Stephen Haymore - First Solar, Inc. Mark R. Widmar - First Solar, Inc. Alexander R. Bradley - First Solar, Inc..

Brian Lee - Goldman Sachs & Co. Philip Lee-Wei Shen - ROTH Capital Partners LLC Krish Sankar - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Vishal B. Shah - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Andrew Hughes - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker) Tyler Charles Frank - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Private Wealth Management) Colin Rusch - Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. Pavel S.

Molchanov - Raymond James & Associates, Inc. Arthur Su - Needham & Company, LLC.

Good day, everyone, and welcome to First Solar's First Quarter 2017 Earnings Call. This call is being webcast live on the Investors section of First Solar's website at firstsolar.com. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. As a reminder, today's call is being recorded.

I would now like to turn the call over to Steve Haymore from First Solar Investor Relations. Mr. Haymore, you may begin..

Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us. Today, the company issued a press release announcing its first quarter 2017 financial results. A copy of the press release and associated presentation are available on the Investors section of First Solar's website at firstsolar.com.

With me today are Mark Widmar, Chief Executive Officer; and Alex Bradley, Chief Financial Officer. Mark will provide a business and technology update, then Alex will discuss our first quarter financial results and provide updated guidance for 2017. We will then open up the call for questions.

Most of the financial numbers reported and discussed on today's call are based on U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

In the few cases where we report non-GAAP measures such as free cash flow, adjusted operating expenses, adjusted operating income or non-GAAP EPS, we have reconciled the non-GAAP measures to the corresponding GAAP measures at the back of our presentation.

Please note, this call will include forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from management's current expectations. We encourage you to review the Safe Harbor statements contained in today's press release and presentation for a more complete description.

It is now my pleasure to introduce Mark Widmar, Chief Executive Officer.

Mark?.

Thanks, Steve. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining our call today. I'll begin by briefly reviewing our results for the first quarter, before providing an update on our Series 6 progress and developments in our business.

Our first quarter results were a good start to the year with the sale of our Moapa project closing and receipt of the remaining cash from the transaction. Our non-GAAP EPS of $0.25 was above our guidance, which is a noteworthy accomplishment in a very challenging market environment.

We ended the quarter with $2.2 billion in net cash, which further differentiates the strength of our balance sheet from our competitors, as we remain true to our balanced business model philosophy of growth, profitability and liquidity. Alex will provide more color on our financial results later in his remarks.

As indicated on our last earnings call, we are carefully planning all aspects of the Series 6 launch to ensure both technological and commercial readiness. On our last call, we focused on the technology. Today, we will provide an update on our commercial preparation to ensure a successful market launch of our Series 6 product.

Keep in mind that with over 17 gigawatts of modules produced, First Solar's technology is well understood and has been installed in projects worldwide. Our customers have trust in our technology, product quality and financial strength.

However, given the change in the module form factor, as we move to Series 6, we are making the necessary preparations to ensure a smooth product launch. Turning to slide 4. I'll discuss some of our commercial readiness efforts.

Firstly, as it relates to enabling the ecosystem around Series 6, our primary goal is to ensure our cost-effective compatibility with our customers preferred structure providers.

Since we made the decision last year to accelerate our Series 6 product, we have been collaborating with leading domestic and global structure providers, EPC contractors and PV engineering firms to evaluate and optimize the Series 6 mounting interface for a wide variety of applications.

The learnings from this collaboration, coupled with the module height that is the same as the 72 cell crystalline silicon module and a module frame that facilitates rapid installation gives us confidence in the competitive installation cost of our Series 6 product.

We've also been evaluating the mechanical design and installation features of our Series 6 models at our Mesa, Arizona test site, where we've installed more than half a dozen structures from leading suppliers.

A third-party contractor has completed trial installations of Series 6 prototypes and the various structure types, including side-by-side trials with competing 72 cell crystalline silicon modes. We've been careful analyzing various installation means and methods focused on optimizing installation velocity and minimizing labor hours.

The initial results from this work are very positive and indicate that Series 6 is compatible with existing leading structure designs and can be expected to have favorable installation hours per megawatt installed versus 72 cell crystalline silicon models.

Beyond our efforts to ensure a seamless mechanical integration of Series 6, we're also validating the electrical BOS design elements. We have been carefully listing to the voice of our ecosystem partners, understanding their needs and incorporating their feedback to ensure the most efficient designs at a lowest possible cost.

To validate our internal electrical BOS analysis and testing, we've engaged two independent engineering firms to provide their assessment of the expected cost of Series 6 electrical BOS components and associated labor. In both case, the independent analysis supports our internal projections.

The analysis also supports our belief that due to a shorter string length, Series 6 provides greater layout optimization and siting flexibility.

In addition to our own analysis, third-party EPCs and customers have been viewing Series 6 installation demonstrations at the Mesa test site as they develop their own assessment of the installation process and costs.

EPC have also begun conducting their own installation trials at the Mesa site to gain hands-on experience and increased familiarity with Series 6.

