Why Solyndra Sank

Ed,

Your credibility isn't destroyed in my book, nor is your son's. I live in the same world you do, and still do business with people on a handshake much of the time.

Nor am I calling for a congressional circus/witch trial. At the same time, I think an audit of the books is appropriate. If, for no other reason, so that congress, (the spending arm of the government), can learn an important lesson in investment strategy and economics to prevent similar blunders in the future.

I'm also completely against the popular notion that's being perpetuated by certain factions these days, that all corporations are greedy and evil by their very nature. It's a lie.

After getting to know you on here, I believe with a certain degree of certainty that the son you raised is not in any way associated with any wrong doing in the case of Solyndra.

Corporations are not evil but people in them can be - look at the news UBS made the past week. Lax oversight and a guy started to play.

The money trail certainly needs to be followed and with any luck a few people given 5 or 10 year all paid vacations.

Good intentions are meaningless when one is dipping into public funds.

Unfortunately a lot of corporate wrongdoing can be traced back to the political connections that those in charge have fostered. Convictions for anything are rare.

It is the same for both parties - neither wants to be clean.

Corporations aren't evil

you play the game by the rules as they are, not as we wish them to be

just like any game some advantage can be found by massaging the rules

We can eliminate the workers.

"This "I've Got a Secret" notion is hard to swallow."

Personally I think Ed shouldn't have mentioned his son is involved.

This is what I don't like about people going for "bona fides" by association or alleged qualifications, in a 'you can type anything' world.

Far too much obvious 'cry wolf' around CR4 for anyone to accept a real case.

But if it's just $3.50 to the average American on CR4, then why try to draw out more?

At the end of the day, who says Ed has not been spun the BS too?

But a bit of empathy seems fair to me - were the kid mine ... and the NDA stands until the corporate ceases to exist in Law.

And Ed is not the only person to 'leak private matters in CR4' when feeling a bit stressed. This is when "my brothers keeper" and "there but for the grace of (insert deity) go I" then should apply.

I bet a lot of people that have seen a lot of stuff but remain silent due to those NDA's are getting a heck of a laugh or shaking their collective heads at the people who who only get their misimformation from what the media chooses to tell them.

And those that know the ammount if inaccurate or incorrect information you see on the news, and those that foam at the mouth when ANY of that information is ever questioned.

Besides, I won't fault Ed at all, if family doesn't stand up for you, then who will.

And as much as his son has seen and suspected....unless he was part of the upper management inner circle. Its certain he could not have possibly known everything that was going on.

Thats based on my own experiences leading up to the Worldcom fiasco. I worked there for years (lowly peon engineer) and never suspected the extent of what happened. I found out about that from the trial and the news coverage (what I could believe of it anyway). Knowing how often the news is really just distortions and intentional misinformation.

I've been doing some more research on this.

I'm not convinced at all that there was any wrong doing on the part of Solyndra, including upper management. Many factors were involved, including a drop in silicon prices, the successful unveiling of competing, (printed),technology, as well as intense pressure from the current administration to spend more money, faster. My guess is that the last was an effort to take credit for this wonderful "green" technology in time for the next Presidential election cycle.

That's part of the problem with taking big bucks from the government. Although their understanding of the technology is probably on par with that of an earthworm, they will take charge. The motivations are purely political. Telling them "no" is not an option.

My theory is that the exec's are pleading the 5th, not to protect themselves, but that talking will incriminate both sitting members of congress, as well as members of the current administration. They need time to spin everything into a palatable yarn that will be fit for public consumption...................it doesn't necessarily need to be the truth.

Well, I see this as two seperate things.....their business issues, and the political pressuring for the loans. The loans were rewritten in violation of federal law where the taxpayer is required to be first in line for assents, and not last in line as this was rewritten to protect the big investors who were convieniently also big Democrat donors.

THAT is where the real problem lies...their actual business model is just a diversion for the real problem.

I agree, there are politicians that are sweating right now that someones going to talk.

actually you'll find the private sector isn't much different

the money people rarely understand technology either

there is always a large dose of smoke, mirrors & economic optimism during the pitch

a system that favors today's profit over a longer term approach, makes it all happen fast & furious

as 34.5 points out, once it starts to unravel the [venture capitolist] VC/bean counters take over & it all goes down hill quick

VC always makes sure they are 1st in line & will hasten the demise...

I agree. Having been with one startup previously, and using what I learned there to avoid being part of several others that tried to recruit me (from my current employer) over the last decade and a half. None of whom are still in business.

Smoke and mirrors should be called exactly what they really are. Fraud and deception. Sometimes a con man and a PR front man, are no different.

The sad part is that in the past two years I never read opinions from industry experts saying this thing was a go. Many said parts were attractive such as ease of installation.

Capturing the reflected light off the roof has generally been laughed at. Solyndra never presented a case to the industry, even with higher silicon prices, where they could compete.

One big complaint is that stimulus and this are two very different things - with stimulus you want to get the money out there such as China did. I believe that the last time I read about the ARA there were still funds to be disbursed - now that is a heck of a stimulus.

Re: #100 and up, mainly.

There are always boatloads of companies with moronic business plans. Venture capitalists (with their own money) do not lend them, on any terms. Soon enough they are stillborn or die on the vine. In any case, gone. Because they were not viable in the first place. And people with wishful thinking investing in them gambled, and learned a valuable, hard lesson.

