►
Description
MakerDAO Forum Post: https://forum.makerdao.com/t/collateral-onboarding-call-46-pando-investment-grade-climate-assets/16639
Pando Climate Co. has published a MIP6 application to introduce rated solar loans from Mosaic Solar, Inc as collateral in the Maker Protocol. This application is initially requesting a $220 million debt ceiling.
Pando is built to unleash financing for the age of climate solutions, by tokenizing real world climate assets and offers them as investments. Pando in turn enables protocols and DAO’s to invest in climate solutions, while also stabilizing and growing their treasuries with real-world assets.
A
Hello
maker,
dao
community,
thank
you
for
joining
the
46th
collateral
onboarding
community
call.
Today
we
are
joined
by
three
of
the
team
members
from
pando
and
they
are
presenting
investment
grade
climate
assets
for
onboarding
to
the
maker
dow
system,
we're
joined
today
by
morgan
wright,
who
is
the
cfo
dory?
A
Who
is
the
ceo
and
then
peter
who's,
the
chief
investment
officer,
who
will
be
taking
us
through
most
of
the
presentation
today,
as
you
guys
have
questions,
the
team
here
is
very
open
and
wants
to
make
this
an
engaging
meeting,
so
please
feel
free
to
drop
them
into
the
call
and
we'll
address
them
in
real
time.
Also,
I
want
to
call
it
again.
The
race
hand
feature
in
the
crowdcast
system.
If
you
need
help
with
that.
B
It
and
we're
really
grateful
for
everyone
taking
the
time
to
listen
to
this
either
live
or
in
the
recording,
and
as
mentioned
you
know,
please
feel
free
to
ask
questions
and
if
we're
going
to
address
the
topic
later,
we
absolutely
will
just
tell
you
we'll
address
that
later
or
we
can
stop
and
discuss
a
topic
at
any
time.
So,
as
mentioned,
I'm
peter
o'rourke
joined
by
morgan
and
dory
and
we'll
just
kick
off
right
into
the
presentation.
B
B
The
structure
is
a
highly
commonly
used
project
finance
structure,
given
the
large
number
of
homes
in
the
transaction.
It's
a
relatively
low
risk
of
default
for
the
senior
lender,
which
would
be
maker
and
even
as
further
protection.
The
the
transaction
is
going
to
be
rated
by
kroll
bond
rating
agency.
B
Importantly,
from
our
perspective
maker
would
be
earning
a
yield
that
is
uncorrelated
to
the
crypto
market,
so
real
world
cash
flowing
assets
and
the
opportunity
is
also
broader
than
just
earning
cash
flow
from
assets
also
is
a
really
interesting
opportunity.
We
believe
for
maker
to
get
into
a
very
mature
market,
where
tier
one,
traditional
finance
lenders
are
very
active.
B
B
B
B
Morgan
and
I
came
out
of
the
u.s
department
of
energy's
loan
program
where
we
deployed
about
60
billion
in
energy
project
finance
transactions.
We
also
created
a
roughly
500
million
dollar
registered
investment
advisory
firm
for
solar
tax
equity
collectively,
the
four
of
us
have
70
years
of
experience.
B
B
Those
loan
tranches
are
then
rated
by
coal
if
it's
a
bond
rating,
if
it's
a
bond
asset
and
then,
though,
they're
then
sold
to
the
public
markets,
we
have
chosen
and
then
asked
mosaic
to
actually
rate
a
pool
of
loans,
not
bonds
to
give
maker
that
extra
protection
that
you're
actually
having
a
credit
rating
assigned
to
these
investment
grade
credit
rating
assigned
to
these
solar
loans.
When
mosaic
typically
does
forward
flow
or
whole
whole
loan
purchase
facilities.
B
D
B
The
remaining
value
that
roughly
40
million
would
be
funded
by
a
junior
capital
provider.
The
loan
will
be
backed
by,
as
we've
mentioned,
prime
quality,
residential
solar
customers.
The
whole
loan
that
we
will
be
financing
will
be
rated
triple,
b,
plus
by
cole,
using
standard
methodologies
that
are
publicly
available.
B
We're
assuming
right
now,
around
5000,
u.s
residences
would
be
in
that
pool
and
the
weighted
average
fico
for
that
would
be
per
our
term
sheet
with
mosaic
would
be
at
least
700,
and
for
those
who
are
not
familiar
with
a
fico
score
who
might
be
outside
of
the
united
states.
That's
just
a
way
to
assess
the
credit
worthiness
of
an
individual
maker's
net
yield.
B
We're
proposing
would
be
around
three
percent,
that
is,
after
servicing
costs,
payment,
agent
costs
costs
for
stock,
gender
structure
after
the
cost
for
kroll's
rating
fee
and
then
after
the
pando
yield.
