Why aren’t we talking about Italy?
Ishita ManjrekarFriday, August 28th, 2009
With all the excitement surrounding the end of the year installation rush in Germany, I fear we are forgetting to look at other important solar markets and the policy changes that are looming ahead. For example in 2010 the situation is quite tricky in Italy. It’s also tricky to explain but I’m going to take a shot. The cap for the solar subsidies in Italy is 3 GW or 2016 whichever is sooner. In 2010 the FIT will be 2% less than the 2009 FIT. 2011 onwards we have no idea what the FIT will be. Also once a cumulative installed PV capacity reaches 1.2 GW, the FIT that exists at that point in time will be maintained for the next 14 months. Now it looks like Italy will hit that 1.2 GW mark by 1H10. But when that happens the tariff will not be constant for 14 months but will most likely be reviewed and readjusted to 20-30% lower than the current tariffs in 2011. So as a project developer, in order to ensure that you can avail the 2010 FIT you have to make sure your project is connected to the grid by Dec 2010. Now in Italy it takes about 3-6 months to connect to the grid. So projects will have to be completed by August 2010 to ensure grid connection by year end, which in turn means the last round of modules will be ordered in June of 2010 before. This is a very important risk associated with the Italian solar market that very few people are thinking about, in my humble opinion.
Tags: international investments, solar markets
Posted in Author, Energy, Ishita Manjrekar, Solar | No Comments »
Vertebroplasty: A Procedure Not for the Masses
Allison HsiehWednesday, August 19th, 2009
The Wall Street Journal recently reported on a study published in the NEJM that showed no clinical benefit from vertebroplasty versus placebo. How much impact will it really have? Unlike Vioxx or Tysabri, it’s not like the procedure has been shown to cause harm or adverse events among patients. There is no risk of it being pulled from the market, and the major spine companies (Depuy/JNJ, Synthes, Medtronic/Kyphon) will still be permitted to market the technology. Surgeons and patients will testify to the benefits it provides for the pain associated with vertebral compression fractures, regardless of what the study showed. In the current environment, though, the focus is on eliminating unnecessary healthcare costs. If vertebroplasty is not shown to provide a medical benefit in a study like this, should Medicare pay for it?
Many cast doubt on the accuracy of the study. The sample size was too small, patient selection was biased, measurement of pain cannot be accurate… When it comes down to it, a definitive study that accounts for these errors will need to be conducted before drastic cuts in reimbursement are likely to be taken. That said, the attention the study has garnered will likely make surgeons think twice before choosing vertebroplasty for a patient.
A comparison can be made between this situation and the ENHANCE study that came out in January 2008. When the ENHANCE study was released showing that Vytorin was no more effective than simvastatin monotherapy, the same questions surfaced. What would happen to Vytorin’s formulary status and reimbursement? The PGR network indicated that the status would likely remain unchanged, but the biggest impact would be from a decrease in the number of new prescriptions written for the drug.
In the same way, the PGR network indicates that the number of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty procedures will likely go down, regardless of reimbursement cuts. Physicians will be more careful when choosing patients for the procedure (some patient types do really benefit), especially given the increased scrutiny that comes with a procedure that they may be financially incentivized to do. While companies were once able to get away with marketing their products to the masses, they do not want to be hit with independent studies such as this. The shift is towards defining the patient profile more accurately and taking a more personalized approach to medicine. How this will play out is still a big question, but it will start with more narrowly defined patient populations in clinical studies and an increased emphasis on pharmacogenomics.
Tags: medical devices, spine, vertebroplasty
Posted in Health Care, Uncategorized | No Comments »
Evolutionary versus Revolutionary Data Centers
Unni NarayananMonday, August 17th, 2009
Microsoft’s and Google’s contrasting data center strategies reflect the differences between evolutionary and revolutionary approaches in technology implementation. History has proven that each paradigm has its own risks and rewards.
MSFT is riding the well known trends toward the usage of data center containers. This natural evolutionary approach requires a minimum investment in surrounding building infrastructure and a reliance on broadly available commodity hardware. The benefits here are a complete negation of risks related to specific vendor exposure and wasted dollars on potentially fruitless R&D efforts. In a sense MSFT is waiting for the risk/reward pareto point to clearly emerge from natural market forces. Historically this is consistent with MSFT’s development efforts (e.g., their DOS relationship with IBM or their relatively late but successful offering with Windows as compared to Apple’s products).
