I didn't call Ze bi-polar, I said Ze "seemed" bi-polar, there's a difference, and your response implies something I think truly is "ridiculous."
I was listening to an interview with former 49er Charles Haley yesterday and he admitted that he is bi-polar. That condition resulted in a a lot of inexplicable behavior over his life and career, which at the time he defended in fear of the stigma associated with acknowledging his condition. In truth, it was the byproduct of his condition and it wasn't until he acknowledged it and sought help that some sanity returned to his world. He's a huge advocate now for those suffering from bi-polar condition to seek help.
He's also a big advocate against people, like yourself, who want to stigmatize the bi-polar condition so badly that any suggestion one is suffering from it is labeled "ridiculous." Bipolar disorder is nothing more than an organic condition of the brain that intensifies emotions, so that those suffering from it swing from emotional highs to emotional lows quickly, and the highs and lows are often more intense than others experience. IT is a condition that exists, just like diabetes, or arterial plaque or any thousands of conditions that people deal with and seek help for on a daily basis.
This is not to say that Jags is bi-polar, as I suspect his posting game is just that, but his/her flips from pro-claiming that Ze made a great purchase to wanting people fired, etc. to complaining about manipulation at prices which frankly reflect market assessment of the same things Ze is complaining of -- well, I find it all quite curious.
My point is enough of the bi-polar rants. If you don't understand that a company is inextricably intertwined with its management, you need to get out of investing. If you hate Willis that much (and I don't necessarily disagree with you), then sell your shares and go elsewhere until he is replaced, because until that happens, you are investing in Willis, his ideas and his management abilities.
I'm putting no spin on anything. I am just occasionally frequenting this board only to see you shouting in ALL CAPS, about going to the casino on your $.22 buys, ranting about manipulation at $.15, and then whining about how Willis has the company on the brink of collapse. It was amusing for awhile. Now it is just annoying.
???? Okay. that was random. And you are entering this discussion why? Just to be an irritant? Do you dispute that JAGS has been flopping from being positive about SPDC to emotionally lashing out about Willis et al?
We need contracts with Baltimore like we need a hole in the head. The issue I had with the speed camera issue had more to do with Baltimore's handling of the issue--which was more political than anything else--they really hurt Brekford with the way they handled it. Not a good business partner.
That said, google the baltimore sun report from June 2015 on the results of the City's investigation of the speed camera debacle. Lots of mudslinging at Xerox. Not so much at Brekford.
Hmmmm....separate a stock from the company. CSIQ as a company is doing everything right. It is consistently profitable, and pursuing different business models and markets to maintain profitability. How many other companies can claim to have had the success CSIQ has had? CSIQ as a stock, is highly manipulated, and at times is trading grossly under its intrinsic value. That dynamic allowed me to invest substantially when it was $2 per share, and sell at more than a 10x return---multiple times. My question about Hoium is intended to figure out on whose behalf he is trying to manipulate the stock. The more you know about the intentions of other investors...particularly those with enough money to move a stock price one way or another...the better chance one has of making money. But, I'm sure you don't really care about that...you're probably working on someone's behalf in making this post.
The guy puts out regular hit pieces on CSIQ once every couple months. He claims to have no position in the company, but his constant attention tells me he's working for someone. Who? Someone call him out on Facebook to explain himself. He's somebody's tool.
The first sign that CSIQ will forego a Yieldco. This has the same effect. CSIQ gets a steady stream of income from its 49% minority interest, while capitalizing on the asset value by selling the 51% stake. Any info on price?
Stock has been lower because (1) there was heavy action in options trading that motivated a take down of hte share price; (2) China is in turmoil and most investors don't understand how CSIQ is impacted by the events in China; (3) traders are using the drop in oil to scare investors in solar (there should be no correlation, as solar is driven by countries trying to go green and help air quality etc.,--they are not looking for cheaper alternatives to oil); (4) tariffs dragged down margins and CSIQ has not yet responded by building in a cost efficient, tariff free venue while it awaited further clarity; (5) traders are using the confusing financial reporting caused by holding projects for Yieldco to suggest there has been a material drop in the performance of CSIQ (there hasn't), and (6) rising yields on Yieldcos have created uncertainty as to whether CSIQ will continue with that plan.