That
is
at
risk,
and
so
the
we're
we're
assuming
around
a
three
percent
yield
for
maker,
which
again
our
view
for
a
solar
loan
and
for
most
loans,
is
pretty
consistent
with
an
investment
grade
publicly
rated
security.
B
The
tenor
for
the
individual
solar
loans
can
range
from
five
to
twenty
five
and
even
possibly
30
years.
The
actual
loan
we
are
proposing
with
maker
would
be
14
years
with
a
weighted
average
life
of
six
years.
Weighted
average
life
for
those
who
are
not
familiar
with
that
term
means
basically,
when
50
of
the
principal
that
210
is
returned,
and
we
can
show
you
what
that
means
graphically
a
little
bit
lower.
B
B
The
base
case
includes
a
very
strong
junior
capital
layer,
but
there's
also
a
reserve
account
that
will
be
funded
at
closing,
which
is
added
protection
for
maker.
Should
there
be
very
large
defaults
if
the
reserve
account
is
depleted,
then
the
the
junior
cash
flow
is
used
to
make
up
any
gaps
and
payments
of
pni
to
maker,
and
if
that
is
depleted,
then
pando's
yield
is
used
to
service
makers
debt.
So
simply
just
from
a
pure
cash
standpoint,
we
have
three
levels
of
protection
for
maker.
B
Historically,
you
see
about
a
one
percent
default
rate
annually
for
mosaic
solar
loans.
They
get
recoveries
in
the
20
to
30
scenario,
but
when
kroll
underwrites
this,
they
look
at
about
a
7.5
default
rate.
So
it's
a
very
conservative
underwriting
by
crawl.
The
importantly,
however,
regardless
of
the
first
four
bullets
and
one
sub-bullet,
the
homeowners
would
need
to
default
by
more
than
two
times
the
base
case
to
delay.
B
Maker's
senior
secured
return
not
even
to
blow
it
up,
so
these
are
really
stable
cash
flowing
assets
that
we
feel
provides
a
lot
of
protection
for
mosaic,
I'm
sorry
for
maker
just
graphically
the
summary.
I
won't
go
through
all
of
these,
but
you
can
see
that
the
advance
rate
is
93,
which
means
there's
a
roughly
7
percent
junior
layer
in
the
capital
stack.
B
B
The
die
will
be
backed
by
that
stable
collateral,
but
it's
uncorrelated
to
the
crypto
market.
There
is
no
technology
risk
in
this
transaction.
These
are
all
state-of-the-art,
commonly
used
solar
panels
pando,
as
a
team
is
exceptionally
experienced
in
the
solar
space
in
particular,
but
we're
very
familiar
and
experienced
in
project
finance.
Lending
I've
been
doing
it
for
30
years.
B
B
I
think
it's
a
rightful
position
for
maker
to
take
and
it's
exciting
for
us
to
try
to
be
a
part
of
that,
and
importantly,
there's
a
lot
of
attention
on
how
cryptocurrencies
work
in
the
world
and-
and
we
know
that
the
white
house,
sac
and
others
would
be
very
interested
in
seeing
how
cryptocurrencies
can
both
play
a
role
in
energy
project
finance,
but
also
clean
energy
project.
Finance.
B
B
First,
how
do
how
does
this
transaction
compare
to
treasuries?
The
foremost
treasuries
are
perfectly
fine
and
acceptable
asset
to
invest
in.
We
feel
that
treasuries
are
minimal
risk
similar
to
an
investment
grade.
Transaction
is
minimal
risk.
So,
while
we
don't
have
the
full
faith
in
credit
of
the
us
government
behind
our
transaction,
it
is
investment
grade
triple
b
plus,
which
is
you
know,
a
very
solid
risk
profile
and
a
lot
of
entities.
Financial
institutions
do
invest
in
treasuries
as
part
of
their
overall
investment
strategy.
B
If
you,
if
you
want
to
take
a
quick
look
at
the
chart
here,
you'll
see
the
return
of
principal,
which
is
a
differentiator
between
what
we're
proposing
in
treasuries.
So,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
there's
a
weighted
average
life
of
six
years.
So
by
year,
six
fifty
percent
of
your
principal
would
be
returned,
whereas
with
treasuries
as
you'll
see
this
orange
line
at
the
far
right.
B
That's
the
full
return
of
principal
there
are
upsides
to
the
return
of
principle
not
being
happening,
because
the
treasury
is
required
to
pay
interest
on
the
full
amount
of
principal
every
year,
but
in
terms
of
the
liquidity
needs
and
a
quick
return
of
capital.
