I don't get it.
Solarfun (NASDAQ: SOLF) had two great announcements this morning.
First, they announced a deal to supply Q-Cells (XETRA: QCE) with 100 MW of solar modules per year, for three years—making it a 300 MW deal. The deal is in effect from 2009 through 2011.
This is huge. Q-Cells is the world's largest manufacturer of solar cells, and tipping their hat to a small Chinese manufacturer serves to validate Solarfun's position in the market.
Second, Solarfun reported stellar 2Q earnings today, beating earnings estimates by $0.13, beating revenue estimates, raising 2008 shipment guidance and tripling its second quarter profit.
The result?
Solarfun fell 10% in premarket and remained about that low throughout the day.
This is crazy.
We're talking about a company that just recently began rebuilding momentum, climbing 71% since August 11th.
One would think that when a great company has two great announcements in one day that the stock would pop nicely.
But such is the state of the current overall market.
Similar plights have occurred with Renesola (NYSE: SOL), Canadian Solar (NASDAQ: CSIQ), and Trina Solar (NYSE: TSL).
Each had decent earnings announcements in the last few weeks, only to receive a nice bump and then head south.
Same for GT Solar (NASDAQ: SOLR).
Don't get me wrong, solar has had a nice bump lately.
But as a group, solar stocks are still in red territory for the year—a glaring indication that they are still cheap.
My advice is to seek out the cheap ones and load up. Solar stocks want to go higher. It's only a matter of time.
Of course, my service Alternative Energy Speculator is navigating a group of savvy investors through these murky waters.
Those investors have already taken good profits, and are aligning themselves for even more.
In the last few weeks we made:
17% on JA Solar (NASDAQ: JASO)
15% on Suntech Power (NYSE: STP)
16% on Yingli Green Energy (NYSE: YGE) and
80% on Solarfun Power Holdings (NASDAQ: SOLF)
Of course, those gains are long gone. But the next round is just getting started.
For full guidance on how to profit from solar stocks, all things alternative, and to become a member of this savvy group of investors, check out the Alternative Energy Speculator.
Call it like you see it,
Nick
Suntech's (NYSE: STP) second quarter 2008 earnings came out this morning. And boy were they impressive.
Net income for the quarter came in at $65.2 million, or $0.38 per share. Analysts had predicted earnings of $0.32 per share.
That income is nearly $24 million better than the sum in the same quarter of 2007—a 58% rise!
Revenue was $480.2 million, a full $40 to $50 million better than even Suntech's own estimate.
The solar stalwart raised its third quarter revenue forecast, saying it expects $570 million to $580 million.
Suntech also raised its full-year revenue forecast to a range of $2.05 billion to $2.15 billion, up from an earlier estimate of $1.9 billion to $2.1 billion.
Guidance for shipped panels pointed to solar modules totaling about 550 megawatts of power this year, up from 530 million.
And, according to the AP, "[Suntech's] production capacity increased to 660 megawatts during the quarter — up 120 megawatts over the last three months — and the company plans to reach 1 gigawatt in capacity by the end of the year."
I've talked before about how important reaching the "one gigawatt club" is among solar's top producers. It is truly a symbol of status and of industry dominance.
Suntech said selling price increases, sustained demand, and the strength of the Euro over the dollar were among the reasons for their stellar performance.
Of course, all this is on the heels of ReneSola's (NYSE: SOL) recent announcement of comparable impressive numbers for the quarter.
According to Reuters, ReneSola "quadrupled its second-quarter net income from a year ago, helped by a rising number of customers and strong demand, the company reported on Tuesday. Net income jumped to $23.3 million in the quarter to the end of June from $5.9 million a year ago."
Quadrupled!
Trina (NYSE: TSL:) also had good earnings recently.
Indeed, the solar bull may be back. At the very least, it may be worth picking up a few shares of the companies reporting good earnings while they're still on the cheap.
Remember, solar stocks are down an average of 40% this year—a complete oversold situation if you ask me.
They have a lot of ground to make up. And a lot higher to go after that!
