Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Some people have claimed the loan availability ends soon, but I don't recall any proof of that one way or another. But, even if true, Fresno likely doesn't need the loan to fund the project.
I don't think so. Just "withdrawn" from that meeting's agenda. The status is still "award pending" on the bids page.
No. The project has not been placed on the next meeting's agenda. The council just has to formally approve of the minutes from prior meetings. That's all. If you read the Aug. 27 minutes, it simply explains the MDE project was not discussed at the Aug. 27 meeting because it was removed from the agenda by staff.
Now, perhaps they will revise the current draft agenda before posting the formal agenda PDF or will even revise that formal agenda. But as of now, the MDE project remains tabled.
I wish. Looks like you're mistaken. I don't see it on the agenda, and your link is not for the MDE project.
Alex, the document you pasted that info from specifies the precise Sunpower panels that will be used. It also specifies the inverters and single-axis trackers. Additionally, the 8-page document specifies the subcontractors MDE will use, including Sunworks. I thought it was interesting that they aren't using Tiger Electric for their other electrical work, but somebody else.
Large bid sitting at $2.93 right now, for 62,719 shares (nsdq).
The MDE contract has always been a "contested consent" item. See the July 30 agenda: https://fresno.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=368526&GUID=509EC057-1D09-442C-8949-6FDC3448EA57&Options=info&Search=
(select the agenda pdf)
Edit: I would also note that MDE was listed as an "action item," and the legislation tab also still shows it was on the agenda for yesterday.
https://fresno.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2443433&GUID=EA3C736A-C094-4C6A-8073-A85E89462628&Options=&Search=
I disagree. If it was merely put on the agenda for tracking/record-keeping reasons, then it would have been on the previous agenda as well; it was not. If it was in fact removed from the agenda as SLTD reported in the newsletter to us, then it was a last-minute thing and apparently was not updated on the agenda document. Unfortunately Fresno screwed up their video feed yesterday and there was no volume. So, we don't know if they so much as mentioned the MDE contract. Also, it's my understanding that the matter is listed in the "contested consent" area of the agenda because it requires an individual vote to authorize the budgetary change.
However, I agree that poster should have simply asked where TJS got the delay info from, rather than accusing him of making it up. It is a bit odd that they did a newsletter but no PR. However, it really isn't a big deal. The job has never been included in the company's revenue estimates, so it has never been anything more than a potential job. They don't PR any other jobs before they're closed, this simply came out because it was public record.
That was cool. Just happened to check in on level 2, and just as I did, someone entered huge bid above the ask. It didn't all fill, still 55,600 share bid on EDGX at $3.10.
Edit: you can see here; select the EDGX tab: http://www.batstrading.com/book/sltd/
I won't even attempt to guess numbers. However, I don't think it has as much potential to immediately move the pps as it could have earlier in the year. There has been so much delay that much of the project's revenue would be spread into 2016. At this point if we don't get the deal, not much letdown because the expectations of getting the deal are much lower than before. If we do get it, I think its just more of a general support for the company and pps, and helps the company's public image. What is it going to add for revenue this year, maybe $3 million? That's substantial, but not huge. And probably little to none of that comes in the present third quarter.
...then again, I came to the above conclusions a week or two back when we were bouncing around $3.75. Perhaps getting the contract would be enough to get the chart into an uptrend (i.e., break out above $3.30).
Well, tomorrow is the big Fresno contract day. I wonder how much that will affect trading today with that big unknown.
Good point that patent pending protection is in place, but it's not quite the same protection. It is only the same until it isn't anymore.
With a granted patent, you have certainty of that protection until expiration date. With patent pending, you have uncertain protection. It could end at any moment upon denial of the patent.
Chris111, I never really bought into the idea that SLTD was waiting for the Panasonic patent to expire. If that were the case, why would SLTD have bothered to file its own patent applications in the first case, and then follow through on the process from international to the 4 national phase applications? SLTD has pending patent applications in Singapore, China, India, and U.S. (I have viewed the publication documents at each country's website, although a couple of the sites are flaky and do not always function.) If you compare the SLTD design to the Panasonic design, you see they both involve columnar structures. However, they are designed and constructed in a substantially different manner. Panasonic's are built up and are oriented randomly, whereas SLTD's are uniformly cut.
It seems reasonable to believe SLTD is being held up waiting for their own patent. Even if SLTD found a manufacturer at this point that was willing to take a chance on SLTD's cell, how would the negotiations transpire? Assuming the cell is worth more with a patent than without, SLTD and the manufacturer would somehow need to structure a deal that accounts for that possibility/risk.
accipiter, regarding your belief that the Panasonic patent just expired, see the fourth bullet down on the left side of their actual patent document:
"... the term of this patent is extended ... by 1101 days"
So... tack on a few years.
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=06518494&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft1.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D6518494.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F6518494%2526RS%3DPN%2F6518494&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page
Cowen misspoke. SLTD holds no patents.... Still just patent pending. No excuse for that. And accipeter has all his patent info wrong too. So much so wrong that I can't address it now on my tablet, where I can't refer back easily. And sltd never followed through to apply national phase patent application in Europe so far as I am aware. They were probably just identified/notified as a possible patent location/authority initially in the international application.
Not going to happen. I just double-checked the agenda an hour ago. Its a public govt mtg; I can't imagine they are permitted to add things to the agenda without public notice.
