ytterbius

ytterbius
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
  • Solar's Warm, But Not Hot - Barron's  [View article]
    Oh, and BTW:

    Under FSLR, you have the following claim:

    "It is not exposed to poly pricing, because it uses cadmium telluride, which produces cheaper electricity than poly prices and will continue to until poly hits $70/kg."

    If $70/kg is the parity point, then what happens to FSLR is producing their own poly at $35/kg next year? LOL!

    Tellurium will get more expensive, while at the same time Silicon will be getting cheaper, and the efficiency in the use of Silicon will be increasing, not only as Silicon-based thin-film takes off (See AMAT), but as wafer-makers are cutting them thinner, and wasting less in the process.
    Jul 20, 2008. 03:57 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Solar's Warm, But Not Hot - Barron's  [View article]
    Eli, you don't mention your positions on any of these companies.

    Based on previous articles you've written, I'd gather that you're short as hell on the Industry.

    As for your link to Barrons, I won't be subscribing, so I can't argue any specific points of FUD that they might be passing on. In any case, Barrons has already done a number on their credibility on Solar, since Bill Alpert completely blew it on LDK Solar.
    Jul 20, 2008. 03:41 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • LDK Solar: The Brightest Opportunity?  [View article]
    ART005, you are incorrect.

    www.oilcrisis.com/NetE...
    Jul 6, 2008. 07:11 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investing In a Resource-Constrained World (Part V)  [View article]
    I have a BS in physics, and I know absolutely nothing about cold fusion. I do know quite a bit about Solar, though, and you're wrong on it.

    Ok, there are a tremendous number of arguments that could be used to support Solar, and in particular, Silicon-based Solar, but I'll stick with one directly related to your article; Peak Oil.

    You want to support thin films over Silicon, but that contradicts your peak-based reasoning.

    Which is a stronger company in a post-peak world?

    Would you bet on super-high-tech company depending on rare elements from the corners of the world, as well as incredibly specialized equipment and infrastructure for the development of their product; or would you rather support a company that uses well-known technology (silicon-based), and the second-most most abundant material in the Planet's crust (silicon) for the production of their product?

    The particular Silicon-based company that I mention is LDK Solar. They're building the World's largest Polysilicon Factory in the World. They've got local supplies of raw Silicon to process. They even are buying their Ingot Crucibles from a Chinese Company right across the street, as opposed to ordering them from Europe or the US, as other companies do. Plan has LDK capable of producing 2 GW of Wafers per year after 2009 (much sooner than any cold fusion process will produce a GW). You can bet that if any company will be insulated from the problems of Peak-whatever, it's going to be LDK.

    When you're talking about peak-resources, the obvious solution is to make best use of the most common of resources, as you well know by your assaults (deserved INO on FSLR for their Te dependency).
    Jun 24, 2008. 01:24 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Semiconductors: Is the Glass Half-Empty or Half-Full?  [View article]
    "pretty much the same business model as LDK - except with great analyst support"

    LOL! It may be a similar business model, but it's not half the business, and it costs just as much. Their margins are much worse, and their future vision and potential doesn't touch that of Light Peng and LDK.

    As for analyst support for LDK, it really depends on which analyst you're following. Needham and UBS have targets will above the current price. Are they fools? Who are you following, and what rationale are they using that suggests to you that they are right about this company?
    Jun 11, 2008. 10:00 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Asensio Still Skeptical About LDK Solar  [View article]
    Gutowski is Asensio's tool, and neither have any credibility when it comes to LDK. While they whine about irrelevancies, LDK continues to move forward in achieving their plan. LDK is in great shape; in the end, they're untouchable by these crooks.
    Mar 5, 2008. 04:02 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Solar Energy IPO: ReneSola Competes With LDK Solar  [View article]
    These guys don't look like a good bet to me. They're late to the game, and they don't appear to be planning on a scale to put them in competition with LDK.
    Jan 27, 2008. 03:47 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • LDK Solar: The Naked Shorting Crime  [View article]
    Well, Fates, let's see about getting some disclosure on who actually did all of that shorting between 10/3 and 10/15. Then we'll know if everything is on the up and up.
    Dec 29, 2007. 01:28 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • LDK Solar: The Naked Shorting Crime  [View article]
    Shoe, it's interesting that you would link to Asensio. This is a guy that won't even let you read his content unless you agree to his very rigid terms of service, which states, among other things:

    c.) PROTECTED OPINION
    asensio.com reports contain opinions and contain no statements of fact. All of the statements published by asensio.com constitute written opinions and are not provided to assist any individual or entity in making any investment decision.

