Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/14/2018 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Something unusual is happening with CSIQ. As mentioned above, last week - Wed, Thr & Fir - at 5PM over 200K shares blocks, each day, at closing price. Now this week yesterday - 151+K block after 6PM and today an other 58K well after 6PM all at closing price. It is extremely unusual for the reconciliation to take place so late and on days with relative small volume in a given stock and with no general market related moves, so those are not reconciliation trades. Someone is buying those shares (Qu?), but who is selling at these levels? Is there a deal made on a side?
  2. 1 point
    Wow. Don't knock yourself out. Here is the take from Credit Suisse on Friday's action: ■ Our take – Renewables: Solar manufacturers were down 5-10% on Friday morning possibly due to quad witching, market sell off, and concerns that the US would impose additional 25% duty on an expanded list of Chinese imports (which might include solar products). We believe the reaction is overblown as the oversupplied solar sector has enough non-China capacity to supply to the US market if required. We have not yet seen signs of consolidation upstream, but downstream micro-inverters have taken the first step. Declining cost of solar and storage continues to exceed expectations, while cities and states ramp renewable demand.
  3. 1 point
    I would view a worst case scenario of companies being profitable with an ASP above of $0.175+$0.035=$0.21 I would view a better case scenario of companies being profitable with an ASP above $0.15+$0.03 = $0.18 I would view a best case scenarion of companies being profitable with an ASP above $0.13+$0.025 = $0.0155 I am using USD as a reference. Currency fluctuations would change the results. In my example I use a cost savings in areas that detail a drop in manufacturing of modules to atleast $0.175/watt. If you use a slower Mores Law adjusted 25% cost reduction per doubling of capacity for the next decade, Then a $0.24-$0.28 cost to manufacture today drops to $0.15 to $0.175 cost to manufacture. I am saying the ASP to be profitable is Cost to manufacture + Opex + Interest + Profit I am saying today Opex is at $0.04/watt including shipping look at the JKS and JASO ERS. I expect it to drop 25% or more per doubling of capacity. A 10% shipment growth per year places shipments aproaching 300GW. A 25% lower Sales cost(including shipping) on efficiency gains of 25%(aka 23-25% efficient modules) is $0.007 savings from todays costs of $0.027(JKS Q4). A 25% lower Admin cost per watt per doubling of shipments places General Admin around $0.0045 from todays $0.007/watt. A 25% lower RnD cost per watt per doubling of shipments places RnD at $0.00329 from todays $0.0516/watt Based on the market growth forcast at 10%+ per year for the next 10 years and savings at 25% per doubling of shipments Opex=$0.02+$0.0045+$0.00329 = ~$0.0278 or $0.03 or less. Yes. Depending on module manufacturer and volumes Interest Net Income runs $0.0035-$0.01/watt. This drops to $0.0027 to $0.0068/watt with a 2.5 times increase in shipments at a 25% reduction per doubling. I expect then in 10 years that the Opex and+ Interest will be under $0.04/watt and in the range of $0.03-$0.035. down from todays $0.045-$0.05. It could be lower.
  4. 1 point
    My OpenInvest portfolio (~$5,500 in S&P 500 type firms--but minus all fossil fuel, large mining, tobacco, chemical, utility and big banks) just purchased 1 share of FSLR on Friday. Normally solar stocks plummet 25-75% after I first purchase . Fair warning!
  5. 1 point
    At some point along this cost curve demand explodes. By "explode" I mean demand curve goes non-linear compared to history. Already solar is eating nat-gas peaker and coal's lunch. Knock another 20-25% off the cost of solar (lowering total installed cost by 10%)--as china is now doing--and you eat nuclear, and regular nat gas's lunch too. I see storage as the final key to balancing the supply/demand equation in solar's favor. I think the cost of storage will drop by 50% (maybe 65%) over the coming decade. We may be within a decade of the last fossil fuel plant being built. All that said, the next 6 months could be very painful for module makers.
