4 ms·

they're backed by customers paying electricity bills. seems safe for 18months, as I don't see much risk for a whole tranche of credit worthy homeowners electing

they're backed by customers paying electricity bills. seems safe for 18months, as I don't see much risk for a whole tranche of credit worthy homeowners electing to turn off their electricity. *edit swypo

hga 10y ago
If the interest rate of 6.5% is high, which as far as I can tell is the case, i.e. it appears to be in the lower range of "junk" bonds, and they're unmarketable, and (here it gets iffy due to the acquisition) Musk and company had to buy most of their latest offering, they're by definition risky. The very first detail, their interest rate, tells you that, for no one pays more money to borrow money than they have to. And, BTW, SpaceX just had a rocket and its payload go ka-boom on a launchpad pre-flight test.... Musk's attention and potentially capital just got a huge distraction. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12405092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12405092 , Tesla's lenders did not act favorably towards the merger. Ah, and see this in particular: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12406715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12406715 Math and physics are seldom friendly to "green" efforts.
- mr_spothawk 10y ago
  SpaceX is hardly green, I would imagine. That doesn't change the realities of what they're up to. I don't support the green label on solar panels that are only profitable because of government dole. However, I still believe the methodology for determining risk (internal to SolarCity) to be sufficiently safe (for me to invest). I'm familiar with what they're up to, though. Could it be the case that a 6.5% rate reflects the risk, but also the difficulty of securing operating funds. e.g. a sweetened deal for those willing to support them. I'm interested in finance, but not a financier... so, my opinion could benefit from correction.

4 ms·

they're backed by customers paying electricity bills. seems safe for 18months, as I don't see much risk for a whole tranche of credit worthy homeowners electing

by mr_spothawk 10y ago

hga 10y ago
If the interest rate of 6.5% is high, which as far as I can tell is the case, i.e. it appears to be in the lower range of "junk" bonds, and they're unmarketable, and (here it gets iffy due to the acquisition) Musk and company had to buy most of their latest offering, they're by definition risky. The very first detail, their interest rate, tells you that, for no one pays more money to borrow money than they have to. And, BTW, SpaceX just had a rocket and its payload go ka-boom on a launchpad pre-flight test.... Musk's attention and potentially capital just got a huge distraction. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12405092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12405092 , Tesla's lenders did not act favorably towards the merger. Ah, and see this in particular: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12406715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12406715 Math and physics are seldom friendly to "green" efforts.
- mr_spothawk 10y ago
  SpaceX is hardly green, I would imagine. That doesn't change the realities of what they're up to. I don't support the green label on solar panels that are only profitable because of government dole. However, I still believe the methodology for determining risk (internal to SolarCity) to be sufficiently safe (for me to invest). I'm familiar with what they're up to, though. Could it be the case that a 6.5% rate reflects the risk, but also the difficulty of securing operating funds. e.g. a sweetened deal for those willing to support them. I'm interested in finance, but not a financier... so, my opinion could benefit from correction.