Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. First Solar (FSLR)

    I don't think that module margins are just being held up because of "legacy" pricing as you suggest (btw, any numerical evidence?). If you go back in time you will find that in 2014 the components division had very lousy margins (9%) while some very juicy legacy projects were sold off (systems 32%GM). If modules had been sold at legacy pricing margins would have been sky high back then because you had significant price erosion the preceding years. Module margins started improving with the strong cost reduction / efficiency push of FSLR towards the latter 2014 and first half 2015 and remained high since then reflecting the regained competitiveness against CNs from mid 2015 on.
  3. Canadian Solar (CSIQ)

    I was also hoping that Odyd is ahead of the curve and found information that regular investors/traders like me would not find. I am hoping that we are the early birds (benefited from Odyd 's sleuth work) that we will reap the rewards later, when the news are known to all.
  4. Canadian Solar (CSIQ)

    I think its a perfect time to pull that little trick, given the tariff cloud hanging over everything. Shaking the tree has never come at a better time. However, I'm not calling for $20 on all this news at ER. I just hope the bounce on all this good news 1) is actually a bounce and 2) isn't one from 14 to 16. Then again, the only reason we know about a lot of this news is because Robert is digging deep. So here's hoping you're right and smart money is accumulating for a big pop on all this project sale/CSIF news that's gonna be hitting us at the same time as tariffs.
  5. Canadian Solar (CSIQ)

    With all the CSIQ news (most to me perceived are good news) lately, the market cannot push its SP higher. Every time it pops up, it was sold into. Do investors really perceive these are not good news or traders are setting traps? With my biased bent, I think it tries to make holders frustrated and sell at the earliest opportunity with little gains. That had happened to me before. What do others think?
  6. First Solar (FSLR)

    I think you misunderstood. If I built a plant in 2015 and sold in 2017, the cost reflects the price as if the module was sold in 2015. There is no shame that the company would harness 35% margins and found to show 29% gross margin on a module which was to be discontinued after August 2016 decisions. It would be discontinued due for not being competitive enough. Those margins fluctuated to zero ( on plants) back into 20s in a span of two years. Everyone approximates to their best ability.
  7. Canadian Solar (CSIQ)

    This headline considers transaction as complete. Does it mean Q4 will see the results? I suppose we will learn on Nov 9 https://ijglobal.com/articles/130411/chinas-shenzhen-energy-enters-us-with-solar-portfolio
  8. First Solar (FSLR)

    Their policy is to price modules internally at market rate, so no artificial overpricing there (from 10-k): "The amount of module revenue allocated from the systems segment to the components segment approximates the average selling price for such solar modules as if the modules were sold to a third-party customer." In Q2 their module ASP dropped significantly, thus the lower margin. Margins should go up as soon as the Suniva-related ASP boost kicks in in Q3 probably.
  9. First Solar (FSLR)

    If it is black and white why not mention that component margin reflects sales to what the analysts call legacy solar plants. Sales recognized months later after completion in some cases with years of PPA contracts in place before construction. The projects were highly profitable and true no projects sales of modules are at 15% after write downs of millions and only because of the ASP is up now due to Suniva. Even this year as presented during Q2, projects and not modules, are the 8% gm improvement for this year. It is so black an white.
  10. First Solar (FSLR)

    Here are the officially reported (10-q, 10-k) net sales and gross profit figures for FSLR's component division over the last quarters: As can be seen for the last 6 quarters, i.e. even before the write-off, the components division reaped gross margins that the Chinese peers could only dream off. No need for speculation on a metric that is officially reported by FSLR. S4 modules were highly profitable throughout the last quarters, that is a fact reported black on white to the SEC.
  11. First Solar (FSLR)

    Canada exemption was also the CSIQ resolution as linked elsewhere. Correction the cell has to be Thai. Canada has tariff on Chinese modules and cells.
  12. First Solar (FSLR)

