Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/17/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    I did not read the article so cannot comment on it. I imagine Hobo offers logical and analytical support for his outcomes. My view about Sunpower based on results of the company could not be more accurate, yet the market has kept the zombie intact to prove me wrong. My points in my articles were always logical, but logic is not necessarily mother of success in the market, certainly not in a short term. The emotion is. SPWR is splitting its unprofitable business, which I think allows it to be absorbed into fog of nothing in time. In a short term there is an excitement that parts of zero will produce better result than zero. I do not buy it, and I have not bought SPWR having a future for likely a half a decade. Yet the company is still here. Canadian Solar did pretty much everything right, it is one of most profitable companies in solar universe for period of 10 years, next to FSLR. I am sure someone could do a decade analysis on this to support my off cuff statement. Optics show that under $15 CSIQ is much more attractive than FSLR. Yet the chances are FSLR will be gaining here and FSLR will linger down to $12. CSIQ transitioned every piece of plan into action, modified it but managed. Since the prophecies about Canadian plants sold and disintegration of CSIQ as inevitable soon after, they won in Japan, won in Brazil, won in Mexico. Finally, they won in the US despite another prophecy about leading to bankruptcy acquisition of Recurrent. Still for someone who got up from a decade-long coma and looked at the company today it remains as never fulfilled opportunity. This is the issue for solar as whole. A paradise for traders but nightmare for long term investors.
  2. 2 points
    Once again, I will take the opinion of Finlay Colville over a guy who seems to have little understanding of the company. https://www.pv-tech.org/editors-blog/pv-celltech-2020-to-explain-huge-shift-in-pv-production-landscape "The success of First Solar’s Series 6 roll-out in the past 12 months in particular must come as even a pleasant surprise to the most optimistic proponents within the company. It is perhaps the most significant technology move undertaken ever in the PV industry, for a whole host of reasons that I will not go into here, as many of these have been discussed in features I have written on PV-Tech over the past couple of years. Let’s frame this to get some perspective however. Imagine you are a 2-3 GW scale module supplier today to the sector, and not based in China. How to you compete with a 100-GW China machine working at arms-length to own the industry globally? Not just from a cost standpoint, but a technology-one now that the industry has made the critical multi-to-mono transition. Now add in here having a company-specific manufacturing/equipment/materials based PV module technology that requires 100% of the R&D and factory optimization has to be done in-house. And finally – go spend $1billion setting up multi-GW scale factories across different countries/regions globally, get the factories running within 12 months, and secure firm orders within 6 months that cover output from all factories for the next two years? Oh, and not to mention one more thing… Make sure module ASPs are 10-20% above global averages, and blended production costs (or COGs) are as good (or better) than the best-in-class c-Si producer in China. Okay – this is what First Solar has done in the past few years with its Series 6 technology. In looking at all the investments by all the companies in PV manufacturing over the past couple of decades, I cannot recall anything that comes remotely close to this in terms of success."
  3. 2 points
    Analysts new EPS estimations for Canadian solar: Q4/2019 - $1.02/share Annual 2019 - $2.77/share Q1/2020 - $0.65/share Annual 2020 - $3.23/share
  4. 2 points
    reference the transcript on Seekin Alpha https://seekingalpha.com/article/4306016-canadian-solars-csiq-ceo-shawn-qu-q3-2019-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single This is what they said about margins for 2020 Yan Zhuang ‘But our shipment volume will go up, which will compensate for the slight percentage down on the margin side,” Currently dropping from around 22-23% to your 15% is not a slight drop. That is a 30% drop. So where are margins? And what might be a slight drop? Here are comments that can give you suggested target costs. Your using current costs for next year is not reasonable because that suggests a 12.5% margin today and they are nearly double that. “Gross margin is expected to be between 19% and 21%. The lower margin reflects the expected lower margin contribution from project sales in Q4.” “ primarily driven by the slippery of the project sale closing. And a smaller part is on the module side, because of the price dropping.” “There’s also a project that’s low margin that’s going to close in next quarter, it’s called McBride project. That’s a $130 million with a low margin sale.” These comments indicates that module margins are higher than 21%. It suggests margins are in the 22-24% range for module as the low margin project is being blamed for most of the margin drop from Q3. Currently in Q3 margins was 23% + CVD reversals. In Q4 backing out the $130M McBride project at say 5% margins, they are looking at what appears to be 22.7% margins for modules. A Q3 suggested ASP in the $0.25 range would yield an average cost of $0.1925/W at 23% margins. That is inline with their comments a couple quarters back that their costs were slightly under $0.20. If you look at a 10% “organic” reduction for 2020 on the $0.1925, they are at $0.173. The 20% reduction puts costs around $0.155. If you take the 10% cost reduction and target an ASP of say $0.21, you have 17.5% margins or midrange between your guidance and Q4 margins. Depending on ASP and actual costs you can see a bias to the upside for margins as more likely than a bias to the downside that you are suggesting
  5. 2 points
    I hear constantly these "concerns'' from different "experts" for the last 5 years. And every time it all the same - BAD. It is already ridiculous. In the meantime company delivers good results and adjusts perfectly to all UPs and Downs of their industry's cycles, increasing its value (book value in 2014 - $11.78 and today it is $22.44/share) and maintaining profitability. Period.
