PDA

View Full Version : Obama Contributors - Even Alternative Energy Busineses Going Under



soonercruiser
9/5/2011, 01:28 PM
Solyndra: An omen for Obama’s soon to be announced jobs plan
August 31, 2011 | Filed under Culture Of Corruption,Obama Regime | Posted by Rick Rice
If this isn’t a sign, there aren’t any signs:

Solyndra, a major manufacturer of solar technology in Fremont, has shut its doors, according to employees at the campus.

“I was told by a security guard to get my [stuff] and leave,” one employee said. The company employs a little more than 1,000 employees worldwide, according to its website.

Shortly after it opened a massive $700 million facility, it canceled plans for a public stock offering earlier this year and warned it would be in significant trouble if federal loan guarantees did not go through.

The company has said it will make a statement at 9am California time, though it’s not clear what that statement will be. An NBC Bay Area photographer on the scene reports security guards are not letting visitors on campus. He says “people are standing around in disbelief.” The employees have been given yellow envelopes with instructions on how to get their last checks.

Solyndra was touted by the Obama administration as a prime example of how green technology could deliver jobs. The President visited the facility in May of last year and said “it is just a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism and the fact that we continue to have the best universities in the world, the best technology in the world, and most importantly the best workers in the world. And you guys all represent that. “

The federal government offered $535 million in low cost loan guarantees from the Department of Energy. NBC Bay Area has contacted the White House asking for a statement.


There are apparently lots of folks who are asking for a White House statement:

“We smelled a rat from the onset,” Republican House Energy and Commerce Committee members Rep. Cliff Stearns and Rep. Fred Upton said in a statement to ABC News of the the $535 million government loan guarantee awarded to Solyndra in 2009.

The manufacturer of rooftop solar panels opened in 2005 and in 2009 became the Obama administration’s first recipient of an half-billion dollar energy loan guarantee meant to help minimize the risk to venture capital firms that were backing the solar start-up. Obama made a personal visit to the factory last year to herald its bright future.

ABC News and the Center for Public Integrity’s iWatch News first reported on questions about the choice of Solyndra for the loan in May after the Department of Energy disclosed it was being forced to restructure its loan package for the company, which was showing early signs of financial distress. One of Solyndra’s major investors was George Kaiser, an Oklahoma billionaire who raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama during the 2008 election.
Following the ABC News and iWatch News reports, the House Energy and Commerce Committee opened an investigation into the loan, which Stearns and Upton said today was “suspect from day one.”

“I think what happens is they give some of this money out to people who are either contributors or strong supporters,” Stearns said weeks before Solyndra announced its closing. “I think in the long term we have to worry about the United States government guaranteeing loans for businesses based perhaps upon favoritism.”

http://wizbangblog.com/2011/08/31/solyndra-an-omen-for-obamas-soon-to-be-announced-jobs-plan/


Barack Obama (D)
Top Contributorshttp://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

Midtowner
9/5/2011, 05:38 PM
I guess we could all point at Enron and say that the fundamentals of the 'dirty' energy industry are bad? It's sad that political hacks are using the demise of a promising company due to what appears to be finance issues as some sort of sign affecting the entire economy.

The final quote of Stearns and Upton is downright hilarious though. "I think in the long term we have to worry about the United States government guaranteeing loans for businesses based perhaps on favoritism." We're trying to jump start the economy. If they really think that can be accomplished by cutting government spending (which takes jobs away from the economy), they're in la la land.

REDREX
9/5/2011, 06:12 PM
Bottom line is that the Gov't pissed away over half a Billion $$'s

diverdog
9/5/2011, 07:04 PM
I guess we could all point at Enron and say that the fundamentals of the 'dirty' energy industry are bad? It's sad that political hacks are using the demise of a promising company due to what appears to be finance issues as some sort of sign affecting the entire economy.

The final quote of Stearns and Upton is downright hilarious though. "I think in the long term we have to worry about the United States government guaranteeing loans for businesses based perhaps on favoritism." We're trying to jump start the economy. If they really think that can be accomplished by cutting government spending (which takes jobs away from the economy), they're in la la land.

Or Halliburton.

hawaii 5-0
9/5/2011, 07:11 PM
Bottom line is that the Gov't pissed away over half a Billion $$'s


We've pissed away a lot more than that in Iraq. Just ask the widows and children of the fallen.


5-0


Trump/ Cheney 2012

pphilfran
9/5/2011, 07:41 PM
I can't believe anyone is defending the loan of a half billion dollars that went down the tubes in a year or two...

sappstuf
9/5/2011, 08:46 PM
We've pissed away a lot more than that in Iraq. Just ask the widows and children of the fallen.

5-0

Trump/ Cheney 2012

And ten times more in Vietnam.. We should ask them too.

Or we could just stay on topic.

REDREX
9/5/2011, 09:06 PM
Phil maybe you could get a $500,000,000 loan

pphilfran
9/6/2011, 09:15 AM
Solyndra officials said in a news release that they were suspending operations and planned to seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The move would give the company time to evaluate options, including selling the business or licensing its technology to other companies.

“This was an unexpected outcome and is most unfortunate,” Solyndra chief executive Brian Harrison said in a statement. “Regulatory and policy uncertainties” made it impossible to raise capital to quickly rescue the operation, he said.

Wednesday’s announcement came amid a broader shakeout in the solar industry. Energy Department officials said that less expensive solar panels made by government-subsidized companies in China undercut Solyndra’s products.

Solyndra had repeatedly been highlighted as a model by the Obama administration. Chu attended the groundbreaking of the factory that Solyndra built using the federal loan, and Vice President Joe Biden’s image was beamed to the ceremony through a video feed. In early 2010, independent auditors questioned whether Solyndra could remain a “going concern.” Obama visited Solyndra’s factory in May 2010.

“The future is here,” Obama said in his appearance, praising plans “to hire a thousand workers.”

A month after Obama’s visit, the company withdrew plans for a public stock offering. A few weeks later, Government Accountability Office auditors announced that the Energy Department had given favorable treatment to some loan-guarantee applicants. A GAO report said the department bypassed required steps for funding awards to five applicants, including Solyndra.

badger
9/6/2011, 09:27 AM
It's too bad that the company couldn't succeed. Alas, solar panels are costly and while some might try to claim that they'll eventually pay for themselves, it would take probably 20 years for a solar panel to pay for itself on a average joe's house... and it might need to be replaced, repaired or regularly maintained during that time... likely.

