Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

[Dr. NO]

This is the biggest bunch of crooks ever elected. It's YOUR MONEY- Wake up!

I suppose that's because the last administration was appointed, not elected.

Some people just can't give up the cold hard facts, like upholding the laws of states and the electoral college. I will probably be hearing this from people until I pass. Ever hear of JFK? He won by a small margin and the deciding factor was Illinois. DEAD people voted there, but his contender decided to not ask for recounts or voter registration verification "to save the republic". Tricky Dicky had more understanding than the lackeys we have now.

[XtremeJibber2001]

It's quite pathetic the extent you and JG will go to defend the Obama administration in a case which is almost certainly fraud. Maybe Obama was not directly involved, but people he appointed to positions of power most certainly seemed to have engaged in fraud from what I've read.

Then you need to re-read the things you've read. The FBI is investigating Solyndra, not the Obama administration, for falsifying loan documents. If the administration played a direct role in this potential deceit, you'd have government fraud. Is this possible? Sure, but so far, despite the GOP and Faux's most earnest attempts, there is no evidence of this. What is curious is the Republicans seem obsessively interested in finding government fraud here, unlike the suspected $18 billion of contractor fraud many claim occurred under the previous administration.

Now, do you think it was fraud to claim WMDs were in Iraq despite strong evidence to the contrary, or is this just apples and oranges?

Using my example from earlier and applying your logic from above:

If I was your adviser and advised you to invest in a company I otherwise knew would fail - and the company failed - it would be the companies fault for cooking their books. Unless I, as your adviser, played a direct role in the companies failure - only then would you be able to sue me for fraud. See where I'm going with this?

[Coydog]

It's quite pathetic the extent you and JG will go to defend the Obama administration in a case which is almost certainly fraud. Maybe Obama was not directly involved, but people he appointed to positions of power most certainly seemed to have engaged in fraud from what I've read.

Then you need to re-read the things you've read. The FBI is investigating Solyndra, not the Obama administration, for falsifying loan documents. If the administration played a direct role in this potential deceit, you'd have government fraud. Is this possible? Sure, but so far, despite the GOP and Faux's most earnest attempts, there is no evidence of this. What is curious is the Republicans seem obsessively interested in finding government fraud here, unlike the suspected $18 billion of contractor fraud many claim occurred under the previous administration.

Now, do you think it was fraud to claim WMDs were in Iraq despite strong evidence to the contrary, or is this just apples and oranges?

Using my example from earlier and applying your logic from above:

If I was your adviser and advised you to invest in a company I otherwise knew would fail - and the company failed - it would be the companies fault for cooking their books. Unless I, as your adviser, played a direct role in the companies failure - only then would you be able to sue me for fraud. See where I'm going with this?

I'm not sure what the adviser would have to gain in your example. In any case, the situation here is more analogous to an investor (or say a venture capitalist) investing in a company that an adviser believes is a bad bet. The investor invests anyway and the company goes belly up. Has the investor engaged in fraud? Seems much more like using arguably bad judgement to make a bad investment - something investors do all the time particularly in the pursuit of new technology or processes.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Did I? This from the guy who admits "I didn't read the whole report". Sounds like your projecting. Go read my links before I can further engage you in dialogue.

CLAIM: Email Saying Deal Was “NOT Ready For Prime Time” Was Warning About Financial Risk

ABC reported that internal emails “show the Obama 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.” [ABC News, 9/13/11]
CNN claimed “prime time” email showed “some White House budget analysts questioned early on how financially sound Solyndra was.” [CNN, CNN Newsroom, 9/15/11, via Nexis]
Fox’s Neil Cavuto: “Prime time” email was warning that “the loan could be very risky for taxpayers.” [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 9/14/11, via Nexis]
Wash. Examiner: “Prime time” email showed “some officials in the Obama Administration thought the loan was a lousy idea.” [Washington Examiner, 9/14/11]

