FIRSTSOLAR - $1,50 pro Wp - Werden die etablierten Solarzellenhersteller unter Druck kommen? (Seite 195)

[meinolf67]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 34.001.701 von spoon79 am 30.04.08 13:44:55

war aber klar: 6,5% Preisreduktion...

[Dere]

First Solar net income rises nearly 10x

By Steve Gelsi
Last update: 7:25 a.m. EDT April 30, 2008Print RSS Disable Live Quotes

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- First Solar Inc. (FSLR:first solar inc com
News, chart, profile, more
Last: 284.92-0.60-0.21%

4:00pm 04/29/2008

FSLR 284.92, -0.60, -0.2%) said first-quarter net income rose to $46.6 million, or 57 cents a share from $5 million, or 7 cents a share in the year-ago period. In the fourth quarter of 2007, First Solar earned $62.9 million, or 77 cents a share. First-quarter revenue rose to $197 million from $67 million in the year-ago period. Analysts had forecast earnings of 48 cents a share and revenue of $187 million for the thin film solar module maker, according to a survey by FactSet.

[spoon79]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 34.001.655 von Kubanisch_Rauchen am 30.04.08 13:39:12

Die Zahlen sind im Vergleich zu Q4 2007 ja etwas schlechter!

[Kubanisch_Rauchen]

Mal sehen ob der Markt Befriedigung findent. 162 US $ gab es vorbörslich schonmal ...

[meinolf67]

Seeking ALPHA:

Solar stocks, along with shares of other alternative energy mediums, are currently being sold as "the next big thing" in the stock market. Whenever a stock or industry is touted as such an investment, be cautious.

One day, solar energy may make up a meaningful proportion of energy generation in this company, however, even with the advances that companies are making, it still makes no economic sense to choose solar over another power medium. Even in a very sunny area like Odessa, Texas, solar panels generate a very unattractive return on investment. According to BP's (BP) website, a 6kW fixture would generate enough power to cover the average home's yearly use (about 9,000 kWh) would cost $49,000.

There are cheaper panels available (from other companies, like First Solar Inc. (FSLR), SunPower Corp.(SPWR), and the others talked about daily by pundits like Jim Cramer), but it's clear that buying panels offers a terrible Return on Investment [ROI]. The 9,000 kWhs per year equates to an energy bill of about $1000-1500, or 2-3% of the original cost. (Sure, panels can be purchased under mortgages and then qualify for tax-deductions, but instead of looking at every loophole, I'm looking at the big picture.)

Now Texas is one of the many states (like my home state of Pennsylvania) that offers little subsidies or refunds for panel purchases. The same panels purchased in Los Gatos, CA would qualify for $9,747 of additional rebates, $12,825 in Beverly Hills, or $23,000 in Albany, NY. In a state like NY, which refunds (what appears to be) about half of the purchase price, the investment is more attractive; however, solar output is also lower, so the ROI may only improve to 4-5%, still rivaled by simple, safe investments like CDs or I-Bonds.

I'm not here to discuss exact costs, but my point is, people (or companies) cannot honestly be motivated by economics, at this point, to purchase solar power fixtures. Secondary motives, like saving polar bears and penguins or electricity security during system-wide blackouts or a requirement (as is the case for CA's energy producers) may influence the decision to buy panels.

I view those general factors as an issue that the entire industry has to face, but First Solar is looking particularly vulnerable.

FSLR is expected to report earnings today, profiting $.47 per share. Analysts predict about $2.53 this year and $5.11 next year - certainly, growth is foreseen. FSLR's future estimates manifest how inflated expectations already are. 2010's earnings estimate is $8.75/share, which would be a multiple of 32 - much higher than many current companies' TTM- or this-year P/Es. That conclusion is also reached by assuming the best-case scenario in many variables, like the price and availability of cadmium tellurium remaining ideal, and new production facilities coming online-as expected.

In a heavily subsidized industry, the end of such subsidies would also be disastrous. That doesn't seem too likely in the U.S., where all three (but especially two) of the prospective presidents are pushing green energy, but in more developed countries, like Germany, who have been subsidizing for years, it looks like there may be an end to help to the industry.

First Solar's panels are made differently than any other company; instead of using the now-more-expensive silicon, they use tellurium. That helps them now, as it lets them offer attractive pricing, but may hurt in the long run; solar-grade silicon is being produced in bigger quantities by more companies as the solar movement is spreading, which should eventually lead to cheaper prices for that raw material. First Solar's tellurium appears to have supply and pricing issues, as is discussed here.