While I'm sure taxpayers everywhere are smarting over half a billion lost to a failed company, how bout the thousand they hired? This was probably seen as really good, secure work, considering the government backing. If half a billion in government loans means no job security, what would it take?

sappstuf
9/6/2011, 09:32 AM
Solyndra officials said in a news release that they were suspending operations and planned to seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The move would give the company time to evaluate options, including selling the business or licensing its technology to other companies.

“This was an unexpected outcome and is most unfortunate,” Solyndra chief executive Brian Harrison said in a statement. “Regulatory and policy uncertainties” made it impossible to raise capital to quickly rescue the operation, he said.

Wednesday’s announcement came amid a broader shakeout in the solar industry. Energy Department officials said that less expensive solar panels made by government-subsidized companies in China undercut Solyndra’s products.

Solyndra had repeatedly been highlighted as a model by the Obama administration. Chu attended the groundbreaking of the factory that Solyndra built using the federal loan, and Vice President Joe Biden’s image was beamed to the ceremony through a video feed. In early 2010, independent auditors questioned whether Solyndra could remain a “going concern.” Obama visited Solyndra’s factory in May 2010.

“The future is here,” Obama said in his appearance, praising plans “to hire a thousand workers.”

A month after Obama’s visit, the company withdrew plans for a public stock offering. A few weeks later, Government Accountability Office auditors announced that the Energy Department had given favorable treatment to some loan-guarantee applicants. A GAO report said the department bypassed required steps for funding awards to five applicants, including Solyndra.

What "regulatory and policy uncertainies" could they possibly mean??

pphilfran
9/6/2011, 09:38 AM
It's too bad that the company couldn't succeed. Alas, solar panels are costly and while some might try to claim that they'll eventually pay for themselves, it would take probably 20 years for a solar panel to pay for itself on a average joe's house... and it might need to be replaced, repaired or regularly maintained during that time... likely.

While I'm sure taxpayers everywhere are smarting over half a billion lost to a failed company, how bout the thousand they hired? This was probably seen as really good, secure work, considering the government backing. If half a billion in government loans means no job security, what would it take?

it never showed a profit...never came close...

The system to give out the loans was flawed...at least according to the GAO...the more I dig the more pizzed I get...

http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d10627high.pdf

The DOE had two mandates...

1. To double renewable energy by 2012 (surprise, surprise)
2. Commit conditionally to loan guarantees for two nuclear power facilities to add a specified minimum amount of capacity in 2010.

However, the two performance goals are too few to reflect the full range of policy goals for the LGP. For example, there is no performance goal for the number of jobs that should be created. The performance goals also do not reflect the full scope of program activities; in particular, although the program has made conditional commitments to issue loan guarantees for energy efficiency projects, there is no performance goal that relates to such projects. Without comprehensive performance goals, DOE lacks the foundation to assess the program’s progress and, more specifically, to determine whether the projects selected for loan guarantees help achieve the desired results.

DOE’s implementation of the LGP has treated applicants inconsistently, favoring some and disadvantaging others. For example, DOE conditionally committed to issuing loan guarantees for some projects prior to completion of external reviews required under DOE procedures. Because applicants must pay for such reviews, this procedural deviation has allowed some applicants to receive conditional commitments before incurring expenses that other applicants had to pay. It is unclear how DOE could have sufficient information to negotiate conditional commitments without such reviews.

DOE lacks systematic mechanisms for LGP applicants to administratively appeal its decisions or to provide feedback to DOE on its process for issuing loan guarantees. Instead, DOE rereviews rejected applications on an ad hoc basis and gathers feedback through public forums and other outreach efforts that do not ensure the views obtained are representative.

Until DOE develops implementation processes it can adhere to consistently, along with systematic approaches for rereviewing applications and obtaining and addressing applicant feedback, it may not fully realize the benefits envisioned for the LGP

sappstuf
9/6/2011, 09:48 AM
It's too bad that the company couldn't succeed. Alas, solar panels are costly and while some might try to claim that they'll eventually pay for themselves, it would take probably 20 years for a solar panel to pay for itself on a average joe's house... and it might need to be replaced, repaired or regularly maintained during that time... likely.

While I'm sure taxpayers everywhere are smarting over half a billion lost to a failed company, how bout the thousand they hired? This was probably seen as really good, secure work, considering the government backing. If half a billion in government loans means no job security, what would it take?

None if you have a profitable business plan that is operated well. Solyndra didn't have any of that.

Obama used to praise the solar industry of Spain... I wonder why he doesn't do that anymore? Oh yeah, it is because the Spanish solar farms were producing energy at night. How is that possible you ask? Pretty simple if you plug in diesel generators and sell it back to the government at subsidized rates....

Solar is not profitable right now, period. If it were, half a billion in government dollars would not have be needed in the first place. Same with ethanol.

pphilfran
9/6/2011, 10:03 AM
This is the prospectus for Solyndra...keep in mind this prospectus was released after they filed for the fed loan...

http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1443115/000119312510058567/ds1a.htm#toc15203_2

In 2009 they had total revenue of 100 million

We have incurred significant net losses since our inception and our ability to achieve or sustain a positive gross margin and profitability depends on our ability to significantly increase our production capacity and reduce our manufacturing cost per watt faster than our average selling prices decrease.

We have incurred significant net losses since our inception, including a net loss of $114.1 million in fiscal 2007, $232.1 million in fiscal 2008 and $172.5 million in fiscal 2009, and we had an accumulated deficit of $557.7 million at January 2, 2010. We expect to continue to incur significant operating and net losses and negative cash flow from operations for the foreseeable future. Moreover, we expect that average selling prices of our photovoltaic systems will continue to decline until we offer our products at a price per watt that is comparable to conventional energy sources and alternative distributed generation technologies. The success of our business depends on our ability to significantly increase our production capacity, including the build-out of Phase I of Fab 2, and significantly reduce our manufacturing cost per watt. If we fail to achieve these objectives and reduce our manufacturing cost per watt faster than our average selling prices decrease, our business will be materially adversely impacted.

