Seeking Alpha

Clearwave Capital's  Instablog

Clearwave Capital
46 Followers
1 Following
Send Message
I'm an investor with experience in the technology and investment industry.
My company:
Clearwave Capital
My blog:
Wall Street's Half-Reports on Solar
View Clearwave Capital's Instablogs on:
  • Wall Street's Half-Reports - Part 3
    There are two articles on SeekingAlpha.com:
     
     
    Part 3 was submitted to SeekingAlpha on Tuesday, July 19th, 2011. After a number of e-mail messages back and forth, SeekingAlpha informed me on Monday, July 25th that they will not publish this article as it is focused on critiquing Wall Street.
     
    You can read Part 3 below:
     
    =========================================================
     
    "Wall Street Half-Reports on Solar - Part 3"
    The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly distorted.
    - G. C. Lichtenberg
    Ben Graham worked on Wall Street for 44 years, wrote the book “Intelligent Investor” and was Warren Buffet’s teacher, employer and mentor. Here is a commentary from the book:
    “Overall, Graham was as tough and cynical an observer as Wall Street has ever seen. In this rare case, however, he was not nearly cynical enough. Wall Street may have higher ethical standards than some businesses (smuggling, prostitution, Congressional lobbying, and journalism come to mind) but the investment world nevertheless has enough liars, cheaters, and thieves to keep Satan's check-in clerks frantically busy for decades to come. The thousands of people who bought stocks in the late 1990s in the belief that Wall Street analysts were providing unbiased and valuable advice have learned, in a painful way, how right Graham is on this point.”
    As I have commented before, the Oscar winning documentary “Inside Job” explains how Wall Street and Washington are rife with fraud, corruption and criminals. It explains that even the supposed un-biased economic professors from Ivy League universities, including Larry Summers, cannot be trusted because Wall Street pays them to write reports. At his acceptance speech, the producer reminded us that three years after our worst financial meltdown “not a single financial executive has gone to jail.”
     
    A journalist is supposed to be objective, un-biased and give you the straight goods. Ideally, they are supposed to work for you. However, this is not always the case, according to the documentary “The Corporation”. The reporters are biased or quite often distort their information.

    I asked Herb Greenberg of CNBC if he is a journalist or investment advisor. He told me that he is a “journalist”. Yet, he has a strong bias against solar stocks.
     
    I am biased, but I'm not a journalist. I have an agenda, but it’s not a hidden agenda because I have disclosed that I am long JASO. For proper compliance, when a person comments about a stock, he should disclose as to whether he owns that stock or a related stock. As an example, if the commentator is giving bearish (or bullish) comments about GM, he should ideally disclose whether he owns Ford as well.
     
    How about the journalists who work for Wall Street firms that report negatively about certain stocks? I have not seen disclosures on any of the following:
    • Do they own any related stocks?
    • Are any of their family, friends, associates or hedge fund managers shorting the stock?
    • Has anybody pressured them to report with a certain bias?
    Maybe you can show me where these disclosures are.
     
    IBM was a leader in corporate sales, especially in the 1970’s and 1980’s. In their sales training, IBM used to teach their sales reps on how to use FUD (Fear, Uncertainty or Doubt). By spreading FUD about competitors, IBM was able to get customers to be scared of buying from a competitor. It was an effective scare technique.
     
    FUD is also quite effective for short sellers.
     
    The abundance of negative and FUD articles about predictions of over-capacity, over-supply, European subsidy cuts, falling margins, falling prices, falling demand, falling prices, etc., etc., certainly helps the short sellers’ cause, and there are a lot of short sellers of solar stocks. According to Eric Rosenbaum of TheStreet.com:
    April 29, 2011 article: “…analysts noted that JA Solar is one of the most highly shorted names in the solar sector as a percentage of its float -- more than 28 million shares short, according to the latest Nasdaq data, of an 83 million float share total.”
     
    Jan 5, 2011 article: “Short interest on outstanding GT Solar shares remains high, with roughly one-quarter of its 40 million shares held by short investors. As of the last Nasdaq short interest report on Dec. 15, there were 11.8 million shorts against GT Solar.”
    As explained in “Part 2” of this article, Wall Street analysts and media have been spreading FUD about solar since 2009.

    Jim Cramer, who is the co-founder, largest shareholder, editor and Chairman of TheStreet.com (according to Wikipedia), can get “infuriated” at negative media bias. See this YouTube video of Jim Cramer. He says the negative articles “twist the facts in order to be negative”.
     
    According to TheStreet.com:
    “Since its inception in 1996, TheStreet has distinguished itself from other financial media companies with its journalistic excellence, unbiased approach…”
    This is interesting because I have seen Jim Cramer say that every commentator is biased and has an agenda. Also, Eric Rosenbaum, the energy reporter from TheStreet.com publishes a lot of negative articles about solar. So, I entered this Google Search: eric rosenbaum solar site:thestreet.com

    From the search results, I clicked on the first link which took me to TheStreet.com website, showing 156 pages of articles. I went through these to find the solar related articles for 2011 (see list below and my comments). From these, the majority of them were negative about solar. Amongst the positive articles, many of them were about U.S. solar companies, which is interesting considering that most of the solar stocks are Chinese and the Chinese companies have surpassed the U.S. companies in market share.
     
    In Rosenbaum’s articles, he did not mention any of the following:
    • EPIA’s numbers which showed significant growth from 2006 to 2010 (Part 1).
    • EPIA’s forecast which showed significant growth until 2015 (Part 1).
    • EPIA’s statement that Chinese solar companies grew their market share from 15% in 2006 to 50% in 2010 (Part 1).
    • Chinese solar companies grew their revenue and profit faster than most companies on the NYSE and Nasdaq.
    • Chinese solar companies grew their revenue and profit faster than the U.S. solar companies, Netflix, LinkedIn, Priceline.com, Salesforce.com, Akamai, Amazon, Apple, Google, Baidu, Oracle, etc.
    • Despite the huge growth, the P/Es of Chinese solar stocks are 2 to 4, whereas the P/Es of value stocks are higher and the P/Es of U.S. solar stocks are 17 to 44. (Doesn't this seem strange? Why doesn't Rosenbaum investigate into this?)
    • CEOs and the U.S. government at Intersolar North America want to reach at least 200GW by 2020.
    You would think that any of the above points are newsworthy of multiple articles.
     
    If Chinese solar companies have done so well, compared to most other companies, you would think that there would be more positive press.
     
    Why isn’t Jim Cramer infuriated at Eric Rosenbaum’s negative press? I do not recall seeing Jim Cramer reprimanding Rosenbaum. Is Jim Cramer infuriated at negative press only when it works against him?
     
    CNBC had the motto: “In Cramer We Trust”. Can Jim Cramer, Chairman of TheStreet.com, be trusted? Not according to Jon Stewart of the Daily Show (Comedy Central) who hammered Jim Cramer and CNBC during their fight in 2009. You can watch some of the fight here, showing Jim Cramer’s track record.
     
    The full interview of Jim Cramer is a must-see. Jon Stewart exposes Jim Cramer as a perpetuator of shenanigans and a stock manipulator, by showing a video of Jim Cramer being interviewed with "TheStreet.com TV" logo. Here are some excerpts:
    Cramer: A lot of times, when I was short at my hedge fund and I was positioned short, meaning I needed it down, I would create a level of activity beforehand that could drive the futures. It doesn’t take much money.

