Will Tesla Ever Make Money?

Tesla Manufacturing Plant

Elon Musk makes great cars, but investors are wondering when his company will turn a profit.
(Bloomberg) — Chris Ziegler presses the pedal of his Tesla Model S. It surges forward silently and instantly — unlike gas-powered cars that roar and gulp for air before accelerating. Driving in the hills north of Los Angeles, he whips through hairpin turns without worrying about flipping over. Thirteen hundred pounds of batteries under the floorboard make that nearly impossible.
Ziegler loves everything about his all-electric, $107,000 Tesla, including that he recharges its batteries using solar panels in the trees above his house. That lessens his contribution to climate change and his dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf — which Ziegler patrolled as a Navy gunnery operator in 1983.
“I’m stunned major automakers haven’t fired back with a product to compete with Tesla,” says Ziegler, 49, a real estate project manager in the L.A. suburb of Monrovia. The license plate on his Model S reads “Waat Gas,” Bloomberg Markets magazine will report in its April issue.
Ziegler is so convinced the Tesla is the car of the future that he and his wife, Barbara, a sales executive for an institutional investment firm, sank 90 percent of their liquid assets in its shares beginning in 2010, when the stock sold for $16. Barbara also earned hundreds of thousands of dollars trading options against investors who thought Tesla would fail, she says.
Tesla, of course, hasn’t failed. Rather, Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk says it’s leading the world into a future without gasoline. Already going toe-to-toe with competitors such as BMW and Mercedes-Benz, he wants to take Tesla cars to the mass market — and push forward the process of freeing the world from its dependence on fossil fuels.
Skeptics Abound
Eventually, “all cars will go electric,” Musk said at a press conference in January
Yet there are plenty of skeptics who question whether Tesla will ever be capable of competing with the Toyotas and General Motors of the world — or get out of the red any time soon. Since its founding in 2003, the company, which went public in 2010, has earned a profit in just one three-month period. In 2014, it lost $294 million on $3.2 billion in revenue.
Some $217 million of that revenue came from the sale to its competitors of zero-emission-vehicle, or ZEV, credits and other pollution allowances.
“You’re talking about a company with no cash flow,” says Matthew Stover, an analyst at Boston-based Susquehanna Financial Group, which in the three months ended on Jan. 31 sold more than half its 1.5 million Tesla shares. “One hundred percent of the value of the shares is associated with some view of the future that has not manifested itself in the past.”
2020 Profits
In a Feb. 11 conference call with investors after releasing Tesla’s fourth-quarter financial statements, Musk, 43, predicted the company would have positive cash flow by the third quarter of this year. He has also forecast that Tesla will be making a full-year profit under generally accepted accounting principles by 2020.
Stover isn’t the only investor skeptical of Tesla’s prospects — and of its stock price, which at $199.6 on March 3 valued the company at $25.1 billion. (That’s almost 40 percent of the market capitalization of Ford, which last year sold 6.3 million vehicles, almost 200 times as many as Tesla.)
As of Feb. 13, 26.8 percent of Tesla’s shares had been sold short, with more investors betting on their decline than for any other company in the Bloomberg Intelligence Global Automobiles Valuation Peers Index.
Musk’s Confidence
The naysayers haven’t dented Musk’s confidence. On the Feb. 11 conference call he said that in 10 years Tesla could match the market cap of Apple, which on March 3 was the world’s most valuable company, worth $753 billion. In a February letter to shareholders, he wrote that vehicle deliveries would increase by 70 percent this year and that there would be a “significant” increase in what he called non-GAAP income, a calculation that takes into account factors such as lease payments and deferred stock options.
Tesla — named for Nikola Tesla, who designed alternating-current power systems in the 19th century — offers buyers just one product, the Model S, of which it sold 31,655 in 2014 at a price that started at $71,000. The company will introduce a gull-wing SUV late this year, also priced at around $70,000, and then target middle-income consumers with a $35,000, 200-mile-range (320-kilometer) car called the Model 3 in 2017.
Musk forecasts he’ll make 500,000 vehicles by 2020 at his Fremont, California, factory, equipping them with batteries from a massive plant dubbed the Gigafactory that he’s building with Panasonic in the Nevada desert.
