Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
TTM revenue growth = 60%+
TTM earnings growth even higher - too shocking to post.
MUE implied FCF growth = -4% for 5 years (3% terminal)

See http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/02/19/why-gt-sola... for Seth's FCF analysis.

Might be too correlated with PWER for you, but I believe solar is detested by investors because of cheap natural gas and the impending decline in German subsidies. However, lots of places use oil for electricity, e.g. Hawaii and the middle east, and it makes sense for them to do solar at $75 oil. Plus there are lots of places where solar makes sense on the margins (lots of sun, expensive elec, e.g. spain). Plus some countires (China) and some sectors (military) install it for strategic reasons. Despite what Ken Fisher says, I don't think solar is dead.

tj
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Despite what Ken Fisher says, I don't think solar is dead.

Hi tj,

Neither do I. I think you're right, though, that it might be too correlated with Power-One at this point. Unfortunately. Maybe when I get 15 or 20 positions in.

Solar appears to be a very much in-favor / out-of-favor industry which is driving short term results. Could very well come back into favor with high oil prices, though.

Keep 'em comin'! :-)

Cheers,
Jim
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
There is one thing that should not be ignored:

Oil has insignificant practical impact on Solar. It is the politicians who make that noise but just think about it. Solar produces electricity and where oil used for producing electricity other than tiny generator sets during emergency?

Solar is the answer to a different problem: one that of environmental pollution caused by coal plants and the fact that coal is a non renewable source. But we have enough coal reserves to last for centuries. The second issue is if Solar is really non-renewable? The rare earth minerals that solar panels need are rare indeed. Rarer than coal and rarer than oil. And far more toxic too to extract and to process. Although the amount use in a solar panel (for an average house) is tiny. Final issue is the cost. Solar is expensive. More expensive that nuclear (except thermosolar which require large piece of land, huge capex, poor efficiency but after that it is relatively maintenance free). The problem is we just don't have a viable technology to tap energy from the sun and even if we did we don't have the viable technology to convert that energy into a form that can be used to power trucks, airplanes and ships to make a difference on the oil situation. Even if consumer autos become all electric - which will put a dent on oil consumption - that need can still be fulfilled by coal/nuke fired electric plans at a far cheaper rate.

Solar industry is thriving only due to subsidies and not because it is a viable technology that is or can reduce oil dependence.

Anurag
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hi Anurag,

Yes, that pretty much sums up the mainstream wall street view of solar. It is a very convincing view because it is true in so many places - think Idaho with natural gas sub $4.

Which leaves two thoughts:
- Is the worst case scenario already priced into the stocks? I think yes.
- Does solar need to compete on average or at the margins to be viable? I think on the margins, like every new technology.

tj
Print the post Back To Top