Lastly, insiders have been dumping stock lately. About $100 million of FSLR stock was sold during the past few weeks, mainly by FSLR's CEO. Yes, the sales were under pre-made plans that allowed such sales, but the CEO was not obligated to sell anything. If he though the company was a steal at $285, like the general market seems to think, why would he be letting go of his shares two weeks before earnings? (Insider data is available here.)

My bottom-line conclusion is basically to short FSLR based on common sense. The current share price seems blinded (by the sun?) towards any sense of valuation, and towards potential difficulties. The end of subsidies, a tellurium disruption or price increase, or delay in facilities coming on-line. They may indeed beat estimates and raise guidance, as the solar business is hot right now - but I think rationality can't be ignored much longer. Years of good fortune are baked in to share prices already.

My risk tolerance is high, but I'm still worried by the $50 pop after the last earnings report. However, I'm short FSLR. It has fallen from $285 to $160 before, and I'm hoping that the same increase in rationality causes a similar crash after earnings are reported today.

[Kubanisch_Rauchen]

Ich rechne auch mit guten Zahlen, der Markt vielleicht aber mit noch beseren, was diesen wieder ernüchtern könnte.

Ich denke wir stehen "vor dem tiefen Fall von First Solar"


Wie der Vorredner schon schrieb, morgen sind und werden wir schlauer.

[Dere]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.991.266 von pcbanker am 29.04.08 11:01:07

Morgen um die Uhrzeit sind wir schlauer. Dann sind die Zahlen draußen.

Ich rechne mit guten Zahlen. Denke daher auch das wir heute noch
einen Kursaufschlag sehen werden.
(ich bin allerdings nicht in FSLR investiert)

Gruß
Dere

[pcbanker]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 33.943.843 von Dere am 22.04.08 16:49:06

Hallo,
lohnt sich der Einstieg noch, oder sollte man deutsche Solaraktien (Solarworld, q-cells) bevorzugen?

[Dere]

22.04.2008 15:25
First Solar Kursziel erhöht
AmTech erhöht Kursziel für First Solar (News) von 300 Dollar auf 450 Dollar.
(© BörseGo AG 2007 - http://www.boerse-go.de, Autor: Hoyer Christian, Redakteur)

[meinolf67]

First Solar and SunPower are leaders in their respective industries. I say "industries" because FSLR and SPWR are as different as can be when it comes to PV manufacturers. SPWR's strength are FSLR's weaknesses and vice versa.

FSLR's business is almost primarily in Germany, whereas SPWR has a growing U.S. business which includes heavyweight customers such as WalMart (WMT). FSLR's panels are low-efficiency low-cost whereas SPWR's are high-efficency and carried a 10% premium/watt over Suntech (STP) and Kyocera (KYO) products at Akeena Solar last time I visited.

Although the utility scale, commerical, and retail PV markets all have some overlaps currently, I expect these markets to get highly segmented and dominated by niche players. FSLR or some "third generation" CIGS company will eventually dominate the utility scale 1MW+ market where land is plentiful and cost is the only issue. The retail market is still up for grabs but SPWR looks to have the upper hand due to high efficiency and better aesthetics, an important concern to homeowners.

This is similar to how when Wal-Mart squeezed out their competitors with superior price and selection, their competitors had to either find a 7-11 like convenience niche or disappear KMart style. Some will argue that the retail distributed generation is the real holy grail of the renewable energy market and that utility scale generation will be the niche. This is a distinct possibility although it may take 20 years or more for that to occur.

It's unknown whether SPWR's acquisition of PowerLight will prove to be a wise one in the neverending race to drive down costs. Personally, I would prefer to focus all my capital on increasing manufacturing volume to drive down costs in this early phase. I would wait until the industry was more mature to acquire an installer and possibly a polysilicon/wafer supplier. SPWR obviously can produce more product than they can install as evidenced by the fact that AKNS also offers SPWR product.

The long-awaited drop in polysilicon prices would hurt FSLR's pricing advantage, but it would benefit no one more than SPWR. This is because as prices fall across the board, efficiency will become more of an issue in the retail rooftop market. When PV is economical, homeowners and businesses will want to maximize electricity generation. Since I've long subscribed to Cramer's recent revelation that FSLR could be a category buster, SPWR therefore makes an interesting alternative to FSLR. Being an FSLR Perma-Bull I don't own any other PV stocks, but I'd consider purchasing SPWR in the future as a hedge.