    Cramer: You can’t create yourself an impression that a stock’s down. But you do it anyway ‘cause the SEC doesn’t understand it. That’s the only sense that I would say this is illegal. But a hedge fund that’s not up a lot really has to do a lot now to save itself.

    Cramer: Yeah. Apple’s very important to spread the rumor that both Verizon and ATT have decided they don’t like the phone. It’s a very easy one to do because it’s also you want to spread the rumor that’s it not gonna be ready for MAC World. This is very easy ‘cause the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim that it’s credible because you spoke to someone at Apple, ‘cause Apple doesn’t –

    Interviewer: They’re not gonna comment...
    ....
     
    Cramer: It’s just fiction and fiction and fiction. I think it’s important for people to recognize that the way that the market really works is to have that nexus of hit the brokerage houses with a series of orders that can push it down and we get to the press and then get it on CNBC. That’s also very important.
    As in this article, Jim Cramer explains how to create lies, spread false rumors/FUD in the media and manipulate markets:
    [Jim Cramer] calls it "a fun game, and it's a lucrative game." He suggests all hedge fund managers do the same. "No one else in the world would ever admit that, but I could care. I am not going to say it on TV," he quips in the video.
     
    He also calls Wall Street Journal reporters "bozos" and says behaving illegally is okay because the SEC doesn't understand it anyway.
     
    Here are some gems:
     
    -On manipulating the market: "A lot of times when I was short at my hedge fund, and I was positioned short, meaning I needed it down,I would create a level of activity before hand that could drive the futures,"
     
    -On falsely creating the impression a stock is down (what he calls "fomenting"): "You can't foment. That's a violation... But you do it anyway because the SEC doesn't understand it." He adds, "When you have six days and your company may be in doubt because you are down, I think it is really important to foment."
     
    -On the truth: "What's important when you are in that hedge fund mode is to not be doing anything that is remotely truthful, because the truth is so against your view - it is important to create a new truth to develop a fiction," Cramer advises. "You can't take any chances."
    Here is the full transcript.

    Are     some of the staff at TheStreet.com learning from the master in spreading rumors and claiming to have spoken to people/companies that they really haven’t?
     
    Jon Stewart laced into Jim Cramer. Stewart said he and Cramer are both snake-oil salesman, only "The Daily Show" is marketed as such. He also said:
    “I can’t tell you how angry that makes me. Because what it tells me is that you all know. You all know what’s going on. You can draw a straight line from those shenanigans to the stuff that was being pulled at Bear and at AIG…
     
    …You knew what the banks were doing and yet we’re touting it for months and months. The entire network was. Now to pretend that this was some sort of crazy, once in a lifetime tsunami that nobody could’ve seen coming, is disingenuous at best and criminal at worst.”
    Why would anybody trust a media firm where its co-founder, largest-shareholder, editor and Chairman admitted to and explained how to lie, spread rumors and manipulate stocks?

    At these videos, Jim Cramer explains how the game works:
    "...the bears have to shoot first in order to color the earnings and get you frightened into selling. If you're not frightened, you won't panick. When the quarter comes out, it's absolutely imperative that the bears lie. It's imperative that they plant stories in the media that will then send the stocks down regardless of how great the earnings are. It's a life or death struggle out there, and the truth is the first casualty. Don't believe me? Think I'm being too cynical? Can't believe the system could be so corrupt or stupid that the regulators aren't out to help you, that the SEC is not all over this? Now come on. I've been in this game for decades and trust me, when the bears are out to destroy a stock, for a very brief time, they can do it. This is how it's played. A quarter isn't immediately defined by the numbers. It's defined by whoever manages to convince the press and the street that it was good or bad, but knocking the stock down, by selling or buying and then planting stories. To heck with the numbers. This is what's called painting the tape in the business and the bears will paint the tape bright red, as in SELL! It's what they do...after they do this, after they push the stocks down, after the analysts come in with their number cuts and they react to the same thing. They see the stocks go down and they panic too so then they downgrade. That's the kind of game that we're in."
    The above scenario seems familiar with the solar stocks.

    What     if you are a hedge fund manager and you needed to spread rumors and lies to drive down prices? It would seem ideal if you controlled a media firm that can help you spread those rumors and lies.
     
    This blog explains in further detail, Jim Cramer's shady past and how he makes money by using CNBC to help manipulate stocks and drive prices down with naked shorting:
    "This is Cramer's big secret. He figured out early that the way to make money betting on stocks was to rig the game - control the news and you control a stock's value. Now he has his own TV show."
    Here is another blog that explains how Jim Cramer manipulates stocks:
    Maier worked for Cramer until 1998, then left and wrote a tell-all book about his years with Cramer: Trading with the Enemy: Seduction and Betrayal on Jim Cramer’s Wall Street.
    ...
    Trading with the Enemy is replete with examples of how analysts release information to favored insiders before a formal report is released. Maier recounts a social evening with a Smith Barney analyst. The analyst tells Maier that the Smith Barney analyst is going to change a “hold” rating on a stock to a “buy,” then adds this:
    [Smith Barney analyst:] “Listen, Sherlock, just remember one thing. If you’re going to buy it, buy it with us. We get a cut of every trade you do in the stocks we cover."

    [Maier:] Thus there was a quantifiable reason that such information was ‘leaked’ to good clients like Cramer & Company. This senior analyst received a direct kickback from getting Cramer & Company to traffic in stocks his company covered. Joe helped me to make money, and I was expected to return the favor. By the time the stock was upgraded from a hold to a strong buy, Cramer & Company had bought fifty thousand shares. All the trades were placed with Smith Barney. (Trading With the Enemy, page 90.)
    ...
    Note the consistency in this progression from Michael Steinhardt to Karen Backfish to Jim Cramer. Steinhardt had a taste for “The Edge,” that is, knowing what analysts were going to say before the public knew. Then for Karen Backfish and Jim Cramer the Edge became telling analysts what to say. Eventually Cramer’s “edge” became writing the news himself and having it appear in his own columns, or spoon-feeding it to compliant reporters who would regurgitate it on cue.
    What about TheStreet.com? Do people make trades immediately before TheStreet.com releases articles? According to the above blog:
    "A question the reader might ask at this point is, did these hedge fund managers (Cramer and Rocker) own TheStreet.com because they thought it would be a good investment? Or is there anything in our story thus far that would suggest a benefit a money manager might enjoy in not just knowing what analysts are going to say before they make it public (e.g., Steinhardt’s “Edge”), not just being able to count on CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo to regurgitate tips she is passed, or even, writing one’s own columns in SmartMoney (i.e., Cramer’s techniques in the 1990’s), but in becoming an actual publisher of financial news?"
    This blog explains how journalists can fail you and describes the shady characters at TheStreet.com:
    "...if you have seen a negative story about a public company in recent years, the odds are greater than even that it was written by a friend-of-Cramer.

    ...

    Many of Cramer’s friends are former employees of TheStreet.com, a financial news website substantially owned by Cramer. They have included the editor and top columnists for The Wall Street Journal “Money & Investing” section, top business writers for The New York Times, reporters at Fortune magazine and BusinessWeek, the editor of The New York Post business page, the editor of MSN Money, and others. Herb, a CNBC commentator and a star columnist for MarketWatch.com, was among the founding editors of TheStreet.com – “Murderers Row,” they called themselves.

