AMTECH SYSTEMS INC ASYS
March 06, 2012 - 10:46pm EST by
chris815
2012 2013
Price: 8.23 EPS $2.20 $0.00
Shares Out. (in M): 10 P/E 3.7x 0.0x
Market Cap (in $M): 85 P/FCF 4.2x 0.0x
Net Debt (in $M): 0 EBIT 39 0
TEV ($): 15 TEV/EBIT 0.4x 0.0x

Sign up for free guest access to view investment idea with a 45 days delay.

  • Solar
  • Net-Net
 

Description

Amtech Systems, Inc. (ASYS) makes horizontal diffusion furnaces and related equipment used to manufacture silicon-based photovoltaic (PV) cells; they have a 40% market share globally. ASYS is also a net-net. Actually, ASYS is cheaper than a typical net-net when one accounts for the $21.6 million of deferred profit on its balance sheet as of 12/31/11. Assuming they collect their deferred profit, here is what one gets for $8.23 per share:

 

  • $5.95 per share cash and securities (no debt).
  • $2.08 per share deferred profit (contingent on customer acceptance of recently installed furnaces).
  • A business with a leading market share of equipment critical for making silicon-based solar cells that generated $2.28 earnings per share (GAAP) for the 12 ME 9/30/2011.

 

ASYS is especially interesting when one considers that a) solar cells are just now becoming economically competitive with fossil fuels, b) to remain competitive, ASYS customers must continue to buy new furnaces which produce more efficient solar cells at lower costs. We plan to buy ASYS shares in the near future.

 

Valuation & Capital Structure

The following table summarizes ASYS’s current valuation and capital structure.

 

(000 except share price)

 

 

 

Common shares outstanding, 11/4/11

 9,431

 

 

Options, 9/30/11

 611

6.5%

WASP= $10.02

diluted share count

 10,043

   

Share price, 3/6/12

 8.08

   

Market capitalization

 81,146

   

Cash, 12/31/11

 73,953

   

Operating lease obligations, 9/30/11

 3,655

   

Debt, 12/31/11

 -  

   

Enterprise value, net

 10,848

   

 

Note that ASYS has no debt and very modest lease obligations. While the company does not pay a dividend, management announced a stock repurchase plan on 8/17/2011 in which they plan to purchase up to $5 million dollars of common shares (6.2% of diluted shares at the current price) between 8/18/2011 and 8/18/2012. ASYS currently sells for less than the difference between its current assets and all liabilities, but how does its valuation relate to earnings?  The following table summarizes ASYS’s earnings since 2003.

 

(000)

Earnings, GAAP

D+A

Capex

FCF

EBIT

EBITDA

12 ME 9/30/11

22,882

2,814

5,183

20,513

39,072

41,886

12 ME 9/30/10

9,563

1,763

2,929

8,397

15,713

17,476

12 ME 9/30/09

(1,589)

1,559

1,148

(1,178)

(2,009)

(450)

12 ME 9/30/08

2,857

1,339

3,136

1,060

4,547

5,886

12 ME 9/30/07

2,417

706

4,161

(1,038)

2,077

2,783

12 ME 9/30/06

1,318

642

956

1,004

1,598

2,240

12 ME 9/30/05

(259)

675

279

137

(174)

501

 12 ME 9/30/04

(3,165)

510

1,079

(3,734)

(2,101)

(1,591)

12 ME 9/30/03

(100)

484

206

178

(210)

274

 

When reviewing these numbers, it is important to make allowance for the company’s over-capitalized balance sheet, i.e., adjust for excess cash. On this basis, ASYS sells for less than 10x 2007 – 2011 earnings.  In fact, its valuation is absurd based on 2010 and 2011 results (selling for a fraction of one year’s EBITDA). How can this be explained?  We think the answer is that ASYS is in a cyclical business and they are not likely to sell many diffusion furnaces during fiscal 2012 due to a glut of PV modules coupled with softening demand for PV modules.  As explained below, the demand softening is temporary because the economics of generating electricity with PV cells is just now, after 57 years of falling prices, becoming compelling. Given ASYS’s balance sheet, it is likely a matter of time before they start selling more diffusion furnaces. Risks worth worrying about do exist and include the potential of a competing technology that could displace either ASYS’s furnaces or silicon-based PV cells. For instance, there are a number of thin-film PV cells (a different technology that do not require ASYS furnaces) which are available at lower costs than silicon-based PV cells. However, to date, thin-film PV cells are significantly less efficient than silicon-based PV cells (lower efficiency reduces end user return on investment). Customer concentration is also an issue, e.g., one customer accounted for 1/3rd of accounts receivable. Never the less, at this point, ASYS looks well positioned within a growing industry.

 

The Business

ASYS makes horizontal diffusion furnaces used to make silicon semiconductors, primarily silicon-based PV cells. ASYS has a 40% market share of horizontal diffusion furnaces used to make silicon-based PV cells. Their chief competitor is Centrotherm Photovoltaics (CTN, Frankfurt Stock Exchange) which also has a 40% share. ASYS’s furnaces sell for about $1 million each and are used to oxidize, dope and anneal silicon wafers. The company also produces automation equipment for loading and unloading wafers (into diffusion furnaces) as well as semiconductor lapping equipment and materials.  

