Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. FSLR is only sold out through 2020. That 12GW of projects is more than 1 year of buildouts. Don't panick though because FSLR said they are disadvantaged in certain geographies(like most).
  3. That's not rocket science. Since S6 is sold out they have to choose something else.
  4. Nobody interested in S6 anymore. Bifacial is a king! Lightsource BP is expecting to deploy gigawatts of bifacial solar capacity in the coming years, declaring that most – if not all – of its 12GW+ pipeline will come forward using the technology. "In late October, Lightsource BP closed financing arrangements for a 200MWp project in Australia which will use Canadian Solar-manufactured bifacial panels." https://www.pv-tech.org/news/lightsource-bp-to-deploy-gigawatts-of-bifacial-panels-in-cross-continent-pi
  5. MVA

    Solar News

    CPIA: China will add 40 GW of solar in 2020 https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/12/13/cpia-china-will-add-40-gw-of-solar-in-2020/
  6. Yesterday
  7. Yes but why did First jump at the news? It should have tanked at least 99%.
  8. OMG this is not good for FSLR. Trump is looking to announce that he will be cutting in half tariffs on Chinese goods. All those Bifacial modules that eat FSLR will be getting even cheaper. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/china-says-close-communication-u-073128731.html
  9. MVA

    Solar News

    Previous corrupt government established, intentionally, extremely high FITs, in order to build PV plants for themselves (through connected oligarchs), and to pump money into their own pockets from state coffers. Ukrainian FIT was around 10 hr/Kwh ($0.9) in 2014 and around 5 hr now, which was the highest tariff in the world.... Now, FIT adjustment is normal process to bring it down to reasonable (competitive) level...
  10. Ukraine thinking about retroactive changes for solar FITs: https://www.kyivpost.com/business/scatec-solar-puts-65mw-project-on-hold-due-to-tariff-uncertainty.html?cn-reloaded=1
  11. Last week
  12. I can't believe all the indices are red again. So I have to try harder.
  13. https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/eu-solar-growth-doubles-in-2019-as-industry-predicts-new-boom/2-1-721563
  14. Horrible for First: "...GW-levels of ingot/wafer plus cell/module capex is now running at about 15c/W..." https://www.pv-tech.org/editors-blog/solar-pv-capex-trending-at-us9-billion-annually-as-new-gw-fabs-in-china-sla
  15. Who am I to correct you? I can only point out where I agree with you and where I don't and the reasons for it. Where did you get the idea that the Chinese project assets are classified as non-current? Based on their 20-F at the end of 2018 they had non-current project assets of $352M and solar power systems of $55M, i.e. a total non-current of $407M. On page F-71 of the 20-F they show the split of long-lived assets by country (including PP&E, solar power systems, non-current project assets, prepaid land use rights, and intangibles). The table shows that in Japan, Australia, and the U.S. they had a total of $345M in long-lived assets. Since PP&E in those countries is close to 0 that sum has to be mostly project related (aka project rights purchased and own development cost). And given that it is only $60M shy of the total non current project assets of $407M on the balance sheet that leaves little room for non-current project assets in China. I further disagree with your assumption that their stated resale-value is at a discount to the realizable resale value. Also your suggestion of $2 ASPs for non-Japan projects seems anachronistic. If I plug in some price data points for the projects I get a fairly consistent picture imo: U.S. NC McBride project - 102MW*$1.27/W=$130M ($130M indicated on con call) U.S. Roserock - 104MW*$0.61/W=$63M (p.F-40 on 20-F and p.F-41 where they say they wrote-down carrying value to estimated resell) Japan - 90MW*$3.5/W=$315M (weighted average of Yamaguchi and Izushi) Argentina - 100MW*$1.5/W=$150M (p.17) India - 35MW*$0.87/W=$30M https://www.investsize.com/en/australia’s-macquarie-to-buy-canadian-solar’s-indian-solar-assets-for-$1387-mln Others - 15MW*$1.5/W=$22.5M (assume typical U.K. pricing) China - $900M-$130M-$63M-$315M-$150M-$30M-$22.5M = $189.5M $189.5M/350MW = $0.54/W
  16. Sold out today for a 13 and 11% gains.
  17. Canadian Solar caries the value of the projects on the books at cost to build. There are 3 areas where they cover the value Project Assets Current, Project Assets non-current and Solar Systems. The Project assets current is projects held to be sold estimated within 1 year. The Projects assets non-current are projects not intended to be sold within a year(these are where the Chinese Projects are included). CSIQ does not depreciate project assets. Projects Assets that generate revenue is not recognized as income like JKS used to do. Projects Assets that generate revenue has that revenue applied to lower the cost of the projects. That means that if there is revenue generated at say the cost of coal + FIT then those project values are decreased. I would presume that most of CSIQ projects are not in the catalog and thus they get the cost of of coal $0.04 + lets say 10% of the FIT or $0.014. That is $0.054. With 350MW that estimates out to roughly 24.5M a year in costs on the books being devalued. If they built for $0.80/watt on average then they have $280M in total value. 1/2 that was built in 2018 and the other half before 2018. That means they have roughly $37M in reduced value at a minimum on the books. That is now a $0.69 cost to build on the books. Now the fact is the original intent was not to sell the projects within a year that is why they are classified as non current. They will not adjust those assets until the point of sale if they ever sell it. If they retire it, then they will write down the rest but they have 20 years to do that and their value on the books decreases faster than just a depreciation. As far as questions on Resale values that were reduced by $100M, I believe people may be looking at that from the wrong angle. It is my view that the resale value is not a current market value but a derived value of 60-80% of the resale value. That is common when an asset is looked at for an immediate sale. I have brokerage accounts in which there is a current market value for an asset but the valued asset is 80% of the current market. That is in essence what they would expect if sudden liquidation would be required. I also am under the impression that the resale value they are quoting does not include the CN projects as those projects are held for power generation revenues under the non current. Yet they will sell them but that was never the bookkeeping intent which has not changed. When you look at it this way, then the value of resales makes much more sense. When you look at it this way $900M*1.2 = $1.08B 89.6(jap)*3.50=$313.6 Other project sales = $1080-313.6 = 766.4M 795.7-89.6-350=355.8MW for sale 766.4/355.8= $2.15/Watt resale value That $2+ ASP is reasonalbe when you consider most are legacy US projects that have been sold int he past for $2+ ASP. If that $900M in reslae value is not a marked down, then you have ($900-313.6)/355.8 =$1.65/W resale value. If my perceptions are off, please correct me.
  18. Yes the Japanese projects with high FITs are about the most valuable assets you can have in the PV space right now. They will bring CSIQ a huge amount of profit when they are monetized.
  19. impairement of 100 M for 1 sale/RESTpaiment(s), in China)wow, 350MW restant in china alone, that's must be a restant of? more as the market capital of csiq)) ok, dubios statement from QU, but if the dark side is located in china, the bright side from japan....only a help? what do you think about: https://www.reuters.com/companies/9284.T/charts
  20. East Hope starting up 30kt worth of new capacity in Xinjiang. I hope this will help alleviate the polysilicon shortage somehow. http://guangfu.bjx.com.cn/news/20191210/1027379.shtml
  21. I think the write-off here refers to a project already sold and is not an impairment on the plants still owned: "...so we have some difficulties on collecting the residue payment, balance payment on the project already sold..." I don't see evidence of a substantial project asset impairment in Q3 corresponding to the resale value reduction of $100M. It would be reflected in the COGS, which is not. Perhaps this is because the resale value is still above the carrying value on the balance sheet (cost) despite my calculations that suggest a resale value below cost.
  22. Depreciation & amortization is not the same as impairment, you can google the difference. They adjusted the resale value of their operating plants down by $100M but did not recognize an impairment, i.e. it is not reflected in their income statement and balance sheet.
  23. "And so according to the U.S. GAAP and our finance department worked together with Deloitte and the needed evaluation of the situation on certain projects, and one of the project we have a write-off on the balance of payment......as the reason for the devaluation of the project pipeline..." hum, aparent it's done, no trick)
  24. merci , but i am stil confus) maybe not related at all? with: "Non-cash depreciation and amortization charges in the third quarter of 2019 were $37.0 million, compared to $39.7 million in the second quarter of 2019 and $32.5 million in the third quarter of 2018. " But!: "In addition, our 796 MWp portfolio of solar power plants under operation has an estimated resale value of approximately $900 million."-in Q2 was 1 B is -100 MIl not significant? or you mean impairement of NON operational projects? hum, you say it is a problem but QU.. "Okay. So first of all, I want to say that our exposure in China is still lower. So the short-term fluctuation in China market has a minimum impact on our business."
  25. Declaring a full buyout at this price level would be in conflict with Board of directors' fiduciary duty. But with shares repurchase program, they can buy certain amount of shares at ridiculously low price without any conflict. Thus minimizing future expenses for 100% buyout, which, I believe, happens anyway sometime in 2020-2021...
  26. I believe eventual goal is full buyout. At least we know there won't be one until June 8/2020...
  27. Hmmmm, I don't know if that is good or bad. Share buybacks in my view are generally bad as it suggests that investing the money into growing the business is not fruitful. On the flip side buying shares back is also a suggesting they believe the shares are undervalued.
  1. Load more activity


×
×
  • Create New...