Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Trina Solar Limited Message Board

  • yomo111@ymail.com yomo111 Dec 8, 2012 8:16 AM Flag

    Snake, is GCL lying about their stated poly costs?

     

    Why are they refusing to disclose poly cost structure? There are rumors of 10 000 MT of poly Inventory they are struggling to offload. If they're lowest cost producer, why did they drop utilization to 50%? GCL is looking more and more like a massive scam. If they're lowest cost, then why are they looking into FBR? Can y spell ponzi scam. lol

    This topic is deleted.
    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Not lying, but using longer depreciation period makes it not comparable to the solar 11. GCL and REC assumes longer life-time for its production equipment and thus takes lower annual depreciation cost. SOL and LDK assumes shorter life-time and takes higher depreciation cost. Since depreciation is a significant cost in poly and wafer manufacturing it looks like GCL and REC are achieving lower cost by applying different accounting principles. For LDK deduct $2.0 and for SOL deduct $1.5 on poly cost and for both deduct 1 cent wafer processing cost for a better apples to apples comparison with GCL. In the SOL case it means $16.50 poly cost for integrated phase I+II ($18.50 and $15 for the individual phases) and 11 cents blended wafer processing cost (10 cents Virtus II processing cost). This deduction should not be done when comparing to solar 11 peers though, since most there assume the shorter life-times.

 
TSL
10.17+0.39(+3.99%)Jul 29 4:00 PMEDT