Comparison of Solarfun, Yingli Green Energy, Jinko Solar, Perfectenergy, Astronergy, ET Solar
| Solarfun | Yingli Green Energy | Jinko Solar | Perfectenergy | Astronergy | ET Solar | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Organization info |
|||||||
| Description | Vertically-integrated crystalline silicon module manufacturer | Crystalline silicon modules with vertical integration through polysilicon production | Vertically integrated crystalline silicon ingot, wafer, cell, and module manufacturer | Monocrystalline silicon cells and modules | Crystalline silicon cells and modules as well as thin-film silicon micromorph modules | Mono- and multi-crystalline modules with in-house ingoting and wafering | |
| Country | China | China | China | China | China | China | |
| Take | Positive | Positive | Positive | Caution | Wait and see | Wait and see | |
| Last briefing | July 22, 2010 | September 16, 2010 | July 15, 2010 | April 8, 2010 | August 26, 2010 | March 18, 2010 | |
Vital stats |
|||||||
| Profitable |
Yes Net income of RMB 158.1 million in Q1 2010
|
Yes Net income margin of 8.1% in Q2 2010
|
Yes Profitable since 2007
|
No EBIT of -$0.2 million in Q1 2010, ending January 2010
|
Yes |
Yes ET Solar does not disclose financials; this statement is a Lux Research estimate based on its low cost and module price stabilization in late 2009
|
|
| Cash |
$137.2 million 977.7 RMB of cash and cash equivalents at the end of Q1 2010
|
$576.5 million Cash and cash equivalents of ¥3.9 billion at the end of Q2 2010
|
$22.3 million | $3.9 million | $200 million |
$25 million ET Solar does not disclose financials; this figure is a Lux Research estimate based on likely operating capital for a venture its size
|
|
| Revenue |
$553.537 million From 2009 annual report; shipped 313 MW of modules including tolling; ASP of modules made in house was $2.24/W
|
$1.071 billion Reported 2009 revenue of ¥7.255 billion; revenue of ¥9.9 billion for the 12 months ending June 30, 2010
|
$230 million |
$31.5 million 2009 annual filing ending October 2009
|
$100 million $120 million for the first half of 2010
|
$175 million ET Solar does not disclose financials; this figure is a Lux Research estimate based on production and typical module pricing throughout 2009
|
|
| Employees | 9500 | 7000 | 3500 | 300 |
2600 Employees in the solar division; will be between 4,000 and 5,000 by the end of the year as capacity expansion ramps up
|
1500 | |
Scorecard |
Legend | ||||||
| Technology/solution value |
3 Makes standard c-Si and mc-Si modules, but uses low-cost manufacturing techniques compared to most companies
|
4 A cost leader among x-Si manufacturers; unique, vertically-integrated n-type production could offer high-efficiency products at very competitive costs
|
2 Makes standard c-Si and mc-Si modules, but uses low-cost manufacturing techniques
|
2 Standard c-Si cell and module processing technology with limited technology differentiation, but low-cost manufacturing site
|
3 Undifferentiated x-Si technology; focus is on thin-film silicon development with a new Oerlikon line that has competitive efficiencies and costs
|
2 Low-cost module manufacturing, but little technical differentiation
|
Answers the question: "How strong is the organization's technical solution?"
1 = Solution doesn't offer better value on in terms of price or performance
3 = Solution offers incremental improvements on price or on performance
5 = Solution offers solid improvements on both price and performance, or dramatic (orders of magnitude) improvements on one of the two
|
| Addressable market size | 5 |
5 |
5 |
5 | 5 |
5 |
Answers the question: "If the organization had 100% market share in everything it is trying to sell, what would its annual revenue be (in U.S. dollars)?"