There
is
a
meaningful
return
of
capital
in
the
in
our
transaction
as
compared
to
treasuries.
One
way
to
look
at
it.
B
We
just
put
at
the
bottom
bullet
here,
you'll
see
around
110
or
so
million
at
the
end
of
year,
five,
which
includes
86
million
of
principal
versus
30
million
of
interest
being
paid
by
treasury
bill
a
10-year
treasury.
So
again
it
doesn't
mean
treasuries
aren't
good.
They
are
very
good
investment
tool,
but
having
some
diversification
is
helpful
as
well.
B
Next,
we
know
there's
a
lot
of
conversations
about
bonds
and
trying
to
compare
this
transaction
to
bonds.
We
have
respectfully
disagreed
that
this
is
a
bond
simply
because
it's
not
a
bond.
It
is
a
loan.
The
the
assets
underlying
the
loan
from
maker
are
all
solar
loans
and
they're
not
being
publicly
traded
or
publicly
offered
in
a
bond.
B
We
did
have
that
conversation
now
four
weeks
ago.
So
obviously
things
have
changed
and
we
will
keep
looking
at
the
the
overall
pricing
for
this
transaction
since
it's
not
currently
set.
But
we
still
feel
very
strongly
that
this
is
a
well-priced
proposal
to
maker,
especially
when
it's
measured
against
the
risk
profile
of
the
transaction
a
little
bit
further,
just
importantly,
kind
of
on
the
whole
bond
versus
loan
front
loans
are
not
publicly
traded
like
a
bond,
so
it
is
difficult
to
compare
a
bond
to
a
loan,
typically
private
loans.
B
They
do
not
share
pricing
and,
as
they're
not
traded.
It
is
not
easy
to
find
public
information
about
that,
but
when
a
loan
is
sold,
a
new
buyer
does
not
look
to
a
publicly
traded
asset
as
a
comparable.
What
they
do
is
they
look
at
the
cash
flow
from
that
loan
that
existing
loan
and
they
just
apply
a
discounted
cash
flow
methodology
to
that,
and
that
comes
up
with
a
price
they're
willing
to
pay.
B
We
feel
that
even
with
a
really
steep
discount,
we
could
return
mosaics.
I'm
sorry
maker's
capital
relatively
quickly
should
we
need
to
liquidate
your
position
and
we
feel,
depending
on
the
year,
that
you
would
need
to
do
that
we
could
easily
return
100
of
your
principal
again.
It's
using
the
discounted
cash
flow
methodology,
not
looking
at
a
publicly
traded
bond.
A
B
D
I'll
go
kind
of
back
to
the
beginning.
The
first
question
is
kind
of
the
discrepancy
and
the
yields
between
the
panda
loan
and
the
treasury
when
this
slide
was
built.
The
10-year
curve
for
the
treasury
was
higher
than
the
yield
that
we
were
offering.
You
do
see
a
little
bit
discrepancy
there
and,
as
peter
mentioned,
because
you're
paying
interest
on
the
full
amount
of
the
principal
over
time.
The
interest
does
build
up
more
for
the
treasury
versus
the
pando
loan.
D
B
Okay,
yeah
and
just
to
the
point
on
the
difference
between
interest
payments
between
the
our
proposal
and
the
treasury
as
morgan
mentioned,
because
the
return
of
principal
is
doesn't
occur
until
year,
10
there
you're
having
higher
interest
payments
over
time,
but
the
counterbalance
of
that
is
you're
getting
more
of
your
capital
back
quickly.
In
a
loan
scenario,.
B
Okay
back
to
this
slide,
where
we've
been
asked
a
few
times
is
maker,
the
only
capital
in
this
transaction
meaning
is
there
any
junior
first
loss
capital.
So
the
answer
is
yes,
there
is
junior
first
loss
capital
which
we
did
describe
earlier
and
it's
not
just
junior
first
lost
capital.
There
is
a
debt
service
reserve
account
as
well
as
pando's
yield,
but
that
residual
cash
flow
is
typically
something
that's
sold
by
mosaic
to
a
counterparty.
B
It
is
obviously
available
to
maker
if
you
want
to
increase
your
return,
because
that
that
residual
return
is
usually
higher,
but
our
assumption
is
given.
That
maker
was
mostly
interested
in
rated
loans
that,
since
that
is
unrated,
you
would
not
be
interested
in
that,
and
so
the
short
answer
is
yes:
there
is
first
loss
capital
in
this
project.
B
And
we
are
very
aware
and
read
not
just
with
our
proposal
but
with
other
proposals.