 

Recently, ASYS developed a furnace which produces higher efficiency N-Type solar cells (superior to the traditional P-type cells). ASYS developed this furnace with two partners including Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd. (YGE, NYSE), one of the largest PV manufacturers. Yingli had exclusive rights to this furnace technology through September 2011 and made extensive use of it to increase the efficiency of their premium Panda PV modules. ASYS is now free to sell N-type furnaces to other PV manufactures. ASYS also purchased 55% of Kingstone Technology in February 2011 for $4.1 million; Kingstone specializes in ion implant technology for semiconductor manufacturing – a technology that is likely to further boost PV cell efficiency. From a business standpoint, ASYS’s N-Type furnaces and ion implant technology are likely to drive furnace sales as PV manufacturers are forced to upgrade to remain competitive. From a valuation perspective, note that Applied Materials acquired Varian Semiconductor (an equipment manufacturer with similar technical expertise to ASYS) on 11/10/2011 for 7x tangible book value and 22x trailing EBITDA.

 

PV background

The PV effect is the creation of an electric current in a material upon exposure to light. Some discoveries take time to commercialize – the PV effect is one such discovery. French physicist Alexandre-Edmond Becquerel first observed the PV effect in 1839. The effect was explained by Einstein, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 “for his services in theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.” In 1954, three scientists working at Bell Laboratories invented the silicon-based PV cell, which was further developed by NASA in order to provide electricity for satellites and spacecraft. The following table summarizes the price development of silicon-based PV sells.

 

 Year

 Wholesale cost / watt, (nominal $)

1954

$250.00

1971

$100.00

1973

$20.00

Nov. 2011

$0.51

 

The table shows that since the invention of silicon-based PV cells in 1954, the cost has dropped from $250 / watt to $0.51 cents / watt (a factor of 490x).  Prices for wafers (the building block of PV cells), PV cells and PV modules (a grouping of PV cells mounted in a frame and covered with glass) have fallen 40% - 60% since the beginning of 2011. This is interesting because solar modules at $1 / watt are able to produce electricity at prices which are competitive (sans subsidy) with the retail price of electricity in many countries, including the U.S.  Let’s examine this assertion. 

 

The economics of PV electricity generation: approaching parity

Industry data indicates that as of this writing, a PV system (a system includes solar modules, a rack to hold the modules, and inverters to convert the DC output of the modules to AC) may be installed in California for $4.40 / watt  resulting in a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE ) produced $0.26 / kWH. Even at an installed cost of 4x the cost of the solar modules (modules are now selling for $1 / watt wholesale) the LCOE is approaching parity with retail electricity prices. Indeed, 22% of Californians currently pay more than $0.26 / kWH for electricity. The above data was provided by Renewable Energy Corp., a vertically integrated manufacturer of PV systems, so it is wise to get some data from an independent source: the writer’s household.  Over the last two years, the price we pay for electricity averaged 17cents per kWH (Fairfield County, Connecticut). We recently solicited a quote for installing a PV system on our roof.  Here is what we received:

 

Quoted PV system for our house, 11/7/2011

Number of modules

 33

Watts / module

 185

Total system watts

 6,105

Number of inverters

 33

Installed cost

$33,977

Cost / watt installed

$5.57

 

There are a number of issues that we have with this quote, not the least of which is that the installed cost is $5.57 / watt: 30% higher than the theoretical installed cost in California and more than twice the installed cost in Germany. But let’s assume for a moment that $33,977 is the best we can do – how much electricity is the quoted system likely to generate and what is the value of that electricity?  Using a publicly available model developed by the U.S. Department of Energy, the following table summarizes the likely output of this system. 

 

Expected Electricity Production, 6 KW system, Fairfield County, CT

 

Month

 Fairfield County,  Solar Radiation (kWh/m2/day)

AC Energy produced (kWh)

Energy Value ($)

January

 3.34

 494

$83.98

February

 4.10

 551

$93.67

March

 4.37

 628

$106.76

April

 5.10

 693

$117.81

May

 5.25

 706

$120.02

June

 5.34

 675

$114.75

July

 5.31

 683

$116.11

August

 5.26

 679

$115.43

September

 4.76

 606

$103.02

October

 4.38

 600

$102.00

November

 3.15

 431

$73.27

December

 2.93

 425

$72.25

12 months

  

 7,171

$1,219.07

 

So, paying $5.57 / watt installed for standard efficiency silicon-based solar modules produces a 3.6% return ($1,219/ $33,997) without subsidy (68 basis points north of 30 year treasuries). Based on further price checks, we can probably get the installed cost down to $25,000 (about the California price in the Renewable Energy Corp. data) which would boost the unsubsidized return to 4.9%.  We don’t get too excited about 5% returns, but the point is, solar power is now approaching cost parity with retail electricity prices and the economics of installing PV cells is likley to improve for the following reasons:

 

1. Higher retail electricity prices in the future. Electiricity prices tend to increase with time.  For instance, from 1980 through 2005, electricity prices in the U.S. doubled. To the extent this trend continues, PV system returns will improve.

