By Anonymous Americus

By now we’ve heard from practically everyone – experts and layman alike – why Solyndra declared bankruptcy. Everyone, that is, except the management and owners of Solyndra.

Although the company’s executive management was called before Congress to testify about the bankruptcy, they declined to answer any questions, citing their fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination.

Most observers claim it was the fall in silicon prices that made the company’s business model unsustainable. According to the New York Times:

“Solyndra’s unique tube-shaped solar panels — which harvest early morning and evening light for electricity instead of just midday sun — do not rely on silicon. But it assumed its competitors would continue to pay a relatively high price for silicon, allowing Solyndra to charge the premium required to turn a profit on its panels. It was an assumption Obama officials bought into. But industry experts outside the federal government, going back to 2008, were predicting silicon prices were headed for a steep fall.”

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/us/politics/in-rush-to-assist-solyndra-united-states-missed-warning-signs.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=johnmbroder]

However, no-one really knows if this is true or not. What was the sales price of Solyndra’s panels? What did their order book look like? How many long-term supply contracts were signed with European developers, with whom the Solyndra product was so popular? Were buyers also attracted to the energy-harvesting capabilities, portability and ease of installation of Solyndra panels versus silicon PV? Only the privately-held company’s executive management and owners know the answers to those questions, and they are not telling.

Who benefits from a Solyndra bankruptcy? We know who does not benefit – the employees who were laid off after the bankruptcy announcement don’t benefit. Solyndra’s creditors – the vendors who provided materials and equipment with payment terms, and the lenders who provided financing to the company – don’t benefit. The Department of Energy, which provided the 80% guarantee for $535 million of company debt, doesn’t benefit. The solar industry, which to newcomers looks like the biggest scam since Enron, doesn’t benefit. And the taxpayers definitely don’t benefit.

So why then would Solyndra seek bankruptcy protection against its creditors?

Well here’s an explanation no one has offered until now: Solyndra’s owners declared bankruptcy not because the company was no longer viable, but for exactly the opposite reason – the company’s prospects are so good, they want it all for themselves.

By declaring bankruptcy, the company clears its books of all debts. The company’s assets are auctioned off with the proceeds assigned to the benefit of creditors. The owners buy the assets in the auction for pennies on the dollar, free and clear of all debts, courtesy of the US taxpayers, as represented by the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy.

Great investment management — if you can get away with it.

Of course there is only one way to know if this hypothesis is plausible, and that is to take note of who shows up to buy Solyndra’s assets in the auction. If the buyers are even remotely connected to the current investors in the company, then the Solyndra bankruptcy will go down as one of the greatest heists of taxpayer funds this century.

The date for the bankruptcy auction of Solyndra’s assets has been set for October 27th. Not surprisingly, the creditors’ committee has criticized the quick sales process as “rushed”.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/27/us-solyndra-bankruptcy-hearing-idUSTRE78Q4BW20110927]

Are we all getting “rushed” by Solyndra? Only time will tell.

###

Related articles

Solyndra’s $733M Plant Had Robots, Spa Showers

Solyndra Said to Have Violated Terms of Its U.S. Loan

###

Any publication posted at The T-Room and/or opinions expressed therein do not necessarily reflect the views of The T-Room. Such publications and all information within the publications (e.g. titles, dates, statistics, conclusions, sources, opinions, etc) are solely the responsibility of the author of the article, not The T-Room.