"Model For The Future" Defaults on $500M Stimulus Loan -- Bankrupt

Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#1
Obama was all over these guys, gave speeches on their behalf, all that. Basically, Obama needed a green energy company to be the poster child for his bullshit, so he propped them up with tax-payer dollars, and now they're bankrupt:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...able-energy-aid-after-solyndra-s-failure.html

Obama Stands by Renewable Energy Aid After Solyndra’s Failure
Q
By Ehren Goossens - Sep 1, 2011 11:28 AM CT

inShare
More Print Email
President Barack Obama is standing by his support for renewable energy after Solyndra Inc., a maker of solar panels that received a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee, shut its doors, a White House spokesman said.
Solyndra suspended operations and plans to file for bankruptcy reorganization because it couldn’t compete with larger rivals, the closely held company said in a statement yesterday.
Obama had touted Solyndra as part of the U.S. effort to aid development of alternative energy sources, and its failure was cited by Republican lawmakers who say the subsidies are misguided. It’s the third U.S. solar company to go under in a month, as plunging panel prices and weak global demand drive a wave of industry consolidation.
“While we are disappointed by this particular outcome, we continue to believe the clean-energy jobs race is one that America can, must and will win,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said today in an e-mailed statement. Obama visited the Fremont, California-based company in May 2010, and said the U.S. was in competition with China and Germany for supremacy in renewable energy.
The Energy Department’s portfolio of dozens of other government-backed investments “continues to perform well and is on pace to create thousands of jobs.”
Solyndra is likely to file for Chapter 11 protection in Delaware on Sept. 7, as it evaluates options including selling itself or licensing its technology, David Miller, a spokesman for the Fremont, California-based company, said in an e-mail. About 1,100 full-time and temporary employees have been dismissed. The company didn’t say how much it owes creditors.
Couldn’t Compete
“Solyndra could not achieve full-scale operations rapidly enough to compete in the near term with the resources of larger foreign manufacturers,” the company said in the statement. Its problems were exacerbated by a global glut of solar panels and slowing demand “that in part resulted from uncertainty in governmental incentive programs in Europe.”
The company may have trouble finding a buyer, said Adam Krop, an analyst at Ardour Capital Partners in New York.
“I don’t see anyone swooping in,” he said in an interview. “I don’t see this technology as very viable in the long-term. I see someone maybe buying the facility.”
Solyndra produces cylindrical panels that convert sunlight into electricity using copper-indium-gallium-diselenide thin- film technology. Standard solar panels are flat.
“Manufacturing and assembly costs associated with a Solyndra module aren’t particularly scalable,” Krop said.
The company has borrowed $527 million of the $535 million covered by the Energy Department loan guarantee, Damien LaVera, a department spokesman, said in an e-mail.
Solyndra plans to include the Energy Department loan guarantee in its bankruptcy filing.
‘Dubious Investment’
Solyndra’s failure calls into question Obama’s renewable energy policies, according to two Republican House members.
“It is clear that Solyndra was a dubious investment,” Representatives Fred Upton of Michigan and Cliff Stearns, of Florida, said in a joint statement yesterday. The company “is just the latest casualty of the Obama administration’s failed stimulus.”
Investments in start-up companies inevitably involve some risk, Dan Leistikow, director of the Energy Department’s Office of Public Affairs, said in an article on the agency’s website. “The changing economics have affected a number of solar manufacturers in recent months, including unfortunately, Solyndra,” he said. “We have always recognized that not every one of the innovative companies supported by our loans and loan guarantees would succeed.”
Ceding to China
Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, said the U.S. must continue to support renewable energy. Recent bankruptcies of U.S. solar companies are a warning and “we should be doing everything possible to ensure the United States does not cede the renewable energy market to China and other countries,” he said in an e-mailed statement.
SpectraWatt Inc., a solar company backed by units of Intel Corp. (INTC) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), filed for bankruptcy protection Aug. 19, and Evergreen Solar Inc. (ESLR) did so Aug. 15.
SpectraWatt of Hopewell Junction, New York, received a $150,000 grant in June 2010 from the National Science Foundation, and a grant of $500,000 in June 2009 from the Energy Department’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Solyndra canceled in June 2010 plans to raise as much as $300 million in an initial public offering.
Solyndra’s backers include Argonaut Private Equity, GKFF Investment, CMEA Ventures, Redpoint Ventures, Rockport Capital Partners LLC, US Venture Partners, Virgin Green Fund, and Artis Capital Management LP, according to the company’s December 2009 IPO filing.
tl;dr: Obama needed green energy company poster child, fast-tracked $500M for expansion, spoke on their behalf to benefit their IPO -- company bankrupt, 1100 out of work, investors screwed, $500M in tax-payer dollars gone.
 