The
concern
around
asset
liquidity
excuse
me,
and
so
we
do
both
understand
the
importance
of
that
and
we
do
understand
the
difference
between
liquidity
from
the
perspective
of
the
cryptocurrency
world
versus
the
real
world.
D
Really
here
peter
filmland,
I
did
see
some
comments
as
to
in
a
loan
sale.
Typically,
you
have
to
do
it
at
a
discount.
That's
actually
not
the
case
with
with
these
assets
because
of
the
shorter
tenured
loans,
the
five
and
less
than
10-year
kind
of
amortization
schedules
mixed
in
as
well
as
the
large
pre-payment
that
comes
from
investment
tax
credit
proceeds
for
a
number
of
the
homeowners,
the
using
a
discount
rate
on
those
future
cash
flows.
B
We
are
obviously
highly
incentivized
to
make
sure
that
maker
receives
its
full
principal
and
interest
payments
and
achieves
the
return
that
we
are
focused
on,
because
without
that,
pando
receives
nothing.
So
we
are
fully
at
risk.
We
are
not
being
paid
and
we're
not
proposing
a
guaranteed
fixed
fee.
I
know
there's
been
some
confusion
on
that
point.
B
Being
paid
a
guaranteed
fixed
fee
would
be
not
uncommon
in
this
sort
of
transaction,
and
so
we
could
have
gone
down
that
path.
However,
we
felt
that
in
order
to
really
demonstrate
our
alignment
with
maker,
we
would
structure
our
yield
as
at
yield.
An
at-risk
return,
not
a
guaranteed
fixed
fee,
because.
D
D
B
D
B
Yeah
and
so
part
of
the
reason
that
we
we
probably
wouldn't
want
to
go
down
that
path,
although
some
of
those
lenders
would
probably
take
the
residual
that
junior
capital
position,
so
there
would
be
someone
in
a
at
that
institutional
level
being
a
part
of
it.
One
of
the
reasons
why
we
don't
feel
it's
the
best
idea
to
have
someone
as
a
as
a
co-senior
lender
with
maker
is
in
that
instance.
B
B
I'm
not
sure
that
there's
a
whole
lot
of
upside
for
maker
doing
that
either,
because
in
a
in
a
scenario
where
you
had
someone
who's
say
very
pursue
with
you
you're,
just
both
sharing
the
losses.
There's
no
real
particular.
We
understand,
for
example,
in
in
other
transactions,
where
there
might
not
be
a
whole
lot
of
clarity
or
certainty
about
the
asset
type
or
when
the
capital
will
be
deployed.
B
That
having
someone
co-investing
alongside
of
you,
is
helpful
in
particular,
if
that
co-investor
is
the
entity,
that's
underwriting
and
structuring
the
transaction,
and
you
don't
have
a
lot
of
ability
to
provide
any
sort
of
insight
or
influence
into
that
transaction
you're
effectively.
Along
for
the
ride,
in
that
instance,
having
that
entity
have
skin
in
the
game
is
really
important
in
this
transaction.
We
have
full
clarity
on
the
asset
types.
We
have
full
clarity
on
the
credit
worthiness
of
those
asset
types
and
we
have
full
clarity
on
when
the
capital
will
be
deployed.
B
D
D
D
Okay,
the
question
brings
it
back
to
league's
most
at
least
most
recent
offering,
which
is
at
a
much
higher
level
you
will
find
in
the
forum.
We
addressed
pretty
explicitly
why
mosaics
meant
price
much
tighter
than
good
leap,
how
their
underwriting
methodology
is
much
tighter
and
that's
reflected
in
in
the
spreads
that
they
get
in
their
in
their
public
instruments,
which,
again,
we
state
are
not
really
an
accurate
comparison
to
a
private
structured
loan.
D
A
Yeah
we
have
ties
from
the
real
world
finance
core
unit
who
asked
that
question
to
follow
up
thanks
for
having
mike.
Thank
you
guys
for
coming
on.
I
very
much
appreciate
it
yeah.
So
so
look
I
I
think
at
a
fundamental
level.
I
disagree
with
that
methodology,
but
that's
not
really
what
we're
here
to
debate.
I
think
you
guys
can
make
your
case
right,
arguing
that
it's
a
private
transaction,
it's
not
to
be
comp
to
public
transactions
to
sort
of
synthesize.
A
The
argument
here
right
is
that
mosaic,
as
an
issuer,
has
sort
of
alpha
right.
That
makes
the
good
leap
transaction,
not
a
viable
comp
right,
and
your
argument
is,
if
you
look
at
mosaics
transactions
and
how
they're
priced
historically,
you
can
see
that
the
market
is
in
fact
giving
mosaic
as
an
issuer.
That
premium
is
that
kind
of
the
argument
that
mosaic
is
inherently
a
it's
structurally,
a
more
powerful
and
better
issuer.
