First Solar
Makes solar panels a different way, as a thin coating on glass instead of silicon wafers, mostly in American factories, for the companies building large solar farms.
Our viewAttractive Medium conviction
The scores
The profile · 1-4
Growth2/4 ↓
Revenue guided at or below last year and backlog fell 5.0 GW in six months. The profit that did grow is a credit.
Business quality3/4 ↑
The only large US maker whose domestic line imports no cell or polysilicon. But Qcells has just built the same position in silicon.
Financial position4/4 →
Cash of $1.688B against $37.6M of debt, capital spending funded from operations, no maturity inside the horizon and no financing need.
Execution record2/4 ↓
A pattern of slippage: revenue guided below last year, the second South Carolina phase pushed to mid-2027, the Asian capacity decision deferred again.
Per share capture4/4 →
Share count up 0.20% in a year, no debt, no convertible, no share-funded deals. Nothing stands between operating value and the holder.
Potential3/4 ↑
Bounded and largely committed: 45.1 GW contracted to 2030, roughly a year of the whole US market. The price upside is expected, not signed.
Risk profile2/4 →
Two policies decide the profit and both are externally controlled: a credit Congress can cut, a floor Commerce can waive. Two customers, a tenth each.
Valuation3/4 ↑
Cheap on reported profit, not on what produces it: 7.4 times guided cash profit is fair for a stream that stops in 2032.
Evidence quality3/4 →
Central claims now rest on the proclamation's own annex and the filings. The first pass read the scope from industry commentary and got it wrong.
The Verdict
We rate First Solar attractive. It makes solar panels as a thin coating on glass, mostly in American factories. The business is solid, but its whole profit is a government manufacturing credit, and the market prices it as a subsidy that will end. What the price leaves out is a new rule setting a minimum price and a tariff on imported panels and cells. First Solar makes most of its panels at home and uses no cells, while American rivals assemble imported ones, so the rule lands on their costs. The price is fair and pays nothing for that. The view hinges on new order prices rising.
The long caseAmerica needs more electricity again and solar is the fastest to build; First Solar makes its panels at home, so new import rules raise its rivals' costs, not its own.
The evidence under this - 9 claims
C03facthigh confidence
First Solar recognised $1.6B of Section 45X credits as a reduction to cost of sales in 2025.
C05estimatemedium confidence
The 2025 credit was slightly larger than all of operating income: before it the company lost $3.1M.
derivedGross profit of $2.120B (40.62% of $5.219B revenue) less the $1.6B credit in C03 leaves $520.3M; operating costs were $523.5M, being gross profit less the $1.597B operating income in C04.
against this
- The credit is disclosed as $1.6B to one decimal place, so the residual is inside its own rounding: anything from $1.55B to $1.65B leaves operating income between +$47M and -$53M. The sign is uncertain; the order of magnitude is not.
- Operating costs in 2025 included production start-up expense for Louisiana, which a steady-state business would not carry.
C07estimatemedium confidence
At every point of 2026 guidance, operating income before the credit is negative, between -$110M and -$425M.
derivedEach end of the guided range in C06 taken with its own credit assumption: $2.4B gross profit less $2.19B of credits less $635M of costs is -$425M; $2.6B less $2.10B less $610M is -$110M.
against this
- Guided operating costs include $90M to $100M of production start-up expense for South Carolina, and guided gross profit is struck after $115M to $135M of costs for factories deliberately held idle. Adding both back leaves roughly break-even rather than a loss, so this is a company investing through the line rather than one that cannot make money.
- The pairing of the worst gross profit with the largest credit is arithmetic on the stated ranges, not a disclosed combination; management does not say the two ends move together.
C34estimatelow confidence
The price pays roughly $8B for the credit still to come and about $12B for a manufacturer guided to lose money before it.
derivedEnterprise value of $20.68B (C27), less the roughly $8B remaining credit stream (C28), leaves about $12B set against operating income before the credit of -$110M to -$425M on 2026 guidance (C07).
against this
- The $8B rests on my own discount rate and a flat-to-2029 credit profile; at 8% it is nearer $9B and at 14% nearer $7.3B, which moves the residual by about a fifth either way.
- The residual is not paying for nothing. It buys 45.1 GW contracted through 2030, $1.688B of net cash, six US plants and a technology no rival runs - the loss before the credit is struck after start-up and idle costs a steady-state business would not carry.
C08facthigh confidence
From 4 December 2026 imported solar modules face a minimum price of $0.38 per watt and cells $0.22, plus a 15% tariff.
C09facthigh confidence
The floor covers thin-film modules too: the annex lists the 'other than crystalline silicon' line at the same $0.38.
C35estimatemedium confidence
A minimum import price binds imports only. First Solar makes roughly 70% of its 2026 volume inside the United States.
derivedThe 2026 guidance assumes $2.10B-$2.19B of Section 45X credits at the company's stated rate of about 17 cents per watt, which implies 12.35-12.88 GW of US-made modules sold to third parties against guided total volume of 17.0-18.2 GW. The Q3 cadence given on the Q2 call is 3.2-3.7 GW from US operations out of 3.9-4.5 GW.
against this
- The credit is earned on modules produced in the US and sold to a third party, which is not identical to modules sold in the US, so the ratio is an approximation of domestic production rather than of domestic sale.
- The balance is imported and now faces the same floor as anyone else's imports. Its contracted book is struck near $0.30 a watt, below the $0.38 floor, so that volume depends on the exemption for contracts fixed before 6 August 2026.
C36factmedium confidence
American module capacity is 69.9 GW against about 3 GW of cell capacity, so nearly every US-assembled silicon module uses an imported cell.
against this
- Cell capacity is being built: Qcells alone is adding 3.3 GW at Cartersville, which roughly doubles the national figure, and the trade body's own dashboard would not open to an automated fetch so this rests on its figures as reported.
- Capacity is not utilisation. A module maker holding cell inventory or sourcing from an allied country pays the floor later rather than never.
C28estimatelow confidence
Roughly $8B of the $20.68B enterprise value is the credit stream still to come.
derivedThe guided annual credit of about $2.15B (C06) held flat to 2029, then phased at 75%, 50% and 25% through 2032 as the statute provides (C22), discounted at 10%. Half of 2026 is already earned. The chain totals about $10.7B before discounting and $8.4B after.
against this
- The discount rate and the flat-to-2029 profile are both mine. At 8% the figure is nearer $9B and at 14% nearer $7.3B, so the estimate carries a spread of about a fifth of itself either way.
- The credits are sold to third parties at a discount the company does not disclose, so the cash is less than the credit.