However, there is a solar topic on the agenda. They are adopting an ordinance for expedited permitting of residential rooftop solar installs of 10KW and under. It is requirement of California state law that all cities and/or counties adopt an expedited permitting process by the end of Sept. 2015.
https://fresno.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2397962&GUID=51FDF470-60E0-457C-B06F-95299A7C7D42&Options=&Search=
Per the 8K, the board of directors of the new company will consist of JN, Tracy Welch, and Kirk Short (prior owner). So, that is 2/3 Solar3D management.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1172631/000118518515002142/solar3d8k081115.htm
Edit: Also states that here, in the contract, at paragraph 3.2.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1172631/000118518515002142/ex10-1.htm
Ditto.
Don't forget about the cash SLTD gets when the options and warrants are exercised. The options are relatively cheap (but not free), but the 3M warrants at $4.15 nets $12.45M in cash.
I just skimmed over your numbers, but I didn't notice this accounted for.
Still waiting for fully updated institutional ownership numbers for last quarter; filings due 8/15 (presumably, pushed back to Monday).
...to anyone who saw my earlier post about updated numbers, I was mistaken. I was looking at a different solar stock.
I think the Fresno uncertainty has largely been priced in now, and that the effect on pps will not be as substantial next week, regardless of good or bad result. The delays have already moved much of the potential revenue from that project into 2016. I suspect the bigger upside from a Fresno deal may flow from the bump to reputation/publicity from securing such a large project, as opposed to the direct project revenue.
Ah, yes, it appears my comb was missing a tooth.
Thanks for compiling. However, I have one disagreement/correction. The final payment is based on pps at end of year, but is not subject to the $4 cap. So, short story, the back-end dilution can be even less if the pps exceeds $4.
A bit more background info on Elite Solar:
http://growmanufacturing.com/directory/elite-solar/
Looks like the racking system is well-known, and a pretty sweet design. Check out this March 2014 article: http://solarbuildermag.com/featured/creotecc-clampless-mounting/
Yes, RV, it does appear we are acquiring a racking company with a proprietary system. The pictures on that Universal Racking Soltuions website are the same as those on Elite Solar's site. And according to the 8K we are acquiring "Plan B Enterprises, Inc. a California corporation and d/b/a Universal Racking Solutions ...."
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1172631/000118518515002142/solar3d8k081115.htm
Elite Solar's website also states they have their own racking system:
"Keeley Farmily Farms installed a 201.19kw system to offset their rice dryers. This large array uses a our very own ground racking system."
http://www.elitesolarca.com/agricultural/projects/
"Universal Racking Solutions is the new name of the mounting system created by Creotecc Mounting Systems. Universal Racking Solutions purchased the rights to the Creotecc technology in 2014. Creotecc’s insertion rail technology was invented in Freiberg, Germany in 1999 and over 600 MW have been installed in Europe and the U.S."
http://www.universalracking.bravesites.com/
On another note: "Plan B Enterprises has a BuildZoom score of 100 and is rated in the top 10% of 336,931 contractors in California."
https://www.buildzoom.com/contractor/plan-b-enterprises
If I recall correctly, that is dependent upon voluntary reporting from companies.
Newsletter out with link to analyst report.
Mutual fund /ETF holders of SLTD is updated since yesterday on CNBC. It now states 8 fund holders, and identifies 6.
Here is City of Fresno's local preference policy. Scroll down to page 50.
http://www.fresno.gov/NR/rdonlyres/0C5D2809-F2D1-4838-9B0D-F4B5CB9FE1C6/0/ProcurementHandbook.PDF
MD is allowed to appear and present at the city council meeting, per the city's ordinance. There has been discussion of whether that is permitted.
Here's a summary of the ordinance: http://www.fresno.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8DFBD05C-6FA9-4B04-89DC-2AE611B645E5/21106/OutlineContactOrdinance1.pdf
It wasn't TheParagonian's concern. It was raised by a city council member. And the answer from the public works guy was that MD did not qualify as local. I think Fresno has a local preference rule; if so, you would have to locate that to determine what qualifies as local.
Yes, the cost details are set forth in a an Excel sheet here, including both labor & materials listed separately for each line item: https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=14769
Double-click the 5/21/2015 entry for "opening matrix," you can then view/download it.
Any thoughts on the PR's repeated mention of the customer's CEO by name? Just seems out of the norm.
Edit: Or, how about that they spelled the guy's name wrong both times?
PR: Patrick Arichibeque
Correct: Patrick Archibeque
As a side note, I think there is a real possibility that some person or people who want SLTD to go down called the Fresno city council members and whispered concerns in their ears. "Hi, I'm [insert fake name or name from Fresno phone book]. I have some real concerns about my tax money on this project, what about this...? What about that...?"
Also, doesn't the state revolving loan money dry up soon? I recall the city council pres asking if the project was time sensitive, but don't recall the entire response.
I think maybe someone here said that money is only available through September?
If so, there is no time to rebid the project and get that low interest rate money.
And even if they did rebid, why would they expect any different results. I read those questions from other potential bidders... some couldn't bid because they weren't qualified and the City wouldn't make exceptions (specifically, I recall one company not having all of the contractor licenses). Other big solar companies were listed too; they already decided not to bid.
Yeah, I don't know why anyone would point to that outdated info about institutional ownership on NASDAQ site. I am pretty sure it will be updated with the June 30 numbers on Aug. 15, just like what happened after the first quarter.
There is some updated info on CNBC, at least as it relates to mutual funds /ETFs. That info keeps getting revised every so often. It now states that 6 funds hold SLTD, but it only identifies 5 of them. http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/SLTD/tab/8
Nope, because among other things, that patent doesn't really expire this month. If you look on the face of the patent document, it states that they received a 1000-some day extension, which was based on the delay in patent approval stemming from their appeal.
I partly agree. But it wasn't for JN to be at this; he doesn't know how to do the solar install. Danny Mitchell should have been there.
good summary