Based on their evaluation and analysis, several EPCs have already provided quotes that further support that Series 6 BOS cost is expected to be similar to or better than competing crystalline silicon products.

Over the next few months, we're expanding these trials to several international locations, which will provide greater access to international EPCs and will help ensure that Series 6 is supported by a cost-efficient, mechanical, electrical and EPC ecosystem in all key global markets.

As highlighted on slide 5, engaging directly with our customers to both educate them on Series 6 and to solicit their feedback on the product is among our highest priorities.

With these objectives in mind, we have recently hosted more than 100 of our customers at a conference in Arizona that included attendance from leading IPPs, developers, utilities, EPCs and ecosystem partners.

Customers will provide an early product information and have the opportunity to attend demonstrations of Series 6 module prototype installations. Customer feedback has been overwhelmingly positive with over 95% of our customers indicating they were likely to purchase Series 6.

These are positive first steps, and while there's still more work to be done, especially internationally, we are pleased with how Series 6 has been embraced by our customers.

In short, the testing performed with our ecosystem partners and voice of the customer feedback received have reinforced our view that Series 6 eliminates the balance of system cost disadvantages associated with our smaller form factors Series 4 module.

Our module technology will now be able to leverage its advantaged attributes, including superior temperature coefficient and spectral response unencumbered by higher balance of system cost. Turning to slide six, I'll provide a brief update on our Series 6 technology and manufacturing milestones.

Overall, we continue to be very pleased with the progress we are making on the Series 6 technology and manufacturing platform. Since our last earnings call, we have ramped down production on eight lines or approximately one-third of our Series 4 manufacturing out of Malaysia factory.

This timing aligns with the milestones that we've provided in our February call. The space is undergoing preparation for the delivery of Series 6 equipment, which is scheduled later this year. In addition, we now have all of the production tools ordered for Ohio in our first Malaysia factory.

Over the next major – our next major milestone, the arrival in the third quarter of 2017 of our first tools to our Ohio factory remains on track. We will provide further updates on our Q2 earnings call. Turning to slide seven, I'll provide an update on our future expected module shipments.

From the time of our last earnings call, approximately nine weeks ago, we have booked over 100 megawatts of third-party module sales, bringing our total year-to-date bookings to nearly 600 megawatts DC. The geographical mix of our recent module bookings is primarily Asia Pacific and Europe.

After deducting year-to-date shipments through March of approximately 400 megawatts, our remaining expected shipments now stand at 3 gigawatts DC. On slide eight, we've provided an updated view of our remaining Series 4 supply.

As indicated previously, our remaining Series 4 supply will range between 3.6 and 3.8 gigawatts depending on when we see Series 4 production at our Ohio plant. We will continue to evaluate this decision over the course of the year.

Of the anticipated 3.6 to 3.8 gigawatts of Series 4 supply across 2017 and 2018, we have already shipped approximately 400 megawatts, and we have an additional 1.5 gigawatts of volume on the contract, leaving us with the remaining supply of between 1.7 and 1.9 gigawatts.

Relative to the prior quarter and based on updated construction schedules, we have reduced the allocation of Series 4 supply to our own capital development projects by approximately 200 megawatts. This is a result of a shift in module allocation to Series 6 uncertain of our captive projects.

This decision is expected to result in meaningful improvement in the overall gross margin of these projects. While the pace of our bookings over the past two months is slower than the start of the year, we are encouraged by the growth in our mid to late-stage bookings opportunities shown on slide nine.

Since our last earnings call, bookings opportunity have grown to 3 gigawatts DC, an increase of approximately 800 megawatts. Roughly two-thirds of the total 3 gigawatts of opportunities are for Series 4 shipments.

Notably, of the approximately 2 gigawatts of Series 4 opportunities, there are approximately 1 gigawatt of projects that are in late stage negotiations. In some cases, we have signed module supply agreements, but are waiting for other conditions precedent, including project financial close, our letter of credit, before recognizing these bookings.

We expect much of this volume to book in the second and third quarter. Given the status of these projects and the other mid- to late-stage opportunities, we feel that we're in a good position to sell through the remaining Series 4 supply.

In addition, we have a much larger number of early-stage opportunities not included in this view, which helps increase our confidence. Lastly, as we announced recently, we are evaluating alternatives for the sale of our interest at 8point3. This is a result of several factors. Firstly, in the future, we anticipate selling projects primarily in the U.S.

prior to COD. As the solar industry has matured, the impact of project value of selling to FNTP or shortly thereafter versus that COD is de minimis. In fact, in some cases, value is enhanced with an earlier sale as this allows the buyer greater degrees of freedom to optimize the structuring of tax equity and project debt.

Secondly, recycling capital more quickly allows us to potentially invest in more project development opportunities. As we do this, we remain focused on our targeted development markets where we see the most opportunity.

Finally, we remain focused on Series 6 and prioritizing investments in Series 6 manufacturing capacity, which we believe has the potential to provide a high return on invested capital.