  6. 2 points
    A pretty good evidence how investing in solar has zero logical predictability. FSLR earning cents with PE of 60s and Canadian with market cap lesser than bankrupt Sunpower.
  7. 2 points
    Read the PR's carefully, your April PR is an agreement to sell the plants to Nebras. MVA PR is Nebras announcing it has completed the transaction. " announced today the signing of an agreement for the sale of its 80% interest in a 482.6 MWp portfolio of contracted solar projects in Brazil to Nebras Power Investment Management B.V. , a Dutch affiliate of Nebras Q.P.S.C. " MVA PR " Nebras Power Investment Management, a Dutch affiliate of Nebras Power, has announced the acquisition of an 80 per cent stake in a portfolio of four major solar projects in Brazil. " It basically means it took 6 months from the announcement of the intent to sell to Nebras to all the terms financing and signatures required to be completed. Now CSIQ can book the sale in the Q4 Earnings and start counting the sales of modules and services as revenue
  8. 2 points
    And there's this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/10/29/huge-battery-investments-drop-energy-storage-costs-threaten-natural-gas-industry/amp/ Storage is the missing piece to really make the demand for renewables explode.
  9. 2 points
    Assuming First Solar winds down the systems business and only sells modules to 3rd parties, this means: 2020 - 3rd party module sales of 5GW at 34 cents with a 22 cent cost -> $600M gross profit - $300M OPEX = $300M pretax + around 500MW of systems. 2021 - Assuming yields improve and efficiency goes up to 450W/module leading to a cost of 20 cents. Nameplate capacity increases to 1.4GW/factory or 7.7GW total shipments. With an ASP of 33 cents (already signed contracts) -> $1B gross profit - $300M OPEX = $700M pretax. 2022 - Copperless modules at 500W, nameplate capacity at 1.55GW/factory, 8.5GW total shipments, cost at 18 cents. In addition, FSLR will start to get another $2/share of cash flow due to the factories depreciating. The company is going to be a cash cow over the next 10 quarters and should have plenty of reserves for when it steps out from tariff protections.