Owenay

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed...
May 10, 2007
3,666
248
358
Bizarro World
#2
Obama was all over these guys, gave speeches on their behalf, all that. Basically, Obama needed a green energy company to be the poster child for his bullshit, so he propped them up with tax-payer dollars, and now they're bankrupt:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...able-energy-aid-after-solyndra-s-failure.html



tl;dr: Obama needed green energy company poster child, fast-tracked $500M for expansion, spoke on their behalf to benefit their IPO -- company bankrupt, 1100 out of work, investors screwed, $500M in tax-payer dollars gone.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#3
The Chinese are totally dominating in this technology because of how cheap their labor is and because they've got the government totally behind it. Nevada just awarded a HUGE contract to a Chinese firm for a solar energy farm out in the desert.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#5
This really might be the most perfect feel-good story of the year for Republicans. I think this company might actually be in Pelosi's district as well. (I haven't looked it up, I just know it's just outside of San Francisco)

The Chinese are totally dominating in this technology because of how cheap their labor is and because they've got the government totally behind it. Nevada just awarded a HUGE contract to a Chinese firm for a solar energy farm out in the desert.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#6
How much of that half billion will end up in Barry's campaign coffers?
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#7
How much of that half billion will end up in Barry's campaign coffers?
That's actually a big part of it.

Apparently the company responsible for pushing for the loan is a company that was a huge fund-raiser for Obama.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,918
5,326
838
Wilmington, NC
#8
Oh, you fauxraging righties...just "clinging to the ONE aspect of the stimulus that they can show didnt come true and jump up and down and scream Fox News fed talking points... congrats... you are fitting right into the fold".

"Troll on brother"



:icon_cool
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#9
The Chinese are totally dominating in this technology because of how cheap their labor is and because they've got the government totally behind it. Nevada just awarded a HUGE contract to a Chinese firm for a solar energy farm out in the desert.
And actually, as I read more about it it turns out that a panel of Republicans recognized this, made a large push to make it known, and they proceeded against their advice.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#10
You're right. Shoulda went with a bbbbut Bush defense. Didn't he bailout a couple of car companies in 2008 that ended up filing for bankruptcy?

And actually, as I read more about it it turns out that a panel of Republicans recognized this, made a large push to make it known, and they proceeded against their advice.
So I was right after all? "whaa"

So they failed because of a global glut in supply? I see that as a positive, making it cheaper and more viable for consumers to adopt it. Still, a half billion dollars is a HUGE chunk of change and it's not going to look good for Obama. This is going to make those Caterpillar and that big midwestern RV manufacturer situations pale in comparison.

The funny part is the entire energy industry is subsidized by federal and state governments and has been for years. And you're making your living on it thanks to that. Oh, the irony...

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06...oil-subsidies/
As early as 1916, the federal government instituted income tax incentives to encourage individuals and corporations to drill for oil. During the 1930s, federally financed dams created hydroelectric power. From the 1950s onward, the federal government financed research into nuclear power. More recently, the federal government has provided research funding and other financing to expand the availability of renewable energy sources. Virtually all U.S. energy resources have received or currently receive subsidies.
The federal government provides access to federally owned lands for energy producers. These lands may be leased for their natural resource production. Some subsidy studies point to reduced royalties for oil leases on government lands, where the federal government receives below-market value for oil royalties.
Texas State and Local Energy Subsidies

Like the federal government, Texas state and local governments also provide tax incentives (Exhibit 28-4). For example, Texas gives an exemption from the oil and gas severance tax to encourage producers to re-open wells that have not produced for the previous two years and property tax exemptions are available for energy producers as well. Additionally, Texas local utilities provide homeowner incentives, such as rebates for installing solar photovoltaic systems.
Federal Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies

Federal oil and gas subsidies come in the form of tax incentives for producers and investors; reduced royalties paid by producers for oil leases on federal lands; very small, targeted appropriations to pay for oil and gas research and development; and appropriations for pipeline safety programs and the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

In Texas, state and local subsidies totaled $1.4 billion in 2006.