  6. 1 point
    My point was there are technologies that are available that can have double the efficiency of todays mass production technology. Only time is the impediment to the costs being driven down for these. Those efficiency improvements along with other technology changes and mass of scale will drive down what is perceived as a stagnant portion of Opex. There is also another 40-50% improvement to be gotten from todays crystalin productions. Moores Law often cited was a single decade forcast and has been revised several times. The comment at the time was basically the packing of transistor density would double every year per surface area over ten years when it was made. It held true for a Decade then was modified. The modification called for a doubling of density every 2 years. According to Wikepedia Dave House(whom I played golf with and worked for) indicated that he thought it was 18 months after the revision. Now Moores Law is sitting at 3 years for doubling density with the eventuality of no more gains. As miniaturization occurs, the ability of miniaturization slows due to technological and physical limitations. In essence what the modifications look like is the slew rate charging cycle of a capacitor(SRCCC). I will agree that Solar has finite limits for single wavelengths. That limit has always been around 30%. In the past decade the efficiency went from 12% to 18% for Multi and 15% to 21% for Mono. That is a roughly 50% improvement. It may take another decade to get to from todays max efficiency in production of 21-24. That would be a 75% improvement in raw efficiency gains. Or a 20% improvement in overall efficency. I might speculate that it takes another 10 yers to get to 27-29% efficiency after that which is around a 50% gain in raw efficiency vs the prior 10 years or a 7.5% overall efficiency improvement. That would somewhat track the revised Moores law and the what SRCCC If you look at the cost to manufacture the past decade, modules were around $2.80 when companies were producing 200MW a quarter. Todays costs are $0.30+/- at volumes of 2GW. That is a 10 fold drop in cost on a 10 fold increase. That is a 50% price drop per doubling of production trend. I would expect at least a 25% decrease in production costs per doubling of capacity going forward for the next decade. That would be inline with your Moores law pattern. The Operational expenses have tracked similar in that for every doubling of shipments. Opex was cut appx 50%. While 50% decrease in cost for doubling of shipments may not continue, I would expect at least a 25% decrease in production costs per doubling of capacity going forward. I would also expect the Opex to follow a similar SRCCC curve. For module manufacturers opex and interest is running at less than $0.05 depending on company for module manufacturer. $0.023-$0.025 for shipping(probably will rise with lower CN shipments) $0.08 GM, and $0.05 RnD. The Opex would fall from just under $0.04 to around $0.03 or less. Where do these numbers come from? Poly production costs used to be $20/kg + a decade ago. Now in new plants with favorable electricity prices it is well under $10/Kg and heading toward $5. Grams per watt with technologies keeps falling. Cells a decade ago were 210microns and fell to 180 160 and in some instances 140microns. With newer wire saw technology the thickness of the wafer falls to 100-120 microns. The amount of poly wasted has fallen from what was 200 microns to 140 microns to what is now 80 microns with diamond wires. You are looking at 180 Microns in the future vs 300 Microns today. Most of the Kerf loss is now recoverable and recyclable. This leads to a more than doubling of wafers from a similar amount of silicon consumed in the process. The manufacturing doping texturing and coating improvements has also lead to a 50% improvement from a decade ago. All this has lead to grams per watt falling from over 8 grams in the early 2000's to well under 4 grams/Watt today. 