    I have analyzed well over a thousand stories written by this clique of journalists. The vast majority of them were sourced from a small group of short-sellers who are also friends of Cramer. Other popular sources for this group of journalists include convicted felons, mobsters, dubious private investigators, crooked lawyers, hired stock bashers, and gun-toting goons – most of whom are tied to the Cramer constellation of short-sellers.

    ...

    in February 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission would like to know whether a financial research shop called Gradient Analytics conspired with short-selling hedge fund managers...to disseminate false information about public companies as part of a scheme to manipulate stock prices. The investigators believe that Jim Cramer and Herb are central to this conspiracy and have issued them both with subpoenas. TheStreet.com got a subpoena, too.

    ...

    A guy named Jon Markman was for some time running a hedge fund out of Gradient’s back office. So-called “independent” research shops aren’t supposed to run hedge funds. If Markman was trading in advance of Gradient’s research and Herb’s stories, as the firm’s former employees claim he was, this is yet another jailable offense....Markman is one of Herb’s close friends. He was, along with Herb [Greenberg], a top editor of TheStreet.com."
    The above blog also explains how short sellers create FUD by attacking margins. TheStreet.com pokes incessantly at solar margins.

    What    ’s also interesting is what Jim Cramer said in the YouTube video about negative media bias:
    “…here’s the saving grace…the articles knock prices down to levels we simply don’t deserve when we go to buy them.”
    If you agree with this SeekingAlpha article, recommend it and share it with others. Use it to rebut commentators, especially those who make predictions. Even though SeekingAlpha is reputable and has reach, Wall Street media firms still have a lot of power to influence or mislead. Tell SEC (at this link) to investigate. If enough of you do, they might actually do something.
     
    =======================================
     
    List of solar-related articles from Eric Rosenbaum of TheStreet.com:
    1. In Solar Downturn, Governance Concerns Rise Read the comments at the bottom of this article accusing Rosenbaum of spinning the news. Rosenbaum quotes a lot of negative FUD from the Intersolar conference. However, he doesn’t quote that CEOs and the U.S. government from Intersolar North America want the world to reach at least 200GW by 2020, even if it is a big challenge. 
       
    2. Trina Shares Sink on Audit Committee Shakeup, A-Power Link
    3. Solar Losers: JA Solar's Flash Crash Eric Rosenbaum spreads FUD about polysilicon prices. “Part 2” of this article applies to and rebuts Rosenbaum’s article as well. To explain the oppressed prices of Chinese solar stocks, Eric Rosenbaum uses the Chinese Reverse Mergers as a cause. However, he should know that most Chinese solar stocks are not reverse mergers. He should also know that BIDU, SINA and MPEL are Chinese and their stocks have soared. He does not give the slew of negative articles as a possible cause of the oppressed Chinese solar stocks. Instead, he spreads FUD by stating: 

      “The Chinese stock sector has been hit by the wave of reverse merger accounting scandals, with a wide variety of stocks targeted by short-seller research firms, including Muddy Waters and Citron Research.”
       
    4. Solar Losers: Guidance Revisions Begin
    5. Spotlight on Solar: China Watch Rosenbaum claims that there are extreme positives and extreme negatives with Chinese solar stocks. I’m not able to find any reporting that show the extreme positives. You might have better luck. He continues to spread FUD about Chinese solar companies in the video. 
       
    6. JA Solar Deal: Better for Chairman or Holders?
    7. Solar Winners: First Solar, Trina, Yingli (Positive)
    8. First Solar Rally May Signal Worst Is Over (Positive for U.S. solar company)
    9. LDK Solar Buyback: More Than a Gesture? This should be a positive article but he spreads FUD. 
       
    10. 5 Solar Short Plays From Gabelli's Segrich
    11. U.S. Solar Market Faces Funding Crisis (FUD)
    12. Solar Winners: First Solar (Positive for U.S. solar company)
    13. Solar Winners & Losers: Double-Edged Positives (FUD and bearish summary)
    14. Solar Sector Breakdown: China Watch (FUD) He is still spreading FUD with inventory glut, which has been used as FUD since 2009. 
       
    15. Google Writes a Big Solar Check (Positive for SolarCity, a U.S. company)
    16. Solar Winners: LDK Solar (Positive)
    17. Suntech Adds to Bullish Solar Shipment Guide (Positive with FUD)
    18. Solar Losers: LDK Solar
    19. A Little Less DoE Money Left for First Solar...Maybe
    20. Solar Earnings: Yingli Earnings in Trina's Shadow (Negative)
    21. Trina Solar and the New Solar Reality: Green Energy Stocks
    22. Solar Winners: GT Solar's Biggest Order Ever (Positive for U.S. solar company)
    23. Power-One: Solar About 2019, not Europe 2011 (FUD)
    24. Germany Takes Aim at Solar, Again
    25. SunPower to Revise Outlook; Italy Weighs
    26. Solar Losers: Evergreen Solar on the Brink
    27. Canadian Solar Shipments Up, Margins Down (Positive and Negative)
    28. Solar Winners & Losers: Yingli, Trina, Jinko Even though the title is “Solar Winners & Losers”, most of the article was negative or FUD. Also, Rosenbaum writes: “Is there a chink in the armor of the Tier 1 Chinese module makers?” Is Rosenbaum trying to pretend that he’s not being offensive by using the word “chink” within an old expression? Niggard is also an English word to describe somebody who is cheap, but nobody would use that word anymore. Kike is an old Yiddish word to describe “circle”. I would think that if somebody wrote “is there a weakness in the kike of Jewish companies?”, somebody would be screaming anti-semiticism and calling for the resignation of the author. 
       
    29. Solar Winners & Losers: JA Solar, Trina Solar Even though the title is “Solar Winners & Losers”, most of the article was negative or FUD. 
       
    30. Is Italy's Last Solar Gold Rush Doomed?
    31. MEMC Bottom Line Hit; Guidance Reaffirmed Positive for U.S. solar company, MEMC, even though it is one of the worst performing solar companies. 
       
    32. CNBC, Jim Chanos Gang Up on First Solar
    33. First Solar Earnings: Bad Year for Back-End Loading
    34. 8 Reasons Why First Solar Is Getting Whacked
    35. First Solar Beats, Reaffirms Guidance (Positive, Negative and FUD)
    36. First Solar: 3 Earnings Keys (Negative and FUD)
    37. 5 Ways to Trade Total’s SunPower Gamble (Positive, Negative and FUD)
    38. Total to Take Majority Stake in SunPower (Positive for U.S. solar company)
    39. How Thin Film Plans to Beat Chinese Solar (Positive?)
    40. Solar Losers: ReneSola, Evergreen Solar
    41. LDK Solar Lowers Revenue Guide by $100 Million
    42. Solar Stock Losers: Jim Chanos Takes Aim at First Solar
    43. Solar Loans Spared by Congress Budget Ax (Positive for U.S. solar companies)
    44. 5 Reasons First Solar Shouldn't Worry About GE (Positive for U.S. solar company, First Solar)
    45. Move Over First Solar: GE Ups Ante in Thin Film (Neutral)
    46. Solar Earnings Watch: Power-One Lowers Guidance
    47. 3 Key Solar Stock Trading Triggers (Positive, Negative and FUD) This March 30, 2011 article states: 

      “Time for the 2012 Oversupply Debate?” 