In particular, a key component of our expansion plan is the construction and build-out of Fab 2. We estimate that the cost, which is comprised of the total capital required for the land, buildings, improvements, manufacturing equipment and certain sales, marketing and other start-up costs, for Phase I and Phase II of Fab 2 will total approximately $1.38 billion. Although we have already secured funding for Phase I with a DOE guaranteed loan facility and a prior round of equity financing, we still need financing for Phase II. We estimate the cost of Phase II will be approximately $642 million. On September 11, 2009, we applied for a second loan guarantee from the DOE, in the amount of approximately $469 million, to partially fund Phase II. If our application is approved, we intend to fund Phase II with the proceeds from the loan and this offering. Although the DOE determined on November 4, 2009 that our initial application was complete, and we submitted the second part of the application on November 17, 2009, there is no guarantee that the DOE will approve our application in the full amount requested or at all.

Our ability to achieve broader market acceptance for our photovoltaic systems will be impacted by a number of other factors, including:

whether system owners will adopt our CIGS thin film technology in a cylindrical module, which is a new technology with a limited history with respect to reliability and performance;


whether system owners will be willing to purchase photovoltaic systems with an expected 25-year lifespan from us given our limited operating history;

the ability of prospective system owners to obtain long-term financing for our photovoltaic systems on acceptable terms or at all;

our ability to produce photovoltaic systems that compete favorably against other photovoltaic systems on the basis of price, quality and performance;

Most of our manufacturing equipment is customized, and either we manufacture the equipment ourselves or provide our designs to third-party equipment manufacturers. If we are unable to manufacture our equipment for the costs we have budgeted or if our manufacturing equipment fails, we could experience cost overruns, delays in our expansion plans or disruptions in production and may be unable to satisfy customer demand.

pphilfran
9/6/2011, 10:05 AM
Did they get two loans from the DOE? According to the prospectus it appears to be true...

Although we have already secured funding for Phase I with a DOE guaranteed loan facility and a prior round of equity financing,

badger
9/6/2011, 10:44 AM
I realize that politicians feel they have to scratch the backs of those that contributed a lot to their elections. It's fairly notorious, on both sides of the aisle. I remember a rumor about Clinton's second term starting with overnights at the White House for $100k-plus contributors. :D

I have a feeling the gravy train will not go on forever, though... does this mean that they're trying to milk the cash cow while they still can, or cut back to make it last longer?

sappstuf
9/6/2011, 11:10 AM
This is the prospectus for Solyndra...keep in mind this prospectus was released after they filed for the fed loan...

http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1443115/000119312510058567/ds1a.htm#toc15203_2

In 2009 they had total revenue of 100 million

We have incurred significant net losses since our inception and our ability to achieve or sustain a positive gross margin and profitability depends on our ability to significantly increase our production capacity and reduce our manufacturing cost per watt faster than our average selling prices decrease.

We have incurred significant net losses since our inception, including a net loss of $114.1 million in fiscal 2007, $232.1 million in fiscal 2008 and $172.5 million in fiscal 2009, and we had an accumulated deficit of $557.7 million at January 2, 2010. We expect to continue to incur significant operating and net losses and negative cash flow from operations for the foreseeable future. Moreover, we expect that average selling prices of our photovoltaic systems will continue to decline until we offer our products at a price per watt that is comparable to conventional energy sources and alternative distributed generation technologies. The success of our business depends on our ability to significantly increase our production capacity, including the build-out of Phase I of Fab 2, and significantly reduce our manufacturing cost per watt. If we fail to achieve these objectives and reduce our manufacturing cost per watt faster than our average selling prices decrease, our business will be materially adversely impacted.

In particular, a key component of our expansion plan is the construction and build-out of Fab 2. We estimate that the cost, which is comprised of the total capital required for the land, buildings, improvements, manufacturing equipment and certain sales, marketing and other start-up costs, for Phase I and Phase II of Fab 2 will total approximately $1.38 billion. Although we have already secured funding for Phase I with a DOE guaranteed loan facility and a prior round of equity financing, we still need financing for Phase II. We estimate the cost of Phase II will be approximately $642 million. On September 11, 2009, we applied for a second loan guarantee from the DOE, in the amount of approximately $469 million, to partially fund Phase II. If our application is approved, we intend to fund Phase II with the proceeds from the loan and this offering. Although the DOE determined on November 4, 2009 that our initial application was complete, and we submitted the second part of the application on November 17, 2009, there is no guarantee that the DOE will approve our application in the full amount requested or at all.

Our ability to achieve broader market acceptance for our photovoltaic systems will be impacted by a number of other factors, including:

whether system owners will adopt our CIGS thin film technology in a cylindrical module, which is a new technology with a limited history with respect to reliability and performance;


whether system owners will be willing to purchase photovoltaic systems with an expected 25-year lifespan from us given our limited operating history;

the ability of prospective system owners to obtain long-term financing for our photovoltaic systems on acceptable terms or at all;

our ability to produce photovoltaic systems that compete favorably against other photovoltaic systems on the basis of price, quality and performance;

Most of our manufacturing equipment is customized, and either we manufacture the equipment ourselves or provide our designs to third-party equipment manufacturers. If we are unable to manufacture our equipment for the costs we have budgeted or if our manufacturing equipment fails, we could experience cost overruns, delays in our expansion plans or disruptions in production and may be unable to satisfy customer demand.


It sounds like the government loans were just to get them out of severe debt, but then they couldn't get further funding to do anything else.

GrapevineSooner
9/6/2011, 12:11 PM
In other words, a textbook example of throwing good money after bad.

Midtowner
9/6/2011, 01:03 PM
If the government is going to stimulate a sector of our economy, green energy has been a good bet.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=53254

Some companies will always fail. To put it in perspective, this was 1,100 jobs out of several million. A literal drop in the bucket--a molehill being made into a mountain. This is the sort of investment we need if we want the government to create jobs.

Deregulating environmental protections, etc., would actually cost more jobs than it saves. Who do you think builds the new coal plants or retrofits old ones? Who makes sure things are up to code? Creating energy will always have a cost associated with it, and that cost translates directly into jobs gained.

The problem with the EPA is not really that it regulates things or whatever, it's the ridiculous amount of expertise it takes to be in compliance. European rules are written so that there are clear standards, and that if you want a build a plant, you know what the standards are. Not so in the United States where you have to make application after application, experience delay after delay.

What the EPA does is good. It's how it goes about its business that needs a looking at.