The debt on the books is related to holding assets for yieldco. If a yieldco is created, the assets will be monetized and the debt will go away. If the yieldco is not created, the assets will be sold and the debt will go away, or they will JV or undertake some other financing vehicle that will largely reduce or eliminate debt. Much of the debt on CSIQs balance sheet is like a loan to buy an apartment building. It's smart leverage and only a problem if tenants (in this case energy purchasers) go away. OP concerns are spurious.
Still the e-ticket ride. Even after the original spike investors could have earned nearly 200% on the dip and resurgence. Wow.
Do you really believes this? If you do, you are not informed about CSIQ's business. Margins are temporarily compressed because of (1) tariffs/penalties; and (2) higher margin projects are being held and not sold in order to launch Yieldco.
If someone had asked the simple question of what sales would have looked like in this quarter had they not stockpiled projects for Yieldco, I suspect we'ld be at $40 already.
It's all there folks. Look at the financials.
As also noted during the conference call, Property Plant and Equipment went from $469MM on December 31, 2014, to $1.196B at this report. That difference--$627MM--is largely projects held for drop down into a Yieldco. And, unless my accounting is screwed up, that's at CSIQ cost. Not their market value. Market value is substantially higher.
It's all there people. CSIQ is performing amazingly, but the market is either not getting it, or there are larger forces who get it, but are scaring out the retailer investors. It's sad because this is a company that's telling you it is stock piling inventory for excessive demand come the end of the year, and yet everyone is expressing doubts about the stock when the biggest long term generator of wealth this stock has ever seen is right on the cusp of fruition.
Do people not understand that when the Yieldco is formed, the IPO will raise significant funds that will pay down debt against the assets? Do they not realize that on top of the income being generated by project and modules sales, there will soon be a recurring stream of income from the YIeldcos?
Frustrating to see the gyration of this stock. It really is.
Consider this exchange from the conference call:
"Mark Strauss - JPMorgan
Okay and then just a quick follow up on that. And then if push comes to shove and you decided the best thing to do is sell the projects, can you just talk in very general terms if need just what the – I mean I think you talked about the revenue impact from your [hold backs] to what the EPS impact might be or even the operating income might be from those particular projects?
Shawn Qu - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
[I]t’s about a $1 billion we estimate for this year, if we’ve been selling projects instead of building and holding the projects. That assumed that we would be selling the recurrent projects at NTP and using percentage of completion accounting which is usual for U.S. projects.
In the back of the envelope estimate that additional gross margin could be anywhere in the range of approximately $500 million to $700 million to $800 million depending on the assumption you used for the projects that would go into the launch of the YieldCo if they were sold. We believe that we would still achieve close to that even with today’s market conditions because the purchase price from assets for long-term holders such as life insurance and pension funds have not changed very much."
Think about that folks. It's a huge portion of readily available projects for sale at immense margins that are being withheld for even greater planned returns from a Yieldco. Qu is talking hundreds of millions in gross margins that we are not recognizing in these quarters in order to have a long term sustained income stream. As I said in an earlier post today, there are life insurance companies and pension funds who would love to partner or buy this assets to meet their long term sustained income goals. That's how they operate.
The $1B is exactly the foregone sales on Total Solutions projects being held for Yieldco. Think if they added back $300MM in total solutions revenue to this quarter....how do you think the numbers would have looked then?
I suppose that if they don't do yieldco, they could still do any number of JVs with funds that need to put large sums of money to work in relatively stable investments. I would imagine CALPERS (California state workers pension fund) for example would love to JV if they could get steady 7% returns on investment.
The tariffs continue on product manufactured in China, even if assembled elsewhere that that is not subject to tariff. Think of it as a tax. The US is imposing taxes on products from offending countries so that domestic product has a competitive equal footing...or at least that is the theory.