The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
What I am describing is an undated, un-geared futures contract. If you want gearing, then borrow to buy units, or buy call options on them (a market would develop soon enough).
No, a market will not develop, because the product is not standardized. That's why each project has a taylor-made financing today: because you must adjust to the specific conditions in each case (different technical constraints, different local partners, different wind potential, investors with different goal in each case - PR, return on investment, fulfilling regulatory obligations, power prices, etc...)
Operational risk you would probably build in to a leasing model, as I said.
Leasing is just a financial object, not a risk allocation technique. What I mea, is - who loses out if production is less than expected? What's your cash waterfall which describes exactly who gets what money in what order when revenue is generated?
And if the turbine manufacturer isn't up for it, because he's a Plc or debt funded, or both, then you buy him out, or start your own, again as a Community (or Federation of Communities) owned business.
Suddenly you jump from building a few MWs of wind power to becoming a manufacturer of wind turbines, a completely different business, in the heavy industry sector, where the investment requirements are of a total different scale. This is, quite simply, ridiculous. Are you also going to tell me that if Toyota does not want to take your units to pay for the pick up truck to go operate the turbine, you'll also go into "community-owned" pickup truck manufacturing?
It's your job as an investment banker to do the due diligence on projects to see that they appear viable and that no more units are to be sold than the project is capable of producing. A prospectus will be needed in the normal way, and there will be a minimum unit sale price below which a project will not happen.
I thought the whole point was to get rid of the evil investment bankers? If we're in the picture, why not stick with our existing solutions, which do not require anybody to step out of their normal professional position, allow risk allocation on a case-by-case basis in accordance with each entity's needs and priorities, and, you know, actually happen and work?
In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Oui - Jan 23 20 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 14 13 comments
by Oui - Jan 19 17 comments
by Oui - Jan 17 7 comments
by ARGeezer - Jan 17 25 comments
by Oui - Jan 10 112 comments
by Oui - Jan 13 4 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jan 6 8 comments
by Oui - Jan 28
by Oui - Jan 27
by Oui - Jan 2411 comments
by Oui - Jan 2320 comments
by Oui - Jan 1917 comments
by Oui - Jan 177 comments
by ARGeezer - Jan 1725 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1413 comments
by Oui - Jan 134 comments
by Oui - Jan 131 comment
by Oui - Jan 10112 comments
by Oui - Jan 931 comments
by Oui - Jan 812 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jan 68 comments
by Oui - Jan 6116 comments
by ARGeezer - Jan 541 comments
by Oui - Jan 493 comments
by Oui - Jan 386 comments
by Oui - Jan 214 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 3118 comments