Canadian Solar Inc. (CSIQ) Q4 2014 Earnings Report, Transcript and Summary

Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Canadian Solar fourth quarter 2014 earnings conference call. My name is Tracy, and I will be your operator for today. At this time all participants are in listen-only mode. We will conduct the question-and-answer session towards the end of this conference. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Ed Job, Director of Investor Relations. Please proceed, sir.

Thank you, Tracy. And welcome, everyone, to Canadian Solar's fourth quarter 2014 earnings conference call. Joining us on the call today are Dr. Shawn Qu, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; and Mr. Michael G. Potter, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin, may I remind our listeners that in today's call management's prepared remarks will contain forward-looking statements which are subject to risks and uncertainties, and management may make additional forward-looking statements in response to your questions. Therefore, the Company claims the protection of the Safe Harbor for forward-looking statements that is contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results may differ from management's current expectations and, therefore, we refer you to a more detailed discussion of the risks and uncertainties in the Company's annual report on Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as on today's press release. In addition, any projections as to the Company's future performance represent management's estimates as of today, March 5, 2015. Canadian Solar assumes no obligation to update these projections in the future, unless otherwise required by applicable law. Finally, we plan to hold an Investor Day in New York on May 18, 2015. We will provide additional details as we get closer to the date. Meanwhile, if you want to contact me about this event, please email me at ed.job@canadiansolar.com. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Dr. Shawn Qu. Shawn?

Thank you, Ed. Thank you all for joining us on the call today. We are going to keep our comments brief this time, so that there is more time for Q&As. 2014 was an outstanding year for Canadian Solar as we executed on our business, and delivered impressive growth in revenue and profitability. We finished the year as an even stronger leader in a global solar industry, and are excited about our prospects for 2015. To give you a sense of our achievements in 2014, full-year revenue reached nearly $3 billion, exceeding our guidance. Of the $3 billion, our high margin total solution business represented 44.5% of the total revenue; up from 28.6% in 2013. We successfully completed and connected a large number of utility-scale solar power plants in Canada, U.S., Japan, and China. Our total solution energy business has recently -- has clearly taken off, and we are now a leading force, globally. We remain as one of the world's three largest suppliers of solar modules by volume, with full-year shipments of 3.1 gigawatts. This also exceeds our guidance. More than 2.8 gigawatts out of the 3.1 gigawatts was recognized in revenue, and the balance was shipped to our own project, our projects under construction. More importantly, we are proud to report a total of $240 million of net income for our shareholders, or $4.11 per fully diluted shares. This makes us the number three most profitable solar companies in the world. Our goal is to become one of the most valued Canadian renewable energy companies, globally. In summary, we delivered record revenue, shipments, net income, earning per share and operational cash flow. We significantly strengthened our balance sheet. This creates real, lasting value for all of our shareholders, and positions us well for continuous growth. Building on our strengths, on February 3, we announced a ground-breaking transaction to acquire Recurrent Energy from Sharp for $260 million. The purchase of Recurrent Energy, once completed, will expand our global solar project pipeline to 8.5 gigawatts, and will increase our late-stage solar project pipeline to 2.4 gigawatts. We clearly demonstrated our ability to reinvest our earnings for future growth, and provide our investors with strong visibility for such growth. We will continuously look for opportunities for organic and inorganic growth. As you know, we have been studying the option of launching our renewable energy, YieldCo. With our strong financial condition and solid project pipeline in low-risk geographies, we will now move ahead with our YieldCo plan. We plan to update our investors, as the progress warrants. As Ed mentioned at the start of the call, we plan to host our first Investor's Day on May 18, of this year. Now let me comment on our guidance for Q1 and full-year 2015. We see increased demand for our high quality, high-performance solar module products, even in the traditionally weak Q1 season. We expect total Q1 shipments to be in the range of approximately 1,000 megawatts to 1,030 megawatts, including 55 megawatts of shipments to our own utility-scale solar project. Revenue for the first quarter of 2015 is expected to be in a range of $725 million to $775 million, which, at the middle point of the range, represents 60% growth over Q1 of 2014. Gross margin in the first quarter of 2015 is expected to be in the range of 16% to 18%. For full-year 2015, we expect to further grow our annual module shipments to the range of 4 gigawatts to 4.3 gigawatts, which includes 3.3 gigawatts to 3.5 gigawatts of module sales to the third-party customers; 235 megawatts to 275 megawatts of project EPC sales also to the third-party customers; and 460 megawatts to 490 megawatts of shipments for the projects that will be held on our balance sheet, pending the launch of our YieldCo. Annual revenue of 2015 is expected to be in the range of approximately $2.8 billion to $3 billion. Let me now turn the call over to our CFO, Michael Potter, for more detailed review of our results for the fourth quarter. Michael, please go ahead.