  10. 2 points
    Do you realize that First Solar counts warranty and shipping as a COGS while the c-Si companies consider it OPEX? Also, the company had module revenue of $371M and that appears to be for around 1GW of panels. So the actual numbers are likely higher than your calculation. With yields at 95% and efficiency ~17.4%, there is plenty of room to get the costs down. The factories have been built and utilization is at 100%. Now the improvements can begin. Degradation is the bane of PERC cells and when FSLR is able to remove copper and improve CdTe degradation rates, that will be a huge deal and should allow FSLR to sell panels at a premium to silicon. https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2019/nrel-first-solar-collaboration-improves-thin-film-solar-cells.html
  11. 2 points
    Well, my "dramatic" outburst was pretty on point. I don't claim to be a genius or even wholly correct, it's just this happens about every quarter. More of the same, kicking the can down the road. Wait for next quarter! Good times are coming! Having said that... I didn't have quite as negative a take on the conference call. Sure, there are some obvious headwinds they were clear on. Once again, I came away feeling like things are on track overall. At the same time, it seemed pretty obvious to me they're gonna miss 2019 earnings by the .50 below guidance they set us up for, because of Japan. I suspect they didn't want to lower guidance on the back of this terrible looking quarter to make the report look even worse. It'll be much easier to stomach a .50 EPS miss in February when they're also able to guide 2020 margins and revenue which should look very nice and at the same time have a juicier Q1 number to accompany assuming the Japanese situation works itself out by then as they expect. So the EPS miss will potentially be ignored at at that point. I enjoy reading all the commentary and math on here, but you know, I come away from all of this and that thinking this is totally in the hands of big money and what story they want to write. Do they 1) roll with the Klothilde thought that 2020/2021 look highly predictable due to the pipeline and order book being full - with an upward trajectory, thus sending the stock price up over the next year or so? or 2) do they start thinking about 2021/2022 and Series 7 and panic that bi-facial is going to chew them up? Either case can justifiably be made. So i'll continue to feel like I'm in a casino here and at the mercy of whatever big money decides to do with the stock.
  12. 2 points
    We don't know that. Last quarter the company unexpectedly announced the sale of the Cove Mountain projects and Muscle Shoals. The company also shipped 1.4GW of panels but only accounted for around 600MW in sales. Perhaps some of the missing 800MW will be accounted for this quarter. Earnings could be all over the place and are not indicative of how the company is performing. The most important thing will be the updates regarding the factories. If yields improve from 91% to near 97% that would mean great things. And today's announcement seems to indicate the nameplate capacity has increased to 1.3GW due to the update mentioned last conference call. Also, the company hinted that the SCE plant sales could be pushed into 2020. If that happens then current year guidance would be lowered a bit. So to sum up, earnings could be all over the map but I am guessing the analysts probably overestimated the quarter again. Regardless, though, the long term outlook will likely get rosier due to the increased throughput.
  13. 1 point
    They have big qoq cash swings because of the project nature of the business, specifically in Q3 they spent a lot of cash on the build out of the SCE projects which they plan to get paid for in Q4. End of year net cash guidance is 1.7-1.9BN: https://s2.q4cdn.com/646275317/files/doc_financials/2019/q3/Q3-2019-Earnings-Call-Presentation-FINAL.pdf But I figure you know all that already 😉 1800M + 350M (2020 earnings) + 250M depreciation = 2400M = $23/share A fair valuation at the end of 2020 imho would require adding the above net cash to whatever valuation you assume from earnings. You may deduct some to account for capex but you would have to raise your valuation of operations by at least the same amount assuming they only expand capacity at positive NPV. Also whatever is left of project assets end of 2020 needs to be added assuming this monetizes 1:1 as cash at 0 margin. As you can see it's not as simple as coming up with an EPS figure and slapping a PE of X on it. This is also the reason why FSLR has been trading at relatively high valuations relative to peers, the market values the net cash on balance sheet.
  14. 1 point
    2020 - FSLR with tariffs in place $3.3 2020 - Bifacial exemption lifted - $3.3 Impacts on earnings come 2021 if bifacial is removed $2 in EPS Impacts on earnings come 2021 if solar tariffs are removed $3 in EPS. As I have noted, the impact is over 3 years. An immediate removal will not cause an immediate impact. It's impact would be gradual over the next 2 years.
  15. 1 point
    On the JP Morgan front. On June 21, they go from $23 -> $25 On August 15, they go from $25 -> $28 saying they're 'warming to the story' On November 13, they go back down to $22 So yeah, they were warming to the story all the while dumping 527,556 shares on us. Crooks.
  16. 1 point
    You consider ANY article criticizing FSLR's recent financial performance as "cheap and trashy." I'll turn your own criticism right back on you: you just don't like it when I smell a rat in the (financial performance of the) company you invest in.
  17. 1 point
    Right and that 17.5% has upside bias as likely based on my estimates. 19% margins on the 21 cent ASP can get up to $478M. 18% margins on $0.23 ASP can give you almost $500M. They you have EPC, kits etc at $500M at 20% margins for $100M. They have projects of which Japan alone at near 40% gross margins would yield yet another $150+/-. Then add in CVD of $75M . Then lets add in another $400M of projects at 10% margins. $500M+ $100M+$150M+$75M+$$40=$865 I clearly see a biased upside from your suggested loss. In fact there is upside to $265M. At 60M shares that is what $4+ on the upside. Am I investing on $4EPS, no, but certain $2 plus is what I am investing on. To me a purchase in the $14's is a good bet on the upside. Cheers.
