Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/23/2013 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    This is probably the most detailed reporting on the imminent release of the new policy. http://solar.ofweek.com/2014-08/ART-260006-12003-28860729.html A quick summary: The National Energy Board had organized an on-site meeting on 8/4 in Jiaxing, Zhejiang, with participation by the heads of 36 provincial energy departments and executives of 29 energy enterprises, including the two major national grid companies. The reason to hold the meeting at Jiaxing is that it has solved many difficulties in DG and can provide a model for other places. Mr Wu, The director of National Energy Board, said a new DG policy will be announced, and if electricity sale of a DG project does not meet the projection, it can be transferred to receive the subsidy for ground stations. The new policy has gone through all review and sign off processes by different divisions of government and is waiting to be officially released. In order for the new policy to come out in time to finish 8 GW of installations in 2014, it is expected to be published in August. Main changes of the new DG policy: The scope of DG will be expanded to cover 20 MW or below projects built on waste land, abandoned hills, tidal beaches, ponds, and agricultural greenhouses. These projects will receive 1 YMB ground station subsidy. In addition (I think I missed this before), rooftop projects without enough portion of self electricity use can also enjoy the 1 YMB subsidy. Also by the end of June, Zhejiang province has 1.38 GW of DG projects on file, 673 MW are under construction, 145 MW connected to grid.
  2. 4 points
    It must feel as insult to injury watch CSIQ and SUNE. Reality is that CSIQ has made very little progress to date on the amount of the projects built for yield. SUNE has added many projects and they are IPO another yieldco. I mentioned CSIQ will have soft Q2, my version of things materialized today. CSIQ will also complete 45MW this year in Japan. I hate to be a messenger of bad news but based on what I am seeing, Yield can possibly be floated in 2016. There are no projects for it now, unless they will transfer only rights to projects. Be aware of this. I am not talking about it again. Trying to be smart I moved money to JKS from selling losing trade in SCTY. Couple observations to Explo, Pop and few others. There is no such a thing as a favorite stock. The motion of having a favorite is like saying I am going to use my rotary phone, because it feels good on my fingers. There is no money to be made in favorites, like there is no room for waste of time using rotary phone to store your contacts (this is a joke). I wished you did not focus posts on actions of others, but stocks at hand. Trading activities are private and I will not post them again. I underestimated power of suggestion. I found myself in the personal distress and was not thinking clearly. It cost me. I will not make that mistake again, by inviting comments to my actions. I can gloss over few things, but cannot gloss over some things as it turns. JKS should make more money than CSIQ in 2015, it will connect the most plants in H1 2015 than it has connected now or 500MW. I see that JKS could have yield before CSIQ. (comments above) Finally CSIQ has moved its expansion to the end of the year. RE uses REC modules do not forget. CSIQ maybe trying to brand strangle customers, but they have no efficiency in house this could be a problem. CSIQ is a great company, but now they are too hesitant. I double checked Q3 actually could be the lowest quarter as on plant is suggested to sell in Q2, nothing in Q3. My two cents.
  3. 4 points
    Some notes. Don't take as gospel though, pretty garbled call JASO CC Roth Good job on execution. Downstream. 50% GM on project connected No. of projects in China being worked on, should achieve project guidance Utility projects 260MW, DG? South Africa project in bidding process South American and North American Projects possible Capacity will come on line 3.5gw later this year. Overseas expansion will be approx 400mw Emily Lou Run rate slow down question. Seasonal, 1st QTR 30-40% shipment to China Japan 45% shipment 1st QTR Credit Suisse fx impact Japan, limited fx impact, EU impact there although 13% shipped there EU drama will impact is in a positive way RBC Congrats on QTR ASP trends, China weaker 1st half compared to 2nd half. Japan? Cost reduction offset ASP decline, Demand, healthy demand going through 2015 especially Japan. Restructure capital to improve earnings question. Pay off our debt to improve earnings, possibly use capital from downstream business, seems a bit vague here. House keeping from modules. Opex trend in 1st QTR, 10% Japan 1st QTR still substantial Projects sell or own criteria? China market 100mw project going to keep Case buy case situation GM trend 1st QTR, Q1 hope to maintain flat otherwise very slight decline Cash costs (all in costs) 48cents Pre Chinese NY and after. Factory shut down for 3-5 days now at 100% ASP’S different regions, Q4 China mid-high 50’s EU mid 60’S and Japan Q1 China low-mid 50’s, Japanese mid-high 50’s US high 60’s EU high 50’s Polysilicon @19 so reduction from 22. Thinks it will remain flat. Anti dumping qu regarding US. Shipped very little to US during this time. Capacity qu Overseas, SE Asia and North American (doubtful) Actively working on India market 3.5gw end of Q1, capex in China 30-40mill (700mw) overseas 30mill (400mw)
  4. 4 points
    They killed it my God http://investors.canadiansolar.com/mobile.view?c=196781&v=203&d=1&id=1988651
  5. 3 points
  6. 3 points
    My article has been posted on SA, if you are interested,
  7. 3 points
    You are a regular comedian there BIPV. I think in order to sign up one got to believe in the industry and thus far it is a hard sell here. I am not claiming a big deal out of this site but to be honest if you visit yahoo, you have complete dump, so this site is a pretty good benchmark of some sophistication on the subject. What is consistent 100 or so, people are here for over a year, some dropped off in silence and some came on, but to share solar investing ideas seem to be heavily guarded by $10 Canadian bill. That is pretty ridiculous. The reality is that solar and Chinese one in particular is a rare flavor. Very view people are using as an investment vehicle. They use it to trade it, they use it to short it, but few have a plan to hold. Chinese solar stocks are not investment grade in eyes of 90% of the market. The day we double this site's membership CSIQ will be a $100 and so will JKS. Until then, we are just a driftwood at mercy of the people who do not care if TSL is making toothpicks. I still offer a view, and that view is that when you build a solid foundation and you have excellent company making money and you grow your business at one point some WS banker is going to start buying your stock, whether you Chinese or Lebanese for that matter. So in next 12 months some of those could go few bags up. That is all what I say. when last year we talked about it I was a visionary as much as the next guy but did not see CSIQ hit $43 per share either. No surprise that being sarcastic is easier than stay focused and serious today looking at the splendor treatment given by market. Mastery of obvious does not require a skill, seeing a future does. So there is one thing I count on and this is the one thing made this site to come to life, Understanding of the industry, its strengths, weaknesses and such, operationally and not necessarily what the market does. I was not bothered by market view of the industry in May 2013 and perhaps I was lucky, but today I am still around 600% up from the same day last year, so I feel not bad about the future in next 12 months. I can also be a master of obvious when I see profits and growth and expansion. That is comfortable. I am pretty sure that my metaphor of 700%, will not happen, but a double surely will. Just stay tuned.