    Asensio is on the wrong side of this one, and looks to be trying to avoid a squeeze.
    Dec 24, 2007. 01:48 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • LDK Solar: The Naked Shorting Crime  [View article]
    User, the act of Naked Shorting is demonstrably real. The SEC discusses it at the provided link, and others have gone into greater detail.

    You say that "real investors base their decisions off the facts," which is something I would agree with. Really, all that this article is requesting (it was originally written as a letter) is for the facts of the number of "fails" to be provided to the investor by the DTCC. Without this information, the dilution of the stock is unknown, and the investor is lacking knowledge on a crucial component of the supply/demand equation. Help us out; write to the SEC and your Congresspeople.
    Dec 24, 2007. 01:34 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • LDK Solar: Give Us the Facts  [View article]
    Referencing Asensio does little to lend credibility to your post.

    "LDK has no polysilicon production capacity. LDK has never produced polysilicon or any other chemical product. Polysilicon has been produced in commercial quantities since the 1950s."

    How is this relevant, or enlightening? Hasn't he read the news? The plant is central to the whole business plan, and from most accounts is being managed very well. The first stage is complete, and Fluor is on-site preparing for their role. In addition, Mr. Peng has struck a genius deal with Sunways AG for delivery of two very expensive and long lead-time Siemans Reactors (well before they could have had delivery otherwise), as well as additional Reactors and equipment from GT Solar. On staff are Nicola Sarno, and Pietro Rossetto, two italians with 40+ combined years of high level experience at MEMC.

    Does Asensio have direct knowledge of polysilicon production processes by which to suggest that LDK is not up to the task as planned? It seems that I've not seen any such experience in any bios of Asensio that I've read.
    Dec 13, 2007. 01:38 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why is LDK Solar Constantly Beaten Down?  [View article]
    1: Thank you for your vote of confidence.

    2: We can expand the conversation as far as you'd like. I agree that there will be winners and losers. I also like the technology coming from thin-film companies like FSLR and ASTI, as well as the potential from companies like Nanosolar. However, Silicon should not be written off as done. Yes, there is tremendous growth in the supply of Silicon, and with it will come decreased margins from Silicon Manufacturers, but LDK stands ready to compete amongst the leaders even as the market evolves. Their niche is a powerful one, is fundamentally efficient, and is developing to a leadership-level scale. They are adding value to their Silicon by turning it into wafers and selling it to the Chinese Cell manufacturers. This is a powerful clientelle in the Solar industry, as they are primary suppliers of these products to Europe, and will have very significant marketshare on the growing US market. As it stands, FSLR and ASTI are nowhere near developing on the kind of scale that will be required to beat cheap chinese silicon-based panels on the World market in the near term.

    As for American recession, the best thing we could do in this country would be to get on the alt-energy bandwagon, as these new industries will provide new jobs to replace those disappearing from other ailing industries. Access to energy is at the core of economic activity, and America stands to benefit or suffer greatly depending on its choices in future energy investment.

    2?: You seem to want proof that there is some kind of conspiracy going after LDK, yet you seem to expect that it should be taken for granted that these chinese companies and their contracts are of no value as an indication of the future prospects of this company. A week or two ago TJ Rogers (of Cyprus Semiconductor) was on CNBC and when asked about the success of their "chip" (wafer) business due to solar, he made the claim that "Demand is Infinite." Demand is sky-high and there are no signs that it is letting up. As long as LDK's clients can continue to sell panels, you can bet that they won't be breaking any contracts that they have with LDK.