  18. 1 point
    That is what you are good at projecting todays costs as the future cost. You want to ignore what they stated regarding cost reductions. You ignore that based on todays numbers you have 12.5% margins yet they reported modules margins closer to 23% than 12%.
  19. 1 point
    It was speculated that their bet on Poly was short sighted with the shift to mono. The fact they are not expanding the wafering capacity is positive. Their Cell lines should function for mono so rolling over to Mono is not a problem. They are targeting 13GW of modules capacity. This suggests they are looking at well over 10GW of shipments. As for revenues, yes I still see a path tor $2 or more in EPS if not $3 depending on volumes. I presume margins higher than the 15% you use but below the current 20% guidance. I expect projects pushing $1B. I expect an increasing EPC services to above 2019 levels when combined with kits power etc. All this can drive upwards of $750M. I expect demand next year to be stronger than some anticipated. I can see growth similar to what DQ presented next year being 140GW or more. That would be ROW growth at 20% and China at 35GW or more as what missed this year is pushed into 2020. This bodes well for volume increases as that would be an overall 31% increase YOY. With Tier 1 getting the lions share, you could see higher growth for Tier 1's than the market growth.
  20. 1 point
    Qu also said next year cost reduction is expected to be 10-25%... Minute 26:33
  21. 1 point
    bought some myself 16.75 range. Looking for a short term trade. Q3 looks good, Q4 looks like it should be strong and 2020 should be reasonably strong with the disposal of the rest of the Japan projects.
  22. 1 point
    I found this quote from the con call interesting a the time. It was from Widmar. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4298952-first-solar-inc-fslr-ceo-mark-widmar-q3-2019-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single " So we have many levers still to go around Series 6, but I'm not pulling to rest without thinking through. The team is doing a great job to think about use the word Series 7, whatever you want to call the next evolution of the technology where that's on top of mind for us. And we have -- one of the nice things that we have always had is we've had our advanced research team in California, that's always been out in front of the game and looking at other potential technologies and capabilities, and we've made investments over the years and early investments in 6 and made investments with monocrystalline and anti to understand that technology. We've made investments to study prospects. So we're in front of the game, and we're always looking at what can we do to take our technology to the next level. We are looking at the next-generation technology; we have to.
  23. 1 point
    Interestingly, there was a story a couple days ago about how First Solar and the NREL are collaborating with the University of Toledo to develop thin-film perovskite modules. http://media.utoledo.edu/2019/11/06/u-s-department-of-energy-invests-5-7-million-into-utoledo-solar-technology-research/ First Solar knows thin-film so if perovskite emerges as a viable solution the company should be well positioned. The death of Series 6 will likely be greatly exaggerated as the technology has probably already been built into the assembly lines.
  24. 1 point
    Lazard report confirms LCOE of solar and wind below Coal and Nuclear as well as Solar with 4 hours storage is cheaper than peaker gas plants. https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-and-solar-kill-coal-and-nuclear-on-costs-says-latest-lazard-report-52635/ It analyses a range of different scenarios and uses for battery storage, both in wholesale markets and behind the meter. For large-scale solar and lithium-ion batteries, it puts the cost of solar plus four-hour storage at $US102-$139/MWh ($A147-$A200/MWh). The significance of this is that it beats the cost of peaking gas – $US150-$US199/MWh ($A217/MWh-$A288/MWh) and explains why so many utilities in the US, for instance, are using this combination rather than peaking gas plants.
  25. 1 point
    I didn't estimate a module / project rev split but my guess is they'll have sth. like $200 - $250M in projects. I assume they will recognize the big japanese project (Yamaguchi) in Q4 cuz there still was no PR.
