Obama and Solyndra

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/emails-ob ... 865&page=2

We'll see where this goes, but given the fact that agencies involved voted against giving Solyndra taxpayer money shortly before Obama took office, the companies financials were suspect, and one of the major players in the company is/was a large figure in fundraising for Obama...and that the White House was closely monitoring the loan process... doesn't look to good for the admin. I'm curious to see what will come of the investigation. This is just the beginning of the information flow.

[Ddrak]

I'll bet nothing comes of it, but looks like something that will beat up a bunch of flak.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

the investigation is in the preliminary stages, and there some of the statements coming from the WH seem to be contradictory to what the emails from the WH are communicating. The WH is giving the impression that it took a hands-off position in relation to the loan, with the exception of monitoring the loan process ofr "timing" purposes. However, emails indicate the administration was actively putting pressure on OMB to make a decision, even in the face of concern that the model OMB was using wasn't appropriate for the process.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63470.html

If the admin was closely monitoring the process, then they knew the history of the company.. it had already been rejected by the Bush administration, the financials were sketchy and OMB was concerned and feeling pressured. Given all that, the question becomes "Why did the Admin advocate for the company and push for the loan?'

I think you look ot Oklahoma for that.. but we'll see as this unfolds.

[Lurker]

Obama shouldn't have applied pressure to rush the OMB review process.

That said, no evidence has been presented that they tried to influence the decision. In fact, the one direct quote from a WH email says, "If you guys think this is a bad idea, I need to unwind the W[est] W[ing] QUICKLY", which seems to show that they were doing exactly what they have said they were doing... monitoring the review process and waiting for a final decision.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You might have missed these....

Office of Management and Budget officials repeatedly expressed concern that they were being pushed to approve the project without adequate time to assess the risk of the loan, according to the Washington Post.

Notice the use of the word "repeatedly".

“We have ended up with a situation of having to do rushed approvals on a couple of occasions,” one OMB official wrote to Terrell P. McSweeny, Biden’s domestic policy adviser, adding, “We would prefer to have sufficient time to do our due diligence reviews.”

In fact, one OMB reviewer pointed out that a credit-rating agency predicted that the project would run out of cash in September 2011.

He missed it by a week, but other than that, he was pretty accurate. Why would a loan be given to a company that was predicted to run out of money in the short term?

In another email, an OMB official expressed concern that the model being used to assess the financial risk to taxpayers was not optimal, but that there wasn’t time to change it. “Given the time pressure we are under to sign-off on Solyndra, we don’t have time to change the model,” the staffer wrote.

Sounds to me like the WH was pressuring OMB to rush the job. Not just once, but repeatedly.

The August 2009 emails also show White House officials repeatedly asking OMB staffers when they could sign off on the loan, and noting that a press event where they hoped to announce the deal. According to the Washington Post, a White House staff member wrote that the reviewers were “walking a fine line with Solyndra needing to begin notifying investors to fly in” for the groundbreaking.”

This leads one to beleive that the WH wasoperating under the assumption that Solyndra would be approved, regardless of what the analysis said. They wanted a rubber stamp so the politics of the moment wouldn't be interrupted, and they were less concerned about the viability of the company or the appropriateness of the loan.

So.. given the fact that company insiders were well connected to Obama, this was the first laon guarantee, and this company had been denied a loan in the past, one would think the Obama admin should have been much more diligent in dropping a half a billion dollars of taxpayer money. This type of approach to spending stimulus dollars doesn;t leave me with a good feeling that the admin really has the best interests of Americans at heart. There were warning signs all over this deal, it was radioactive before Obama even got into office.... why pick this one, flawed deal to drop $500 million-plus when there are so many other companies out there without the polical and financial albatross?

[Lurker]

I'm curious if all the other investors were also "less concerned about the viability of the company".

Solyndra seems to have been developing a brand new type of solar panel system. I don't think it's accurate to say that there were lots of other companies ready to begin production in 2009. There are other companies offering similar solutions now. I'm also not sure it's accurate to say the company was radioactive. They seem to have been a victim of the worsening global economic situation and cheaper Chinese systems. Of course, the Chinese heavily invest in green energy so no surprise there.

Hopefully the company can emerge from Chapter 11 and still succeed. It'll be interesting to see what the FBI investigation finds.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I'm curious if all the other investors were also "less concerned about the viability of the company".

Solyndra seems to have been developing a brand new type of solar panel system. I don't think it's accurate to say that there were lots of other companies ready to begin production in 2009. There are other companies offering similar solutions now. I'm also not sure it's accurate to say the company was radioactive. They seem to have been a victim of the worsening global economic situation and cheaper Chinese systems. Of course, the Chinese heavily invest in green energy so no surprise there.

Hopefully the company can emerge from Chapter 11 and still succeed. It'll be interesting to see what the FBI investigation finds.