Innovation Leader
Even supporters question whether Musk can meet his targets. Morgan Stanley auto analyst Adam Jonas is a Tesla enthusiast yet predicts the average Model 3 will cost $60,000 and that Tesla will sell 319,000 cars a year by 2020. He thinks that even at the lower number Tesla can make money and lead innovation in the global auto industry.
Jonas has an overweight rating on the shares.
Susquehanna’s Stover says that the Tesla share price — it peaked at $291 in September before falling in tandem with oil prices — suggests investors already regard the Model 3 as a hit.
“Since nothing can happen for two years to validate that view, the market will simply be guessing,” Stover says.
Tesla’s debt is no less popular than its shares. In February 2014, investors bought $2.3 billion of Tesla convertible notes with coupons of 1.25 percent or less — a smaller return than U.S. inflation. The bonds won’t convert to shares — and provide a bigger return to investors — unless the stock reaches $359.87.
Model X
If the past is prologue, the Model 3 will be late; it’s already about two years past its original launch date, as is the SUV, dubbed Model X. And analysts say there is no guarantee that Musk’s battery factory — which he predicts will dramatically reduce the cost of the Tesla’s most crucial component — will live up to expectations. The plant will supply batteries for two businesses that are in their infancy: electric vehicles and solar power systems being built by another company he founded, SolarCity.
Tesla doubters point out that once the Model 3 comes to market, it will face a tsunami of competition. Virtually every major carmaker is producing or is on the verge of producing a ZEV, in part to meet rising emission standards of the federal government and the state of California.
No one doubts that, in the Model S, which Tesla introduced in 2012, Musk has created a vehicle that’s hard to hate. The appeal is based on its ferocious performance and 265-mile driving range — the highest among electric cars. In October, Tesla launched a dual-motor version that goes from zero to 60 miles per hour in 3.2 seconds, half a second faster than a gasoline-powered Corvette.
Dashboard Touchscreen
The Model S also has cozier features, like a 17-inch (43-centimeter) dashboard touchscreen. Drivers control nearly every function by swiping their fingers — just like on their iPhones. (It’s no coincidence that several high-level Tesla employees were hired away from Apple, which is also researching automotive technology.)
The communication system enables Tesla owners to regularly download new capabilities, like a navigation system introduced in September that plans alternate routes based on traffic.
Among U.S. buyers, 96 percent say they love their Tesla’s technology, according to a December survey by marketing consultant Strategic Vision, compared with 62 percent for Porsche and 55 percent for BMW.
Entrepreneur Musk
Wall Street’s love affair with Tesla is really a romance with the charismatic Musk, a South African–born entrepreneur who pronounces his company’s name TEZ-la. He earned bachelor’s degrees in economics and physics at the University of Pennsylvania and then dropped out of the Stanford University Ph.D. program in physics to join the Internet boom.
Musk helped create PayPal in the 1990s and pocketed $165 million when EBay bought the company in 2002. By the time he joined Tesla in 2004, he had already launched rocket manufacturer Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX.
A decade later, he’s got a near-mythic reputation.
“Elon Musk is our generation’s Thomas Edison,” says Joseph Fath, a fund manager at Baltimore-based T. Rowe Price Group.
“He’s the greatest inventor of all time,” says Gwynne Shotwell, chief operating officer of SpaceX.
“Elon will be the richest man who ever lived,” says Scott Painter, CEO of TrueCar, a Santa Monica, California–based online auto-buying service.
Disruptive Technology
T. Rowe Price started buying Tesla at $20, and the firm now owns 6 million shares scattered in half a dozen funds. Fath, who runs the Growth Stock Fund, says the shares will do OK even if the Model 3 is only a moderate success and could double if the car is a hit.
“You don’t often see large-cap stocks with this kind of significant disruptive potential,” he says.
Max Warburton, a Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. analyst in Singapore, says Tesla’s shares are priced less on the company’s own financials and more on how it’s forcing competitors to boost spending on electric cars.
“Tesla is massively disruptive,” Warburton says. “Its valuation reflects the $30 billion problem it’s created for the rest of the car industry” — a reference to the amount he says other automakers will spend chasing Tesla.
Reusable Rockets
