You are not logged in.

odyd12

Administrator

  • "odyd12" started this thread

Posts: 1,085

Date of registration: Jan 3rd 2013

Thanks: 127

  • Send private message

1

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 8:30am

Spam, unsupported claims, analysis

Any news posted on the thread dedicated to the company in a form of link should have a logical relationship to that company.
Any argument on superiority of any company should have data to confirm it and prove factual
benefit. This can be done only in the form of the analysis, operational, mathematical, accounting based.

Data must be published from the company’s documents, and sources, generally accepted as reliable.

Posting unrelated, not based on facts statements will be deleted for the benefit of the members, who are looking for facts and to benefit their investment decisions.

Analysis should be based on facts not bias, but may lead to statement of factual superiority of the condition in comparison of one company to another. Comparable analysis is welcomed on any dedicated, company thread without using emotional bias, and unsubstantiated statements, which cannot be confirmed. Assumptions
should be described as “I assume, I suspect, etc.” instead stated as facts, so there is clear distinction of fact from “expectation”. Posts, which are considered to attract emotional reaction from viewer, will be considered a spam. Assessment will be made regularly to understand what constitutes spamming. Any promotional actives should be send to administrator for consideration of advertising on the board.
Calculations must be made using factual data as a starting point and evolve to “forecast” figures.
Any single forecasted number, must be quantified, and not assumed. Quantification should be based on existing
figures, events, market setting to lead to a forecast.

Accounting principles must be used all the time if arguments to be made on points of reference to balance sheets, income statements and any financial or operating statements.

Posts, which attempt to challenge analysis done in above, described fashion, must provide mathematical and accounting based view, to prove different outcome. Other forms will be not acceptable.

In order to monitor certain forums, four forums, TSL, CSIQ, YGE and SOL, will have a role of the moderator. Members are invited to submit names of other members as candidates for moderator’s role.

In case of more than one person candidate, the poll will be held to pick the best candidate.

Please reply to this message with the names. Members cannot suggest own candidature. Polls will be initiated 48 hours from the current time 9:27AM MST. This is the period for candidate submission. another 48 hours will be added for poll activity.

Submission is id name -forum name

1 registered user thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

thejaq

odyd12

Administrator

  • "odyd12" started this thread

Posts: 1,085

Date of registration: Jan 3rd 2013

Thanks: 127

  • Send private message

2

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 8:36am

Nano- CSIQ
Explo-SOL

eysteinh

Intermediate

Posts: 221

Date of registration: Dec 9th 2012

Thanks: 21

  • Send private message

3

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 8:37am

If I can suggest myself I would like to help moderate the REC forum. My argument is that I only want factual discussion on REC be it good or bad and that I have a bit know how of this company during my 2.5 years of analysis of the company.

eysteinh REC Group

If I cannot suggest myself I suggest mena -> Rec group. He also has a high level of knowledge on REC stock.

Also I want to suggest Odyd12 for TSL.

odyd12

Administrator

  • "odyd12" started this thread

Posts: 1,085

Date of registration: Jan 3rd 2013

Thanks: 127

  • Send private message

4

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 8:40am

I cannot be picked I am already moderating all of it.

Klothilde

Intermediate

Posts: 443

Date of registration: Nov 19th 2012

Thanks: 54

  • Send private message

5

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 9:29am

@Odyd: I would hate to see the principles of freedom of speech vanish on this board! IMO with your rules you are limiting the right to express critial opinions and are entitling people with obvious company bias to edit the content on their company threads to their wishes!

In my opinion e.g. CSIQ's equity is melting like a snowflake, and I should be entitled to post this critical opinion. In the same way people should be entitled to call FSLR uncompetitive. Or anybody should be entitled to claim that YGE's assets are overvalued and that the company has really negative equity!

Let's not create a censorship nightmare here which in the end will result only in stupid and boring pumping threads. We NEED critical challenging based on facts.

Anybody that spams without factual background can be proven wrong instantly anyway by facts and numbers. So I would say let the numbers speak for themselves and try to delete only as a last resort and only if netiquette rules are broken, e.g. when people are insulted or evidently and repeatedly make false claims.

I think that most of the people on this board will appreciate the principle of free speech and will feel quite alienated if any of their posts get censored just because the moderator is of different opinion!

4 registered users thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

larryvand, sony1, eysteinh, Dan

eysteinh

Intermediate

Posts: 221

Date of registration: Dec 9th 2012

Thanks: 21

  • Send private message

6

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 9:39am

I agree wholeheartedly what Klothilde says. But we could still use moderators on the boards :)

thejaq

Beginner

Posts: 9

Date of registration: Feb 19th 2013

Thanks: 1

  • Send private message

7

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 10:56am

CSIQ's equity is melting like a snowflake,
I disagree. The colorful language degrades cogent discussion. CSIQ equity isn't melting like a snow flake, its decreases can be quantified and reported according to a set of specified conditions and assumptions. A 32% decline in quarter over quarter revenue means something. A revenue "nosedive" or "implosion" means nothing and just litters the actual argument with distracting, biased rhetoric. These adjectives and metaphors are pollution, figures, arguments, and assumptions should stand on their own. Similarly, the post-hoc explanations for day to day (sometimes intra-day) market fluctuations are agenda-driven nonsense. Leave that stuff for CNBC and The Street. It's nothing but manipulative spin, even if the authors don't recognize it as they write it.