Your comment about cheaper Chinese systems was well known at the time of vetting. Their business model was essentially... we'll build something for $100 dollars and sell it for $50. That tye of business model won't last long in the real world, and obvioulsy was identifed by the analsyst who noted Solyndra would run out of money by Sept 2011. And they did.

Also, loaning a company money is different from investing. Invesotrs can lose big, but they can win big too. Entities that loan can only win small, which is why entities that loan to businesses only loan to those with solid financials and a good business plan. And the losses in this thing are born by the taxpayer, not the investors, which is where it should lay. This had red flags all over it.. its past history with the Bush admin... the resistance by the OMB to rush it... the pressure from the WH... the connection to a billionaire Obama bundler... the 20+ known visits to the WH by Solyndra execs... the presence of Obama admin staff at Solybndra board meetings even!

In my opinion, we just shelled out half a billion for what Obama though might turn out to be a nice re-election sound bite. This was mishandled at best. Either the Obama admin was incompetent, or complicit, in sending half a billion to a known high-risk company. Either way, it doesn't make me feel to confident in giving them any more money they could piss away like this.
If Solyndra was going to be the centerpiece of Obama's green jobs program (and it was), it needed to be as pure as 2,000 year old spring water.

[Lurker]

As usual, you are speaking far ahead of any known facts and you're also parroting things that are known to be incorrect.

For example, the loan wasn't "rejected by the Bush Administration" as you repeated. The Bush Administration was trying to get the loan through in January 2009. At that time a DOE committee made up of career employees (not political appointees), said that the project "appears to have merit" but they remanded the application "without prejudice" because it wasn't quite ready for a conditional commitment. Two months later the same group of career staff approve the loan application and it's passed by the DOE credit review board, also made up of career staff.

The rest of the allegations sort of fall apart when the fact that the Bush Administration wanted the loan and didn't reject it is revealed.

It'll be interesting to see what the investigation uncovers but I think you're going to be disappointed.

[Lurker]

Also, loaning a company money is different from investing. Invesotrs can lose big, but they can win big too. Entities that loan can only win small

This statement shows a lack of understanding for what the DOE's 1703 loan program is supposed to accomplish.

[Ddrak]

Their business model was essentially... we'll build something for $100 dollars and sell it for $50. That tye of business model won't last long in the real world.

It's called a "loss leader" and a bunch of companies (Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, IBM, Intel, etc.) use it very successfully to seed the market. Of course, to pull it off you need sufficient financial backing and a plan to eventually recover the loss but the model is absolutely sound and often the only way to get a product out.

Dd

[Kulaf]

That's not a "loss leader". A "loss leader" is a product positioned to get people to come to your place of business in the hopes they will buy other things while they are there.

If this was their only product and they were depending on government financing to prop them up.....then what they were engaged in was "dumping". They tried to market their goods at a price point that would drive other manufacturers out of the market. The US should never be supporting such an activity.

[Lurker]

It wasn't a loss leader and it wasn't dumping.

Cutting edge technologies cost more when they first begin production. Companies often take a loss while starting up before production improvements lower costs. To say the US shouldn't attempt to support cutting edge technologies in this country is absurd unless we just want to throw up our hands and cede the market to countries that are investing in new technologies. And the only "dumping" that went on was done by China.

[Embar Angylwrath]

It wasn't a loss leader and it WAS dumping.

It wasn't a loss leader for the rreasons Kulaf outlined. (Very good description of loss leader Kulaf).

Lurker is incorrect. Solar panel technology is not a "cutting edge technology". Solar panels have been around for decades. Solyndra was involved in improving solar panel power technology. Kind of like moving from a 3G phone to a 4G phone. It's like moving from a 25 mpg car to a 35 mpg car. They were trying to improve efficiencies on the current technology. Very different than a new "cutting edge technology".

[Kulaf]

It wasn't a loss leader and it wasn't dumping.

Cutting edge technologies cost more when they first begin production. Companies often take a loss while starting up before production improvements lower costs. To say the US shouldn't attempt to support cutting edge technologies in this country is absurd unless we just want to throw up our hands and cede the market to countries that are investing in new technologies. And the only "dumping" that went on was done by China.

Correct cutting edge tech costs more when first produced. Like LED TV's when they cost $4500. Now they cost $700. But no one was trying to sell an LED TV for $700 when they first came out. Or when Intel launches a new chip and the price is sky high until production yields can get to a point where they can lower the price. We are not talking competing tech here like Xbox vs. PS/3 vs. Wii.

This smells like dumping.

[Lurker]

I'm fairly certain that none of us have any clue how Solyndra was pricing their product, and they did seem to have an innovative new technology unlike what Embar said (pulled out of his ass). Their company seems to have failed because of a perfect storm where the economic crisis in Europe caused orders to stop and dumping by China killed demand for their newer more expensive technology.

You both just seem to be guessing based on very very little information. We all are.

One thing I do know, to say that the U.S. shouldn't attempt to encourage cutting edge technology because there's risk involved is absurd, especially considering Solyndra was only about 2% of the loans issued under the DOE program.

