Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/10/2019 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    LOL this is not good for FSLR and smacks of desperation as it is not well thought out or presented. We have FSLR acknowledging that they have the potential negative impacts due to bifacial modules. They are now going on the attack to try and defend their modules and bifacial by throwing a bunch of unsubstantiated un validated SUGGESTIONS that has zero quantitative analyis as to how it financially impacts the projects and the ROI. This wreaks of a company trying to react to what is now clearly impacting their business significantly. What I see is a bunch of fodder being thrown out because FSLR is being impacted significantly by BiFacial Modules. They have acknowledged that they are at a competitive disadvantage against BiFacial modules in some market(i.e. their primary market of Ground mount systems). They also have acknowledge that Sales have been impacted by BiFacial modules when the tariffs were repealed ont he BiFacial modules. BOS- yep points are accurate but note they do not really address how much an impact it is. Those are also not myths but known facts. Bunch of Fodder Vegetation - What there is no myth there. Mst everyones documentation inlcude differing terrain for reflectivity. No direct relationship as to how much less or more this adds to the costs. All Fodder Nameplate wattage - I have never read any article that states you can take the wattage to the bank. In fact most of the modules do not advertise as a bifacial wattage rather as a monofacial wattage then suggest additive gains based on albeido of differing terrains where installed. Again no myth all fodder. Tilt Angle - yes optimal angles could be changed to optimize front and back gains combined. However for now, the Optimal angle is used for the panel wattage as a mono facing and you get added data from the reflectivity. There is no added land required then, but there could be so that more light reached the ground. But then again, FSLR panels are 20% larger and require 10-20% more land than monofacial and will produce less power. Again fodder as a more learned optimal angles will just produce even more additive power than current name plate and FSLR modules are even worse today for land use and spacing than current Mono facial. Again No financial impacts or detriments identified just a suggestions. Snow - How is that a Bifacial issue? It is infact a Mono issue as well as a bifacial issue. They are suggesting that snow on the ground must be on the top which we know the heat generated will actually melt the snow. Now if you really want to argue this, Snow required cold weather. The CsI performs at it's optimal in cold weather and all the 7% gain in Power that FSLR throws out due to better heat performance is gone as well. This is the worst fodder of them all. Yield - That is right bifacial power estimates are not as accurate as monofacial. But the monofacial spec that is the nameplate being quoted for these panels only has additive power generation on top of the monofacial. This is all really really bad news from FSLR and supports the worst fears presented on the impacts of BiFacial on their business. It is a poor attempt at marketing to try to dampen the impact on First Solars modules as they recognize they are a competitive disadvantage and their entire business is at risk since the company requires that $0.10 per watt gross or more that you have been throwing out as needed to get the $1 a share in EPS per quarter to support their stock price. I would be seriously worried investing in FSLR that the only reason to invest is because the high margins generated from a single protected market that is 80%+ of their business and likely closer to 95% of their Gross income.
  2. 3 points
    As the CN ramps low cost poly, legacy plants will shut down. We have talked about that in the past. OCI is just another example as was Sun Edison, Hemlock Wacker and REC. China was importing 40% of their Silicon needs a year or so ago. With that massive ramp you have been screaming about, they will be importing even less. The market being 140GW conservative with China producing 85% of all product requires 576MT. By 2024 when the Tongwei 290KMT is online for the first full year, China is going to need well over 770KMT. Eventually there will be more Chinese shuttering of the legacy capacities they have in China. It will be all good for solar manufacturers as that means prices will be coming down more. That is all bad news for your dearly beloved company that would be near death if not for the protectionism put in place making us pay higher prices that the rest of the world.
  3. 3 points
    ENPH, the gift that keeps on giving. Thanks to them, I'm paying my house off 4 years early.
  4. 3 points
    SPWR announced a 22Million share offering at their bloated stock price. That is a 15% dilution.
  5. 3 points
    Jinko to add another 5 GW of mono wafer capacity in Leshan "Despite recent figures showing an hoped-for, end-of-year rally in Chinese solar project deployment has thus far failed to materialize, overseas orders continue to boom." https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/11/08/jinko-to-add-another-5-gw-of-mono-wafer-capacity-in-leshan/
  6. 2 points
    Today there are 5 big polysilicon producers in China who account for roughly 70-80% of global supply. Industry economics is now pretty much determined by the competition among them at very similar production costs of $6-7/kg and cash costs roughly $1 below that. All other polysilicon producers (i.e. tier 2 Chinese plus the international players) are pretty much insignificant at this point and have no much bearing on global prices.