  8. 3 points
    I thought the table summarizing the year-to-date actions could be a bit useful: Stock 12/31/2013 High Low 3/26/2014 Year to date Since low Since high CSIQ 29.82 44.5 29.82 31.09 4.26% 4.26% -30.13% JKS 29.3 37.98 25.45 26.74 -8.74% 5.07% -29.59% TSL 13.67 18.77 13.1 13.1 -4.17% 0.00% -30.21% JASO 9.17 13.14 8.35 9.62 4.91% 15.21% -26.79% HSOL 2.77 4.24 2.41 2.92 5.42% 21.16% -31.13% SOL 3.45 4.46 3.04 3.37 -2.32% 10.86% -24.44% YGE 5.05 7.45 4.25 4.25 -15.84% 0.00% -42.95% DQ 36.3 56.98 33.71 40.69 12.09% 20.71% -28.59% From the highs, they all have lost about 30%, with YGE a bit worse. For the year so far, YGE is the worst performer. Among the CN5, HSOL and JASO, the two laggards have the largest year-to-date gains, whatever are left that is. From the lows, the two laggards are the best performing. On the other hand, JKS and TSL have given back all gains this year and then some. From the valuation and fundamental perspectives, these two might be the names one could consider to add to their holdings.
  9. 3 points
    I asked Jason about Japan. He does not expect anything out of Japan. Country did not have any bankruptcies, domestic companies are making money. Kyocera has factories in Mainland, and Japanese companies rely heavily on the TWN and Chinese products. Possibility is low to none, he calls it a "big" rumor.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 2 points
    You missed my comments on capacity roll over. This industry is getting 4 years at best for use on Technology before it becomes non competitive. Right now in China Capex is around $100M per GW if you believe the data given in con calls. If you look at JKS expansion over the past 2 years it looks to be closer to $0.20 per watt .To do capacity expansions they need to spend in the range of $300-$500M annually. Right now they generate roughyl $100M a year cash from depreciation. Most companies are not pulling down another $200M+ in profits per year. Thus they are in a negative cash burn as they have been since the inception. That means they have to either dillute or take on debt or both. The both comment is in fact the case. Just look at JKS debt. They spun off the power unit in late 2016. In January 2017 they had 892M in debt. http://ir.jinkosolar.com/static-files/e557889b-2f96-4647-8383-683393c23d98 They now have added 5GW of Capacity and $1Billion in debt as of Q2. http://ir.jinkosolar.com/static-files/8b714b64-4236-4e82-904a-eb19a183faa0 Cash on hand in the same period grew from $400M to $700M. That places $700M net debt. . JKS also has done secondaries to the tune of a couple hundred million. They also have received a couple hundred million in cash generation from asset depreciations and another hundres + million in reported net profit. This basically points to taking on $1B in debt to pay for 5GW or capacity or $0.20 a Watt Capex. So while you say they are profitable, during what has been considered good times, they have burned $500M a year in cash to get to where they are. They are still going to burn cash as they have to constantly expand and expire capacity. As a result they will need to keep accessing the debt and equities markets. If this ever dries up, then they will be in trouble. The reasons STP LDK and YGE have gone under was their access to capital in China dried up and their ability to service the debt in China stopped.
  13. 2 points
    New CN policy looks to be targeting 2019 installations greater than 2018. Seems to set targets of around 45GW. http://guangfu.bjx.com.cn/news/20190219/963630.shtml According to the most conservative estimate, the installed capacity of photovoltaics will reach more than 45 million kilowatts in 2019, which has exceeded 44.26 million kilowatts in 2018 http://guangfu.bjx.com.cn/news/20190219/963637.shtml In 2019, the subsidized rated installed capacity will be calculated according to the current expected 3 billion subsidy scale (excluding poverty alleviation). The subsidy intensity of the power subsidy is 0.075 yuan/kWh, and the subsidy scale is about 35.9 GW. (When the power subsidy intensity is 0.05 yuan/kWh, the subsidy scale is about 53.8GW), and then consider 5GW photovoltaic poverty alleviation and 5GW unsubsidized projects, and deduct about 1GW of household occupancy index after 2018 531, 2019 The installed capacity of photovoltaics in the year may reach 45GW, exceeding the installed capacity of 44.3GW in 2018.
