explo

LifeTime Member
  • Content count

    9,049
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    131

Everything posted by explo

  1. It's very interesting article series. Obviously DW was huge for mono. Now it seems that although more diffucult its succes can be applied to multi too. Combined with black silicon technology and PERC multi could mute mono's DW driven comeback. Looking at CSIQ they are in a very interesting point in time now. It's almost at the level of FSLR's big decision. CSIQ has always been very capex adverse and left it to specialist supplier to drive down supply costs although they had to pay an outsourcing margin penalty for this. This strategic shift and big bet on in-house technology could be a bit of necessity and not just choice. Bond alluded to GCL sitting on massive slurry based capacity that would be a massive undertaking to convert to DW. CSIQ being conservative before see and opportunity to add DW saws now. Note that their crystal growth (ingot) capacity will be kept much lower. What should an investor do? First of all expansion announcments tend to not convert to better reports immediately. When ordering equipment BS is stretched, when ramping operations are stressed, but then comes the reward of higher margin which one should get into the stock before. In this case there seem to be some tech challenges so a careful investor might want to see succes first but then the stock is already more expensive normally. Maybe similar to FSLR that it is proven to work but still has difficulties to apply en masse. Like bond says multi ingots not being single crystal are a bit more "brittle" making the thin wafer enabled by DW more difficult to handle than mono. It's certainly is an exciting time for CSIQ to after more than 10 years finally make a big in-house capacity bet. A big advantage is that they lack too much legacy obsolete tech capacity and can go even bigger if they have success. Worst case if failure they should be able to use DW saws on bought mono ingots. Focusing investments mainly on DW saws looks smart from many perspectives now.
  2. It depends on whether you look at market cap or enterprise value. The enterprise value of CSIQ is significantly higher than FSLR at the moment. Having net cash instead of net debt puts a floor or at least cushion on PPS. You hold much more FSLR than CN3 so you must see some reward to match that risk.
  3. Agree on CSIQ vs JKS being the better tactical buy here, but I already moved all CSIQ to JKS for more strategic reasons. JKS is now a clear leader and lessexpensive than CSIQ. FSLR and JASO was always different profile than the CSIQ and JKS profile. I really like CSIQ with tons of international project assets and pipeline. There are still some uncertainties around it.
  4. It was just a small rebalance as I wanted to change my reference price for weight adjustment. It's just a technical thing, not tactical or strategic. Yes I don't like that they sold their development arm, but they are still highest performer and I don't want to exclude the possibility that they will continue project development and plant ownership but with full stake. FSLR sell was shares recently bought at same price. I think FSLR timing-wise is a buy here, JKS neutral/buy and JASO a sell just by looking at very recent moves.
  5. FSLR sell filled. JKS buy filled. JASO sell filled. Based on changing reference price for relative weighting from close on August 24 2015 to the PTs derived from the above IRR analysis.
  6. I agree with odyd. It has done too good job on growth, profitability and building solid BS past years to have a market cap below 300 million on several billions in sales and one billion in book value. I don't think market expects a buyout. It is just surprised that it now can be steadfast in a weak industry cycle and thus extend a long row of recent performance.
  7. They will dominate revenue in 2017 due to selling US project. The question is how margin contributing that revenue boost is. A bit unclear on CC. First they say they could profitable and then later they talked about possible double digit margin on US projects. I think the Japan IPO is their big potential boost in 2017. I still like the company but find the valuation of peers more attractive at this point in time. Listening to them it sounds like they are getting 20% margin on projects in China and maybe low to nothing on US projects. This year they are developing the most MW in China. Maybe they betted a bit wrong with US and Brazil instead of more focus on China and Japan after Canada. Other CN3 all invested a lot in China projects. Even JA has accumulated decently on their BS by now.
  8. Q4 presentation published: http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/IROL/19/196781/CSIQ-IR-Presentation-March-2017-v-Final3.pdf
  9. Adjusted the PTs based on the latter (return requirement) adjustment and after updating for Q4 results from JASO and CSIQ (JKS and FSLR was already updated for this and TSL might never be). JKS $28.07 JASO $8.43 FSLR $46.25 CSIQ $7.83 TSL $7.49 Further update to CSIQ for the former reason, i.e. its operating asset build up on BS on initial yieldco monetization plan that now instead have been confirmed to be replaced by their normal monetization plan to sell projects to deleverage BS and redeploy capital. The assumption is that the 1.6b resale value of the operating assets will have 12% profit margin as they guided "low double digits" profit margin. CSIQ $11.06