  26. 1 point
    Here's my Q3 estimates which I also used for estimize. Other estimates out there? Rev $842.9M GP $219.1M OPEX & Net Int $130.9M EBT $88.2M Tax $18.4M NI $69.9M #shares 60.3M EPS $1.16
  27. 1 point
    It is Japanese project. See quote below and the link: "Huifeng Chang But the major portion of the potential like we provided two numbers for the Q3. Our revenue guidance and that difference is mainly for the project in Japan. Other projects we believe most likely will be closed in Q3. But for the project in Japan, we think, we may be very likely able to close it in Q3, but there's a probability it may slip into Q4." https://seekingalpha.com/article/4285939-canadian-solar-inc-csiq-ceo-shawn-qu-q2-2019-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=5
  28. 1 point
    Nebras Power Investment Management, a Dutch affiliate of Nebras Power, has announced the acquisition of an 80 per cent stake in a portfolio of four major solar projects in Brazil (482.6 MW) from Canadian Solar. https://www.powerengineeringint.com/2019/11/01/nebras-power-acquires-majority-stake-in-brazilian-solar-projects/
  29. 1 point
    So all the world's modules will one day be made by Longi... https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/11/01/another-5-gw-of-module-capacity-for-the-longi-juggernaut/
  30. 1 point
    No and The problem with solar has been and still is, that government policy impacts the demand and profitability something fierce as grid with storage is not a reality at this point in most parts of the world(even China). We have seen from Spain , Germany the EU China and the U.S. Policy changes over the past decade that has caused major slumps in the industry. As of now you have a major push to Mono which is wiping out what had been the dominant tech for solar. This temporary tech adjustment is going to continue to impact prices for the next several quarters in my opinion. Market demands appear to flattening for solar over the next 4 years at around 126+/-MW a year. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/global-solar-pv-installations-to-reach-record-high-in-2019 I expect that due to supply side economics pushed by China, there will continue to be oversupply that keeps pricing pressure on for the next few years. I expect that upstream supply will continue to fall. This is a must if China is going to hit their targets of costs declining to the $0.15 range by 2024-2025. The lower costs should lead to increased demand beyond the numbers identified. Just a year or 2 ago before China's process, there were numbers that 20-40% more demand in 2023. https://www.solarpowereurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Global-Market-Outlook-2018-2022.pdf Based on current numbers, companies need to maintain a $0.04 price spread to cover Opex and interest. This means the ASP can not fall much below the current low ends of $0.22-$0.23 for high end PERC mono. If you are looking for data points, I would go back to cash costs. I expect for high efficiency you could have costs in the $0.16-$0.17 range(2.5Si+4.5Wafer+4.5Cell+7.5Module). Take away 1 cents for cash cost and you are looking at $0.1575 flat bottom. Add in the $0.035 for Opex and interest you would have an ASP of $0.20 for high efficiency Perc. Add profit you are at $0.20-$0.021. At these price levels you are looking at those to succeed need 15GW-20GW of capacity or more. You would be thinking at 1/10th cent increments in gross per watt 15GW would net $15M. So a half penny would net $75M. These number above are in view and why analysts were questioning future FSLR solutions to compete. This market is starting to look a lot like the transistor capacitor market where you sell billions and billions to make millions and millions and a short term shortage can cause a small spike in gross per watt that can increase profits 4 fold. You will get down to 5-10 Giants in the scenarios above. Most likely those 5 to 10 Giants will be subsidiaries of major conglomerates. This would imply some companies being acquired by those companies.