    3: Yes, the Chinese are learning that the environmental impact of their industrialization has a real cost to their economy and industry. It's hard to make clean food when the fields and the water is poisoned. They will struggle with these problems over many years. On the other hand, Solar energy is an environmental plus over the long run, as well as a strategic asset, which explains why LDK is so well supported by that Government. It's laughable that you would try to compare the value of LDK with chinese food exporters which have recently undergone scandal. Should FSLR be made to suffer because both it and Enron are (were) American companies?

    4: Enron was a heck of alot better at depriving people of energy, than they were at providing energy. They were scoundrels and cheats. Their collapse has nothing to do with LDK whatsoever.

    Finally, you say "There is much more at stake here than just LDK. The entire investment world was waiting to see how long it would be before a Chinese based US listed company, would be accused of fraud etc," and I think that's a key point here.

    They were waiting for scandal, and when it came, some hedgies jumped in with both feet. The scheme doesn't work if they aren't committed and disciplined. They sold like mad, and there was no uptick rule to keep them sane, and now they're stuck because LDK is a prize company out of China, and has powerful support (in addition to superior performance). All they have to do is to make sure that the laws and regulations are followed as written and the hedgies are going to have to back off and pay for their mistake.
    Nov 5, 2007. 01:36 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why is LDK Solar Constantly Beaten Down?  [View article]
    Alpha, in your research have you seen any kind of analysis from any of these mainstream sources that actually discuss the technical issues surrounding the recycling of silicon scraps? No? Are we expected to make investing decisions on a technology company without any discussion of the technical details of that company's process and business plans? Apparently.

    We know that Situ claimed that scrap should be written off that was over 180 days old, but this is ludicrous on its face. Age of the material has nothing to do with whether LDK's stockpile has value. Several possibilities exist, one of which, obviously, is that LDK plans to recycle presently unusable material back into silicon suitable for use in solar panels (they've said as much). Here is a link which lists several companies involved in the recycling of silicon ( www.enf.cn/magazine/is... ), and here's a link that describes the increasing value of silicon scrap material ( www.marketwatch.com/Ne... ). We know that recycling is technologically feasable, we just don't know the details and efficiencies as they pertain to LDK. We don't know this, and the mainstream media isn't asking the questions.

    Example: If LDK buys scrap at, say, $150 / kg, they break even if they can recover material at around a 43% efficiency in a market where virgin material is now worth $350+ / kg. Of course, we're not just talking monetary value here. To a Solar Wafer Manufacturer, Silicon is everything, because they are busy adding value to it by converting it into wafers.

    Now, we don't know the details, but it's certainly plausable that this stored material has a value to LDK greater than zero (as Situ would have it). It's already been mined for immediately useful Silicon, from which LDK is generating enormous profits, but it still contains high concentrations of Silicon. In fact, we know that LDK has been stocking this stuff up since the beginning, even when the price of scrap was much lower than it is today, and so any recycleable Silicon has actually increased in value since the original purchase.

    One item of note is that though Mr. Peng, the CEO, may not be a Silicon expert, he has hired Nicola Sarno and Pietro Rossetto, two Italians with a combined experience of over 40 years at MEMC (Senior Vice President - Manufacturing and Plant Manager, and Chief Engineer respectively).

    Another important note involves their planned polysilicon plant, for which the ground has been broken, and contracts have been signed with Fluor, Sunways, and GT Solar. All three of these companies are completely independent of LDK (two American, one German), and all three are highly respected. LDK is poised to be a leader not only in the efficient use of scrap silicon, but also in the production of virgin polysilicon, and it's not just that they are making claims, they have taken action toward this goal with credible partners.

    As for Situ, you ask why would he incur the wrath and risk his entire career for "some personal problem"? Ok, fair enough; we don't know. I ask, however, why you don't believe every statement to the contrary from the company and even its customers (both LDK team and customers are international in scope). Situ is a single accountant who, when tasked with accounting properly for materials in a complex technological setting went to the CFO and told him that he had to write off their silicon because it was too old. Honestly, it sounds like Situ was incompetent. When Lai (the CFO) then told Situ to do "careful data analysis" Situ proceeded to leave town, get hidden, and start to send out private company data not only to authorities, regulators, and IPO insiders, but also to the financial press in what was certainly an attack on the company's stock price.