 

2. Falling PV module and installation prices and more efficient solar cells. If installed system costs in the U.S. were to fall to the current costs in Germany of $2.86 / watt (Germany is not a low labor cost economy, so this is a reasonable assumption), then we would earn a 7% return on the above system. Considering PV prices have been falling for 57 years, it is probably reasonable to asumme they will continue to fall (though this pattern will not continue forever, there is no data which suggest we are approaching an endpoint). Our research suggests that the PV installation costs are billed at a premium to other construction trades – we suspect that PV installation costs will converge with the costs of other roof and gutter work.  Technology continues to boost the effeciency of PV cells (the amount of solar energy the PV cell converts to electricity). The following table shows the current efficency ratings of PV cells by technology.

 

PV cell efficiency by technology: 2009

 

Technology

Efficiency

Crystalline silicon - mono crystal

20%

Crystalline silicon - multi crystal, cast

14%

Crystalline silicon - multi crystal, ribbon

13%

Thin-film (amorphous silicon)

8%

Thin-film (CdTe or CIGS)

12%

 

Since PV module costs now represent a fraction of PV system installed cost, higher efficency cells boosts returns on capital by leveraging installation costs and roof space constraints.

 

3. Sunnier locations. All things equal, the economics pf PV sells are better in Florida than Connecticut. Of course, all things are never equal: electricity is cheaper in Florida than it is in Connecticut.  

 

And one more thought.  There is currently some debate regarding the appropriate hurdle for generating electricity with PV cells: should electricty cost using PV cells be compared to the retail price of electricity or should it be compared to the wholesale cost of electricity generated using traditional fuels? This debate is easily settled: since there are little or no economies of scale involved in deploying PV cells, the appropriate hurdle is the retail price of electricity.

 

How to make money from this?

The PV industry looks like an industry that is likely to benefit consumers: as electricity costs generated from PV cells fall below retail prices, consumers have the option to reduce their electric bill by installing a PV system. The PV industry also has the potential to disrupt investment returns from traditional generating methods, at least at the margin. Finally, the PV industry has characteristics we typically shun as investors: commoditized products subject to technological obsolescence characterized by falling prices – this sounds like the DRAM business.

 

In the case of ASYS, however, their business is likely to benefit from technological improvements, assuming ASYS is able to keep pace with innovations. This is because PV cell manufacturers are forced to upgrade their production equipment to remain competitive.  For example, ASYS’s N-type furnace, developed in conjunction with Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd., has boosted the efficiency of Yingli’s Panda modules by 1-2%.  Yingli is producing, on a commercial basis, multi crystalline PV cells that achieve 17% efficiency as of this writing, and can produce multi crystalline cells in the laboratory that operate at 19.7% efficiency. Yingli’s mono crystalline product (Panda) currently operates at 19% efficiency. As of 9/30/2011, ASYS is free to sell N-Type furnaces to Yingli’s competitors. Given the dynamics of competition among PV manufacturers, Yingli’s competitors have little choice but to upgrade their production technology to N-Type furnaces (or some equivalent offering by an ASYS competitor) in order to stay in business.  (Assuming they are priced the same, why would customers buy panels with 14% efficiency when 17% efficiency panels are available?). So these harsh dynamics enhance the businesses of equipment manufacturers like ASYS so long as they can keep developing furnaces which produce better PV cells at lower costs. In addition to the N-Type furnaces, which have been commercially deployed, ASYS is developing an ion implant furnace which they think will be commercially viable by 2014 (ion implant technology enhances PV efficiency).

 

A few words about polysilicon

Polysilicon is the raw material used to make silicon-based PV cells as well as computer chips. Polysilicon is a highly refined version of silicon metal, which is made from sand. About 28% of the earth’s crust is comprised of silicon, so it is unlikely the PV industry will run short of raw materials (peak sand? not likely). However, there was a shortage of polysilicon in recent years. The following table compares polysilicon consumption in 2010 to consumption in 2006. 

 

Polysilicon consumption: 2010 vs. 2006

 

 

(000 metric tons)

Delta 2010 vs. 2006

2010

 

 

2006

 

Photovoltaic industry

625%

 121

81.2%

 

 17

41.0%

Semiconductor industry

17%

 28

18.8%

 

 24

59.0%

   

 149

   

 41

 

 

Until 2004, polysilicon used by the PV industry represented about 1/3rd of total polysilicon consumption. The data in the table indicate that the PV industry consumed 41% of the polysilicon produced in 2006.  Between 2006 and 2011, the PV industry increased its polysilicon consumption by 625% and now consumes 81% of the polysilicon produced: the tail became the dog. During this time, polysilicon prices rose from $30/ kg to $400 / kg.  The polysilicon industry responded and ramped capacity. As one would expect, polysilicon prices have fallen and are now back around $30 / kg.  Interestingly, note that even as polysilicon prices went through the roof, PV module prices only rose slightly before continuing their price decline.

 

ASYS History

Jong Whang, ASYS CEO, founded the company in 1981 to make quartz racks (“boats”) and accessories used to hold semi-conductor wafers while they are processed in diffusion furnaces. The company sold shares to the public in1983 and purchased intellectual property from Intel in 1984 which led to the development of their Atmoscan product line, a wafer processing system for use in horizontal diffusion furnaces. ASYS began buying components and assembling horizontal diffusion furnaces and in 1995 they purchased the assets of Tempress B.V., a maker of horizontal diffusion furnaces. In 2004, ASYS acquired Bruce Technologies, another maker of horizontal diffusion furnaces, from Kokusai Semiconductor Equipment Corp., for $3.6 million.  The timing of the Bruce Technologies acquisition was auspicious.  The combination of government incentives and falling PV cell costs caused the PV market to grow exponentially driving demand for ASYS’s furnaces.  At this point, many government incentives are still in place, but as described above, are becoming unnecessary due to the improving PV economics.

