6%. My problem is that 5% or 7% are also fair numbers, and if you change the discount rate by 1% then it will change the retained value by 10% - 20% if I had to guess.
Another problem is that 30% of the retained value comes from the assumption that customers will renew leases after 20 years. We don't know how the solar industry will look like in 20 years, so it is impossible to tell whether people will be renewing leases or not.
I think that retained value is not a good way to calculate the value of a watt installed. It is about as useful as a DCF is in valuing a company, i.e. garbage in, garbage out and extremely sensitive to inputs/assumptions.
If you take away the lease renewal assumption and increase the discount rate to 7% then all of a sudden SCTY's $1.50 retained value per watt will go down in half.
Nice Grid Offers a Glimpse into the Future for Solar PV Plus Energy Storage
a fascinating development in carros, France... The entire town will be run by PV+networked storage...
a fascinating development in carros, France... The entire town will be run by PV+networked storage...
Taking another close look at the ownership in the proxy statement:
****
John H. N. Fisher (7) --> 14,367,790
Draper Fisher Jurvetson (14) --> 14,967,241
****
(7)
7,440,718 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund IX, L.P.,
70 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund IX Partners, L.P.,
201,637 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Partners IX, LLC
1,173,770 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund X, L.P.,
50 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund X Partners, L.P.,
35,864 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Partners X, LLC,
5,051,859 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Growth Fund 2006, L.P.,
408,429 shares held of record by Draper Fisher Jurvetson Partners Growth Fund 2006, LLC,
53,247 shares held of record by the John H. N. Fisher and Jennifer Caldwell Living Trust
2,146 shares held of record by JHNF Investment LLC.
John H. N. Fisher is one of several managing directors of the general partner entities of these funds that directly hold shares and as such Mr. Fisher may be deemed to have voting and investment power with respect to such shares.
Mr. Fisher disclaims beneficial ownership with respect to such shares except to the extent of his pecuniary interest therein.
The address for all entities above is 2882 Sand Hill Road, Suite 150, Menlo Park, California 94025.
****
(14)
As of November 14, 2013, the reporting date of the most recent Schedule 13D/A filed with the SEC pursuant to the Exchange Act on November 16, 2013, entities associated with Draper Fisher Jurvetson were deemed to have shared voting and dispositive power with respect to 14,967,241 shares. The address of the entities associated with Draper Fisher Jurvetson is 2882 Sand Hill Road, Suite 150, Menlo Park, California 94025.
****
It does very much look like these two entries overlap. The only reason for explicitly listing John Fisher (and not Steve Jurvetson for example), is that he is on the Board (where as Steve Jurvetson is not). I don't think John Fisher independently owns or has separate set of funds that own another set of 14mil+ shares separate from DFJ investments.
- - - Updated - - -
Hi, where did you find this information?
- Status
Similar threads