JohnnyMack
9/6/2011, 02:44 PM
If the government is going to stimulate a sector of our economy, green energy has been a good bet.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=53254

Some companies will always fail. To put it in perspective, this was 1,100 jobs out of several million. A literal drop in the bucket--a molehill being made into a mountain. This is the sort of investment we need if we want the government to create jobs.

Deregulating environmental protections, etc., would actually cost more jobs than it saves. Who do you think builds the new coal plants or retrofits old ones? Who makes sure things are up to code? Creating energy will always have a cost associated with it, and that cost translates directly into jobs gained.

The problem with the EPA is not really that it regulates things or whatever, it's the ridiculous amount of expertise it takes to be in compliance. European rules are written so that there are clear standards, and that if you want a build a plant, you know what the standards are. Not so in the United States where you have to make application after application, experience delay after delay.

What the EPA does is good. It's how it goes about its business that needs a looking at.

$535 million is just a drop in the bucket? Bruce?

pphilfran
9/6/2011, 04:53 PM
If the government is going to stimulate a sector of our economy, green energy has been a good bet.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=53254

Some companies will always fail. To put it in perspective, this was 1,100 jobs out of several million. A literal drop in the bucket--a molehill being made into a mountain. This is the sort of investment we need if we want the government to create jobs.

Deregulating environmental protections, etc., would actually cost more jobs than it saves. Who do you think builds the new coal plants or retrofits old ones? Who makes sure things are up to code? Creating energy will always have a cost associated with it, and that cost translates directly into jobs gained.

The problem with the EPA is not really that it regulates things or whatever, it's the ridiculous amount of expertise it takes to be in compliance. European rules are written so that there are clear standards, and that if you want a build a plant, you know what the standards are. Not so in the United States where you have to make application after application, experience delay after delay.

What the EPA does is good. It's how it goes about its business that needs a looking at.

This isn't just a jobs issue...

The GAO stated that there were fundamental flaws in the way loans were chosen....there were poor metrics being used to decide who received the money...poor follow through on following the systems to pick those that received loans..

We want to demonize those in the banking industry that stretched the rules when giving out loans...yet we allow the same type process concerning GFL and try the best we can to justify those loans that went down the tubes within two years...

If the administration wishes to push green energy that is fine...but they damn sure better chose the best of the best to get those loans or face legitimate criticism....

I am staying out of the EPA debate...

pphilfran
9/6/2011, 07:12 PM
One other item...

Many believe that we should raise the taxes on venture capital profits...would investment in these type of companies increase or decrease if we raised the tax rate on profits from high risk investments?

Venture capital was already being invested in Solyndra...so that says there was a possibility of success...but they needed a chit pot more to keep growing...and they had to grow to be able to spread the start up costs over larger product sales...

I am sure some VC thought the risk reward was not positive...others felt the amount of money needed was too great for their pocketbook...

DC can help out on risk reward...lower the taxes on initial investment to increase possible profit and give em a little more reward for their risk...

As for the second point, a better risk reward will get more money and companies involved...an extra 10 or 12 VC could pony up the 535 mill and spread out the risk....

Drop the tax rate on the investments you want to grow...let the experts in the field find the best companies in an attempt to minimize the risk...and the risk is great...535 million great...

soonercruiser
9/6/2011, 08:53 PM
Solyndra officials said in a news release that they were suspending operations and planned to seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The move would give the company time to evaluate options, including selling the business or licensing its technology to other companies.

“This was an unexpected outcome and is most unfortunate,” Solyndra chief executive Brian Harrison said in a statement. “Regulatory and policy uncertainties” made it impossible to raise capital to quickly rescue the operation, he said.

Wednesday’s announcement came amid a broader shakeout in the solar industry. Energy Department officials said that less expensive solar panels made by government-subsidized companies in China undercut Solyndra’s products.

Solyndra had repeatedly been highlighted as a model by the Obama administration. Chu attended the groundbreaking of the factory that Solyndra built using the federal loan, and Vice President Joe Biden’s image was beamed to the ceremony through a video feed. In early 2010, independent auditors questioned whether Solyndra could remain a “going concern.” Obama visited Solyndra’s factory in May 2010.

“The future is here,” Obama said in his appearance, praising plans “to hire a thousand workers.”

A month after Obama’s visit, the company withdrew plans for a public stock offering. A few weeks later, Government Accountability Office auditors announced that the Energy Department had given favorable treatment to some loan-guarantee applicants. A GAO report said the department bypassed required steps for funding awards to five applicants, including Solyndra.


Phil,
You sayin' Obama's appearances caused the collapse?
:beguiled:

soonercruiser
9/6/2011, 08:58 PM
It sounds like the government loans were just to get them out of severe debt, but then they couldn't get further funding to do anything else.

BINGO!
It really boils down to that.
Wonder how much the CEO made in salary & bennies on this deal?
And....how much returned to Obama's re-election campaign?

REDREX
9/6/2011, 08:59 PM
Phil,
You sayin' Obama's appearances caused the collapse?
:beguiled:----I hope he does not come close to anything I own

soonercruiser
9/6/2011, 09:03 PM
This isn't just a jobs issue...

The GAO stated that there were fundamental flaws in the way loans were chosen....there were poor metrics being used to decide who received the money...poor follow through on following the systems to pick those that received loans..

We want to demonize those in the banking industry that stretched the rules when giving out loans...yet we allow the same type process concerning GFL and try the best we can to justify those loans that went down the tubes within two years...

If the administration wishes to push green energy that is fine...but they damn sure better chose the best of the best to get those loans or face legitimate criticism....

I am staying out of the EPA debate...

I'm not!
The current EPA and its policies are a roadblock to creating jobs and stimulating American production.
:chargrined:

REDREX
9/6/2011, 09:07 PM
Ed Schultz is a BUFFOON

sappstuf
9/8/2011, 10:55 AM
Not only did Solyndra get the government loans, they got sweetheart interest rates too..


'Connected' Energy Firm Got Lowest Interest Rate on Government Loan

A politically connected solar company that pocketed a half billion dollar government loan, only to shut its doors, fire workers and file for bankruptcy, benefited from a series of breaks in securing the federal funds -- including an interest rate lower than other green energy projects, iWatch News and ABC News found.

