but it's free upfront cost, the current owner doesn't own it or have to pay for it until they use the solar panels monthly. Legally they don't owe anything to Goldman Sachs. Imagine the legal ramifications between the next home owners and GS when the new owner thinks that the house they bought comes with solar panels that they already paid for but they realize they still have to pay to GS on a monthly basis. yikes!!!
I wonder what will ahppen to scty when the current home owners short sell or sell their homes with solar panels that they haven't paid for? Will the payment goes to the new owner? or do they still pay for it? Who pays for all that upfront costs? Pump it up to $100 Goldman sach of #$%$, that $7 bill in upfront debt will be worthless.
the market is full of #$%$, they see a miss and they jump in and short without knowing the history of the company. fslr is making profits $300-400 mil each year, and every solar copanies are losing money and trying to be like fslr. The perception of wall street is so fked up, it makes me sick: how can they pump spwr or scty to the stratosphere when spwr is barely profititing and scty is losing money. Scty will probably never ever see profits
the market for Japn is huge, they are building a 100 MW plant there; they might as well turn Tetrasun into a manufacturing facility and take in all the contracts from Japan
did you see what happened last year? the same kind of setup, disappointed earnings, stock went down like 7% and management offered no guidance. Then only 5 weeks later raised their guidance that rallied 25% spike in minutes. market came to hault. It will happen again. This time around with being cheapest, most efficient PV panels in the market, along with massive contracts in the upcomming weeks; are all fuels for the rally over too $100
current fslr eps quarterly is about 0.9 to 2.0, even if fslr does make any improvement in cost and efficiency. So for them to guide EPS to 0.5-0.6 in Q1 of 2014 suggests they are building new manufacturing facilities. Saudi is looking to spend $125 billion on solar for the next 20 years, fslr has alredy built two small plants for them. Chile and the rest of South America and Africa are starving for energy.
You know what will happen on March 19th, this is a set up to kill all shorts!
Efficiency is up and the best PV in the market
cost is 53 cents/watt, cheapest in the market
$1.8 bil of cash, little debt
Ahmed Nada VP in middle East caters to Africa and Middle will land huge contracts
VP in South America will land contracts from Brazil, Chile
Look at the EPS for Q1 of 2014, they are looking to spend money , Can we say new manufacturuing plants where these majore contracts will come from?
This is a classic set up to kill the shorts on March 19th, just like April of last year at the annual analysts meeting. See you at $75 in 3 weeks. Good luck shorts!
If spending is directed at production lines to increase efficiency and cost to 53 cents/watt or lower, they may achieve the rumored annual eps of 7, stated by Morgan Stanley. It is just a one time charge in Q1 and the rest of 2014 will be smooth riding.
Even if fslr doesn't make any improve in their cost cutting or efficiency, their quarterly eps ranges somewhere around 0.8 to 2.3 As with Q4 2013, even with write off expense to a facility in Vietnam, their eps was still 89 cents.
When when they tell you that revenue for Q1 of 2014 is $800-900 mil whch is higher than Q1, Q2, and Q4 of 2013 YET eps is guided lower to just 0.5-0.6, Shouldn't it be higher since they are improving efficiency and cost? you have to assume that they are spending some money. What are they spending on is the question. There is a VP in middle east/Africa , one to represent South America. Small projects don't need a manufacturing facilty but large ones, they will; they can't be shipping panels to the middle east or south America from the US. Thus, the solution is to build manufacturing facilities. Expect major contracts to be announced before they release their Q1 of 2014.
guidance for Q1 2014 rev of 800-900 mil is the same or even higher than most quarters in 2013, but eps is guided lower to 0.5-0.6. ask yourself this question, if they currently have an eps around 1-2.0 range, why would it change all of the sudden? If they are reducing cost from 64 cents to 53 cents/watt and even further, then their eps should improve even bigger. Why down to only 0.5-.06? They are planning to spend some money. On what? what does a utility company spend money on? manufacturing facility.
that is one thing I don't like about this management, which has been pointed bout by Motley Fools and many posters here on yahoo. They manipulate the market. I am starting to believe in conspiracy theory now. They may be causing a drop, only to spike for higher percentage gain.
Something about today's surprised revenue, in which they missed by $200 mil, yet couldn't forecast during their Q3?????? something doesn't sound right, like they want it down, beat it down with all possible angles with bad numbers, and they couldn't give any positive to say. As management, you want to give bad results and mix it up with something positive but conference appeared like they are hiding major contracts (Q1 spending is a major hint).
It may take a dip from these misses but I think this management is cooking up some large contracts. I wouldn't be surprise if a couple of weeks from now they release neck breaking contracts
Jack, they said plenty with their lower guidance of Q1 2014 to just 0.5-0.6; they are spending money. Typically if they expect to have revenue around $88-900 mil, they would at least have profits over $100 mil from their margin but the fact that they that down to half suggests that they are planning on spending $50 mils on something. ? New manufacturing facility which spells large contracts
AH was ridiculous, manipulated or knee jerk reaction. Get real, 10 cents miss on EPS which equates to less than $10 mil in profit in which the company made about $300-400 mil/yr is a stupid over reaction. That is a 3-4% miss of what they made in 2013!
isn't forward looking PE speculation? You are prediction or hoping that Tesla, Scty, Spwer, Chinese solar etc to be making huge profits to justify their current trading price. But will this happen? Most likely not. I can also speculate that when fslr cost is 40 cents/watt, they will cover every roof on the planet and become $1000 stock.
The only facts we have now are: Fslr makes profits $300-400 mil/yr, has $1.8 bil in cash and none of the other solar companies is even remotely close to that.
it seems you are the one providing false infos. Stated on fslr conference, I am quoting fslr unless you are calling them liars. They were able to reduce their cost from 64 cents/watt in 2012 to 53 cents/watt by the end of 2013. The CEO projects further reduction in cost to the 40 cents area by 2014. Now here is where cost becomes very important for you to see, if you haven't figured out.
Most roof solar installation does NOT require the entire roof surface area; most you see is perhaps 25% of the surface area of roof is needed to provide enough energy for the house. So why in the world would you need more expensive Si panels? that 50 cents/watt for Si is false. Provide me the source where you got that from. If Si is cheap, then there is no reason for any solar company to do research on CdT(PV), everyone would work on Si and search for most effiency in Si. That itself should make sense. BTW, fslr purchased TetraSun (Si based panels with the highest efficiency); if fslr wanted higest efficiency using Si (if it was cheap as you said it was) then they can persue this route and become a leader in Si efficiency. So, you argument is full of false statements.
"the stock market is a fugasi, made up #$%$". If they can pump garbage to $80/sh, I am sure they can pump fslr to $300 when they control most of fslr shares. Probably fslr shares are in the hands of retailers now; they want them in their hands first before they pump.