1 registered user thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

odyd12

Klothilde

Intermediate

Posts: 443

Date of registration: Nov 19th 2012

Thanks: 54

  • Send private message

8

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 11:46am

Come on, limits on metaphorical language are not practical and enforceable. They just restrict free speech. Even if some people think metaphors are litter, others may find them quite useful to make a point and also to grasp a point better.

If we ban the snow flake, are we also going to ban all other metaphors like 'module shipments going through the roof' or EPSs 'blowing everybody away'. It's impossible to set practical borderlines.

1 registered user thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

larryvand

N0mistakes

Beginner

Posts: 30

Date of registration: Feb 12th 2013

Thanks: 6

  • Send private message

9

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 12:09pm

This is a privately owned message board. Free speech in almost every country is a right from the government but you can be fired for insulting customers or the company you work for. The owner and moderator of this board is attempting to lay out his rules for posting here.

I agree that adjectives are almost impossible to avoid using, but I will trust in the moderation here. There have been plenty of posts challenging Odyd12's point of view where he has simply replied to them with no suggestion of moderation. He has let stand other posts that people complain about.

If you want pure "free" speech, then you advocate cursing and name calling? Because those are not allowed here as well and I don't see the defenders of "free speech" in arms over it.

In the quoted "melting like a snowflake" statement , I personally would have no problem with it with proper supporting statements around it. Everyone in the sector is losing money and doing no equity raising except failing companies like LDK who are selling pieces of themselves at very low values. It would be interesting to see the first call projections of losses for 2013 and forecasted equity positions on that. It also would be interesting to see a table of all the "bullet" debt coming due this year and in the future. An adjective describing the results would be fine.

Pop2mollys

Professional

Posts: 678

Date of registration: Jan 15th 2013

Thanks: 54

  • Send private message

10

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 12:53pm

Who decides which sources are allowed on this board and which ones aren't? Also which posters can be used as sources for for future data estimates? Also on future data estimates there will always be some guessing based on posters opinions and many different moving parts which may effect data one way or another.

For example if every poster predicts who could be profitable in Q3. 2013. People could lay out a wide variety of data sets to back up there claim. Because there are so many moving parts which could effect profitability one way or another the poster could "assume" data may be effected because of trends or whatever else. So in his "opinion" the estimated future data set could reflect "x" result. On the other hand a different poster could have a different opinion and "assume" future data sets could be effected in a different way and come up with "y" result. In reality both these posters have the possibility of being right on future numbers but they used their own opinions and "assumed" different results but both could be right depending on how all moving parts fall into place

2 registered users thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

larryvand, Klothilde

odyd12

Administrator

  • "odyd12" started this thread

Posts: 1,085

Date of registration: Jan 3rd 2013

Thanks: 127

  • Send private message

11

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 12:57pm

Bloomberg or Reuters article do not have snowflakes, roofs or OMGs. If they did they would be considered unprofessional. I am not suggesting everyone should be a professional only or act as one every time they write a post, but what is wrong with simple fact speaking for itself?

odyd12

Administrator

  • "odyd12" started this thread

Posts: 1,085

Date of registration: Jan 3rd 2013

Thanks: 127

  • Send private message

12

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 1:18pm

Who decides which sources are allowed on this board and which ones aren't? Also which posters can be used as sources for for future data estimates? Also on future data estimates there will always be some guessing based on posters opinions and many different moving parts which may effect data one way or another.
Discussion here is no on sources of data, it is not even whether data presented is accurate. It is about the factual discussion, which is based on real figures, business conditions and indicators.
I gave enough description in regard of the forecast format and how to present it. Have a quick look at 0.51 cents conversation on CSIQ board. The company's presentation says 0.20 per watt wafer in 2013. Surely it did not go well for everyone to accept it. None of the opposing people have any "source" to say this is wrong but own forecast and perception how things will be in that time frame
Yet look at the argument pool around it. Klothilde calls Explo's analysis good, and states that GCL will sell wafers at 0.23 per watt, based on it. Then the whole thing is packaged with set of statements using reversal psychology that mediator, in here presumed nano, would want to delete such a good analysis, to hide facts. Before he was going to rip his head off, so why stop and not to do unethical. As you may observe there is no issue with the source or denial of forecasting or speculative applications offered by Explo. It is what happens with it afterward and how it is packaged. This is what we are talking about.
Who decides, the reader, those who are found accurate, more logical, using proper data and properly will be the ones, which will help to take us through already difficult task of understanding, and perhaps more difficult appreciating this industry.

Klothilde

Intermediate

Posts: 443

Date of registration: Nov 19th 2012

Thanks: 54

  • Send private message

13

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 1:31pm

It is what happens with it afterward and how it is packaged. This is what we are talking about.