    I don't think my comment is "less than center," so I'm going to take the following liberty.

    In your comment you mention Enron. Well, I'd say that is less than center, so I'm going to indulge in a similar emotional reference.

    John Galt.

    "Who is John Galt" you ask?

    Galt is an industrialist, of course.

    The CEO of LDK appears to have the industrialist drive (see online.wsj.com/article... ). Ok, so he doesn't have a PR department, but he's got 3000+ people working their butts off to build a business that not only makes money, but provides a rapidly growing amount of product that is critical to the world economy; energy. He doesn't have to have a vast staff of salespeople to sell his products to hesitant buyers; he's got customers that come to LDK because they need what LDK has got to sell, and the price is right.

    We'll see what happens in the end, of course. We're all betting on our own expected outcomes, and we'll win or lose depending on whether we're right or wrong.

    x-posted for future reference to americansolareconomy.b.../
    Nov 3, 2007. 02:27 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why is LDK Solar Constantly Beaten Down?  [View article]
    Well, we're just going to have to wait until the company releases the facts. They've hired a top notch Wall Street legal firm to keep their detractors in line (as in, acting legally), and they're having an initial audit verified by a "big 4" company.

    You may be right to suggest that knowing "for sure" that there has been improper manipulation going on from Wall Street against LDK is a stretch, but if you've been watching this whole drama play out, then you should be able to recognize that it is not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that there is something fishy going on in terms of anti-LDK sentiment. Just look at the volume over this event, and you'll see that they were under very aggressive attack from somewhere, and then remember that this is all based on a single former employee (an employee who thought that it would make sense to go to the CFO and tell him that they needed to write off a large amount of stock because it was "over 180 days old."*)

    So, Seeking Alpha is posting quite a few articles supportive of LDK. What's wrong with that? For one thing, they're probably getting hits, and if you're a capitalist you won't have a problem with that. For another thing, it seems to be the case that of the writing going on around LDK, the majority of non-mainstream sources are in the court of LDK. At the very least it seems quite reasonable to suggest that the current price properly reflects this accounting issue, and that LDK is at a good level to buy.

    *The issue is nowhere near so simple as to say that 250 tons of silicon are no good and needs to be written off. Lai (the CFO) told Situ in the recording that Situ needed to do detailed data analysis on the situation, which is a perfectly reasonable order for the CFO to give, especially when he's just been told that the stock needs to be written off because it's too old (which makes no sense at all when talking about silicon).
    Nov 2, 2007. 07:35 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why is LDK Solar Constantly Beaten Down?  [View article]
    Well, we're just going to have to wait until the company releases the facts. They've hired a top notch Wall Street legal firm to keep their detractors in line (as in, acting legally), and they're having an initial audit verified by a "big 4" company.

    You may be right to suggest that knowing "for sure" that there has been improper manipulation going on from Wall Street against LDK is a stretch, but if you've been watching this whole drama play out, then you should be able to recognize that it is not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that there is something fishy going on in terms of anti-LDK sentiment. Just look at the volume over this event, and you'll see that they were under very aggressive attack from somewhere, and then remember that this is all based on a single former employee (an employee who thought that it would make sense to go to the CFO and tell him that they needed to write off a large amount of stock because it was "over 180 days old."*)

    So, Seeking Alpha is posting quite a few articles supportive of LDK. What's wrong with that? For one thing, they're probably getting hits, and if you're a capitalist you won't have a problem with that. For another thing, it seems to be the case that of the writing going on around LDK, the majority of non-mainstream sources are in the court of LDK. At the very least it seems quite reasonable to suggest that the current price properly reflects this accounting issue, and that LDK is at a good level to buy.

    *The issue is nowhere near so simple as to say that 250 tons of silicon are no good and needs to be written off. Lai (the CFO) told Situ in the recording that Situ needed to do detailed data analysis on the situation, which is a perfectly reasonable order for the CFO to give, especially when he's just been told that the stock needs to be written off because it's too old (which makes no sense at all when talking about silicon).
    Nov 2, 2007. 07:35 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
34 Comments
20 Likes