Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

Anything and Everything political, express your view, but play nice
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 20210
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

Nothing shocking here really - poor controls, ignorance, and throwing money at the problem. Even an independent Accounting Firm reported concerns (you know - the same ones that audit all large public companies to protect investors and 401k plans everywhere) about Solyndra and it was ignored. Maybe worst of all? Tax payers won't be getting much (if any) of the loan back as the deal was structured to pay off investors first.

Change we can believe in.
Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

(CBS/AP)

WASHINGTON - White House officials discussed the political ramifications of a possible default by a troubled solar energy company that received more than $500 million in federal loans, newly released emails show.

Emails released Thursday night show the Obama administration privately worried about the effect of a default by Solyndra Inc. on the president's re-election campaign.

"The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad," an official from the Office of Management and Budget wrote in a Jan. 31 email to a senior OMB official. "The timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up."

That message has turned out to be a fairly accurate prophecy of Solyndra's failure haunting President Obama's 2012 campaign, even before the end of 2011.

In remarks on the Senate floor Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., argued that Solyndra's bankruptcy this month was just another reason to fight against the president's jobs plan.

"This place was supposed to be the poster child of how the original stimulus would create jobs. Now it's bankrupt and most of its 1,100 employees are out of work," McConnell said.

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.

Solyndra, which received $528 million in federal loans under the stimulus law, declared bankruptcy late last month and laid off 1,100 workers.

The Silicon Valley company was the first renewable-energy company to receive a loan guarantee under the 2009 stimulus law, and the Obama administration frequently touted Solyndra as a model for its clean energy program. President Obama visited the company's Fremont, Calif., headquarters last year.

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.

In July 2010, the Government Accountability Office said the Energy Department had bypassed required steps for funding awards to five of 10 applicants that received conditional loan guarantees.

The report did not publicly identify the companies that were not properly vetted, but congressional investigators say one of them was Solyndra. The company was the first to receive a loan guarantee after the program was expanded under the 2009 stimulus law.

In March, DOE Inspector General Gregory Friedman again faulted the loan program for poor record keeping. A report by Friedman said the program "could not always readily demonstrate, through systematically organized records ... how it resolved or mitigated relevant risks prior to granting loan guarantees." According to the report, the department kept limited or no electronic data on 15 of 18 loan guarantees examined.

Documentation for the remaining three projects was more robust, the report said, "but did not include all of the information necessary ... to evaluate the applicant's credit worthiness and/or the risks associated with the projects."

Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the Energy Department, said all reviews were completed before any taxpayer money was obligated.

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."

Nelson, the White House official, replied: "Fantastic to hear that business is doing well — keep up the good work! We're cheering for you."

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the White House did not influence the Solyndra loan, which he said was made on "a merit-based process" by DOE.

"There's no evidence that the White House was involved in the loan," Carney said Thursday. Emails that show White House officials pressuring the administration's budget office about the loan were about scheduling, he said.

"The White House was involved in trying to find out when a decision would be made, so ... staff here could make a decision about the vice president's having an event" at Solyndra headquarters in September 2009, Carney said.

The FBI recently raided Solyndra's headquarters, shortly after Solyndra filed for bankruptcy and laid off 1,100 workers.

A U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the case under seal, said the search was related to a fraud investigation into whether Solyndra filed inaccurate documents with the government.

Meanwhile, the Treasury Department's inspector general said Thursday it has opened an investigation into the Solyndra loan.

Spokesman Richard Delmar said the inspector general is reviewing the role and actions of the Federal Financing Bank, a government corporation supervised by the Treasury Department. The bank provided the low-interest loan to Solyndra. The loan is one at least 15 loans totaling more than $6 billion made by the financing bank as part of the stimulus program

The FBI has executed search warrants at Solyndra's headquarters and talked to top executives. The Energy Department's inspector general and the House Energy and Commerce Committee also are investigating Solyndra and the DOE's loan guarantee program, which has provided billions in loan guarantees to renewable energy companies.

The loan guarantees essentially make it easier for the companies to get financing, because the government guarantees repayment in the event of default. In Solyndra's case, the loan came from the government itself, but private banks often provide the financing.

The Obama administration is moving to finalize as many as 15 loan guarantees for renewable-energy companies before the stimulus program ends on Sept. 30. Republicans question whether that could lead to more loans to companies that fail like Solyndra.

LaVera said the department won't take any shortcuts during the approval process.