B
So
there
are
two
well
that's
correct,
but
there's
also
just
the
fundamental
topic
which
I
I
understand
we
disagree
on.
But
I'm
not
sure
why
we
disagree
on
is
that
we
are
not
proposing
a
bond
to
maker
and
there
is
a.
I
think
we
can
agree,
there's
a
meaningful
difference
between
a
publicly
traded
bond
and
a
loan
which
is
a
private
transaction,
and
so
it's
just
quite
simply,
this
is
not
a
bond.
A
B
Does
pull
loan
sales
and
forward
flow
agreements
which
are
loans
they're,
not
bonds?
The
only
difference
that
we're
doing
to
the
whole
loan
sale
approach
is
that
we're
actually
getting
this
rated,
which
is
the
only
comparable
kind
of
action
as
related
to
what
a
bond
would
have
mosaic,
does
not
have
their
loans
typically
rated.
But
we
ask
for
that
to
provide
some
sort
of
to
provide
a
level
of
comfort
to
to
make
her,
and
perhaps
that's
where
the
confusion
is
lying.
B
A
A
Like
I
get
that
there's
a
difference
there,
but
I
think
when
you
think
about
what
the
structure
is
and
what
the
risks
are:
you're
combining
a
bunch
of
loans
and
you're
selling
off
a
senior
to
maker
right,
which
is
a
very
similar
structure
to
a
securitization.
So
I
think
whether
it's
a
project,
finance,
private
loan
or
whether
you
know
it's
a
project
finance
public
loan
which,
in
my
experience,
should
price
tighter.
I
think
the
question
is
in
essence.
A
What
is
this
thing
and
why
is
that
essence
not
comparable
to
something
that
has
a
very
similar
essence
in
the
public
market?
And
I
don't
think
I
don't
think
this.
This
call
is
the
place
to
to
hash
it
out
right.
I
think
you
guys
have
been
very
diligent,
very
responsive
in
the
forums
and
we're
just
dealing
with
the
difference
in
methodology.
A
So
I'm
going
to
recuse
myself
and
let
other
people
answer
questions.
Let
you
guys
finish
your
presentation,
but
that's
kind
of
where
I'm,
where
I'm
coming
at
it
from
I.
I
think
it
it's
sort
of
there's
a
semantics
issue
here
right:
it's
not
we're,
not
arguing
it's
apples
to
apples
with
public
transactions,
but
public
transactions
are
there
for
a
reason
right.
Transactions
are
information
right.
A
B
B
D
D
And
foremost,
though,
these
are
performing
assets
unless
there's
a
reason
to
sell
them.
You
probably
would
not
in
that
scenario,
if
there
is
some
sort
of
the
reason
why
the
government
is
forcing
you
to
sell
off
all
of
your
assets,
then
it
does
go
to
the
liquidity
question
that
peter
has
been
answering,
but
right
again,
if
these
are
performing
assets.
Just
because
the
government
decides
to
additional
scrutiny
or
to
put
some
regulations,
I
don't
see
a
reason
why
that
would
force
hillary's
assets.
B
Yeah
any
government
regulation-
and
we
have
to
be
careful
because
who
knows
what
a
government
regulation
would
look
like,
but
in
in
the
kind
of
history
of
government
regulations
or
financial
markets,
they
wouldn't
come
after
a
performing
loan
that
is
totally
uncorrelated
to
the
crypto
market.
These
are
u.s
dollars
flowing
from
mosaic
to
pando
and
u.s
dollars
flowing
to
from
pando
to
maker.
They
can
be
converted
to
die,
but
it
this
this
is
a
cash
transaction
and
if
we
needed
to
liquidate
your
position,
sell
your
position.
B
D
There
have
been
over
8
billion
of
consumer
loan
debt
financing
in
the
public
market
since
2020.
Your
pricing
implies
that
these
deals
could
have
been
done.
Six
to
12
percent
cheaper
in
this
project,
finance
market.
That
implies.
These
originators
could
have
financed
this
eight
billion
of
assets
at
480
to
960
million
cheaper.
If
using
your
approach,
why
didn't
they
do
this.
B
So,
consumer
again
it's
it's
we're
using
a
general
term
consumer
finance.
So
this
is
not
consumer
finance.
This
is
structured
finance
with
a
pool
of
assets.
So
in
the
energy
infrastructure
space
project
finance
is
now
a
relatively
mature
market
in
the
u.s
and
it's
tied
to
long-term
contracted
cash
flows.