    I discussed this already many times, search for it to see my position. Bottom line many believe that Chinese cell in Canada made module fits the bill. As rules stand now I do believe it as well. I quoted a letter send from the manufacturer confirming it. This is why SW is fighting Canada's exemption. My two cents.
  13. First Solar (FSLR)

    Are you under the impression that modules made in Canada would be exempt from tariffs due to Nafta? I do not see how it is possible due to domestic content requirements. 50% of the value must be domestic content. Buying cells from China at $0.23/W should not qualify. Even producing cells in Canada would not likely qualify if they are importing the wafers at market rates of $0.20/watt. unless all materials in the cell and module production was North American sourced. If they were all North American sourced, then the cost would have to be 2x the wafer price.
  14. First Solar (FSLR)

    Those costs for Canada you quote were old. I do not know what they are now.
  15. First Solar (FSLR)

    Yes you are correct that is ocean freight and not including ground transportation. Your assessment of higher costs could be true when shipping from Guelph to the U.S. but not from oversees to the U.S. To support your Claim: Ground freight runs by railway for a 40 ft Cargo based on weight loaded with CSIQ modules at ~$0.50 mile. To get from Guelph Ontario to Pecos Tx, the cost is give or take $1400 by rail way. To the Central Valley area of California where many projects are built around Bakersfield, the Cost is $2,000 give or take by Railway. A short hall truck to deliver will run $200-$400. To the Bakersfield area the cost is $2300 while Pecos is in the range of $1700 Similar Freight from the port of entry of LA plus $300 to Bakersfied at $2.50/mile ground tractor trailer is $3400 or $1100 more expensive. Sea to Houston plus ground ground from Malaysia runs in the range of $3700. or $2000 more expensive. It is clear the freight can be over twice as much for First Solar shipping from Malaysia to the U.S. vs shipping from Ontario to the same regions. These are Guelph comparisons of freight costs that support your claim of up to 2x the cost to ship by $1100 per container to $2000 per container. The main concern is what is the cost difference to manufacture in Guelph? My understanding is it cost Canadian Solar to manufacture in Canada at $0.05 per watt or more per watt. There is 240,000 Watts per 40 ft container. That is a cost that is $12,000 more than it would cost to make in China. That more than offsets the costs of First Solar shipping modules from Malaysia. This would suggest that First Solar would have a cost advantage of $40,000 per MW.
  16. First Solar (FSLR)

    The act of writing down the uncompetitive asset value. I am going to work, but perhaps you can look into accounting definitions of why companies write down the assets, to find why. Comparing outcomes is not what we talking about, are we?
  17. First Solar (FSLR)

    What makes you think S4 gross margin was negative before the write-off? I'm watching kids right now but once I'm home I'm happy to provide you with the Components segment gross margin for Q1-Q4 2016 so we can compare against Chinese peers.
  18. First Solar (FSLR)

    Klothilde there is a difference in a cost in transport, and yes it is significant. You cannot quote the container cost traveling on the water or port to port without adding a land move as well. Moving it from Guelph is just the land move. The price from Malaysia is double for running a smaller unit (40) versus larger unit (53) in the continental the US when all costs are calculated. The rates are based on length of the trip, time at sea, as well, and they would vary. The time spent on the water is significant. Two weeks in best or a lot more, those two weeks can be used to install. It would take tandem driver set deliver anywhere within two days in the US. This is before freight gets loaded on a ship or gets unloaded, which could take a month if you hitting busy time, especially in Asia. The metric about S4 is not interpretation, the amount write-offs taken by the company for this particular product, made it positive gross margin. My calculation made S4 be in the level of Chinese cost from Q1. The cost is going up as they use it less, but the ASP has helped them. They were selling this module 9 to 10 cents above Chinese ASP due to Suniva by Q2 and actually cost going a bit higher from what they had in Q1. Yes, the product is inferior, has plenty of costs, reverse to S6 is true, and as S6 is a custom-made form factor. S6 comparisons are an improvement to S4, but I frankly yawn about how fast someone installs it to make a difference (agility) versus the fix quality of how less to connect it is etc. Let's see the real 100MW installation in S6 and we can discuss the cost dynamic.
  19. First Solar (FSLR)