"We will only close the deals that are ready to close on Sept. 30," he said.
Cityskier
Wanted Poster
Posts: 3165
Joined: Nov 8th, '04, 11:08
Location: NYC

Re: Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

Post by Cityskier »

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Even an independent Accounting Firm reported concerns (you know - the same ones that audit all large public companies to protect investors and 401k plans everywhere)
Like E&Y did at Lehman? Thank god THOSE investors are safe. Do you think before you type?
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 20210
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Re: Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

Cityskier wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Even an independent Accounting Firm reported concerns (you know - the same ones that audit all large public companies to protect investors and 401k plans everywhere)
Like E&Y did at Lehman? Thank god THOSE investors are safe. Do you think before you type?
E&Y did an audit to attest Lehman's financials were compliant with financial reporting and disclosure standards (which they were under GAAP and IFRS). Am I missing something? Seems like you have a beef with GAAP/IFRS, not with the public accounting firms.
Cityskier
Wanted Poster
Posts: 3165
Joined: Nov 8th, '04, 11:08
Location: NYC

Re: Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

Post by Cityskier »

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
Cityskier wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Even an independent Accounting Firm reported concerns (you know - the same ones that audit all large public companies to protect investors and 401k plans everywhere)
Like E&Y did at Lehman? Thank god THOSE investors are safe. Do you think before you type?
E&Y did an audit to attest Lehman's financials were compliant with financial reporting and disclosure standards (which they were under GAAP and IFRS). Am I missing something? Seems like you have a beef with GAAP/IFRS, not with the public accounting firms.
My beef is with GAAP/IFRS? Are you for real?

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http ... ng-llp.pdf

The State of New York doesn't engage in civil litigation against public accounting firms as a reward for their good work. The attorney general gets involved when there are indications of massive fraud.

===================

New York State v. Ernst & Young

The New York attorney general in December 2010 sued Ernst & Young, accusing it of helping Lehman to mislead investors. Ernst & Young, Lehman’s longtime outside auditor, certified the financial statements of Lehman from 2001 until the firm’s bankruptcy filing in September 2008. The lawsuit focuses on the accounting firm's approval of a much-criticized accounting maneuver employed by Lehman that allowed it to remove debt from its balance sheet.

The controversial transactions involved “the surreptitious removal of tens of billions of dollars of securities from Lehman’s balance sheet in order to create a false impression of Lehman’s liquidity, thereby defrauding the investing public,” the complaint said.

The lawsuit seeks the return of the entirety of fees that Ernst & Young collected for work performed for Lehman from 2001 to 2008, exceeding $150 million, plus investor damages and equitable relief, the lawsuit said. An Ernst & Young spokesman was not immediately available for comment.

The lawsuit focuses on an accounting maneuver known inside Lehman as Repo 105. This tactic temporarily removed as much as $50 billion of assets from its balance sheet to give the appearance that the firm had reduced its debt levels. It often did this just before the end of a financial quarter, the lawsuit said.

=====================

Now that's good auditing...
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 20210
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Re: Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

Cityskier wrote:My beef is with GAAP/IFRS? Are you for real?

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http ... ng-llp.pdf

The State of New York doesn't engage in civil litigation against public accounting firms as a reward for their good work. The attorney general gets involved when there are indications of massive fraud.
Ah okay. I wasn't aware that every time the State of NY gets involved in civil litigation the accused is automatically guilty. If it's such an open and shut case then why aren't criminal charges being pursued?

In the last fiscal year that Lehman was audited (2008) GAAP didn't require disclosures regarding repo transactions as sales. Is your understanding of GAAP different? Cuomo has to do something so of course he's going to press charges, but that doesn't mean it's a slam dunk that the accounting firm did something wrong (e.g., no criminal charges were filed).

We're getting on a bit of a tangent here. You seem vehemently driven to pursue (and declare guilty) any and all parties simply on the suspicion of fraud. Yet you conveniently ignore the obvious negligence of the Federal Government under Obama to defraud tax payers.
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26953
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Re: Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

Post by Bubba »

From what the State of New York is alleging in the lawsuit, it looks like something similar to what Arthur Anderson did for Enron - apply accounting rules as written in allowing off-balance sheet financing without regard to the total amount that was taken off the balance sheet. There is nothing wrong with off-balance sheet financing per se, rather it is the amount that is taken off that really matters. I would guess (no CPA here) that intent to defraud may enter into the equation in any legal action. Anyway, as I recall, following the Enron debacle, Arthur Anderson went belly up even though they eventually won the legal action on appeal.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 20210
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Re: Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