  14. 2 points
    The crown would be that of low cost manufacturer. FSLR is around $0.27 without shipping. The numbers suggested by CSIQ puts them lower than that even with shipping costs. This makes the cost advantage that FSLR has had for years as gone. Their only advantage in the markets now are in the U.S. due to tariffs. A company propped up by a single market and its policies is not an attractive investment. When FSLR gets the S6 next gen finally ramped is not going to add the margins that where being projected by some anymore. Couple that with the lack of project development revenues and their future does not look bright enough to wear shades.
  15. 2 points
    I consider this poly drop from $19 to $11 way less of a challenge for FSLR than the historical drop from $500 to $19 which they navigated through quite successfully. The key was delivering a higher rate of process cost reduction / efficiency improvement than their CN peers. Currently JKS' cost data suggests that the rate of process cost reduction (i.e. non-poly cost) of the CNs has slowed down significantly over the last several quarters to less than 5% yoy, which translates to an advantage for FSLR who is currently going supersonic in cost reduction with S6. Yes, the CNs are currently seeing way lower input costs through cheaper upstream materials but this does not truly reflect process improvement. It's pure desperation of wafer and cell makers who are forced to sell at cash or below to remain liquid. Anyhows, interesting topic that belongs in a FSLR thread and not here. As DQ is concerned I'm just interested in counteracting some irrational pumping that we've seen here (stock going to $120 etc.) and warning people based on facts and data. A poly drop from $19 to $11 means that DQ quarterly EPS drops from $3 to $0, as simple as that. Moreover since poly oversupply will likely worsen over the next quarters there's little chance that earnings will rebound anytime soon. Imho this is not reflected in the current share price yet and people have to be extremely careful. The last thing I would do is hold this one through the ER next week. I'm sure some of the smart people here think alike so please speak up and don't make me look like the forum b*tch here please.
  16. 2 points
    Getting slammed the past few days. Comments by Prescience Point Capital Management are tanking it. Such a scam that stuff like that is legal.
  17. 2 points
    This news should not be unexpected. As the article indicates the government had been signalling and end to the FIT with competitive bidding and secured buyers for the power. That is the global trend. They are still supporting Poverty Alleviation and the Top Runner projects. They are just pushing the DG FIT out to the local provinces. It has been known for years that the government did not have the money to pay the FITS. That is one reason why they were 2 to 3 years behind on adding projects to the catalog. What this is going to do is curtail the massive build outs and probably lower future project builds to 35-45GW with 20 GW of that being Top Runner and Poverty alleviation. This would take 10-15GW of demand off the market. That lack of demand will probably take out the legacy capacity and small producers in China. The ASP will likely drop from the low 30's upper 20's for traditional Poly to the low 20's to mid 20's as oversupply happens and companies sell for cash costs or less for the next 9-12 months. The slack demand last year caused the ASP to drop 30%. The margins dropped to single to low double digits for manufactures. This is likely to happen again for the top manufacturers again. As the Poly modules collapse, you can expect a drag on all types of modules to try and keep demand interested in their PERC or Mono capacities. What will most likely happen is that the lower demand will create less demand for Poly causing it to trend faster to that $12 price or less that some have suggested for 2019 and beyond. That would not be good for say DQ as most contracts are not firm and have variable market price clauses. The poly drop should offset the module price drop by some 8% for module manufacturers. If you look at the implied recent margins of 18% on $0.37 ASP, their is $0.067 gross and a cost of around $0.30 blended. A 20% drop in ASP would place the module ASP under $0.30. A 30% drop as what happened last year would drop it to $0.26. A drop of Poly to $12 would save around $0.018. That savings would place blended costs in the $0.28 range which is close to year end targets. Added other savings as the entire industry will have declines could save manufacturers another $0.018 putting blended costs in the $0.25-$0.26 range. Take out depreciation and the cash costs is closer to $0.24 to $0.23 depending on manufacturing processes. There is the floor on ASP. In general though a 10% price cut on the cost to build a project should make the technology which is currently a cost leader now even more viable. It will just take another year or 2 to be able to drive the cost to manufacture down. This again would be par for the course for solars.
  18. 2 points
    Your hate and resentment are well known What can we do to heal your soul ? With an obsidian knife tear Dydo's heart and offer it to Wotan/Odin on the Altar of Sacrifices ? Sell our daughters to a television producer ? Burn us like a bonzo monk ? What can we do to heal your soul ? http://www.sunsirs.com/uk/prodetail-463.html http://pv.energytrend.com/pricequotes.html
  19. 2 points
    The stock would easily be trading in the mid 20s if he had communicated the virtues of project monetization appropriately. However he decided for the opposite in order to ensure himself a juicy bargain. This is the worse conflict of interest you can have at the helm of a company. This should be outlawed under any circumstance.
  20. 2 points
    I've never bought a solar that did not offer multiple additional opportunities to buy more at a lower price in the future...