  31. 1 point
    Wow that is an excellent read. I have worked in an environment in which I have witnessed first hand most all of what they are stating and if their numbers are accurate, would suggest future problems. There is a term called "Chanel Stuffing". This is a term in which you would stuff the channel with products in order to pad your sales. As a channel is an established customer, you could claim that as revenue.even though the product sits on the shelf. The contracts generally have return policies in which they can return the unsold inventory at future dates. This would normally be on products that remain on the shelf and do not move because the market shifts or the product does not take off and the demand does not manifest. A second thing I have witnessed is if you have new customers, you can not claim the revenue based on receipt of a purchase order or a letter of intent. For purchase orders, you actually had to build the product and ship it off site. What companies would do is cram quarter end products out the door in the final days. They would physically put the product into trailers and move the product off the grounds. They would them claim it as revenue even thought the product has not been shipped to the customer. It is in essence temporary offsite storage. The other point is their market share. I had mentioned that based on their past 2 Q's shipment volumes and SEIA stated demands in the U.S for residential, that they had a 45% percent shipment rate. That is higher than the 40% the article suggested. I also noted that Sedge has over twice the revenue. I am not aware of the market share but I will take the articles 60%. This suggests that there is more shipments into the markets than the market can sustain as string inverters still have market share and there are other competitors. The articles suggestion of a 7 month Chanel inventory log is strongly supported by some of the numbers as something not quite accurate. I also agree with the reasonable suspicion as to why this is being done as a Executive bonus incentives. incentives given to management that is always tied to making a fortune on stock options/grants in the market. I might question the accuracy of the gains being projected by the senior management. I think they may be under estimating the actual gains. Stock options are generally either a grant in which they are given the stock for free or an option. The use of Grants is more common than in the past. This is due to financial rules changed about 10 years ago in the stock option back dating issues that some CEO's got caught up in. Due to accounting rule changes, it is easier for a company to grant a stock and claim that days value than to try and tracka sliding price based on some future stock value that you do not know. Options are still uded but they are typically a 4 year vesting period. The price is defined at the date of the options being granted. Those options from 2018 that is identified as $1Million shares, would garner the executives not the $3.5M gain per $10 a share increase, but would add $10M in gains per $10 per share as the price of the grants and gifts are fixed at the past dates. That puts gains over $20M
  32. 1 point
    Coincidentally just stumbled upon this browsing the China PV news this morning: Unreasonable equity incentive design caused management ethics crisis, and US PV manufacturer Enphase Energy (ENPH.US) was accused of performance fraud! http://m.solarzoom.com/article-132347-1.html Found the cited J Cap report: https://www.jcapitalresearch.com/uploads/2/0/0/3/20032477/2019_10_25_enph.pdf No idea if this has any merit at all you guys, just be very careful and do your research. We don't want any repeat of GTAT or the like here.
  33. 1 point
    "While there is no indication of a much-trailed second-half boost in solar demand in China, overseas orders continue to persuade the big Chinese solar manufacturers to expand, with Risen the latest producer to report blossoming net profits of RMB783 million (€100 million) for the first nine months of this year, on operating income of RMB9.77 billion." https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/10/29/german-supplier-fields-orders-for-10-gw-of-perc-cell-production-lines-in-three-months/
  34. 1 point
    JMP Securities analyst Joseph Osha upgraded First Solar to Outperform from Market Perform with a $70 price target. The analyst believes that the market is not valuing the company's competitive U.S. position appropriately. Osha further notes that First Solar's manufacturing transition plan is proceeding while its backlog coverage has now extended "well into 2021", adding that the 22% pullback in its stock price over the past month is offering investors an attractive entry opportunity.
  35. 1 point
    Bloomberg gets my vote over Warren.
  36. 1 point
    My model: FSLR ASP $0.345 and appx 1075MW of modules 60/40 split S6/S4 645MW S6 430MW S4 Gross margins modules 39.8% Revenue $371.2 modules Gross Profits $371.2*.398=$147.8M Gross Profits less $80.0M reversal plus $6.0M ramp = 73.8M S4 Module costs = $0.300 S4 gross/watt = $0.345-$0.300 = $0.045 S4 Gross profit = 430*.045=$19.3M S6 Gross profit = $73.8-$19.3=$54.5M S6 Gross per Watt = $54.5/645 = $0.0845 S6 Costs = $0.345-$0.0845 = $0.261 S6 margins = $0.0845/$0.345 = 24.5% margins Based on their indication on deferred revenue recognition (con call) I assume the 26 cts above is roughly their Q2 production cost. Based on cost progression guidance given in Q4 18 con call Q4 production cost is approx. 14% below Q2, i.e. 22.4 cts. This should be reflected in Q1 20 numbers. In summary I see costs minimally above my own expectations but deviation is irrelevant given their strong cost reduction momentum.