Call it like you see it,
Nick
PS. I got my Alternative Energy Speculator readers into a few solar plays well before earnings season came around. Those guys and gals are now sitting on 7 double-digit winners. If you want this tye of analysis early and often, so you can make ridiculous profits in the alternative energy sector, you have to be part of the group. There's simply too much money changing hands not to making some for yourself.
The buzz surrounding the Chevy Volt is increasingly overwhelming. An overview and update is certainly in order.
It was only five years ago when General Motors product chief Bob Lutz said that hybrid cars don't make "economic or environmental sense."
Since then, the market and the science has proven him absolutely wrong. Prius sales are off the charts and every major automaker is now playing the hybrid game, albeit with different results.
Before announcing the Chevy Volt at the 2007 Detroit Auto Show, General Motors definitely took its lumps, failing with both Saturn hybrid knock-offs and with trying to implement hybrid systems on large gas-guzzlers like SUVs and trucks.
Failing and desperate, executives rolled out the Chevy Volt—an impressive piece of machinery until you look at the numbers.
Originally well-received by all parties, the Volt now looks as though it'll come with a price tag twice as high as its competitors. Some are even saying it could lose money for GM, which has been posting billions in annual losses for years.
And there are battery issues. Oh, are there battery issues.
So the question remains: Is the Chevy Volt just a very expensive public relations campaign.
Chevy Volt: Is There Something Better?
According to John McCain, there isn't. He recently told a group of GM workers that "The eyes of the world are now on the Volt. It's the future of America and the world."
I guess he hasn't heard of UQM, Tesla, Phoenix Motorcars, Aptera, or Toyota, for that matter.
Yet, the promises have been made. When first announced, the Chevy Volt was rumored to cost $25,000. Then GM was hinting at $30,000.
Now, Lutz says that $40,000 might be possible, but that $48,000 is more realistic. It's beginning to look like a moronic auction.
Do I hear $50,000? $55,000?
The battery alone is projected to cost $10,000 per vehicle, which will be outsourced to either LG of Korea or Continental AG (XETRA: CON). GM's decision will be announced shortly.
Whichever battery pack is chosen, it will ultimately become a part of GM's proprietary E-Flex hybrid powertrain. The Volt will use batteries to power the car up to 40 miles a day without recharching. When the electric battery needs to be recharged, the E-Flex Drive System—complete with a small internal combustion engine—kicks in and recharges the lithium ion battery pack while powering the vehicle.
Don't get me wrong, this is a very novel concept. Kudos to GM if they can pull it off.
But the fact remains, the Toyota Prius commands a 51% share of the domestic hybrid market. And its already an established consumer vehicle, in many cases delivering in excess of 50 miles per gallon. The Civic hybrid is also very impressive. And so are the larger hybrid models, like Camry and Accord.
Cracking that market share will be a tough row to hoe for General Motors what with them being so late to the game.
Some manufacturers, like Phoenix Motorcars, Tesla, and Aptera have foregone hybrids altogether in pursuit of all electric vehicles. All three of those companies have successfully manufactured vehicles that run entirely on electricity.
Hybrid Investment Opportunities
If the Chevy Volt is a less-than-stellar consumer option, then GM (NYSE: GM) certainly isn't a pure play hybrid investment outlet.
Tesla, which is currently manufacturing the 220 mile per charge Roadster and has plans for sedan, was rumored to be going public this year.
And while the company has formally acknowledged its intent to do so, unfavorable market conditions have prevented it thus far. When it does come to market though, be ready to buy.
But you can still invest in electric vehicle technology. Both Altair Nanotechnologies (NASDAQ: ALTI) and UQM Technologies (AMEX: UQM) are supplying battery parts to Phoenix Motorcars for their SUT, an all electric truck that gets over 100 miles per charge.
And A123 Systems Inc., which has battery deals with GM, Think, and BAE Systems just recently filed for a much anticipated $175 million IPO. I'd be all over that one as soon as it lists.
There are plenty of other up-and-coming hybrid, electric vehicle, and battery plays out there. Only time will tell which will be successful.
