d_sander

Cadmium Telluride Casts Shadow on First Solar

I do not have, nor have I ever had, a position, either long or short, in FSLR. Most of my investment experience has been in going long; I rarely short.

Disclosure out of the way, it is always so disappointing and so predictable how, when faced with facts contrary to his agenda, the typical ignoramus will always "attack the messenger" instead of addressing the "message" or argument.

Have those of you who indulge in this behavior here taken even the minimal initiative to follow the author's referenced links and read the contents, much less do an even more extensive research into the industry? If so, given that I have seen not a single one either in these comments or in those corresponding to the earlier "article," why can't you provide rational counterarguments against the author's position? Why must you take his points "personally," and attack everything about him BUT his arguments?

Yes, the author has a vested interest in seeing FSLR fail. But, when weighed objectively, the points that he makes are valid, whether or not he had any position in the FSLR.

I would think that, if I were a truly long-term long in FSLR, AND if I were a reasonable person, the issues raised by the author would raise some important questions for which I would seriously want some answers.

Regarding the issue of the potential shortage of Te, I would think that a reasonable long would DEMAND clarification from FSLR on the illogically wide discrepancy between its claims of the amount of Te supply available and that widely acknowledged by the rest of the world to exist. FSLR may be right - it may have discovered some previously unknown corner of the world where colossal mountain ranges composed entirely of Te exist - but, if so, provide at least some sort of ameliorating substantiation. Without such answers, how can you feel comfortable with such a wide gulf of irreconciliation between the two positions?

Concerning Cd, the fact is that, per EU, Cd is the most offensive of the 6 designated unacceptably toxic materials. Fact is that anything containing any of these 6 materials in greater concentration than specifically mandated AND not specifically exempted from being prohibited IS prohibited. As the author has noted, if a thing that is marketed in the EU that happens to meet the two aforementioned criteria has not yet been prohibited from continuing to be marketed, it is merely so due to either lack of awareness or enforcement by the governing bodies.

Here, as well, FSLR may turn out to be "right," in that, at some future time, FSLR may, through whichever means, "win" an exemption, or the EU may change its regulations concerning toxic materials. Nevertheless, as of now, and notwithstanding the author's short position on the stock, FSLR is in contravention of current EU regulations.

Likewise, concerning Te, absent heretofore unknown discovery, there is nowhere near enough Te in the world, either cultivated to-date or estimated to be cultivatable henceforth, that would come remotely close to the supply claims recently made by FSLR.

So, aside from, again, "attacking the messenger," how do you refute these two major points of concern for the potential viability of FSLR as a going-concern?