Musk is even disrupting outer space. SpaceX has promised NASA, with which it has $4.2 billion in contracts, and satellite makers that the reusable rockets he’s developing can deliver their payloads at a much lower cost than other companies.
In person, Musk is relaxed and soft-spoken, with blue-green eyes that dart around the room as he talks. He works long days at his various California offices — Tesla’s headquarters is in Palo Alto; SpaceX’s in a Los Angeles suburb — and spends as much time as possible with his five sons in L.A. He’s twice divorced.
In speeches and interviews, Musk shows little immediate concern for investors who’ve watched shares of alternative energy and related companies plunge with the price of oil. He says his priority is popularizing electric cars.
“We’ve certainly chosen high growth over profitability,” he told reporters in September in Tokyo. “If the shareholders don’t like me, they can just fire me.”
‘Fantastic Vehicle’
If Musk’s competitors don’t always share his zeal for fighting climate change, they appreciate the cachet Tesla gives to the ZEV category.
“The Tesla is a fantastic vehicle,” says Raj Nair, head of global product development at Ford. “It’s made the public more open to this type of propulsion.”
At the Detroit auto show in January, Porsche said it was considering a plug-in electric version of its 911 flagship. Honda’s Acura division unveiled an NSX supercar with three battery-powered motors and a gasoline engine. Audi, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz, and Nissan all spun out plans for battery-powered cars to compete with Tesla.
GM, Ford, and Renault buy their batteries from LG Chem Power, a unit of South Korea’s biggest chemical company. CEO Prabhakar Patil says his company doesn’t need a Gigafactory to compete with Tesla on costs. And he says Musk may be placing too big a bet on electric cars.
No one knows, he says, whether fuel cells, plug-in hybrids, or battery-only cars will prevail.
Cautionary Tale
Electric-car makers already have a cautionary tale to study. Nissan and its partner Renault committed $6 billion to their all-electric Leaf compact, including plans to manufacture 500,000 cars a year. In 2014, they sold 82,602. One factor in the car’s disappointing sales is that it travels just 84 miles between charges. Tesla’s Model S has helped reset the standard at 200 miles, auto executives say.
“The batteries are getting lighter, cheaper, and smaller,” Carlos Ghosn, CEO of Nissan and Renault, told reporters at the Detroit auto show. “This is totally normal with the amount of investment we are all doing. And we will be competing with the 200-mile car.”
As Musk strives to create a viable company for the long term, his most formidable challenger could be Toyota. The Japanese company swears by hydrogen fuel cells — batterylike devices that produce power through an electrochemical reaction of hydrogen and air, with water vapor as the only byproduct.
Fuel Cells or Fool Cells
The company started marketing its Mirai fuel-cell car for $61,000 in Japan in December and hopes eventually to be selling hundreds of thousands a year, says Yoshimi Inaba, chairman of North American sales. The Mirai travels 300 miles with a hydrogen tank that can be refilled in five minutes. With high-volume manufacturing, Toyota has cut the cost of handbuilt fuel-cell components by 95 percent since 2008, says Satoshi Ogiso, a Toyota executive who helped develop the hybrid Prius. During the next decade, he says, Toyota expects to cut today’s production costs of the Mirai by two-thirds.
Toyota and Tesla once had a close relationship — and Khobi Brooklyn, a Tesla spokeswoman, says they still do. In 2010, Toyota sold Tesla its abandoned Fremont factory for $42 million. A new plant could have cost $1 billion, says Ron Harbour, a partner at New York consulting company Oliver Wyman Group. Toyota then bought electric motors from Tesla for two years.
Today, in Toyota’s view, the companies are drifting apart. “Our relationship with Tesla is not going upward; it’s going stagnant at best,” Inaba says.
‘Fool Cells’?
Toyota didn’t learn much from Musk’s technology and doesn’t expect Tesla to ever sell 500,000 electric cars a year, he adds.
Musk says most commercial hydrogen to run fuel cells is made from natural gas in a process that consumes energy and emits carbon. Hydrogen is also dangerous to store and transport, he says.
“Fuel cells should be renamed ‘fool cells,’” Musk said in a 2013 Bloomberg News interview.
“I think this is not classy,” Inaba says of the remark.
Of course, much of the electricity for recharging Teslas comes from coal. Yet Musk says electric motors are so much more efficient than those that run on gasoline that they are cleaner even if all the electricity comes from hydrocarbons.
