Jump to content

Klothilde

Solar Member
  • Content count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Klothilde

  • Rank
    Newbie

Portfolio

  • Portfolio %
    FSLR 100%

Recent Profile Visitors

1,372 profile views
  1. Canadian Solar (CSIQ)

    Looks like U.S. assets are dry as a bone and that all the juice is in Japan then.
  2. Canadian Solar (CSIQ)

    Here is the original notification document for the transaction. At times like these I wished I spoke Chinese: http://disclosure.szse.cn/finalpage/2017-10-13/1204033370.PDF For me there's still lotsa questions open after having translated the thing, however I hope I got these points right: - Total payment is $232M - Shenzhen acquires three companies with combined assets of $631.4M, liabilities of $386.0M, and equity of $245.4M If the above holds true the transaction could represent a small loss for CSIQ. Whatcha think guys and gals.
  3. Canadian Solar (CSIQ)

    Careful with those $800M, I think it is a typo. This article speaks of transaction costs of $8M: http://finance.sina.com.cn/roll/2017-10-12/doc-ifymvuys8213370.shtml A price of $2.0/W strikes me as too high for the RE projects. On the one hand imo it is not possible to reconcile PPA prices of 5 cts/kWh or below with such a watt price. As a rough rule of thumb the watt price usually is ten times the yearly revenue generated per watt. At 5 cts/kWh and 1800 hours you would get a value around $0.9/W. With the ITC the value goes up a further 30%, however the tax equity stakes have already been sold off. Also as illustrated in one of my earlier posts the resale value indicated by CSIQ for their operating plants does not leave room for a high price in the U.S. once you subtract the value of the other plants in Japan, UK, and China.
  4. Solar News

    Well to me it looks like FSLR first waited on the sidelines cuz they really didn't know how the ITC would think about the case. And once they saw that the vote was 4-0 they decided to put their full weight behind it. Just think about what's at stake here for FSLR. If the decision goes through they could be able to place virtually their full production in the U.S. at 50%+ of gross margin for the next several years. Produce at 20-25 cts, sell at 40-50 cts. The business opportunity is just so humongously juicy they probably felt forced to act on it and not stay on the sidelines any longer. Wouldn't any business leader feel the need to act if a single political decision could result in tremendous profits for your business over the next several years? As far as boycotting goes I think developers are equally opportunistic. With S6 production costs of 20-25 cts and cash costs of 16-20 cts FSLR has the leeway to lower prices as far as required to clear the market.
  5. Solar News

    I think FSLR is just being opportunistic here trying to secure a juicy political privilege for the benefit of its shareholders. It would be a scandal if all other PV companies were saints but they are not. In fact all PV companies around the world have happily tapped political privileges available to them. Be it free land, tax breaks, export credits, unconditional financing, you name it. Think of YGE and all the lifelines it is still getting despite having posted horrible losses for ages and having amassed over $1BN in negative equity. Unlimited and unconditional financing like that is also a big political privilege and it is only available to Chinese companies. So to sum up imo there are no PV saints out there and we shouldn't blame companies for playing hardball.
  6. Solar News

    here it is, enjoy: https://s3.amazonaws.com/dive_static/paychek/Statement_on_Remedy_Issues_165188341_1.pdf
  7. First Solar (FSLR)

    First Solar Is Already Profiting From the Solar Tariff Debate https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/10/09/first-solar-is-already-profiting-from-the-solar-ta.aspx
  8. Quarterly Estimates

    Fair enough, we have different view points on this subject. Two further feedback points about your table. I went over CSIQ's Q2 balance sheet and found the line items "Financing liabilities" ($412.2M) and "Liabilities held-for-sale" ($211.4M) that you don't take into account in your calculations though imho they may impact both project asset value and debt. I'm not all that deep into CSIQ's numbers and consider their project accounting intricate and intransparent so these points are intended as questions. On page F-22 of their annual report they say that in cases where they sell minority stakes of projects to 3rd parties the total project assets stay on the balance sheet and the minority claim is accounted for under "Financing liabilities". Seems to me then that in order to reflect the net shareholder ownership of project assets you would have to deduct the $412.2M in financing liabilities from the $2526.9M in total project assets (?) On page F-37 of their annual report they break down "Liabilities held-for-sale". Seems these are the liabilities of the project companies whose assets were classified under "Assets held-for-sale" and that consist primarily of long-term project debt. So wouldn't you have to add those $211.4M or a large chunk thereof to your debt figure of $2443.8M ? THX
  9. Quarterly Estimates

    In my humble opinion the comparison is not quite apples to apples because you are comparing 7 GW of fully integrated capacity (FSLR) to 7 GW of asset light capacity (CSIQ) that relies partially on 3rd party PP&E for some of the production volumes. If you charged CSIQ the necessary CAPEX to bring it up to 7GW of fully integrated capacity it would eat up approx. $1BN in liquidity and completely change your picture. According to CSIQ's latest presentation their year-end targeted capacities are 1.1GW ingot, 4GW wafer, 4.7GW cell and 7.2GW module. This leaves a capacity deficit relative to 7 GW of 5.9GW, 3GW, 2.3GW, and 0 at the respective steps. Assuming 7 cts/W for ingoting, 8 cts/W for wafering, 17 cts/W for cell the required CAPEX would be $413M + $240M + $391M = $1044M Moving all ingot to module production in-house would probably improve the margin picture so you can assume higher earnings to compensate a little. P.D. what is your CAPEX split for each of the steps? I saw that you assume 38 cents/W for the complete chain here:
  10. Trading Solars

    Here's a Chinese broker report that looks into the PV funding conundrum more in detail. To add to what SCSolar said about the FIT catalog, earlier this year there was an update that included installations until March 16. The funding issues remain the same though: 1) Most of the installed PV capacity in China is not included in the current FIT catalog 2) Funds available for PV subsidies are not even enough to cover the current FIT catalog, i.e. not even enough to cover subsidies for less than 50% of the total installed PV capacity. We'll have to see how China deals with this issue. Maybe they switch to an effective tender based system that allows them to set high installation quotas. However it is clear that the current funding gap affects most installations and is not a matter of a few plants or a few billions. http://securities.csci.hk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CSCI-SolarPower-ChinaSolarPower_20170720.pdf
  11. Trading Solars

    Well I think there's a fundamental difference between U.S. and China installations in that the former are well funded and the latter are based on “I owe yous“. The Chinese renewable fund has amassed a huge deficit and the payment delays have ballooned. Yet they increased installations massively this year to above 45 GW. I just don't think they'll be able to uphold this magic much longer,, at one point the system has got to give...
  12. Canadian Solar (CSIQ)

    Yes those postings were very informative. I liked GCL's cost chart that shows hpw silver prices impact cell processing cost. As to CSIQ there's plenty of questions on my mind. I think the combo of DWS BS PERC is indeed very promising but that they are in the midst of sorting out the challenges. Does anybody know how much PERC cell capacity they have currently and how much they want to ramp it?
  13. Trading Solars

    I just don't understand why everybody is talking about the 201 thing. There's a way bigger risk for global market fundamentals. What if China installations drop by 1/4 or 1/3 ?
  14. Trading Solars

    $0.40/W is silly imo. During their Q2 15 con call they indicated that any line running at their lead line efficiency of 16.2% would be producing below 40 cents: "The only thing I'll add on to that is that just to remind everyone what we said on the last call, we said with our lead line at that point in time north of 16% that we were – our cost per module was for those products were below $0.40 a lot, right? So we basically said at 16.3%, 16.2% cost of the module was below $0.40 a lot. Okay?" https://seekingalpha.com/article/3399095-first-solar-fslr-james-alton-hughes-on-q2-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single In Q2 15 their average fleet efficiency was 15.4%, which suggests an average fleet cost of around 41-42 cents based on the indication above. Since then they've claimed 16% cost reduction yoy in 2016 (Q4 16 con call) and they've guided a further 9% for 2017 (Nov 15 guidance call). That puts current S4 cpw in the vicinity of 31-32 cents imo assuming most of S4 cost reduction for the current year is already accounted for through their machinery depreciation end of 2016. For S6 they are targeting 40% cost reduction vs. 2016 exit cost which translates to around 20 cents imo.
  15. Trading Solars

    I am sorry but there ain't no KU datasheets, those are preliminary flyers. And the Jinko poly half cell modules only go up to 285W which is below mono PERC.
×