This comment of yours keeps me up at night since I am long SPWR.
"The value of SPWR does not reflect on the value of TOTAL shares. At $120B, it has no impact on it. I may not be clear enough. They are not trying to save money on SPWR. The motion of saving is only if someone cares about the price. I have said three times they do not care about the price. They want ownership of the company, and they do not care how much value this represents. Of course, financially this is how I see this. I saw this before and I expect to see this elsewhere again. TOTAL is not an investor, they are the owner. You are only valuing your business when you sell or borrow against it, otherwise, its operating potential is what matters.If anything, there is an opportunity to increase this ownership and they have means, as I described them. To conclude my message, TOTAL is playing for itself, and not for any one else owning shares. Their goal is not to make money on shares, but own qualified, effective solar business. That ownership and not the value of shares what matters. The distinctive difference does not make future actions by TOTAL shareholder friendly. TOTAL does not need SPWR to be listed publically to operate and decide its future. So taking it off from the public arena is, in fact, a lot more functional. If one can see above as what to expect, can see TOTAL allow public shares drop the value, go true difficult transition stripping problems away and perhaps reorganize the company under private label. This would be done by buying debt, and that is exactly what TOTAL is doing. Finally, faded value of shares only empowers TOTAL to buy SunPower out. After conversion of $200M into 22M shares, the price per share drops to $7.73 on 158M shares. Bringing TOTAL ownership to 62%, Having negative equity by 2018 August or November, you have stock probably hit $4 to $5, maybe less. Another buy of the debentures, another conversion, very simple.Time will tell." -SA "Why You Shouldn't Invest In SunPower's Weakness" - Robert Dydo
I have 4 point to throw your way and I would be very grateful to hear what you think.
Institutional Investors. Why do they keep SPWR in their portfolio if the scenario you described in your comment is the most probable one?
>500MW France Projects. Total helped SPWR acquire about 500MW of projects in France. To me it seems to directly contradict your point that explain the true intentions TOTAL has towards SPWR. Do you think this 500MW project collaboration as a contradiction to your point?
Solar+Storage. On Q3 earnings Tom stated that over 50% of commercial projects in 2016 have storage in them. The storage component is accretive for SPWRs product portfolio and will increase margins (my speculation).
FAB 3 and NGT cell/panel. FAB 3 had 750 MW of capacity before it was shut down. In Q3 SPWR will start producing their NGT cells there and coincidentally Werner stated that sustainable profitability will start in 2H 2018. They are obviously alluding to NGT that will rival cost of S6. What are thoughts on this?
I think your position on SPWR has very solid basis so I will try to see if I can shake it because every time I read your article about SPWR I question my reasoning about SPWR but never actually change my mind.