Thank you, Shawn. Our Q4 2014 and our annual results set records for the Company. Net revenue for the fourth quarter of 2014 was $956.2 million; up 4.6% sequentially, and up 84.1% compared to the year ago period. Net revenue for 2014 was $2.96 billion, compared to $1.65 billion in 2013, and full-year 2014 guidance in the range of $2.93 billion to $2.98 billion. Gross profit in Q4 was $184.9 million, compared to $209.3 million in Q3, and $101.3 million in the comparable period last year. Gross margin in Q4 was 19.3%, compared to 22.9% in Q3, and 19.5% in the fourth quarter of 2013. Both our shipments and gross margin in Q4 exceeded our expectations as we benefited from higher gross margin utility-scale power project sales, and improved efficiencies from our ongoing manufacturing cost reduction efforts. These improved efficiencies partially offset the adverse impact of the U.S. trade case; lower average selling prices as a result of the appreciation of the U.S. dollar; and lower margin from the total solutions business in Canada. Income from operations was $116 million in the fourth quarter of 2014, compared to $156.1 million in the third quarter of 2014, and $45.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2013. Operating margin was 12.1% in the fourth quarter of 2014, compared to 17.1% in the third quarter of 2014, and 8.7% in the fourth quarter of 2013. Net foreign exchange loss in Q4 was $4.9 million, compared to net foreign exchange loss of $5.5 million in Q3 and foreign exchange loss of $9.6 million in Q4 of last year. Income tax expense in Q4 of 2014 was $27.5 million, compared to income tax expense of $34.4 million in Q3, and income tax expense of $3.7 million in Q4 of last year. Net income attributable to Canadian Solar shareholders for Q4 2014 was $75.7 million, or $1.28 for diluted share, compared to net income of $104.2 million, or $1.75 per diluted share in Q3; and net income of $20.9 million, or $0.39 per diluted share, in Q4 of last year. Net income attributable to Canadian Solar was, for all of 2014, $239.5 million, or $4.11 per diluted share, compared to $31.7 million, or $0.63 diluted share, in 2013. Moving onto the balance sheet, in Q4, cash and cash equivalent was $549.5 million at the end of Q4, compared to $408.1 million at the end of Q3. The restricted cash balance was $475.2 million at the end of Q4, compared to $409.1 million at the end of Q3. Our trade accounts receivable balance, net of allowance for doubtful accounts, was $366.9 million at the end of Q4; up from $347.3 million at the end of Q3. Inventories increased to $432.3 million at the end of Q4, compared to $390.5 million at the end of Q3. Short-term borrowings at the end of Q4 totaled $725.5 million, compared to $718.1 million at the end of Q3. Long-term debt at the end of Q4 was $134.3 million, compared to $146.7 million at the end of Q3. Senior convertible notes outstanding totaled $150 million. Short-term borrowings and long-term debt directly related to utility-scale power projects totaled $128.9 million at the end of Q4. It's a simple thing to announce that we're moving forward with the YieldCo, but it's really the result of years of work by many people at Canadian Solar. A few years ago, I do not think that anyone would have believed that we could transform ourselves into a leading global developer. Today, we are continuing our change, and going to what we believe will be an even more rewarding and sustainable business model. We are very excited about this opportunity and look forward to sharing our progress where we can. We believe that our internal pipeline is more than sufficient, but we also hope to include additional assets from third parties, as well. Finally, I want to touch on the Recurrent acquisition, which Shawn addressed earlier. We're all excited about this transaction on many levels. This is a compelling opportunity for us, strategically and financially. We expect it to close in the first quarter of 2015. This will significantly expand our total project pipeline to 8.5 gigawatts and our late-stage pipeline to 2.4 gigawatts. Importantly, we are replenishing our pipeline with a highly attractive portfolio that represents one of the largest portfolios of utility-scale projects in the fast-growing US market. We are not just buying projects though we're also buying a strong operating business with a talented and experienced development team. As a result, we expect operating expenses to increase around $7 million per quarter, once we integrate Recurrent into our existing business, which should be factored into your models. Q1 will have deal-related expenses of between $4 million to $5 million. In summary, 2014 was a record year, and we have considerable momentum in our business entering 2015. This should prove to be another solid year of progress for us, and our whole management team is excited at the possibilities that are now open to us. With that, I'd now like to open the call to your questions. Operator?