As we continuously evaluate our business model, these important considerations led us to determination to explore strategic alternatives for the sale of our interest in 8point3. Alex will now provide more detail on our first quarter 2017 financial results and discuss updated guidance for 2017.

Alex?.

Thanks, Mark. So beginning on slide 11, I'll touch briefly on the operational results of our Series 4 product in the past quarter.

Module production was 712 megawatts DC in the first quarter, a decrease of 6% from the prior quarter due to nearly a full quarter of stopped production on four lines in Ohio that began ramping down late last year to prepare the Series 6 production. Capacity utilization increased to 98% in Q1 versus 92% in the fourth quarter.

The fourth quarter utilization was lower as it included the four lines that were ramped down. Note that as we ramp down Series 4 production, the utilization metric will be subject to increased fluctuation and therefore, somewhat less meaningful.

In part, this is why we introduced the remaining Series 4 supply metric, which provides a more relevant metric during the ramp down. Module conversion efficiency for the full fleet averaged 16.7% in the first quarter, an increase of 10 basis points versus Q4 2016.

Conversion efficiency on our best line for the full quarter improved 10 basis points to 16.9% as compared to the prior quarter. Our best line exited the third quarter at over 17%. Continuing to slide 12, I'll review some of the income statement highlights for Q1 2017.

In reviewing our income statement results, I'll also be discussing certain non-GAAP measures such as adjusted operating expenses, adjusted operating income and non-GAAP earnings per share. Please refer to the appendix of the earnings presentation for the accompanying GAAP to non-GAAP reconciliations.

Additionally, we've elected earlier to adopt ASU 2014-09, the new revenue standard, which provides common revenue recognition guidance between GAAP and IFRS. The adoption of the standard generally requires us to recognize revenue and profit from our systems business sales in a more linear fashion in our historical practice.

Our previously reported financial statements have been adjusted to reflect this standard adoption and more information is available in our press release and in our pending 10-Q filing. In reviewing our financial results, comparisons to the fourth quarter will reflect any applicable revisions from this change.

Net sales were $892 million, an increase of $561 million compared to the prior quarter. The increase in net sales resulted primarily from the sale of the Moapa projects with the entire revenue from the project recognized in the quarter. Higher revenue from the Moapa sale was partially offset by $179 million decrease in module sales.

The closing of the Moapa sale is a significant milestone given the size and complexity of the project and it's also an important component of our 2017 guidance.

As a percentage of total quarterly net sales of solar power systems revenue which includes both our EPC revenue and solar modules used in systems projects increased to 92% from 25% in Q4 as a result of the Moapa sale and lower third-party module sales. Gross margin for the first quarter was 9% compared to 2% in the prior quarter.

The increase in gross margin percentage was primarily a result of project impairment in Q4. To put the Q1 gross margin in context, keep in mind that our prior comments on the Moapa project that was acquired in late-stage development. We, therefore, paid a significant development premium for the project.

As a result of this and certain developments and construction challenges specific to the project, the gross margin of the project is not representative of what we would expect from a typical development project sale. The gross margin of our component segment was 26% in Q1 compared to 13% in the prior quarter.

The sequential increase here was primarily due to the impact of certain charges associated with our project impairments in Q4. Operating expenses excluding restructuring and asset impairment charges was $72 million in the first quarter versus Q4 adjusted OpEx of $100 million.

$28 million sequential decrease as a result of the impact of our previously implemented restructuring actions and also an $8 million decrease in project impairment charges. Restructuring and asset impairment charges to accelerate our Series 6 transition were $20 million in Q1 compared to $729 million in the prior quarter.

The charge relates to Series 4 and Series 5 equipments and severance related to the ramp down of certain Series 4 production lines. Excluding restructuring-related items, operating income in the first quarter was $12 million compared to an adjusted operating loss of $90 million in Q4.

The increase in adjusted operating income is primarily due to higher sales, lower project impairment charges and a decrease in operating expenses. On a GAAP basis, our operating loss for the quarter was $8 million. Other income for the quarter was $26 million, primarily resulting from the settlement of an outstanding matter with a former customer.

The cash associated with the settlement was also received in Q1. We had tax expense of $6 million in the first quarter compared to $56 million of tax expense in Q4.

As a reminder, the prior quarter tax expense is significantly higher due to predominantly non-cash tax expense of $196 million, associated with the distribution of approximately $750 million of cash to the U.S. from a foreign subsidiary. The prior quarter tax expense was partially offset by a tax benefit from restructuring charges.

First quarter EPS was $0.09 on a GAAP basis and excluding restructuring and asset impairment charges, $0.25 on a non-GAAP basis. Relative to our expectations to Q1, EPS was higher due to better-than-expected profit from the Moapa project sale and the timing of a settlement of the former customer, which was not expected in Q1.

In addition, this settlement was contemplated on our previous guidance to potentially benefit operating income rather than other income. I'll next discuss select balance sheet items and summary cash flow information on slide 13.