      As       explained in “Part 2”, Gordon Johnson has been using oversupply as FUD since 2009. I would assume that in 2020, Wall Street will still be talking about oversupply. This article also states: 

      “This increased level of production is causing higher prices for poly, which could affect margins in 2Q11," Credit Suisse's Kumar wrote on Monday.” 

      Fast       forward to July of 2011 and the media is talking about lower prices for polysilicon. Instead of publishing articles about how this is positive for margins of several solar companies, they publish articles about how this is negative for JA Solar. 
       
    48. Solar CEOs to Congress: Don't Ax Our Loans
    49. Solar Stock Winners: German Elections Propel Stocks (Positive, Negative and FUD) This article quotes U.S., German and Chinese solar stocks. This article states: 

      “A few Chinese solar stocks that suffered recent setbacks after weak earnings announcements had their best trading day since mid-month on Monday. ReneSola (SOL), which had one of the biggest post-earnings declines in the solar sector, rose by 4% on Monday. Hanwha Solarone (HSOL) which recently pre-reported a revenue miss (after having hiked revenue guidance just a few weeks ago), was up more than 4% on Monday also.” 

      How       is it that only the Chinese solar companies have “weak earnings announcements” and “revenue miss” when the Chinese solar companies have grown faster and taken market share from U.S. and German solar companies? 
       
    50. Solar Investor? Test Your Solar IQ The quiz did not appear for me, but based on the comments from readers, it was positive and negative. 
       
    51. Solar Stock Winners: China Sunergy (Positive and Negative)
    52. Solar Stock Winners: Back to Blocking and Tackling (Positive and FUD)
    53. First Solar: China Watch Mail Bag (Positive, Negative and FUD)
    54. Solar CEO: Italy Risk Has Impact
    55. Solar Losers: Canadian Solar
    56. LDK Solar: Bulls and Bears Dig in Heels (Positive and Negative)
    57. Suntech Revenue Up, 2011 Guidance Unchanged (Positive, Negative and FUD)
    58. Italian Solar Market: Uncertainty Is Still the Rule (FUD)
    59. Solar Aims to Avoid Cap in Italy With Big Subsidy Cuts (FUD)
    60. Solar Winners & Losers: Italy Drops the Boom (Positive, Negative and FUD)
    61. Solar Stock Losers: The Impact of Italy
    62. Solar Stock Earnings: First Solar Declines
    63. First Solar Misses on Revenue, Hikes Profit Outlook (Negative and Positive for U.S. solar company)
    64. Solar Earnings: Few Surprises So Far (Positive and FUD) This article states: 

      “SunPower said it's confident Italy won't be making any changes to its policy in 2011, or in the least, changes won't impact its business.” 

      Rosenbaum       shoots down SunPower’s prediction by writing: 

      “A measure of caution should be used with any company trying to predict Italian solar policy. For SunPower, if the company can say for sure that there won't be any significant policy changes in Italy in 2011, then they may as well go ahead and tell the world who will win the next U.S. presidential election.” 

      If       this is the case, then every prediction is useless. Instead, every solar analyst makes incessant predictions about European subsidy cuts, price falling, demand falling, over-supply, etc., etc., etc. They should tell us who will win the next U.S. presidential election. As shown in “Part 2” of this article, Gordon Johnson, which Rosenbaum has quoted in another article, has been wrong with his predictions since 2009. Why does Rosenbaum publish endless predictions that tend to spread FUD, if he doesn’t believe in predictions? Instead of shooting down everybody’s prediction, the very next sentence that Rosenbaum writes, is this: 

      “An Italian solar lobbyist featured on a Morgan Stanley conference call this week said that changes could take effect in September 2011 or March 2012, and both time lines have been proposed by various entities within the government.” 

      Yingli       predicts lower prices: “On pricing, Yingli towed the typical solar, saying pricing should be flat to slightly down in the first quarter, down a little in the second quarter, and in the second half of year, show a low single digit to mid single digit decrease.” 

      It      ’s interesting that Rosenbaum did not shoot down Yingli’s predictions and ask Yingli to tell the world who will win the next U.S. presidential election. 

      Rosenbaum       writes: 

      “The problem for these Chinese stocks is that most, like Trina, remain near the top of their recent trading charts and given the uncertainty in the market - though not among solar management companies - and the multiples at which solar stocks have traded, especially the low multiple Chinese stocks, putting new money into solar stocks at these levels could be tough for the faint of heart.” 

      Is       he making a prediction that the stock may drop? 

      There       wouldn’t be as much “uncertainty in the market” if Rosenbaum did not quote so many predictions from analysts. Also, he is cautioning investors about putting money into low multiple stocks. What qualifies Rosenbaum to be an investment advisor? Should investors put money into high multiple stocks instead? 
       
    65. Solar Earnings: Yingli Green Energy Beats (Positive)
    66. SunPower Beats, Hikes 2011 Guidance (Positive for U.S. solar company)
    67. Italian Solar Politics: 7 Burning Questions
    68. Soros Hedge Funds: Solar Stock Picks (Positive)
    69. Solar Losers: Jinko Solar
    70. Solar Losers: Advanced Energy Industries
    71. Solar Winners: Chinese Solar Stocks (Positive)
    72. Solar Winners: First Solar, SunPower (Positive and FUD for U.S. solar companies)
    73. Solar Winners: JA Solar, First Solar (Positive and FUD)
    74. Smokin Solar: China Watch (Positive and FUD)
    75. Solar Insider Selling: GT Solar
    76. Italy: De Facto Cap on Large-Scale Solar?
    77. First Solar Gets 3rd Downgrade in a Week
    78. Power-One CEO: $9 Shares Don't Make Sense
    79. Power-One Is Dead Money: Analysts
    80. SolarWorld: U.S. Demand Growth Underway (Positive for U.S. solar company)
    81. Power-One: Canary in the Solar Coal Mine?
    82. Power-One Takes 20% Dive
    83. Power-One's Volatile Profile: Earnings Preview (FUD)
    84. GT Solar Beats, Guides Higher (Positive for U.S. solar company)
    85. Put the Brakes on First Solar: Analyst
    86. Chinese Solar Wins a Big U.S. Solar Deal (Positive)
    87. MEMC's Big Rally: Why Is the Solar Stock on Fire? (Positive for U.S. solar company)
    88. Solar Winners: MEMC Leads Solar Rally (Positive for U.S. solar company
    89. MEMC Misses, Guides up for Full Year (Negative and Positive for U.S. solar company)
    90. JA Solar: Another Step in Vertical Integration (Positive and FUD)
    91. MEMC Q4 Preview: A Beat May Not Be Enough (FUD)
    92. Germany Won't Hike Solar Cuts Above 15%: Report (FUD)
    93. Solar Losers: Declines and German Noise Continue
    94. Solar Winners: LDK Solar (Positive and FUD)
    95. Solar Winners: Power-One, SunPower (Positive for U.S. solar companies)
    96. Solar Growth in Italy Walks Boom/Bust Line (FUD) Rosenbaum writes: 

      “Chinese solar stocks that have rallied took a breather, with 5% to 6% losses in several stocks in the afternoon. Jinko Solar (JKS) led the way down with a loss of more than 11%. JA Solar (JASO) was down by close to 6%, while LDK Solar (LDK) was down by 7.5%. These stocks have all rallied extensively in recent weeks, and so, a haircut of this size in share price might be expected without any specific market noise.” 