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Paul Costner from JPMorgan. Please proceed.

Good morning, this is Mark Strauss on for Paul. I guess just starting with the YieldCo, understand it's early, so anything, even if it's in broad strokes, would be helpful. But anything you can share regarding the geographic mix of the projects, testing locations that you're evaluating? And then lastly, just timings, is this a 2015 and early 2016? And how should we think about that?

Our internal pipeline has projects in Japan, the UK, and the United States, and those will be likely to be the foundation projects that we'd use in the YieldCo. We are looking at outside opportunities, and those are in similar geographies; all high quality countries with a good world law, and a good chance of being paid. In terms of timing, the process, depending on how a few of the review and regulatory processes take, on a best case would be somewhere near the end of this year, and potentially could be somewhere early next year as well.

That's helpful, thanks. Then lastly, just regarding Recurrent, any thoughts as far as potential need for a capital raise to help fund the development of those projects? Or, I guess, should we think about if those projects get folded into the [YieldCo] to kind of take care of those development costs?

In general, there's ample construction funding available to construct the projects, and they're all at very late-stage development so they're essentially entering construction. We have pretty strong cash resources ourselves now, and we expect our business to continue to perform well in 2015. If it's necessary, at some point, grow the Company more and make sure we hit our goals, we're willing to do some form of capital raise, but we're also not afraid to use shorter-term debt in order to bridge to where we need to be.

Thank you for your question. Your next question comes from the line of Colin Rusch from Northland Capital Markets. Please proceed.

Can you talk a little bit about where you're getting the increased capacity for module manufacturing? Are you seeing some significant [development] [indiscernible]? And then, if could you comment on your costs per watt at this point, in terms of cash costs?

Your question about the new capacity expansion for modules?

Correct, yes. How much is development and how much is new capacity?

We are de-bottlenecking our own module facility here in China. And also, last year we started a new solar cell facility also in China, in Funning, China, so now we are combining that Funning capacity together with our existing solar cell capacity. Now, we have around 1.4 gigawatts of solar -- internal solar cell capacity, and then, adding the new Funning capacity, our total internal capacity will reach somewhere around 1.9 gigawatts to 2 gigawatts in China. We are also purchasing a third-party solar cells from Taiwan, and from some other China-based suppliers. Meanwhile, we are looking at some solar cell expansion plan outside China, but we haven't made a final decision yet. So that's for the solar cell. Now on the solar module side, we are adding new capacity in our own facility right now, and we are also using the OEM facilities outside China.

Okay, great. And then, just on the cost side, where are you at with your vertically integrated capacity in terms of cash costs per watt?