Then there are plain crooks. Enron was a classical example, well researched. California, for political reasons stupidly locked in retail, letting wholesale energy prices float, with the simpleminded expectation to make big gains on it. Along came the Enron sharks, skinning them to a large part of their $70billion losses. Surprise?? Not really. You sit down with cardsharks, and they skin you. Why are you complaining?

The same pattern applies to Solyndra. No innovation, moronic business plan, reaching deep into the public pocket. At the same spending and lobbying for favor freely. Making themselves looking sweet for simpleminded political support. While the whole plan was to dip deep in the public trough for the swill, and then scoot, before somebody can spell "clawback". Or spell "fraud, plain and simple".

I brought up a simple case as an example. You build a simple family home. You make a mortgage application. As the building progresses, the monies are paid out in stages, based on completion, checkoff / approval for the next phase. Can anybody explain to me, why a $0,5 billion payout did not follow industry and banking standards?? Short of political morons shortcircuiting the approval process to their wishful and stupid thinking to appear smart. While they are fleeced too.

And don't even mention again your nonsensical note: "Well, your personal share of [this particular boondoggle, don't mention the multitude of the others] is only $5 or $50thousand, why do you complain?(Whoever said that in this thread, again). Sonny, you may slip a cog here and there, but still, I did not agree to that. Capiche?!? There is a referendum process, where I and citizens like me can vote for or against. It is not yours to be cavalier. Capiche?

"The same pattern applies to Solyndra. No innovation, moronic business plan, reaching deep into the public pocket"

I'm afraid until you fully justify the above with facts, it's just more of your emotive, theatrical, drivel.

Capiche?

Well, the members, and in particular Ed from Bayside provided the first two and more, plenty convincing. This here is a blog, responsibly run in general. Its standards are widely understood to be different from presenting evidence in a court case, or from a reconstructive accounting in a criminal case.

The third item mentioned is treated by the press at length, width and depth. Not one disputes the basic facts: dipping into the public trough elbow deep, and bad corner cutting in its political support. Rather, they detail it.

So, man, this is reason for concern of you forgetting that much that quick. Not good. Please, take care of it.

I'll 2nd the drivel proclamation

like most of your posts, long on empty opinion, short on anything approaching facts

There is something positive to consider that comes out of all this; We have the best government money can buy.

Unfortunately it had bad economics to start with. Product sales were dependent on some type of government subsidy. Either direct or indirect. It sold a commodity, which is not a good business model when China can make it cheaper. And commodities are sold purely on price. Another warning sign of its ultimate failure was its ringing endorsement from the government, accompanied by a large amount of government money. In my 30 plus years experience in business I have yet to see any government make a correct decision in trying to pick a winner in business. Similarly I have learned to run away from companies having former politicians as board members. They don't seem to understand that businesses have to make a profit, if the political mood changes, and government support disappears. Businesses need sound economic business models. Otherwise they have little if any value. That message is reinforced to business owners at the following free website: http://www.selling-a-business-without-stress.com

Similarly I have learned to run away from companies having former politicians as board members.

There are exceptions. Al Gore is a on the board at Apple (which is doing quite well;).

Yeah...but thats more an exception than the rule in that case.

Accidents do happen. Maybe they don't tell him when they are meeting until after the session has concluded.

Khosla hired Tony Blair - just to open doors.

I'm sure he's there as a gateway to political big shots. Easy money for Al.

You don't really think they let him help make business decisions do you?

Even though Apple has not mentioned their new iPhone (they are always tight lipped until they officially announce) he said in a speech "the new iPhones next month. In those 5 little words he let it be known when their new phone would be out. He also seems to indicate their will be more than one. I'm sure Apple wasn't too happy about letting that slip out.

You don't really think they let him help make business decisions do you?

No, I definately don't think he is their "go to" guy.

Oh come on..............he slipped?

I suspect that this is as accidental as the new prototype being forgotten in a bar...................twice.

You may be right. I'm often not as cynical with apple as I am usually. What can I say. I'm a tech junkie.

Well, the State of Delaware got its own Solyndra

It is to the tune of $ 600millon+, and a large gift from the Department of Energy the company fully expects. Isn't that nice? A gift from taxpayers, iust for being the most expensive form of energy.

Delaware's Solyndra

Links help. As well as as a solid line of coherent thought put into words.

Much better.

a link to an opinion piece is on limited value

how about the official position

http://governor.delaware.gov/news/2011/1106june/20110609-bloom_energy.shtml

The official position is a bit better to start from alright!

We have been through the Boom Box thing before in some detail have we not? It is a exercise in politics all the way. It is not new and far from the best fuel cell on the market and the green claims have been quite nicely debunked.

well we've been to both ends, it would be nice to see facts & figures

but you're right there are better fuelcells seimens come to mind

This is when the government gets involved.

I worked at a shipyard (family owned) in a relatively rural quite community (tourism ways very good) that had largely naval contracts. Employed 1,000 people.

When the family basically succumbed to the tourism it closed down and built condo's. The government supplied millions to the area for economic development. and things took off.

After 3 years, for every employee you added, you received I believe it was approx. $20,000.00 for each additional employee. Sure things were going to boom.....artificially.

Plus the loop holes that the area businesses found. They started allot of satellite company's and shifted their workforce around and collected $$$$$.

Solyndra was the same. Solyndra has no substance, it was all symbolic.

And Beacon Power has filed for bankruptcy under a similar DOE loan deal.

All it would take to shut me up is about 2 million...................a pittance.

have a look at

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/39273/page2/
the comments are a nice little discussion of trade issues