Our cash and multiple securities balance ended the first quarter at over $2.4 billion, an increase of approximately $491 million from Q4. Our net cash position improved by $402 million to nearly $2.2 billion as we received the final payments for our Moapa and East Pecos project.

Our Q1 net working capital, which includes the change in non-current project assets and excludes cash and marketable securities, decreased by $374 million. The change was primarily due to a net reduction in projects assets and deferred revenue from the sale of the Moapa project.

Total debt was $277 million in the first quarter, an increase of $89 million from the prior quarter. The increase mainly resulted from issuing non-recourse project level debt for projects in Japan, India and Australia. Cash flows from operations were $493 million in Q1 versus cash flows from operations of $268 million in the fourth quarter.

Free cash flow was $380 million compared to free cash flow of $215 million last quarter. Capital expenditures were $113 million compared to $54 million in the prior quarter. Turning to Slide 14, I'll review updated full year 2017 guidance.

In terms of assumptions underlying our guidance, as we indicated last quarter, the adoption of new revenue standards not have a significant impact on the net sales range we've already provided.

However, as mentioned previously and I've seen with the updates in that sales guidance in our previous call associated with structuring of the Moapa project, the final structuring of project sales later this year may have future impact to our net sales guidance.

As it relates to project sales during the remainder of the year, we're pleased with the progress of making the sale of 179 megawatts AC Switch Station Project. We're in advanced stage of the sale process and expect to close the transaction in Q2 or Q3 of this year.

The California Flats and Cuyama projects have been offered to 8point3 and are under review by the partnership. If 8point3 is not able to acquire these projects, we anticipate having sufficient third-party demand to sell these projects this year. Turning now to the guidance ranges.

As a result of improved visibility in the certain project sales, we are raising our net sales guidance by $50 million to a revised range of $2.85 billion to $2.95 billion.

We're raising our gross margin percentage of 150 basis points to a revised range of 12.5% to 14.5% as a result of the improved operational performance, better project sale visibility and as a result of the movement of certain expenses previously forecast as cost of sales, which are now expected to be treated as plant startup costs within operating expense.

Our OpEx guidance increased by $40 million for both GAAP and non-GAAP, as a result of the revised plant startup previously mentioned. For GAAP operating expenses, this $40 million increase was partially offset by a $15 million decrease in expected restructuring and asset impairment charges.

The revised restructuring range is now $40 million to $65 million, of which $20 million was incurred in the first quarter. The downward revision to the range resulted from ongoing supply negotiations, which reduce the potential remaining liability.

We're raising our EPS guidance by $0.25 based on our operational performance and in anticipation of better economic value from certain project sales. Our revised non-GAAP EPS range is now $0.25 to $0.75 and our GAAP EPS range has been revised to a loss of $0.30, up to $0.40 a profit.

The change in GAAP EPS is a result both of the fact as leading to the increase in the non-GAAP EPS, combined with lower expected restructuring charges. Note that our guidance includes expected net interest expense of $15 million to $20 million and minimal contribution from equity and earnings.

We also anticipate minimal other income or expense for the balance of the year. In terms of a quarterly distribution of our non-GAAP earnings, we currently expect second quarter earnings to be approximately breakeven.

However, the timing of the sale of the Switch Station Project, currently forecasted in Q3 could materially increase second quarter earnings. We have previously anticipated a loss in the first half of the year.

However, our operational performance including improved module cost per watt and improving outlook for the system sale business have resulted in a change to our outlook.

As it relates to our guidance for certain catalyst that may lead us to further raise our EPS expectations for the remainder of the year, including further improved visibility into sales system projects. Additionally, as part of our ongoing tax funding assets, we may record an income tax benefit of up to $55 million (24:06) in the second quarter.

As this benefit is still subject to acceptance by tax authorities, we have not yet incorporated this into our guidance and will do so when and to the extent the matter is finalized. Related to our net cash and operating cash flow guidance, our expected ranges of both increased by $100 million.

The increase is a combination of higher revenue, improved module cost per watt, improved systems business margins, improved working capital management and lower restructuring charges. I'll now summarize our first quarter 2017 progress on slide 15. We had solid financial results for the quarter. Net sales of $892 million and non-GAAP EPS of $0.25.

Our ending cash was over $2.4 billion with $2.2 billion of net cash. We raised the midpoint of our GAAP EPS by nearly $0.50 and our non-GAAP EPS by $0.25. Our Series 4 module efficiency remains solid with a fleet full average of 16.7%, a lead line efficiency of 16.9% in Q1.

Our outlook for 2017 bookings is strong, with nearly 600 megawatts booked here to date and mid- to late-stage opportunities of 3 gigawatts. Our Series 6 transition is progressing well, and we're making the necessary preparations to ensure a successful product launch. We have now ordered all of the tools for both our Ohio and Malaysia factories.

In addition, the first Series 6 tools are on track to arrive at our Ohio factory in Q3. And lastly, we're pleased with the positive response from our customers and ecosystem partners to the Series 6 products. With that, we conclude our prepared remarks and open the call for questions.