1 = <$10 million
2 = $11 million to $100 million
3 = $100 million to $1 billion
4 = $1 billion to $10 billion
5 = >$10 billion. The market for crystalline silicon solar modules will be roughly $20 billion by 2015; the market for x-Si and TF-Si modules will reach $30 billion by 2015.
|
| Competitive landscape |
3 Though competition is fierce, Solarfun is among a group of low-cost Chinese players
|
3 Several vertically-integrated, low-cost Chinese manufacturers and industry stalwarts with strong brands; company has become a top tier manufacturer
|
3 Fierce competitive space with aggressive cost reduction, but low-cost Chinese production improves competitive position
|
2 Fierce competition from low-cost cell and module manufacturers, including significantly larger, vertically-integrated competitors
|
2 Many large Chinese module manufacturers with competitive efficiencies and low costs
|
1 x-Si manufacturing space is crowded with module manufacturers, many with technical differentiation or full vertical integration through value chain
|
Answers the question: "Are many other organizations doing the same thing?"
1 = Many competitors with very similar solutions
3 = A number of competitors, but this organization's solution offers some benefits that others don't
5 = Unique solution with little or no competition
|
| Barriers to growth |
4 Running at full capacity and building more to meet demand; slow at growing sales in U.S. market
|
4 Ample cash for capacity expansions and distribution network to drive sales
|
4 Cell equipment availability has slowed expansion slightly, and could remain a concern as market picks up
|
2 Small size and limited technical differentiation may limit uptake of modules; slowly building brand name recognition
|
4 Large supply agreement for TF-Si modules; relatively small scale presents barriers to competitive wafer supply agreements and downstream partners
|
3 Nimble capacity and low cost will allow strong growth during spikes in demand, but susceptible margin and pricing cuts as solar modules remain in oversupply
|
Answers the question: "How imposing are the barriers that the organization has to overcome to generate growth?"
1 = Obstacles to growth are likely to be insurmountable
3 = Significant but manageable obstacles faced
5 = No major barriers to growth apparent
|
| IP position |
2 Company has no significant IP and relies on process know-how
|
2 Less than 50 patents issued in a very crowded space, but relies largely on execution for competitive advantage
|
2 Standard x-Si technology with little IP; currently exploring gallium doping and other improvements
|
2 Three patents awarded for equipment and processing; holds limited IP in a crowded cell IP space
|
2 Uses standard x-Si cell technology; Oerlikon holds IP for TF-Si technology
|
2 No internal IP for wafer, ingoting, or modules; x-Si market crowded with cell-level IP
|
Answers the question: "How likely is it that the organization's patents and/or trade secrets will be valuable?" This metric considers the density of existing IP in the organization's domain, the level of overlap of that IP, and the resources that the organization devotes to IP creation.
1 = Weak IP position, or organization does not focus on IP as a differentiator
3 = Defensible IP position subject to challenges in density and overlap
5 = Defensible IP position with limited challenges in density and overlap
|
| Regulatory factors | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
Answers the question: "Will regulatory factors speed up or slow down the organization?"
1 = The organization is unlikely to be able to proceed for regulatory reasons
2 = Regulatory issues stand to significantly slow down development
3 = Regulatory issues stand to slow down development somewhat
4 = No regulatory inhibitors seen
5 = On balance, favorable regulatory factors drive the organization's progress, as opposed to slowing it down. Subsidies continue to drive the solar market
|
| Management team |
5 Has smartly managed capacity expansion, keeping a high run rate; recently added management from Trina and Yingli to manage vertical integration
|
5 Expertise in PV technology and finance, and well connected in the Chinese government; brought down costs significantly from 2009
|
4 Recently recruited Chief Strategy Officer from Trina Solar and CTO from Yingli, both leading names
|
3 Leadership is experienced in building companies and appears well-connected in China
|
4 Significant experience with thin film and x-Si production
|
3 Seven years' experience in the solar market
|
Answers the question: "How strong is the organization's management team?"
1 = Management team in current form will inhibit near-term growth and success
3 = Competent management team with some gaps
5 = Exceptionally experienced and well-connected management team with no apparent gaps
|
| Partnerships |
4 Development programs with Honeywell, and several universities including Shanghai Jiao Tang University in China
|
4 Many technology and distribution partnerships driving global sales and efficiency improvements
|
2 Has a strong downstream partner in IBC Solar, but needs to expand list of marquee customers
|
3 Local supplier relationships, OEM agreement with JA Solar; downstream partnerships largely undisclosed; 2009 customers included Abidas of Germany
|
3 CHINT Group opens up sales channels and demand through some project development; working closely with Oerlikon on new TF-Si lines
|
3 Top suppliers at cell level, and efficient ties to provincial government; upcoming supply agreement with Phoenix Solar will boost profile
|
Answers the question: "How strong are the organization's partnerships - including joint development or research agreements, long-term customer relationships, joint venture deals, and distribution relationships?"