- Congress cut other energy credits in July 2025 and could reach this one before 2032, which would make the estimate an upper bound.
The company
Almost every solar panel starts as silicon, melted, sawn into wafers, made into cells in one plant and assembled in another. First Solar skips all of that: it coats a sheet of glass with a thin film of cadmium telluride, cuts it into cells with a laser and seals it under a second sheet.
Its buyers build large solar farms, and many choose it for the tax credits an American-made panel unlocks: about 41 GW of its 45 GW of contracted orders ask for home-grown content.
The evidence under this - 3 claims
C01facthigh confidence
First Solar makes a solar panel from cadmium telluride on glass, containing no polysilicon.
C37inferencemedium confidence
First Solar's process has no cell step and no polysilicon, so its US production imports nothing the measure covers.
derivedThe 10-K describes one continuous line taking a sheet of glass to a finished module, with cadmium telluride deposited as a film rather than cells being made and assembled (C01). The measure covers polysilicon, ingots and wafers, cells and modules (C08, C09). None of those is an input to a US-made First Solar module.
against this
- It does import semi-finished product from Malaysia and Vietnam to feed the South Carolina finishing line, and how that is classified on entry is not established here - if it enters as a module it is covered.
- Glass, steel, copper and the tellurium itself are imported and face other tariff regimes; the claim is only that the polysilicon measure misses them.
- The 15% tariff and the floor apply at entry, so a rival assembling in the US from imported cells pays on the cell, not the module - a smaller base than the module floor implies.
C14management claimmedium confidence
About 41 GW of the 45 GW backlog carries some form of domestic content requirement.
How it makes money
It sells panels by the watt under contracts signed years ahead, and collects a manufacturing credit of roughly 17 cents on each American-made watt it sells. The credit is booked as a lower cost, so it shows up as profit: without it, 2025's $1.597B of operating profit would have been a $3.1M loss.
The evidence under this - 5 claims
C11facthigh confidence
The contracted backlog is 45.1 GW for $13.6B, about $0.30 a watt, running through 2030.
C02management claimhigh confidence
The company expects a Section 45X credit of roughly 17 cents per watt on each US-made module sold to a third party.
against this
The rate is the company's own reading of its eligibility as a vertically integrated producer, and the 10-K says the credit phases down from 2030 and that modifications to the law or its interpretation could change it.
C03facthigh confidence
First Solar recognised $1.6B of Section 45X credits as a reduction to cost of sales in 2025.
C04facthigh confidence
Operating income was $1.597B in 2025 on revenue of $5.219B.
C05estimatemedium confidence
The 2025 credit was slightly larger than all of operating income: before it the company lost $3.1M.
derivedGross profit of $2.120B (40.62% of $5.219B revenue) less the $1.6B credit in C03 leaves $520.3M; operating costs were $523.5M, being gross profit less the $1.597B operating income in C04.
against this
- The credit is disclosed as $1.6B to one decimal place, so the residual is inside its own rounding: anything from $1.55B to $1.65B leaves operating income between +$47M and -$53M. The sign is uncertain; the order of magnitude is not.
- Operating costs in 2025 included production start-up expense for Louisiana, which a steady-state business would not carry.
Where the money comes from, stream by stream
| Stream | Share of sales (FY2025) | How it earns it |
|---|---|---|
| Solar modules, United States | 95.7% | Thin-film panels sold by the watt to utility-scale developers and power producers, mostly under multi-year contracts and mostly made in US plants. |
| Solar modules, India | 3.7% | Panels from the Indian plant sold in rupees to Indian developers. |
| Solar modules, other countries | 0.6% | Panels invoiced in France and elsewhere, a remnant of the European business. |
Who runs it
Mark Widmar has run First Solar since 2016, after five years as its finance chief, and Alexander Bradley has run finance since then. Insiders own about 0.4% of the shares, so the people running it are paid to run it rather than owners of it. Their bonus rides on profit before start-up costs, which the government credit alone clears, then on cost per panel, research, American sales and cash; long-term shares ride on future orders and a new technology, none on the share price.
The evidence under this - 4 claims
C43facthigh confidence
Mark Widmar has been chief executive since July 2016, having joined as chief financial officer in April 2011; Alexander Bradley has been chief financial officer since October 2016, having joined in May 2008; Michael Ahearn, chief executive from 2000 to 2009, chairs the board.
C44facthigh confidence
As of March 19, 2026 the 19 directors and executive officers as a group owned 423,164 shares, under 1% of the 107,450,760 outstanding (about 0.4%); Michael Ahearn's 113,227 and Mark Widmar's 102,798 were the largest stakes. Vanguard (12.8%), BlackRock (10.4%), SIG (7.9%), FMR (6.1%) and Citadel (5.3%) held more than 5% each.
against this
The stakes are being sold down on schedule: Widmar adopted a Rule 10b5-1 plan in November 2025 to sell 39,951 shares by 10 November 2026 and Bradley one for 19,646 by 30 September 2026 (S01, Item 9B; and C16).
C45facthigh confidence
The 2025 annual bonus pool was funded only if adjusted net operating income, operating income before production start-up and underutilisation, exceeded $1.0B; it came in at $1.8B. Pay then rode on cost per watt produced (30%), copper-replacement R&D progress (30%), US-made volume sold (20%), year-end net cash (10%) and safety (10%), paying 1.15 times target, with 40% of each award on individual performance.
against this
The threshold is struck after the Section 45X credit, which reduces cost of sales (C03), and 2025 operating income before the credit was about nil (C05), so the gate that funds the pool was met by the credit rather than by the manufacturing margin.
C46facthigh confidence
The 2025 performance units, earned over a period ending December 2027, pay half on module sales backlog for delivery after 2027 and half on perovskite technology milestones; that year's equity mix leaned toward time-vested restricted units because, the committee said, regulatory change made goals hard to set. Neither plan pays on shareholder return or return on capital.
against this
The committee says 2026 awards are weighted more heavily to performance units again, and restricted units do tie realised pay to the share price; shareholder return appears in the proxy only in the required pay-versus-performance table, not as an award metric.
Why it wins, and who could beat it
Why customers come back
Its protection is two rules, not the panel. One is the credit. The other arrives on 4 December: imported modules must sell for at least $0.38 a watt and cells $0.22, plus 15%. That covers First Solar's panel too, but binds only imports, and about 70% of its volume is made in America with no cell step. American silicon assemblers have 69.9 GW of module capacity on about 3 GW of cells, so nearly all pay.
Its two US-listed silicon rivals are each worth under $1B, and both lose money.