      I       am waiting to read something like this from Rosenbaum: “Chinese solar stocks that have dropped so much, finally rallied. These stocks have lost 20-25% in the past 12 months, even though they grew their revenue and profits faster than most companies on the NYSE and Nasdaq, and so, a rally of this size in share price might be expected without any specific market noise.” 
       
    97. Solar Winners: First Solar, LDK (Positive and FUD) Rosenbaum quotes the same, repetitive predictions of FUD, but he does not caution you on this prediction: 

      “There will be overcapacity in 2011, ASPs are already declining, the euro remains volatile, and government policy risks remain in many important solar markets”. 

      Rosenbaum       also wrote: 

      “One solar analyst who did not want to be quoted on the continued rally noted that, "It's so short term with the outlook here, and people are probably thinking that the second quarter will be better than previously thought because of German pull in, but given how many variables of uncertainty there are in solar, I'm not convinced. Let me say I haven't seen a rush of long-only money coming in, and it still seems like a fast money trading vehicle for now."” 

      Who       is this solar analyst? Did Rosenbaum really speak to him? Jim Cramer explained to the TheStreet.com TV interviewer on how to create rumors by quoting somebody even without having spoken to that person. 
       
    98. First Solar Chart Looks Toppy: Analysts (FUD) Rosenbaum writes: 

      “First Solar (FSLR) is right back near the top of an established trading range, and even for those dubious of technical trading triggers, one has to at least raise the question: Is it again time for a FSLR short?” 

      Why       would he ask if it is again time for a FSLR short? Why shouldn’t FSLR stock go up when First Solar increased its revenue and profit every year since 2006, but the stock has flat-lined since end of 2008? 

      Also      , the article, as in many, many articles, spreads FUD about the Italian subsidy cuts 
       
    99. Solar Winners: GT Solar Nabs LED Deal (Positive and FUD) Even though Rosenbaum shoots down positive predictions from solar companies, he makes a negative prediction to spread FUD: 

      “The solar industry is expected to experience a year of slowing growth in 2011 

      What is especially effective with making negative predictions to spread FUD, is that if you are wrong, nobody can accuse you of lying. 
       
    100. Solar Winners: Chinese Solar Stocks (Positive and FUD)
    101. More Solar Subsidy Cuts on Deck in Germany
    102. Solar Winners: Jinko Solar, ReneSola (Positive)
    103. Solar Losers: Evergreen Solar U.S. Plant Shuttered
    104. SunPower: Best of Times, Worst of Times (Positive and Negative for U.S. solar company)
    105. Solar Winners: Amtech at 52-Week High (Positive for U.S. solar company) Rosenbaum writes: 

      “In any event, the existing order backlog of Amtech Systems at $134 million indicates that at least for the next two to three quarters, the revenue profile of the company will be predictable.” 

      According       to JA Solar’s 2010Q4 report and reiterated in their 2011Q1 report, they expect 50% increase in shipments for 2011 and 90% of those shipments are already under contract. Rosenbaum never wrote that JA Solar’s revenue profile will be predictable or that most companies on the NYSE or Nasdaq wish they could have this kind of revenue outlook for 2011. 
       
    106. Solar Stock Winners: Solar (Finally) Feeling the Love (Positive and FUD)
    107. Solar Laying Tracks in Project Business (Positive and Negative)
    108. Solar Stock Winners: GT Solar (Positive for U.S. solar company)
    109. Solar 52-Week Highs: GT Solar (Positive for U.S. solar company)
    110. The Solar Mystery Market of 2011 Is...? (Positive and FUD) In this January 5, 2011 article, Rosenbaum is trying to find out which market will help solar continue growing in 2011. However, he does not report on EPIA’s explanation and forecast for the solar market for 2011 to 2015.
    111. German Solar Data Debate: Oktoberfest or Famine? (FUD)
    112. First Solar CFO, CTO Sell Share
    113. Solar Stock Winners: It's LDK's Balance Sheet, Again (Positive and FUD)
    Disclosure: I am long JASO
    Tags: JASO, CSUN, LDK, JKS, SOL, STP, TSL, YGE, CSIQ, HSOL, FSLR, GTAT, KYO, SPWR, SPIR, ASTI, WFR, PWER, ENER, ESLRQ.PK, GE, GOOG, Solar energy Wall Street half report half truth manipulate manipulation bias polysilicon thestreet.com jim cramer james cramer eric rosenbaum fraud corruption short selling fud fear uncertainty doubt Gordon Johnson growth stock cheap underpriced undervalu
    Aug 01 8:10 PM | Link | 1 Comment
  • Bubbles and Inverse Bubbles
    Pin piercing bubble
    All bubbles eventually collapse. This happened to dot coms, housing, Dubai and oil in 2008.

    All inverse bubbles reflate. This happened to most stocks from March 2009 until now.

    Despite this, the market never learns from the past. No matter how many bubbles we’ve had, we will always have new bubbles.

    In addition to market-fuelled bubbles, Ben Graham, Warren Buffet’s mentor, has written about Wall Street manipulating stocks up and down many times over the decades, pushing them into bubble and inverse bubble territory.   But, the manipulation can last only so long before the true value of the company is reflected in the stock. According to Ben Graham, all stocks eventually reflect fundamentals and a company's ability to generate PROFIT.

    Would you buy a lemonade stand for $1,000 if it generated $1 profit per year? You would, if you knew that a greater fool will buy it from you for $1,100. But, eventually fools run out and all bubbles collapse.

    The reverse also happens. Would you sell a shoe store for $10, if it was generating $3 profit per year? You would if you knew that everybody else is selling shoe stores for less than $10. But, eventually fools run out and logical people will want to buy your shoe store. This is because it would take 1,000 years to recoup their investment in their lemonade stands, whereas it would take less than four years to recoup yours.

    1,000 years to recoup your investment? Does that sound so extreme that it’s ridiculous?

    Some numbers:

    Revenue in 2010 (approx.):

    JA Solar: $1,790 million
    LinkedIn: $243 million
    Priceline.com: $3,085 million
    Netflix: $2,163 million
    Salesforce.com: $1,657 million
    (LinkedIn’s numbers are from data.cnbc.com/quotes/LNKD/tab/7)

    Revenue growth from 2009 to 2010:

    JA Solar: 211%
    LinkedIn: 102%
    Priceline.com: 32%
    Netflix: 30%
    Salesforce.com: 21%
    (LinkedIn’s numbers are derived from from data.cnbc.com/quotes/LNKD/tab/7)

    P/E:

    JA Solar: 3.12
    LinkedIn: 1,560
    Priceline.com: 45
    Netflix: 70
    Salesforce.com: 311
    (P/Es are from Yahoo Finance on May 20, 2011. LinkedIn’s P/E is based on EPS for 2010)

    (Assuming that both JA Solar and LinkedIn have flat growth, it would take less than four years to recoup your investment in JA Solar from earnings and it would take 1,560 years to recoup your investment in LinkedIn.  In 1999, dot coms and technology stocks had similarly ridiculous valuations. It became so ridiculous that AOL bought Time Warner. Eventually, the bubbles collapsed and their P/Es came into line. This happened to even the biggest companies, such as Cisco and Microsoft and their share price has never gone back to their 2000 peak. The same thing will likely happen to bubbles such as LinkedIn and Salesforce.)