 

ASYS Revenue by Country

 

Revenue

FY 2011

FY 2010

FY 2009

U.S.

6%

7%

18%

China

69%

64%

39%

Taiwan

16%

17%

22%

Germany

3%

3%

5%

Other Asia

3%

3%

7%

Other Europe

3%

6%

9%

 

100%

100%

100%

Catalyst

Time - this is a net-net.
    sort by    

    Description

    Amtech Systems, Inc. (ASYS) makes horizontal diffusion furnaces and related equipment used to manufacture silicon-based photovoltaic (PV) cells; they have a 40% market share globally. ASYS is also a net-net. Actually, ASYS is cheaper than a typical net-net when one accounts for the $21.6 million of deferred profit on its balance sheet as of 12/31/11. Assuming they collect their deferred profit, here is what one gets for $8.23 per share:

     

    • $5.95 per share cash and securities (no debt).
    • $2.08 per share deferred profit (contingent on customer acceptance of recently installed furnaces).
    • A business with a leading market share of equipment critical for making silicon-based solar cells that generated $2.28 earnings per share (GAAP) for the 12 ME 9/30/2011.

     

    ASYS is especially interesting when one considers that a) solar cells are just now becoming economically competitive with fossil fuels, b) to remain competitive, ASYS customers must continue to buy new furnaces which produce more efficient solar cells at lower costs. We plan to buy ASYS shares in the near future.

     

    Valuation & Capital Structure

    The following table summarizes ASYS’s current valuation and capital structure.

     

    (000 except share price)

     

     

     

    Common shares outstanding, 11/4/11

     9,431

     

     

    Options, 9/30/11

     611

    6.5%

    WASP= $10.02

    diluted share count

     10,043

       

    Share price, 3/6/12

     8.08

       

    Market capitalization

     81,146

       

    Cash, 12/31/11

     73,953

       

    Operating lease obligations, 9/30/11

     3,655

       

    Debt, 12/31/11

     -  

       

    Enterprise value, net

     10,848

       

     

    Note that ASYS has no debt and very modest lease obligations. While the company does not pay a dividend, management announced a stock repurchase plan on 8/17/2011 in which they plan to purchase up to $5 million dollars of common shares (6.2% of diluted shares at the current price) between 8/18/2011 and 8/18/2012. ASYS currently sells for less than the difference between its current assets and all liabilities, but how does its valuation relate to earnings?  The following table summarizes ASYS’s earnings since 2003.

     

    (000)

    Earnings, GAAP

    D+A

    Capex

    FCF

    EBIT

    EBITDA

    12 ME 9/30/11

    22,882

    2,814

    5,183

    20,513

    39,072

    41,886

    12 ME 9/30/10

    9,563

    1,763

    2,929

    8,397

    15,713

    17,476

    12 ME 9/30/09

    (1,589)

    1,559

    1,148

    (1,178)

    (2,009)

    (450)

    12 ME 9/30/08

    2,857

    1,339

    3,136

    1,060

    4,547

    5,886

    12 ME 9/30/07

    2,417

    706

    4,161

    (1,038)

    2,077

    2,783

    12 ME 9/30/06

    1,318

    642

    956

    1,004

    1,598

    2,240

    12 ME 9/30/05

    (259)

    675

    279

    137

    (174)

    501

     12 ME 9/30/04

    (3,165)

    510

    1,079

    (3,734)

    (2,101)

    (1,591)

    12 ME 9/30/03

    (100)

    484

    206

    178

    (210)

    274

     

    When reviewing these numbers, it is important to make allowance for the company’s over-capitalized balance sheet, i.e., adjust for excess cash. On this basis, ASYS sells for less than 10x 2007 – 2011 earnings.  In fact, its valuation is absurd based on 2010 and 2011 results (selling for a fraction of one year’s EBITDA). How can this be explained?  We think the answer is that ASYS is in a cyclical business and they are not likely to sell many diffusion furnaces during fiscal 2012 due to a glut of PV modules coupled with softening demand for PV modules.  As explained below, the demand softening is temporary because the economics of generating electricity with PV cells is just now, after 57 years of falling prices, becoming compelling. Given ASYS’s balance sheet, it is likely a matter of time before they start selling more diffusion furnaces. Risks worth worrying about do exist and include the potential of a competing technology that could displace either ASYS’s furnaces or silicon-based PV cells. For instance, there are a number of thin-film PV cells (a different technology that do not require ASYS furnaces) which are available at lower costs than silicon-based PV cells. However, to date, thin-film PV cells are significantly less efficient than silicon-based PV cells (lower efficiency reduces end user return on investment). Customer concentration is also an issue, e.g., one customer accounted for 1/3rd of accounts receivable. Never the less, at this point, ASYS looks well positioned within a growing industry.