The evidence under this - 7 claims
C02management claimhigh confidence
The company expects a Section 45X credit of roughly 17 cents per watt on each US-made module sold to a third party.
against this
The rate is the company's own reading of its eligibility as a vertically integrated producer, and the 10-K says the credit phases down from 2030 and that modifications to the law or its interpretation could change it.
C08facthigh confidence
From 4 December 2026 imported solar modules face a minimum price of $0.38 per watt and cells $0.22, plus a 15% tariff.
C09facthigh confidence
The floor covers thin-film modules too: the annex lists the 'other than crystalline silicon' line at the same $0.38.
C35estimatemedium confidence
A minimum import price binds imports only. First Solar makes roughly 70% of its 2026 volume inside the United States.
derivedThe 2026 guidance assumes $2.10B-$2.19B of Section 45X credits at the company's stated rate of about 17 cents per watt, which implies 12.35-12.88 GW of US-made modules sold to third parties against guided total volume of 17.0-18.2 GW. The Q3 cadence given on the Q2 call is 3.2-3.7 GW from US operations out of 3.9-4.5 GW.
against this
- The credit is earned on modules produced in the US and sold to a third party, which is not identical to modules sold in the US, so the ratio is an approximation of domestic production rather than of domestic sale.
- The balance is imported and now faces the same floor as anyone else's imports. Its contracted book is struck near $0.30 a watt, below the $0.38 floor, so that volume depends on the exemption for contracts fixed before 6 August 2026.
C37inferencemedium confidence
First Solar's process has no cell step and no polysilicon, so its US production imports nothing the measure covers.
derivedThe 10-K describes one continuous line taking a sheet of glass to a finished module, with cadmium telluride deposited as a film rather than cells being made and assembled (C01). The measure covers polysilicon, ingots and wafers, cells and modules (C08, C09). None of those is an input to a US-made First Solar module.
against this
- It does import semi-finished product from Malaysia and Vietnam to feed the South Carolina finishing line, and how that is classified on entry is not established here - if it enters as a module it is covered.
- Glass, steel, copper and the tellurium itself are imported and face other tariff regimes; the claim is only that the polysilicon measure misses them.
- The 15% tariff and the floor apply at entry, so a rival assembling in the US from imported cells pays on the cell, not the module - a smaller base than the module floor implies.
C36factmedium confidence
American module capacity is 69.9 GW against about 3 GW of cell capacity, so nearly every US-assembled silicon module uses an imported cell.
against this
- Cell capacity is being built: Qcells alone is adding 3.3 GW at Cartersville, which roughly doubles the national figure, and the trade body's own dashboard would not open to an automated fetch so this rests on its figures as reported.
- Capacity is not utilisation. A module maker holding cell inventory or sourcing from an allied country pays the floor later rather than never.
C32factmedium confidence
Its two US-listed silicon rivals are worth less than $1B each and both lose money.
The threat
Qcells has built the first American factory that makes every step of a silicon panel on one site, adding 3.3 GW of cells, so it collects the same credits and pays no cell floor.
Cheaper imported silicon is the other threat; First Solar is pursuing patent suits against those rivals in court.
The evidence under this - 3 claims
C20factmedium confidence
Qcells has built the first US factory making ingots, wafers, cells and modules on one site, adding 3.3 GW of cell capacity.
against this
- Qcells' total US output is put at 8.6 GW against the roughly 17 GW of US module capacity First Solar projects for 2027, so the rival position is real and roughly half the size.
- The claim rests on the rival's own announcement, which is the party with most reason to overstate readiness; nameplate capacity is not shipped volume.
C36factmedium confidence
American module capacity is 69.9 GW against about 3 GW of cell capacity, so nearly every US-assembled silicon module uses an imported cell.
against this
- Cell capacity is being built: Qcells alone is adding 3.3 GW at Cartersville, which roughly doubles the national figure, and the trade body's own dashboard would not open to an automated fetch so this rests on its figures as reported.
- Capacity is not utilisation. A module maker holding cell inventory or sourcing from an allied country pays the floor later rather than never.
C26facthigh confidence
First Solar asked the trade commission in February 2026 to bar imports of competing panels made by ten named rivals, and on 15 September 2026 said it would withdraw that complaint without prejudice and pursue its district-court patent suits instead.
sourceForm 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025primaryForm 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2026primaryFirst Solar Recalibrates TOPCon IP Enforcement Strategy…primary
- 2026-09-24editedThe company said on 15 September 2026 that it will withdraw its Section 337 complaint without prejudice and move to terminate the investigation, keeping its district-court TOPCon suits. The claim described a petition still being pursued; it now records both the petition and the withdrawal. The Federal Register shows no termination yet, so the next 10-Q is where it is confirmed.
The rivals: JKS, CSIQ, and 1 more that is private, in-house or listed abroad.
Who else does this, rival by rival
| Ticker | Rival | How far along | Priced against it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qcells (Hanwha Solutions), Cartersville, GeorgiaPriced against it: Listed abroad | On sale | Listed abroad | |
| JKS · CSIQ | JinkoSolar and Canadian SolarPriced against it: Same product | On sale | Same product |
How big it could get
How big this could get
Developers plan 43.4 GW of large American solar farms in 2026, up 60%. At the $0.38 floor that is about $16.5B of panels a year. First Solar already has 45.1 GW contracted through 2030, roughly one year of the whole market.
The evidence under this - 3 claims
C21facthigh confidence
Developers plan to add 43.4 GW of utility-scale solar in the United States in 2026, a 60% increase.
C08facthigh confidence
From 4 December 2026 imported solar modules face a minimum price of $0.38 per watt and cells $0.22, plus a 15% tariff.
C11facthigh confidence
The contracted backlog is 45.1 GW for $13.6B, about $0.30 a watt, running through 2030.
Who has signed
Contracted orders total 45.1 GW worth $13.6B, delivering through 2030 at about $0.30 a watt; Silicon Ranch and NextEra Energy each took a tenth of 2025 sales. None of it captures the new floor: the contracts adjust for tariffs only within a limit the company does not state.
The evidence under this - 3 claims
C11facthigh confidence
The contracted backlog is 45.1 GW for $13.6B, about $0.30 a watt, running through 2030.
C19facthigh confidence
Silicon Ranch and NextEra Energy each took 10% or more of 2025 sales.
C12facthigh confidence
That price excludes adjusters, among them changes to certain tariff structures within a defined threshold.
The results
The numbers
Is it growing?Steady
Sales grew 24% over the twelve months to Jun 2026, about the same pace as the 24% in the year to Dec 2025.
Is it profitable?Strong
Operating margin is 34%, up from 26% in the year to Dec 2023.
Does growth pay off?Pays off
Running costs take 10¢ of each sales dollar, up from 5¢ in the year to Dec 2021.
Does it earn good returns?Decent
Each dollar put into the business earns 18% a year after tax, up from 8.0% in the year to Dec 2021.
Is it making cash?Strong
It turned 28% of sales into free cash, $1.50B over the last twelve months.
Is the balance sheet safe?Net cash
It holds $1.73B of cash against $37.6M of debt, $1.69B more cash than it owes.
Are shares being diluted?Stable
The share count rose 0.8% in 4.5 years, and pay in shares costs 0.4% of sales.
All the numbers
Filed figures from the company's 10-K and 10-Q, read 2026-10-04. Fiscal years end in December.
| Dec 2021 | Dec 2022 | Dec 2023 | Dec 2024 | Dec 2025 | 12 mo to Jun 2026 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size and growth | ||||||
| Sales | $2.92B | $2.62B | $3.32B | $4.21B | $5.22B | $5.38B |
| Sales growth | +7.8% | −10% | +27% | +27% | +24% | +24% |
| Profit | ||||||
| Gross margin | 25% | 2.7% | 39% | 44% | 41% | 44% |
| Operating margin | 20% | −1.0% | 26% | 33% | 31% | 34% |
| Net margin | 16% | −1.7% | 25% | 31% | 29% | 32% |
| What growth costs, per sales dollar | ||||||
| Research and development | 3.4% | 4.3% | 4.6% | 4.5% | 4.5% | 5.0% |
| Selling, general and admin | 5.8% | 6.3% | 6.0% | 4.5% | 3.9% | 4.0% |
| Pay in shares | 0.7% | 1.1% | 1.0% | 0.7% | 0.4% | 0.4% |
| Capital spending | 18% | 34% | 42% | 36% | 17% | 12% |
| Cash | ||||||
| Cash from operations | $238M | $873M | $602M | $1.22B | $2.06B | $2.16B |
| Free cash flow | −$303M | −$30.2M | −$785M | −$308M | $1.19B | $1.50B |
| Balance sheet | ||||||
| Cash and short-term investments | $1.83B | $2.58B | $2.10B | $1.79B | $2.86B | $1.73B |
| Debt | $240M | $184M | $560M | $610M | $499M | $37.6M |
| Net cash | $1.59B | $2.39B | $1.54B | $1.18B | $2.36B | $1.69B |
| Returns and shares | ||||||
| Return on capital | 8.0% | - | 12% | 16% | 17% | 18% |
| Shares (diluted) | 107M | 107M | 107M | 108M | 108M | 108M |
What growth costs
Growing has made First Solar's running costs a smaller slice of each sale, since office and sales costs barely rose as revenue nearly doubled. The real cost of growth is factories: for three years it spent more than a third of its sales building them. And its reported profit comes from the credit, not from this.
The evidence under this - 3 claims
C41facthigh confidence
Per sales dollar, selling, general and administrative cost fell from 8.2 cents in 2020 to 3.9 in 2025 while research and development rose from 3.5 to 4.5 cents, so the two together fell from 11.7 to 8.4; stock pay fell from 1.1 cents to 0.4. Sales rose 1.9 times over the five years.
sourceForm 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022primaryForm 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025primaryForm 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2026primary
against this
- Over the four quarters to June 2026 the two lines rose back to 9.0 cents, research and development reaching 5.0, so the fall is not one way.
- Production start-up is a separate income-statement line of 1.5 to 2.8 cents a year that the numbers card does not carry; it is what each new factory costs before it ships, and it never fell below 1.5 cents.
C42facthigh confidence
Capital spending ran at 34.5, 41.8 and 36.3 cents per sales dollar in 2022, 2023 and 2024, then 16.7 in 2025 and 12.2 over the four quarters to June 2026; it totalled $5.23B from 2021 to 2025 against $4.99B of operating cash flow, which includes the proceeds of selling Section 45X credits.
sourceForm 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022primaryForm 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025primaryForm 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2026primary
against this
The 2025 fall reflects factories finished rather than a cheaper growth model: the second South Carolina phase is still to be built, so the ratio rises again with the next capacity step.
C05estimatemedium confidence
The 2025 credit was slightly larger than all of operating income: before it the company lost $3.1M.
derivedGross profit of $2.120B (40.62% of $5.219B revenue) less the $1.6B credit in C03 leaves $520.3M; operating costs were $523.5M, being gross profit less the $1.597B operating income in C04.
against this
- The credit is disclosed as $1.6B to one decimal place, so the residual is inside its own rounding: anything from $1.55B to $1.65B leaves operating income between +$47M and -$53M. The sign is uncertain; the order of magnitude is not.
- Operating costs in 2025 included production start-up expense for Louisiana, which a steady-state business would not carry.
The last report (30 Jul)
Quarter ended June 2026, filed figures.
-4%
Sales growth
against the same quarter a year earlier
1.1%
Growth from the quarter before
against -37.9% the quarter before that
43¢
Operating profit
per dollar of sales
The second quarter of 2026 looked excellent, with 57.3 cents of each sales dollar left after production costs. But $88.6M of that was expected refunds of tariffs a court struck down, and the first half's $769.2M of profit came with $359.8M of cash consumed.
The telling figures are orders. Contracted orders shrank for a third quarter running, from 50.1 GW to 45.1 GW, though the 1.9 GW won since the last call fetched about $0.36 a watt, above the $0.30 of the older ones.
What it did to the thesisIt weakened the near-term picture but not the argument. Profit leaned on one-off refunds and orders kept shrinking. Yet the newest orders came in at higher prices, the first sign that the new floor on imported panels may lift what buyers pay, which keeps the view Attractive.
The quarter in detail
Sales growth from the previous quarter, filed figures.
Earnings per share $3.92 against $2.90 expected; $3.92 as filed, with no adjustments.
The evidence under this - 5 claims
C24facthigh confidence
Q2 2026 gross margin of 57.3% included an $88.6M net benefit from expected refunds of tariffs a court struck down.
C25facthigh confidence
The company earned $769.2M in the first half of 2026 and its operations consumed $359.8M of cash.
C13facthigh confidence
Backlog fell three quarters running, from 50.1 GW to 47.9 GW to 45.1 GW.
C10management claimmedium confidence
Since the last call the company booked 1.9 GW in the United States at about $0.36 per watt.
against this
- The figure is inclusive of technology adjusters that have not yet been earned, so it is a contracted maximum rather than cash received.
- Management said most of the bookings happened in July, after the quarter closed, so it is a number the quarterly filings do not yet carry.
- India bookings in the same half ran at about $0.20 per watt, so the $0.36 is one market rather than the company's price.
C11facthigh confidence
The contracted backlog is 45.1 GW for $13.6B, about $0.30 a watt, running through 2030.
The price, and where we disagree
In short. Fair. The price pays for the US tax credit First Solar earns on each panel it makes, and nothing for the new minimum price on imported panels, which could lift what rivals must charge.
Share price
$206.40
close,
Price for each $1 of yearly profit
12.7
its 6-year normal 19.0
Company value for each $1 of cash profit
8.5
its 6-year normal 13.0
The shares hit $269.70 the day after the floor was announced in August, then gave the whole move back within three weeks. The company's forecast predates the rule, so nothing it has published prices the floor. The first sign comes with the September-quarter results on October 29: the price new orders fetch.
The evidence under this - 4 claims
C15facthigh confidence
The shares reached $269.70 during 7 August, then gave the whole gain back to close at $206.32 on 25 August.
C06management claimhigh confidence
2026 guidance is gross profit of $2.4B to $2.6B assuming $2.10B to $2.19B of Section 45X credits, with operating expenses of $610M to $635M, reaffirmed three times.
sourceQ4 and full year 2025 results release, Exhibit 99.1 to Form…primaryQ1 2026 results release, Exhibit 99.1 to Form 8-KprimaryQ2 2026 results release, Exhibit 99.1 to Form 8-Kprimary
against this
- The guidance was set on 2026-02-24 and reaffirmed on 2026-07-30, both before the August proclamation, so it prices no part of the measure.
- A securities class action covering the period to 2026-02-24 alleges the company understated how far its tariff response would hurt 2026.
C08facthigh confidence
From 4 December 2026 imported solar modules face a minimum price of $0.38 per watt and cells $0.22, plus a 15% tariff.
C10management claimmedium confidence
Since the last call the company booked 1.9 GW in the United States at about $0.36 per watt.
against this
- The figure is inclusive of technology adjusters that have not yet been earned, so it is a contracted maximum rather than cash received.
- Management said most of the bookings happened in July, after the quarter closed, so it is a number the quarterly filings do not yet carry.
- India bookings in the same half ran at about $0.20 per watt, so the $0.36 is one market rather than the company's price.
How we read the multiple
Buyers pay about 13 times a year's profit, against about 19 usually. But most of that profit is a tax credit that shrinks from 2030 and ends in 2032. Counting cash and debt, the company costs about $21B:
- About $8B of that pays for the tax credit still to come.
- That leaves about $12B for the factories, forecast to lose $110M to $425M this year without the credit.
- So the import floor counts for nothing, though imports sold for about 27 cents a watt in August, below the 38-cent floor.
Against its own history. Cheaper than its own usual level for each dollar of profit, and that profit is mostly the credit the market expects to end.
The evidence under this - 6 claims
C28estimatelow confidence
Roughly $8B of the $20.68B enterprise value is the credit stream still to come.
derivedThe guided annual credit of about $2.15B (C06) held flat to 2029, then phased at 75%, 50% and 25% through 2032 as the statute provides (C22), discounted at 10%. Half of 2026 is already earned. The chain totals about $10.7B before discounting and $8.4B after.
against this
- The discount rate and the flat-to-2029 profile are both mine. At 8% the figure is nearer $9B and at 14% nearer $7.3B, so the estimate carries a spread of about a fifth of itself either way.
- The credits are sold to third parties at a discount the company does not disclose, so the cash is less than the credit.
- Congress cut other energy credits in July 2025 and could reach this one before 2032, which would make the estimate an upper bound.
C34estimatelow confidence
The price pays roughly $8B for the credit still to come and about $12B for a manufacturer guided to lose money before it.
derivedEnterprise value of $20.68B (C27), less the roughly $8B remaining credit stream (C28), leaves about $12B set against operating income before the credit of -$110M to -$425M on 2026 guidance (C07).
against this
- The $8B rests on my own discount rate and a flat-to-2029 credit profile; at 8% it is nearer $9B and at 14% nearer $7.3B, which moves the residual by about a fifth either way.
- The residual is not paying for nothing. It buys 45.1 GW contracted through 2030, $1.688B of net cash, six US plants and a technology no rival runs - the loss before the credit is struck after start-up and idle costs a steady-state business would not carry.
C07estimatemedium confidence
At every point of 2026 guidance, operating income before the credit is negative, between -$110M and -$425M.
derivedEach end of the guided range in C06 taken with its own credit assumption: $2.4B gross profit less $2.19B of credits less $635M of costs is -$425M; $2.6B less $2.10B less $610M is -$110M.
against this
- Guided operating costs include $90M to $100M of production start-up expense for South Carolina, and guided gross profit is struck after $115M to $135M of costs for factories deliberately held idle. Adding both back leaves roughly break-even rather than a loss, so this is a company investing through the line rather than one that cannot make money.
- The pairing of the worst gross profit with the largest credit is arithmetic on the stated ranges, not a disclosed combination; management does not say the two ends move together.
C22facthigh confidence
The Section 45X credit runs to 2032 and begins phasing down in 2030.
C30factmedium confidence
Median platform pricing for imported modules was 27.1 cents a watt on 5 August 2026, below the floor now set.
against this
- It is one marketplace's median rather than a customs series, and the buyers on it are not the whole market.
- A floor above the clearing price is a floor importers may respond to by leaving the market rather than by paying it, so the gap overstates what any seller collects.
C27facthigh confidence
Enterprise value is 7.4 to 8.0 times guided 2026 adjusted earnings before interest, tax and depreciation, and the shares cost $12.69 for each $1 of trailing yearly profit against a six-year usual level of $19.05.
Priced against its rivals
There is no group to price it against. JinkoSolar and Canadian Solar sell the same panel to the same buyers, but the vendor cannot reconcile JinkoSolar's income statement, and one rival alone is not a group. The price is judged against its own history instead.
Where we disagree with the market
The market believes
A subsidised commodity maker whose earnings expire with the credit, so the tariff win is a trade; 30 of 74 analysts say hold or sell.
We believe
The floor lifts what rivals must charge. First Solar makes most of its panels here, so the rule lands on their costs, not its own.
The easy reading was that thin-film panels are exempt. They are not, and once that proved false the real mechanism was easy to miss: a floor that binds imports, in a country whose silicon assemblers import almost every cell.
The rule is also softer than it looks. An importer that documents its price pays only the gap to the floor, so a rival importing at $0.32 pays $0.06, not $0.38, and contracts signed before 6 August are exempt.
What analysts say, and the evidence
The evidence under this - 6 claims
C27facthigh confidence
Enterprise value is 7.4 to 8.0 times guided 2026 adjusted earnings before interest, tax and depreciation, and the shares cost $12.69 for each $1 of trailing yearly profit against a six-year usual level of $19.05.
C09facthigh confidence
The floor covers thin-film modules too: the annex lists the 'other than crystalline silicon' line at the same $0.38.
C35estimatemedium confidence
A minimum import price binds imports only. First Solar makes roughly 70% of its 2026 volume inside the United States.
derivedThe 2026 guidance assumes $2.10B-$2.19B of Section 45X credits at the company's stated rate of about 17 cents per watt, which implies 12.35-12.88 GW of US-made modules sold to third parties against guided total volume of 17.0-18.2 GW. The Q3 cadence given on the Q2 call is 3.2-3.7 GW from US operations out of 3.9-4.5 GW.
against this
- The credit is earned on modules produced in the US and sold to a third party, which is not identical to modules sold in the US, so the ratio is an approximation of domestic production rather than of domestic sale.
- The balance is imported and now faces the same floor as anyone else's imports. Its contracted book is struck near $0.30 a watt, below the $0.38 floor, so that volume depends on the exemption for contracts fixed before 6 August 2026.
C36factmedium confidence
American module capacity is 69.9 GW against about 3 GW of cell capacity, so nearly every US-assembled silicon module uses an imported cell.
against this
- Cell capacity is being built: Qcells alone is adding 3.3 GW at Cartersville, which roughly doubles the national figure, and the trade body's own dashboard would not open to an automated fetch so this rests on its figures as reported.
- Capacity is not utilisation. A module maker holding cell inventory or sourcing from an allied country pays the floor later rather than never.
C39facthigh confidence
The minimum import price is a top-up rather than a floor price, and the proclamation says so. An importer that documents at entry pays 'a specific tariff equal to the difference between the entered value on the entry summary and the MIP'; an importer that submits no documentation pays 'a specific tariff equal to the applicable MIP' in full. The certification is of one of two things: that the first arm's-length US sale will be at or above the minimum price, or that the sale is on fixed terms in a contract entered into before the proclamation was signed. A certification CBP finds materially inaccurate permanently prohibits that importer and its affiliates from importing polysilicon or its derivatives.
against this
- The top-up structure makes the measure weaker per module than a flat $0.38 would be: a rival importing at $0.32 a watt pays $0.06, not $0.38. It also makes the burden proportional to how cheap the import is, which is the design - the cheapest importer pays the most - so the competitive effect is preserved even though the headline overstates the tariff on any given entry.
- The permanent-prohibition penalty cuts the other way and is unusually severe for a customs certification. Its practical effect is to make the pre-August contract exemption expensive to use aggressively, since the downside of getting it wrong is exclusion from the US market rather than a duty bill - which argues that fewer rivals will lean on the exemption than its existence implies.
C38factlow confidence
Importers may use the price fixed in a contract entered into before 6 August 2026 rather than the floor.
against this
- This rests on law-firm readings of the proclamation rather than on the customs guidance that will actually administer it, and the documentation an importer must produce is not established here.
- It cuts both ways: it protects First Solar's own imported volume against a floor above its contracted price, and it equally protects every rival's pre-existing contracts, so it delays the benefit as well as the cost.
What could go wrong, and how we would know
The risks
- The floor may not bite. Importers that document their price pay only the gap to the floor, and contracts signed before 6 August are exempt.
- The credit can be cut. Profit rests on a credit that begins phasing down in 2030 and ends in 2032; Congress could cut it sooner.
- Cells made at home. Qcells added 3.3 GW of American cells. Enough more, and rivals stop paying the cell floor.
- Shrinking contracted orders. They have fallen three quarters running, from 50.1 GW to 45.1 GW.
- A shareholder lawsuit. It alleges the company understated what tariffs would cost it in 2026.
The evidence under this - 8 claims
C39facthigh confidence
The minimum import price is a top-up rather than a floor price, and the proclamation says so. An importer that documents at entry pays 'a specific tariff equal to the difference between the entered value on the entry summary and the MIP'; an importer that submits no documentation pays 'a specific tariff equal to the applicable MIP' in full. The certification is of one of two things: that the first arm's-length US sale will be at or above the minimum price, or that the sale is on fixed terms in a contract entered into before the proclamation was signed. A certification CBP finds materially inaccurate permanently prohibits that importer and its affiliates from importing polysilicon or its derivatives.
against this
- The top-up structure makes the measure weaker per module than a flat $0.38 would be: a rival importing at $0.32 a watt pays $0.06, not $0.38. It also makes the burden proportional to how cheap the import is, which is the design - the cheapest importer pays the most - so the competitive effect is preserved even though the headline overstates the tariff on any given entry.
- The permanent-prohibition penalty cuts the other way and is unusually severe for a customs certification. Its practical effect is to make the pre-August contract exemption expensive to use aggressively, since the downside of getting it wrong is exclusion from the US market rather than a duty bill - which argues that fewer rivals will lean on the exemption than its existence implies.
C38factlow confidence
Importers may use the price fixed in a contract entered into before 6 August 2026 rather than the floor.
against this
- This rests on law-firm readings of the proclamation rather than on the customs guidance that will actually administer it, and the documentation an importer must produce is not established here.
- It cuts both ways: it protects First Solar's own imported volume against a floor above its contracted price, and it equally protects every rival's pre-existing contracts, so it delays the benefit as well as the cost.
C22facthigh confidence
The Section 45X credit runs to 2032 and begins phasing down in 2030.
C05estimatemedium confidence
The 2025 credit was slightly larger than all of operating income: before it the company lost $3.1M.
derivedGross profit of $2.120B (40.62% of $5.219B revenue) less the $1.6B credit in C03 leaves $520.3M; operating costs were $523.5M, being gross profit less the $1.597B operating income in C04.
against this
- The credit is disclosed as $1.6B to one decimal place, so the residual is inside its own rounding: anything from $1.55B to $1.65B leaves operating income between +$47M and -$53M. The sign is uncertain; the order of magnitude is not.
- Operating costs in 2025 included production start-up expense for Louisiana, which a steady-state business would not carry.
C20factmedium confidence
Qcells has built the first US factory making ingots, wafers, cells and modules on one site, adding 3.3 GW of cell capacity.
against this
- Qcells' total US output is put at 8.6 GW against the roughly 17 GW of US module capacity First Solar projects for 2027, so the rival position is real and roughly half the size.
- The claim rests on the rival's own announcement, which is the party with most reason to overstate readiness; nameplate capacity is not shipped volume.
C36factmedium confidence
American module capacity is 69.9 GW against about 3 GW of cell capacity, so nearly every US-assembled silicon module uses an imported cell.
against this
- Cell capacity is being built: Qcells alone is adding 3.3 GW at Cartersville, which roughly doubles the national figure, and the trade body's own dashboard would not open to an automated fetch so this rests on its figures as reported.
- Capacity is not utilisation. A module maker holding cell inventory or sourcing from an allied country pays the floor later rather than never.
C13facthigh confidence
Backlog fell three quarters running, from 50.1 GW to 47.9 GW to 45.1 GW.
C17facthigh confidence
A securities class action covers buyers between 26 February 2025 and 24 February 2026 and alleges the tariff impact on 2026 was understated.
What we still do not know
- How much the cell floor actually adds to a rival's cost. Nobody has published it, though customs trade data could answer it.
- What the tariff clauses in existing contracts are worth; the company has not said.
The evidence under this - 3 claims
C36factmedium confidence
American module capacity is 69.9 GW against about 3 GW of cell capacity, so nearly every US-assembled silicon module uses an imported cell.
against this
- Cell capacity is being built: Qcells alone is adding 3.3 GW at Cartersville, which roughly doubles the national figure, and the trade body's own dashboard would not open to an automated fetch so this rests on its figures as reported.
- Capacity is not utilisation. A module maker holding cell inventory or sourcing from an allied country pays the floor later rather than never.
C39facthigh confidence
The minimum import price is a top-up rather than a floor price, and the proclamation says so. An importer that documents at entry pays 'a specific tariff equal to the difference between the entered value on the entry summary and the MIP'; an importer that submits no documentation pays 'a specific tariff equal to the applicable MIP' in full. The certification is of one of two things: that the first arm's-length US sale will be at or above the minimum price, or that the sale is on fixed terms in a contract entered into before the proclamation was signed. A certification CBP finds materially inaccurate permanently prohibits that importer and its affiliates from importing polysilicon or its derivatives.
against this
- The top-up structure makes the measure weaker per module than a flat $0.38 would be: a rival importing at $0.32 a watt pays $0.06, not $0.38. It also makes the burden proportional to how cheap the import is, which is the design - the cheapest importer pays the most - so the competitive effect is preserved even though the headline overstates the tariff on any given entry.
- The permanent-prohibition penalty cuts the other way and is unusually severe for a customs certification. Its practical effect is to make the pre-August contract exemption expensive to use aggressively, since the downside of getting it wrong is exclusion from the US market rather than a duty bill - which argues that fewer rivals will lean on the exemption than its existence implies.
C12facthigh confidence
That price excludes adjusters, among them changes to certain tariff structures within a defined threshold.
What would change our view
- Attractive→NeutralThe market pays for the floor
It needs:
- ○Its value, debt included, rises to about 11 times this year's forecast profit before interest, tax and depreciation: the floor finally priced.about ≈$289.27 today, 40% above the last close
- Attractive→UnattractiveThe floor does not bind
It needs any of:
- ○Waivers, quotas or documented top-ups let imported silicon panels keep selling below the floor.watched as it happens
- ○New American orders settle below $0.30 a watt once the floor is in force.checked at the next results, due by 29 Oct
- ○Congress cuts the manufacturing credit before its 2030 phase-down, removing the $8B the price already pays for.watched as it happens
We would also be wrong if
- American cell factories grow enough that rivals stop paying the imported-cell floor.
- Contracted orders fall below 35 GW without new ones replacing them.
What is coming
- 29 October 2026 Q3 2026 results: The price new US bookings are struck at with the floor law but not yet in force, whether the backlog stops shrinking, and whether 2026 guidance holds.
Every dated event ahead
- 29 October 2026 Q3 2026 results: The price new US bookings are struck at with the floor law but not yet in force, whether the backlog stops shrinking, and whether 2026 guidance holds.
- 4 December 2026 Minimum import price and 15% tariff take effect, with customs guidance due before it: How the floor is administered: what documentation importers owe and how widely the pre-August contract exemption is used, which decides how much of rivals' cost it reaches.
- February 2027 Q4 2026 results and the FY2026 10-K: 2026 delivered against $4.9B to $5.2B of revenue and $2.10B to $2.19B of credits, the first 2027 guidance under the floor, and the year-end backlog.
Since we wrote this
Written
25 Aug
Price the thesis read
$206.40
25 Aug
- 5 OctThesis reviewThe long case now sits under the verdictAfter the five-name pilot, the owner asked for the long case on every thesis.
- 4 OctThesis reviewOwner's checklist: revenue streams, cost of growth, management, catalystsThe owner's checklist found the method silent on who runs the company, what growth costs, where the money comes from and what is dated ahead; this pass fills those four blocks from the proxy and filings.
- 2 OctNewsFirst Solar files a new TOPCon patent suit; the case rests elsewhere. View heldFirst Solar sued JA Solar and American Panel Solutions in Delaware for infringing its TOPCon cell patent.
- 24 SepNewsTrade-commission patent case dropped; court suits continue. View heldThe import ban it sought was upside the thesis never counted, and the patent suits against its silicon rivals carry on in court.
- 15 SepThesis reviewThe floor is a top-up, but harder to game. View heldRead in full, the rule charges a documented importer only the gap to the floor, but bars for good any importer whose paperwork proves wrong. The two roughly offset.
- 25 AugThesis writtenAttractive, medium convictionWritten after the shares gave back the whole jump that followed August's import floor, on the reading that its thin-film panel fell outside the rule.
- 25 AugThesis reviewThin-film exemption proved false; the case survives. View heldThe rule covers its panel too. The advantage is that the floor binds imports, and First Solar makes most panels at home with no cells, while American rivals import theirs.
Also checked 3 times with nothing new to act on.
Sources 19
Where this came from
Sources - 19
Every claim above cites one of these, or states the reasoning that derived it. The quote is frozen at the date it was read: a link can rot, and an agent fetch returns a reading of a page rather than the page. Backs counts the whole claim ledger, so it can name a claim this page does not surface.
- S01primarycompany filing2026-02-24the product and process description, the Section 45X credit rate and the $1.6B recognised in cost of sales, contracted backlog at year end, customer concentration, the USITC petition and the BP Solar disputebacksC01C02C03C04C13C19C22C26C33C40C41C42C43C47C48
- S02primarycompany filing2026-02-24the original 2026 guidance and the footnote naming the Section 45X credits assumed inside guided gross profitbacksC06C31
- S03primarycompany filing2026-07-30backlog and its variable-consideration carve-outs, the IEEPA refund benefit, the securities class action and derivative suit, cash and debt, share countsbacksC01C11C12C13C17C18C23C24C25C26C41C42C48
- S04primarycompany filing2026-07-30reaffirmed 2026 guidance with the Section 45X assumption restated, and the Q3 cadencebacksC06C31
- S05primarytranscript2026-07-30Q2 2026 earnings call transcriptnew bookings volume and price per watt, India pricing, the domestic-content share of backlog, idle international capacity; and eight analyst questions on Section 232 timing and waivers
Since our last earnings call, we recorded approximately 1.9 gigawatts of additional U.S. gross bookings at an average selling price of approximately $0.36 per watt, inclusive of applicable technology adjusters. ... approximately 41 gigawatts of our 45 gigawatt backlog includes some form of domestic content requirement.
backsC10C14C29 - S06primarygovernment data2026-08-06Presidential Proclamation, Adjusting Imports of Polysilicon and Its Derivatives Into the United States The White Housethe tariff rate, the minimum import prices of $0.22 per watt for cells and $0.38 per watt for modules, and the December 4, 2026 effective date
Imports of polysilicon ingots and polysilicon derivatives specified in Annexes I and II of this proclamation shall be subject to an additional 15 percent ad valorem rate of duty ... $0.22 per watt for solar cells; and $0.38 per watt for solar modules ... Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on December 4, 2026
backsC08 - S07secondaryindustry data2026-08-13a buyer-side reading of which tariff codes the annexes cover, and median platform module pricing of 27.1 cents per watt on August 5, 2026
First Solar is particularly well positioned, as its CdTe thin-film modules fall under none of the covered HTS codes.
backsC30C38 - S08primarygovernment data2026-02-20the size of the US utility-scale solar market this company sells into, measured by the government rather than the industry
Developers plan to add 43.4 GW of new utility-scale solar capacity in 2026, a 60% increase in capacity additions from last year if realized.
backsC21 - S09primarycompany release2026-08-06management's own reading of the measure, and its projection of roughly 17 GW of US module capacity by 2027
This action closes that loophole, and it is built to be enforced, with a minimum import price, an ad valorem tariff behind it, and real consequences for violators.
read, but no claim rests on it - S10primarycompany release2026-06-17Qcells, Begins Solar Cell Manufacturing at America's First and Only Vertically Integrated Solar Factory in Cartersville, Georgia Qcells (Hanwha Solutions)a named rival's own account of building the fully domestic ingot-to-module position First Solar's advantage rests on
by Q3 2026, Cartersville will make 3.3 GW each of ingots, wafers, cells, and 3.5 GW of modules a year.
backsC20 - S11secondaryvendor data2026-08-25Research pack, frozen beside this thesiscontent/FSLR/research-pack.jsonprice and the 20-day range, the valuation series against its own six-year medians, daily bars around the proclamation, Form 4 insider rows, the analyst split, and the two rivals' trailing multiplesbacksC04C15C16C18C25C27C32
- S12primarycompany filing2026-04-30the middle point of the backlog decline at 47.9 GW, and the second of three reaffirmations of 2026 guidance carrying the same Section 45X assumptionbacksC06C13
- S13primarygovernment data2026-08-06Annex I to the Presidential Proclamation, Adjusting Imports of Polysilicon and Its Derivatives The White Housethe actual scope of the measure: both the crystalline silicon module line and the 'other' line that carries thin film, each at the $0.38 per watt floor
(iv) $0.38 per watt for solar modules. HTSUS Description 8541.43.0010 ... Photovoltaic cells assembled in modules or made up into panels: crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of a kind described in statistical note 12 to chapter 85 of the HTSUS 8541.43.0080 ... Photovoltaic cells assembled in modules or made up into panels: other than provided for in statistical reporting number 8541.43.0010
backsC09 - S14primarycompany filing2026-08-18the footnotes: three of the sales were pre-scheduled Rule 10b5-1 plans adopted in early May 2026, and the fourth disposal was tax withholding on vestingbacksC16
- S15secondaryindustry data2026-06-30the gap that makes the cell floor bind on domestic assembly: US module capacity is more than twenty times US cell capacity, so nearly every American-assembled silicon module uses an imported cell
there is currently 69.9 gigawatts (GW) of domestic module manufacturing capacity online ... the United States currently has just 3 gigawatts of solar cell manufacturing capacity
backsC36 - S16primarygovernment data2026-08-11Proclamation 11052 as published in the Federal Register, 91 FR 51975 (11 August 2026), document 2026-16400 - clauses (2) and (3), the MIP enforcement mechanism Executive Office of the President, via the Office of the Federal Registerhow the floor actually bites - as a top-up to entered value for importers that document, and as the whole minimum price for importers that do not - plus the penalty for a wrong certification, none of which is in the White House summary this thesis read
(b) If an importer fails to submit the documentation referenced in subclause (a) of this clause, the imported merchandise shall be subject to a specific tariff equal to the applicable MIP. (c) For importers that submit the documentation referenced in subclause (a) of this clause, in the event that the entered value on the entry summary of the imported merchandise is less than the MIP, the imported merchandise shall be subject to a specific tariff equal to the difference between the entered value on the entry summary and the MIP. (3) ... If CBP determines that an importer's documentation was materially inaccurate or that an importer has materially failed to comply with its certification, that importer and its affiliates shall permanently be prohibited from importing polysilicon and polysilicon derivatives into the United States.
backsC39 - S17primarycompany release2026-09-15the intent to withdraw the Section 337 complaint and move to terminate Investigation No. 337-TA-1494 without prejudice, and to continue the district-court TOPCon patent suits
First Solar, Inc. (Nasdaq: FSLR) ("First Solar" or "the Company") today announced a recalibration of its intellectual property (IP) enforcement strategy and its intent to voluntarily withdraw its Section 337 complaint and move to terminate the investigation currently pending before the US International Trade Commission (USITC) without prejudice to refiling at a later date. The Company will continue pursuing its existing TOPCon patent lawsuits in US District Court
backsC26 - S18primarycompany filing2026-04-02beneficial ownership as of March 19, 2026, the 2025 Bonus Plan's threshold, metrics, weightings and payout, the 2025 performance-unit metrics, director tenures and the CEO's biographybacksC43C44C45C46
- S19primarycompany filing2023-02-28the 2020 to 2022 income statement as a percentage of net sales: selling and admin, research and development, production start-up and gains on sales of businessesbacksC41C42C47