In addition to companies manufacturing vehicles, there will be a massive investment opportunity in companies that will be modify our grid to support increasing amounts of electric vehicles.
My service, Alternative Energy Speculator, will guide you on how to profit from this transportation renaissance.
Until next time,
Nick
So it looks like Senator Ted Stevens has been indicted on seven charges in association with a corruption probe.
Really, you say?
Apparently "Slippery" Ted faces seven counts of false statements involving VECO, an oil services company in Alaska, and some renovations done on the Senator's home.
Could it be possible that all of the Senator's pro-oil stances had less to do with energy security and more to do with a personal housing upgrade?
Of course when it comes to energy, Stevens isn't the only bureaucrat getting paid off.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, over the past 18 years, both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have received more than $190 million in oil-soaked money.
Just in 2008 alone, more than $13 million in oil & gas money has been "contributed" to Congress. It's certainly been a profitable year for our elected officials, hasn't it?
Here are the top 20 recipients so far this year...
Recipient
John McCain - $1,010,868
John Cornyn - $480,100
Hillary Clinton - $403,019
Barack Obama - $345,410
James Inhofe - $220,350
Steve Pearce - $204,234
Mitch McConnell - $197,150
Mary Landrieu - $184,850
Pete Domenici - $137,800
Pat Roberts - $130,350
Joe Barton - $127,541
Dan Boren - $127,400
Ron Paul - $115,532
Mike Conway - $113,500
Kay Bailey Hutchison - $103,000
Lamar Alexander - $100,750
Roy Blunt - $98,900
John Barrasso - $97,400
Ted Stevens - $95,600
Elizabeth Dole - $91,577
With this kind of money changing hands, how could anyone expect to take Congress seriously when they talk about energy solutions?
It's a scam. And the whole dog and pony show they put on is nothing more than empty rhetoric to keep voters sedated.
Whether it's the obligatory interrogation of oil execs, a new mandated corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard that's actually less than what was mandated in Japan back in 2002, or the inability to pass a one-year production tax credit extension for alternatives that can help break our addiction to fossil fuels - the lies and deceit never stop. And we don't expect they ever will.
So Ted Stevens got busted.
Big Deal!
He's been representing the state of Alaska for 40 years. That's 40 years of big oil politics, 40 years of unethical behavior, and 40 years of fleecing tax payers.
You really think he'll be held accountable for all of this?
Not a chance.
And even after he is booted out of office, there will be another "Slippery" Ted waiting to take his place.
So the next time you hear a speech or read a press release about how we should be drilling in Alaska because there's so much oil up there that it'll help secure our energy infrastructure and bring gas prices down, ask yourself one simple question - which asshole in Congress is getting work done on his house that week?
Jeff
I keep a special bookmarks folder entitled, 'Bush, Really?', for my own personal amusement.
They're mostly news clippings of comical things our leader does, from asking a blind journalist why he's wearing sunglasses to times he's shielded people in his administration from testifying or being held accountable for their actions and, of course, the time he vetoed an expansion of children's healthcare that was to be funded by an increase in the cigarette tax.
They're just little souvenirs I picked up along the way of what I'm convinced will be one of the most remembered presidencies in history.
While I certainly don't catch them all (who could?) and I generally try to limit my politics in writing, I feel compelled to share the most recent 'Bush, really?'.
The story didn't really make waves here in the U.S.—I often find some of the best 'Bush, Really' items come from foreign news services, even ones concerning domestic policy—but I'm sure the rest of the world had a laugh at his (and our) expense.
At the close of a private meeting at the recent G8 Summit in Japan, Bush, in all his diplomatic splendor, ended the meeting with the words: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."
Pause. Shake your head.
Here's what happened immediately after, quoted directly from the UK's Telegraph: "He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock."
Pause again. Shake once more.
Here's a picture that captures the essence of the moment brilliantly:
Now some will simply chuckle and dismiss the incident saying, "That's just Bush being Bush." And others will cry out, trying to use the quote as a catalyst for protest, rallying to incite action.