Bubba wrote:From what the State of New York is alleging in the lawsuit, it looks like something similar to what Arthur Anderson did for Enron - apply accounting rules as written in allowing off-balance sheet financing without regard to the total amount that was taken off the balance sheet. There is nothing wrong with off-balance sheet financing per se, rather it is the amount that is taken off that really matters. I would guess (no CPA here) that intent to defraud may enter into the equation in any legal action. Anyway, as I recall, following the Enron debacle, Arthur Anderson went belly up even though they eventually won the legal action on appeal.
So in other words - it's a GAAP issue. The guidance in GAAP was not specific or clear enough to result in the necessary disclosures from the accounting firm(s). This is why (not so surprisingly) the FASB updated its disclosure guidance as it pertains to Repo 105 transactions in 2009 (after the Lehman bankruptcy).
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26953
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Re: Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

Post by Bubba »

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
Bubba wrote:From what the State of New York is alleging in the lawsuit, it looks like something similar to what Arthur Anderson did for Enron - apply accounting rules as written in allowing off-balance sheet financing without regard to the total amount that was taken off the balance sheet. There is nothing wrong with off-balance sheet financing per se, rather it is the amount that is taken off that really matters. I would guess (no CPA here) that intent to defraud may enter into the equation in any legal action. Anyway, as I recall, following the Enron debacle, Arthur Anderson went belly up even though they eventually won the legal action on appeal.
So in other words - it's a GAAP issue. The guidance in GAAP was not specific or clear enough to result in the necessary disclosures from the accounting firm(s). This is why (not so surprisingly) the FASB updated its disclosure guidance as it pertains to Repo 105 transactions in 2009 (after the Lehman bankruptcy).
I'm not sure I would draw that conclusion but, since accounting rules are subject to interpretation, some interpret the rules with more leeway than others. Enron was clearly aggressive in their accounting - everyone in Houston and anyone doing business with them knew that. What we didn't know was that they had grossly overstepped the line into fraudulent behavior. Is that what Lehman, aided and abetted by Ernst & Young, did? I don't know enough about the case to have an opinion but I don't accept indictments as evidence in criminal cases nor do I accept allegations in a cirvil suit as evidence either.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 20210
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Re: Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

Bubba wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
Bubba wrote:From what the State of New York is alleging in the lawsuit, it looks like something similar to what Arthur Anderson did for Enron - apply accounting rules as written in allowing off-balance sheet financing without regard to the total amount that was taken off the balance sheet. There is nothing wrong with off-balance sheet financing per se, rather it is the amount that is taken off that really matters. I would guess (no CPA here) that intent to defraud may enter into the equation in any legal action. Anyway, as I recall, following the Enron debacle, Arthur Anderson went belly up even though they eventually won the legal action on appeal.
So in other words - it's a GAAP issue. The guidance in GAAP was not specific or clear enough to result in the necessary disclosures from the accounting firm(s). This is why (not so surprisingly) the FASB updated its disclosure guidance as it pertains to Repo 105 transactions in 2009 (after the Lehman bankruptcy).
I'm not sure I would draw that conclusion but, since accounting rules are subject to interpretation, some interpret the rules with more leeway than others. Enron was clearly aggressive in their accounting - everyone in Houston and anyone doing business with them knew that. What we didn't know was that they had grossly overstepped the line into fraudulent behavior. Is that what Lehman, aided and abetted by Ernst & Young, did? I don't know enough about the case to have an opinion but I don't accept indictments as evidence in criminal cases nor do I accept allegations in a cirvil suit as evidence either.
Adding detail and guidance limits interpretation. If we say there is "nothing wrong with off-balance sheet financing", but feel that there is a line between acceptable off-balance financing and unacceptable off-balance sheet finance - this amount should be specified (e.g., off-balance financing material to the balance sheet should be disclosed).

It's too early to tell if anyone knowingly engaged (e.g., Enron/WorldCom) in fraudulent behavior, but to insinuate this is already a forgone conclusion (see Cityskier) is silly.