[Ddrak]

That's not a "loss leader". A "loss leader" is a product positioned to get people to come to your place of business in the hopes they will buy other things while they are there.

If this was their only product and they were depending on government financing to prop them up.....then what they were engaged in was "dumping". They tried to market their goods at a price point that would drive other manufacturers out of the market. The US should never be supporting such an activity.

Pricing a product below cost to be competitive while you refine production and reduce costs in order to turn a profit isn't "dumping". Like I mentioned before, it's common practice and is absolutely a form of loss leader (you just described a different form of it).

Using your definition, all video game consoles are "dumped" because none make anything close to a profit in their initial years and are put at a price point that will let them enter and maintain market share.

Also, if you seriously believe it costs Intel $1000 to build each of their new chips then you're a fool. They're priced at what the market will bear, and below cost if it helps them squeeze AMD.

What's more, the US routinely supports actual dumping in the world market. US farmers (as an example) are massively subsidized by the government and export things like wheat at way below cost in order to maintain world market share. To be all altruistic and say "the US should never be supporting such an activity" is being fairly willfully ignorant.

Not having seen Solyndra's designs I can't comment on whether their solar panel tech was cutting edge or not. There's a hell of a lot of cutting edge tech in solar panels though and a lot of the gains are not by progressive refinement but true jumps in technology.

Dd

[Kulaf]

I know that pricing a product to enter a market while you refine production to be profitable isn't dumping. That was exactly my Intel arguement. So we agree on that even though you seemingly retract it later on.

Game consoles are competing technologies. Can't run an Xbox game on a PS3 or a Wii.....but you can intermingle solar panels with little to no problems. It would be like comparing pricing on Solar Panels with Wind Mills.

I highly doubt Intel is pricing anything below cost to produce. As the market segment leader they would be subject to anti-trust litigation if engaged in monolpolistic behavior. I doubt they would put their shareholders at risk to "squeeze AMD".

Farm products are commodities and their price is set by the market based on supply and demand. You don't buy US Wheat, you buy wheat. Just like we don't buy Iraq oil, we buy oil......it may or may not come from Iraq. US Farmers are heavily subsidized and I personally don't agree with it, but it is not dumping by any definition I am aware of. If you can cite an example of dumping a commodity I would be happy to read it.

Regarding the specific example of this particular company, I have done no research on it. I was going by the example given of their panels costing $100 and them selling it for $50. That is not a sustainable model and asking for the governments assistance in proping them up so they can continue that pricing model is the text book definition of dumping.

Here is an acticle:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/ ... -Solyndra/

Years ago, one of Solyndra's founders and a co-inventor of the original design spoke with me about the firm's technology. That person had already realized that the design was flawed from a commercial standpoint and let me know that the packaging requirements and costs would prevent the Solyndra product from ever being competitive.

[Lurker]

Regarding the specific example of this particular company, I have done no research on it. I was going by the example given of their panels costing $100 and them selling it for $50.

Embar just made that up. He has no more clue about the companies business model or pricing than any of us.

Starting a company costs a huge amount of money. When orders dry up because of an economic downturn and a cheaper older technology is dumped on the market by a competitor it's a guarantee that new company will fail. That's what appears to have happened here, but none of us will know until a postmortem is completed.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Actually, I didn't make that up. Although I admit I don't remember where I read it.

And the hits keep on coming...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

This piece makes a good case that decisions regarding Solyndra, both before the loan and after, were political, not financial. And this was being discussed at some pretty high levels. Right now, I don't see ciminality, although who knows what will fall out of the tree. What i DO see is political positioning being couched in a so-called business decision. There were so many red flags on this deal that the only conclusion (if there was no criminality going on) is that there are some incredibly incompetent people doling out taxpayer money, and the process of is flawed and highly influenced by political pressure.

I also think the O-admin essentially put other solar power companies at a competitive disdavantage by propping up a weak company.

@ Lurker and your comments about the previous admin and Solyndra...

In fact, less than two weeks before Bush left office, the Energy Department's credit committee unanimously decided not to fund Solyndra.

That doesn't sound like Solyndra was advancing towards a loan commitment under the Bush admin.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2 ... redibility

[Lurker]

@ Lurker and your comments about the previous admin and Solyndra...

In fact, less than two weeks before Bush left office, the Energy Department's credit committee unanimously decided not to fund Solyndra.

That doesn't sound like Solyndra was advancing towards a loan commitment under the Bush admin.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2 ... redibility

Embar, linking to an opinion piece that contains the same misinformation you keep repeating doesn't change what really happened.

Here's what I said, and it's still true.

For example, the loan wasn't "rejected by the Bush Administration" as you repeated. The Bush Administration was trying to get the loan through in January 2009. At that time a DOE committee made up of career employees (not political appointees), said that the project "appears to have merit" but they remanded the application "without prejudice" because it wasn't quite ready for a conditional commitment. Two months later the same group of career staff approve the loan application and it's passed by the DOE credit review board, also made up of career staff.