    If JA Solar had the same P/E as Priceline.com, its price would be $80
    If JA Solar had the same P/E as LinkedIn, its price would be $2,795.

    However, as of May 20, 2011, JASO is at $5.59. This is a perfect example of an inverse bubble.  (I’ve used JA Solar here to serve as the example, but many Chinese solar stocks are in similar situations.)

    Furthermore, JA Solar (JASO) gave explosive, crystal-clear guidance for 2011 that is backed by law (50% growth in 2011 with 90% of the 2011’s sales already under contract).  How many companies can say that?

    Can Wall Street Analysts show one non-solar company with numbers similar to JASO’s?  I’ve challenged Herb Greenberg of CNBC and Eric Rosenbaum of TheStreet to this, but no reply.  Nobody can name one company. Read more at:

    http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/872074-curt0/143971-is-wall-street-manipulating-solar-stocks

    Critics (manipulators?) argue that the European market is shrinking for Solar companies. However, they rarely mention that the Chinese, Indian, American and Canadian markets are growing. China plans to double solar usage by 2015 and increase it by 400% by 2020:     http://etfdailynews.com/2011/05/18/china-solar-power-sunny-days-ahead-for-solar-etfs/

    They argue that high P/E companies are growing fast and therefore their P/E will shrink because E is expanding. However, what is the probability that their E will expand so much to the point of bringing their P/E down to something reasonable such as 15? The probability that the Chinese solar companies will do this is over 100%, because their P/E is already much lower than 15. If you buy a company with a P/E of 300 or 1,500, are you investing, speculating or gambling?

    The premise with most bubbles is that most speculators believe that the price will always go up. This was the same premise that American homeowners had.
     
    Tags: JASO, SOL, LDK, JKS, CSUN, FSLR, SPWR, STP, TSL, YGE, GE, CSIQ, WFR, ENER, ESLRQ.PK, ASTI, LNKD, CRM, PCLN, NFLX, BUBBLE INVERSE BUBBLE LinkedIn Netflix Salesforce.com Chinese Solar JA Solar
    May 20 9:53 PM | Link | 14 Comments
  • Is Wall Street Manipulating Solar Stocks?
    Solar companies have soared in revenue, profits and guidance.

    Yet, in the past 1-2 years, there have been a lot of short selling, downgrades, negative press and bearish articles pushing solar stocks down to unbelievable levels, especially for the Chinese solar stocks.  Their share price is lower than it was in 2007, but their 2010 revenue is approx. 300% higher.  What gives?

    There is a lot of frustration amongst solar investors with these Wall Street analysts, rating agencies, publications and short sellers.  They claim that there is stock manipulation.  Are they right?

    In this article, I talk mainly about the Chinese solar stocks because their valuation is even more oppressed than for the American solar stocks.  I use data about JA Solar (JASO), but several Chinese solar companies have similar data.

    EVIDENCE OF MANIPULATION?

    JASO’s Q4 release showed that they grew by 211%, faster than almost all other growth companies including Apple, Netflix, Baidu, Google, Amazon, Salesforce.com and Akamai.  According to this article, JASO, with a P/E of 5.3, reported 59 cents EPS, beating expectations of 48 cents.  Nevertheless, S&P downgraded JASO to a “strong sell”.

    S&P is the same company that gave AAA ratings (thru CDOs) to homeowners with no income, no job and no assets.  This supported Washington’s goal of getting every American to buy a home.  Yet, S&P wouldn’t give AAA ratings to most Canadian banks, which made billions and were amongst the most solid companies.

    Value companies have flat revenues and low P/Es.  Most Chinese solar companies have lower P/Es than value companies.  But the Chinese companies are Growth, not Value companies, and they are growing faster than most growth companies.

    Revenue growth from 2009 to 2010:

    JASO: 211%
    Netflix: 30%
    Akamai: 19%
    Amazon:  40%
    Apple: 52%
    Google: 24%
    Baidu: 78%
    Salesforce.com: 21%
    Oracle: 15%

    Also, JASO expects 2011 revenue to increase by 50% and says that 90% of the 2011 sales is already under contract (Q4 release).  How many other companies can say this?

    Net Income Margins:

    JASO: 15%
    Netflix: 7.4%
    Akamai: 16.7%
    Amazon:  3.4%
    Apple: 21.5%
    Google: 29%
    Baidu: 44.5%
    Salesforce.com: 6.2%
    Oracle: 22.9%

    Trailing P/E ratios:

    JASO: 4.68  (based on price of $7.09)
    Netflix: 74
    Akamai: 44
    Amazon:  66
    Apple: 19
    Google: 23
    Baidu: 78
    Salesforce.com: 246
    Oracle: 24.5

    The P/E range, for the companies growing slower than JASO, is 19 to 246.  Using this P/E range, JASO's price should be $28 to $372.  However, JASO is growing MUCH faster than these other companies and their 2011 guidance of 50% growth is almost guaranteed because 90% of the 2011 sales are under contract.  Few companies can give this kind of guidance for 2011.  Therefore, JASO's price should be much higher than $28 to $372.

    First Solar (FSLR) is an American company with a P/E of 19, while most Chinese solar companies have P/Es that are half of that or less.

    According to Nasdaq, 16% of JASO’s stock is shorted.  This is much higher than for the average stock.

    Chinese solar stocks were slammed on March 3, 2011, but not the American ones (First Solar, GT Solar and MEMC).

    Wall Street’s publications, such as Barron’s, Investor’s Business Daily and TheStreet, have published numerous negative articles about solar.

    China Daily and Anhui News published articles stating that JASO and Hefei Government are investing 13.5 billion Yuan ($2 Billion) to build the world’s largest 3GW integrated solar production base because JASO’s CEO expects the solar market in China to grow several times to several hundred times in the next 5-10 years.

    However, the Wall Street publications won’t publish this news, even though I brought it to the attention of Barron’s and TheStreet’s Eric Rosenbaum.

    Last year, Wall Street media said that European subsidy cuts will hamper solar revenues by latter half of 2010.  Many of the solar companies grew like crazy nevertheless.

    Wall Street used declining gross margins as a reason to downgrade JASO.  However, there’s no mention of JASO’s net income margin growing significantly.  Also, some publications erroneously reported that JASO missed EPS expectations when it had beaten it.

    Now, Wall Street is saying that revenues in 2011-2012 may be flat.  How do they know, when they were wrong about 2010’s revenue?  Even if it is flat, so what? Value companies with flat revenues have much higher P/Es than many Chinese solar companies.

    However, many solar companies expect revenue to increase, and increase significantly.

    Micron Technology, JDS Uniphase and NVIDIA are three of the fastest rising stocks this year.  However, many of the Chinese solar companies’ 2010 revenue grew much faster than any of these three companies, and their 2011 revenue is going to grow much faster.

    Yet, Wall Street’s analysts continue to downgrade Chinese solar stocks, such as JASO. 

    Wall Street lost all credibility in the 2008 meltdown.  Have they lost credibility again?

    POSSIBLE MOTIVATION TO MANIPULATE?

    Money is a motivation to manipulate, as short sellers can make money doing this.

    SeekingAlpha user “sail.rick” explains why the oil industry and the Republicans are motivated to oppress alternative energy.