Whatever the merits of fuel cells, all automakers are rushing to electrify. By 2023, battery-powered-car deliveries, including gas-electric hybrids, could triple to 6.1 million worldwide, says Sam Jaffe, a Navigant Consulting analyst in Boulder, Colorado.
ZEV Requirements
A big motivator is California’s air pollution control regulations, which require the six biggest automakers to derive 4 percent of sales from zero-emission cars this year. Nine other states, including New York and Oregon, have similar laws.
By the 2018 model year, the ZEV requirement in all those states will jump to 15.4 percent and include smaller companies such as BMW.
The new rules are a great boon to Tesla. Electric-car buyers receive $7,500 in federal tax credits and, if they live in California, $2,500 from that state, where Tesla sold 6,110 Model S’s last year.
In addition, the 10 ZEV states distribute credits that companies can buy and sell to meet emissions targets. Companies that fall short of the targets can buy credits from companies that don’t to avoid fines.
At 2015 prices, these credits earn Tesla $14,000 for every Model S sold in the 10 states, people familiar with the situation say. (Details of the transactions aren’t public.)
Battery Swaps
Tesla can earn another $17,500 in credits every time a Model S swaps its battery pack for a fully charged new one at an experimental station north of Los Angeles.
Each car is allowed 25 swaps, with total credit-eligible visits capped at the number of cars Tesla sells each year in the state.
Dan Sperling, an environmental engineering professor at the University of California at Davis and a member of the state’s Air Resources Board, defends the ZEV program as a way to promote technologies California needs to cut carbon emissions. Still, he expects the Air Resources Board to reduce credits for battery swaps.
“We want to be generous in supporting these technologies, not obscene,” he says.
If nothing changes, Tesla could make enough money selling credits — as much as $500 million a year — to fund a quarter of its capital expenses, says Morgan Stanley’s Jonas.
Cheaper Batteries
When he was designing the Model S, Musk chose lithium-ion battery packs that in 2009 cost $1,200 per kilowatt hour, Jaffe says. The Gigafactory, by consolidating an extensive global supply chain, could help reduce the cost to as little as $250 by 2020 — low enough to make batteries competitive with gasoline engines, he says.
To build a $35,000 car, Tesla will need more than cheaper batteries. Tesla executives say it will have to make optional some of the equipment that’s now standard on the Model S and buy more generic components, such as shock absorbers, from high-volume suppliers.
And the company will need higher productivity. The Fremont plant today boasts some cutting-edge technologies, such as a device that uses air under high pressure to twist hot aluminum sheets into complex shapes. But the production process also includes labor-intensive operations incompatible with mass production.
Labor Intensive
For instance, just after body panels leave the stamping presses, workers use files and rasps to smooth out their surfaces. Other workers assemble bundles of wires that connect hundreds of components — a job usually outsourced to a cheap-labor foreign country.
Tesla does such jobs in-house in part because it’s making design improvements to the Model S “20 times a week,” says Greg Reichow, Tesla’s manufacturing vice president. He says Tesla is rapidly deploying more automation. Producing a new electric motor for the dual-motor Model S requires one-sixth of the manpower devoted to prior designs, he says.
Musk says he’s determined to conquer the mass market because the world needs electric cars, even though, for the moment, hydraulic fracturing has lowered gasoline prices dramatically and made driving gas-powered cars cheaper.
“Fracking probably increases the accessible oil and gas in the world by a factor of 10,” Musk said in Detroit in January. “We’re really going to regret the amount of carbon we’re putting into the oceans and atmosphere.”
Loading Up
Rolling through fire-scarred canyons above Los Angeles on a hazy afternoon, Chris Ziegler says he’s confident Tesla will make the world a better place. Meanwhile, he’s loading up. In addition to his Model S, he owns a $109,000 Roadster that Tesla discontinued in 2012, and he’s one of 20,000 people on the waiting list for a gull-wing SUV.
He never tires of driving his Model S. After showing off its speed and agility, he apologizes for resuming normal driving.
“I’ll get motion sickness,” he says.
Praise from owners such as Ziegler, together with the long waiting list, underscores Musk’s success as an auto designer and manufacturer. The question for investors is, will the entrepreneur ever be as proficient at making money as he is at making cars?