FACT: The Email Did Not Voice Any Concerns About Risk Of Loan

Email Concerned Timing Of Announcement, Not The Merit Of The Loan Guarantee. Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee released some of the context around this email, which was written by an analyst with the Office of Management and Budget, according to House Republicans. In response to an email about a potential announcement of the Solyndra loan during the President’s visit to California on March 19, 2009, the analyst argued that the presidential announcement should not be made before the loan deal was completed. The email argued that “This deal is NOT ready for prime time” because there were more steps to be completed before the loan guarantee could be finalized — namely, OMB had to review the credit rating and Solyndra needed to raise an additional $200 million in private captial. [House Energy and Commerce Republicans, 9/14/11]
Obama Did Not Announce A Deal During His March California Trip. On March 19, 2009, Obama visited California and held a town hall meeting in Los Angeles. He did not announce the Solyndra deal. The conditional commitment to Solyndra was issued on March 20 and announced by Energy Secretary Steven Chu in a press release. [Department of Energy, 3/20/09]

So this fact you posted leaves a lot out - how were the other e-mails taken out of context?

1) "some White House budget analysts questioned early on how financially sound Solyndra was."
2) “the loan could be very risky for taxpayers.”

Are you suggesting these comments are only related to the timing on the announcement? Seems a bit silly, IMHO.

[XtremeJibber2001]

It's quite pathetic the extent you and JG will go to defend the Obama administration in a case which is almost certainly fraud. Maybe Obama was not directly involved, but people he appointed to positions of power most certainly seemed to have engaged in fraud from what I've read.

Then you need to re-read the things you've read. The FBI is investigating Solyndra, not the Obama administration, for falsifying loan documents. If the administration played a direct role in this potential deceit, you'd have government fraud. Is this possible? Sure, but so far, despite the GOP and Faux's most earnest attempts, there is no evidence of this. What is curious is the Republicans seem obsessively interested in finding government fraud here, unlike the suspected $18 billion of contractor fraud many claim occurred under the previous administration.

Now, do you think it was fraud to claim WMDs were in Iraq despite strong evidence to the contrary, or is this just apples and oranges?

Using my example from earlier and applying your logic from above:

If I was your adviser and advised you to invest in a company I otherwise knew would fail - and the company failed - it would be the companies fault for cooking their books. Unless I, as your adviser, played a direct role in the companies failure - only then would you be able to sue me for fraud. See where I'm going with this?

I'm not sure what the adviser would have to gain in your example. In any case, the situation here is more analogous to an investor (or say a venture capitalist) investing in a company that an adviser believes is a bad bet. The investor invests anyway and the company goes belly up. Has the investor engaged in fraud? Seems much more like using arguably bad judgement to make a bad investment - something investors do all the time particularly in the pursuit of new technology or processes.

If I'm a VC and I hired a consultant group to analyze the value of Solyndra and they said Solyndra was financially stable, when they knew it wasn't, and I invested in Solyndra based on their analysis - this would be fraud. They're misleading me and misrepresenting the company they were hired to assess resulting in an investment they knew was doomed to fail. Similarly, if I obtained reports that showed the company was not in good standing and sold others on investing in the company (e.g., DoE, Obama, Taxpayers) this would also be fraud because the tax-payers have been mislead and deceived into thinking their President and his Department was making a sound investment with their money.

I could be wrong, but Obama certainly didn't frame it to the tax-payers that the Fed was acting as a VC and we should expect some companies to go belly up. Solyndra was their star - the flagship of the program - and now you're telling me Obama/DoE made a bad bet even though they had information signaling them to stay away from Solyndra?

[Streamtracker]

It's quite pathetic the extent you and JG will go to defend the Obama administration in a case which is almost certainly fraud. Maybe Obama was not directly involved, but people he appointed to positions of power most certainly seemed to have engaged in fraud from what I've read.

Then you need to re-read the things you've read. The FBI is investigating Solyndra, not the Obama administration, for falsifying loan documents. If the administration played a direct role in this potential deceit, you'd have government fraud. Is this possible? Sure, but so far, despite the GOP and Faux's most earnest attempts, there is no evidence of this. What is curious is the Republicans seem obsessively interested in finding government fraud here, unlike the suspected $18 billion of contractor fraud many claim occurred under the previous administration.

Now, do you think it was fraud to claim WMDs were in Iraq despite strong evidence to the contrary, or is this just apples and oranges?