Judging by E&Y's CEO - it doesn't seem like he or the firm is too worried about the allegations. After all, AA went bankrupt after being charged and convicted of obstruction of justice - not through their lack of independence or improper auditing/application of GAAP.
Streamtracker
Black Carver
Posts: 491
Joined: Aug 29th, '11, 12:36
Location: Sunderland, MA

Re: Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

Post by Streamtracker »

It's a fake scandal! http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/opini ... ml?_r=2&hp

This is hardly a reason to piss on Green Energy investment. This loan was only a small fraction of the loans given for green energy. Loans are always a risk and sometimes an enterprise fails. It might had been a scandal if they had been propped up after their failure. But, taking the risk on them was no big deal. This is political theatre and nothing more.
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 20210
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Re: Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

Streamtracker wrote:It's a fake scandal! http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/opini ... ml?_r=2&hp

This is hardly a reason to piss on Green Energy investment. This loan was only a small fraction of the loans given for green energy. Loans are always a risk and sometimes an enterprise fails. It might had been a scandal if they had been propped up after their failure. But, taking the risk on them was no big deal. This is political theatre and nothing more.
The loan should have been structured to repay the Government (e.g., tax payers) first and foremost in the event of a bankruptcy. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

Post by madhatter »

Streamtracker wrote:It's a fake scandal! http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/opini ... ml?_r=2&hp

This is hardly a reason to piss on Green Energy investment. This loan was only a small fraction of the loans given for green energy. Loans are always a risk and sometimes an enterprise fails. It might had been a scandal if they had been propped up after their failure. But, taking the risk on them was no big deal. This is political theatre and nothing more.
yes we can all take comfort that the ill -fated 500 million dollar + loan was "only a small fraction of the loans given for green energy" and definitely " no big deal" Jeez yer not really this gullible are you? I mean you did notice it was from the NYT OPINION section right?
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26953
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Re: Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

Post by Bubba »

Streamtracker wrote:It's a fake scandal! http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/opini ... ml?_r=2&hp

This is hardly a reason to piss on Green Energy investment. This loan was only a small fraction of the loans given for green energy. Loans are always a risk and sometimes an enterprise fails. It might had been a scandal if they had been propped up after their failure. But, taking the risk on them was no big deal. This is political theatre and nothing more.
Another opinion...


Paul Krugman Misses the Point: Why Solyndra is Not Pets.com
In his NY Times blog this week, Paul Krugman continues his confusion of public vs. private when he snarks:


But [Solyndra] is indeed a terrible scandal, because the private sector never ever puts money into ventures that end up failing:

And then he puts up an ad from Pets.com, a very famous private equity disaster. For those who might remember, Pets.com was an Internet retailer that burned through hundreds of millions of dollars in private financing in less than a year, eventually declaring bankruptcy.

I suppose it should not surprise me that a prominent voice on the left does not recognize a distinction between private equity money invested voluntarily and public investments of taxpayer money. So, to help Dr. Krugman out, let me suggest several important differences.

The most important distinction is that Pets.com did not take my money. Solyndra did, and without my permission too. When Solyndra flushed over a half billion dollars down the toilet, some of that wealth destroyed was mine.

Yes, I am angry about that. And if my investment manager (if I had such a thing) invested in Pets.com, I would have been angry at her as well. I would have demanded accountability. Do you really think the folks who put millions into Pets.com shrugged and moved on? I am sure they were angry and chagrined and spent a lot of time soul-searching wondering how they could avoid such a screw-up in the future. If Pets.com is such a good analog for Solyndra, Dr. Krugman, where is the anger and embarrassment and soul-searching among the Administration and its supporters?

In fact, if memory serves, Pets.com was an investment made after hundreds of other Internet companies had been funded – it was the marginal Internet investment, in some sense, after the low-hanging fruit had been funded and many successes had been recorded. It is no surprise, really, that someone (in this case Pets.com) might overreach poking around the edges of the online retail space.

Solyndra, on the other hand, was the first company funded by this Administration under this program. This means two things. First, there was no precedent of success for such investments, no template to follow, which should have led to more rather than less caution. And second, this means that Solyndra was the Administrations #1 choice. It was their star. And it still failed. In this sense, it is a reach to use Pets.com to somehow argue that private and public investment track records are similar.

In fact, Solyndra had many advantages that most private companies never could match. When the government becomes one’s corporate partner, it can bring to bear all kinds of special dispensations, tax breaks, mandates, and subsidies to which other companies have no access, something we have certainly seen at GM. In Solyndra’s case, not only did they get public financing, but their customers got enormous tax breaks and subsidies from Federal, state, and local governments to buy their product. And still they failed spectacularly, due in large part to flaws in their business plan and cost structure that were entirely predictable (in fact, were predicted) when the Obama Administration was busy handing it half a billion dollars.