B
B
We
would
have
a
security
interest
in
the
assets
and
we'd
have
a
security
interest
in
the
mosaic
spv,
but
the
the
reason
why
most
consumer
loans
are
not
hearing
some
background
noise,
I'm
not
sure
who
that
is,
but
the
reason
why
most
consumer
loans,
consumer
credit
loans
are
not
using
a
project.
Finance
structure
is
because
there
is
actually
no
contracted
cash
flows
around
that,
whether
it's
a
credit
card
or
or
things
like
that,
it's
just
not
a
it's,
not
a
project,
finance
type
structure,
I'm
not
sure.
C
B
C
There's
been
eight
billion
of
these
securitized
in
the
last
two
and
a
half
years.
You
know
if
your
approach
is
right,
they
could
have
done
this
five
to
like
twelve
or
six
to
twelve
percent
cheaper
using
your
approach.
These
are
big
boys
like
mosaic
goodleap.
They
could
have
saved
roughly
500
million
to
a
billion
dollars
using
your
approach.
Why
did
they
all
do
that
less
efficient,
more
expensive
approach?
If
your
approach,
if
your
market
is
there,
it's
the
same
collateral.
C
C
B
Okay,
eric
can
I,
if
I
could
answer
please
mosaic-
does
do
whole
loan
sales
and
forward
flow
loans.
That's
actually
part
of
their
funding
strategy.
Goodleap
does
the
same
tesla
solarcity
does
the
same
sunrun
does
the
same.
Vivint
does
the
same.
They
use
multiple
markets,
but
you
just
said
they
don't
use
that
no.
C
B
Okay,
so
sometimes
the
the
bonds
are
cheaper.
Sometimes
the
bonds
are
more
expensive,
it
just
depends
and
different
lenders
are
able
to
participate
in
different
ways,
sometimes
the
bond
desks
max
out
and
they
can't
have
more
exposure
to
a
certain
to
a
particular
originator
or
asset
type
and
and
but
the
lone
desk
can
right.
So
there's
diff
different
desks
have
different
different
risk.
Exposures.
C
Let
me
just
we'll
just
finally
a
final
point:
400
million
of
this
was
priced
last
week,
it's
a
little
different
collateral,
but
it's
senior
secured
debt
financing
of
cons
of
consumer
solar
loans,
good
leap
at
five
percent.
You
know
pimco
john
hancock,
all
the
big
boys
paid
five
percent
for
a
senior
bond
that
is
rated
single
a
so
it's
better
than
credit
wise
in
the
bond
you're
gonna
deliver
and
it's
financing
the
same
assets.
So
I
look
at
this
and
I
say:
wait
all
the
big
boys
are
paying
five
percent.
C
C
Is
and
it's
been
priced
and
you've
presented
no
credible
comps,
you
haven't
showed
one
data
point
of
here's
where
our
method
trades
show
us
a
big
home
pool.
I
I'd
love
to
see
it
say:
hey
these
three
whole
loan
pools
traded
in
the
last
three
months
and
here's
how
they
priced.
We
need
to
see
something.
Otherwise,
it's
he
sheds.
She
said
the
difference
is
that
I
actually
have
shown
a
transaction
where
dozens
of
multi-billion
dollar
funds
price
this
other
you
haven't.
C
C
B
B
Eric
we're
letting
you
answer,
we're
I'm
listening
to
you.
When
you
ask
questions,
we
appreciate
the
same
courtesy,
so
we
did
provide
you
and,
if
you'd
like
to
reply
to
that,
we
can
have
a
discussion
in
the
forum
on
that
for
sure
the
private
conversation
we
had
with
two
investment
banks
was
done
at
your
request,
and
so
we
we
followed
up
with
that.
B
C
No,
no,
let
me
let
me
respond,
we
provided
a
reply,
so
no,
no,
the
last
week's
bond
pricing
tells
people
where
market
is
holders
maker
holders
have
to
decide
how
big
a
discount
they
want,
which
is
fine,
but
that's
a
very
clear,
very
public
pricing
signal.
That's
the
only
one
any
of
us
have
you
know
you
haven't,
provided
any
either.
D
That
hasn't
been
kind
of
explicitly
said,
and
so
I'll
kind
of
laid
out.
There's
the
underlying
loans
have
certain
cash
flows
associated
with
them.
The
financing
against
those
loans
has
to
fit
within
those
cash
flows.
If
the
public
markets
for
publicly
traded
bonds
require
a
return
that
is
greater
than
the
cash
flow
available
from
the
loans
that
are
being
structured,
there's
a
mismatch
there
that
doesn't
work
no.
C
A
To
get
too
deep
into
this
subject,
I
I
think
this
might
be
a
very
good
opportunity
for
a
real
world
finance
call
potentially
as
well
as
a
follow-up,
so
there's
an
opportunity
just
to
wrap
up
this
last
point,
so
we
can
continue
thanks
guys.