Using my example from earlier and applying your logic from above:

If I was your adviser and advised you to invest in a company I otherwise knew would fail - and the company failed - it would be the companies fault for cooking their books. Unless I, as your adviser, played a direct role in the companies failure - only then would you be able to sue me for fraud. See where I'm going with this?

I'm not sure what the adviser would have to gain in your example. In any case, the situation here is more analogous to an investor (or say a venture capitalist) investing in a company that an adviser believes is a bad bet. The investor invests anyway and the company goes belly up. Has the investor engaged in fraud? Seems much more like using arguably bad judgement to make a bad investment - something investors do all the time particularly in the pursuit of new technology or processes.

If I'm a VC and I hired a consultant group to analyze the value of Solyndra and they said Solyndra was financially stable, when they knew it wasn't, and I invested in Solyndra based on their analysis - this would be fraud. They're misleading me and misrepresenting the company they were hired to assess resulting in an investment they knew was doomed to fail. Similarly, if I obtained reports that showed the company was not in good standing and sold others on investing in the company (e.g., DoE, Obama, Taxpayers) this would also be fraud because the tax-payers have been mislead and deceived into thinking their President and his Department was making a sound investment with their money.

I could be wrong, but Obama certainly didn't frame it to the tax-payers that the Fed was acting as a VC and we should expect some companies to go belly up. Solyndra was their star - the flagship of the program - and now you're telling me Obama/DoE made a bad bet even though they had information signaling them to stay away from Solyndra?

Did you miss all those links and quotes I posted that show that it was thought it was a good investment at the time?

ACT: Solyndra Was Seen By Many As Promising
Solyndra Raised $1 Billion In Private Capital. Time noted that “in addition to government loan guarantees, Solyndra also scored over $1 billion in private capital–including from GOP-friendly investors like the Walton family of Wal-Mart.” [Time, 9/15/11]
WSJ Ranked Solyndra As The Top U.S. Clean Tech Company. In 2010, the Wall Street Journal ranked Solyndra the top clean-tech company with the “capital, executive experience and investor know-how to succeed in an increasingly crowded field.” The “research firm VentureSource (owned by NewsCorp., which also owns Dow Jones & Co., publisher of the Journal) calculated the rankings, applying a set of financial criteria to some 350 U.S.-based venture-backed businesses in clean technology.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/7/10]
WSJ Also Ranked Solyndra In Top Five “Next Big” Venture-Backed Companies. The Wall Street Journal ranked Solyndra number five in a list of the “top 50 venture-backed companies.” The rankings were calculated based on “the track record of success for the venture-capital investors who sit on the company’s board (Board Ranking); the amount of capital raised by the company over the last three years, in comparison to its peers (Total Equity Ranking); the track record of success for the company’s founders and chief executive (Executive Ranking);” “the recent growth in the value of the company (Valuation Ranking)” and the rankings of Dow Jones venture capital reporters and editors. [Wall Street Journal, 3/9/10]
MIT’s Technology Review Chose Solyndra As One Of The World’s 50 Most Innovative Companies. The Technology Review evaluated companies based on their “business model[s], strategies for deploying and scaling up its technologies, and the likelihood of success.” [Technology Review, 2/23/10]
Analyst Cited Solyndra As A Company That Could Have A “Breakthrough Around Cost And Efficiency.” From an April 2009 San Jose Mercury News report:
Craig Irwin, an energy analyst with Merriman Curhan Ford in San Francisco, agrees the current slowdown in the solar industry ”will filter out the most innovative companies and really help promote the next generation of leaders” to produce lower cost solar technologies.
“As the economic equation is really squeezed, people want to see better performing (solar) panels and lower costs,” he said.
Irwin cited Fremont-based Solyndra as a company he believes has some “very interesting technologies that could allow a real breakthrough around cost and efficiency.” [San Jose Mercury News, 4/17/09, via Nexis]
Reuters: Venture Capitalists Point To Solyndra As One Of The Top 10 Companies “Ripest” To Go Public. Reuters reported in August 2009:
An informal poll of venture capitalists and others pointed to six privately held companies as the ripest for acquisition or readiness to go public, out of 34 cited in industries ranging from alternative energy to social networking.
For now, the Silicon Valley Six say they intend to keep growing rather than agreeing to be acquired or go public during the recession.
The top four are business social network LinkedIn, solar panel maker Solyndra, smart grid company Silver Spring, and Zynga, a casual games company whose products run on social networks like Facebook. [Reuters, 8/19/09, via CNNMoney]
Market Conditions Shifted Significantly from 2009 to 2011. A Bloomberg News report noted that Solyndra had “advantages that were more important in 2009 when it received a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee to build a factory” than they are now, noting that the price of the silicon-based panels with which Solyndra was competing “has fallen 46 percent since then.” The article also quoted Julian Hawking of Abound Solar Inc., who stated: “When Solyndra started up it was a completely different time for the industry. Nobody expected the huge drop in polysilicon prices.” [Bloomberg, 9/14/11]

What is your evidence that the Obama administration went into this knowing it was a bad risk? I have not seen anything convincing. If you are getting your info from Fox, than you've been hearing a lot of bark with no bite.

Look at the Bloomberg quote I highlighted. Bloomberg is no liberal rag. " Nobody expected the huge drop in polysilicon prices"

[XtremeJibber2001]

What is your evidence that the Obama administration went into this knowing it was a bad risk? I have not seen anything convincing. If you are getting your info from Fox, than you've been hearing a lot of bark with no bite.

Look at the Bloomberg quote I highlighted. Bloomberg is no liberal rag. " Nobody expected the huge drop in polysilicon prices"

When have I ever posted from some left-leaning website? My news stories are from the AP or CNN (okay okay and an occasional WSJ), but if you think thinkprogress.org is some fair and balanced news source then you're out of your mind

Anyways, here are some blurbs from the AP article I posted to start this thread:

The email, released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee as part of its investigation into the Solyndra loan, showed that Obama administration officials were concerned about Solyndra's financial health even as they publicly declared the solar panel maker in good shape.

Even as Obama praised the company's plans to hire more than 1,000 workers, warning signs were being sent from within the government and from outside analysts who questioned Solyndra's viability as a "going concern."

At least three reports by federal watchdogs over the past two years warned that the Energy Department had not fully developed the controls needed to manage the multibillion-dollar loan program that provided the loan to Solyndra Inc., a now-bankrupt solar panel manufacturer.

Emails obtained by The Associated Press show that a White House official dismissed reports about Solyndra's gloomy future. An email from Greg Nelson, a White House official who had been involved in the planning of Obama's May 2010 trip to Solyndra's headquarters, to a Solyndra executive downplayed a July 2010 news story in a trade publication that criticized the company's financial health.

"Seems B.S.," Nelson wrote.

A 2009 report by the Energy Department's inspector general warned that the DOE lacked the necessary quality control for the loan guarantee program, which was created in 2005 to support clean-energy projects that could not obtain conventional bank loans due to high risks.

Even so, warnings about the company persisted. A report last year by auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers said Solyndra had suffered recurring losses from operations and negative cash flows, raising "substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern."

But last May, a Solyndra email informed the White House that "things are going well" at the company and that it had "good market momentum, the factory is ramping up and our plan puts at cash positive later this year. Hopefully, we'll have a great story to tell toward the end of the year."

[Coydog]

If I'm a VC and I hired a consultant group to analyze the value of Solyndra and they said Solyndra was financially stable, when they knew it wasn't, and I invested in Solyndra based on their analysis - this would be fraud.

Yes. The consultants purposely misled you and you relied on this information - kinda like what the investment banks did during the financial meltdown.

Similarly, if I obtained reports that showed the company was not in good standing and sold others on investing in the company (e.g., DoE, Obama, Taxpayers) this would also be fraud because the tax-payers have been mislead and deceived into thinking their President and his Department was making a sound investment with their money.

No, if you are the investor, this is not even remotely similar. It is not fraud or otherwise illegal for an investor to make a bad investment even if there is data to suggest the investment is not sound. Investors have the right to evaluate data any way they want. This happens every day in the investment community - it's called risk. The government Investing in green technology (or any technology for that matter) also entails risk. Some of those rockets in the space program blew up and no one called it fraud even if some previously suspected the engine design was faulty.