For fully integrated capacity, we use our own solar cell and modules, and also make our own modules. The full manufacturing costs should be in the order of $0.45, $0.46, somewhere there. And if we buy external solar cell then it [depends]. Now, at this moment, the external cell and wafer price is not high, so the costs impact in Q1 and Q2 are not very significant.

Great. And then, on your Japan products, there's been some concern around timelines for construction. Can you just talk about the capacity for [the] EPC partners that you're working with there to complete projects on time? Obviously, you've been guiding, but what do you see in terms of potential issues, and risk to those timelines?

Yes, well, we're using major EPC companies inside Japan, well-known names and well-known in the EPC market inside Japan, and we've guided to have 80 megawatts [DoD] this year, and that's our target. We've started construction on some of it. And we'll have to work hard, like you always have to, to complete projects, but we're guiding towards 80 this year.

Thank you for your question. Your next question comes from the line of Frank He from Goldman Sachs.

The first question is regarding the self-operated project pipeline. You mentioned the module shipments will be 460 megawatts to 490 megawatts to your own projects, so I just wonder what's your guidance for the total in-store capacity for the self-operated project by end of this year? And, if possible, could you also give us a guidance for the 2016 self-operated project capacity?

This number, 460 megawatts and 490 megawatts, only include our own project, it doesn't include the Recurrent projects. Obviously, after we complete the acquisition of Recurrent in a few weeks, then the number will be different. So for the 460 megawatts to 490 megawatts, as Michael said, about 80 megawatts is going to be in Japan. And in China, we see somewhere around 200 megawatts, a little bit more than 200 megawatts. And also, in UK, in UK we have -- we are going to connect around 40 megawatts by end of March; but we are looking at another 90 megawatts for this year, which we made allowance once we have everything in place. So I think that pretty much account for the project we plan to hold and operate.

Okay. Regarding the Recurrent project pipeline and we saw in the press release that most of this 1 gigawatts will be commercial operation since 2016, so we should not project any revenues from the pipe project in 2015. Am I correct?

Yes. If we go ahead with the YieldCo then those projects will drop into YieldCo. And almost all these projects will be in construction before the end of the year. And currently, the target finishing date all before June 30, next year.

Okay.

Yes, and, Frank, we tried to help out, just to give a bridge between doing a YieldCo and not doing a YieldCo. So, if we were selling all of our projects, and these include the projects in China that we're building, our revenue forecast for 2015 would be between $1 billion and $1.1 billion higher. That represents the projects that we're completing this year and keeping, instead, we'd be selling it. And it also assumes we'd be doing percentage of completion accounting, essentially selling Recurrent projects at NTP and getting about 25% of the $2.3 billion of revenue it could generate.

Okay, got it. And then last question is your Q1 margin guidance. And you are guiding for 16% to 18% gross margin, just could you explain a little bit about the assumptions on this number?

Yes, the main assumptions there is selling less projects than the prior quarter; and a little bit more module price degradation, mainly, again, driven by weaker currencies for the whole quarter, instead of just the end of the quarter.

The module ASP is a little bit lower than Q1 but, more or less, in the same order of magnitude, around $0.60. That's our forecast for Q1. And there is an impact from the U.S. anti-dumping duties, and we provide an estimate in the press release. And also, the currency depreciation of Japanese yen and euro, those are already factored into the lower ASP. But meanwhile, the Chinese yuan is also depreciating against U.S. dollar, so we'll start to see some relief on the cost side. But most of those reliefs really will happen -- or be reflected in Q2, rather than Q1.

Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you.

Thank you.

[Indiscernible]

Is there another question?

The next question is from Nitin Kumar from Nomura, please proceed.

Hi Nitin, are you there?

Okay, we'll move on from Nitin, our next caller is Philip Shen from ROTH Capital Partners, please proceed.