Turns out I laid out my logic first, arrived at 24 cents, and then Explo laid out his logic and arrived at 23 cents. I then stated that I concurred with explo and that I have a conservative view as well on costs. If you will, this is then the conservative packaging. We are not pulling numbers out of our nose but have a solid foundation to derive them. The underlying believe is that we are seeing a market improvement and a move towards profitability in the second half, which in our view mathematically results in the numbers given. Now, these numbers hinge on assumptions and not company numbers (as do your forecasts as well), so nano as a moderator could interpret them somehow as spam and decide to delete them. That's why I'm no fan of content regulation. Less is better (imho).

Uncle Chang

Beginner

Posts: 40

Date of registration: Sep 29th 2012

  • Send private message

14

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 1:39pm

Don't really know exactly where to post on this site, so I just pick one that's not really discussing fundamentals.
I know everyone wants to show how much he/she knows/predicts about the companies, but I'm worrying about most companies' Big Short-term debts vs long-term debts, even I believe that Chinese government will allow some rollover of the short-term debts but I'm not satisfied with the current situation. SOL got $50m long-term, that's not too much compared with their huge short-term debts, JKS got nearly 9% 'loan', that's way too high. CSUN was willing to talk about their abnormal size of short-term debt but didn't hear how they're going to resolve it. Don't really know how the Chinese save the "Six Big, Six Small", it looks more like Squeezing them to me so far.
The government must take serious actions to give the investors confidence.

Pop2mollys

Professional

Posts: 678

Date of registration: Jan 15th 2013

Thanks: 54

  • Send private message

15

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 1:39pm

That's my point 2 posters could have very different end results as to where future numbers fall based on their opinions of which way market conditions could go. They both us present data sets to get to their conclusions but they diverge on which way market conditions go. It's possible both could be right using their "assumptions" but we won't know till that future data point.

odyd12

Administrator

  • "odyd12" started this thread

Posts: 1,085

Date of registration: Jan 3rd 2013

Thanks: 127

  • Send private message

16

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 2:23pm

Now, these numbers hinge on assumptions and not company numbers (as do your forecasts as well), so nano as a moderator could interpret them somehow as spam and decide to delete them. That's why I'm no fan of content regulation. Less is better (imho).
I have explained how to address this:
Comparable analysis is welcomed on any dedicated, company thread without using emotional bias, and unsubstantiated statements, which cannot be confirmed. Assumptions
should be described as “I assume, I suspect, etc.” instead stated as facts, so there is clear distinction of fact from “expectation”.
Further forecast should be supported by existing data and evolve:
Calculations must be made using factual data as a starting point and evolve to “forecast” figures.
Any single forecasted number, must be quantified, and not assumed. Quantification should be based on existing
figures, events, market setting to lead to a forecast.
Your comments were unnecessary, no moderator would ever remove value from the post. I think we have an issue on matching what is "value" of any given post. If we ever agree on it, we will see posts in the same light.

odyd12

Administrator

  • "odyd12" started this thread

Posts: 1,085

Date of registration: Jan 3rd 2013

Thanks: 127

  • Send private message

17

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 2:29pm

That's my point 2 posters could have very different end results as to where future numbers fall based on their opinions of which way market conditions could go. They both us present data sets to get to their conclusions but they diverge on which way market conditions go. It's possible both could be right using their "assumptions" but we won't know till that future data point.
And what is the concern? As long as they are based on facts there are no issues. Again perfect background: GCL, I see 0.20 possible, Explo does not. We arrived to two different conclusions. Nobody is going to delete this.
However, someone saying Renesola has the best processing in the world and check CSIQ statement of losses, with SOL shipping tariff free to EU, GCL lost $500M and they bankrupt next, would be a candidate, don't you think?
This is the essence of this conversation here.

larryvand

Professional

Posts: 582

Date of registration: Jan 2nd 2013

Thanks: 26

  • Send private message

18

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 3:45pm

explo - CSIQ
Klothilde - SOL
Pop2mollys - TSL
eysteinh - REC
littleguyfromtuscon - YGE

odyd12

Administrator

  • "odyd12" started this thread

Posts: 1,085

Date of registration: Jan 3rd 2013

Thanks: 127

  • Send private message

19

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 4:17pm

N0mistakes -CSIQ
thejag-YGE
sc solar-TSL
Klothilde-SOL

odyd12

Administrator

  • "odyd12" started this thread

Posts: 1,085

Date of registration: Jan 3rd 2013

Thanks: 127

  • Send private message

20

Sunday, March 24th 2013, 4:20pm

I should also find out from the nominees if they are interested.
Let's be known that you are interested.

Social bookmarks

New Member

sunnydaze(Yesterday, 2:38pm)

DClayton(Apr 10th 2013, 7:11am)

joey(Apr 10th 2013, 6:21am)

portboy8192(Apr 9th 2013, 10:28am)

Tibilorio(Apr 8th 2013, 1:05pm)

Statistic

  • Members: 79
  • Threads: 915
  • Postings: 6,042 (ø 30.83/day)
  • Greetings to our newest member: sunnydaze

.