    I am happy for you, those on the water costs. How do you get from the port to the location in either direction I forget to add that I have given a 53-foot trailer rate for the mainland US. From the door to site.
  20. Canadian Solar (CSIQ)

    Good detective work again. No pricing is known yet?
  21. First Solar (FSLR)

    Klothilde - I think what Robert was referring to was that the weight per watt of current S6 vs silicon panels is higher. Is this because FSLR needs serious glass to protect & ensure the CdTe does not enter the environment? It's too bad, because one big reason why I would prefer CdTe over CSPV is that polysilicon probably burns a lot of coal. Then again, building in Vietnam & shipping to the US is a waste of energy too. This reminds me that FSLR was hiring for a materials engineer to help create a poly plastic substance. Maybe they plan to replace glass with plastic to reduce the weight. Thanks to both of you
  22. First Solar (FSLR)

    Here is a World Freight Calculator link you can use to look up shipping rates anywhere to anywhere. A sample 40ft container from Malaysia Port Kelang to Los Angelas California in the U.S. costs $2977 to $3290. http://worldfreightrates.com/freight
  23. Solar Stocks Technical Analysis

    Notice how JKS is still holding the bid here and volume is drying up, meaning that less traders are willing to interact at current price levels. If new buyers come in they will be forced to bid up prices in order to find new sellers. Long entry above yesterdays high.
  24. First Solar (FSLR)

    Robert, it goes without saying that the cost savings findings are not fully valid from a scientific and statistical point of view. They are results from customer field trials, not more and not less. However chances are FSLR is more interested in building solid customer references than running meticulous statistical studies. Just imagine the sales pitch which is possible with these results in hand: "Yes, we've asked some of our customers to test S6 prototypes in the field and they were amazed by the cost savings. Feel free to give them a call, they'll be happy to share their experience with you!" Imho such a pitch is way more powerful for sales purposes than pointing to an academic exercise that gave you top accuracy but remained theoretical. Regarding shipping cost differences my numbers are slightly different. For S6 I have 468 modules x 445W (upper limit of datasheet below) = 208.26kW vs. CSIQ Ku at 624 modules x 360W (datasheets below) = 224.6kW. Means 7-8% higher shipping cost per watt, i.e. 0.1-0.2 cts/W higher. This should be one order of magnitude smaller than the overall installation cost savings, i.e. not very relevant imho. http://event.lvl3.on24.com/event/14/81/23/3/rt/1/documents/resourceList1504220001558/20170831_ds_s6_na.pdf https://www.canadiansolar.com/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/datasheets/en/new/KuMax_CS3U-P_Poly_Flyer_V2_EN.pdf https://www.canadiansolar.com/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/datasheets/en/new/Canadian_Solar-Datasheet-MaxPower_CS6U-M__1500V__en.pdf By the way, I remember you worked in logistics but your freight rates strike me as quite high. $7k for a container from Malaysia to the U.S.? That would mean freight approaching 4 cts/W for S4 currently, which is significantly above the 2 cts/W that they communicated several years ago. Have rates gone up recently? Lastly you talk about S4 inferiority. Are you tying this to any kind of metric or is this your interpretation? If you look at S4 gross margins over the last several quarters (components segment) it has consistently trended significantly above CN4 gross margins (even before the write-off in Q4 you are referring to). Also cost-wise they have given enough information supporting costs at par or below chinese peers.
  25. Canadian Solar (CSIQ)

    Having approval granted this may be announced Q4. I am not seeing Astoria in the list.
  26. Canadian Solar (CSIQ)

    Ok, Now we have Korea Electric Power buying https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/premerger-notification-program/early-termination-notices/20180004
  1. Load more activity
×