Hi guys, thanks for taking my questions. In your prepared remarks, you discussed growing both organically and inorganically. It looks like you're actively pursuing opportunities to expand in Japan. As you look ahead, what other regions are you actively in? Where could we see an impact in late-stage pipeline in the near term?

Philip, this is Shawn. Philip. For the next two to three years the near-term projects which can be dropped into our YieldCo will still be in the low-risk OECD countries, such as U.S., Japan, UK, and some other European countries. So we will focus on those countries. And when we say inorganic growth, we refer to the partnership with the project developers, or project owners in those countries. Now, we are actively pursuing the project development in other places, for example, China, and Latin America, and many other places. However, I expect the project from those countries will start to contribute in a significant way, probably after, let's say, 2018, 2019.

I know this might be early, but any color is helpful. You talked about your geographic mix of your planned assets on-balance sheet, so, given that, it looks like you're pursing more of a global YieldCo structure, than geographic focused structure. Can you comment in general about that? And if there has an update at all on the J-REIT, on developments in Japan, that would be helpful. Thank you.

This Michael. We’re concentrating on global assets in highly developed OECD countries that we think have strong solar policies, and strong cash flows, and certainty of payment. So the UK, Japan, United States, and perhaps something from Canada, are the projects that come from that. In terms of a J-REIT, there is -- the Tokyo Stock Exchange either has or is about to create an infrastructure REIT fund. However, there are certain tax changes that were made that make it less attractive to us as a place to list. One of the main issues, potentially losing your tax shield after 10 years, creates a fair amount of uncertainty about the long-term cash flows for projects in it. So right now, I'd say it's more likely than not that we would not do something in Japan. However, the rules are still subject to change. And if something swung in a way that listing something in Japan was the best use of our Japanese assets, we would certainly consider it.

Thank you for your question. Your next question is from the line of Nitin Kumar from Nomura. Please proceed.

Couple of things, I mean your module shipment guidance is for a growth of 7% to 8% quarter on quarter, whereas all your peers are guiding for an almost 30% decline in shipments. Could you guide us what -- which geographies you're seeing such a strong growth versus where your peers might be missing?

For Q1, we see the -- for me, it's pretty normal module demand, and growth seems to be from all of our key selling regions. And Japan is particularly strong, and all other regions demonstrated the normal behavior. So as a matter of fact, I'm a little bit surprised, too, when I see the guidance from some of our peer solar companies in the past two days, because, for us, our demand seems to be okay for Q1.

We normally have a small decline into the Q1 from seasonality. But this quarter, it's a little bit stronger than normal, so we're seeing a slight increase quarter over quarter. The actual recognized shipments will be relatively similar. We are shipping some modules into our own projects.

Thanks, Michael. Just on -- what percentage of your shipments in Q4 probably went to China? Maybe that can explain.

That's due -- well, in our case, our shipment into China is always a small portion. I don't have the number off the top of my head, but it should be 80 megawatts, so, around 10%?

So, it’s 140-something megawatts into China in Q4, which is relatively small as our total percentage. Q4 is always the strongest quarter for us for shipments.

And coming to the YieldCo structure, you mentioned previously, at Frank's question, that your shipments to your own projects could change after you close the Recurrent Energy. I mean, does that mean that your current guidance does not include the Recurrent Energy contributions, possibility, both on sales, as well as on shipments?

We are not assuming any sales from Recurrent in our guidance, because we're assuming we'll keep those projects and put them into a potential YieldCo. So the guidance of close to $3 billion in revenue does not include anything from Recurrent. If we did have something from Recurrent, it would be like we previously said. Assuming we sold an NTP, we'd get at least 25% of the $2.3 billion of revenue potential we believe those projects have. However, we're not planning on doing it, so it's not in our revenue guidance. We also are not assuming we're going to ship our own modules into Recurrent projects in the current plan. Some of the projects that are either starting or about to start construction had module contracts signed before we started negotiations with Sharp to purchase it, and we're not going to force Canadian Solar modules into projects if good quality and well-priced modules can be obtained elsewhere as well.