In contrast GOOG believes it already understands the nature of that elusive optimal data center solution. GOOG’s teams rightfully view themselves as technology visionaries and want to take a revolutionary approach in design. Hence, GOOG needs to develop custom hardware solutions. This strategy has not always paid off. For example, GOOG vacillated between purchasing servers from vendors such as RACK and designing their own compute platform solutions. And yet, our checks at Primary Global Research indicate that for the time being GOOG’s data center approach is a standard that many wish to emulate.
And, while the data center design battle rages, in the backdrop state tax laws are in flux. This is an issue that transcends both the evolutionary and revolutionary approaches. Neither MSFT nor GOOG can predict the political whims of the taxpayer – especially, when data center consolidation drives lower TCO (totally cost of ownership) and that savings is largely a result of reduced headcount. Once the legal ambiguities dissipate, the battle lines will be more cleanly drawn and, as Ashlee Vance writes in his recent NY Times Bits blog column, the evolutionists and revolutionists will be fighting in a neighborhood near you!
Tags: Data Center, GOOG, MSFT
Posted in Data Center, Unni Narayanan | No Comments »
State of the Telecom Optical Components Industry
Rajan VaradarajanFriday, August 14th, 2009
The genesis of the telecom optical components industry, as we know it today, was seeded in the research labs of major equipment telecommunications vendors of the 1980’s, companies such as Nortel, Lucent and Alcatel. The optical components that were developed were the key to winning the race in DWDM and OC-192. Those that had the components technology or the scale to drive the supply chain, dominated the burgeoning optical transport market of the late nineties into early 2000. These companies drove component business groups to serve the internal market and feed into the system - level product lines – thereby ensuring market differentiation. Some companies drove these component groups as cost centers and the profit margin went to the system business.
When capex budgets started to dry-up by the middle of 2001 and the frenzied deployment of 10Gb/s DWDM long-haul systems reduced to a trickle, the obvious and immediate fix to improve finances were to reduce fixed costs associated with component design centers and optical chip wafer Fabs. Deals were quickly made to divest and merge the captive component divisions with either existing merchant suppliers or with start-ups that were able to catch the IPO window. Since the burst of the telecom bubble, the industry has slowly clawed its way back to some level of recovery even with the emergence of new component suppliers such as Optium, Opnext and Finisar. However, with remnants of VC-funded start-ups sputtering along, the emergence of low cost manufacturers from the Asia-Pacific region along with general oversupply in the industry, the return to profitability has slowed with some companies suffering occasional losses. Even the minimally profitable companies continually face the challenges of restructuring and off-shoring while addressing the need to further invest in leading edge optical products.
Not all is doom and gloom however. Bandwidth growth has allowed service providers to expand their infrastructure on real revenues coming from bandwidth demand. Spending levels in 2005-2008 were at a high in both terrestrial and submarine networks and component company valuations did recover modestly. Behind this trend the telecom optical components industry has improved palpably. At trade shows and executive forums, the topic at the top of the list is industry consolidation, which many agree is a long-term solution. Several deals were made to this effect, but not at a pace or degree to produce lasting effect.
Then, in late 2008, strains in the financial industry brought a new round of difficulties that resulted in a freeze in spending patterns. Only now are we seeing infrastructure spending sustainably on the rise. In fact, we expect to see a continued recovery with CAGR back at 2005-2008 rates before long.
Going forward we think the fundamental problem that plagued the optical industry will have been addressed. In our view there are three key developments underway that will move the industry forward at better rates, starting now and lasting into 2010.
1) Service providers and system vendors recognize that the health of component suppliers is necessary to ensure stable and reliable supply with continued innovation coming from the bottom of the supply chain.
2) Component companies are right-sizing their businesses to run at >30% gross margin either by fully utilizing Fabs and/or outsourcing and streamlining operations.
3) Much like in 2000, M&A and consolidation will come out of necessity more so than luxury. But a second shakeout may be in the cards as operating winners and losers become more apparent. This will lead to a much healthier future.
Tags: telecom investments
Posted in Rajan Varadarajan, Telco | No Comments »
Co-Lo Mojo Less So
Unni NarayananMonday, August 10th, 2009
Q2 of 2009, PGR started a program of quarterly co-location checks. Our network has consistently reported a shortage of available co-location space with price-points increasing. This does not appear to be a short lived phenomenon. Rather, there are fundamental drivers making available capacity quite tight, including: 1) Advances in cloud computing, 2) Maturity and widespread adoption of virtualization technologies, 3) An inherent shortage of viable real estate, 4) Momentum behind municipalities to remain green, which further exacerbates demand problems, and 5) Increased power and cooling challenges that are too difficult for in house IT personnel to handle.