Protect your portfolio profits http://www.youroffshoremoney.com

 

Westport Innovations Inc. Continue To AVOID

WPRT : NASDAQ : US$16.91 WPT : TSX
AVOID

 Target: US$20.00

We have written about the research company that walks like an investment – and said avoid from – was it $40 down- despite the enthusiasm of Motley Fools- better to engage as a client of Jack A. Bass Managed funds is the lesson here.

COMPANY DESCRIPTION: Westport Innovations is a leading developer of technologies that allow engines to operate on gaseous fuels such as natural gas across light, medium, heavy and high horse power market applications.

Investment recommendation

AVOID

Macro challenges keep share volatility high, while the company works to introduce engine platforms and book orders in ‘14. The recent follow-on offering helps alleviate cash issues near-term ($210.6M cash at year-end vs. burn of $26.9M in Q4). While we continue to favor the strategy (and the nat gas macro), risk/reward stays balanced.
Investment highlights

 Few changes this quarter, as Westport finishes a challenging 2013 and looks to transition from R&D phase to increased product adoption in 2014 (with heightened focus on cost optimization and prioritized investments  goal of breakeven adjusted EBITDA for all three units by year-end).
 The outlook for 2014 implies solid growth (~7-13%), despite a ~$25M headwind from discontinuation of first generation HPDI (as focus turns to roll-out of HPDI 2.0 and expectation of improved warranty accruals – work underway with several OEMs currently).
 CWI and Weichai continue to grow nicely, with both JVs reporting record volumes for the year (2014 expected to benefit from ramp of ISX12G and build-out of additional capacity at Weichai). Early opportunities in rail/mining/marine also continue to progress nicely.
 Our 2014 revenue/EPS estimates go to $184M/$(1.80) from $241M/$(1.90); F2015 is introduced at $300M/$(0.90).
Valuation Our $20 price target (from $28) is derived by applying a 4x multiple to our 2015 sales estimate of $300M

WaterFurnace Renewable Energy, Inc.

WFI : TSX : C$24.37
BUY 
Target: C$29.00

COMPANY DESCRIPTION:
A Canadian corporation headquartered in Fort Wayne, Indiana, WaterFurnace Renewable Energy is a leading North American manufacturer of geothermal and water-source heat pumps for the residential, commercial and institutional HVAC markets. Sold under the WaterFurnace brand name, WFI’s products are sold, installed and serviced by a growing network of independent dealers and contractors in the US and Canada and in select international markets.
All amounts in C$ unless otherwise noted.

Sustainability — Energy & Power Technologies
Q3/13 REVIEW; REITERATE BUY RATING, TARGET PRICE TO C$29.00 (FROM C$25.00)
Investment recommendation
We are reiterating our BUY rating and increasing our one-year target price to C$29.00 from C$25.00 as we roll forward our base valuation year from 2013 to 2014. Over the last few years, in our view, WaterFurnace has executed beautifully against the backdrop of a weak U.S. economy and housing market, as well as tight credit and low natural gas prices, while remaining focused on building a much broader platform (products / channels / geographic reach) to drive above-average growth over the medium to long term. With a dividend yield of 3.9%, limited liquidity, a strong track record and balance sheet, and an excellent long-term growth opportunity – with strong positive operating leverage already evident on very modest revenue growth – we continue to advise buying the shares ahead of a more meaningful top-line recovery.
Valuation
Our C$29.00 target price is supported by our DCF model (12.5% discount rate, 4% terminal growth rate) to which we add a modest value for WaterFurnace’s share of the China JV (15 times forward earnings). This JV has the potential to add substantial incremental shareholder value over the next several years, in our view. This translates into P/E multiples of 23 times and 18 times our 2014 and 2015 estimates.

