solarpete

Solar Investor
  • Content count

    366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

solarpete last won the day on March 27

solarpete had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

48 Excellent

About solarpete

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Information

  • Location :
    Colorado Springs

Recent Profile Visitors

1,789 profile views
  1. I feel your pain! Took a gamble on it myself and entered a small trading position when it pulled back from 7.00, figuring it would blast through on its way to 8 (the way it blasted through 6 on its way to 7)--only to watch it promptly pull back even farther, and now obstinately refuse to participate in rises in other solars. Think we're stuck at this level until their earnings. Last quarter's were driven by a one-time gain--hope they don't collapse when they can't repeat that this quarter. Well, at least I was smart enough to limit my exposure here.
  2. Precisely! Good luck (to us all)!!
  3. Your Base 10 prejudice is showing. Say that in binary!
  4. Agreed. Anyone care to speculate on whether they'll actually cease operations, which should ease the oversupply problem?
  5. Exactly the conclusion I came to as well. The very uncertainty that makes it difficult to pick long-term winners produces enough fluctuations in share price to allow plenty of trading opportunities. To use the baseball analogy, I've given up on swinging for the fences, and am concentrating on peppering the infield with singles instead. It's slow, but it seems to be working.
  6. Hello, Matt! I have to confess, I still don't get the allure of FB. It certainly wasn't obvious to me it would do as well as it did, so I guess I'm dim there, too. As for picking Amazon, Google, Microsoft, or Apple as surefire winners when they were nascent--again, if it were that easy, there'd be a bunch more millionaires today. Hindsight is always 20/20. You're correct about the potential for wind and solar. But right now, there still is not a proven business model that results in significant profits. When there were large subsidies, manufacturers had good margins. The subsidies have disappeared, never to return. So far, the profits have, too. Well, the fat profits, anyway. Margins on solar panels themselves are razor-thin. Yieldcos haven't proven very safe for investors. And installers are struggling to find the right business model, too--owning or leasing? The debate still rages on there (just look at Sunrun--starting to show some profits, but their stock is capped for now because the market doesn't like their reliance on leases). No real change to that situation likely for at least the next year. Long-term, I do think solar will win out in a big way, but I think it will take two game-changers to do so: transparent solar panels that can be used as window glass, and photovoltaic material that can be integrated into roof shingles. When THOSE technologies are where "regular" solar panels are now in terms of efficiency and price, watch out! Just about every single building will eventually feature them, whether new construction or retrofit. And those technologies are not pure fiction--they exist already: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/188667-a-fully-transparent-solar-cell-that-could-make-every-window-and-screen-a-power-source https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/im-getting-my-roof-redone-and-heard-about-solar-shingles/ But will it be the current market leaders that will profit from these technologies, or will they be eliminated from the market by newer competitors? THAT is the huge unknown. In short, I do think solar has a huge future 20 years down the road. But I'm not at all convinced today's market leaders will share in those good times. They have near-term risk due to the falling ASP issue for their current technology product, and far-term risk due to the two disruptive technologies mentioned above. Is it possible they will survive the near-term challenges and find a way to own the technologies of the future? Yes. Is it likely? That is the million-dollar question.... Pete
  7. I don't think there is ever a time to "load up," at least not at a rock-bottom price. Ideally, investors want to "load up" when the price is still low but whatever doubts about the future of the company that caused that low price have been resolved. The problem is, by the time those doubts have been removed, the price is rarely if ever still that low. Investors have two choices: buy at a low price with the doubts still present or wait until doubts are removed and buy at a higher price. The first option entails more risk but greater reward, while the second lowers risk but also decreases the upside. So if by "time to load up" you mean is it "safe" to buy large quantities of the stock, as in future risk has been eliminated or at least greatly decreased, the answer is no. But by the time it has, the price will undoubtedly be higher. You have to decide for yourself when you want to "load up." Not much help, I know, but "dem's de facts." If it were that easy to determine a "safe" time to "load up," we'd all be stock market millionaires by now.
  8. Wow--they're certainly going out on a limb, giving everyone plenty of warning (heavy sarcasm)....
  9. I upped a little, but I'm weary. Seems like the market overall has lost any sort of legs. Yeah, I'm definitely keeping my own trading to small positions. Have to limit risk on any one position because as you say, market direction overall is uncertain. It's already risen quite a bit, so the current good economic climate could already be priced in, limiting further upside. On the other hand, I don't see any macroeconomic disasters looming either to cause a collapse. So we churn.
  10. THAT is the key! The question is, how long will that take? A couple of years, or a decade plus?
  11. Just the usual volatility in these stocks. We've all seen them gyrate up and down on no news. If you think the reaction is unwarranted, it may be worth buying a small position at the end of the day for a quick trade, in case it bounces back in the next few days. We've all seen that happen plenty of times.
  12. In a perfect world, yes. In the view of our real-world markets, no. Otherwise they would not give the CN market leaders measly PEs of 3-5, when other tech stocks command 3x that. As you noted, the markets have doubts that solar manufacturers can be profitable without subsidies. And so far, they do indeed seem to be struggling. While they may not be in danger of going bankrupt (at least not the major ones), their profits are slim at best, at least for the foreseeable future. It remains to be seen whether they can eventually come up with a business model for both significant and sustainable profits.
  13. Trump is a self-centered greedy narcissist who knows damn well the damage coal plant emissions cause--he just doesn't care, as long as they don't affect HIM. Try putting up a smokestack next to one of his properties and see how "coal-friendly" he is then! Fortunately, the power of the Federal government in dictating the future of renewables has greatly decreased over the past decade, as the price point has finally come down to where wind and solar are on par with fossils, especially coal. Just google "Kentucky coal plant shutdowns" to get an idea of what's going on even in the heart of coal country. The future of renewables is now in the hands of state regulators and local utility boards. Those that were reluctant to move away from coal will continue to be so. But those that see the promise of both cheap and clean energy will continue to pursue that path, with or without the Feds. And I think that by and large, the market knows this. I'd be surprised if solars tank just based on this one action by the Idiot in Chief.
  14. I've noticed the same thing. Perhaps a trading opportunity there?
  15. Good point. That's usually my downfall--I buy too much, too early. You once opined CSIQ could drop below 10--I wouldn't rule that out.