Operator?.

And we will take our first one from Brian Lee of Goldman Sachs..

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the question.

I guess, if you assume the 8point3 strategic process results in more capital to deploy, I know that's an assumption at this point, but how should we be thinking about priorities? Are you looking to fast-track Series 6? Do you build more capacity than the current base case or would it be something else? Just trying to get a sense for what the uses of capital would be, and then I have a follow-up..

Yeah, so Brian, clearly the liquidity position is strong today. And we've made a strategic decision to maintain both an unlevered balance sheet and a net cash position given cyclicality in the solar industry.

The business is in a transition period between Series 4 and Series 6, which is capital-intensive, and we intend to grow that Series 6 capacity from a position of strength. So in terms of how we think about capital, we really look to award full of cash needs and opportunities.

So firstly, we fund our operations; secondly, we look to invest in manufacturing capacity that's both the current Series 6 announced capacity and then the ability to grow beyond that as the more opportunity presents.

We look to fund the development business, and that includes long-term systems opportunities relative – that provides incremental returns relative to the module business and relative to the risk-adjusted cost of capital associated with those projects.

After that, we look at M&A, and that's post the sale of existing assets, investments, and also opportunities to invest in other growth opportunities, so we continue to look at synergistic M&A opportunities, both around the technology and around project development.

And then finally on top of that, we make sure we have an adequate buffer to provide liquidity through cyclicality in the industry volatility. So once you go through all of those, we look to prioritize our capital and see where we can use it.

Assuming at that point, we had excess capital which we didn't leave could be accretively deployed in business then we look to return that capital to shareholders. So that's an ongoing analysis.

And we'll obviously continue to monitor the capital and liquidity position as we move through the Series 6 transition and through other events this year, including the sale of 8point3 and the systems business sales.

The other thing that we take into account is, geographically, about half of our cash sits offshore and is subsequently invested offshore. Should we have any tax reform or anything else that impacts the ability to use that cash, that would obviously play into the calculation as well..

Okay, okay, great, fair enough. Appreciate the color. Second question, I guess, this is, obviously, kind of front-and-center topic. I'm sure there's going to be a number of questions around this.

But can you guys speak to the Section 201 request from one of your manufacturing peers in the U.S.? I guess, I'd be curious to know if it's impacting your approach to booking, the remaining Series 4 capacity you outlined? And then with respect to Series 6, and then if your current contracted bookings have any contingencies that would allow for pricing to be recalibrated? And then lastly, with respect to Series 6, how this potentially factors into your thinking around timing, investment and then just the general strategy there? Thank you..

All right, Brian, there's a lot there, so I'll try to – hopefully I got most of your questions. First off, as it relates to the Tier 1 case, we're obviously very aware of it. We're looking closely at the filing.

Clearly, I think the spirit of the reason for the filing is rooted in the fact that there's clearly an oversupply in this industry, and we believe that really is an issue. And we also believe that there is a need for free and fair trade, and there's also a need for enforcement around that.

So all that I think provides a undertone of the merits of what the case relates to. As you also know that thin-film is not included.

It's not included in the criteria of the basis of what the case is currently structured for, which would exclude not only our production here, obviously, in the U.S., but, obviously, our production outside of the U.S., currently in Malaysia and then ultimately, into Vietnam.

As it relates to our strategy, we're going to continue to move forward, we're going to continue to address the market, we're going to continue to provide high value to our customers in the best possible product in the marketplace, whether it's Series 4 or whether it's Series 6.

We'll enter into our contracts, a lot of the obligations that are in those contracts, we are not structuring contracts for the most part that would enable some form of a repricing.

But if the case were to creates some merit, and if we now have, again, a different view of where the market (30:40) price is for crystalline silicon, that could inform our views a little bit around how we think about our pricing strategy for both Series 4 and Series 6, but that's clearly off into the future.

As it relates to our view around manufacturing capacity and where we think about Series 6, our commitments still is the priorities that we talked about before for Perrysburg, then Malaysia and then Vietnam.

We've also highlighted though that we have flexibility in the toolset that we're currently installing in Ohio, that could allow us some optionality of increasing capacity of Series 6 in Perrysburg, and we'd look to this maybe as one factor that would inform our decision around that.

The other would be, I'd argue that corporate tax rate would be another one that would inform our – U.S. corporate tax rate would inform our view around adding incremental capacity into our facility in Ohio. So there's a lot of moving pieces we're going to continue to assess and evaluate.

And again, I think the whole fundamental issue though that we shall be focused on is, we're very happy with where we are with our launch of Series 6, that's in great position. This trade case or other issues that may arise from it may also inform our view of little bit around how long we continue to produce in Perrysburg.

We've highlighted that our current view is we've optionality of maybe pulling a couple of hundred megawatts out, which really is there to facilitate the transition into Series 6 to the extent there is some traction around this case, we may continue to produce that 200 megawatt, maybe not only through 2018, but beyond 2018, if need may be..