Personally, I think the man has one huge set of cajones to utter a careless comment like that, which illustrates his blatant disregard for the important issue at hand, in the presence of seven other world leaders and the press.
His Successor Will Bring Profits
Not to worry, the opportunities for Bush to embarrass himself and his country are growing smaller with every tick of the clock—we're down to about six months now.
And no matter who takes office next, the policy landscape for renewables inherently has to get better. Both McCain and Obama support limiting carbon emissions. And putting a price on carbon emissions means added value for renewables across the board.
Of course, one prospective president's candidates positions on the issues would benefit the industry more than the other's.
But either one has to be better than the man who:
allowed oil consumption to rise 3% since he famously said "America is addicted to oil"
opposed provisions to significantly raise fuel economy standards in the energy bill and threatened to veto the bill if they were not changed.
threatened to veto the energy bill because it included a renewable electricity standard that would have increased the use of renewable electricity up to 15 percent by 2020.
threatened to veto the tax incentives package that included incentives for plug-in hybrids and renewable fuels. Congress dropped these provisions because of his veto threat.
consistently opposed binding mandatory reductions of greenhouse gases proposed by the European Union and other allies during the G-8 and Bali climate talks.
blocked California's adoption of a 30% reduction in greenhouse gases from motor vehicles.
consistently ignored the views of scientists about global warming. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reviewed government documents that "portray a systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate change."
saw oil's price rise over 300% during his tenure
obviously thinks offshore drilling will solve our woes (when it clearly will not)
didn't even know gas was approaching $4 when questioned about it by a reporter
No doubt about it, the renewable industry will benefit from a change in administration, and so will those who wisely choose to invest in it.
Just hope Bush doesn't try to do anything really crazy before he leaves. I mean, even his 'Bush, Really?' moments are showing signs of a deteriorating condition.
His latest one, the "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter" comment, wasn't even correct. China overtook the top spot in 2006 by 8%.
He could've at least been accurate and said, "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter per capita."
Call it like you see it,
Nick
So the G8's global warming discussions are officially over. What did they decide? Well, they made a statement that calls for cutting global greenhouse emissions in half by 2050.
It took these guys a full year to go from "seriously considering cutting carbon emissions in half by 2050" to agreeing to call for halving emissions by 2050.
Wow!
Can you imagine if you told your boss that you were "seriously considering making the company more money," then one year later, told him that you have decided that you will make the company more money.
You'd be fired on the spot. Hell, you probably would've been fired a year prior for making such a ridiculous statement.
Yet, here we are now, and some are actually hailing the G8's decision as "major progress."
In fact, and not even the least bit surprising, President Bush told reporters that "significant progress" has now been made on global warming. What that progress is, I have no idea.
Of course, this is the same guy who only recently decided that it was in his best interest to finally admit that global warming is an issue that must be addressed. Though, by this administration's actions, it's clear that the addressing of this issue will have to come from his replacement in 2009.
Hell, just yesterday, a former EPA official revealed that last October, Dick Cheney's office—in an attempt to avoid regulating greenhouse gas emissions—cut six pages from testimony on climate change and public health by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
And according to Jason Burnett, the former senior adviser on climate change to EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, the office of the vice president sought deletions to the CDC's testimony regarding discussions of the human health consequences of climate change.
But I guess we shouldn't get too upset about this now. After all, the G-8 has called for cutting global greenhouse emissions in half by 2050.
Maybe next year they'll tell make a statement in regards to when they'll start discussing a base year. That'll give them at least two more years to solidify their next diversionary tactic.
Jeff
According to a recent Reuters article, some coffee drinkers are now celebrating the latest economic hardships facing Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX).
Here's a quote from the article:
"I'm so happy. I'm so not a Starbucks person," said Melinda Vigliotti, sipping iced coffee at the Irving Farm Coffee House in New York. "I believe in supporting small businesses. Starbucks, bye-bye."
And there are quite a few folks who share this woman's opinion too.