Fuel Tech

FTEK : NASDAQ : US$4.00
HOLD 
Target: US$6.00

COMPANY DESCRIPTION:
Fuel Tech is a leading company engaged in the development, commercialization, and application of proprietary technologies for air pollution control, utility process optimization and advanced engineering services.
All amounts in US$ unless otherwise noted.

Investment recommendation
Underlying profitability helps keep share price firm here, while we look for improving demand and the intro of new solutions in 2014. Maintain HOLD, $6.00 target.
Investment highlights
 APC backlog levels stay firm right here (~$51.5M currently, ~30% blended margin), even as domestic conversion stays slow (expected pick-up in H2). International APC activity was robust (~$11.8M, supported by large Chilean order), while FUEL CHEM holds steady. The project pipeline remains encouraging (Mobotec sale opening up European opportunities), while sales cycles remain long and lumpy.
 Strategic initiatives continue, with new multi-pollutant (SO2, Hg, acid gases, etc.) control solutions (recurring rev model similar to FUEL CHEM) on track for introduction toward late ‘13/early ‘14. 2013 looks to be a transition year, as the company positions itself for future growth opportunities. M&A also remains a possibility given healthy balance sheet (~$23M cash), in our view.
 Our 2013 estimates go to $109.1M/$0.11 from $105.0M/$0.09, while 2014 goes to $119M/$0.12 from $115M/$0.12.
Valuation
Our $6 target is based on a 1.0x EV/sales multiple applied to our 2014 revenue estimate of $119M.
Risks
Regulatory delay, lengthy utility technology adoption cycles, competition.

Renewable Energy Group

Image representing Renewable Energy Group as d...

Image via CrunchBase

REGI : NASDAQ : US$9.91
BUY 
Target: US$12.00

COMPANY DESCRIPTION:
Renewable Energy Group is the largest producer of biodiesel in the United States. As a fully integrated producer, Renewable Energy‘s capabilities include feedstock acquisition, facility construction management, facility operations and biodiesel marketing.

Investment recommendation


While we expect shares to remain volatile given the commodity-driven economics, we stay constructive as trends remain very favorable for RIN
prices thus far in ‘13. Maintain BUY, raise target to $12.
Investment highlights
 REGI reported Q1/13 results above guidance (adjusted EBITDA of ~$5- 15M), reporting revs/adjusted EBITDA of $211.4M/$22M (on 38.9M
gallons) vs. our $201.0M/$14.7M estimates (normalized for reinstatement of blender’s credit, revenue ~$339.3M w/ credit).
 Management execution stays strong, as “blender’s bounty” gets recognized (following careful contract negotiations) and capacity/distribution continue to increase. The balance sheet also stays strong, even with strategic inventory build of higher cloud point product ahead of warmer months.
 RVO and favorable RIN pricing drive a strong outlook, with Q2 adjusted EBITDA expected at ~$35-50M (~55-65M gallons) and Q3 at ~$25-40M
(~55-70M gallons).
 Our ‘13 rev/adjusted EBITDA estimates go to $1.28B/$130M from $1.1B/$101.9M, while’14E goes to $1.18B/112M from $1.07B/$70.6M.
Valuation
We derive our $12 target (from $9.00) by applying a 4.0x EV/EBITDA multiple to our ’14 adjusted EBITDA estimate of $111.6M.
Risks
Commodity price movements, future financing needs, project execution.

Brookfield Renewable Energy / Western Wind

English: Wind Turbines Zephyr and Freedom in M...

English: Wind Turbines Zephyr and Freedom in Moorhead, Minnesota http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/wind/wind.jpg Energy Information Administration http://www.mpsutility.com/capture.htm (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

( Western Wind is featured in The Apprentice Millionaire Portfolio from Amazon Books )

Brookfield Renewable Energy

(BEP.UN : TSX : $30.14)
Western Wind Energy

(WND : TSX-V : $2.51)

”Brookfield Renewable Energy Partners has increased its all-cash offer for the shares of Western Wind to $2.60/share from $2.50/share and has extended the expiry time of the offer to February 11, 2013 from January 28, 2013. BEP.UN indicates that 22% of independent shareholders have either entered into lock up agreements or have advised that they will tender the shares to the offer.