     

    The Business

    ASYS makes horizontal diffusion furnaces used to make silicon semiconductors, primarily silicon-based PV cells. ASYS has a 40% market share of horizontal diffusion furnaces used to make silicon-based PV cells. Their chief competitor is Centrotherm Photovoltaics (CTN, Frankfurt Stock Exchange) which also has a 40% share. ASYS’s furnaces sell for about $1 million each and are used to oxidize, dope and anneal silicon wafers. The company also produces automation equipment for loading and unloading wafers (into diffusion furnaces) as well as semiconductor lapping equipment and materials.  

     

    Recently, ASYS developed a furnace which produces higher efficiency N-Type solar cells (superior to the traditional P-type cells). ASYS developed this furnace with two partners including Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd. (YGE, NYSE), one of the largest PV manufacturers. Yingli had exclusive rights to this furnace technology through September 2011 and made extensive use of it to increase the efficiency of their premium Panda PV modules. ASYS is now free to sell N-type furnaces to other PV manufactures. ASYS also purchased 55% of Kingstone Technology in February 2011 for $4.1 million; Kingstone specializes in ion implant technology for semiconductor manufacturing – a technology that is likely to further boost PV cell efficiency. From a business standpoint, ASYS’s N-Type furnaces and ion implant technology are likely to drive furnace sales as PV manufacturers are forced to upgrade to remain competitive. From a valuation perspective, note that Applied Materials acquired Varian Semiconductor (an equipment manufacturer with similar technical expertise to ASYS) on 11/10/2011 for 7x tangible book value and 22x trailing EBITDA.

     

    PV background

    The PV effect is the creation of an electric current in a material upon exposure to light. Some discoveries take time to commercialize – the PV effect is one such discovery. French physicist Alexandre-Edmond Becquerel first observed the PV effect in 1839. The effect was explained by Einstein, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 “for his services in theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.” In 1954, three scientists working at Bell Laboratories invented the silicon-based PV cell, which was further developed by NASA in order to provide electricity for satellites and spacecraft. The following table summarizes the price development of silicon-based PV sells.

     

     Year

     Wholesale cost / watt, (nominal $)

    1954

    $250.00

    1971

    $100.00

    1973

    $20.00

    Nov. 2011

    $0.51

     

    The table shows that since the invention of silicon-based PV cells in 1954, the cost has dropped from $250 / watt to $0.51 cents / watt (a factor of 490x).  Prices for wafers (the building block of PV cells), PV cells and PV modules (a grouping of PV cells mounted in a frame and covered with glass) have fallen 40% - 60% since the beginning of 2011. This is interesting because solar modules at $1 / watt are able to produce electricity at prices which are competitive (sans subsidy) with the retail price of electricity in many countries, including the U.S.  Let’s examine this assertion. 

     

    The economics of PV electricity generation: approaching parity

    Industry data indicates that as of this writing, a PV system (a system includes solar modules, a rack to hold the modules, and inverters to convert the DC output of the modules to AC) may be installed in California for $4.40 / watt  resulting in a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE ) produced $0.26 / kWH. Even at an installed cost of 4x the cost of the solar modules (modules are now selling for $1 / watt wholesale) the LCOE is approaching parity with retail electricity prices. Indeed, 22% of Californians currently pay more than $0.26 / kWH for electricity. The above data was provided by Renewable Energy Corp., a vertically integrated manufacturer of PV systems, so it is wise to get some data from an independent source: the writer’s household.  Over the last two years, the price we pay for electricity averaged 17cents per kWH (Fairfield County, Connecticut). We recently solicited a quote for installing a PV system on our roof.  Here is what we received:

     

    Quoted PV system for our house, 11/7/2011

    Number of modules

     33

    Watts / module

     185

    Total system watts

     6,105

    Number of inverters

     33

    Installed cost

    $33,977

    Cost / watt installed

    $5.57

     

    There are a number of issues that we have with this quote, not the least of which is that the installed cost is $5.57 / watt: 30% higher than the theoretical installed cost in California and more than twice the installed cost in Germany. But let’s assume for a moment that $33,977 is the best we can do – how much electricity is the quoted system likely to generate and what is the value of that electricity?  Using a publicly available model developed by the U.S. Department of Energy, the following table summarizes the likely output of this system. 

     

    Expected Electricity Production, 6 KW system, Fairfield County, CT

     

    Month

     Fairfield County,  Solar Radiation (kWh/m2/day)

    AC Energy produced (kWh)

    Energy Value ($)

    January

     3.34

     494

    $83.98

    February

     4.10

     551

    $93.67

    March

     4.37

     628

    $106.76

    April

     5.10

     693

    $117.81

    May

     5.25

     706

    $120.02

    June

     5.34

     675

    $114.75

    July

     5.31

     683

    $116.11

    August

     5.26

     679

    $115.43

    September

     4.76

     606

    $103.02

    October

     4.38

     600

    $102.00

    November

     3.15

     431

    $73.27

    December

     2.93

     425

    $72.25

    12 months

      

     7,171

    $1,219.07

     

    So, paying $5.57 / watt installed for standard efficiency silicon-based solar modules produces a 3.6% return ($1,219/ $33,997) without subsidy (68 basis points north of 30 year treasuries). Based on further price checks, we can probably get the installed cost down to $25,000 (about the California price in the Renewable Energy Corp. data) which would boost the unsubsidized return to 4.9%.  We don’t get too excited about 5% returns, but the point is, solar power is now approaching cost parity with retail electricity prices and the economics of installing PV cells is likley to improve for the following reasons:

     

    1. Higher retail electricity prices in the future. Electiricity prices tend to increase with time.  For instance, from 1980 through 2005, electricity prices in the U.S. doubled. To the extent this trend continues, PV system returns will improve.