4 grams at an eventual $6/KG cost is only $0.024 cents vs todays $0.07. Wafer processing drops by 50% from todays $0.06 to $0.03. That is a $0.054 reduction in cost for wafering in the future alone. Cell processing may drop from the $0.06 range today to $0.04 as some of the new technology reduces but adds costs as well. Module processing falls from $0.10 today to $0.07 or less as efficiency gains and material costs decline from mass of scale. This all would lead to cost falling to $0.024+0.04+0.04+0.07 = $0.175 in the next 10 years at a minimum. As for Operational expenses, certain items are fixed such as shipping. The only variance that will come with that cost is the thickness of the panels and the efficiency and regionality of sales. Thinner wafers, thinner stronger and more rigid glass can help reduce that cost as can increased efficiency in panels which can lead to another 25% drop in shipping costs. Those costs used to be $0.05/watt 8 years ago and has fallen to 0.025 or less as of recent ER's. This should fall another 25% + with efficiency gains from 19% to 24% and thinner wafers and glass and diversification of the base where items are shipped. What is clear is that the rest of the operational expenses are running at $0.015 today. That is the pretty much fixed costs of General Admin and what has been a semi fixed RnD value depending on company. These cost in sum have basically over the past 10 years been a 50% reduction per doubling of capacity. The Opex is running for pure manufacturers in the $0.04 range. As the Capacity increases, the historical tend would be for these costs to continue a rate of decline of atleast 25% if not pushing 50% as history has shown. Similar trend is interest per Watt shipped. This should lead in the next decade an interest and cost per watt that runs at $0.025-$0.035 or less in the next decade. I see no problems with in the next decade or so for the cost to manufacture falling up to 50% from todays $0.28 for most to and with expenses being profitable at an ASP of $0.18 and above. In fact one of the driving factors in China's policy is to take the waste out of the supply chain near term as artificially inflated prices are supported by their past Tariffs. They want target projects at $0.60 and modules at $0.25 near term. That is down from the $0.70-$0.80/watt today in China. Taking a byte out of Poly is the first start, the second is the soft costs in building projects and then other upstream supply chain supply cost imrpvements.
  7. 1 point
    Relax. No place for this here.
  8. 1 point
    ALERT ALERT https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/06/15/us-to-slap-additional-25-tariffs-on-chinese-cells-modules/ Isn't this GOOD news for FSLR?? 51 calls expiring today are selling for just 21 cents each. I just bought 5 on this news. Or is this somehow bad for FSLR??
  9. 1 point
    I exited the sector around a year ago due to a change to a more diversified strategy, so I'm not tracking current opportunities in it well. Generally I would say that we retail investors have a lot more fact to go on to make arbitrage decisions when a definite offer is in place. Until then we are just guessing that there is arbitrage to reap by some pattern observed. This seems much more risky to me (and the arbitrage will be bigger if realized), so a strategy to reap that would required diversifying such guesses in smaller chunks among several similar opportunities (not necessarily occurring at the same time). Hedge funds will likely use their force to deceive retail investors to sub-optimal trading once the offer is definite. A savvy retail investor can exploit that action instead of being a victim of it. Some people did it here with TSL. This should be a safer arbitrage bet (and surprisingly large) that allows commitment of more capital than the more guess like bets.
  10. 1 point
    Wow, he had a lot to say (or many words to say it) and not too manufacturing equipment focused as he sometimes is. He even through in the old mono race to catch up with multi. Yes, multi wafer capacity might have problem (CSIQ bet I think) when LONGi offers cheap high-quality mono with its crazy capacity in the 10's of GW. But his main point is downstream (panel buyers) can benefit (duh!). Midstream will have upstream absorb their lower prices. Upstream will have no winners. Or maybe he forgot that the upstream mono betters might have a painful acceleration of their market-share gain. Remember, in 2011 FSLR, CSIQ and JKS all went into the downstream. They were not stupid. And they came out as winners in the whole stock market in 2013, but it did not prevent them from trading in the $11's (FSLR) and $2's (JKS) and $1's (CSIQ). Also remember that the industry sh*t started in 2011 but it took the until late 2012 for the stocks to hit their bottoms after more than 90% falls. I know that seems completely unreal now (it did even more so then), but in 2010 they were all on top of the world and then in 2012 at the bottom. It's not that relevant to me if it was logical, the forces behind it etc., only how I managed my wealth under the scenario, which was in a not risk prudent way, to say the least.


×