The $535 million loan to Solyndra Inc., issued by the U.S. Department of Treasury's Federal Financing Bank, included a quarterly interest rate of 1.025 percent, the government bank reported in July. Of 18 Energy Department loans cited in the bank's report, Solyndra's rate was lowest. Eight other Energy Department projects, each also backed by the Federal Financing Bank, came with rates three or four times higher, the report shows.

Well, at least under bankruptcy, American Taxpayers will get their money back before Obama's political cronies..

Uh oh...


Under terms of the bankruptcy filing, investors including Argonaut -- which led a $75 million round of financing for Solyndra earlier this year -- will stand in line before the federal government and other creditors. When Solyndra announced that round of fundraising this February, it noted that the DOE had refinanced terms of the $535 million loan to extend the payment period. Under an "inter-creditor agreement" cited in the bankruptcy filing, the investors in the $75 million financing are considered first lien holders. That leaves Obama officials to confront the prospect of waiting behind private companies.

sappstuf
9/8/2011, 11:22 AM
Uh oh...


FBI at Solyndra Headquarters

FBI agents armed with search warrants descended this morning on bankrupt solar company Solynrda this morning.

The investigation comes after a request by the Department of Energy's inspector general, FBI spokesman Peter Lee told NBC Bay Area News.

Agents arrived at 7a.m. and are examining the factory. Solynrda has a skeleton crew of 100 workers on the scene, closing the factory down. A CNBC photographer on the scene says the FBI has promised a press conference. An agency spokesperson at its San Francisco headquarters says he's unaware of any such plans.

Solyndra filed for bankruptcy last week, shocking both workers and the Obama administration, which had given the startup hundreds of millions of dollars in low interest loans. Congress has demanded a hearing into the matter.

There are no reports of any arrests at this time.

Solyndra officials made numerous visits -- 20 -- to the White House, according to logs and reporting by The Daily Caller. Solyndra officials in the logs included chairman and founder Christian Gronet and board members Thomas Baruch and David Prend, according to the Caller.

Solyndra filed for bankruptcy last week, shocking both workers and the Obama administration, which had given the startup hundreds of millions of dollars in low-interest loans. Congress has demanded a hearing looking into that loan.

sappstuf
9/13/2011, 10:10 PM
Up until now the Obama White House has said that they did not directly intervene for the Solyndra loan..

We now know they were lying..




The August 2009 e-mails, released toThe Washington Post, show White House officials repeatedly asking OMB reviewers when they would be able to decide on the federal loan and noting a looming press event at which they planned to announce the deal. In response, OMB officials expressed concern that they were being rushed to approve the company’s project without adequate time to assess the risk to taxpayers, according to the e-mails, which were provided by Republican congressional investigators…

One e-mail from an OMB official referred to “the time pressure we are under to sign-off on Solyndra.” Another complained, “There isn’t time to negotiate.”

“We have ended up with a situation of having to do rushed approvals on a couple of occasions (and we are worried about Solyndra at the end of the week),” one official wrote. That August 31, 2009, message, written by a senior OMB staffer and sent to Terrell P. McSweeny, Biden’s domestic policy adviser, concluded, “We would prefer to have sufficient time to do our due diligence reviews.”…

The White House pressure may have had a “tangible impact” on OMB’s risk assessment of the loan, the congressional investigators concluded.

In one e-mail, an OMB staff member questioned whether the review team was using the best model for determining the financial risk to taxpayers in evaluating the Solyndra deal.

“[G]iven the time pressure we are under to sign-off on Solyndra, we don’t have time to change the model,” the staffer wrote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-pushed-500-million-loan-to-solar-company-now-under-investigation/2011/09/13/gIQAr3WbQK_print.html

Those OMB workers were clearly out of line... Who cares about due diligence when the White House has a speech to give!!!

Defenders?

sappstuf
9/13/2011, 10:35 PM
Good grief... I missed this the first time I read the article.


In one e-mail, an assistant to Rahm Emanuel, then White House chief of staff, wrote on Aug. 31, 2009, to OMB about the upcoming Biden announcement on Solyndra and asked whether “there is anything we can help speed along on OMB side.”

An OMB staff member responded: “I would prefer that this announcement be postponed. . . . This is the first loan guarantee and we should have full review with all hands on deck to make sure we get it right.”

Damnation. A government worker trying his/her best to be a good steward of the taxpayer's money.

Can't have that....

soonercruiser
9/14/2011, 09:55 PM
Or Halliburton.

Never ended up as a political scandal.
Get up to date, and stop reading all the LW blogs Diver.

soonercruiser
9/14/2011, 09:57 PM
Solyndra officials said in a news release that they were suspending operations and planned to seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The move would give the company time to evaluate options, including selling the business or licensing its technology to other companies.

“This was an unexpected outcome and is most unfortunate,” Solyndra chief executive Brian Harrison said in a statement. “Regulatory and policy uncertainties” made it impossible to raise capital to quickly rescue the operation, he said.

Wednesday’s announcement came amid a broader shakeout in the solar industry. Energy Department officials said that less expensive solar panels made by government-subsidized companies in China undercut Solyndra’s products.

Solyndra had repeatedly been highlighted as a model by the Obama administration. Chu attended the groundbreaking of the factory that Solyndra built using the federal loan, and Vice President Joe Biden’s image was beamed to the ceremony through a video feed. In early 2010, independent auditors questioned whether Solyndra could remain a “going concern.” Obama visited Solyndra’s factory in May 2010.

“The future is here,” Obama said in his appearance, praising plans “to hire a thousand workers.”

A month after Obama’s visit, the company withdrew plans for a public stock offering. A few weeks later, Government Accountability Office auditors announced that the Energy Department had given favorable treatment to some loan-guarantee applicants. A GAO report said the department bypassed required steps for funding awards to five applicants, including Solyndra.

No problem Phil!
I'm sure if they end up selling the company, the tax-payers will be the first ones paid back.
:chargrined:

diverdog
9/15/2011, 04:23 AM
Up until now the Obama White House has said that they did not directly intervene for the Solyndra loan..

We now know they were lying..





Those OMB workers were clearly out of line... Who cares about due diligence when the White House has a speech to give!!!

Defenders?


Funny no one mentioned that this loan was started under the Bush administration and that a lot of Republicans are going to be embarrassed as well.

Here is to raining on your parade:


May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortage begins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics, Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels.

July 2005: The Bush administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.

February 2006 - October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing, worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.