1 = No partnerships
2 = Few or unimportant partnerships
3 = At least one significant partnership which is likely to drive growth
4 = Multiple significant partnerships which are likely to drive growth
5 = Organization's exceptional partnerships are dominant in its category
|
| Momentum |
4 Continuing to expand capacity and beginning to enter U.S. market
|
3 Strong return to profitability after losses in 2009 by bringing costs down to match ASP declines; record gross margins in Q2
|
3 Growing at a tremendous rate in capacity, along with strong validation in bankability and certification
|
3 Continued to grow through 2009 and thus far in 2010; however, falling price points and small size will limit margins and push out potential profitability
|
2 Expanding x-Si and TF-Si capacity; supply agreements with SPG Solar, Solco, and Gansu province announced this summer
|
2 Growing in 2H 2010 due to strong incremental demand in European market; may face difficulty in a tough 2H 2010
|
Answer the question: "Is the organization making rapid forward progress, staying stagnant, or backsliding?"
Subjective Lux Research evaluation ranging from: 1 = Suffering setbacks and making no significant announcements
5 = Frequently signing deals, making news, releasing products, attracting funding, etc. |
| Other |
2 Solarfun's module ASP is lower than some Chinese competitors, hurting gross margins; possible indication of lack of effective branding
|
3 Losses in 2009 are troubling, but current costs very competitive; development of high-efficiency products is encouraging for future competitive advantage
|
4 Strategy of aggressively expanding on the back of available spot poly, while competition and equipment players are hurting, has been wise
|
2 Despite size, brand is reasonably well-recognized; however, is likely to struggle as standard size of competitors grows
|
4 Ability to supply inverters through CHINT Electric for installations could avoid capacity bottlenecks faced by other project developers
|
4 15 MW supply agreement with Phoenix Solar, top installer in Germany, will increase profile in 2010
|
Answer the question: "What other pivotal factors, not captured elsewhere - positive or negative - should influence judgment on this organization?"
1 = Very negative factors
3 = Even mix of positive and negative factors
5 = Very positive factors
|
Key metrics |
|||||||
| Module cost |
$1.19/Wpeak Fully loaded blended module cost in Q1 2010; reports non-Si costs of $0.82/W in Q1 2010; silicon usage ranges from 5.4 g/W for monocrystalline wafers to 6.08 g/W for multicrystalline wafers; ASPs will be in $1.65/W range for Q2 2010
|
$1.14/Wpeak Estimate for n-type modules in low-volume production
|
$1.18/Wpeak |
$1.2-$1.5/Wpeak Low end based on 25 MW shipped in 2009 and $30.3 million cost of goods sold
|
$1.32/Wpeak Estimate based on Lux cost models
|
$1.4/Wpeak | |
| Module conversion efficiency |
12.1-15.4% Efficiencies for modules ranging from 200 W to 255 W; modules with other power outputs are available but fall within this efficiency range
|
12.7-14.4% | 14-16% |
15-16% Average cell efficiency of 17.5% in 2009; nearing 18% in 2010
|
13.1-14.3% STC efficiencies for monocrystalline modules between 215 W and 235 W
|
12.5-14.5% | |
| Module nameplate capacity |
700 MW Total module capacity at the end of Q2 2010; company expects this to reach 900 MW by Q4 2010
|
700 MW n-type "Panda" module line started initial production in July 2010
|
200 MW Q1 2010; targets 500 MW end of 2010
|
100 MW |
70 MW ~300 MW of total capacity now but expanding to 400 MW by the end of the year; less than 30% of capacity is for multicrystalline silicon modules
|
260 MW 50% mc-Si, 50% c-Si
|
|