     

    2. Falling PV module and installation prices and more efficient solar cells. If installed system costs in the U.S. were to fall to the current costs in Germany of $2.86 / watt (Germany is not a low labor cost economy, so this is a reasonable assumption), then we would earn a 7% return on the above system. Considering PV prices have been falling for 57 years, it is probably reasonable to asumme they will continue to fall (though this pattern will not continue forever, there is no data which suggest we are approaching an endpoint). Our research suggests that the PV installation costs are billed at a premium to other construction trades – we suspect that PV installation costs will converge with the costs of other roof and gutter work.  Technology continues to boost the effeciency of PV cells (the amount of solar energy the PV cell converts to electricity). The following table shows the current efficency ratings of PV cells by technology.

     

    PV cell efficiency by technology: 2009

     

    Technology

    Efficiency

    Crystalline silicon - mono crystal

    20%

    Crystalline silicon - multi crystal, cast

    14%

    Crystalline silicon - multi crystal, ribbon

    13%

    Thin-film (amorphous silicon)

    8%

    Thin-film (CdTe or CIGS)

    12%

     

    Since PV module costs now represent a fraction of PV system installed cost, higher efficency cells boosts returns on capital by leveraging installation costs and roof space constraints.

     

    3. Sunnier locations. All things equal, the economics pf PV sells are better in Florida than Connecticut. Of course, all things are never equal: electricity is cheaper in Florida than it is in Connecticut.  

     

    And one more thought.  There is currently some debate regarding the appropriate hurdle for generating electricity with PV cells: should electricty cost using PV cells be compared to the retail price of electricity or should it be compared to the wholesale cost of electricity generated using traditional fuels? This debate is easily settled: since there are little or no economies of scale involved in deploying PV cells, the appropriate hurdle is the retail price of electricity.

     

    How to make money from this?

    The PV industry looks like an industry that is likely to benefit consumers: as electricity costs generated from PV cells fall below retail prices, consumers have the option to reduce their electric bill by installing a PV system. The PV industry also has the potential to disrupt investment returns from traditional generating methods, at least at the margin. Finally, the PV industry has characteristics we typically shun as investors: commoditized products subject to technological obsolescence characterized by falling prices – this sounds like the DRAM business.

     

    In the case of ASYS, however, their business is likely to benefit from technological improvements, assuming ASYS is able to keep pace with innovations. This is because PV cell manufacturers are forced to upgrade their production equipment to remain competitive.  For example, ASYS’s N-type furnace, developed in conjunction with Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd., has boosted the efficiency of Yingli’s Panda modules by 1-2%.  Yingli is producing, on a commercial basis, multi crystalline PV cells that achieve 17% efficiency as of this writing, and can produce multi crystalline cells in the laboratory that operate at 19.7% efficiency. Yingli’s mono crystalline product (Panda) currently operates at 19% efficiency. As of 9/30/2011, ASYS is free to sell N-Type furnaces to Yingli’s competitors. Given the dynamics of competition among PV manufacturers, Yingli’s competitors have little choice but to upgrade their production technology to N-Type furnaces (or some equivalent offering by an ASYS competitor) in order to stay in business.  (Assuming they are priced the same, why would customers buy panels with 14% efficiency when 17% efficiency panels are available?). So these harsh dynamics enhance the businesses of equipment manufacturers like ASYS so long as they can keep developing furnaces which produce better PV cells at lower costs. In addition to the N-Type furnaces, which have been commercially deployed, ASYS is developing an ion implant furnace which they think will be commercially viable by 2014 (ion implant technology enhances PV efficiency).

     

    A few words about polysilicon

    Polysilicon is the raw material used to make silicon-based PV cells as well as computer chips. Polysilicon is a highly refined version of silicon metal, which is made from sand. About 28% of the earth’s crust is comprised of silicon, so it is unlikely the PV industry will run short of raw materials (peak sand? not likely). However, there was a shortage of polysilicon in recent years. The following table compares polysilicon consumption in 2010 to consumption in 2006. 

     

    Polysilicon consumption: 2010 vs. 2006

     

     

    (000 metric tons)

    Delta 2010 vs. 2006

    2010

     

     

    2006

     

    Photovoltaic industry

    625%

     121

    81.2%

     

     17

    41.0%

    Semiconductor industry

    17%

     28

    18.8%

     

     24

    59.0%

       

     149

       

     41

     

     

    Until 2004, polysilicon used by the PV industry represented about 1/3rd of total polysilicon consumption. The data in the table indicate that the PV industry consumed 41% of the polysilicon produced in 2006.  Between 2006 and 2011, the PV industry increased its polysilicon consumption by 625% and now consumes 81% of the polysilicon produced: the tail became the dog. During this time, polysilicon prices rose from $30/ kg to $400 / kg.  The polysilicon industry responded and ramped capacity. As one would expect, polysilicon prices have fallen and are now back around $30 / kg.  Interestingly, note that even as polysilicon prices went through the roof, PV module prices only rose slightly before continuing their price decline.