  7. 2 points
    Love this pullback. Got in at 2 CAD
  8. 2 points
    Earnings out. Great EPS. Q2 guidance looks very strong compared to Q1 for volume shipments. Gross margins are nice and strong. http://investors.canadiansolar.com/news-releases/news-release-details/canadian-solar-reports-first-quarter-2020-results For the second quarter of 2020, the Company expects total module shipments to be in the range of 2.5 GW to 2.7 GW, including approximately 200 MW of module shipments to the Company's own projects that may not be immediately recognized as revenues. Total revenues are expected to be in the range of $630 million to $680 million, with gross margin expected to be between 18.5% and 20.5%.
  9. 2 points
    I think the results just released are telling you something--but you don't seem to be listening.
  10. 2 points
  11. 2 points
  12. 2 points
    Lets be clear Roth Capitol quotes PV Info link in their data analysis. I do not think that a major Analyst would use low quality data from PV InfoLink. https://www.pv-tech.org/news/longi-green-energy-revenue-and-profits-fall-in-q3-as-asp-declines-continue Figures from PV InfoLink reported today by ROTH Capital, indicated ASPs are down 44%, since the beginning of the year. Hobo is not an analyst and is making up his own numbers because he can not figure out how CSIQ numbers align with their data. Basically he has no clue on their ASP and none of it matches the companies comments on ASP. His theories in the past have been both right and wrong. More wrong than right in my opinion. That is why he vanished for several years. His theories on the impacts of ASP decline and over capacity in which he claimed Tier 1's would not be impacted back in the credit freeze was wrong. His claims that LDK was a great investment cost him and many on this board lots of red in their investments. Do your own anaylsis and supply supportive data. Klothilde for as much as she is a downside analyst on Csi has data points. I think her analysis of CSIQ ASP is inline with the company and earnings.
  13. 2 points
    Great minds think alike. Hobo is saying $4 EPS easily? " unless the solar industry collapses, that should push EPS above $4.00 easily." Where did I hear suggestions of $4 or more? Oh right on the 14th where I indicated " 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." Or on Monday where I suggested "My god when are people going to realize that CSIQ may gross $850M or more?" The numbers are there and more than 1 person sees the potential. People just need to recognize them.
  14. 2 points
    Yes correct and to that point, her numbers presume zero cost reductions between Jun 2018 and today. In fact CSIQ in the con call indicated costs drop on average 15% a year and they are looking at those costs to drop 10-15% again. That is what she does so often which is to show past costs mixed with present costs to show unfavorable costs in all. She does that knowingly and willingly over and over. She wants you to think that only the module Price dropped and only the wafer cost dropped and nothing in between. If you take that $0.14 and take a 15% cost reduction due to lower material costs such as lower silver consumption, lower glass and steel lower backsheeting, lower energy lower depreciation per watt, you wind up with a processing cost around $0.119 from June 2019. That places an all in cost of $0.119 + $0.074 = $0.1925 or 19.25% gross margins. If you add in another 6 months cost reductions through the rest of 2019 you have a module cost at $.1870 or 21.7% GM Coincidentally these numbers make sense are not off the cuff, they are guiding 19-21% margins and are blaming the lower margins on US projects. "Gross margin is expected to be between 19% and 21%. The lower margin reflects the expected lower margin contribution from project sales in Q4. " The real question I have is what are they paying in tariffs these days? I mean with ASP at $0.239 and a 20% tariff that would put the module cost imported to the U.S. at $0.289 with tariff impacts. The US ASP is far higher pushing $0.40 for high end PERC mono. With a US ASP at the lower end range of $0.36 for high end mono products. That puts a pre tariff ASP at ~ $0.30. Gross profit for the U.S. would then be $0.30-$0.187 = $0.1113. Gross margins to the U.S. would be $0.1113/$0.36 = 31.4% Imagine shipping 1500MW to the U.S. with $0.11 gross per watt. That is $167M. Another 10.5GW shipped with the 21% margins and the $0.239 ASP or $0.052/watt gross you have another $545M. ***Gross from module business alone would be $712M. Goodness gracious 31% or greater gross margins for US shipments. That sounds like FSLR margins she is raving about. I would be shipping tons to the U.S. annually at that kind of margins. Even without the 5% reduction or any reduction in 2020 you have $649M gross profits before any other income. What is she suggesting Opex and interest in 2020? $600M. So worst case scenario there is $50M in profit before taxes and before project sales EPC work etc. You are looking at $1B in revenues at 20% + margins for another $200M. My god when are people going to realize that CSIQ may gross $850M or more? In reality lets say that the ASP is around FSLR guided based on contracts of $0.34. The ASP would be around $0.285 pre-tariff. $0.285-$0.1875= $0.09795 Gross Margins = $0.09795/.342 = 28.6% to the U.S. 28% Freakin US margins. Ship Ship Ship all you can into that market. If you think FSLR is a protected market think again. Imagine the profits if CSIQ starts selling not 1500 MW but 3GW or 4GW a year to the U.S. with the tariff impact. That is what she is overlooking. Gross in the $165-$300M from the U.S. module market alone. The U.S. is a cash cow for the bankable Tier 1 Chinese players as you sublty pointed out the CSIQ comments supporting that.