Brian, with regards to Series 6 timing, we're already on a pretty aggressive schedule there, so I don't see that changes. As Mark said, we have flexibility around the Series 4 supply to keep that going longer should we need it..

And we'll take our next question from Philip Shen of ROTH Capital Partners..

Hi. Thanks for the questions. As a follow-up on the Section 201 topic. If the Section 201 gets implemented, do you see any changes to your production plans for 2018.

For example, would you move to produce either more or less of Series 4 or Series 6 than you had previously indicated? And could you sell the Series 6 externally in 2018 versus prior plans of keeping, I believe, most of it in-house?.

Phil, I think I sort of alluded to a little bit in my comments to Brian's question, but it really did – other than the timing of when we would actually wind down our production of Series 4 in Perrysburg, it really doesn't inform our views beyond that in 2018.

Now if the trade case were to get some traction, could we look to continue producing some Series 4 in Perrysburg as an example, potentially? Again, the other thing, but again, it's a longer date of horizon depending on what happens with this case. We have the optionality of adding incremental capacity in Perrysburg if need be.

Again, the toolset accommodates production volume that is closer to 1.1 gigawatts versus the currently planned 550 megawatts, so a lot there to be evaluated. But I think we're very early. I mean, obviously, as you know the trade case was just filed here recently.

A lot will happen and evolve over the next months and quarters, and as we get a clear picture of what direction it's going, we have options and decisions that will make at that point in time..

And we will take our next question from Krish Sankar of Bank of America..

So the Moapa project has already been completed, and that's in the Q1 revenue. The California Flats project is assumed to be sold this year. Now whether it goes to 8point3 or to another third party, it is going to dependent on 8point3's appetite ability to acquire that project. So the partnership and 8point3 is currently reviewing that asset.

The indication I would given the capital requirements to acquire that, 8point3 is likely not going to do so. But if that's the case, we're going to sell it to a third party, but the value of that project is in our guidance for the year, timing remains a little uncertain.

The other project that is in that perhaps you're thinking of this is a switch project, so that's in our numbers for the year and we're assuming comes in Q3 although there is a chance that could accelerate into Q2..

And our next question comes from Vishal Shah of Deutsche Bank..

On the Series 6 production, let makes sure, I'm clear on that, and I'll let Alex to take the cash question. But Series 6 what I had – what the 550 megawatts represented, 550 megawatts is the fully ramp capacity that we're currently are planning in our Perrysburg facility, all right.

And we won't actually start producing in Perrysburg until the middle of next year, so we won't have a full year output from Perrysburg.

But in aggregate across Perrysburg, across KLM, for example, our Malaysia facility, we anticipate to have a little bit north of around 1 gigawatts, maybe a little bit north of a gigawatt production of Series 6 in 2018. Again, with that all that production largely happening in the second half of 2018..

Yes, on the cash side, so we raised on net cash guidance by $100 million, so $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion for the end of this year, and that's including the CapEx we're planning on spending for the year. So $525 million to $625 million, of which we spent a little over $100 million in the first quarter. So we're on track on the CapEx side.

The cash balance for the end of the year will go up slightly relative to previous guidance. We haven't guided to be on that, but we will continue to spend CapEx through to 2018.

And as we've mentioned before, 2018, when we started with Series 4 product in Q1 and Q2, it's the time that product is going to be most challenged relative to the competition given that we're no longer investing in the development of Series 4 as we focus on Series 6.

So we haven't guided out to a number, but we would expect to continue to spend CapEx all the Series 6 transition through 2018, but we're, obviously, going to end the year with a very robust cash balance, and the cash guidance that number we're giving here through the end of the year doesn't include any proceeds from 8point3..

And we will take our next question from Andrew Hughes of Credit Suisse..

Hey, guys. Good afternoon. Congrats on the quarter. I had a question on Moapa and guidance and then one of tax equity, if you don't mind.

Just on the Moapa result, can you give us a sense of what drove better margins? Was it pricing or more of the internal transfer costs? And then as you look ahead to projects for the rest of the year, I mean, what has improved on the pricing front for you guys? And as a result, might we see a shift in the business mix back more to systems from modules.

It seems to be emphasized under Series 6?.

Yes. So on the Moapa side, we saw a slight uptick on the value. It's not significant, but you got to remember when we're guiding to relatively low EPS numbers this year relative to the past, even small movements in project value can change the overall outlook pretty significantly.

When we think about future systems values and we're currently negotiating with the sale of our switch assets, so we have a good sense how the market looks there, and we have had a lot of unsolicited proposals for other assets in our pipeline from very credible counter parties.

I think the dynamic you're seeing here are there are few large-scale quality assets in 2017 and also into 2018, and that's leading to very robust demand and better pricing in the market. So we're seeing that dynamics flow through, and that's giving us confidence in the rest of this year in the system side.

As it relates to moving back to more development, we've always maintained that we will continue to develop in the U.S. and in select other markets where that makes sense. On a long-term run-rate basis, we would expect to have potentially a gigawatt of development.