December 2006: Solyndra applies for a loan guarantee under the 1703 program.

Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.

October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the "company's second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location."

November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra's very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.

January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee just one day before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE because it wasn't ready for conditional commitment.

March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE's credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.

June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domestic manufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50 percent.

September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1703 program. From application to closing, the process took three years -- not the 41 days that is sometimes reported.

January - June 2010: As the price of conventional silicon-based PV continues to fall due to low silicon prices and a glut of solar modules, investors and analysts start questioning Solyndra's ability to compete in the marketplace. Despite pulling its IPO (as dozens of companies did in 2010), Solyndra raises an additional $175 million from investors.

November 2010: Solyndra closes an older manufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant funded by the $535 million loan guarantee. The Fab 2 plant is completed that same month*-- on time and on budget -- employing around 3,000 construction workers during the build-out, just as the DOE projected.

February 2011: Due to a liquidity crisis, investors provide $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company -- which was a going concern -- for market value, which would have guaranteed significant losses.

March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.): "Despite the administration's urgency and haste to pass the [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] ... billions of dollars have yet to be spent."

And House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.): "The whole point of the Democrats' stimulus bill was to spend billions of dollars ... most of the money still hasn't been spent."

June 2011: Average selling prices for solar modules drop to $1.50 a watt and continue on a pathway to $1 a watt. Solyndra says it has cut costs by 50 percent, but analysts worry how the company will compete with the dramatic changes in conventional PV.

August 2011: DOE refuses to restructure the loan a second time.

September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturing facility, lays off 1,100 workers, and files for bankruptcy. The news is touted as a failure of the Obama administration and the loan guarantee office. However, as of Sept. 12, the DOE loan programs office closed or issued conditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The $535 million loan is only 1.3 percent of DOE's loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that's known to be troubled.

Meanwhile, after complaining about stimulus funds moving too quickly, Upton and Stearns are now claiming that the administration was pushing funds out the door too quickly: "In the rush to get stimulus cash out the door, despite repeated claims by the administration to the contrary, some bets were bad from the beginning."

TitoMorelli
9/15/2011, 08:24 AM
January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee just one day before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE because it wasn't ready for conditional commitment.

Ah, from that impeccable source of fair and impartial coverage, ThinkProgress. It must be spot-on, almost all the commenters posting on that site/story are also blaming Bush.


Here's another take on it:


After spending months touting the Obama administration's decision to loan $535 million to the California solar energy upstart Solyndra, top officials took a new tack Wednesday while testifying before Congress about the company's abrupt shut-down and bankruptcy: the loan, they said, was actually the Bush administration's idea. The Energy Department's top lending officer told Congress that the Solyndra loan application was not only filed during President Bush's term, but it surged towards completion before Obama took office in January 2009.

"By the time the Obama administration took office in late January 2009, the loan programs' staff had already established a goal of, and timeline for, issuing the company a conditional loan guarantee commitment in March 2009," said Jonathan Silver, who heads the Energy loan program.

Republicans pushed back hard against this version of events, unearthing internal Energy Department emails that indicate the panel evaluating the loans had made the unanimous decision to shelve Solyndra's application two weeks before Obama took office.

Blaming the failed loan on the Bush administration marked an abrupt turn for the Energy Department, which had championed the Solyndra loan as a model for its efforts to build a so-called "green energy" industry that creates jobs and safeguards the environment. The Solyndra loan was so central to this strategy that the administration initially planned to have Obama personally announce it, and later sent the president to the company's solar panel manufacturing facility in Fremont, California to celebrate its work.

The path taken by Solyndra's application for a massive government loan was just one of several questions explored by members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's investigative subcommittee Wednesday. Members grilled Silver and Jeffrey Zients, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, as to why the initial loan was approved, and why the Solyndra deal was restructured earlier this year. The restructuring came at a time when the company was already showing signs of financial stress, with Chinese competitors offering similar products for less money.

The House investigation into the matter had been underway well before the company collapsed. Federal auditors had already questioned the methods the energy department was using to analyze the loans. And beginning in March, ABC News, in partnership with the Center for Public Integrity's iWatch News, began reporting on simmering questions about the role political influence may have played in Solyndra's selection as the Obama administration's first loan guarantee recipient.

WATCH the Original ABC News Report on Solyndra

On Tuesday, some of the fruits of that investigation began to surface in anticipation of the hearing.

Emails uncovered by investigators for the House Energy and Commerce Committee showed that the Obama White House closely monitored the Energy Department's deliberations over the $535 million government loan, which was backed by an Obama fundraiser. The internal emails uncovered by investigators showed the administration was keenly monitoring the progress of the loan, even as analysts were voicing serious concerns about the risk involved.

"This deal is NOT ready for prime time," one White House budget analyst wrote in a March 10, 2009 email, nine days before the administration formally announced the loan.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/solyndra-blame-bush-obama-officials/story?id=14513389


The previous administration may have been promoting the project, but it is clearly the current administration that chose to fast-track the project to the tune of half a billion dollars despite the warnings of its own officials.

In the past couple of days you've overlooked clear distinctions between Project Gunrunner and Fast and Furious on one thread, gotten into an endless game of "Who's the racist?" (in which I supported your view) with some of the ultra-cons on another thread that I can now only pray a mod will mercifully lock ASAP, and you've resorted to spouting "Nyaah! Nyaah! Nyahh! Obama will make millions, you won't!" in order to - well, I have no idea what possible point such comments could be in order to prove or defend. I think you're finally stooping to my level.:smug:

sappstuf
9/15/2011, 09:56 AM
Funny no one mentioned that this loan was started under the Bush administration and that a lot of Republicans are going to be embarrassed as well.

Here is to raining on your parade:


May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortage begins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics, Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels.

July 2005: The Bush administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.

February 2006 - October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing, worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.

December 2006: Solyndra applies for a loan guarantee under the 1703 program.

Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.

October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the "company's second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location."

November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra's very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.

January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee just one day before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE because it wasn't ready for conditional commitment.March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE's credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.

June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domestic manufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50 percent.

September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1703 program. From application to closing, the process took three years -- not the 41 days that is sometimes reported.

January - June 2010: As the price of conventional silicon-based PV continues to fall due to low silicon prices and a glut of solar modules, investors and analysts start questioning Solyndra's ability to compete in the marketplace. Despite pulling its IPO (as dozens of companies did in 2010), Solyndra raises an additional $175 million from investors.