  15. 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.
  16. 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."
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 2 points
    ??? So I take it you cannot explain with your own words why the analysts are underestimating earnings big time. And it seems you believe some of the anonymous posters on that board know much more about the inside scoop than the analysts covering the company. Just a word of caution. I've seen that message board and judging by the very high level of activity there in comparison to other solars it seems to me that there are people out there trying to create a hype around this company. JMHO.
  28. 2 points
    Well I tend to side with the GCL guy, i.e. Imo China installations in Q4 will probably come in way below expectations and installations over the next few years will be reduced. the news on government trying to get electricity rates down also simply means less funds for legacy and new solar plants and longer time to get grid parity dynamics in motion. Globally PV will probably grow at 5-10% per year. Since capacities at all steps are being expanded at much faster rates I expect oversupply to increase and margins to drop. In the short term (i.e. Q3-Q4) JKS and CSIQ may actually benefit from cheaper upstream component prices but going into Q1 and Q2 their margins will probably shrink again. DQ's ASP and margin will be hit as well since we have quite a lot of new polysilicon supply coming online into Q1. Further I speculate China (industry and government) is now ready to price OCI and Wacker out of the Chinese market by lowering prices in 2020 and lending financial assistance to key players to withstand a string of unprofitable quarters. I see blood in my crystal ball. Regarding the delisting thing this may be a good opportunity (excuse) for JKS to finally crash the stock and take the company private. Only reason why it hasn't happened yet is cuz they needed the yearly secondaries to fund their expansion. Some of my thoughts...
  29. 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.
  30. 2 points
    Great big picture read for clean energy: http://rameznaam.com/2019/04/02/the-third-phase-of-clean-energy-will-be-the-most-disruptive-yet/
  31. 2 points
    Well the RMB depreciated by 1.4% over the past week. You would expect to see the average ASP decline within that range. When you subtract out the 1.4% devaluation of the RMB, those drops do not look that bad. https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=CNY&view=1W Those numbers look very promising for downstream module producers. The trends are necessary to reach True grid parity with storage in most of the world and especially in China. By my estimates they are making Mono Perc modules for about $0.20 now. That is based on the $0.11 for Chinese Perc cells. That $0.23 China ASP with that manufacturing cost is 15% margins. That foreign average ASP of $0.25 is greater than 25% margins. The U.S. is the higher price range so even that market is likely more profitable than any market around even with the tariff. That U.S. market has surged and has price increases due to a rush to get projects in under the ITC planned reduction in 2020. Looking at those numbers, I only see positives for the next 6 months for the module manufacturers like CSIQ which had improved margins and JKS which is likely to beat their margin guidance.
  32. 2 points
    Right now CSIQ the core MSS is running over 22% gross margins. This does not include Systems sales from Japan. As far as Japan projects, they have 90MW already in operation for sales. They also have an additional 120MW to be completed in 2019 and 2020 along with 187MW in 2021 and beyond. These numbers are around 40-50MW above the inital Japan projects MW schedule from a year ago. That indicates most of the projects of 150MW a year are still the higher FIT. That is a nice buffer for the next 2 to 3 years that will likely add and extra $150M in gross a year at a minimum.
  33. 2 points
    Another Guangfu article on the power plant disaster in China: http://guangfu.bjx.com.cn/news/20190806/997796.shtml Interesting bit of information is that loans for power plants usually carry a 3-5 year grace period during which only the interest needs to be paid. This may be a key reason why we haven't heard of jinko power liquidity issues yet. You guys be careful now, this is a ticking time bomb for JKS that can go off in 2 minutes or 2 years, we don't know. Keep your eyes and ears open for the slightest news that may point to issues at jinko power, you don't want to be caught on the wrong foot...
  34. 2 points
    Expired SSL certificate caused the security risk message. Site is now restored. Thanks
  35. 1 point
    q4 basic shares outstanding was 60, now 59; so 1 Mil down ... add/substract share compensation result 1,5 or 2 mil? for Q1
  36. 1 point
    2GW in AbuDhabi that could go to Jinko. PPA is being indicated as another record low at $0.013/KWhr. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/abu-dhabi-talks-edf-jinko-142345317.html
  37. 1 point
    Yes since the start of 2019, which is the inception date of my new portfolio, I'm up 60% (as the shown in the Return chart for the Portfolio). I hope I can keep the distance to indices on the return since inception even if we get a big correction. Otherwise one could argue that the outperformance was just from allocating more risk than the indices during a risk on period. My strategy is to allocate risk of higher diversity and better quality than the indices and then to lever up that allocation to desired risk level in order to achieve a risk-adjusted return that should be superior to the indices, especially during a period that includes a bear market. Last year this wasn't really tested. After the end of this and especially after the end of next year that should have been tested well unless we snap back quickly to the risk on environment of last year.
  38. 1 point
    jks recomandation... a big one https://finance.sina.com.cn/stock/hkstock/hkstocknews/2020-02-11/doc-iimxyqvz1910503.shtml
  39. 1 point
    Yes, and the article also says the resulting shortages will probably lead to (albeit temporary) price INCREASES for solar supply chain components. Of course, the question is how much do volumes get reduced, but higher prices will offset that. In short, we simply don't know what the final effect will be at this time, especially because we DON'T KNOW how much of the CN workforce is actually idled. But there's absolutely no reason to automatically assume total gloom-and-doom.
  40. 1 point
    The "rising tide lifting all boats" generally applies to all long biased strategies. What I have found important is to separate beta and alpha when analysing the return in order to see if the alpha is healthy. Your approach can certainly generate good alpha too. I would say that it requires more ongoing effort and is more difficult to keep long-term consistent than my approach as your alpha is generated from picking both asset and time and, I guess, less diversified than my asset picking. I have around 120 assets in my portfolio with fixed target allocation. My approach required massive upfront allocation optimization effort, but the continuous management effort (to rebalance to target when diverging beyond tolerated target deviation) is quite low.
  41. 1 point
    Thanks. My strategy now is more about maximizing "time in market" than trying "timing the market" so I don't try to have a view of where the market is going. The portfolio strategy is to be setup to handle all scenarios in the best way to maximize long-term return without assumptions about future direction other than that the mean reversion force of the market will eventually kick in. My view now is that we are quite close to mean in a longer time perspective so there is no bias to either side (up or down) for a large mean reversion risk in my view.
  42. 1 point
    Good question: "My god when are people going to realize that CSIQ may gross $850M or more?" In the meantime JKS is pushing $17.5 UP, and CSIQ, with 2020 $4 EPS on the surface, is stuck at $15....
  43. 1 point
    They made nearly a buck a share in Q3. They're guiding for better results, not worse, in Q4. All this during what are supposed to be life-threatening business conditions according to you. Yeah, I'm OK with THOSE numbers.
  44. 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.
  45. 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.)
  46. 1 point
    If energy prices in China go down 15% next year, then polysilicon and entire components chain (wafers, cell, modules) will be cheaper again. FSLR is in trouble. Not good :-((( https://www.pv-magazine.com/?utm_source=crossdomain&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=tabs
  47. 1 point
    I think JKS and DQ is dangerous to touch now, considering this: " Trump administration officials are considering ways to limit U.S. investors’ portfolio flows into China, including delisting Chinese companies from American stock exchanges and putting a limit on U.S. government pension funds’ exposure to the Chinese market." https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/27/white-house-deliberates-block-on-all-us-investments-in-china.html Canadian Solar was smart to become Canadian. 🙂
  48. 1 point
    The chart in this article shows what SCSolar is talking about: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-23/china-solar-stocks-are-rallying-on-beijing-s-policy-support JKS has been burning cash uninterruptedly since its listing in 2009. Can you believe it?
  49. 1 point
    This is the beginning of FSLR end. First - they exit EPC business, and then - they exit PV modules business. Not good... :-((((
  50. 1 point
    That's one interpretation. Another is good news for DQ, because this shows increased demand (the report cites increased sales volumes).

  • Create New...