First Solar, Inc. (FSLR) Q3 2026 Earnings Report, Transcript and Summary

Good afternoon, and welcome to First Solar's Third Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. This call is being webcast live on the Investors section of First Solar's website at investor.firstsolar.com. [Operator Instructions] And please note that today's call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to your host, Byron Jeffers, Head of Investor Relations.

Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us. With me today are Mark Widmar, Chief Executive Officer; and Alex Bradley, Chief Financial Officer. Mark will begin with an update on the business, followed by Alex with our financial results and outlook. Before we begin, today's discussion will include forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Additional information regarding these risks and uncertainties can be found in our earnings press release, other SEC filings and the earnings material available on our Investor Relations website at investor.firstsolar.com. We undertake no obligation to update any of these forward-looking statements as a result of new information or future events. During today's call, we will also discuss certain non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliation of these measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures are provided in our earnings press release and accompanying presentation. We encourage investors to review those reconciliations as non-GAAP measures should not be considered in isolation or a substitute for financial information prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. With that, I'll turn it over to Mark.

Thank you, and good afternoon. Getting on Slide 4. We continue to execute with discipline this past quarter, advancing our U.S. manufacturing expansion, CuRe deployment and perovskite R&D program while delivering strong financial results. We generated approximately $1.2 billion in net sales, expanded gross margin to approximately 58% and delivered adjusted EBITDA of $744 million. Operationally, our continued CuRe deployment across the fleet is being executed through a disciplined learnings-based approach that began with our Perrysburg Series 6 conversion in Q1 of this year. That approach now extends to our first Series 7 conversion at our India facility expected to begin in the first quarter of 2027, which marks the start of Series 7 CuRe replication across the fleet. Beginning in India allows us to first refine the deployment process in a low earnings impact environment before replicating across our U.S. Series 7 fleet. During the subsequent U.S. conversions, assuming a supportive trade environment, India front-end output is planned to be flexed to supply U.S. facilities, supporting U.S. back-end throughput and preserving partial domestic content and Section 45X eligibility production during the transition. Accordingly, India's finished goods production in 2027 is expected to range from 2.2 gigawatts to 2.6 gigawatts. The pace in sequencing subsequent Series 7 U.S. conversions will be informed by learnings from the India launch consistent with the disciplined learnings-based approach we have taken across all periods of technology transition. In South Carolina, our Series 6 finishing facility is being brought online in 2 phases as part of the integrated manufacturing flow from Vietnam. The first phase started production in Q3. Second phase is expected to reach commercial launch in mid-2027. As we previously shared, we delayed the second phase by approximately 1 quarter so that the CuRe could be incorporated at commercial launch. Together, these 2 phases are expected to result in 2027 South Carolina production of 2.2 to 2.5 gigawatts. Beyond CuRe, we continue to advance our next-generation technology road map. Our Ohio pilot line designed to produce Series 6 size perovskite modules remains on track to reach operational readiness in the first half of 2027. We expect this line will enable field deployment of modules to further capture learnings and validate the manufacturing performance and durability profile of this next-generation thin film technology before we undertake broader scaling decisions. Our licensing agreement with CubicPV announced earlier today, together with our previously announced intellectual property agreement with Oxford PV, continues to support the development road map, providing access to foundational perovskite IP as we advance our technology road map. Turning to the market environment on Slide 5. The Section 232 proclamation issued in August represents a meaningful shift for U.S. solar manufacturing, and we believe First Solar is well positioned to benefit as the shift takes effect. Combined with fundamentals such as continued demand strength from load growth and data center expansions, we see a long-term opportunity to translate this position into earnings growth. Section 232 represents a structural change in how the United States approaches solar manufacturing. As the U.S. competes for global leadership in artificial intelligence and the emerging low Earth orbit economy, secure and affordable power will be foundational to both. The country cannot afford to depend on adversarial nations for technologies and supply chains increasingly central to our long-term economic prosperity and national security. As a technology company and the only fully integrated utility-scale solar manufacturer without dependency on a Chinese crystalline silicon supply chain, we believe we are structurally