Jump to content


Solar Investor
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by solarpete

  1. I wish I shared your optimism. I thought the same thing a couple of months ago. Then the CEO lowered his offer--something I had not anticipated. What if the price continues to drip down into the high 5's the next few weeks? What's to keep the CEO from then lowering the offer again, say to $6.20?
  2. Trading Solars

    Unfortunately, the on-again-off-again nature of US support to solar as we switch between Republican and Democratic presidencies makes a sustained commitment by US industry over time less likely.
  3. Trading Solars

    How true, how true! But it's still funny when you put it that way. Thanks for bringing a smile to my face!
  4. Trading Solars

    I think the reason for that is the dream of huge profits in the not-too-distant future has dried up. Why do companies like Tesla command ridiculous multiples? Because there's still the dream they will gather huge market share, which coupled with decent margins will equal large profits. Solars might be gathering/consolidating market share, but right now their margins are so thin they're having trouble just breaking even, in spite of huge shipment volumes. And there's just no light at the end of that tunnel yet. No foreseeable profits, no large multiples.
  5. Trading Solars

    Not really much to talk about. The market's tearing off to new highs, including tech, but solars continue to languish because there's still no visibility for significant profits any time in the near future for anybody. Not much to do except trade the frequent dips.
  6. JA Solar (JASO)

    I certainly hope you're right, and that's why I haven't sold my two small stakes yet. But I think Odyd's right, too--in the short term, the chairman will do his best to tank the stock, hoping to make his offer price more attractive. I just hope shareholders still ultimately give him a great big "F-U". I'm so sick of these shenanigans by company "officers" to line their own pockets while screwing shareholders.
  7. JA Solar (JASO)

    Yes, JASO now looks weak again. So I wonder what that rise in March was all about? It was sustained, significant, and on heavy volume. What's changed since then? Earnings? Was the March rise a delayed response to the Q4 earnings "surprise"? But surely it was obvious the Q4 earnings were due to a one-time event. Q1 was just back to normal, right in line with expectations--nothing negative there (well, nothing any more negative than for any other solar, anyway). But now JASO is sinking, while CSIQ and JKS are rising again. So who knows where JASO will go from here....
  8. JA Solar (JASO)

    I still hold two small positions of JASO as well, bought at 7.30 and 6.90. I haven't sold. Their rise from 5 to 7.50 starting in March was dramatic and supported by volume, which indicates SOMEONE thought their business was looking up. And I saw that Brazil announcement as well. So I think the CEO's low-ball offer is just another sleazy way of trying to cheat shareholders. Trina got away with it, but as I said earlier, I think the Trina CEO controlled a lot more shares, so he had an easier time. Let's see if JASO has a board of directors that actually thinks about shareholders instead of their own pockets.
  9. Canadian Solar (CSIQ)

    Thank you very much!
  10. Canadian Solar (CSIQ)

    OK, not a big deal. If someone can copy your rebuttal comments here sometime in the next few days, great. (I was able to read page 1 of the article, which lays out their argument.) If not, I'll live (chuckle).
  11. Canadian Solar (CSIQ)

    The article is longer than one page, and the comments are at the end. The site wants me to create an account to see anything beyond page 1. I'm not interested in doing that.
  12. Canadian Solar (CSIQ)

    I can't see the comment on the site. If it's not too long, can you post it here? Thanks.
  13. JA Solar (JASO)

    I suspect the market will ignore the offer for now, as it ignored the previous one, but that doesn't mean the stock price is out of the woods. Share price will be dictated by business outlook, and right now, JASO is doing its best to paint a gloomy picture (to justify the dramatically lower offer). If business conditions improve for solars generally, JASO share price should rise to at least the offer price. If it stops there will then be determined by how serious the offer appears at that time--did they form an independent committee to report to shareholders on the value of the offer? If so, how independent is that committee, and what did they recommend? How many shares does the chairman already own (I believe Trina's chairman owned enough that he alone pretty much guaranteed passage of the shareholder resolution to accept the offer)? Has anyone else indicated interest? If it looks like the offer won't be accepted, or might be raised, share price could continue to rise above the offer price. But all that is contingent on business conditions. Which is true for share price of most companies in general, of course.
  14. JA Solar (JASO)

    Why wouldn't it? This offer, like the previous one, is still non-binding.
  15. JA Solar (JASO)