I understand. Great. And in terms of the ASPs, Shawn mentioned that it's almost flattish, and you're probably going to see some benefits from RMB depreciation. Could you -- in terms of hedging and ForEx costs, you've obviously done a much better job last year versus in 2013. I'm just trying to understand, with the move against -- with the move on RMB does this need to change your hedging strategy, or you're still good?

It shouldn't change our hedging strategy that much for that. Although the RMB is weakening against the US dollar, in terms of pegging it to other currencies, it's still doing better. The depreciation against the dollar is not strong compared to some of the other currencies, so it shouldn't significantly change our hedging strategy. I'm seeing some signs of some stability in the yen; it's not getting better, but it doesn't seem to be getting any worse right now. The euro showed some more degradation at the beginning of the year; Canadian dollar has been somewhat mixed so far for Q1.

Okay, thanks. And the last question from me on the financing side of things, you mentioned on the first question that you could possibly look at doing either a capital raising or taking a short-term loan and bridge financing. What would be the more preferred choice?

It really depends on the state of the capital markets and what options are available. In general, I prefer to use debt over equity, where I can, if there's a clear path to pay the debt off. I have the largest shareholder sitting right next to me, so concerns about dilution are very high in Shawn's mind, but we also look at balance overall. If doing something means that we can grow a lot more value than any possible dilution then we'll consider it, which is what we did at the beginning of last year. And we think that turned out quite well for the Company, and certainly given us the fuel we needed to execute well throughout this year.

Nitin, we have already said, when we discussed the Recurrent acquisition, back in early February, that we don't need any -- we have adequate financing to close the Recurrent acquisition. Now, for the project financing itself, Recurrent will secure its own equity fund and the construction bridge financing. So that part can be taken care. And in our current corporate financing plan, we believe we will be able to carry through this year's business plan, using a combination of different tax instrument.

Great, thanks, Shawn. You've done an extremely good job on capital markets; 3% net debt-to-equity, coming down from what it was two years ago, awesome job. Thanks, guys.

Thank you.

[Operator Instructions] Your next question comes from the line of Aditya Satghare from FBR Capital Markets. Please proceed.

The first is I have a two-point question on China. When I look at the China late-stage pipeline disclosure, can you sort of talk about those provinces and the regions you mentioned in terms of curtailment and potential timeliness of payments? And then, could you also give us an update on your Sichuan JV?

As you know, we have -- we are still taking conservative approach in China, therefore, our volume, our installation base is not as big as some of other solar companies, so maybe others can give you better answer to this question. Now, based on our experience, the -- we just connected some projects in Northern China, so we'll have to wait for six months before I can let you know our experience in terms of curtailment. But so far, there doesn't seem to be a problem. For example, we connected a project in Hubei province, and that place is not known for any curtailment. And for Eastern China, we have projects in the Jiangsu province; we haven't experienced any curtailment. And Xinjiang province, we do have a project connected in 2013. The project has been running well most of the year, last year, but then I think in the summer there was some issues, due to the -- some political instability in that region. So there was some influence. However, the solar radiation situation is pretty good there, so the total performance is still pretty good.

And then on the Sichuan JV, please?

We don't have anything new to report on that right now. That's a potential funding source, and it will take a while to develop and show up in our pipeline.

Yes, we listed it as a pipeline, so we haven't installed those projects yet.

My next question is on Japan. Can you talk about, given all the noise we hear in the market, like what is the biggest difference you see in terms of perception versus reality in the market trade? And given all the progress you have made, what would you say are some of the [misconcepts] which we hear about the Japanese market today?

Well, the difference is that the projects are still getting started, and constructions are going, and projects getting connected. Although there are noise in this part of the world, but, really, the business is continual going in Japan. And on module side, Q1 will be our record quarter for module shipments into Japan. And the project side, we are starting constructions on certain projects in Japan. And there are some projects which we have experienced some delays last year, however, we are getting -- for example, the connecting issue and easement issue resolved, so we will still -- well, there may be delay, we will still build those projects.