  21. 2 points
    Forum is getting thick skin. Yieldcos are moving up 4% or more and we have crickets. GLBL is almost 4.
  22. 2 points
    exactly, I even forgot TSL reports tomorrow and I have shares in it. Only for a quick moment but still. This is one of those WS stories they are going to tell for decades. Nuts. I hope we can make a killing and walk in one piece to move to our ever boring Chinese stocks. LOL
  23. 2 points
    I've been documenting my new portfolio strategy in the "About Me" tab in my profile for some time now. To keep it concise I kept the description high level, i.e. on the asset allocation part, which is the most critical part for the portfolio's long-term performance. This site is however more interested in stock trading strategies and I am also interested in whether my FARS strategy (Frequent Aggressive Re-balancing Strategy) there is working to increase my gains and not just my broker's gains. Rather than describing the theory in detail I decided to look at the outcome for TERP and GLBL, the two stocks that have been triggering the most re-balancing actions. For the boards convenience I copy paste this section here: Stock trading The stock class of the assets is in turn subject to internal allocation of its allocated capital to its individual assets (stocks). This also applies to the funds based asset classes, but the re-balancing of the stocks follow an aggressive scheme while the funds based classes follow a dollar neutral scheme (dollar allocation of a fund asset does not change with the price of its share). Basically this means that the stock allocations are adjusted by their share price moves, i.e. if the share price goes up its allocation goes down and vice versa. The idea with this aggressive scheme is to effectively reduce cost of shares held. While the stock basket's dollar allocation is kept constant the dollar allocation for the stocks with currently bargain share prices relative to the overall stock basket are over weighted and the high-flyers are under weighted. To evaluate the scheme I will look at the effect on two stocks that have triggered a lot of re-balancing trades since their first positions were taken, TERP and GLBL. First position is defined as the amount of shares held before the first re-balancing sell trade was triggered. All prices and gains include trading and forex fee costs as well as forex gains/losses in order to reflect net effect of re-balancing trading. For the same reason dividends are net of tax. Numbers are per initial position share. Besides the cost of the initial position shares still held, the cost of all shares currently held are also calculated by adding the effect of net average down/up or net profit/loss taking change in amount of shares held from initial position amount of shares with the assumption that the net change in shares were traded at the current price per share. In TERP's case the current amount of shares held is the same as the initial position which simplifies the position cost analysis to pure trading gains and dividend earnings cost reductions of initial price paid. TERP, 2016-02-26 Initial price paid: $15.43 (September 28-30, 2015) Dividends earned: $0.82 Trade gains: $4.56 Net cost of initial position shares still held: $10.06 Share count change "gains": $0.00 Net cost of all shares currently held: $10.06 GLBL, 2016-02-26 Initial price paid: $6.39 (October 5-6, 2015) Dividends earned: $0.14 Trade gains: $2.75 Net cost of initial position shares still held: $3.50 Share count change "gains": $0.61 Net cost of all shares currently held: $2.89 In the TERP case the scheme can be concluded successful, since cost of shares currently held have been reduced and there is no net addition of shares compared to original position. In the GLBL case the cost of initial shares held have been successfully reduced too, but there's been a significant net increase in shares from the initial position as its dollar allocation has kept increasing on a sharp down trend for the stock causing the total cost (not per share) of current shares held to be 23% higher than the original position. If the stock ends up at $0 tomorrow the aggressive re-balancing scheme will have caused a loss on GLBL, but the gain on TERP is a bit more than 3 times higher than this loss. So in total over these two stocks the scheme seems successful as of now.
  24. 2 points
    Happy New Years everybody! Hope this year is profitable for all my trading companions!
  25. 2 points
    It would be anything hardly different in cases of TERP and GLBL. Those appointments could be lifesavers send to execs of SUNE just in case the main ship goes down. To contrary to popular opinion I suspect that yieldcos as fix asset collectors will be nourished to strength at the sacrifice of SUNE. It makes complete sense to rescue viable business format and inject with enough resources from a dying failure, when all fails. Anyone who ran multiple businesses will not claw to failing one at the price of the good one. MEMCs transition was a illustration of it. Set apart polysilicon business being a complete disaster SUNE could be saved and was result of action to save the business years back. We are going to witness actions going into the future and see how really three organizations are going to be played. I have no doubt empty headed market sees yieldocs as SUNE spawn infected with the same issues and this is a potent opportunity with realization of risks of fluctuation in price and nerve-wrecking journalism sentencing every one of those companies to various faiths almost daily. My view on the last paragraph will be taken on TERP board.