What we have to realize is that this kind of failure is systematic, not an aberration. Even if one posits, against all evidence of history, that some benevolent technocrats can be found to make government investment decisions without politicization, these investments would still fail.

Why? Because government loan guarantees go only to those companies who the free market has chosen NOT to fund. If the free market was willing to toss another half billion into Solyndra, its owners would not have been burning a path back and forth to Washington. So by definition, every single government loan guarantee in this program is to a company or a technology that the free market, knowledgeable investors, and industry insiders have rejected as a bad investment. For the program to work, one has to believe that Obama, Chu, and some career energy department bureaucrats have a better understanding of commercializing technologies than do private investors (who are investing with their own money) and industry experts.

By the way, if it were the job of the President to be such a venture-capitalist-in-chief, would you have chosen Barack Obama for this position? Would he even be in your top, say, 20 million choices? If I gave you a choice of Barack Obama or a random person snatched off the street of lower Manhattan, who would you choose to make these investment choices?

Krugman’s argument falls into a general category of leftish defenses of big government that I would summarize as “private actors make mistakes too.” This is one of the great straw men of anti-capitalist writers. No reasonable defender of capitalism would ever dispute that there are private enterprises that become senescent and unresponsive, that burn through hundreds of millions of dollars pursuing losing business plans, or that treat customers in arbitrary ways not much better than does the DMV.

The difference is that, absent government bailouts and crony protections of favored businesses, private markets exercise a discipline and accountability that eventually shift market share, revenues, profits, and capital to better enterprises. These corrective mechanisms are almost entirely absent in the political realm. Circuit City goes away, but the DMV lasts forever.

But the best evidence that Solyndra and Pets.com are different is Krugman himself. Recognize that the entire venture capital sector and most of the stock market started to entirely rethink their approach to Internet investing after Pets.com blew up so spectacularly. But here we have Krugman, a powerful opinion-maker, arguing that the government should do exactly the opposite, that the Administration should not face any accountability for Solyndra and that it should not rethink its approach to investing in private companies.

No one in the private investment field looked at Pets.com and said, “no big deal, after all, it happened with the Dutch tulip bulbs as well.” But Krugman and the Administration and half of Washington are saying exactly that after Solyndra, and after a lot of light and noise, they will probably win the day. After all, folks like Henry Waxman are correct, the politician’s fetish to pick winners and losers from their Olympian perch seems to be bipartisan.

Postscript: Perhaps the worst Administration decision of the entire Solyndra affair has yet to receive adequate scrutiny. Just 6 months before Solyndra failed, the Administration allowed Argonaut, the largest shareholder, to grab the senior debtor position from the US taxpayer in exchange for $75 million in new financing. The Administration’s argument was the loan was needed to buy time, but buy time for what? Solyndra’s relative cost position was getting worse, and it was experiencing a huge loss on every unit sold. No one involved has been able to say what the company was counting on to save it in the 6 months this loan bought it, except perhaps the opportunity to cajole another half billion out of the US taxpayer.

But the loan did accomplish two things. First, it gave Solyndra time to sell every liquid asset it owned that might have been of value to…. Argonaut. And once this bit of self-dealing was complete and the company was cleaned out, the bankruptcy process could be entirely controlled by Argonaut such that it will likely end up with all the assets, most important of which seems to be a $500 million dollar tax loss carryforward. If Argonaut can take advantage of these tax shelters, it will end up costing the US taxpayer an additional $150 million or so.

In short, the taxpayer got rolled. Again.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5966
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

Post by Coydog »

Five myths about the Solyndra collapse


There are still plenty of nagging questions about the collapse of Solyndra, the California-based solar-panel maker that went bankrupt last month after getting $535 million worth of loan guarantees from the Obama administration. Such as: Did the Energy Department fail to do due diligence? And did the White House intervene inappropriately in pressing for the loan guarantees?

But as Solyndra becomes the newest political chew toy, there’s been no shortage of hyperbole about the affair — especially over what it means for energy policy more broadly. On Tuesday, for example, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), who chairs the oversight subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said that Solyndra’s downfall proves “that green energy isn’t going to be the solution.” That’s quite a leap. So here’s a look at five overheated arguments about Solyndra’s bust:

1) This scandal is no big deal. To the contrary, evidence is mounting that there was something irregular about the way the Solyndra deal got greenlighted. My colleagues Joe Stephens and Carol D. Leonnig have obtained e-mails showing that the White House pressed the Office of Management and Budget to hurry up in reviewing the deal (note, however, that this only came after the Energy Department had approved the loan), even as OMB officials voiced concern about being rushed.