positioned to benefit from this environment. Note, by 2027, nearly 80% of our global module manufacturing footprint will be located in the U.S. Long-term demand fundamentals also remained strong. AI-related infrastructure, electrification and the onshoring of U.S. manufacturing are driving significant load growth. These customers need large-scale power quickly, and solar plus storage remains one of the fastest and lowest cost solutions. They are increasingly focused on availability, delivery certainty, bankable warranties and supply chain security, attributes we have built our business around. As it relates to bookings, we believe the market is working through a transition following the Section 232 announcement with significant influence from other key factors. As a reminder, a substantial portion of our existing backlog is comprised of multiyear framework agreements that are intended to supply customers with projects in various stages of development. While entering into these types of agreements has historically driven significant additions to our backlog, they can also be more challenging for us to plan for and allocate against because of the inherent delivery timing uncertainty associated with projects in early stage of development. Over the course of this year, while not closing the door on framework agreements with appropriate contractual protections, our customer engagements have shifted more towards project-specific contracting with the 5 projects and delivery schedules. From our perspective, the enhanced certainty surrounding project-specific contracts allows us to optimize module allocation and delivery with a potential trade-off of slowing the pace of an extended multiyear contracted backlog. At the same time, customers are focused on advancing mid- and late-stage projects where modules have already been secured while deferring procurement on early-stage projects requiring delivery later in the decade. We see several factors driving this behavior, including increased NIMBYism among community residents and growing state and local government opposition. In addition, the overall inflationary environment together with the continuously evolving tariff landscape have challenged near-term project economics and require greater strategic planning on behalf of our development customers to address system cost increases unrelated to module pricing. As one example, in certain cases, surging battery prices is challenging both projects in construction as well as projects at the PPA bid stage. Lastly, an incomplete regulatory picture with regards to the final FEOC guidance as well as the potential for Section 232 tariffs to continue to evolve, particularly as it relates to minimum import prices and the effectiveness of anti-stocking measures has generated volatility in the module procurement market and inhibited customer clarity as it relates to module pricing discovery. The impact of these current dynamics on recent bookings is most pronounced from our Malaysia facility. While Vietnam is expected to supply the semi-finished product for our South Carolina finishing facility, Malaysia retains the capacity to produce fully finished international modules. We continue to evaluate demand for this product based on core unit economics, tariffs and trade conditions, and customer contracting terms. We expect the operating decision regarding our Malaysia facility to be binary, resulting in either operations at full or near full capacity of 1.8 gigawatt annually or a shutdown of production with a decision expected in the first half of 2027. Given Malaysia's relatively small contribution to our manufacturing footprint, limited Series 6 blending opportunity in the U.S. absent of Section 45X credits and freight and tariff burdens, we do not expect either outcome to materially impact our run rate earnings profile. Against this backdrop, we remain deliberate on bookings, and we are pleased with the results of this approach. Through today in the U.S., our largest market, we have booked approximately 4.9 gigawatts at approximately $0.35 -- $0.36 per watt inclusive of adjusters. Moreover, our 44-gigawatt backlog gives us the ability to focus on contracting approaches on 2 strategic initiatives. First, we seek to improve pricing on new module sales relative to our current backlog ASP. Note, pricing will continue to vary by product, Series 6 and Series 7, and by U.S. versus internationally made. Second, we seek to improve contract structures to further mitigate the risk of cost increases beyond our control, strengthening credit support and payment terms and firm up product delivery schedules. Our objective is to optimize across both upfront ASPs as well as long-term earnings profile through disciplined pricing, appropriate contractual protections, strong counterparties and alignment with our manufacturing and delivery strategy. In summary, our focus on project-specific versus framework agreements, customer focus on near-term project execution versus late data procurement, evolving market price discovery and our contracting discipline have moderated recent bookings on a volume basis but on an economic basis, has generated improved pricing relative to our overall backlog. In addition, we remain focused on our ability to effect our contracting strategic initiatives and are confident in demand for our domestically produced product, particularly for 2029 and beyond when we have available supply. With that, I turn the call over to Alex to discuss our bookings, financial results and outlook.