In 2006, federal tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry amounted to an estimated $3.5 billion, based on tax data from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and additional analysis by the Comptroller. The largest oil and gas tax subsidies are the Expensing of Exploration and Development Costs Credit, the Percentage Depletion Allowance and the Alternative Fuel Production Credit. All are intended to increase the production of domestic oil and gas.
This one probably benefits you the most:

The Percentage Depletion Allowance permits independent fuel mineral producers and royalty owners (including oil, gas, coal, geothermal and uranium) to deduct a fixed percentage of gross income for large upfront expenditures from their corporate and personal income tax.

The tax deduction was first implemented in 1926, primarily to encourage oil and gas exploration. It allows eligible oil and gas producers and royalty owners to deduct some expenses associated with acquiring mineral rights and exploring for possible mineral deposits; development costs such as drilling; and costs for capital equipment such as pumps.

The allowance is available only to independent producers who produce fewer than 1,000 barrels per day and any related royalty owners...
Sorry to go all Southpaw on you with all the copypasta. :action-sm
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#11
Holy fucking apples and oranges, Batman!

First of all, my business isn't subsidized for political reasons, hell, it's not even really subsidized. No one gives me, my investors, or my operators a dime. They simply allow my investors (not even me) tax write offs to off-set for the risks involved in exploration. Even the best exploration companies can only be about 75% accurate when attempting to produce oil and natural gas wells, and if the government took 30% of all of the potential revenues no one would ever drill a well in the US.

And on that topic of the subsidized royalties on state and federal owned lands... I've had a well funded since February which is half owned by the state, and guess what? We flow tested it in February, we have 800 barrels sitting in the collection tanks, we know it's going to flow around 120 barrels a day, and guess how much of that oil has seen the market? None. Guess how much my investors have made? None. Why? Because the beurocracy surrounding the process, we're still waiting on a "distribution" permit. Note, not a drilling permit, not an EPA approval, all that's already done. This is simply a permit that will allow us to sell the oil and NG. So yeah... We've been waiting 6 months to make all of this great subsidized money! And by the way, that great subsidy? We get a 15% discount on our taxes from the revenue. Considering the Joint Venture has been losing roughly $300k a month for 6 months waiting on this god damn permit, they can shove their 15% up their asses.

Now, would you like to discuss the topic at hand? Or would you like to continue to strike personally about things you know nothing about? Because the solar panel industry is ACTUALLY fucking subsidized already. And by actually, I mean the government will pony up 40% of the costs (I think) for any "green" energy production venture. T Boone Pickens is making a fortune on this with his wind-farms right now. So this shitheel company was used as a political stunt and it cost us all half a billion dollars. What does that have to do with tax breaks for oil drillers?

Note -- this is an actual subsidy, not the fucking bullshit that keeps trying to get pinned to petroleum companies. To be subsidized means "to give money to" in this case, not to allow you the privileged of being robbed less.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,420
22,054
398
Northern California
#12
The Chinese are totally dominating in this technology because of how cheap their labor is and because they've got the government totally behind it. Nevada just awarded a HUGE contract to a Chinese firm for a solar energy farm out in the desert.
So what's the answer? Just allow the Chinese to take over and purchase the finished product at a cheaper price than it costs us to create it? Only award contracts to non-unionized companies where the cost of labor is cheaper? Obviously dumping money into American companies isn't working.

American jobs are important, but here 1100 jobs were still lost at the cost of $500 million in tax dollars that other American taxpayers, if they had retained that money, may have spent it in ways that stimulated the economy in a more organic way. Not a single American job was saved under this expenditure.
 

DJ Evel Ed

MayYourCumCrustedCocksBeConstantlyCoveredInCunt
Nov 30, 2003
2,599
74
613
Up your ass!
#14
All I know is, that kid who built a solar panel tree using the "golden ratio" had the right idea. USA needs more innovation, like we had when we were the best, like 100 years ago. We need more output from our generation's Tommy Edison, Hank Ford, Al Bell etc...
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#15
First of all, my business isn't subsidized for political reasons
Holy shit I hope you don't really believe that.

No one gives me, my investors, or my operators a dime.
Well technically they didn't give it to this solar company either. It was a loan guarantee, so now that we're on the hook for it they're now giving it to the banks and other investors that went in on this.