In the short-term that maybe significantly higher proportion of that as we get through the existing pipeline that we have in the U.S. and internationally in 2017, 2018 and 2019.

As we go beyond that, when we grow the Series 6 volume, I would still expect us to expand into more module-only sales as a percentage of the total manufacturing capacity that we have, but we'll continue to monitor systems business and if it makes sense, as we said on the question around cash usage, we're very happy to invest in development if we believe there's accretive return above and beyond the module business adjusted for the risk profile we are taking..

Yeah. I was wondering (40:09) to get that question and hopefully, we can try to make ourselves clear, but sometimes it keeps coming back to that same view. We've never said that we will not continue to do development. We've always said that we're going to continue to do development.

We'll do development in the markets which we believe that we can capture inherent value and that we have core competency and differentiation potentially or capabilities that enables us to get appropriate return on capital and U.S. clearly being one of them. So development is a core part of our strategy.

It would be part of the value chain in which we look to participate not only here in the U.S., but in Asia, India, APAC, Japan, those markets will clearly be regions, which we'll continue to focus on. The other thing I want to make sure is also understood is the – part of the reason here is particularly in the U.S.

is we are starting to see more of a market opportunity for utility owned generation. And I still do believe that in the U.S., the ultimate owner of these assets will potentially evolve to be the utilities.

And having that capability of providing turnkey solutions and doing development is going to be putting us in a best position to serve our customers' need. And I think it continues to highlight the unique value composition to utility of the First Solar versus alternatives that they may have. So don't think of us looking to exit development.

We'll continue the development. We will look to invest where it's appropriate. And I do think it will best position us long-term to be successful in the U.S. market, in particular..

And our next question comes from Tyler Frank of Baird..

Hi, guys. Thanks for taking the questions. Can you talk about what the current market is like for buyers and utility scale projects, both here in the U.S.

and internationally as well as what you're seeing for demand from utilities here in the U.S.? And then shifting gears a bit, when you look at the cost for Series 6, now you've had an opportunity to work on it a little bit more.

Can you discuss where that's tracking to your expectations and where you expect the cost profile to get to once you start ramping capacity? Thank you..

Why don't we – Alex, why don't you take the market assets with the U.S. international? I'll try to do the demand and the cost discussion..

Sure. I'd say we're seeing very strong demand. As I mentioned before a little bit, there seems to be dearth of quality large assets in the U.S. in 2017 and even going into 2018.

And despite some of the uncertainty in the market around potential tax reform, there's still is a strong appetite from tax equity capital providers from debt providers and from cash equity owners. We are seeing broader sways of buyers coming into the market.

So historically, we saw tax equity and some infrastructure players only, [along the side the strategics, the yield cos came and went, I'd say we're seeing more interest from infrastructure money and long-term pension money. So the market remains very resilient in the U.S. in the short- and medium-term.

Internationally, it's very dependent on the regions that we're in. We have a development business in Japan. I would say that that's one of the more liquid markets from a debt perspective for solar business.

So we're very happy with the debt capital that we've been raising for our assets there, and we have yet to sell large-scale assets in Japan, but we are very confident based on the discussions we've been having with buyers that there is going to be significant appetite for long-term contracted assets in Japan, and we expect to realize good margins out of those assets.

Now the markets in the world, it's very dependent, but I'd say generally, we're seeing pretty strong demand in every market where we're continuing to develop assets, both on the debt equity side where relevant on the debt side and on the cash equity side..

I think on the demand question around, I think it was specific to more U.S. utilities, if I look at U.S. utilities and again, what's really happening is solar, in particular, is kind of the demand associated with it is essentially solely on the merits of the economics.

I mean, demand is – the of cost of solar has come down so much, and it's competitive and everyone is looking at long-term integrated resource plans and have a movement more towards integration of solar, and a lot of utilities, there's someone at the forefront of their journey around that.

I will say though that I did make my comment about utilities trying to rate base, I do think there is an undertone. A lot of utilities are trying to find a profile and an opportunity to rate base the solar assets, and I think that's really – ultimately, would prefer to do.

But I'm not seeing other than utilities in California they're dealing with a number of issues, whether it's the emergence of community choice aggregators and load being pulled away from them or whether it's with the distributed resources such as residential rooftop.

They're clearly in a different mindset on how they're thinking about a procurement note, but the vast majority of the other utilities that we're engaging with, I would say, demand is very robust at this point in time.

On the cost of Series 6, the one thing I'll reemphasize, I think I said this on the guidance call way back in November is that the towering strength of this company is its people.

And we have tremendously talented people, creative, knowledgeable, innovative, and they continue to amaze me and surprise me with their capabilities and where we ultimately can go with this technology. We're very happy with where we are in the timeline and the progression of getting this product commercialized into the market.

The reality though is we're not going to stop. When we get the product initially into the market, we're going to continue to drive the efficiency up, the road map is not done. There's still room to grow, and there's still room to drive cost down.

