I know that. Now instead of reading my comment out of context - read it in the context of my response to the previous posters post.
1) I didn't start a tutorial on Yieldcos
2) I understand them completely - you obviously don't by the assumptions you made about them
3) Regarding question #3 - instead of answering the question you deflect it with namecalling. Way to dodge the question. Yieldco investors are not going to a premium for a 4-5% return.
4) Anyone who is too lazy to do some basic research that is easily available and instead asks for advice on an anonymous message board deserves to be made fun of.
5) Once again - you refuse to answer any questions yourself and instead deflect your lack of knowledge by name calling.
1) Bonds are the one of the best way to allocate the tax benefits. You can't allocate the tax benefits to shareholders and the tax benefits would be too large to be absorbed by the Yieldco in a reasonable amount of time
2) Once again - you agree with me on the structure of the yieldco - good job
3) Why does a stable cash flow imply the yieldco would pay more for the assets in return for a lower return for risk ? Since when do people pay up for lower risk ? You just made that up didn't you ?
4) Why would they issue more stock to maintain debt to equity ratios ? D/E ratios are for projects not the company. You don't really understand D/E ratios do you ? Also if the tax credits go away there will be less need for equity financing.
5) A yieldco will be bad for FSLR shareholders if they spin off all their "safe" assets as you say.
You got the structure right (Wikipedia?) but all your assumptions from then on are off the mark.
You don't even know what LCOE stands for much less how to calculate it. Margins ? You think margins are good and improving LOL I know exactly how LCOE impacts margins. Do you ? Lesson in reality ? LOL I'm down two bucks today on all this yieldco nonsense that none of yo seem to understand. If you think FSLR shareholders are getting shares in a yieldco you and the rest of these people are nuts. That's not how it works. Funny how you spend all your time saying I don't understand this or that - yet you never demonstrate any knowledge in said areas. Just a naysayer and namecaller.
You don't need a yieldco for project financing ! If you want to build and retain you could get debt/equity financing from private lenders or use on-balance sheet financing - FSLR has the cash for that - SUNE doesn't. With a yieldco you get low cost financing in the short-term, but you pay it back for the life of the project. Skytron is a pure O&M play. Has nothing to do with a yieldco. Skytron will provide O&M to plants FSLR builds and sells, provide o&M for FSLR plants that it retains, and if they are smart - they will also out source O&M services to other PV plants owned by others.
Really ? At least I am not listing yieldco structures like you mentioned that would never meet with SEC approval. What is it that you don't think I understand about yieldcos ? Please be specific. and my job is not to educate the board on yieldcos. There is this thing called the google where you can read all about it instead of relying on someone's opinion on a message board.
Wow. We actually agree on two things. A yieldco would affect earnings, and it is unlikely that FSLR will form one. In the case that projects are sold - ala Buffet - FSLR makes a one-time hefty development fee that is immediately accretive to earnings. With FSLR owned assets, either on-balances sheet financing they generate long-term cash flow and profits from PPA sales and o&M contracts. With a yieldco, the cost of capital is lowered, but the long term revenues to the company (i.e., earnings) are diminished by payments of dividends to investors for the life of the project. FSLR shareholders would be hurt be yieldco unless they also invested in the yieldco where they would earn about 4-5% per year. Yieldcos are better suited for a portfolio of projects that need financing - FSLR cost structure and access to low cost capital leaves me wondering why they are considering it - other than it generates shareholder buzz for some reason.
No dum dum - there are very specific operating structures and rules that a yieldco must adhere to. Just as there are rules governing publicly traded companies, there are specific regulations for forming and operating Yieldcos and MLPs. And they are completely separate from being just another company regulated by the SEC. And 2 out of 3 structures you mentioned are simply illegal and could never be formed. But nice try.
There may not even BE a yieldco. And yes - I know exactly how they work. They are SEC regulated and have strict operating structures. Its not like they can make it as they go along. And its not like its anything new either. Its been done years in the oil and gas industry. Shows how much you know. Even the company said a yieldco would put pressure on earnings. As for me losing me ? LOL Not even close. Sold my puts at the open before heading out the door to meetings. Came back from a day of meetings and saw the stock price and bot some at the end of the day. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
No. Why would they ? That's why I think its hilarious that all longs want a yieldco. Yet they will not benefit from it. And where do they think the dividends will be paid from ? Project earnings.
A yieldco is a buzzword that the longs don't understand but get all excited about. What they don't know is that is NOT good for shareholders of the company. Even FSLR said on the CC yesterday that forming a yieldco would make it more difficult to meet their EPS numbers. Funny to see people root against themselves when they don't even know it.
Seriously ? You weren't surprised by 4 cents ? Come on. I thought they would miss too - but I had to look twice to make sure I was seeing the number right. You certainly did not expect this. But one thing is for sure - your call of $4+ EPS for 2014 is DOA.
You're a funny man. Why would anyone want to buy it at $60 when they could have bought it at $11 and when revenues were higher. Don't quit your day job.
I'll make more than $2 tomorrow. And you will never see $100. First, FSLR will not see $4.60 in earnings in 2015. Look at the "pipeline" and the small piece of pie that is "mid to late stage" versus the huge piece that is early stage - maybe 50% of it will come to reality. I'll go one step further - they won't hit $2.90 THIS YEAR. Just like last year when they upped guidance and missed badly in Q4. Affirming guidance is a sign of weakness compared to previous quarters where they would raise by a dime or a quarter. FSLR is the most undervalued company in the world ? LOL hyperbole much ? Margins are declining big time - 24.5% last year and 17-18% "target" this year ? Nice try - no way this deserves a 26 PE even if they hit $4.60 next year - which they won't.
A miss was priced in - but not that big of a miss ! 4 cents versus 38 ? Volume AH was light. A down market or downgrades will really hit this hard tomorrow. If it breaks the 50 dma in the next couple of days then watch out.
Why would you want to buy solar bonds ? 4-5% yield ? and eating up company profits ? Company is better off not forming a yieldco - its just a fad.
Funny how everyone was saying FSLR was going to announce a yieldco this quarter - and now that they are lukewarm on it you guys are now against it. I'm guessing most of those in favor of the yieldcos don't understand it and don't understand that is bad for shareholders. Also, subsidies are not being discontinued. The 30% tax credit expires at the end of 2016, but are not eliminated, they revert back to the old 10% tax credit. Also, there is a high likelihood that the tax credits will be extended - but Congress won't touch it until the very last minute. The 5-year accelerated depreciation is also not going away.