huge loss on Forex. Otherwise low end of volumes but good margins and gross profits slightly light. Q2 guidance a little light on module volumes. Otherwise pretty much as expected.
I do not care about daily price action as I do not day trade nor buy options. Nothing has changed my expected earnings from operations. The gross came in a few mill lower and opex was a few mil higher but these were shipment volumes and distributions. I was expecting slightly more shipments in Q1 and Q2 guidance but in general reasonable. Their GM was inline with what I expected even slightly higher by a few 10ths. As I stated before, I will buy more at near the 50% drop point or $18-$20. A dollar change in a day is nothing.
The guidance is flat to slightly down for volumes and up for margins. The overall gross profits looks like it will be short some $7M for covering opex and interest. Q2 looking for 600-650MW of modules might add another $13M in gross bu higher shipmentst would also add another ~$6M in Opex. That would put them around break even operationally with Opex and interest.
considering they have had inverters, LED lights and racking systems for a couple of years now, that is quite low. 100MW of inverters should be $15M to $20M by itself.
OK bog todo abuot nothing. The screams and crys of devastation to the industry from todays rulings is hogwash. The bottom line is there will be a half cent impact on the cost of solar power generation per kwhr or less than 5% increase.
If one looks at a module selling for $0.70/watt, the duty is $0.21 at 30% tarrif. That $0.21 is offset by the 30% federal tax credit which makes the cost per watt incease of $0.147 cents. A watt generates roughly 30KWhr. That means the average cost to generate a kilowat hour increases by 0.0047 cents. With the majority of installations in the west and Ca in the $5 range retail installed before credits and the $3.30-$3.50 range after credits, the KWHR was $0.11 to $0.12. The increase is less than 5% or negligeable.
That is for companies that generate 10-20% of their revenues from the US.
Poor timing and filing. I understand the need to help pay for capacity expansion and plants they plan on owning. Should impact earnings by near $9M in interest or $0.10 a share lower the the ~$1 in eps as some estimates are. A 12% dilution should wack the stock 10-12%.
your looking at a near 25% dilution if the convertible senior notes. They will be over $100M shares when converted.
I do not see it as a double standard. SUNE is an American company with most of its hard assets in the US including money it raises. The Chinese solars are a paper holding company in the Caymen Islands with little to no assets in the US. All the assets and the monies raised is going to China and is basically untouchable by US ADR shareholders. So your diluting shares and raising assets for something that is of little intrinsic value other than stating look we made money, you can't touch any of it. Just look at LDK and Suntech for proof. Intrinsic value was sold off to a local Chinese player and no money went back to the shareholders.
I have made no comment on the margins. But if you look at say a 70 cent ASP as being part of their blended ASP at 20% shipments and a 48 cent processing cost, they were making $0.22/watt to the US or 31% gross margins The gross profits they were looking at making were close to $66M or driving near $1 a share in EPS. If tarrifs are in place, then the ASP rises to almost $1 making their modules not cost competative. You now have product that is not cost competative unless you give on the ASP and wipe out your margins. This is true not only for JKS but to a greater extent an issue for Yingli and Trina that rely on heavy US sales.
What happens if there is now 2GW of modules that are not cost competative in the US and need to divert to other countries? You are talking about finding new homes for those modules and they will have to give on ASP to get the demand. Not only Jinko but others as well. 2GW to a market of 46GW. Take away China and the US at 17GW and the 2GW is a 7% of the market that needs to be absorbed. To spur that demand to soak the inventory up, prices will be lower across the board in those other markets
Right and that is 420MW above current shipments which at 15% GM would generate roughly $40M. That places them at around break even if they hold costs in line. They will likely have increase in Opex of $15M , so they could be at an loss for each quarter this year. This does not include any of the projects revenues they may get but does include profits of near $$10M per Q for shipments to their own internal projects. This would imply potential loss of $10M-$20M in Q3 and Q4.
They indicated Opex will be lower in Q2 vs Q1 after removal of the Write down. That is a misleading statement in my opinion. They are around $0.11 in opex. By increasing primarily shipments to China, Opex will rise around $5M on the 200MW. That places Opex around $80-$81M or an increase. However if you look at it as a percentage of shipments and revenues, due to increased shipments, the drop should be down to around $0.09 or just under 20% decrease on a per watt basis
No Opex guidance did not surprise me. You have to look at wordsmithing and the impact of increased volumes when dealing with Yingli. If say they are at $76M in Opex today or $0.11/watt, then next Q with shipments at 900MW, they can add roughly $5-8M you have Opex at say $84M. However that is on 900MW shipped or $0.933. That technically is a decrease as a % of revenue and will be a decrease per watt sold of $0.167. That puts a decline in Opex at 15% per watt shipped but is an actual increase on Opex overal from the prior Q.
You may not view it this way, but Solar panels in some areas of the US has increased the cost of a 5KW system by $1,500 or 10%. This is due to 1 the increase in the ASP by $0.10 due to the tarrif and the $4-$5 a month line maintenance charges many states are starting to allow power companies to implement for solar owners. That 10% will cost Solar City a sizeable portion of their profits in the sales pitches or reduce the amount of return that is the incentive for homeowners to lease systems. The homeowners that have been buying their systems have been doing it to remove the high cost power charges in some states. As the service charges roll across the country to other states, this will be a negative for demand.
For example the Carolinas are selling retail at $0.12 per watt. Solar Grid attached at a cost of $3/watt does not make sense as it cost $0.10/watt. With finance charges the cost of solar is not even retail grid parity. If you now add $0.015 more in costs, then even the those that want to save the world will be de-incentivised.
when this thing corrects to earnings reality vs the pipe dreams. They are losing money using GAAP accounting and barely making a nickel using paperbook non GAAP numbers.