     

    ASYS History

    Jong Whang, ASYS CEO, founded the company in 1981 to make quartz racks (“boats”) and accessories used to hold semi-conductor wafers while they are processed in diffusion furnaces. The company sold shares to the public in1983 and purchased intellectual property from Intel in 1984 which led to the development of their Atmoscan product line, a wafer processing system for use in horizontal diffusion furnaces. ASYS began buying components and assembling horizontal diffusion furnaces and in 1995 they purchased the assets of Tempress B.V., a maker of horizontal diffusion furnaces. In 2004, ASYS acquired Bruce Technologies, another maker of horizontal diffusion furnaces, from Kokusai Semiconductor Equipment Corp., for $3.6 million.  The timing of the Bruce Technologies acquisition was auspicious.  The combination of government incentives and falling PV cell costs caused the PV market to grow exponentially driving demand for ASYS’s furnaces.  At this point, many government incentives are still in place, but as described above, are becoming unnecessary due to the improving PV economics.

     

    ASYS Revenue by Country

     

    Revenue

    FY 2011

    FY 2010

    FY 2009

    U.S.

    6%

    7%

    18%

    China

    69%

    64%

    39%

    Taiwan

    16%

    17%

    22%

    Germany

    3%

    3%

    5%

    Other Asia

    3%

    3%

    7%

    Other Europe

    3%

    6%

    9%

     

    100%

    100%

    100%

    Catalyst

    Time - this is a net-net.

    Messages


    SubjectEhh...
    Entry03/07/2012 07:41 PM
    Membercnm3d
    Yes, stock is dirt cheap. We own it as well, but you need to go more into what actual tools are available and how that addresses the market. For instance, the difference between n type cells, where ASYS's tool works, and p type cells, where it doesn't. I'm burnt out from today, but ASYS needs to launch a new tool to compete (I think, need to check notes as someone else is covering it). Last I recall, mgmt indicated to us the tool would launch this summer. The stock is basically, in my opinion, a cheap (okay, REALLY cheap) bet that their new tool catches on.
     
    That being said, increasing efficiency is definitely a trend in the solar space at the moment. If ASYS's new tool works, stock works. If not, dead money. Not a horrible bet.
     
    Their cash burn is small...

    SubjectRE: 2012 losses
    Entry03/07/2012 09:33 PM
    Memberchris815
    They don't think they are going to burn any cash during FY 2012, but you are right, they aren't going to sell many furances this year.  If business conditions continue to be bad toward the end of this calander year, they are likely to start burning cash.  They have already reduced their headcount by 20%.
     
    They lost $876 million during the three months ending 12/31/11 and they ebded 2011 wutg 63.7 million of cash and securities and $21.6 million of deferred profit.  Deferred profit is profit they will make upon customer acceptance of equipment that has been shipped. 
     
    I think you are right about the low valuation - they aren't going to sell many furnaces for a while - no doubt about that. How long is a while - i don't think it is knowable.  What I think is knowable and makes this an interesting investment is:
     
    1. Solid balance sheet, e.g., lots of cash, no debt
    2. Managment team that has been through these cycles for 30 years.  
    3. PV cells are now cost competitive in many jursisdictions and are likely to become more cost competitve in the near future.
    4. Technological improvements force PV manufactuerers to upgrade their equipment.  ASYS management estimates that any furnace they sold more than three years ago is obsolete.  Looking at the efficiency of ASYS's current furnances, much of the installed base of the PV industry is about to become obsolete. 
    5. Net-net valuation.
     

    SubjectInstallation costs US vs Germany
    Entry03/08/2012 10:25 PM
    MemberCoyote05
    This is a little of topic.  Do you know why the large disparity in installation costs?
     
    Thank you for posting,

    SubjectAbout the technologies and markets
    Entry03/09/2012 11:39 AM
    Member4maps
    "solar cells are just now becoming economically competitive with fossil fuels"
     
    So, I'm new to this company but I know solar and semiconductors pretty well. "Horizontal diffusion furnaces" has historically meant processing for single crystal silicon, whereas aren't all the cheaper new solar cells (on $/watt not area) are based on thin film deposition.
     
    As far as some quick searching finds it looks like Bruce and Tempress, the ASYS solar brands, provide wafer processing (e.g. single crystal silicon). In particular "Our horizontal furnaces currently address several steps in the solar and semiconductor manufacturing processes, including diffusion, phosphorus tetrachloride doping, or POCl3, boron tribromide, or BBR3, low-pressure chemical vapor deposition, or LPCVD, oxidation, and annealing."
     
    Now, I've actually done each of those steps in a clean room during my career and it looks like all the equipment on the Bruce site and everything on Tempress except one machine that they resell that is made by another company are all aimed at WAFER processing, not large area thin films.
     
    I think that the general technical consensus is that low cost solar is going to be thin film in the future. That's what First Solar is doing, and Miasole, and Oerlikon, etc. Wafer level solar is still being made a lot of (Suntech for example) but is regarded as previous generation. From looking at this equipment perhaps the market considers ASYS to be in a secular decline in terms of solar market sales.