While this may seem like a no-brainer for Western Wind shareholders as it represents a 119% premium to the share price prior to the   nouncement that it was for sale (July 28, 2012)…we suspect the Western Wind CEO will continue to posture for an even sweeter bid. Just a couple days ago, BEP.UN demonstrated their frustration with Western Wind, saying there were terminating discussions. Upon making its offer in November 2012, the company said its preferred approach was to work with the Board and the advisors towards a Board supported transaction.

However the gloves have now come off. In a recent press release, BEP.UN said, ―Unfortunately, based on Western Wind’s conduct since
commencement of the Offer it appears that Western Wind, and in particular, its CEO, has no intention of selling the Company.
In fact, Brookfield Renewable’s recent discussions with Western Wind appear to have been orchestrated by the Company to enable it to issue its January 22, 2013 news release as well as its Notice of Change to its Supplementary Director’s Circular, and raise shareholder expectations that a revised proposal will be made, despite there being no agreement or understanding between the parties regarding a proposal or its terms.‖ BEP.UN also points to the fact that Western Wind said 56 parties were interested in acquiring the company, yet no alternative proposals have emerged.

Interestingly, management of Western Wind has also managed to convince its board of directors to approve early payments of their change of control payments (despite the fact that no sale was on the horizon). Ciachurski received approximately $3 million. Better yet, Ciachurski continues to have a special bonus arrangement in which he would receive another $3 million if he gets $3.00 a share for the company…aka…the battle is
likely not over .

The Hype About America’s Energy Boom

Oil Guru Destroys All Of The Hype About America’s Energy Boom

 

5/14

   

The gap between production and consumption is 9 million barrels of oil a day. “It is unlikely that the U.S. will become energy independent,” Berman argues.

The gap between production and consumption is 9 million barrels of oil a day.

Arthur Berman

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/arthur-berman-shale-is-magical-thinking-2013-1?op=1#ixzz2IXJjv61y

Alternate Fuel Roundup

Solazyme

Solazyme (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Nov. 1

Renewable Energy Group (REGI : NASDAQ : $4.81 | BUY):

Near-term conditions stay challenged given the current macro environment, while recent finalization of the RVO for ’13 at 1.28B gallons helps supports the medium-term outlook (with 2014 expected in near to medium term). While we expect shares to remain volatile (commodities, RIN controversy, etc.), we stay constructive on the longer-term opportunity. Our new price target  $6.50 (from $8.50).

 Solazyme (SZYM : NASDAQ : $8.50 | BUY): 

Encouraging execution on milestones thus far, with commercialization efforts continuing. Algenist should continue to gain traction, while a tougher DoD budgetary environment gets embedded in the current outlook. All eyes remain on the Bunge JV facility build-  out in 2013 ( and potential for future fundraising), while share volatility likely remains in the near term. Maintain BUY.

Darling International (DAR : NYSE : $16.55 | HOLD):

We remain impressed with the strategic vision (and potential for additional organic/inorganic growth) following the recent investor day. While we favor the longer- term opportunity, risk/reward is balanced into late 2012 r – markets remain oversupplied and Street expectations start to assume a quick ramp of Diamond Green Diesel (DGD) in H1/13 (not yet in our estimates).

Westport Innovations (WPRT : NASDAQ : $28.41 | HOLD): Given the recent downward revision to guidance (FY12 revs in the $340-350M range, vs. original $400-425M expectation), near-term results become less important than the expected  with trajectory in ’13 (as HD shipments look to get pushed out further). We wait for additional color on the call to adjust our model. While we continue to favor management’s strategy  (and the macro) believe the risk/reward stays balanced.

Fuel Systems Solutions (FSYS : NASDAQ : $16.41 | HOLD): While visibility on the ramp of model year ’13/14 volumes in North America is constrained near term, we finf the Street somewhat under-appreciating the potential for contract wins and the long-awaited Asian  business to help support the outlook into the ‘13/’14 period. Maintain HOLD.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,290 other followers