Look to see this thesis updated and enhanced as we continue our quarterly checks.
Tags: Co-location
Posted in Cloud Computing, Data Center, Unni Narayanan | No Comments »
HPQ: Network Rookie
Unni NarayananMonday, August 10th, 2009
On paper at least, HPQ looked like a “shoo-in” to join the networking big time with its Procurve offering. And I must confess, I have been cheering for the rookie if only to give CSCO, the salty veteran of interconnectivity, some competition.
However, PGR’s talent scouts (HPQ/CSCO experts) report a completely different story. Specifically: 1) HPQ has a poor track record with networking hardware, 2) The “go to market” strategy around Procurve is nonexistent, 3) Organizational changes at HPQ don’t appear to favor good execution around Procurve, and 4) CSCO just has a better sales force. Still, important questions remain in terms of which player will ultimately win the data center. For example, CSCO’s blade strategy has momentum largely because CSCO’s name is on it (not because there’s a real product).
As they say in sports, come game time, both rookie and veteran have to show up and play. HPQ’s presence on the server side is real. The question is whether HPQ can leverage the talent to raise its game.
Tags: CSCO, HPQ
Posted in Cloud Computing, Data Center, Networking, Unni Narayanan | No Comments »
Does it matter what’s inside a touch screen handset?
pgresearchFriday, August 7th, 2009
I went to my local Sprint retail store today, walked around and took a look at the 30+ different types of handsets they had on display. There were smartphones, square phones, flip phones, sliders and candy bar phones throughout but my real purpose was to find that one phone that had a “wow” factor that would cause me to switch network providers and spend a few hundred dollars to help the economy. The Palm Pre and HTC Pro stood out as devices that impressed.
What makes the Palm Pre and HTC Pro so impressive? Right now, it’s touch technology that makes them desirable but as a consumer do we really care who is providing the technology? My thought at the moment is both yes and no. Yes, because we care that the screen responds quickly and accurately. No, because we don’t care if company X or company Y makes the handset touch screen cable; all we care about is if the thing works well and looks hip.
Touch technology providers are in an interesting spot right now. A normal consumer may not know who is making the Palm Pre or HTC Pro touch screen capable but can tell the difference between a good and bad interface. In the long run, touch technology providers may find it hard to charge a premium for products but until more competition and the “wow” factor of touch screen handsets wears off things should be fine. Do you care who is making your Apple iPhone, Blackberry Storm, Palm Pre, HTC Pro, Motorola Krave, Samsung Instinct or LG Dare touch screen enabled?
Tags: touch technology
Posted in Author, Bob Nguyen, Semiconductor, Technology | No Comments »
Storage Wars: The “EMC” Strikes Back…
Unni NarayananTuesday, August 4th, 2009
Storage remains a relatively vibrant market despite the difficult economic environment. The reasons underlying this phenomenon are well known: 1.) storage purchases are not “nice to have,” they are “must have” in order to handle unmanageable data set sizes; 2.) storage consolidation reduces TCO; and 3.) of course, SOX in the backdrop.
While these macro trends are great for all players, we have noticed an incremental shift to EMC’s favor for a number of reasons all related to EMC’s size (the “force” so to speak): 1.) EMC’s show of muscle in purchasing DDUP puts NTAP on its heels with fewer opportunities to build good product differentiation; 2.) EMC’s ability to discount more deeply (and, as one of our experts noted, EMC is discounting off a higher markup) cuts NTAP out of deals; and 3.) EMC’s larger sales force creates barriers for NTAP in emerging geographies.
That said, our checks indicate that NTAP is hanging on to its core SMB customers and this ultimately might be where the market is headed. We will certainly continue to follow this epic “Storage Wars” saga in the quarters to come!
Tags: EMC, ntap, SOX
Posted in Storage, Unni Narayanan | No Comments »
First Solar’s Rebate Program
Ishita ManjrekarMonday, August 3rd, 2009
Questions I’m thinking about as I do more work on First Solar’s rebate program:
1.) How much does the rebate need to be to make FSLR competitive with c- Si?
2.) What does it mean for working capital and cash flow if customers have to wait until the modules are installed to get rebates?
3.) What will the procedure be to apply for the rebates?
4.) Is it worth going through all of this from their customers point of view? Or does it make sense to use c-Si where it’s basically one step?
5.) Why is there no love for their non-Deutsche customers?
Tags: crystalline silicon, First Solar, rebate
Posted in Energy, Ishita Manjrekar, Solar | No Comments »