  37. 1 point
    Anyone else here a trader that keeps CNBC on all day? I do and there's been an abundance of chatter over the last few weeks/months (ramping up too) on ESG... Environmental, Social and Governance index funds and how that's the trend among millenials and even us older folks. They wanna invest in ESG companies that are making a difference. I set out in search of FSLR and CSIQ in particular in the most popular funds. Know what I found? Surprise, surprise, they're nearly non-existent. The most popular or the best performing (I forget which offhand) fund had ZERO solar companies in it. But who DID I find in it and in most of the large ones I looked at... Exxon, BP, Chevron... let me tell you how disgusted I was going through those fund holdings and seeing that. Let's hope these ESG funds are taking the selloff in all these names as an opportunity to buy in and help all of us make the world a slightly less bad place.
  38. 1 point
    I'd call barely breaking even over the past year floundering. That's not to say they aren't setting the stage for future performance--but that's what they said LAST quarter. And the one before that. And the one before that. One of these quarters, they're bound to be right. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. (Well, once if you're on military time.)
  39. 1 point
    Klothilde, seems to me, run out of arguments against Canadian solar... The only thing you constantly use against them is "CSIQ will start bleeding at the latest once the legacy Japanese projects are sold off come 2021" The whole year (2019 - up to now) they didn't sell any Japanese project and post profit every quarter... Don't be ridiculous, find something tangible against them? Will you? In the meantime, I think, it will be exactly Recurrent (Canadian solar) who will spoil blood for FSLR in USA with bifacial modules...
  40. 1 point
    Here's the english version you guys, it didn't get better. I think we need to light a candle for the CN2. https://en.pvinfolink.com/post-view.php?ID=255 "...Tendered projects in China are being constructed later than expected, leading to a general market expectation that more PV projects contracted through auction will be pending construction until the first half of 2020 and thereby aggravate the already pessimistic sentiments shared in the PV industry. The Chinese mono PERC module price has declined rapidly over the past two to three months to RMB 1.75–1.85/W; this low price range is penetrating into overseas markets, causing foreign mono PERC module price to fall from USD 0.25–0.26/W to USD 0.23–0.245/W, the next year’s mainstream price quote for modules. Moreover, with the market likely to keep falling short of predication in Q4, module quotes may continue to decline for overseas markets in the first half of 2020..."
  41. 1 point
    Seems pretty civil so far - never really made sense to me to root against other solars. Rising tides and all that. Hoping it goes up tomorrow and take the others with it.
  42. 1 point
    But even if formula, it usually works like this: (PV index for month prior the month of shipment) + 2% premium (for something) or -2% discount (for something) = Sale price (EXW). In any case index is used from the past. And if ASP declines then formula based price is always higher then the spot price. But, of course, if ASP is growing then formula price is below current spot price. These are confidential details between seller and buyer, so we never know....
  43. 1 point
    If subsidy free PV plants in China (what is not finalized this year), will be shifted to H1/2020, and on top of that if 2020 is going to be the last year with subsidies, as latest news from China suggest, then we should expect installation rush, similar to that in USA, when ITC expires... I think 2020 PV policy will be known by the end of 2019...
  44. 1 point
    I think JKS and CSIQ will expand margins in Q3 & Q4 through a combination of cheap spot sourcing and high ASP module contract sales. However the honeymoon should be over when current contracts are worked through going into Q1 and on. At the latest in Q2 it should look very nasty on the module side if prices stay where they are right now... I don't see the possibility of prices recovering in the mid-term through a shake-out of Tier 2s and 3s. There's just so much overcapacity out there that things will stay nasty for a long while unless demand jumps above 150GW or so which will take a coupla years at least... JMHO, eager to hear what others think...
  45. 1 point
    There are some other intangibles going for ENPH -- IQ8 will allow system to work during power outages without batteries. Their complete Ensemble package with batteries will be a perfect answer for those in CA in the dark as we speak. They make more power from efficiencies on the same panel than string inverters. They have a far lower failure rates and warranty claims vs competitors. Ease and speed of installation is also much better. They just opened a plant in Mexico, eliminating the tariff concerns of Chinese manufacturing. Their pricing is coming down, continuing to get closer to string setups. Totally anecdotal, but installers of both systems rave about the ease and quality of ENPH systems. I have done well as an investor on both SEDG and ENPH and have both systems on my roof. ENPH is just better in every way -- even their monitoring app is superior. They made a huge run from .76 to over $35 and have been pushed down to $23 with no negative news. Earnings are next week and should beat. Not sure about $80 any time soon, but they still only have a small slice of the market, but it is growing every quarter.