All right, thanks for that.

And I also want to mention that with all this noise in Japan, in reality, that most of the Japanese projects only get submitted to [indiscernible] in 2013. So up to now, there's only like a year or two years of development on those projects. And if you compare this with the US and with Canada, two year is not a very long time for project developments. Now, we have experience in Canada; for example, we submitted our Ontario FIT project in 2009, and even as of today we are still building some of the project. So, indeed, it takes much longer than we thought, but these are still very, very profitable projects. And US is the same. So really, for large-scale projects and some delay is normal, as long as you can control it, as long as eventually you can build those projects.

All right, thank you, and good to see [the execution rate].

Thank you for your question. Your next question comes from the line of Pierre Maccagno, Dougherty & Company. Please proceed.

Hi, Michael and Shawn, congratulations on the quarter. I wanted to get some clarification. You said the guidance for 2015 is $1 billion higher. Is that $1 billion higher compared to the revenues in 2014, or I don't know if I understood very well?

Pierre, that's not [2016] guidance. We said if we had not decided to do a YieldCo and were keeping projects, instead we are in a pure build-and-sell model, our 2015 guidance would be between $1 billion and $1.1 billion higher.

Compared to?

Compared to the $2.8 billion to $3 billion, which is the actual guidance.

Okay. Okay, good. I understand. Can you give some comments around the specific ASPs, Japan, China, US, and Europe? And how do you see those developing?

Our overall blended ASP was around $0.62 per watt for Q4; we expect it to come down a little bit from there into Q1. In terms of guidance on different regions, so I have to put my glasses on to read some of the smaller numbers. There's no real standout regions, except for the U.S., which is impacted by [tariffs], and Canada, which has normally been higher. The U.S. is in high $0.60s to low $0.70s. Most of the other regions tend to be in the low $0.60s to high $0.50s, depending on individual countries. I think Japan is a little better. Japan, for some areas, you can get close to $0.70 a watt. Other things it's close to the low -- it's somewhere in the low $0.60s because of the drop in the currency over the last six months, or so.

Okay, great, thanks. That answers all my questions.

Thank you for your questions. Your next question comes from the line of Paul Coster from J.P. Morgan, please proceed.

Yes, thanks very much. Couple of quick questions. Looking forward, what role do you think distributed generation, C&I scale projects, will play in the formation of YieldCo assets?

It's getting more and more specific as the questions go on. I would say, generically, we're not opposed to using those type of assets. If they're good quality assets, with pretty good payment certainty, then we would certainly consider them, but those won't be the anchor assets that we'd use to launch it.

Okay, got it. And the other thing is you're going to be accumulating [cash D] from the China projects over the course of time. At what point will that [cash D] be material? How will you report it so that we can start to put some value around the held back -- hold-back assets there?

Yes, we've changed the accounting for our Chinese assets as of Q4; they're now accounted for as assets being held for operations, so they're fixed assets. They're basically construction now, instead of project assets held for sale. The amount is not particularly material, right now it's a few million dollars-type of range, but it'll be ramping up as we add more assets to it. And in terms of what we do with those assets, partially depends on if there's good value for those assets by U.S. investors. If there is, it potentially could be used in a YieldCo that's listed in a non-Asian market. We believe that we'll probably get better value for those assets in a market in or close to China, where people understand it better.

And finally, I apologize, I missed the prepared remarks, so you may already have answered this. But as you form the YieldCo, is the intention to have it be a wholly owned, or a majority-owned YieldCo? Or are you expecting to be a minority owner in the entity?

We didn't talk about that. And we've been talking to various people that we could potentially partner with. I suspect it will be a majority owned and controlled YieldCo. And when we have everything on that final, we'll certainly let everybody know.

All right, great. Thanks so much.

