Question or comments? If you’re a solar developer or investor and have a story to share that relates to this article or a question about the content, please leave it in the comment section below the article.
This is a guest article by Chris Lord of CapIron Inc. Chris also teaches our Solar Executive MBA. The next Solar Executive MBA session starts on September 15th. In the course, students will work a commercial solar project from start to finish with expert guidance from Chris along the way. The class is capped so to provide maximum student attention, but there are a limited number of discounted seats. You can get your $500 discounted seat here.
In the Solar Executive MBA, one of the most common topics students have questions about is about identifying, screening, and closing investors or buyers of their solar projects.
Most commonly, students focus exclusively on getting investors who pay the highest price per watt for their projects. In the article on the three keys to defining bankability, we discussed why this is not the best strategy. The investor actually wants the best returns on a project. The best returns means the project is economically strong and reliable.
From the developers’ perspective, there is risk in selecting the right investor. This article will address why it’s critical to address the competence of investors and how developers can screen investors to find the best ones.
Enter Chris Lord from CapIron, Inc
In today’s highly competitive solar PV market, project developers looking for an investor or purchaser for their projects tend to focus almost exclusively on finding those with the lowest project return requirement or willing to pay the highest price for a project.
But is this the best measure to use when locking in your solar project upside?
This article examines the importance of purchaser performance in selecting a project purchaser and outlines ways to collect data that will enable you to assess purchaser performance.
Here is an example of how a developer lost a lot of value in a very short time by ignoring the importance of performance or execution risk when selecting a purchaser for his solar PV projects.
The developer had a mid-sized distributed generation project for sale, largely shovel-ready. The developer asked outside consultants to conduct an auction process among a select group of purchasers. With the bids in, the results were arranged in a matrix to show dollar price against execution risk.
In the matrix, shown below, execution risk was estimated based on a variety of due diligence and market intelligence assessments. The highest execution risk was assigned a ten, and the lowest execution risk assigned a one.
One of the parties added late in the process by the developer offered the highest price at $3.18 a kW, almost $0.35 a kW higher than the average of the other six bidders, and $0.26 a kW higher than the next highest bidder. Based on market experience, the consultants interpreted that as a strong sign that rumors of financial distress at the high bidder were true. The prospective high bidder was desperately trying to bolster a weak pipeline in order to attract a badly-needed infusion of capital.
The consultants recommended a bidder offering a price of $2.85 a kW bolstered by the lowest likely execution risk. Focused solely on price, the developer ignored the recommendation and proceeded with the highest bidder.
After thirty days of intense negotiation on an LOI, and days before execution of the LOI, the purchaser’s parent filed for bankruptcy and the purchaser followed suit. Worse yet, when the developer turned back to the other bidders in an effort to salvage value, he found that they knew of his predicament and were inflexible on terms and soft on their original price bids. Ultimately, the developer settled for $2.82 a kW, but this did not account for the lost legal fees and time spent negotiating a deal that never closed.
1. Pricing vs. Performance
a. Why the focus on Pricing?
It is not surprising that project developers zero in on price when selecting a project purchaser. Particularly for small and mid-size developers, finding every possible dollar on the sale price is critical to covering the economic uncertainties inherent in a project’s development and construction phases and generating enough capital to fund continued growth.
The overriding problem facing developers is that there is a complete and natural disconnect between project costs (development and construction) on one side, and the valuation that an investor or purchaser might place on the project.
In the real world, purchasers look solely to the net cash and tax benefits that a project is expected to generate over the 15 to 25 years of its life. By discounting those net cash and tax benefits back to the present using their target return, a purchaser arrives at a price that he or she is willing to pay today for the project and related benefits.
For the capital costs of developing a project, the investor or purchaser is completely indifferent. If a developer spent more than the purchase price, then the developer will lose money. Any amount over the developer’s costs is how the developer generates a return on the development capital invested in the project. Either way, it has no impact on the value of a project to investors or purchasers.
This sounds simple enough but, given that most developers must find an investor or project purchaser before construction begins, and – worse yet – the actual costs of development and construction may not be known at this point, developers naturally steer to the highest price offered by a purchaser because there appears to be no downside. A higher price gives the sense of security – more margin to cover development and construction unknowns – and, should costs come in at or below projections, more profit to fund future growth.
b. What’s the downside?
By focusing solely or primarily on price, developers overlook other critical factors including investor or purchaser performance that can dramatically and sometimes adversely impact price. Sometimes this risk is characterized as “execution” risk. Whatever we call it, we are talking about the likelihood and cost of actually closing the specific, targeted transaction with a particular investor or purchaser on terms and conditions (including price) reasonably close to those the parties originally expected when they executed an LOI or otherwise first “shook hands” on the deal.
Performance is important because the ability of an investor or purchaser to follow through and close a transaction in a timely and cost-effective manner can have a bigger impact on a developer’s realized value than the promise of an incrementally higher purchase price from an investor or purchaser who fails to close.
In any financing, there is always a risk that a closing fails. There are at least three main classes of these types of risk: market risk, developer risk, and investor risk.
Market risk is the risk that arises from adverse changes in general market conditions. An example of a market failure, well known to most veterans of solar development, occurred in 2008 with Lehman’s collapse that fall and the onset of the Great Recession. Most project purchasers suddenly lost their tax appetite. Almost all major banks took economic hits to income that saddled them with substantial losses, wiping out the very profits that they were counting on to create their tax appetite. As a consequence, there was very little tax appetite among investors nationwide for the balance of 2008 and much of the first half of 2009. Even when investors did return to the market, tax-drive transaction volume in 2008 was substantially below pre-Lehman projections. In fact, Congress created the Treasury’s Cash Grant program in lieu of the ITC precisely to address that issue.