> but its not as financially beneficial to them as them financing the system themselves

You could say that for pretty much every service you buy. Yet people keep spending money for things they could do (cheaper) themselves!

No no, I don't mean them installing their own systems vs Solar City doing it.

If you have a PPA, the installer reaps all of the financial benefits. If you finance the system, you get all of the financial benefits. Its the difference between leasing a car versus financing it and then driving it until the wheels fall off (keep in mind, panels have a 25 year warranty but will still produce above 80% capacity for decades after that).

Again, you could make the same argument for all consumer finance services. Car leasing (as you mentioned), mortgage, student debt...

Carrying the financing yourself such as this local program http://www.snopud.com/home/green/solarexpress.ashx?p=1207 is beneficial to the homeowner. SolarCity lease was the least economical when we received bids. Additionally the SolarCity lease can be problematic when selling http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-23/rooftop-so.... Our local PUD financed via Credit Union showed a 6-9yr break even point, much shorter than SolarCity's lease.

This announcement caused TSLA's stock to crater by 10% in just a few minutes.

More like Solar City is going to ruin Tesla's financing facilities.

> More like Solar City is going to ruin Tesla's financing facilities.

Not if Tesla can borrow those credit lines, and then lend them out with Solar City installs at a profit.

If Solar City was profitable, they would be making money.

Not losing $300 Million / quarter.

Musk has lots of work to do for sure.

For sure Elon has a lot of work to do. I wouldn't bet against him though.