  26. 2 points
    Well, a. the US yieldco IPO highly unlikely (my words) (thanks to SUNE and co.) b. idiot a.k.a J.G was asking 1) how many projects did they sell this year?!!! (reply was - we can sell at good profit, but are selling none as we're gearing to 1.4 GW for IPO) and 2) why is everyone (tier1) expending - referring to repeat of 2011-2012 oversupply (reply was they: a. can ship more as are constrained by capacity and b. visibility into very strong 2016 for them is very good, Arthuro was ticked off by "idiot's" question) c. request was made for Jinko to separate debt for JinkoSolar and JinkoPower d. I think there was a concern that huge credit line they have is for Power only and where will the funds come for the expansion. There was nothing in the call to drop stock by 13%+
  27. 2 points
    I looked at the results of net income so far this year. On GAAP CSIQ: $79M expected to earn $1 per share in H2, around $60M year $$139M per share 139/60 $2.31 TSL: $58M expected to earn around $0.88 per share total $92M and year $150M 150/105= $1.42 JKS: $20M expected to earn $2.50 GAAP so around $80M, year $100M, 100/33= $3.10 FSLR: $32M expect to earn $3.3 so $330M, year at $362M 362/100=3.62 JASO: $27M expect to earn $0.8 per share or around $40M, so about $67M 67/50=$1.34 JKS will have additional $25M of accretion for 2015 to add $8M from Q4 2014. This would result in increase of earnings to $133M and $4 per share. CSIQ looks weak and FSLR looks powerful in comparison to 2014. JKS looks like the biggest gainer along TSL. TSL looks like best value for the dollar spent.
  28. 2 points
    You'll find most members are in lol. Go CSIQ
  29. 2 points
    Will reiterate what you've already said pop. Nice close on the 50, also note almost a double bottom on major support, then a nice pull back. So there's some strength there. Not a picture perfect hammer by any means but it will do. RSI getting down to low 40's too. Earnings to be fair can be a crap shoot with CSIQ, whatever they report. Volume was good today but nothing like some earnings. I think big money is letting the dust settle and then will take a position (18th?). Note: Like the way weakness was bought back. Down 5% at one point. 32.72 revaluate.
  30. 2 points
    I don't hold JASO based on stock performance, but based on company performance and valuation. If I pick stocks by historic stock performance wouldn't I be an MFI (market focused investor) instead of fundamentals focused investor (FFI)?
  31. 2 points
    Sure we did not, but there were real reasons to hit last year, and only one this year. Oil companies are going to have tough time, and this was the quarter solar should have shown they are doing great in comparison. I was hoping for this quarter to show that solar can do well while oil does bad. Market figured this out a lot earlier. Now you think that is going to change? While not all will do well and have a great story to tell, the one you picked to short will have the best first quarter in last 6 years and will tell us how it does new way of business in May, so I think a lot of curious eyes and hands will be holding that equity, in my view.
  32. 2 points
    GS issued this conviction buy at this time is an example of free sample at the fine restaurant. The competition for the IPO officially started yesterday. You play nice you get to sell the IPO and make $10M on fees and sell stock at the premium over the IPO price. It is not a matter whether it is coming but when. Game changed in February for CSIQ, now everyone is certain that new game is playing. This one more than ever got credibility to go $60 with GS upgrade. Wait till GS will be invited to do IPO. We could be seeing $100s soon.
  33. 2 points
    When asked about the yieldco plan, Qu offered this; I was wishing the moves included a bid for Recurrent but had reservations whether they had a real plan or could pulled it off (mainly because of a possible bidding war with SUNE). I'm really happy that they did it. TO me, this is probably the best move they could have made.
  34. 2 points
    I think for JKS we are on the same page here. It's a sound business, good execution but short term risk of shrinking gross margin due to uneven expansion of value chain. Also for the new deal with private investment for downstream business, it seems they need this to push for Yieldco IPO but have to share half of their precious pipeline. Note that most of their pipeline is high quality projects with good location, FiT and solar irradiation. Therefore, I don't really like them give up half precious pipeline potential to the partners. So for JKS, I am not eager to jump in now. Price need to fair enough for me to take a bite again on the riskier balance sheet. CSIQ is the important main holding and diversification in my portfolio since its ability to execute on Non-China projects is non-comparable. And at this stage, every player has some kind of pipeline in China so quality of the pipeline and access to capital determines whether firms can benefits from those projects quickly. I know CSIQ is consuming their high margin projects in the next couple of years but 2015 will be another good year for them with remaining Canadian projects, Samsung EPC and part of Japan's projects. I see no major GM risk for 2016 as well since majority of the Japan projects will be completed by then. That's how I see 2-3 years visibility of high quality and high margin for downstream business for CSIQ. After this, there will be about a billion own capital released from these projects for CSIQ ($4-$5 EPS from 2014 to 2015 plus CF from depreciation) and that's a very valuable asset no peers has. They can either chase other higher margin projects in the project universe (as they said in CC, this universe is pretty big and good player can always find some better projects), or worst case is to dump those money into China's project pipeline (good for 2.5GW to 3GW). Holding these massive China's projects will enable $2-$3 annual sustainable EPS for them. Generally speaking, EPS from holding projects should be assigned greater PE than manufacturing EPS since the former is more stable and has less risk. We can argue TSL could do the same with their huge China's pipeline (6GW+) but they need capital to do that. They don't have the luxury to use the capital freed from other lucrative projects and put it into holding projects. They either needs to find partnership like JKS to share their projects or they need to do more secondaries to raise own capital. I do see JASO as a mini-TSL but on a more efficient way operational wise. So I chose JASO over TSL in my holdings and CSIQ remains a main holding as ability to develop high margin projects in at least two years and freeing capital to dump into China's holding projects after that. Of course they might find better ways to use their capital and they will have most flexible balance sheet at that time. It's like a FSLR (great balance sheet, lots of capital to invest) with tier 1 manufacturing ability as well. After the drop, CSIQ is greatly undervalued from a static point of view. Dynamically, I see visibility for two years and as I stated they can always start using their China's project pipeline after two years. This post has been promoted to an article
  35. 2 points
    Normura response to Gordon His argument is flawed on multiple levels. I quote " 1. ASPs of projects in Japan sold till date to cashflow investors in the market so far is at US$4/W which at a construction cost of US$3/W is 25% gross margin. 2. He is talking about draconian law changes which is something the METI has so far not talked about. Yes they are reviewing the FIT policy but there is no indication that the changes are retroactive. Also, the bottleneck for installers to construct projects is not their lethargy but the fact that Japan solar utilities have been slow to give connection permits to large projects. So, to create a fear-factor on something that Japan authorities have not hinted is patting your own back. 3. He talks about CSIQ will finish 173MW of projects in 4Q14 and burn out the pipeline. I think he needs to create a model to understand what he talking about. Company is noting 5 project sales, i.e. ~70MW. Company is selling into Samsung EPC and that is another 60~70MW. After this company is left with 140MW of Samsung EPC and 110MW of own project pipeline. So how he gets to 83.8% pipeline in Canada finished is something only he can answer. 4. Yes the number of own projects available for next year for sale in Canada is lower than this year. There is 80MW of projects in Japan, 50MW of projects in UK as company noted, 200~300MW projects in China and equivalent amount in US. While UK, China and US projects have lower flip margins, i.e. EPC construction to sale margins are 10% but that does not include the module margin which is separate. Your total margin is 15~20%."
