Joseph Osha: Okay. That’s — I find that very interesting. And then second question, we hear a lot about how transferability might or might not impact residential. I’m just curious as to your thoughts and also whether there might be a role in facilitating ITC monetization that you guys could see yourselves pointing?
Christian Fong: Well, again, just attaching it to that last question of we don’t intend to be doing programmatic offtaker with partners and then take ownership prior to the installation. And so that tax equity moment from a policy perspective is attached to who owns it at the point that it comes into service. And so the — those partnerships that we are in discussions with are folks that are sophisticated enough to have their own tax equity lined up or to your point, to begin to monetize the ITC and have that trade. So, we are downstream by, I don’t know, it may be weeks or months from that moment. We are certainly aware and because of our environmental commodities markets group, we do have the ability to place and trade ITC as a read through.
I would say we do get calls from folks that are interested in making that trade and we typically are pointing them to against some of our upstream peers that will have those ITC. But certainly, if it came down to us, we have folks that are actively reaching wanting to acquire them.
Joseph Osha: Yes, the reason is that obviously, for regular ITC world, there are lots of reasons in terms of size and lumpiness and whatnot, that doesn’t make sense. But I would think transferability to extend that kind of metaphor, you just talked about might actually provide an opportunity if that moment were to move a little further downstream because it is a less lumpy exercise, I guess.
Christian Fong: Yes, absolutely. We’ve sometimes thought, Joe, that 1 of the challenges to moving upstream to being an installer is the tax equity component and so kudos to the policymakers for removing the moat. Strategically, we are not ready to say, hey, let’s go ahead and cross that bridge that policymakers have created for us and head up toward installation, but certainly 1 of the key moats of being an installer and that is the ability to get tax equity partners at scale. That moat just got filled in. And I think folks can reach, can compete in the installation market more readily now. We certainly could more readily and yet definitely, we’re not looking at becoming an installer or getting upstream into the installer’s role.
Joseph Osha: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Operator: Thank you. [Operator Instructions] The next question comes from the line of Jordan Levy with Truist Securities. Please go ahead.
Mo Chen: Hey guys. This is Mo on for Jordan. Thanks for taking my questions. So, piggyback on Tristan’s question on M&A. So, are you guys something you’re talking about how low your customer acquisition cost has been, it appears that this strategy hasn’t worked out well for you guys, and you did two acquisitions this year. So, I’m just wondering, are you worried about? Or have you seen any other competitors or new entrants that are trying to be a copycat of your model?
Christian Fong: Hi Mo. Thanks for joining. We have not seen other entrants coming into the M&A space. To your point, it is extremely low cost of acquiring a customer, a CAC cost. We’ve been doing this for five years now. And the failure rate of the M&A is historically high for corporations that don’t develop the M&A muscle memory, if you will, there’s a lot that goes into M&A, whether it’s technical accounting, the things that would be in Sarah’s land as a CFO to make sure she gets right. This is complex stuff, the integration of multiple kinds of contracts. Installer peers may have the luxury of knowing that all of their contracts are the same. Home transfer behaves exactly the same. It’s why we’ve actually been investing money into our IT systems and making sure that we have a consistent customer experience that is hard to do when you’ve got a lot of different flavors of PPAs and leases.
