Replies to post #27534 on FuelCell Energy Inc (FCEL)

[Hoghead7]

That's awsome. Getting rid of an extremely high paid interest rate that of only 20 million is an excellent move and I fully support that decision. However I'm a little confused on how somebody can say we have no new projects. Does it matter if it's a repeat customer? I mean they said the state of Connecticut. San Bernardino is a repeat customer also does that invalidate the project. What if Bridgeport wanted another 14.9 megawatt? That comment makes no sense at all! Sounds to me like somebody's bitter due to not seeing share price movement they wanted and or not agreeing with some decisions.

Sofc was not a disaster in Pittsburgh it was a test project they addressed and improved what needed to be done. That's what pilots are for.

Sounds to me like this person just shouldn't be involved with the company at all. Why haven't they just avoided it? If people don't like the company or the technology they shouldn't waste time looking at it monitoring it or commenting on it or emailing investor relations. They should just move on with their life. Kind of reminds me of the old person sitting on the porch yelling at kids for touching their lawn.

[AgeOfReason]

Regarding the comment of "Bear in mind the FCELB at $350 pays interest rate equivalent of 15%" I am not sure what point you making. If you mean that the dividend yield is 15% for those who buy the preferred stock on the open market at a price of $350/share, then I believe that is correct (I haven't looked up the dividend rate lately, but I will claim at the moment during this post). But if you are saying (or implying) that FCEL has a cash outflow (or expenses) of 15% on those shares of preferred stock that is incorrect. It is incorrect because the FCELB stock was issued at a $1000 selling price (which is also its par value) in its initial offering and thus its coupon dividend rate was only 5.25% (if indeed the current dividend yield is 15% for shares purchased on the secondary market at $350/share). FuelCell Energy received $1000 for each of the shares which were sold to investors (not merely $350) and thus there cash flow (or expense) rate is only 5.25% yearly on those shares, not 15%.

Regarding your comments that FCEL are "... are having delays on projects in backlog despite having millions of dollars ..." and "have been talking about reaching profitability for years. Something always seems to get in the way" I agree completely with those comments and those things give me concern. If I didn't have those concerns I would likely had purchased back more shares of FCEL stock yesterday than I did.

I also agree with your statement of "Lately we have generation with big losses, stacks failing at Tulare, ... and after a $70M ATM they drop a offering on the common shareholders after market close when they knew investors would jump on the CT 11.2MW awards news when they were silent for months", except though the generation losses exceed $1 million, they are not big on a percentage basis of generation revenues (in my opinion), and I am not sure if the stacks at Tulare were failing or instead had less severe problems [I do know that FCEL said there were site issues and that they replaced a stack there (or replaced more than one stack there)]. Regarding your claim of "... SOFC in Pittsburg a disaster ..." I have no knowledge about the SOFC in Pittsburg and thus I probably should research that topic.