    Also, since Obama’s campaign in 2007, he has wanted to build a green industry in the US.  Recently, he passed a law requiring the Dept of Defense to buy solar panels from NON-Chinese companies.  Here’s one of the articles describing this.

    At his state of the union speech, Obama said:

    "… Just recently, China became the home to the world's largest private solar research facility..."

    CNBC is using the above clip to advertise their episodes on China vs US.

    Washington wishes that the fast growing solar companies are American and Wall St knows this clearly.  Wall Street is more than happy to help Washington squelch the Chinese solar companies for quid pro quo.

    Quid pro quo is confirmed in the movie “Inside Job” and this article which states:  “financial house might alter stock ratings in exchange for company business”.  As you should know, Washington spends millions on fees to Wall Street, such as dealing with stocks from AIG, Citigroup, etc.  A little quid pro quo may go a long way to getting more fees, relaxed regulations and bail outs.

    In 2007, JASO and other Chinese solar stocks had much less revenue and profit and had a higher share price than today.  Ever since Obama came into office two years ago, the reverse has happened to Chinese solar stocks.

    IS IT IN AMERICA’S BEST INTEREST TO PROHIBIT PURCHASES FROM CHINESE COMPANIES?

    Obama passed a “buy American only” law for solar panels.

    There was a raging debate when Obama tried to pass a “buy American only” law for the stimulus package.  Luckily for the US, this was rejected for good reason.  “Buy American only” is protectionism, which is anti-free trade.  If you believe in free-trade where you want other countries to buy your products, such as GM cars, IBM computers, Cisco routers, Android phones, iPhones, iPads, Boeing planes, Caterpillar trucks, etc., should you ban the purchase of their products in your country?  Is this hypocrisy?

    Besides, the worst part is that protectionism can make each country poorer.  When countries saw their GDPs contract and unemployment go up in the early 1930’s, they passed protectionist laws, which reduced trade between countries, which helped bring on the Great Depression.  In 2009, all of the experts in the US agreed that the US should not adopt protectionism, for its own good in the long run.

    HOW COMMON IS STOCK MANIPULATION?

    Oscar Best Documentary award-winner Charles Ferguson began his acceptance speech by reminding us that three years after our worst financial meltdown, the subject of his movie, "not a single financial executive has gone to jail."

    His movie “Inside Job” documents the massive fraud and corruption on Wall Street and Washington, how the two are in bed with each other and showing that even the supposed unbiased economic professors, such as Larry Summers, are in the back pocket of Wall St.

    According to CNBC’s “House of Cards” and CBC’s documentary “Meltdown”, Wall Street is rife with crooks.

    Ben Graham, Warren Buffet’s mentor, wrote about the unethical “shenanigans” and “manipulation” that he witnessed during his 40+ years on Wall Street.  This did not end after he died.  In 2008:
    • S&P, Moody’s and Fitch gave AAA ratings to CDOs
    • Bear Stearn’s hedge fund told investors to buy when their internal emails said it was imploding
    • Goldman Sachs promoted and sold CDOs while they shorted it by buying CDSs from AIG
    • Taxpayers bailed out AIG so that Goldman Sachs can cash in on all of the CDSs
    Quid pro quo is very common on Wall Street.  Most firms have Investment Banking, which is the bread winner, and Research.  They are supposed to maintain a “Chinese Wall” (not related to Chinese stocks), which is supposed to separate the information and operations of these two departments.  Sometimes the research department will downgrade a company that is a client of the investment banking department, to a “hold” or “sell”.  This infuriates the client, which comes down hard on the investment bankers, which come down hard on the research department.  Consequently, the research department may change the rating to a “buy” or “hold”.  For non-clients, they would have no issue downgrading.  The ratings are suspect at best and unreliable quite often.  Therefore, if firms want to use their downgrades as a tool to manipulate, it is quite easy.

    Even with SEC’s reputation for incompetence, they charged several firms with Insider Trading last year.  One can imagine how many charges there would be if SEC was competent.  Recently, SEC charged Gupta, a former Goldman Sachs board member for insider trading.  Berkshire Hathaway told GS that they were going to invest $5 Billion.  Gupta told the manager of a hedge fund, that he has invested in, about this tip.  Hedge fund manager buys 175,000 shares of GS before news is released.  Gupta profits $900K.  Others related to this, profited $13 million.

    Insider trading happens all the time and always will.  If Wall Street can do insider trading, then stock manipulation is child’s play.

    Imagine this scenario.  A ratings agency, analyst or media publication tells his proprietary trading desk, hedge fund manager or cousin to short a solar stock.  Then the ratings agency or analyst issues a downgrade, or the media publication publishes some bogus negative report, such as the recent article about the Italian subsidy cap.  Their downgrade or report is read by thousands or millions of people.  (Your tiny little posting on a message board is barely read.)  Stock drops.  They profit.

    Stock manipulation always happened and always will.

    This report on short selling found that
    “…on trading days when there is an abnormally high level of short selling, there is a heightened level of negative news about the issuer in the non-trading hours that follow”
    “…where an issuer is the subject of negative news in the non-trading hours between one trading day and the next, the share price reaction when trading resumes is less pronounced where there has been an abnormally high level of short selling the day before.”
    “An analysis of our findings suggests that three news related types of short selling - traders who sell short after obtaining confidential information that an issuer is about to make a negative announcement, traders who sell short and then spread false stories, and traders who, by collecting and analyzing publicly available data, detect that an issuer’s share price exceeds its fundamental value, sell short and then truthfully spread their conclusions…”

    For the above second scenario, does the short seller have to spread false stories?  What about spreading news of possible Italian subsidy caps that never come?

    Nevertheless, some short sellers do spread false stories, such as the case with UAL, which caused their share price to plunge 75%.  That would have been very profitable for the short sellers.

    Somebody with a pen (or computer) can steal way more from you than somebody with a gun.

    HOW RELIABLE ARE THE MEDIA AND SEC?

    Well, we all know about the SEC’s track record.  They didn’t detect Madoff’s ponzi scheme even though George Papadopoulos warned them three times.

    Some media can be good, but some can be quite unreliable.  Think of Fox News or CNN during the Iraq war.  The founding fathers said that democracy can only work if the media acts as a check and balance, by criticizing and verifying the government’s claims.  That is a critical role for media.  However, during the Iraq war, there wasn’t one piece of criticism.  Instead, Fox and CNN were beating the war drums and acting as spin-doctor mouthpieces for Bush.  They helped Bush brainwash 70% of Americans into believing that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.

    The media is supposed to work for you, the reader.  They are supposed to do investigative reporting to “keep them honest”.  After CNN was criticized and censured, they adopted the “keeping them honest” mantra.  How often has the media on Wall Street, such as Barron’s, TheStreet, IBD, etc., kept them honest?  How many insider trading or stock manipulation cases have the Wall Street media exposed?

    Barron’s and TheStreet published articles on possible Italian subsidy caps.  So what?  The cap is a proposal, which didn’t say how much of an effect it would be, and if passed, it wouldn’t be in effect until 2012.  Next day, Italy announces that there is no cap.  I suggested to them that they investigate and write about the bizarre P/E ratios of Chinese solar stocks.  No response.

    HOW TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS

    The big advantage of buying a stock where there is a big short interest, is that if the price goes up, there will be a big short squeeze, which pushes the price up even more.