    SubjectRE: RE: About the technologies and markets
    Entry03/09/2012 07:32 PM
    Member4maps
    Hi chris815
     
    Thanks for responding. I am aware of the $/watt versus $/area argument, which is why I was careful to mention it in my original comment. 
     
    Thanks for bringing up AMAT's restructuring! I had been following that at the time, and my notes from those calls back your point of view. Here are my notes unedited from last year:
    -----------------------
    In 2010 they restructured their solar fabrication technology. In 2009: "Applied developed the Applied SunFab Thin Film Line, which is the world's only integrated glass- in/panel-out production line for manufacturing thin film silicon solar modules using 5.7 square meter (m2) glass substrates", then in 2010:" Applied restructured its Energy and Environmental Solutions segment in response to adverse market conditions for thin film solar, including delays in utility-scale solar adoption, solar panel manufacturers' challenges in obtaining affordable capital, changes and uncertainty in government renewable energy policies, and competitive pressure from c[rystalline]-Si solar technologies. As part of the restructuring, Applied discontinued sales to new customers of its fully-integrated SunFab lines, but will offer individual tools for thin film solar manufacturing." - So they had backed the thin film side of things and are now backing crystalline.
    --------------------------
    bold was in my original notes :)
     
    That is quite interesting, although now I wonder if the ASYS issue is *competition* from AMAT!
     
    Much to think about and you have thought provoking answers which is more than many. Seems like I'll need to dig on this one. A net-net that actually leverages my semiconductor process knowledge is something I can sink my teeth into. You'll likely hear from me again, although very busy so maybe not right away :)
     
    Thanks,
     
      -4maps


    SubjectRE: RE: RE: About the technologies and markets
    Entry03/09/2012 07:35 PM
    Member4maps
    One last comment, as you didn't happen to mention it in your polysilicon discussion: the poly market has dropped like a rock and forecasts say it'll be cheap through 2014-2015. That's very good for crystalline silicon.
     
    I still need to go back through the cases for c-Si vs CIGS etc, it seems like the situation there changes pretty often. No rest for the thorough I suppose.

    SubjectRE: RE: RE: RE: About the technologies and markets
    Entry03/09/2012 09:47 PM
    Memberchris815
    You probably know this better than I - Si is extremely plentiful as a mineral. There was a shortage of Si refining capacity during the initial ramp-up of PV - the polysilicon industry got turned on its head between 2005 and 2010 with the massive demand growth for PV.  That isn't to say that Si prices will forever remain low, but I think the runup we witnessed a few years ago was a one-off event. Interestingly, thin film struggled to compete with silicon based PV even during the run-up in silicon prices (Si wafers stopped falling in price for a while, but they didn't go up much in price).  That is not to say that there won't be a break through in thin film someday or that there are not applications where thin film is prefferable to silicon, but as we sit here today, Si looks like it is likely to remain the primary material for PV for the next several years. 

    SubjectRE: About the technologies and markets
    Entry03/10/2012 04:28 PM
    Member4maps
    I could literally talk about this stuff for hours, careful. I am on surplus wafer mailing lists and even still purchase wafers for a couple very small companies I used to do design/fab work for who I still know socially, just because I know the vendors so well. It's astonishing how rarely that is useful though :(
     
    Si prices historically go through cycles like so many other things in the high capital semi business. It's never the actual planetary abundance of the material that sets the price, it's just whether market conditions justify turning on each plant and then the plants are always kept in service too long and generate an overhang. The swings get worse the more specialized you get, but that doesn't affect solar much.
     
    Now that solar is driving wafer production I'm actually kind of wondering if that cycle might break (for c-Si pricing). That might be kind of interesting for GLW and GSM, but probably not in a good way before 2014 based on currently in-construction poly-Si production facility counts.

    SubjectRE: RE: About the technologies and markets
    Entry03/10/2012 06:20 PM
    Member4maps
    "I could literally talk about this stuff for hours, careful."
     
    That was meant to be as in I'll talk your ear off and bore you, not anything rude. Wording, text, internet, blah.

    SubjectRE: RE: RE: RE: About the technologies and markets
    Entry03/12/2012 07:14 PM
    Member4maps
    Hi Chris-
     
    Horizontal furnaces are still extremely common in the semiconductor industry and I see them in every fab I visit. I used to be the superuser (e.g. guy who kept it running) on some of those back at Berkeley for grad school (decades ago) so I know them very well and always notice the horizontal furnaces. They do unload and load very fast, you're right.
     
    Even in the cutting edge chip fabs (gotta be careful who I mention) I still see them a lot. The vertical ones are so much slower and more expensive I think they are only used for really critical thin geometries and such. Like one might use vertical furnace for gate dielectric in CMOS but then use horizontal for fieldOX and nitrides on most layers. I haven't done the survey in a couple years but I'd be shocked if ASYS has any sort of barrier to competition in the area. The picture of their equipment on their homepage looks just like the old ones.
     
    I haven't had a chance to dig in though. This was all as of a few years ago on the furnaces, I haven't been focused on those recently. I reserve the right to change all conclusions :)
     
     -4maps
      Back to top