November 2010: Solyndra closes an older manufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant funded by the $535 million loan guarantee. The Fab 2 plant is completed that same month*-- on time and on budget -- employing around 3,000 construction workers during the build-out, just as the DOE projected.

February 2011: Due to a liquidity crisis, investors provide $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company -- which was a going concern -- for market value, which would have guaranteed significant losses.

March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.): "Despite the administration's urgency and haste to pass the [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] ... billions of dollars have yet to be spent."

And House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.): "The whole point of the Democrats' stimulus bill was to spend billions of dollars ... most of the money still hasn't been spent."

June 2011: Average selling prices for solar modules drop to $1.50 a watt and continue on a pathway to $1 a watt. Solyndra says it has cut costs by 50 percent, but analysts worry how the company will compete with the dramatic changes in conventional PV.

August 2011: DOE refuses to restructure the loan a second time.

September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturing facility, lays off 1,100 workers, and files for bankruptcy. The news is touted as a failure of the Obama administration and the loan guarantee office. However, as of Sept. 12, the DOE loan programs office closed or issued conditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The $535 million loan is only 1.3 percent of DOE's loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that's known to be troubled.

Meanwhile, after complaining about stimulus funds moving too quickly, Upton and Stearns are now claiming that the administration was pushing funds out the door too quickly: "In the rush to get stimulus cash out the door, despite repeated claims by the administration to the contrary, some bets were bad from the beginning."

You do understand you have just vindicated Bush? As of January of 2009 the loan was off. It doesn't matter where it started.. It matters where it finished. It was finished as Bush went out the door. So how did it get turned back on? Do you think it was the same "career civil servants with financial expertise" that disapproved the loan under Bush that approved it under Obama or did Obama replace them with his own people to get the vote he wanted?

President Bush didn't go to their factory... That was Obama. Bush didn't tout this company as leading the economy into the future.. Obama did. Your spin is transparent.

Here is Obama's guy trying to explain who approved the loan.

LCBa1jiTvBc&

JohnnyMack
9/15/2011, 10:09 AM
I'm a big fan of George Kaiser and all he's done for Tulsa, but this whole thing stinks. The combination of his fund raising for Obama, then his nearly 2 dozen trips to the White House, then the govt. allowing him to be put in first position if Solyndra failed doesn't look good. It looks like typical crony capitalism. It's detestable.

OULenexaman
9/15/2011, 11:50 AM
It's the Chicago way......front and center. This story keeps getting bigger legs by the day. Could be the 1st big nail in Obamas political coffin.

JohnnyMack
9/15/2011, 12:12 PM
It's the Chicago way......front and center. This story keeps getting bigger legs by the day. Could be the 1st big nail in Obamas political coffin.

That's a small, pointed response. This is the problem with Washington, not just Obama. What happened here isn't exclusive of a D or an R, it's part of a decades long epidemic that is at the core of what is rotting our nation from within.

diverdog
9/15/2011, 04:03 PM
Ah, from that impeccable source of fair and impartial coverage, ThinkProgress. It must be spot-on, almost all the commenters posting on that site/story are also blaming Bush.


Here's another take on it:



http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/solyndra-blame-bush-obama-officials/story?id=14513389


The previous administration may have been promoting the project, but it is clearly the current administration that chose to fast-track the project to the tune of half a billion dollars despite the warnings of its own officials.

In the past couple of days you've overlooked clear distinctions between Project Gunrunner and Fast and Furious on one thread, gotten into an endless game of "Who's the racist?" (in which I supported your view) with some of the ultra-cons on another thread that I can now only pray a mod will mercifully lock ASAP, and you've resorted to spouting "Nyaah! Nyaah! Nyahh! Obama will make millions, you won't!" in order to - well, I have no idea what possible point such comments could be in order to prove or defend. I think you're finally stooping to my level.:smug:

Tito:

Project Gunrunner was a multi-state endeavor that also included Fast and Furious. Is that not factually correct? Nowhere did I say Bush was responsible for what happened. I also said that Holder should go.

The loan to the green energy company was not fast tracked. To say so is not factual. As a commercial lender the time line I posted seemed reasonable. I did not think the Bush Administration or the Obama administration were out of line making this loan. The fact that VC was also being used to fund the company means that some very smart people thought it would succeed. Most VC companies are risky and the fact that this one failed is a risk that is well known to these guys. A one percent failure on a loan portfolio is well below industry standards. That means the DOE folks are doing a good job of underwriting these projects.

As far as the racist thread goes it should have been locked. I get that the people on the right hate him. I am fine with that but when they start belittling him with what I believe are racist comments then I am taking my gloves off.

diverdog
9/15/2011, 04:07 PM
You do understand you have just vindicated Bush? As of January of 2009 the loan was off. It doesn't matter where it started.. It matters where it finished. It was finished as Bush went out the door. So how did it get turned back on? Do you think it was the same "career civil servants with financial expertise" that disapproved the loan under Bush that approved it under Obama or did Obama replace them with his own people to get the vote he wanted?

President Bush didn't go to their factory... That was Obama. Bush didn't tout this company as leading the economy into the future.. Obama did. Your spin is transparent.

Here is Obama's guy trying to explain who approved the loan.

LCBa1jiTvBc&

Read it again Sapp. On loans this big it is common for them to be sent back to tighten up underwriting standards. It happens to me a lot when I go before our loan committee review board. Anyway the loan could have been approved but their ducks were not in a row.

As I said to Tito I do not see anything wrong with this loan and both sides pushed for it. Loans go south all the time and they appear to have been victims of Chinese competition.

pphilfran
9/15/2011, 04:16 PM
What makes our leadership in DC think that hey are expert as venture capitalists?

Why not offer incentives in sectors you want to grow and then let the vc do the homework, pick the companies, do the investing, and take on all of the risk?

Oh, wait...our leadership wants to actually increase taxes on vc profits...damn, it is the chits when one lets political rhetoric get in the way of sound decision making...

soonercruiser
9/15/2011, 08:38 PM
Funny no one mentioned that this loan was started under the Bush administration and that a lot of Republicans are going to be embarrassed as well.

Here is to raining on your parade:


May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortage begins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics, Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels.