  46. 1 point
    Horrible market commentary at PVInfolink. The english version comes out tomorrow, but even with the bits google translator throws at me here I'm horrified: https://www.pvinfolink.com/post-view.php?ID=310
  47. 1 point
    I'm willing to endorse your ENPH price target of $80 if you help me pump FSLR with a price target of $300. That would be at the same forward PE based on 2020 analyst consensus. Deal?
  48. 1 point
    Hmmm using that data sheet, the HiKu modules you are referencing are 10% smaller not 24% smaller using the make and model I mentioned. Using the specs in the installation manua(pg 26)l for the CSIQ module I identified being the CS3U-420PG-AG. I get 24% smaller and a smaller weight. https://www.canadiansolar.com/upload/f9acf4466d1e0c6f/87ce57c92c82e873.pdf The dimensions in your data sheets still have the CSIQ footprint as smaller and the module is still 30mm vs FSLR 49MM or FSLR is 50% thicker and is atleast 7 KG heavier than the CSIQ module And with the spec sheet I see the HIKU 420W Bi Facial module producing 462W @ 10% backplane power vs FSLR 420W . Based on dimensions of your module the CSIQ 420Module @10% generates backplane .2067W per 1000squareMilimeters while FSLR gnereates 0.168W in the same square millimeters. Looking at those power numbers you preset, the CSIQ module generates and astounding 21.9% more power in the same square meter than the FSLR module and they could generate more. but I chose the 10% backplane power. Oh and did I mention that was the second lowest power module on your data sheet. The 435W module in the same foot print generates more than 3% more power on top of the 420W per square meter vs the FSLR module. As for the rest, the thermal impacts, FSLR is better at -0.32 while CSIQ is at -0.37. That is not very much degredataion at higher heat for CSIQ and certainly not even close to the 22% more power generated in the same surface area. From what I see the specs of the CSIQ blows the doors off the FSLR for power generated per square meter and weight. Your data does nothing to support my suggestion of lower costs for builders who use CSIQ 420 modules. Like I said, FSLR was comparing their Series 6 to 5 to 7 year old Solar module tech to get their what 15% lower LCOE which is a false claim these days, come on Kloth, I know you can do better your not that far off your game are you?
  49. 1 point
    Oh she is probably pretty accurate. DQ has indicated a $7.50 Q3 production cost. The Mono is around $8.80-$9/KG. Their blended ASP is probably going to fall in around 8.75 +/-. The Gross will should climb slightly to $11 from $8.6M. With Opex and Interest running at $11M a quarter, the profits will be near zero if not a loss due to added decline in the RMB. The issue is the demand is not picking up in China, thus the ASP is going to be flat to down through the next several quarters. As more comes on line, that blended ASP is likely to drop and the higher end Mono Poly should decline. The poly ASP is already near their costs to manufacture with depreciation. There is no profit there. What you will see is a cost to produce to ASP spread in the $1 range +/-. DQ is going to have to write down their legacy capacity in the near future that is producing in the $8 range with depreciation or in the $6.75 range without depreciation. Once that is done, then their costs will fall below the $6.50 guidance they gave for ramped production in early next year. That will allow them to get slightly better margins. Even with that I do not see the ASP to production spread breaking the $1.25 +/- range with the glut of new capacity. That spread is going to drag earnings probably well into next year if not 2021, DQ could be looking at $1-$2 a share in earnings for 2020 with those spreads. That is a far cry from the consensus average of $4.44 for 2019 that is going to be missed as well as the $8.80 a share average in 2020. The market has not yet adjusted down for the future low ASP prices. They are looking at the production costs and not recognizing the impacts of a sustained low and further decline in ASP. You could be looking at the stock testing the lows of October of 2018 or worse within the next 6 months if earnings point to a sustained low ASP..
  50. 0 points
    Multi year contracts usually have formula price formation, connected to industry (regional) benchmark... Of course it would be perfect if CSIQ have multi year contract with fixed price...But we don't know...


×
×
  • Create New...