Thank you for your questions. [Operator Instructions] Your next question comes from the line of Emily Liu from Arete Research, please proceed.

Thanks for taking my question. Just a quick one, just some clarification on the guidance revenue this year, $2.8 billion to $3 billion. If I calculate the module, you guided to ship to external party, which is roughly 3.4 gigawatts, this represent revenue of $2 billion. And I think in most of the Canadian project revenue, CAD900 million are pretty much there as well, because most of the projects in Ontario have buyers already. So does that mean you don't -- is that the bulk of the guidance and none of the Recurrent, or [server] Chinese projects, or [server] UK projects is factored in this guidance? Thanks.

Yes, that's correct. As we explained in the press release, we have the third party -- we had module sales with a third party. [indiscernible] already contracting project. And for other projects, our current intention is to keep and drop into the YieldCo.

YieldCo? Right, okay. And then, I think Michael mentioned, without the YieldCo the guided revenue would be another $1 billion to $1.2 billion more. That includes, in my understanding, is 20%, 25% of $2.3 billion from Recurrent for year 2015. And could you explain the other element of this $1 billion to $1.2 billion additional?

It would be selling all of our Chinese projects, selling our Japanese projects, selling our UK projects. If we support all of our projects we weren't doing a build-and-hold type of model then we would get between $1 billion to $1.1 billion higher.

Okay. And among those different project in different geography, in which market do you see will contribute the bulk of the $1.1 billion to $1.2 billion of the Recurrent? UK?

I think it would be Japan would probably be the leader in terms -- after the Recurrent assets. And China also would be reasonably sizeable. I mean we've always intended on holding the China project. We just wanted to give an indication, if you're not holding any projects at all and were just doing purely build and sell, how much more revenue would come from it.

And just a follow up; what type of buyer are you seeing in China, in Japan, for projects on the secondary market, mainly, right now?

I mean, Japan is the same as everywhere in the world. It's usually large financial institutions, linked with life insurance properties, or pension funds that want stable cash flows into the future or other YieldCos that have a cost-to-capital advantage and need cash flows to pay their dividends. Those are the primary people who would buy it. Within China, one of the reasons why we're building and holding is that the natural buyers are not so strong. The life insurance and pension funds are not as developed in terms of holding assets like that, and there is no good YieldCo market for Chinese assets yet that has created another classifier. So it tends to be opportunistic funds, utilities, or units of state-owned enterprises that have access to cheaper capital and want to get the return from the projects. The prices that they would be willing to pay we don't think are fair compared to the return that you can make by holding and operating the projects yourself, which is why we're holding them right now.

For the Japan project, and also the UK project, we were approached by pretty much all the customers who have looked at our Canadian project. There are many of them interested in our Japanese projects, or UK project as well. And for China project, so far, we haven't really actively looked at it, not looked much. We have talked to some buyers in last year, but we haven't very actively looked for buyers. But there are companies, for example, there are some certain companies listed in the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, they go out to buy projects. And there's also a few investment companies in China, newly formed, they also look -- they also want to buy projects. So there are some well known asset buyers in China.

And just a final one; in Japan, the pipeline you have, this grandfather to the old system, and how -- what kind of value do you think you can sell them for, eventually?

Well, that really depends on the FIT whether it's a FIT 40 project, FIT 36, or FIT 34. But we have been seeing some market indication of somewhere -- there are some market indications of somewhere close to, for example, JPY400 per watt for some of the JPY36 or JPY40 per kilowatt hours projects.

And the serious offers are higher than that. That was more the feelers a while ago, but, again, YieldCos and the access to lower capital has made the prices higher than that.

Thank you for your questions. I would now like to turn the call back to management for closing remarks. Thanks.

Thank you, Operator. Thank you, everyone, for joining the call today. Thank you for your continued support. If you have any follow up questions after today's call, please contact us. And also, welcome you to join our Investors Day, in May. Have a great day.