  36. 2 points
    It was a bit easier to make a second market trench after having the system in place for the first one. Attached are the same plots for USA deliveries. In the case of USA CSUN is too insignificant to date to make it into any index. Jinko had a too insignificant start in USA to make it into the first index, but instead replaces a losing STP in the second one. There are some interesting dynamics going on here related to the tariff case. STP who got the highest 2012 tariff (2014 tariff is irrelevant as it is higher and more supply-chain constraining) of named companies had basically already left the market in 2H12. SOL who was not named in 2012 case and thus got 250% 2012 tariff and in 2014 case got bundled up with Jinko to get higher tariff in that case left the market in terms of exports from China already in April this year as risk of import cost impacts for ReneSola panels after TW loophole closure became unfeasible to bear. YGE who dominated the market a year ago seems to focus a lot less on it now and is in severe decline there while still shipping signifcant volumes and holding on to third position. YGE got preferential treatment in the EU case, while in the USA case it was Trina who got it. Maybe YGE needed to shift customer focus to China, EU and Japan. HSOL never got any growth momentum in the market and seems not much affected by the tariffs. The whole group accelerated growth until May this year after which the growth flatlined. Three companies however continued the accelerated growth from May to now - TSL, CSIQ and JKS. In TSL case they have the edge of lower tariff rate. JKS have the edge of lower production cost, which gives slightly lower tariff in dollar amount and a competitive total cost. CSIQ have projects under construction there as well as ability to convert cells (subject to US tariffs and thus cheap) to modules at one of the lowest costs in the industry which could motivate them to continue the US market focus. JA grew well early this year in line with TSL and CSIQ, but from much lower level so with much less significance in absolute volumes. They however flatlined their US focus at the same time as the group flatline, YGE and SOL broke down and TSL, CSIQ and JKS started to dominate the growth in the market.
  37. 2 points
    "One oddity in the current twelve-week run of unraveling oil prices is that solar energy stocks are posting conspicuous gains. In the past, makers of photo-voltaic power systems have tended to rise when oil prices rise, as alternatives to pricier oil and gas gain favor, and fall when oil prices drop. But since late June,...." So, up until 3-months ago, PV-stocks were merely following oil prices? Wow...wish I would've know that all this time. I think this guy dusted off a file he had from 5-years ago to help write this...as most have figured out by now that natural gas, coal and nuclear are the energy source competition for renewable electricity...unless you plan on mounting panels on your car...
  38. 2 points
    Yes, agreed. Nice to see forward momentum again. Thanks again to you and the SPVI Team for your hard work on CEDR data. I also echo the input from others about the commentary there. As many have said before, the value of CEDR isnt limited to the numbers, but rather to how those numbers are translated by the many knowledgeable members here. Having as much commentary WITHIN the CEDR as possible adds even MORE value to the reports! Keep it coming!
  39. 2 points
    Ok, let's talk about this one a bit. Jinko being an example Revenue and cost of revenues often called COGS (cost of goods sold) result of it is gross profit and the gross profit/ revenue is a GM reflected in %. Jinko describes cost of revenues as follows: Then we have two other sections operating and financial expense Operating expenses or Opex is basically three broad sections S&M Selling and marketing G&A or General and administrative expense R&D or research and development. S&M for Jinko is : G&A R&D
  40. 2 points
    Out of topic, but… Poland has nothing to worry about. Conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine are the legacy of Soviet Union breakup. It's somewhat similar to what happened after Yugoslavia breakup (remember Bosnia, Kosovo and so on). There was no such country as Ukraine before the breakup of Soviet Union. As the result, Ukrainian borders are artificial. I know this personally, because I lived many years in Ukraine, I've been in all parts of Ukraine. My grandfather was from south-east of Ukraine (born in 1903). My grandmother, his wife, was from a village near Kiev. My grandfather always spoke only Russian. He was Russian by language, education, culture, whatever - as all south-east up to these days (I know this because I've been there several times). Unlike my grandmother, who spoke mostly ukrainian and was ukrainian by all measures. For whatever reason Ukraine now is fighting a civil war between it's historically Russian part (south east) and the rest of Ukraine. When someone claims that this is a 100% Russian aggression and Putin's actions - it's a lie. This is a civil war, like it was in Yugoslavia. Poland does not have anything even remotely similar to this situation. A part of Poland belonged to Russian Empire for a few years, but it was long time ago, for a short time, and there is no russian population there. I hope that this ukrainian bloodbath ends sooner than later. This war will definitely NOT survive the winter. But first it may get worse, and I'm afraid that it will get worse soon.