Does that prove the White House engaged in cronyism, shoveling cash toward a political ally? Not necessarily. Democrats have pointed out that Solyndra’s loan process was initiated by the Bush administration and that many key investors were Republicans. Still, there could have been other reasons the deal was hastened. As a former Clinton energy aide stressed to me, it was arguably a mistake to sell the loan guarantees as job-creating stimulus (the program was expanded as part of the 2009 stimulus bill). “It means you try to force huge amounts of money quickly through processes that aren’t quite ready yet,” the aide said. “It’d be better to have a calmer, steadier source of funding.”

2) Solyndra proves that energy-loan guarantees are a flop. Not exactly. The Energy Department’s loan-guarantee program, enacted in 2005 with bipartisan support, has backed nearly $38 billion in loans for 40 projects around the country. Solyndra represents just 1.3 percent of that portfolio — and, as yet, it’s the only loan that has soured. Other solar beneficiaries, such as SunPower and First Solar, are still going strong. Meanwhile, just a small fraction of loan guarantees go toward solar. The program’s biggest bet to date is an $8.33 billion loan guarantee for a nuclear plant down in Georgia. Improper political influence in the process is disturbing, but, at least so far, Solyndra appears an exception, not a rule. (That said, the GAO and others have pointed out potential pitfalls and the need for stricter oversight in the loan program.)

3) The government should leave energy R&D to the private sector. Actually, there’s reason to think the private market is drastically under-investing in new energy technology. As a new report from the American Energy Innovation Council lays out, the utility sector spends just 0.1 percent of its revenues on R&D — the average for U.S. industries is 3.5 percent. The electricity sector is heavily regulated and capital-intensive — power plants last for decades and turn over slowly — and hence tends to focus less on innovation. What’s more, many objectives that may be in the public interest, such as reducing carbon emissions, aren’t fully valued in the marketplace right now.

As such, the AEIC report concludes, “Energy innovation should be a higher national priority.” Right now, the federal government spends a middling amount on energy research (about $3 billion in 2009), compared with the sums lavished on the National Institutes of Health ($36.5 billion) or defense research ($77 billion). And the AEIC report recommends public support for all aspects of the innovation process, from basic research to pilot projects to helping companies commercialize their products. (Solyndra was in that last phase.)

4) Solar is a doomed industry. This view has been gaining popularity, but it’s not borne out by the numbers. Prices for solar photovoltaic modules continue to tumble, even as fossil-fuel prices rise. A June report by Ernst & Young suggests that large-scale solar could become cost-competitive within a decade, even without government support. Of course, grid operators still have to grapple with the fact that the sun doesn’t always shine, but storage technologies continue to improve — in July, a solar plant in Seville, Spain, achieved continuous 24-hour operation using molten salt storage. All told, some 24,000 MW worth of projects are in the pipeline in the United States, led by California. Those projects may not all get completed, but that’s a lot of growth underway.

5) It’s all China’s fault. This one is complicated. China does provide hefty subsidies to its solar industry. As Climate Progress’s Stephen Lacey details, the Chinese Development Bank offers cheap long-term loans to domestic manufacturers that dwarf anything Solyndra ever got. That allows Chinese solar companies to offer cutthroat prices and drive competitors out. And yet, as Westinghouse Solar CEO Barry Cinnamon explains, it wasn’t China that caused Solyndra to go belly-up — the company had invented a solar panel that didn’t use silicon, unlike its competitors, and foundered after silicon prices plummeted.

What’s more, the fact that China hurls money at solar isn’t necessarily a bad thing, since cheaper solar prices can benefit the United States too. The Energy Department seems to have recognized that going toe-to-toe with China on direct subsidies may be futile and is instead trying to focus on complementary efforts to bolster innovation, through programs like its Sunshot Initiative. Also, for all China’s subsidy frenzy, the United States still exported $1.9 billion of solar products last year and actually has a trade surplus in solar with China.
XtremeJibber2001
Signature Poster
Posts: 20210
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
Location: New York

Re: Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

Post by XtremeJibber2001 »

Yes it was all Bush's fault :roll:
Post Reply