Note -- this is an actual subsidy, not the fucking bullshit that keeps trying to get pinned to petroleum companies. To be subsidized means "to give money to" in this case, not to allow you the privileged of being robbed less.
It's a fair comparison because in its infancy the petroleum industry was directly subsidized as well.

I thought the source was also fair, the government accounting office working for the state of Texas (sorry for the TP troll :icon_cool).
Blame them for throwing around the "subsidy" claim. Not even against the tax breaks your investors get as it's a very risky business. But don't say fiddling with depreciation rates that increase your bottom line aren't a boon to your business.

Now, would you like to discuss the topic at hand?
I did.
So they failed because of a global glut in supply? I see that as a positive, making it cheaper and more viable for consumers to adopt it. Still, a half billion dollars is a HUGE chunk of change and it's not going to look good for Obama. This is going to make those Caterpillar and that big midwestern RV manufacturer situations pale in comparison.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#16
I honestly don't even know how to respond. Fiddling with my depreciation rates? They didn't give money to the solar company?

The words you're saying don't connect to form English sentences in this context.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#17
Besides, none of this bullshit you bring up even fucking matters. This company made solar panels, they didn't build solar farms. Comparing them to a company like mine would be like saying that the government subsidizes a company that makes drill bits or pipe casings.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#18
So what's the answer? Just allow the Chinese to take over and purchase the finished product at a cheaper price than it costs us to create it? Only award contracts to non-unionized companies where the cost of labor is cheaper? Obviously dumping money into American companies isn't working.
Not just in this industry, but something needs to be done with how China has us by the balls because of their cheap labor rates. Tariffs? Call them out on their monetary policies?

American jobs are important, but here 1100 jobs were still lost at the cost of $500 million in tax dollars that other American taxpayers, if they had retained that money, may have spent it in ways that stimulated the economy in a more organic way. Not a single American job was saved under this expenditure.
How though? Our manufacturing sector is virtually non-existent anymore. Been that way for a long time and it's just getting worse.

Sucks all those jobs were lost, but I doubt the final tally will be $500 million. I'm sure some Chinese company will come in and buy up all that shiny new infrastructure for $10 million.

They didn't give money to the solar company?
You do know the difference between a grant and a loan guarantee right? Are you sure you work in finance?
:trollol:
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#19
You do know the difference between a grant and a loan guarantee right? Are you sure you work in finance?
:trollol:
A grant is money directly given. A guarantee is a promise to back a loan if a company defaults. Therefore, since the company failed, what's the difference?

You do know the difference between a tax deduction for an investment and a guaranteed investment.

I am sure you don't work in finance.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#21
A grant is money directly given. A guarantee is a promise to back a loan if a company defaults. Therefore, since the company failed, what's the difference?
Because all federal grants cost taxpayers money. Only defaulted loan guarantees cost us money, not the trillions of of other ones that don't default. Hopefully there's enough in the "portfolio" to offset the losses, but that obviously hasn't been the case for a while now.

But yeah, you've got a point, since the company failed it's really pretty much the same thing. Thank God the government is there to bailout those dumb investors who stupidly bought into this company.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#23
Because all federal grants cost taxpayers money. Only defaulted loan guarantees cost us money, not the trillions of of other ones that don't default. Hopefully there's enough in the "portfolio" to offset the losses, but that obviously hasn't been the case for a while now.

But yeah, you've got a point, since the company failed it's really pretty much the same thing. Thank God the government is there to bailout those dumb investors who stupidly bought into this company.
And you're completely missing the point. The only reason those investors stupidly bought into the company is that Obama told them to. There was opposition all over saying they were a company that was destined to fail, yet they pressed the agenda and guaranteed loans to a company that was almost guaranteed to fail (by all the reasons you stated earlier), so the investors said what the hell since the government was backing them.

The investors were saying it was a bad idea from the beginning.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#24
The Chinese are totally dominating in this technology because of how cheap their labor is and because they've got the government totally behind it. Nevada just awarded a HUGE contract to a Chinese firm for a solar energy farm out in the desert.
You're claiming that the Chinese government is more supportive of solar panel makers than the US one? Ok, now back it up with numbers.

How much money does the US hand out in alternative energy subsidies, and how much does China?
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#25
You're claiming that the Chinese government is more supportive of solar panel makers than the US one? Ok, now back it up with numbers.

How much money does the US hand out in alternative energy subsidies, and how much does China?
He's just talking about cheap labor.