Solyndra’s IPO Registration: By the Numbers

The devil is in the details and there aren’t a lot of product and cost details in the SEC IPO filing.

This year wasn't a great one for solar IPOs. Trony Solar, a Chinese developer of a-Si solar panels, is going to hold off on its IPO "until market conditions improve," while Specialized Technology Resources (STR), a maker of encapsulants for protecting solar cells in panels, went public in November but didn't get a strong reception for its stock.

And now, threatening to jump into these tepid waters is CIGS thin-film PV vendor Solyndra (see Solyndra Files to Go Public). And while you were Christmas shopping, we were reading this 190 page document.

There's talk in the blogosphere that this could be the beginning of a flood of greentech IPOs. Before we jump to rosy conclusions, let's take a look at some of the details in the S-1:

  • Solyndra stock symbol: SOLY
  • VC Totals: Through Oct. 3, 2009, Solyndra raised an aggregate of approximately $970 million through equity financings, including a $283 million round E and $281 million round F
  • Staffing: As of Dec. 5, 2009, Solyndra employed 747 full-time employees. 268 in research and development, 364 in manufacturing and operations, 40 in sales and marketing and 75 in G&A, while 238 contract employees are in manufacturing and operations activities.
  • Number of union employees: 0
  • Accumulated Deficit: $505 million as of Oct. 3, 2009
  • Losses: Solyndra lost $232.07 million for the fiscal year 2009, $114.13 million for the fiscal year 2007, and $27.17 million for the fiscal year 2006; the company lost $119.2 million in the first nine months of 2009
  • Revenue: $58.8 million in the first nine months of 2009 up from $6.0 million in 2008
  • Megawatts sold: 17.2 megawatts of panels in the nine months ended October 3, 2009, 1.6 megawatts for the fiscal year ended Jan. 3, 2009
  • Conversion efficiency of PV panels:  ~11-14% under standard test conditions
  • Number of commercial installations: Over 100
  • Customers include Alwitra, Carlisle Syntec Incorporated, Geckologic, Phoenix Solar, Premier Solar Systems, Solar Power Inc., Sunconnex Sun System and USE Umwelt Sonne Energie; According to the prospectus, there are "framework agreements" with system integrators and roofing materials manufacturers outlining general terms for the delivery of up to 865 megawatts of its PV systems by the end 2013 (What's a framework agreement?)
  • Cost of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Fab 2 build: $1.38 billion
  • Mentions of Solyndra's actual price per watt and LCOE: None

Principal Shareholders and Ownership Percentage:

  • Argonaut Ventures – 35.74 percent
  • CMEA Ventures VI – 6.81 percent
  • Dr. Christian Gronet – 8.06 percent
  • Madrone Partners – 11 percent
  • Redpoint Ventures – 5.94 percent
  • RockPort Capital Partners II – 7.5 percent
  • U.S. Venture Partners – 10.19 percent
  • All executive officers and directors as a group – 82.56 percent

Any event that awakens the solar and greentech IPO markets out of its torpor is welcome. But successful companies need profits or a road to profits. With no mention of Solyndra's panel price per watt and only a rough idea of its factory capex (Fab 2 is 500 megawatts at $1.38 billion = >$2 per watt, which is significantly more that c-Si or CdTe) there is not enough information to predict the success of this venture. It is all about cost in solar these days and Solyndra has not yet divulged that information.

9 Comments

  • StevePluvia 12/21/09 3:47 PM

    Nice breakdown of Solyndra Eric.  The numbers don’t lie; capex per watt for FSLR plants is below $1/watt vs Solyndra which is OVER $2/watt. Ouch

    The capex alone is going to make Solyndra’s production costs high enough that they may never be able to produce below $1/watt.  Looks like the overhead that would show up outside production costs—SG&A—will also be gigantic.  Ouch.  One other area to lok at is their *module* efficiency.  As I recall they have been reporting efficiencies of their PV—in a flat format—at 11-14%.  Rolled up I think I calculated their efficiency at 8-9%.  Ouch.  Add to that the product requires a *reflective* surface under the tubes… and roof dirt would render any white membrane roof less reflective over time…

    Their saving grace could be good hi heat performance.  Or not.  This same stat could be the key to the future of a-si (AMAT Sunfab, Oerlikon etc)...

    Reply
  • Solvida 12/21/09 5:34 PM

    Thanks for reading Eric, hope it wasn’t on a Kindle.
    Welcome back Steve P, the boards were far from the same without you!
    This company is eating way too much of the ARRA pie already. Who’s doing the diligence on the Gov’t side- Bill Richardson? this could really bite back at Obama. The only legs this product has keeps the little tubes suspended over the roof membrane.

    Reply
  • Ron Nelson 12/22/09 2:47 AM

    Eric,  great set of facts about SOLY!  I agree with Steve’s comment on the high capex.  That’s not just a depr hit to the P&L, it has a huge impact on capital needs.  FSLR has 50%+ gross margins which means at that level, they pay back the mfg capex in 3 or 4 quarters.  I’m guessing that SOLY will likely have 25-30% gross margins, which means they would take 3 years to pay back the capex.

    Reply
  • Ron Nelson 12/22/09 2:49 AM

    Eric,

    I’m surprised that Argonaut Ventures holds such a large % of stock—they have been a small player in the health field previously.  Is this the same bunch?

    Reply
  • reikred 12/22/09 1:12 PM

    Eric, I will add to the compliments: great summary of the S-1.

    Only $59M in revenue for 9months of 2009 is a real shocker.

    Reply
  • Ramesh 12/23/09 12:05 PM

    good summary.  How come no one ever worries about the fact that large scale CIGS performance in the field (rain, shine), over timescale of years, remains to be proven.

    Reply
  • solarinvestor 12/24/09 2:26 PM

    Sounds like a good short if it gets out of the gate

    Reply
  • Kevin Clements 02/19/10 6:02 PM

    You guys seem to know the numbers and it has been months since you wrote this stuff, but I think you guys are dead wrong. FYI - Fab 2 is 500 MW at $1.38 billion = 2.76 $/W IN YEAR 1 !!! Fab 2 has an ANNUAL capacity of 500 MW, that’s how it’s reported in the solar industry. Effectively you divided apples by oranges. Also, to compare a startup to an incumbent (FSLR) seems naive, especially in terms of mfg capex.

    Reply
  • Casey Reed 04/15/10 12:00 AM

    I know Kevin, the denial of innovation and manipulation of false numbers or efficiencies, when thin film technologies in silica are the most promising solar advancements in 20 years makes the fossil fuel advocates bluster with Limbagh overtones… Conservatives fight change and create more ice in glaciers or poo who the need for solar and buy the stock short. I hope they do and when it gets low enough, I will invest in the long term.

    I am negotiating with a distributor for a 4-5KWh system using their 200 watt panels, and I am eagerly watching for the stock release.

    Reply
Need an avatar? Get one here: Gravatar
.