And we know that at the end of the day, the technology that will win this marketplace is the highest performing lowest-cost. And we believe we have a platform that can enable that.

It creates differentiation and separation relative to our competitors and the journey of where we are at this point in time; I would say we're in a very good position, long ways to go. But I'm not going to commit specifically to the cost profile and the view of where we thought we were going to be.

I would just say that I'm very encouraged with the work the team has done and the opportunities that is in front of us..

And our next question comes from Colin Rusch of Oppenheimer..

Thanks so much, guys. So I have two model questions. So if I look back at the numbers that you're reporting for 2016, both top-line and bottom line, it looks like about $50 million of delta and about $0.28 of EPS is the change, and that's roughly in line with the adjustments in 2017.

Is that really what we're seeing here in the 2017 guidance?.

No. So if you go back – and you'll have to wait till you see the Q, but what you're going to see with the change in the accounting standards is you're going to see significant fluctuation quarterly, but on a cumulative basis, the impact is very limited. So the 2017 opening with same earnings impact with a total of about $6 million.

So the delta that you're seeing on the accounting standard change have no impact to change we're giving on the guidance side at the moment..

Yeah, so don't think about this as somehow there's a shift from the result of the adoption, the accounting standard had an adverse impact on Q4 and then somehow benefited 2017. That's not the effect. The point that Alex mentioned, the retained earnings impact was small and that was a cumulative impact.

We had to go back a number of years to effectively restate under the new accounting standard what the implications would have been, and that was a nominal impact to retained earnings.

What's flowing through in the guidance for 2017 is we've indicated is just operational results, better cost per watt and better visibility around valuation for project sales..

And our next question comes from Pavel Molchanov of Raymond James..

Thanks for taking the question guys. In your remarks, you had some language about improvement in the landscape, industry landscape for project economics.

And I guess, I would ask, when you say it's getting better, what's the baseline? What are you comparing that to, 2016, a year ago?.

I'd say we're comparing that to how we saw the market at the time we gave our guidance.

So when we came out with our original guidance in November last year and then updated in February, we're seeing a significant change in how we are perceiving the value of our assets since that time based on feedback we've been getting from the market, both from the sale of the switch asset and then also from unsolicited process we've had relative to some other projects that we have.

So we're basing it on feedback from the market as opposed to when we originally gave guidance when we had perhaps less clarity specific to those discrete assets..

And we will take our final question from Edwin Mok of Needham & Company..

Hi everyone. This is actually Arthur on for Edwin. Thanks for taking our questions. The first one is just on the Series 6 transition beyond the initial line in Ohio and the eight lines in Malaysia.

Can you give us the initial look at the milestones you have in place for the other production facilities? And then secondly, can you provide an update on any progress in penetrating international markets? I think in the past, you've highlighted Australia and India. Yeah. Thank you..

So the transition – in the last earnings call, and unfortunately, I don't have the slide, so when we talked about there, we had a timeline that actually showed the major milestones in the progression of where we are.

What I would say right now is that we now have approval and actually we are in the process now of, again – Perrysburg has been completely tore down, we're starting to receive some of the tools. The two plants in Malaysia have actually been – equipment's been removed now in the process of getting ready to receive tools.

And then we've actually started momentum now moving into Vietnam. And so we refer to as the first phase is Terra 0 and then Terra 1 (50:38), which is the Plant 5 and 6 in Malaysia and then Terra 2 (50:43) being in Vietnam.

And all of that's in progress right now, so we've got three different work streams of activities that were ongoing, which when you aggregate up that capacity across those three that will get us to about 3 gigawatts of production.

And then the next phase will be referred to as Terra 3 (51:04), which will give us another 1.1 gigawatts or so of production, and that's really should be largely running up at least on a run-rate basis as we get through the end of 2018, beginning of 2019, we'll be on that kind of run rate across that platform of those two – of those Terra 0, 1, 2 and ultimately Terra 3 (51:20).

So we feel good about it. And there's a timeline we had in the last earnings call, maybe to give you a little bit more color from the standpoint. The international markets continue to be very robust and there's continuing engagement with us.

The one thing I will say though is that we are capacity constrained right now around Series 4 and as it relates to some of that demand profile that we're seeing in the international markets, they're looking for module shipments that would happen later this year into the first half of 2018.

And so as it relates to having limited module supply, that constraints a little bit to engage in some of those discussions. And then the first half of the – the second half of 2018, the production that will produce Series 6 largely is going to be allocated to our own development assets.

So we're really looking at a timeline of getting out into 2019 before we really have a lot of supply that we can engage the market with, and then particularly address some of the international market opportunities.

But what I'll say is that we are almost always kind of a supplier of choice and when there's an opportunity where ever it is, whether it's domestic or international, we're generally giving an opportunity to address those market potentials, especially in markets where we have a good – an advantage or a temperature co efficiency, factor respond, hot humid climates, particular.

There's clearly a poll for our technology..

And ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today's conference. We thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect..