Pv Crystalox Solar Share Discussion Threads

[salpara111] 30/9/2016 13:48

Every time I see the share price apparently down I rush to try and buy more only to find that the actual offer price has not actually changed.

[extrader] 28/9/2016 16:52

Hi all,

Hattip to melody9999 on s'pedia :

I used to work in the solar industry.. Don't know Spectra. Suspect PVCS might be wasting time if its Hanwha or Suntech - the latter went into bankruptcy at one point and Hanwah has also changed its shape / ownership. So looked at Schott .....

Interestingly "The parent company, SCHOTT AG, has its headquarters in Mainz (Germany) and is solely owned by the Carl Zeiss Foundation."

is it a coincidence then that: "The evidentiary hearing of the arbitral tribunal had been scheduled to take place in Frankfurt in July 2016"...... ie just down the road!

My sense is that Schott are also most likely because as a glass provider, they probably saw the opportunity to sell their product within a PV module. But they needed a module manufacturer and therefore placed an order with PVCS to supply cells using their glass.

All conjecture on my part - pls DYOR.

Note health/wealth warning !

ATB

[mull3r] 28/9/2016 16:25

Take a look at the 2009 prelim results-

hxxp://www.pvcrystalox.com/scripts/php/rns_viewer.php?id=2681173

Four companies mentioned in the new contracts commentary for 2008 - Q Cells, Suntech, Schott Solar and the Intel spin off, SpectraWatt - could be one of these?

[extrader] 28/9/2016 16:20

Hi Salpara111 etc,

I've seen somewhere some speculation that it was a German co and hence the hearing in Frankfurt....I'll see if I can dig anything up.

Mind you, German co's don't have the reputation for financial and other probity that they once did, think Siemens, Volkswagen etc....;-<<br />
ATB

[salpara111] 28/9/2016 15:35

Well, terminating this polysilicon supply contract means there is one less thing to deal with if/when they get their big settlement.
They should be able to wind up the company more quickly and easily.
I have always assumed that the wafer counterparty was a chinese company and as such I agree that they may have difficulty collecting but ultimately they would be able to get a court order to seize any of their products entering the EU etc and flogging them off until they have made the money.
The Chinese can only ignore the rest of the world when they are not exporting to the rest of the world!
I work in the auto industry and I remember a case not that long ago where a Chinese Scooter company showed a blatantly copied version of a Vespa at a show in Europe, very quickly Vespa had the police on the scene ready to seize the product if they did not take it away so leverage can be brought to bear as long as the Chinese company exports to western countries........assuming that it is Chinese!

[boystown] 28/9/2016 11:50

You'd think so - in which case, extracting the cash from any settlement would be interesting.

[meijiman] 28/9/2016 11:46

It's got to be Chinese?

[zcaprd7] 28/9/2016 11:35

The other company has been referred to as "one of the largest solar companies in the world" on a few occasions I believe...

[zcaprd7] 28/9/2016 11:15

Yes. Bit hard to tell what the impact is?

[eezymunny] 28/9/2016 11:11

Not clear what that means. There was about E5.17m "Polysilicon feedstock deposits" in non cur assets and a further E2.56m in Prepaid expenses. Not clear if this is which, or both, of these. At least they are clear of these onerous contracts finally and can wind things up quickly if they wish.

Worst case TNAV comes down to c. E37m (£31.9m) vs market cap at £29.5m (rough numbers, excluding ongoing trading profits/losses) ) but shouldn't deteriorate much from there. The upside remains from the ICC hearing of course. Feels like a hold for me but DYOR!

[zcaprd7] 23/9/2016 09:04

Yes. They mentioned it was getting bad again...

[zcaprd7] 22/9/2016 15:00

Not much volume of late. But seems like solid buying?

[zcaprd7] 21/9/2016 17:00

I wonder how long the leases are? They increased headcount a while ago. I'll be miffed if they've signed long leases...

[meijiman] 21/9/2016 15:23

Thanks for clearing that up.

[meijiman] 21/9/2016 13:57

Yes the balance sheet value would be written down. Was more thinking of flogging off the site as brownfield for housebuilding in due course. Is that a runner?

[cjohn] 21/9/2016 11:18

PPE of 80m euros at cost written down to less than 2m euros. Company guidance is that the plant and equipment is merely standing idle and can be brought on line in the event of increased production. It's got to be worth much more than the book value.

Hi Meijiman, I'm guessing the element of freehold property is negligible, because they wouldn't be able to write down the freehold.

[zcaprd7] 21/9/2016 10:01

Not sure. But one assumes once the court case is dealt with, they don't really have much else to do, other than break the company up, unless they are profitable. Both good outcomes in my view?

[meijiman] 21/9/2016 09:46

So they own these sites freehold? The site in Oxfordshire might be worth a bit?

[cjohn] 21/9/2016 09:37

Hi zcaprd, yeas, the Japanese operation has gone, but that still leaves the great majority of plant and equipment which is under-used.