  41. 2 points
    I thought it was simply for promotions from time to time, not doing it on regular basis. As someone has already said, I'm in support of doing what is necessary to keep the clubs and this site running with a healthy membership population. Beyond that, I'm not really for giving the information for free for other reasons mentioned, including lower prices with a bigger membership. After all, information is money. Even here, I think there is a correlation between the price of CEDR and its value. The advantage of the CEDR will be reduced when it's published to the general public, regardless of the degree of the advantage perceived by individual members. The most valuable set of CEDR is the one for end-of-quarter, when you are able to position yourself before the earnings release. One not necessarily wants to establish the desired position in the first 21 days of receiving the data. The reasons could be optimal stock price entry points and availability of funds etc. More importantly, for an options player, one just wants to get into the position at later times to minimize time decay. In conclusion, I support running promotions to attract new members without giving too much away. I understand club members have different ways of utilizing CEDR therefore their view points may vary, but I don't see too much benefits in general for making CEDR available to the public for free (after a time delay) beyond that purpose.
  42. 2 points
    I think it's more fair to separate debt used on manufacturing part and debt used on developing/keeping projects when we talk about CN solars. If you strip projects debt out of JKS's balance sheet (which they will do in a spin off event), you will see more balanced and less levered BS going forward. Same thing goes to CSIQ.
  43. 2 points
    Well it is up to the bond holders if they want to force the CB to be converted to cash in may 2014. (123 mil.) But imho JKS would just get a new bond they got the cashflow and equity to do so to roll over debt. Anyhow: Project and bond convertible costs: 130-150 mil from topoint acquisition. (most likely q1) 123 mil convertible bond - COULD - be asked to be converted at Q2.(may 2014) 61.1 mil from equipment purchased made previously (due 30 September 2014) 160 mil for project financing. (Let us assume around 40 mil per quarter) Q1:190 Q2: 163 or / 40 mil Q3: 101.1 Q4: 40. Total: 371,1 - 494,1 mil usd. Cash & equivalent: Q1: 347,438. Cashflow during quarter: estimate around 30 mil. (net profit 14,2 and rest is from deprecation) Total: 377,438 - 190 = Q1 no problem. Q2: 187 Cashflow during quarter: 52,4 mil. Total 239,4 - (worst case) 163 = 76,4 = q2 no problem. Q3: 76,4 Cashflow during quarter: 69,5 total: 145,9 - 101.1 = Q3 no problem. Q4: 44,8 Cashflow during quarter : 88,2 total: 133 - 40 = Q4 no problem. At q4 or Q1 2015 the real fun starts as we get the equity offer for the pv projects. I Have high hopes for this and think it will surprise the market. Note for my estimates i have assumed 4 cents deprecation for jks modules. For asp and mw sold etc see my previous estimate as the numbers are based on it. It is hard to give an accurate estimate of deprecation as we do not know deprecation cost of the new equipment (but we do know from the old equipment due to this information disclosed in the last prospectus.) So consider this a guess by me and I might be off here. A 20 year straight line and just spreading it out over all the MW (not fair as module is cheaper than say cell) would net around 1 cent per watt cost in deprecation on the topoint acquired equipment if cost is 150 mil. Btw s-17 of prospect has detail of deprecation and amortization for q1-q3. Looking at those number it looks like ca 3 cent per watt so together with topoint my estimate of 4 cents per watt deprecation might not be that much off reality. But I welcome comments as this was what i struggled most with. For example can one have higher deprecation for cell portion or what are the financial rules of this? dues the deprecation have to be spread out over all production? (I do not know this to be honest.) Maybe explo can give a better overview of deprecation costs going forward as this is important for understanding JKS cashflow in the next quarters now. If I am off and they need to roll over the debt in Q2 then worst that would happen imho is either a new convertible (likely) bank loan (also likely) or a new share issue (not likely given current market situation.) That is why I am not so worried even if I might be off on cashflow estimates and total cash costs in 2014. Most important is we got a company earning money and gaining equity at low mcap prices. That is what I focus most of my analytically attention at because I know for such companies loan is not a problem. And I do know that the total outstanding short term debt is 326 mil according to q4 report but together with capex used this give a more full picture of what cash cost at least will be in the quarter. Rest of cash costs are covered in expenses to generate profit so is already covered. Also note my cashflow estimate is slightly higher than JKS CC comment of 150-200 mil cashflow in 2014. But I assume this cashflow statement is after the costs of cash like debt / capex (negative cashflow) so this is why I think I am actually on the low end if this assumption is correct.