I
appreciate
your
time
yeah.
Thank
you
thanks
eric
okay,
yeah
morgan.
If
you
wanted
to
wrap
up
your
your
point
there
for
that
and
then,
like
I
said
able
to
move
on,
we
got
about
10
to
15
minutes
left
to
to
finish
up.
This
call.
D
If,
if
there's
only
this
much
cash
available
to
lend
against,
you
have
to
price
underneath
that,
if
the
public
prompts
for
this,
you
simply
can't
use
it
as
a
comp
because
it
doesn't
fit
within
the
unique
nature
of
this
transaction.
You
have
to
look
at
the
cash
flows
available
that
you're
financing
against
to
price
it
appropriately.
That's
what
project
finance
does
that's
what
we
have
done
and
that's
why?
One
of
the
reasons
why
looking
at
a
public
comparable
at
a
higher
price
is
not
useful
in
this
situation,.
A
A
B
It
is
obviously
very
different
than
the
bond,
so
we
thought
this
would
just
be
a
really
a
couple,
easy
slides.
We
can
go
through
that
show
that
just
the
cash
flows
and
how
this
works.
This
is
a
relatively
simplified
view
of
it.
But
if
I
start
at
the
bottom
right,
you
have
homeowners
who
have
rooftops
there'll,
be
solar
systems
installed
on
those
rooftops
and
pooled
into
a
tranche
mosaic
issues,
loans
to
those
homeowners
based
on
certain
criteria.
B
Those
loans
are
then
pooled
into
a
warehouse
facility.
That
facility
then
is
transferred
to
and
that
facility
to
be
super
clear
is
a
special
purpose.
Bank
bankruptcy,
remote
entity,
so
it
is
arm's
length
from
mosaic,
does
not
have
mosaic
risk
associated
with
it.
Pando
would
have
an
spv
that
is
in
place,
that
is
the
lender
to
that
loan
warehouse
facility
and
then
has
the
rights
to
the
cash
flows.
Coming
from
that
customer
payments.
B
At
that
instance,
the
customer
payments
would
just
go
directly
to
pando's
spv,
with
mosaic
being
the
servicer
with
a
backup
servicer,
then
stopping
here
and
going
to
the
maker
side.
This
is
this
structure,
and
the
greenish
boxes
is
really
kind
of
how
we
understand
maker
likes
to
do
this,
but
we
can
adjust
it
accordingly,
but
dye
would
be
provided
to
the
caymans
or
overseas
trust,
whether
it's
the
caymans
vvis
or
bermuda.
We
can.
We
can
discuss
that
trust.
B
B
That
trust,
then,
would
forward
the
debt
service
to
the
maker,
cayman
trust
or
overseas
trust,
and
then
that
debt
service
would
either
cash
or
converted
to
die,
be
returned
to
the
maker
vault
again
super
simple,
straightforward
structure,
but
happy
to
answer
any
questions
on
that
and
then
there's.
Obviously,
within
that
structure
there
are
roles
and
approval
authorities.
B
We've
tried
to
map
our
understanding
of
how
maker
would
typically
do
this,
but
we're
open
to
working
with
christian
and
others
to
make
sure
that
we
get
this,
how
you're
most
comfortable,
but
the
long
and
short
of
it
is
the
delaware,
statutory
trust
in
the
united
states
and
whatever
the
overseas
trusts
are
they
will
they
can
provide
instruction,
but
there's
only
so
much
a
trustee
will
do
so.
We
need
to
make
sure
we
work
really
carefully
with
maker
to
make
sure
that
you've
got
a
comfort
level.
B
The
good
news
is
we're
not
drawing
over
a
long
period
of
time.
This
is
a
single
funding
of
a
transaction,
so
both
makers
community,
as
well
as
the
trusts
and
trustees,
would
have
instant
insight
as
to
how
that
money
is
being
deployed.
But
going
back
to
here,
the
trust
is
just
an
independent
third
target
party.
They
will
have
certain
understandings
of
all
the
conditions.
Precedent
and
cash
flows
are
working
the
right
way.
They
can
provide
some
instruction
to
pando.
B
But
again
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
all
clear.
Trustees
are
not
the
most
bold
and
brave
people
in
the
world.
So
we
we
look
forward
to
working
with
christian
to
make
sure
that
we
structure
in
a
way
that
provides
as
much
protection
and
security
to
make
her
as
possible,
so
relatively
straightforward,
again
approval
structure
that
we
just
overlaid
with
the
cash
flows.