    The AAA ratings of CDOs from S&P helped boost the prices of homes.  However, fundamentals and truth usually prevail in the long run.  Households making $40K cannot afford $400K homes.  The fundamentals do not support this.  Prices came down.

    The same could happen with JASO.  The price seems likely manipulated and oppressed by short sellers.

    If Wall Street is manipulating the Chinese solar stocks, they can’t keep them down forever.  The pressure will continue building until the foot cannot keep it down anymore.  JASO’s P/E is now 4.68, which is outrageous.  In 3-6 months, when JASO’s earnings continue growing and their P/E goes down towards 3, any Wall Street firm that downgrades JASO will appear like they are manipulating and short selling.

    The Chinese solar stocks are similar to what Michael Burry buys and what Ben Graham recommends, as they like to buy a stock that is temporarily or unjustifiably depressed.  They believe that the fundamentals and truth usually win in the long run.  This happened with S&P’s AAA rating of CDOs.  This might happen with S&P’s downgrade of JASO.

    When the fundamentals eventually prevail, this is how Burry, Graham and Buffet profit immensely.

    IF YOU LIKE THIS BLOG

    Please help spread awareness of this blog.  Click on the “Recommend” button.  Tell other investors.  Complain to the SEC.

    As mentioned previously, those who control the media, control the opinions and beliefs of the masses.  Fox and CNN were able to help Bush brainwash 70% of Americans into believing that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 through spin.  Small-time radio stations tried to clear up this brainwashing, but nobody hears a mouse squeak in a hole.

    Wall Street media rarely publishes anything positive about the Chinese solar stocks.  Even if they do, it’s not loud enough to quell the downgrades and short selling.  Besides, the founding fathers said that the media is crucial to the success of democracy.  They said the role of the media is to keep the authority in check and balance by exposing anything unethical.  How many times have the Wall Street media exposed stock manipulation?  How many Wall Street professionals have the media helped put behind bars?

    SeekingAlpha articles get picked up by Yahoo Finance.  SeekingAlpha will not publish my blog as an article until I send them 2-3 writing samples, which I hope to work on shortly.

    If you like this blog, we need all the help we can get.  It’s David versus Goliath.

    CHALLENGE WALL STREET

    If you agree with this blog, then you should write to these people:

    The reporter at Barron’s who wrote about the Italian subsidy caps that never came, is Ray Tiernan at Tiernan.Ray@barrons.com.  His editor is Greg.Bartalos@barrons.com.  His editor-in-chief is Randall.Forsyth@barrons.com.

    The reporter of the Bloomberg article about Gabelli shorting JASO, is Ben Sills at bsills@bloomberg.net. The editor is Reed Landberg at landberg@bloomberg.net.

    The Forbes Editor, in regards to Eric Savitz’s blog, is at readers@forbes.com

    Below is what I wrote to them.  You can copy it if you like, but if you modify it, you’ll likely get more attention from them.

    =========================================

    I read your article about _____________________________.

    Is Wall Street Manipulating Solar Stocks? Please read:

    seekingalpha.com/instablog/872074-curt0/...

    Please tell me what is wrong with the above blog's argument.

    These Wall Street ratings based on European subsidy cuts are getting old and boring.  Wall Street has been using them for over a year to beat down solar stocks, yet solar companies have grown faster than almost any other growth company.

    Revenue growth from 2009 to 2010:

    JASO: 211%
    Netflix: 30%
    Akamai: 19%
    Amazon: 40%
    Apple: 52%
    Google: 24%
    Baidu: 78%
    Salesforce.com: 21%
    Oracle: 15%

    Revenue growth from 2007 to 2010 (approx.):

    JASO: 337%
    Netflix: 79%
    Salesforce: 121% (Fiscal YE is on end of Jan)
    Apple: 165%
    Amazon: 131%

    Net Income growth from 2007 to 2010 (approx.):

    JASO: 338%
    Netflix: 141%
    Salesforce: 251%
    Apple: 301%
    Amazon: 142%

    Share price change from end of 2007 to end of 2010 (approx.):

    JASO: -70% (that’s right, minus/negative seventy percent)
    Netflix: 560%
    Salesforce: 111%
    Apple: 63%
    Amazon: 94%

    JASO said revenue will increase by 50% in 2011 and 90% of 2011’s sales is already under contract. How many companies can say that?

    Yet, Collins Stewart, Stifel Nicolaus and S&P downgraded JASO.

    S&P is the same company that gave AAA ratings (thru CDOs) to homeowners with no income, no job and no assets. Yet, S&P wouldn’t give AAA ratings to most Canadian banks, which made billions and were amongst the most solid companies.

    Imagine this:

    A company’s revenue is dropping by 50% per year, losing money and gives you guidance that their revenue and losses will get worse in the next year and this is guaranteed because 90% of their customers have already committed by law that they won’t buy anymore. Then a Wall Street firm gives the company a “strong buy”.

    This is the kind of rating that Wall Street gives.

    ================================

    Ben Sills at bsills@bloomberg.net replied with this:

    ================================

    we actually did report the new JA Solar plant

    ================================

    I replied with this:

    ================================

    Is that the only part of the blog that you dispute?

    Why didn't you report about JASO CEO's comment on China Daily's and Anhui News' articles, that the CEO expects the solar market in China to be several times to several hundreds times in 5-10 years?

    If that is the only part of the blog that you dispute, then you agree that the rest is possible and maybe likely?

    Why don't you do some investigative reporting into this?  Why don't you investigate and write about the bizarre P/E ratios, and how even with these ridiculously low P/Es, Wall Street still spreads FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt)?  (FUD was a common strategy by sales people to beat competitors.)

    Isn't the media supposed to work for their readers?  Aren't we your end-customers?  Or, do you work like Fox?  The documentary "The Corporation" showed how Fox works more for its advertisers than its viewers, and hence covers up negative news of their advertisers.

    ================================


    Disclosure: I am long JASO.
    Tags: JASO, SOL, LDK, JKS, CSUN, FSLR, SPWR, STP, TSL, YGE, GE, CSIQ, WFR, ENER, ESLRQ.PK, ASTI, Solar Chinese China Manipulate Manipulation Short Selling Corrupt Fraud SEC media analyst ratings agency alternative energy oil
    Mar 04 10:52 AM | Link | 50 Comments
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

Latest Comments


Most Commented
Posts by Themes
BUBBLE INVERSE BUBBLE LinkedIn Netflix Salesforce.com Chinese Solar JA Solar, Bubbles Inverse Bubbles LinkedIn Salesforce.com Priceline.com Netflix Chinese solar JA Solar growth value, Solar Chinese China Manipulate Manipulation Short Selling Corrupt Fraud SEC media analyst ratings agency alternative energy oil, Solar Energy Manipulation Bias Wall Street analysts reporters half reports, Solar energy Wall Street half report half truth manipulate manipulation bias polysilicon thestreet.com fraud corruption short selling fud fear uncertainty doubt Gordon Johnson growth stock cheap underpriced undervalued beaten down, Solar energy Wall Street half report half truth manipulate manipulation bias polysilicon thestreet.com jim cramer james cramer eric rosenbaum fraud corruption short selling fud fear uncertainty doubt Gordon Johnson growth stock cheap underpriced undervalu, Wall Street media firm half report article Chinese Solar EPIA Photovoltaic
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.