  10. That is because they have provided very low ROE historically. This long-term perspective is finally giving me some explanation why market is giving it extremely low PB (0.25) and PE (3) multiples. Their ability to grow shareholder capital over time has not been sufficient for long-term investment. Somebody might however be interested in buying them out to tap existing value without long-term growth focus. Or somebody more efficient might take them out and keep and grow assets after converting them to long-term efficient operations. Or maybe JASO has transitioned to a more efficient company on its own, i.e. recent strong years as they transitioned from component specialist to a branded product seller is not a temporary strength in a long-term weak company but a true transformation into a long-term efficient company to grow shareholder value. For these reasons it is motivated to hold the stock for me. If the latter case turns true it will slowly dilute the early years poor performance to slowly improve valuation multiples and maybe at some point when concluded a different company those early years can be excluded in the shareholder value growth analysis and at that point be rewarded a quicker jump in valuation multiples. Regarding PB. As I said CSIQ has much higher than the rest now while not historically having the best shareholder value growth, but maybe the market here has concluded it a different company from the early years and excluded them and thus giving higher weight to their golden Ontario project development age at which time they provided much higher ROE. A quick comment on PT is that I might refine both the IRR calculation side to try include estimate of unrealized profits on the BS and the return requirement side (which takes risk and possibility to leverage returns into account). CSIQ might rise from the former and all be lowered from the latter adjustment.
  11. It's a quite big upside from here for JASO. As I said this is an alternative perspective based on long history of GAAP performance being available now. It's used for strategic allocation. Before I used tactical allocation based on recent and projected non-GAAP performance. My PTs are not the price I expect the market to set. The market is more short-term focused and your PE based PTs are more likely market pricing. My PTs are trying to capture value as long-term investment rather than short-term expected market pricing.
  12. Found the PTs. JKS $29.53 JASO $8.06 FSLR $51.52 CSIQ $8.93 TSL $7.88 CSIQ and JASO are not updated for Q4 yet. The perspective is narrow and uncoventional in that it looks at IRR of shareholder capital under a long period instead of current snapshot.
  13. I don't have the numbers here but around 40-ish I think.
  14. These PTs are based on a narrow perpective of IRR on shareholder capital the past 11 years. Most perspectives look at current operational performance (non-GAAP now), while my perpective is sum of GAAP result vs equity capitalization since 2006.
  15. I don't have my analysis here, but I think JASO PT was $8-ish.
  16. I'm suggesting PT. CSIQ needs to trade in the 4's to have same upside as JKS has now. The analysis only considers realized shareholder value and not the potential sitting on the BS. Since JKS just monetized everything they get a bit of an unfair advantage in the analysis. I might need to make it more sophisticated, but then it becomes speculative on the margin CSIQ can get on assets on BS. A lot of US projects with likely low margins.. Japan on the other hand..
  17. Hi Jet. The switch was strategic after evaluating management performance over the past 11 years of CN4 + FSLR. This was triggered by Jinko now monetizing its downstream efforts since 2011. Before Q4 they hadn't monetized $1 of that. CSIQ used to monetize immediately, but now have a lot of not yet monetized investments on BS, so the comparison might not be totally fair. I haven't crunched CSIQ Q4 numbers yet, but I doubt they'll tilt the 11 years total much. Maybe if I included potential profit of not yet monetized assets on BS CSIQ would look a bit better but 11 years is a long enough period to diluted current BS status quite a bit. Regarding influence of guidance for 2017 that would be a more tactical move and I'm more and more into strategic allocation so I'm not looking too much at that. Rather I see guidance as a price driver which can result in a long-term performer becoming cheap due to short-term headwinds. My 11 year analysis roughly resulted in a JKS PT of around $30 and a CSIQ PT of around $8, so the spread needs to increase further for a switch back to be motivated from that strategic allocation of price vs long-term performance. My view is that it is not so much CSIQ's performance that is the problem, rather its stock price compared to the other CN3. JASO's performance is a bit of an issue, but the extreme discount fully compensates for this. Yet it is unlikely that the discount will go away anytime soon unless they continue and accelerate the high performance of recent years to compensate for poor return on early high capitalization. To be realistic its a buy out bet due to its severe discount. It's also a lower risk play due to the strong BS. It diversifies the volatility profile of the stocks a bit. And that volatility diff can be tapped as trading opportunities.
  18. I haven't really gotten into details lately. For a long time they hade 500 MW mono and 500 MW multi and did not expand it. They had great access to mono ingot/wafer supply from their "parent" company and other partners. I think they've focused more on mono in their recent ingot capacity expansion, but I'm not sure. Typically they are 50/50 mono/multi in their cell production but lines are flexible to flip between mono and multi if they want to bias it. JA is known to have bet more on mono or rather keep it open than say Trina which made a big multi bet and other CN4s (I think Jinko after JA was the most mono or open one), but I haven't followed recent developments that well. Those that betted to hard on multi might be slower to adapt to bigger market changes.
  19. Jinko would need to buy/toll 5 GW cells and JA buy 4 GW wafer so I could see some partnership, but more likely they are balancing total supply situation and their own strength/focus. Maybe they just sync enough to avoid that everyone is expanding cell only for example.
  20. Anyone notice that Jinko was restrictive on cell expansion while JA restrictive on wafer and module expansion. There seem to be some rationality in expanding complementary segments among the big capacity players.