July 2005: The Bush administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.

February 2006 - October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing, worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.

December 2006: Solyndra applies for a loan guarantee under the 1703 program.

Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.

October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the "company's second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location."

November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra's very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.

January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee just one day before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE because it wasn't ready for conditional commitment.

March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE's credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.

June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domestic manufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50 percent.

September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1703 program. From application to closing, the process took three years -- not the 41 days that is sometimes reported.

January - June 2010: As the price of conventional silicon-based PV continues to fall due to low silicon prices and a glut of solar modules, investors and analysts start questioning Solyndra's ability to compete in the marketplace. Despite pulling its IPO (as dozens of companies did in 2010), Solyndra raises an additional $175 million from investors.

November 2010: Solyndra closes an older manufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant funded by the $535 million loan guarantee. The Fab 2 plant is completed that same month*-- on time and on budget -- employing around 3,000 construction workers during the build-out, just as the DOE projected.

February 2011: Due to a liquidity crisis, investors provide $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company -- which was a going concern -- for market value, which would have guaranteed significant losses.

March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.): "Despite the administration's urgency and haste to pass the [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] ... billions of dollars have yet to be spent."

And House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.): "The whole point of the Democrats' stimulus bill was to spend billions of dollars ... most of the money still hasn't been spent."

June 2011: Average selling prices for solar modules drop to $1.50 a watt and continue on a pathway to $1 a watt. Solyndra says it has cut costs by 50 percent, but analysts worry how the company will compete with the dramatic changes in conventional PV.

August 2011: DOE refuses to restructure the loan a second time.

September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturing facility, lays off 1,100 workers, and files for bankruptcy. The news is touted as a failure of the Obama administration and the loan guarantee office. However, as of Sept. 12, the DOE loan programs office closed or issued conditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The $535 million loan is only 1.3 percent of DOE's loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that's known to be troubled.

Meanwhile, after complaining about stimulus funds moving too quickly, Upton and Stearns are now claiming that the administration was pushing funds out the door too quickly: "In the rush to get stimulus cash out the door, despite repeated claims by the administration to the contrary, some bets were bad from the beginning."

Ever think about providing a source DD???
Beside, whomever is guilty should pay! No matter whom!
But, Obama is the one who make this "a big f****** big deal".

soonercruiser
9/15/2011, 08:40 PM
No, YOU do not understand the implications of the story Diver!
Many knew that Sol was on the way down, even with the loan!
And, the tit for tat contribution bundling????

sappstuf
9/17/2011, 07:41 AM
Read it again Sapp. On loans this big it is common for them to be sent back to tighten up underwriting standards. It happens to me a lot when I go before our loan committee review board. Anyway the loan could have been approved but their ducks were not in a row.

As I said to Tito I do not see anything wrong with this loan and both sides pushed for it. Loans go south all the time and they appear to have been victims of Chinese competition.

In August before the loan was approved, people inside the government warned that Solyndra would run out of money in September of 2011.. Crackpots... Oh wait.

You are correct that "their ducks were not in a row". It is a great euphemism for "they have an unsustainable business model". Obama had more information than Bush did and it all pointed to not approve the loan. Instead, the White House was pushing hard for this loan to be approved as fast as possible. It is widely reported on ABCNews.. Just look it up.

I find it hilarious that Obama visited Solyndra and fully endorsed it as a leader of the new "green economy.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/Solyndra%20Obama%20visit.jpg

But when reality hits... Blame Bush! comes to full effect. Under Bush it was just another possible business loan.

Except..


ABC News show that less than two weeks before President Bush left office, on January 9, 2009, the Energy Department’s credit committee made a unanimous decision not to offer a loan commitment to Solyndra.

Unanimous. Let that sink in... Unanimous. So how did the loan get approved under Obama? Obama is the one who staked his reputation on the company because it was "Green" and feels good.

Know what else feels good? Unicorns and pixie dust. Maybe we should sink half a billion into those...

sappstuf
9/17/2011, 08:22 AM
Tito:

Project Gunrunner was a multi-state endeavor that also included Fast and Furious. Is that not factually correct? Nowhere did I say Bush was responsible for what happened. I also said that Holder should go.

The loan to the green energy company was not fast tracked. To say so is not factual. As a commercial lender the time line I posted seemed reasonable. I did not think the Bush Administration or the Obama administration were out of line making this loan. The fact that VC was also being used to fund the company means that some very smart people thought it would succeed. Most VC companies are risky and the fact that this one failed is a risk that is well known to these guys. A one percent failure on a loan portfolio is well below industry standards. That means the DOE folks are doing a good job of underwriting these projects.

As far as the racist thread goes it should have been locked. I get that the people on the right hate him. I am fine with that but when they start belittling him with what I believe are racist comments then I am taking my gloves off.

Are you sure?


We have ended up with a situation of having to do rushed approvals on a couple of occasions (and we are worried about Solyndra at the end of the week),” one official wrote. That August 31, 2009, message, written by a senior OMB staffer and sent to Terrell P. McSweeny, Biden’s domestic policy adviser, concluded, “We would prefer to have sufficient time to do our due diligence reviews.”

pphilfran
9/17/2011, 10:14 AM
What expertise do our leaders in DC have in start up companies? What expertise do they have in picking Company A over Company B? Who has more start up company expertise? DC or the venture capitalists?

soonercruiser
9/18/2011, 09:28 PM
In August before the loan was approved, people inside the government warned that Solyndra would run out of money in September of 2011.. Crackpots... Oh wait.

You are correct that "their ducks were not in a row". It is a great euphemism for "they have an unsustainable business model". Obama had more information than Bush did and it all pointed to not approve the loan. Instead, the White House was pushing hard for this loan to be approved as fast as possible. It is widely reported on ABCNews.. Just look it up.

I find it hilarious that Obama visited Solyndra and fully endorsed it as a leader of the new "green economy.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/Solyndra%20Obama%20visit.jpg

But when reality hits... Blame Bush! comes to full effect. Under Bush it was just another possible business loan.

Except..



Unanimous. Let that sink in... Unanimous. So how did the loan get approved under Obama? Obama is the one who staked his reputation on the company because it was "Green" and feels good.

Know what else feels good? Unicorns and pixie dust. Maybe we should sink half a billion into those...

Great points Sapp!
Well done!
:greedy_dollars: