So, the tactics Analemma_ 50 and I are discussing are what other sustainable, renewable supply options exist. Because that is what SolarCity represents. Does it make sense to buy troubled SolarCity before they go under, or does it make more sense to buy another solar (or insert renewable here), or does it make more sense to start over on that component. Those are the alternative tactics I am interested in, which I am not aware of.
>>Does it make sense to buy troubled SolarCity before they go under
From an investment standpoint, I think optimally you let Solar City go into bankruptcy, buy it for pennies on the dollar, and then you cherry pick the components you want and sell off any others that you think you can. Can someone do that as a chair of both though, not sure (i guess so?).
Maybe they didn't do that because they see someone else coming in - a new challenger? Or, he sees long term something that others don't. Or maybe he's just ego-maniacal.
It's possible that they benefit leaders on average but can also cause black-swan cases of terrible decision-making, which I think is the argument against the SolarCity purchase here. Tragic flaws and all that.
> I'm not aware of anyone doing this strategically, building bridges from both the supply and demand side, and at this scale.
I mentioned this in a previous comment about the SolarCity merger: most people agree it makes sense strategically. We're wondering whether it's a good move tactically, for a company in a stable-but-iffy cash flow situation to buy another company that was hemorrhaging cash and wasn't expected to continue as a going concern for much longer.