  16. JA Solar (JASO)

    Hey, don't knock even 20 cent moves--catch enough of them, and you can make decent money during a period when solar stocks in general are going nowhere.
  17. Trading Solars

    I'm trading it. They didn't tank on earnings, so I think they have a floor in the mid-to-high 6's. When they drop below 7, I buy a little. When it rises above 7, I sell again quickly for a small gain. Rinse, repeat.
  18. Trading Strategy

    To each his own. I've given up trying to pick price targets, and just trade the daily/weekly volatility. It makes me wince when I miss a big move up (as I will have sold way too early), and smile when things crater right back to where they came from (because now I have a new opportunity for another small gain). And as someone else on this forum said recently, these stocks ALWAYS give you an opportunity to buy more at a lower price. As you say, GLTA!
  19. Trading Solars

    Yeah, you're definitely decades away from those kinds of changes--and as you say, who knows if the current leaders are still the major players then. I still think the current environment is too uncertain for major bets one way or the other. I just try to play the volatility--buy a little (not "load the boat") when it goes down, sell a little when it goes up, never bet the farm on any one position.
  20. Trading Solars

    Sorry, but I disagree. The problem we face with these stocks is that they still have not figured out a way to reliably make money in a global market of some 100 GW (!) of demand annually. It's not that they're not producing enough--they produce huge volumes; they're just not selling those volumes at a decent profit. And in the past, every time demand has gone up, they've just expanded capacity to MORE than make up the difference, resulting in repeated gluts. The world is already trampling to get solar panels compared to a decade ago. And if the past is prologue, changing that trample to a stampede still may not make much difference, as these companies simply expand capacity again. The question we need to be focused on is what will drive margin expansion? Volume expansion is not the answer.
  21. TerraForm Power, Inc. (TERP)

    OK, that makes sense. Thanks.
  22. TerraForm Power, Inc. (TERP)

    Time to show my ignorance--why is this good news? I thought the purpose of a yieldco was to buy completed projects from the parent (thereby returning capital to the parent so it can build more projects), then operate them long enough to recover the capital, plus extra which is paid out as dividends spread out over the operational life of the project. No projects, no yieldco. So why would a yieldco sell a project? I can think of two reasons: either the metrics have changed and the project will no longer pay for itself (total income derived over operational life of project is now projected to be less than initial capital expense plus dividends), or the yieldco needs cash. Solar project metrics are usually pretty stable (operational plants have long-term power production agreements). So does TERP need cash? For what? To buy more projects (swapping out an older, less productive project for a newer, more productive one)? Interested in hearing your thoughts on this....
  23. Trading Solars

    They are indeed different industries, but they are both in the technology sector. And I don't know how much of a "niche" Square really is--electronic payment has been around for decades now. Yes, their device is handier than the traditional credit card reader. But how long will it be before a competitor arises? I'm not trying to knock Square here, or extol CSIQ. But losing money is losing money, whether you're a commodity or a niche. (And CSIQ is NOT losing money, as far as we know.) I'm lamenting the fact that so much of a stock's valuation is driven by psychology, and not by underlying business fundamentals. (Just look at Tesla!!) Of course, if it weren't, the market would be much more rational--and the world would be full of stock market millionaires. Or, more likely, you just couldn't make (or lose) that much money in the market, because everything would always be priced in.
  24. Trading Solars

    Maybe. Maybe not. The market is paying $20 for Square, Pop's favorite non-solar stock--and they're guiding a LOSS of 20 cents in 2017. This double standard in stock valuation is the most frustrating part of holding solars. (And why I've given up holding them, and just try to trade them these days.)
  25. Trading Solars

    OK, if he's taking personal credit, of course that's ridiculous. But he's not the only politician falling into that trap (think Al Gore and his [in]famous "I invented the Internet." Of course that's not how he meant it, but that's how it came out.) I actually think he's not so bad. He's a pragmatist--show me you can make money from an idea, and I'll support it. That is where we are with solar right now. We're cheaper than fossils in some areas already, and we're CLOSE to being cheaper everywhere. That argument has pull with people who only care about the bottom line. He's not an anti-environmental ideologue per se--show him environmentalism is good for capitalism, and he can be convinced. As opposed to Scott Pruitt, who IS a total disaster for the environment. That guy has never seen a chemical he wouldn't want to put in (someone else's) air/soil/water.