[XtremeJibber2001]

If I'm a VC and I hired a consultant group to analyze the value of Solyndra and they said Solyndra was financially stable, when they knew it wasn't, and I invested in Solyndra based on their analysis - this would be fraud.

Yes. The consultants purposely misled you and you relied on this information - kinda like what the investment banks did during the financial meltdown.

Similarly, if I obtained reports that showed the company was not in good standing and sold others on investing in the company (e.g., DoE, Obama, Taxpayers) this would also be fraud because the tax-payers have been mislead and deceived into thinking their President and his Department was making a sound investment with their money.

No, if you are the investor, this is not even remotely similar. It is not fraud or otherwise illegal for an investor to make a bad investment even if there is data to suggest the investment is not sound. Investors have the right to evaluate data any way they want. This happens every day in the investment community - it's called risk. The government Investing in green technology (or any technology for that matter) also entails risk. Some of those rockets in the space program blew up and no one called it fraud even if some previously suspected the engine design was faulty.

Okay - we agree. So I will change my tune ... I don't think Obama and the DoE engaged in fraud, but rather that they mislead the American people.

[Coydog]

Okay - we agree. So I will change my tune ... I don't think Obama and the DoE engaged in fraud, but rather that they mislead the American people.

From the data I've seen, it seems the Obama administration may have been way too eager to extend loans to Solyndra in order to make a big show of the green jobs opportunity.

Of course, you are free to believe the Obama administration purposely misled you and also free to continue to believe the Bush administration did not misled the American people about WMDs.

[Streamtracker]

Jibber - I quoted Bloomberg!!!!! A Bloomberg article reports that it was good investment at the time. Do you know what Bloomberg is? Hint, it is not a left-wing website.

Bloomberg L.P. is a privately held financial software, media, and data company. Bloomberg makes up one third of the $16 billion global financial data market[3] with estimated revenue of $6.9 billion.[4] Bloomberg L.P. was founded by Michael Bloomberg (current Mayor of New York City) with the help of Thomas Secunda, Duncan MacMillan, and Charles Zegar in 1981 and a 30% ownership investment by Merrill Lynch.[5] The company provides financial software tools such as analytics and equity trading platform, data services and news to financial companies and organizations around the world through the Bloomberg Terminal (via its Bloomberg Professional Service),[6] its core money-generating product. Many customers use only a small fraction of the machines' 30,146 functions.[7] Bloomberg L.P. has grown to include a global news service, including television, radio, the Internet and printed publications.

Your comment deserves two

[Streamtracker]

Jibber here's another liberal source for you - The Wall Street Journal

http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/documents/NE ... THING.html

Please note they ranked Solyndra Inc. as 5th in their next big thing survey of 50 top venture-backed companies in March 2010.

All the thinkprogress link I gave you was to point out that Bloomberg, the WSJ, and whole bunch of other conservative sources were calling Solyndra Inc. a good bet. I wouldn't trust Thinkprogress if they didn't source and they even provide links so you can check their sources. And I have never considered CNN to be a reliable source of anything except tepid pablum for the masses.

Glad to see you no longer think it was fraud. But you are even wrong about the administration misleading the American people - the business world thought at time it was a good deal, so why wouldn't the Obama administration also think so?

The business world got it wrong "Nobody expected the huge drop in polysilicon prices". Nobody would include the Obama administration.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I don't care what some magazine says ... an independent accounting firm said the company was in trouble and it was.

[Bubba]

Magazines thought Enron was a solid company. Analysts thought Enron was a solid company. Arthur Anderson thought Enron was a solid company (although some in the company ended up aiding and abetting the fraud).

The SEC thought Bernie Madoff was legit. Investors thought Bernie Madoff was legit.

Fraud is not always easy to detect, although in both cases above there should have been enough warning signs to raise questions. Was the Solyndra deal a fraud? It at least bears questioning.

[Coydog]

I don't care what some magazine says ... an independent accounting firm said the company was in trouble and it was.

Yeah, 6 months after the loan received final approval.