Thanks, Mark. Turning to our bookings and backlog on Slide 6. We ended the quarter with 44 gigawatts under contract, representing approximately $13.5 billion contracted value, exclusive of technology adjusters with scheduled deliveries extending through 2030. Since our last earnings call, we recorded approximately 1.4 gigawatts of additional U.S. gross bookings at an average selling price of approximately $0.36 per watt, inclusive of applicable technology adjusters. Importantly, substantially all the volume was contracted or in late-stage negotiation, and pricing and terms are largely set ahead of the Section 232 announced. In addition, there remains approximately 4 gigawatts of variable volume associated with previously signed contracts, not currently part of the contracted backlog, but pricing reflective of the pre-Section 232 environment, which our customers have the ability to exercise as of the date [ start ]. Approximately half of this volume has a decision date within the next 5 months, with the other half spread across the remainder of 2027 and 2028. Should our customers elect to receive this volume, it will be recognized as incremental bookings at the time of such election. During the quarter, we also continued customer notifications related to contractual technology adjusters, aligned with our production plan and intended deployment sequence. These notifications represent a meaningful source of incremental backlog value as CuRe deployment advances across the fleet, with the majority of the adjuster value expected to be realized in 2027 and 2028. In respect to adjuster-eligible volume, we would note that the ultimate realization of these adjustments is subject to the achievement of the underlying technology milestones, timing of future customer notifications and module delivery schedules, and other contractual conditions. And therefore, the final value and timing may differ from the amounts and periods described. Of that potential adjuster value, approximately 20% is currently associated with 2027 deliveries, with the remainder weighted to 2028 and beyond. As we continue to progress customer notifications associated with existing bookings tied to our CuRe deployment sequence, together with new bookings removing the adjuster concept as we sell our CuRe product with the technology embedded in the base ASP, the value of the adjusters will roll off over time. Turning to Slide 7. Net sales for the third quarter were approximately $1.2 billion, a decrease of approximately 23% year-over-year. The decrease was primarily driven by lower module volumes sold to third parties compared to the prior year period. Gross margin was approximately 58%, up roughly 20 percentage points year-over-year. The year-over-year increase was driven primarily by a higher mix of U.S.-produced modules. Gross margin also benefited from lower sales rates and utilization costs, tariffs and duties, partially offset by lower termination-related revenue. Operating expenses were approximately $167 million. Research and development expense was approximately $67 million, reflecting continued investment in our technology road map, including perovskite development. Net income was $571 million, up approximately 25% year-over-year. Adjusted EBITDA was $744 million, near the upper end of our previously communicated Q3 preview range, with an adjusted EBITDA margin of approximately 60%. Diluted earnings per share were $5.30 compared with $4.24 in the prior year period. Turning to our balance sheet and capital allocation on Slide 8. We ended the quarter with approximately $1.5 billion in net cash remaining within our long-term target net cash range of $1.5 billion to $2 billion. Our balance sheet and projected cash generation continues to provide substantial financial flexibility. In February, we laid out our approach to capital structure and capital allocation. This prioritized maintaining the aforementioned $1.5 billion to $2 billion of net cash to provide resiliency to cyclicality and industry volatility and to use additional cash to focus on growth, technology deployment, innovation, R&D, technology road map advancements and M&A, especially related to complementary technology-adjacent opportunities. We further stated that we would evaluate applying cash generation in excess of the above capital priorities to share repurchases, pending clarity around certain factors, including policy catalysts, new bookings volume and tax credit monetization. In line with this approach and following the Section 232 proclamation issued in Q3, our Board has authorized a share repurchase program of up to $500 million, effective immediately with no expiration date. This authorization reflects confidence in the long-term value of the business while preserving our disciplined approach to capital allocation and ability to continue investing in technology development and growth. Turning to Slide 9. Our full year 2026 guidance is updated to reflect a lower range of India domestic, international Series 6 and U.S. finishing volumes sold, with an associated reduction in revenue and adjusted EBITDA. As we stated in our original guidance in February, we entered the year assuming our India facility would flex production as needed to match acceptably priced India-based demand in an inherently short book-to-bill cycle market. We've accordingly reduced our full year India domestic volume sold forecast by approximately 0.7 gigawatts. We also stated in February that we entered the year assuming limited in-year demand for our Series 6 international product, and bookings activity for 2026 deliveries has remained consistent with that assumption. While the low end of our total U.S. component volume sold forecast reflects a modest reduction based on reduced Series 6 WIP share products sold, our forecast range for fully domestic products sold remains unchanged. As we look forward to next year, subject to a supportive policy and trade environment, we expect to increase exports from our India facility to the U.S. market to optimize the margin potential from this factory. And as Mark discussed, we expect to make a decision on the long-term operating path for our Malaysia facility in the first half 2027. Core operating expenses primarily increased as a function of increased legal spend associated with defending our TOPCon intellectual property position, which we believe has the potential to drive future revenue and earnings upside; and increased R&D spend on perovskite development. Note, our full year perovskite-related spend originally forecasted approximately $100 million is now expected to total approximately $120 million. This forecast increased in 2027 as we seek to advance this next-generation advanced technology. Core OpEx increases were offset by a delay in certain start-up expenses of our South Carolina facility now expected in mid-2027, leaving our total 2026 operating expense guidance unchanged. Net cash guidance remains unchanged with reduced cash inflows from volumes sold offset by a reduction to forecasted CapEx. In summary, we believe we remain well positioned as we close out 2026 and look forward to 2027, driven by U.S. policy framework supporting true domestic manufacturing, continued load growth as the United States competes to lead in AI and utility-scale solar ambition to meet the cost and speed to power requirements of a rapidly modernizing U.S. economy. These drivers align well with our 44-gigawatt contracted backlog for mostly nearer-term deliveries and greater module supply availability in the 2028 and beyond time frame, which we expect further improvements in pricing and contractual terms relative to our existing backlog. We continue to invest in our future, including our staged CuRe technology replication across the fleet, and increased perovskite spend in R&D, IP partnerships and our Perrysburg pilot line. Our strong balance sheet allows us continued investment in the business while concurrently enabling capital return to shareholders. And with that operator, please open the line for questions.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Moses Sutton with BNP Paribas.

Maybe you could like elaborate on what seems like literally 0 urgency for developers to book '29 volumes. I sort of get the point on there's NIMBYism. There's positive economics. There's tariffs. But we also hear from developers they expect to really do a lot of safe harbor volume in [ 2029 ]. Panel prices will structurally go up 50%. They don't have inventory that extends that far out even if they do for the next 2 years. So -- sorry for the long question, but would there be a strategy change that's necessary? Would you cut price to $0.34, $0.35 and book the rest of the decade? It would seem there's a little more urgency for '29 than there used to be. Maybe you can elaborate a little more because we do still expect at least tens of gigawatts of TAM each year in '29 and '30?

Yes. Well, look, I think the first thing, I think, we just need to maybe step back and reflect on is that everyone obviously is evaluating the execution against their development pipeline. And there's near-term initiatives and areas of focus that they're concentrated on right now and disruptions at certain times, as we indicated, even as it relates to whether it's battery costs or other component costs, I mean, or the impact of tariffs that are swinging various projects around. People are all trying to work through that. They're trying to secure their financing. There's still interconnection challenges that people are working through. And then probably the biggest issue that people are continuing to struggle with right now is just the challenges that are continuing to happen in local communities even at the state level, in particular, from a government standpoint and trying to push back on deployment of data centers, as we indicated in the NIMBYism comment that we had in our prepared remarks. So there's a lot that they got going on right now, some engagements that we are having right now with customers. And we are starting to book a pipeline of opportunities that are going out into that horizon and some even beyond '29 and going into '30 and beyond as well. But everyone is kind of like, "I got all these near-term things I'm focused on at this point in time. I've got to work through these, get everything addressed. I'm still trying to digest the implications of what happens with the full implementation around 232." People are still trying to think through the FEOC guidance is going to come out sometime either later this year or beginning of next year. And so I think there's clarity that everybody is looking for at that point in time. So I think it's just a matter of just the timing of letting some of this work its way through and where their near-term priorities are to then think through the balance of the decade and what they still need to do. I mean everyone is really concerned now of meeting their 48 safe harbor requirements, which these projects have to be safe harbored by -- and completed and commissioned by the end of 2028. And there's not as much focus going further out into the horizon, and that's largely what we're seeing from customers.

Moses, just a couple of other comments. So we said on the call that we were seeing this year challenges in near-term book to bill on our international volume. And if that ties into what we said before, we don't want to be in the spot market. That's a challenging place for us to be. But if you look at our contracted backlog, we're still booked out a couple of years in advance. So when you talk about urgency around booking 2029, obviously, we'd like to see bookings momentum. We're open for business, but I don't think we have a desperate urgency to be booking in that horizon right now. And we also talked on the call in the prepared remarks around how we're thinking about contracting, and we're looking increasingly at individual projects versus large frameworks. And we're happy to take framework deals with the right set of structural protections within them, but we see more and more customers actually looking at individual project deals, and we've been looking at that. And generally speaking, that's going to give you shorter-term visibility relative to 2029. So if it's trying to book specific deals, specific projects, that the amount of clarity you have for 2029 is a lot less than if you were looking at framework horizon. So there's that piece to factor in as well.

Yes. And Moses, one thing I should have mentioned, too, just I think it's just a really good example maybe to highlight kind of the dynamics that are going on, right? Now we are in negotiations with the customer for a 2-gigawatt procurement decision that was largely into final negotiations and documentation associated around the agreement and the particular state that this project was being developed put a moratorium in place. And the whole project stopped, right? And this has happened after the announcement of the 232. So customers are just uncertain and when that level of uncertainty does happen, then they're not going to be making commitments until they get better clarity.

Your next question comes from the line of Joseph Osha with Guggenheim.

Following a little bit on Moses' question. Alex, you mentioned that bookings we're seeing now reflect conversations that were undertaken prior to 232. Can you maybe give us a little bit of a preview on where conversations are landing for conversations that commenced post 232?

Yes, maybe I'll add a little bit color around that. Since the announcement of 232, we have revised and increased our pricing. In some cases, they were deals that were still in the early stage of negotiations. So we have increased pricing in those negotiations with customers. It -- and if it's a new opportunity that's come in our way that wasn't even in any form of conversation prior to the 232, then those prices have gone up relative to what we would have been indicating previously. We still have to work through all those issues, right? And I think we're -- anytime you get through here in an environment of rising prices, there's a lot of price discovery that's going to get done. Everyone wants to go out, and they want to evaluate all other options and sort of discover where they think the pricing can be for different dynamics and whether they need the domestic content or how much of the domestic content from a point standpoint do they need. So they're going to do a lot of heavy lifting to sort of figure out and triangulate what makes the most sense, partly because they also have to, in most cases, go back and get approval through their boards. And when you see a price point in the market that was there previously and now that, that price point has increased significantly, then everybody has to then sort of do the due diligence around that. So what I would say is the deals that -- some of the deals that we have announced in this quarter were priced before the 232. In cases where we were in earlier negotiations with customers after the 232, we have looked to try to increase that and then clearly, any new opportunities have kind of informed the more comprehensive view of what we think the pricing environment is like today. But like I said, the price discovery is going to take a while before you'll start to see that volume being executed.

Your next question comes to the line of Philip Shen with ROTH Capital.

In terms of price, just to continue with the conversation, the price discovery may take some time. It sounds like you are -- you have 4 gigawatts, of which maybe 2 gigawatts needs to be decided on in the next 5 months. And so just curious where -- what are we talking about now in terms of where pricing could go to in the crystalline silicon world. We've quantified it as pricing has gone up $0.10 to $0.20 a watt depending on the product and maybe timing. And so that's a big move, and I understand the price discovery patience or timing that people need because they have to process kind of this upside shock to their economics. And so I was wondering if you can share with us a little bit of where do you think -- what could you book in the next quarter and then what kind of price do you think you might get.

Yes. Phil, the one thing on price, too, I just want to make sure that we've highlighted this before. It does vary by -- we have it in our prepared remarks as well. I mean the price for us -- for our Series 6 product is different than our Series 7 products. Our domestic -- high content -- domestic content product is different than a fully international imported module. So there's going to be a distribution of what that pricing could look like. And so if I'm selling something that's being imported from Malaysia, as an example, that's going to be at the low end of that continuum. And if I'm selling our Series 7 product that's domestically manufactured here in the U.S., that's going to be at the high end. So there's going to be a continuum around pricing. As it relates to -- we just announced, again, I think, another quarter at $0.36 or something like that is what our -- since the last call -- call to call, I think it was around $0.36. And we have deals and that's an average. We've got deals that are above that, and that's a momentum that we'd like to continue to carry on -- carry forward. But I also want to be careful of we've got to put a marker out there with so much that still is in -- is fluid and is still evolving. I don't want to give an indication of what that price realization could be. We're just going to work to try to see how we can engage the market and capture the highest value relative to competitive alternatives. And if crystalline silicon stays in the range that you referenced and -- then that gives us quite a bit of opportunity to improve pricing dynamics for our technology. But a lot of work still to go to get there.

So maybe just 2 other comments. As it relates to the volume that we already have that may get elected by customers, that's going to range from somewhere close to the current backlog average to somewhere close to where we're pricing now. So you're going to see a variety in that. But it's going to be between what we see historically and what we're seeing currently. And then as you think about future pricing, crystalline silicon pricing is still most likely for deals in the next 12 to 24 months. And I don't think there's a good market for that price point when you get out into the late '28, 2029, 2030 time frame, which is when we have most of our available product to sell. So one of the reasons, I think, customers are still doing price discovery is they don't necessarily have a good benchmark that far out that's reliable or trustworthy. And so we're still working through our pricing relative to where we think the market is and customers trying to understand our pricing relative to where they think that market point will be.

Yes. And I think the other point maybe I'll highlight as well, Phil, is that, look, we still have a little bit of time before we get to full implementation on the 232. And what I will say is I'm very happy to hear the kind of enforcement focus that the commerce has to address stockpiling. The problem is there's such an aggressive posture and risk-taking that people are willing to do in order to get a module into the U.S. at some pre-232 MIP. And so we're in a lot of stories of to what extent people are going to in order to try to get product into the market, whether it's at the cell level or whether it's at the module level and just aggressively pushing the envelope. And I know Commerce is doing a great job of trying to enforce that and to prevent that from happening and stopping that, but the onslaught of this stuff is coming from every angle. And so I think there's also that piece that people are waiting for. Let's let -- maybe there'll be a lot more product that does make it into the market somehow. And a customer may say I'm willing to take some -- wait and buy some time because maybe I can get an opportunity to get some pre-232 volume that's been imported into the market at some crazy low price. And that's informing their decision or at least creating a willingness to wait. And we obviously are there to encourage Commerce to do whatever they can to ensure that enforcement of preventing that stockpiling. But that's not stopping the activities. People are willing to take a lot of risk, and it's very aggressive. And we'll have to see how effective Commerce could be. So far, we applaud them for their efforts. There's no doubt about that.

Yes. So far, they blocked -- I think we've learned about 60 importers blocked that up until about 2 weeks ago, and that's out of an importer count of, I think, 400. Pre-232, we learned that it was 200. And then post-232, that jumped up to 400. They've blocked at least close to 60. So it looks like they're working -- the enforcement is pretty aggressive. Any thoughts on that? And then how much higher MIPs could go up and what kind of timing that could be?

Yes. I think on the enforcement, I mean, I don't -- some of you may know that we did our ribbon cutting for our new factory in South Carolina and Secretary Lutnick was there and a number of the key members of his team were there. So it gives us a great opportunity to talk with them and to sort of continue to emphasize the importance of this enforcement. And they're 100% committed on the enforcement side and to do everything they can to prevent those types of things from happening. And where we can, we are sharing insights with them and things we think could be helpful from that standpoint. And just to your point, I mean, the risk tolerance and -- that people are willing to take, knowing that there's going to be that level of enforcement is not slowing things down very much. I mean, yes, you can get 60 out of the -- if the number of importers of record went up from 200 to 400, and it's great that we caught 60 of them, but that means there's another 140 that potentially are still getting around the current enforcement levels, right? So -- and then as it relates to the MIP, look, I think is very clear. If you haven't seen Lutnick's remarks at our ribbon cutting, I think you just ought to watch it. There's a couple of videos that are out there, and he's 100% clear of the strategic intent of what we're trying to do here, which is to create U.S. manufacturing, U.S. jobs, U.S. supply chain, U.S. technology and things that can help enable energy independence and national security. And so they're going to enforce this, and they're going to put the right requirements in place of ensuring the domestic manufacturing can thrive and then put as many incentives as possible to encourage people to manufacture more here in the U.S., which I think is great.

Your next question comes from the line of Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs.

I know we're kind of all dancing around the same topic, so I'll try my best as well. But it sounds like you guys are moving from being a contract go-to-market strategy to more of a spot market go-to-market strategy, which I think most of your peers do and now is the case even for First Solar a few cycles ago. So maybe, as you said, Mark, the bookings cadence moderates here with all the uncertainties, but the bookings cadence can potentially be more fluid on a quarter-to-quarter basis. I guess, is that fair? And are you equipped, I guess, from a sales force perspective to be able to manage through that? And then, again, on the pricing entitlement side of things that you keep referring to developers and all the uncertainties that they're having to grapple with. I guess what are you tasking your sales force with in terms of this price discovery process post 232? I would imagine they're not going to go anywhere lower than what you've been booking at recently, which is $0.36. But is it a range of like $0.36 to $0.40, $0.40 plus? Like what are the puts and takes around kind of what they're going out to market with?

Yes. So I think what we were trying to say, Brian, just as it relates to -- a lot of the deals that we announced going back 3 or 4 years ago when we built our contract backlog, a lot of these were multiyear framework agreements that have indicative delivery schedules associated with them. And then as we said before, they had certain rights, annual ship rights or quarterly ship rights. Things could move around from that contracted schedule, but it wasn't tied to a specific project. And what's happened when we do that is the volatility of our customers' development pipeline for various reasons is just whipsaw stuff all over the place, right, in terms of, hey, this is what the contract was, and now this is what the current requirements are given the state of their development portfolio of projects and what have you. And what we're trying to do now a little bit -- and not that we won't get back to that. We've got a couple of very large deals where there'd be more of that legacy kind of framework agreement, strategic partnerships, and we'll clearly do those. But near term, what we're seeing more is that everybody is like, "I got a particular project, and I want to negotiate this particular project." And that gives us better clarity and certainty of, a, the project where it sits in its permitting process, where it sits in its interconnection process, where it is in its financing, if it's approaching that or at least we know what the time line and the profile looks like and gives us a better clarity of the timing of when the shipments need to occur. So that's where the near-term focus is on that. But what I would say is that after this price discovery kind of gets better understood, I think we may see some customers moving into that other direction to say, "I really want to lock in and secure my project pipeline going out into '29, '30." And I like I said, we have some customers that are even wanting to start having some conversations that go beyond 2030. So as it relates to the sales force, I somewhat alluded to that. First off, from a capacity standpoint, I don't think it's an issue with our capabilities of our sales team to handle that pivot, right, to more project specific versus framework structures. But as I somewhat alluded to is we have gone and we've repriced deals that were in the early negotiation phase and any new deals that have come to us now are obviously reflected of what we believe the current market pricing should be. So I'm not going to give you an indication of what that looks like. But we have recalibrated and I think the market fully understands that. But I also want to continue to go back. I mean there is a continuum of what those prices are going to be in near term, and I think I've even alluded to this in prior calls. What we have right now available to book is more Malaysia finished good module coming into the U.S. or an India product coming into the U.S. And so that profile in terms of ASP entitlement is going to be on the lower end of that continuum, as I indicated. The lowest price point we would have for a module will be for that international product coming -- fully finished international product coming into the U.S., and then the highest will be kind of 100% domestically manufactured Series 7. So it can move around. That average is reflected in the numbers that we've been giving you. But in any particular quarter, if I'm heavy on maybe international modules coming to the U.S., that would drive that average ASP down. And clearly, we'll provide color around that. But yes, I mean, pricing is reestablishing itself at a higher point than it has been historically, and we'll continue to see how price discovery works through.

Brian, just one follow-on point to that framework discussion. And one of the challenges that we've talked about over the last couple of years now is the period cost that we've been incurring around the amount of inventory we have to keep, the storage cost of that inventory, overall sales rate. If you think about when there's an ability to move volume around or when customers need to do that because the timing of their projects shift, I have to keep inventory to make sure I can service all the available contracts that I have. So that generally means my AR -- my overall inventory position as well as my working capital position is worse. At the same time then, if that product all does move to the right from a schedule perspective, now I end up having to warehouse materially more volume than I expected. So generally speaking, it's become harder for us to plan around that, and we're seeing a significant financial impact from that. If we move to more of a project-based model where there's a certainty around an individual project, the timing of that project and delivery schedule, that allows me to plan on the operational side much more efficiently, reduce working capital, reduce storage costs as well. So it provides that operational financial efficiency that we're looking for.

Your next question comes from the line of Jon Windham with UBS.

Perfect. Mark and Alex, I appreciate you taking the questions. We'll get on to the exciting topic of filing your taxes. So in the presentation, you note there's $1.9 billion of government grant receivables. My understanding is that's payable 2 to 3 months after you file your annual returns. Can you just give us an indication of how your planning is for that cash actually going to your balance sheet and then into your bank account? And then any comments around the liquidity in the secondhand market if you were to decide to try to monetize those early?

Yes. So you're right. On the balance sheet, there's about $1.9 billion. About $100 million of that is related to India. So you got about $1.8 billion in the U.S. And then part of that $1.8 billion relates to credits that were generated last year and we have yet to file. Yet -- we have just filed our tax return but yet to receive refundability for those. But if you look at this year's credit generation, the forecast is about $2.1 billion of credit to be generated this year. If you look at the 2024 credits, we sold most of those. We did keep a portion of them to file our 2025 tax return in October of 2025, and we received refund for what was about $120 million in about 3 months' time. And importantly, even within that 3 months, the government was actually shut down for about a month of that. So the turnaround time from filing to receiving the cash, relatively short. As it relates to this year, we haven't made a decision yet. We've not made any assumption around a reduction in the carrying value of those credits if we were to sell them. We've seen that the market through the first half of this year, I think, was a little softer for credit sale value. That's picked up pretty significantly towards the back end of the year as large corporates just have better position and understanding of their tax position coming into year-end and looking for tax planning strategies. So we're seeing a lot more outreach and interest around those credits. We're in some discussions around potential sales there. But we'll look to balance how much we would like to sell to pull some liquidity forward versus how much we're comfortable filing for refundability for because then you're not taking a discount on that sale. So it's a balancing act, and we're in discussions around those at the moment.

Your next question comes from the line of David Arcaro with Morgan Stanley.

I was wondering, with the shift toward individual project booking, typically, what's the time frame for how far in advance you would end up getting that order into your backlog relative to, I guess, the timing of the project. And I think you had suggested that the decision on Malaysia could be made in the first half of 2027. Are you thinking that we'll get enough kind of visibility by that time, that you'll be able to make that call on what to do with that capacity?

Yes, I'll take the first one, and I'll let Alex take the Malaysia comment. So yes, so basically, what happens on a -- if we're bidding specific to a project, again, module's usually at the forefront of your procurement-led decision. You want to secure that technology because it also drives your design of the factory, right, or the design of the project, excuse me. So crystalline silicon and CadTel, it will design your factory and your plant, excuse me differently. There's different string count, different voltage and other parameters, which you would want to optimize for. Generally, we don't have the same constraints as it relates to the tracking -- backtracking requirements because we don't deal with the same adverse impact of shade or diffused light and those types of things. So there's a lot that has to be done early on. And so you're going to want to source that module and lock that up so you can be unencumbered now to figure out how do you want to design and optimize at the project level. So it could be 18 months, 2 years before the first delivery would start to happen or at least for sure until the project would be commissioned. So it doesn't really -- it shortens your time line a little bit from a visibility standpoint, but it doesn't really significantly shorten it. But it gives you better certainty. There's no doubt about that. People would be willing to go out into 2030 in a framework kind of construct. And projects normally would be commitments that would go out into '28 or into early '29, is probably not as far out as they would want to go but still more than enough visibility to properly understand the project and price it appropriately.

And David, as it relates to Malaysia, yes, I do believe we have enough visibility going into the first half of next year. We've effectively been carrying that asset, running at very low throughput for the whole of this year. And we've done that deliberately. We thought the underutilization costs associated with that was worth the option value of having the ability to run what would be up to about 1.8 gigawatts of international volume. As we look through the 232 announcement, as Mark said, the customer base still in transition, fully understanding what that looks like and trying to work through what their need is going to be. We want to make sure we have the optionality in Malaysia in the event that, that significant demand does materialize. We've also said that we have an order of how we want to make sure our factories sell. So first, we look to make sure our U.S. content is sold. Secondly, we look to make sure we're selling our finishing line production out of our new facility in South Carolina and then after that, the full international product. We're also going to be bringing more volume from India over into the U.S. next year, subject to a trade and tariff environment that makes sense. So I think we'll have the understanding of the marketplace that we'll need by the first half of next year, and we're still looking at that as an option value and seeing how the effect of the 232 plays out.

Your next question comes from the line of Vikram Bagri with Citi.

Apologize for another question on pricing, but this is important. On this call itself, we've heard pricing either go down by a couple of cents or go up by $0.20. So Mark, fully appreciate the lack of clarity about the environment we are in. But for Series 7, is there a construct you can provide for pricing that we should keep in mind. So if pricing for silicon-based panels move higher, we should assume a certain discount to that, which some people will characterize as quality discount. And I imagine pricing also depends on several other factors, project and contractors. But all else being equal, is there a construct where pricing for silicon-based panels moves higher than $0.40 or $0.45, we should assume a certain fixed discount for Series 7, U.S. Series 7? And then related to that, Mark, you talked about a number of items limiting ability of developers to make long-term plans. Is competition in panel manufacturing is also one of the factors, which is sort of like prohibiting them from committing to supply of panels? Do you think the lack of urgency to book 2029 is also a function of new capacity coming online potentially in the U.S. from other suppliers of panels? Or how do you see the competition evolve over the next couple of years in the sector?

Yes. So I'll talk on the -- so if you take S7 as an example and -- just one thing to make clear, you made a comment about quality discount. I don't know if you're familiar with how energy predictions are done for crystalline silicon technology. They actually have a quality factor that they use, which would -- basically reduces the energy profile of the technology as part of the energy prediction, of which that does not apply at all to First Solar's technology. So we don't have any quality factors that are assumed in the energy predictions that are underwritten by -- and supported by IEs and the banks, so I'm not sure what your point is around that. But crystalline silicon clearly does. They have a meaningful quality factor that is being used when they do the energy prediction for that technology. The -- what I would say, if you take a Series 7 CuRe product and you compare it from an energy profile because, again, energy is what our customers pay for, and what the value of that product would be relative to a PERC technology, it would be advantage to PERC, so there would be no discount to PERC. It would also vary with where it is because, obviously, our technology does not have what CuRe will have better bifaciality than our QED product is. Our bifaciality is lower than crystalline silicon. So if you were to go further Northeast where you get a better impact of bifaciality, then you'll see a different outcome. If you go to the other Southwest or to the Southeast and more hot and humid -- hot climates or hot and humid climates, you're going to see a better outcome for our technology. And then if you compare us to TOPCon, which, again, the vast majority of anyone producing or selling any TOPCon product in the U.S. is infringing on our IP, which we will stand by and completely enforce that, then you'll have a slightly different outcome. We would actually be average, slightly disadvantaged to TOPCon of a few pennies. So it depends. I mean you've got different situations, different geographies, different terrains. A lot of different things factor into that and determine the relative competitiveness of the technology. So -- but I would say general rule thumb, Series 7 CuRe is going to be advantaged against PERC and disadvantaged by pennies relative to TOPCon. As it relates to the competition and how that all plays out, you have to think through how much are you willing to -- first off, is the competition and the manufacturing that's coming in the U.S. truly FEOC-free, truly unencumbered by any dependency from the Chinese, whether it's the supply chain, whether it's the tools and the manufacturing equipment, whether it's the IP, right? A lot of our customers do their own subjective analysis and have concluded that there is a substantial risk still that these entities are not FEOC-free, and they don't want to take on that risk. That puts us in a much better position. There's no doubt about that, and that's also why I think you're going to find customers leaning into developing partnerships with First Solar that go longer dated. I believe I remember reading one of the filings recently for one of the U.S. manufacturers, and I believe almost 100% of the sales that they're generating this year is to a related party. And I understand that related party to be a Chinese counterparty. So I mean it tells you, just looking at that as an example, that in certain situations, customers are not willing to take on that risk. And we still don't have full clarity around FEOC yet, and I think that's why people are being a little gun shy.

Our final question comes from the line of Dimple Gosai with Piper Sandler.

My question is regarding just December 4 in terms of outcomes and what you're hearing. I mean there's been a lot of news recently. T1 recently filed for a waiver around cell imports. We're hearing a lot about lobbying for exclusions. And we also know utilities are pretty price sensitive here. So are we -- in your view, is there a risk to the upside or downside just in terms of the outcome there? And then separately, just kind of talking about some of the news that we're hearing about. There's also news on Swift Current lawsuit that's been in the news. Is there anything you can speak about here? Is there any merit to that? Is there a size associated with it? And any merit really?

Yes. As it relates to the exclusions, look, I do believe because, again, the program incentive and motivation is to try to ensure manufacturing here, reshoring of manufacturing, true manufacturing, truly unencumbered by Chinese or adversarial countries' dependencies. Each one of those will be determined on a fact and circumstances basis and work through with Commerce to say is there true substance to this. And then in general, the focus with Commerce is to limit the period of time at which that exclusion would be provided. I don't stay on top of it. I don't know -- my team may have better insights than I do in terms of have any exclusions been granted at this point in time. It's not clear to me that there have been any granted exclusions. I know there's been some representation of statements that have been made, but I don't believe there's any actual exclusions that have been communicated publicly at this point in time. But that's something that we're going to have to stay close to and understand. I'm perfectly fine though competing. We've always said U.S. manufacturing on a level playing field, First Solar is more than happy to compete on our own merits and our technology and the competitiveness of our manufacturing process in our supply chain. So if some of that does happen, then it will evolve, and that will create the domestic industry that I do believe still is a strategic thread that's important for us as a country. Assuming we do it right, right? Assuming it truly is U.S. technology, U.S. manufacturing and U.S. supply chains, right, creating American, U.S. jobs and supporting American families. There's no doubt about that. That's absolutely critical from that standpoint. As it relates to the lawsuit, I really can't comment much of anything around that. We actually will be filing our response here shortly for the required time line. And I think there'll be better clarity around the issues in the allegations that have been raised during that -- during the -- or part of that lawsuit. What I will say is that we have always -- even with the engagement with Swift, as we've always said, we will stand by and we will support under the parameters of our limited liability warranty, the obligations that we have. Again, that largely is reflective and relates to the Series 7 initial product launch that we had indicated that there was a couple of issues that came out as part of that launch that resulted in an initial stabilization of that technology to be below expectations. And then underneath that program we put in place, we said we would remedy those issues with customers. And we engaged even with Swift to have that have that conversation. I think where the challenge comes in is where people are asking for remedies that are outside the parameters of the warranty, and that's just -- that's not something that we will do. But we will be more than -- we'll stand behind the technology, and we have that conversation with Swift in this case. And they chose to try to pursue a different approach where they think they could be successful. And again, you should see our response in our filing coming out here in the next several weeks.

We have reached the end of the Q&A session. This concludes today's call. Thank you for attending. You may now disconnect.