  44. 2 points
  45. 2 points
    Another big part of the equation which I forgot to mention, is the reduction in module output over time. Looking at CSIQ's warranty, they guarantee that after 10 yrs output will be equal or greater than 90% of rating, and at 25-years it's 80%. so assume it's 8% after 10 yrs, and 15% after 20 yrs...this is a pretty big factor to consider if you want to maximize the revenue over the life of the 20-year contract to take full advantage of the FIT rates (not to mention they will probably still sell power to the grid at normal rates for another 5 to 10-years after). They also mentioned on the last CC that banks of modules sometimes need to be turned off for maintenance or repair, thus a higher DC to AC ratio would help mitigate lost revenues at near-peak output times that can occur during these routine procedures.
  46. 2 points
    ok, i cah share my experience with these types of spin-offs. 1. is it good for shareholders or not ? it depends as always on the price you get for the profit you give away. example: if during the IPO they give away 20% of the shares of that new comp for 100 mil US$ you have to ask yourself do I think that that company 20% stack will make more net profit than 100 million US$ in the next 5-8 years or not ? if someone can sell part of a company for a PE of 20 or so than this sounds like a smart deal for shareholders to me. so it really depends on the price you get and the %-size you give away. 2. if you stay majority shareholder you normally keep that company on your balance sheet and then at the bottom line have a line minority interests or similar which subtract the profit you gave away due to IPO (example: you gave away 20% of the company and the net profit of this subunit is 100 million US$. you will then have a line saying -20 million US$ minority interests/shareholders. 3. there is a clear ruling what amount of percentage you need to own of a company to keep it on your balance. I am not sure what that percentage level was (51%, 75% - unsure). 4. if you are not majority shareholder as per 3 anymore you wont show the assets on your balance sheet anymore (of the ipoed subunit) and basically have one-liners for profit/losses from the minority interests you still hold. and if this is IPO is smart or not depends really on the price. if they IPO 50% for a not so great amount where I think they could have earned that money back without IPO in 5 years then this is no good deal for me. logically if they get off this subunit from their balance sheet they might be able to go for more risks with the IPOed subunit, higher leverage and drive a model like solarcity or similar - just in china. so for the jks holding this could also be less risky - example: one of your major projects with 500 million US$ goes bust - you then can sink the subunit and the main holding can stay alive... so complex topic. I personally would prefer if they keep the IMO profitable project business in their reigns unless they get a very good price or if they only IPO some (like 25%). how the stock market will react to IPO plans will depend on price they get. I dont see a model where all the profits stay with main holding and project business runs at 0% margins. you will also have new owners due to IPO so they wont agree to such a model. so yes, you give profits away but get money during IPO in the beginning. the math is then IMO always very simple: IPO size: 20%. (you give 20% away) IPO price1: 100 million (what you get) IPO price 2: 400 million net profit of the subunit in the next 10 years: 1 billion (assuming 100 million per year) 20% stack profit: 200 million if you sell for IPO price1 this was basically a "PE" of 5 - instead of earning 200 million in 10 years you earned 100 million at IPO - i ignore inflation, financing costs for now. if you sell for IPO price2 this was basically a "PE of 20" - so sounds like an ok deal - unless you think that the project business will grow even more and return way more profits going forward...
  47. 2 points
    Let me put it this way, if JKS is earning 1$/share I do not care if markets offers a low value for it.. I will hold it as it will generate a lot of value for me over time and I have absolutely no good reason to sell it. (Or pressure to sell for that matter.)
  48. 2 points
    Hope this news will loose some tension on SEC case. Deloitte Affiliate, SEC Agree to End China Papers Lawsuit http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-27/deloitte-affiliate-sec-agree-to-end-china-papers-lawsuit.html?cmpid=yhoo
  49. 2 points
    BIPV's cautions about the China market are well taken. I'm less concerned with possible FIT changes than with the grid issues. I lost most of a small investment in a Chinese wind turbine producer which went under a few years ago. They could not collect on receivables as a result of their client's projects in western China being stranded by lack of grid capacity. It was difficult then, as now, to get a handle on the state of the grid and how fast they can upgrade to accomodate the new solar capacity. There is a lot of grid improvement in the works as described in general terms here: http://www.china-greentech.com/epi This 2012 article describes some of the problems integrating the wind power bubble: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059964937 A big part of the overbuild had to do with local government - quoting: For years, the Chinese central government has urged wind power growth to go hand in hand with the country's grid infrastructure expansion, which requires a longer and more complicated development process. But wind farm developers are backed by municipal or provincial governments, which want to build as many wind farms as possible to maximize jobs and economic output. That created a phenomenon called "49.5-megawatt wind farms." As Lu Hong, a renewable energy expert at the Energy Foundation's Beijing office, explains, many wind power projects in China are built with a capacity slightly below 50 MW -- the power threshold at which a project needs permissions not only from local authorities but also from officials in Beijing. Today, however, that phenomenon may no longer exist. While the lower tiers of government still hold their rights to approve wind power projects with a capacity below 50 MW, the central government for the first time has capped the total amount of wind power capacity each region can approve. I hope that the central govt has better control over integrating the solar expansion into the grid but is this really the case? I don't like investing on hope. I continue with CSIQ as my major position based in part on its geographic and business model diversification and lesser dependence on the Chinese market.
  50. 2 points
    news article today here in PV-mag...very encouraging. This could give all our solars another nice boost later this week. It follows this article here that Chinese module prices are on the rise...good for profits. btw, wanted to add I smiley but can't find them...

  • Create New...