Solar PV Investor Forums

Yes, it would be inventory and the carrying cost from one end of the Q to another. The problem here is that they do not have clarity, they explained this as the analysts a fairly easily able to understand this component. I am not sure where did they get this idea? I did analysis of the figures upon initial conversation. It was disliked. So I am trying to present facts and willing to comply with their views as long as they are factual instead of interpretation, to benefit TSL. I suppose the key point is that their inventory is presented as lower of cost or market, so what was it last quarter? How many modules they sold off the inventory and how this affects their "accurate" under utilization number, because 50% does not sound right? . I think this is where the bone of discontent was located , but I will wait. The benefit to get this right is outweigh the speed to push this to public.

>> They suggested they would move under utilization cost to from COGS to designated OPEX line.

Sloppy of me. It's in their GM pre non-cash charges that they give, that they've not just excluded provision for write downs, but also some of the standard fixed asset depreciation for asstets that were not utilized.