Unfortunately, while bashing the brewer for being "too big" or "putting the smaller coffee shops out of business," few take the time to come down off of their moral high ground to realize that if wasn't for Starbucks creating a new coffee culture to begin with, half of those little independent coffee shops wouldn't even exist!
I'd also like to know if folks like Vigliottii realize that with Starbucks closing 600 stores, up to 12,000 jobs could be lost. Talk about hurting local economies!
There are also the local economies outside the U.S. that rely on Starbucks for their livelihoods. These will be affected too. Especially when it comes to all of those fair trade operations.
Starbucks is one of the largest purchasers of Fair Trade Certified coffee in the world. The company's global purchases of Fair Trade Certified coffee totaled 20 million pounds in 2007.
Let's also not forget the fact that Starbucks recently stopped serving core diary products that contain rBGH.
rBGH is a hormone typically given to cows on conventional dairy farms to increase production. Unfortunately, it's also known to cause udder infections, lameness, and reproductive problems. rBGH has also been criticized for increasing a growth hormone in cows and humans known as IGF-1. It has been suggested that elevated levels of IGF-1 have been associated with increased cancer rates.
I wonder how many of those local coffee shops use rBGH-free dairy products.
I wonder how many brew Fair Trade Certified coffee.
I wonder how many can provide employment for 12,000 U.S. workers.
Jeff
With gas prices flying past $4.00 a gallon, we shouldn't be surprised to find the Bush administration practically demanding that Congress lift the ban on offshore drilling.
Saying that the U.S. needs to increase its energy production, the President declared that there was no excuse for delay.
We agree with part of that statement.
There is no excuse!
There's no excuse for delaying the large-scale integration of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) that could ultimately reduce our oil imports by as much as 80 percent.
There's no excuse for allowing the auto industry to dictate a pathetic CAFE standard of just 35 miles per gallon by 2020, while the fleet fuel economy averages in other countries are already much higher.
In Japan alone, the fleet fuel economy averages for new vehicles is 46.3 miles per gallon. And that standard was initiated in 2002! By 2010, the standard will be 48 miles per gallon.
There's no excuse for not bolstering our mass transit infrastructure, thereby enabling millions of U.S. workers to leave their cars at home.
If Washington really wants to get serious about helping the country "ease the pain at the pump," they'd bend over backwards to make this happen.
After all, our current public transportation system already saves 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline per year. Imagine if we could just double that to 2.8 billion gallons per year by adding and upgrading new systems.
Based on $4 a gallon, U.S. commuters would save $11.2 billion per year on gasoline costs!
It would also amount to...
· 68 fewer supertankers leaving the Middle East - one every 11 days
· Over 280,000 fewer tanker truck deliveries to service stations per year
· 216 million fewer cars filling up every year.
But no, Bush and company continue to spew the oil-sponsored rhetoric of more drilling.
This is no longer about finding more oil.
This is about a very necessary energy transition from finite resources to renewable resources.
After all, no matter how much you drill, it's only going to last so long.
Sure, in about 8 years that offshore oil would come online. And Bush claims we'll be able to get up to 18 billion barrels "over time." Whatever the hell "over time" means.
Either way, even if we did get 18 billion barrels, how long do you think that's going to last?
At our current rate of consumption we'll go through that in less than 3 years.
Why do we continue to entertain this ridiculous idea that drilling for more oil is a good idea, when the only real long-term solution to our oil/energy crisis is clearly alternatives?
Other than fat donations for our elected officials, I can't think of one.
Jeff
Sign up for the FREE
Green Chip Review e-Letter:
You'll immediately receive Wind Energy Investments--our breakthrough report from alternative energy expert Jeff Siegel.
Your privacy is assured.
Pre-Order Jeff Siegel's new book, Investing in Renewable Energy: Making Money on Green Chip Stocks, today on Amazon, click here to find out more.
3 tiny companies currently drilling there stand to make an epic fortune. There's still time to get in on the first round of profits, before the story goes mainstream.
Click here to read Energy And Capital's breaking report, and begin profiting now.
Subscribe to