A
B
A
B
B
It's
something
we've
spent
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
working
on
we've
deployed
capital
that,
as
we
are
lenders
and
we've
also
been
registered
investment
advisors
to
playing
capital
using
this
model,
as
you
might
imagine,
this
is
this
is
not
the
model,
it's
just
a
screenshot
of
the
output
of
the
model,
but
you'll
just
see.
We
look
at
everything
from
sponsor
technology
risk
cap
structure,
market
risk
project
completion.
B
If
there
is
construction
risk,
there
is
no
construction
risk
in
this
transaction
operations
and
performance
risk
associated
with
both
the
technology,
the
operator
and
the
ongoing
maintenance
of
it.
Any
tax
risk
associated
with
the
transaction
infrastructure,
legal
and
political
risk
are
all
things
we
have
very
detailed
weighted
assessments
around.
B
B
I've
been
doing
energy
project
development
and
finance,
mostly
in
the
u.s
latin
america,
and
a
little
bit
of
asia
and
europe
for
30
years.
Morgan
has
a
background
in
venture
capital,
structuring
structured
finance
as
well.
So
I
I
think
we
bring
a
highly
experienced
team
to
the
table.
We
really
truly
know
what
we're
doing.
We've
been
in
the
space
for
a
long
time,
we've
been
in
the
energy
finance
space
for
a
long
time,
we've
been
in
the
renewable
energy
space
for
a
long
time.
B
D
There
is
one
last
question:
it's
kind
of
a
good
one,
I'm
gonna
take
it
just
because
it'll
be
a
little
easier
than
a
longer
one
from
anonymous.
So
thank
you
for
for
the
question,
really
what
it's
saying
is.
Typically
people
pool
loans,
call
it
hedge
funds
before
they
are
securitized
and
there's
a
discount
when
they
buy
it,
so
that
they
can
kind
of
make
money
on
the
arbitrage
spread.
I
want
to
take
a
step
back
from
that.
D
Loans
were
being
underwritten,
while
the
the
solar
systems
are
being
installed
that
when
that
capital
is
more
like
kind
of
construction
financing
and
I'm
actually
not
sure
if
they
do
that
at
a
discount
or
at
a
premium
to
what
they
then
sell
those
loans
or
then
package
those
loans
to
either
the
public
or
the
private
markets.
Coming
out
of
that
warehouse
facility.
D
I
don't
believe
they
have
a
lot
of
hedge
funds
and
those
types
of
investors
in
that
warehouse
facility
they're,
using
more
traditional
lenders
like
the
cs
and
jpmorgans
and
those
sorts
of
folks.
But
I
would
put
it
more
into
a
construction
financing
because
it's
project
finance
to
a
take
out
term
financing
coming
out
the
other
side,
rather
than
kind
of
a
strict
arbitrage
opportunity
with
which
you
would
see
in
a
more
traditional
kind
of
bond
market.
B
D
Yeah
peter
again,
one
last
question:
apologies
asking
what
the
minimum
amount
is
using
this
transaction
structure.
We
have
assumed
a
roughly
250
million
pool
mosaic
they
for
an
example.
They
did
about
570
million
in
consumer
loans,
solar
loans
in
june.
So
there
is
a
much
larger
opportunity
available.
We
would
have
to
ask
them
at
what
point
it's
small
enough,
that
it
doesn't
make
sense,
but
I
do
think
we
could
come
down
from
the
200
some.
I
just
don't
know
how
far
I
can
tell
you
if.
B
B
Oh
got
it:
okay,
yeah!
I
we
don't
know
the
answer
to
that,
but
we
can
you
know
if
we,
if
you
probably
the
better
thing
to
do,
would
be
to
have
if
maker
feels
like
it
needs
to
be
lower.
Have
us
tell
us
what
you
think
it
would
need
to
be
versus?
We
don't
want
to
do
too
many
back
and
forths
between
everybody.
A
Perfect
well,
gentlemen,
thank
you
again
for
making
some
time
and
having
this
thorough
discussion.
Thank
you,
tiege
and
eric
for
also
hopping
on
the
mic
to
add
to
the
engagement
as
a
reminder,
the
green
light
pull
for
pando's
mip
six
will
go
live
on
monday
july
25th
and
the
conversation
is
still
ongoing.
You
can
join
it
by
going
to
forum.makerdow.com
and
searching
for
pandomip6.
A
This
recording
will
be
posted
on
youtube
a
little
bit
later
and
the
sly
deck,
as
mentioned
earlier
in
the
call,
will
also
be
available
within
the
forum
as
well,
so
peter,
dory
and
morgan.
Thank
you
again
for
the
engaging
discussion
and
everyone
for
joining
and
we'll
see
you
around.
Thanks
appreciate
the
opportunity.