第一太陽能 (FSLR) 2026年第三季法說會：利潤率58%，5億美元股票回購

重點摘要

• 第一太陽能 (First Solar) 公布 2026 年第三季淨銷售額約為 12 億美元，年減約 23%，主要受第三方模組出貨量減少影響。
• 毛利率上升約 20 個百分點至 58%，主要受惠於美國製造模組占比提高。調整後 EBITDA 達到 7.44 億美元，利潤率約為 60%。
• 淨利成長約 25% 至 5.71 億美元，稀釋後每股盈餘 (EPS) 則由上年同期的 4.24 美元 增至 5.30 美元。
• 已簽約待交貨訂單總計 44 GW，不含技術調整項目的合約價值約為 135 億美元，排定交貨時程延續至 2030 年。
• 第一太陽能下調 2026 全年營收與調整後 EBITDA 展望，以反映印度本土、國際 Series 6 與美國後段加工 (finishing) 出貨量下降的影響。淨現金指引則維持不變。
• 董事會授權最高 5 億美元 的股票回購計畫，即刻生效且無到期日。

關鍵財務數據

毛利率改善主要受惠於美國製造模組的占比提升。較低的銷售率與產能利用率成本、關稅負擔減少亦有貢獻，但部分被合約終止收入下降所抵銷。

業務與營運表現

第一太陽能繼續在其整體產品線推廣 CuRe 技術。該流程始於 2026 年第一季 Perrysburg 廠區的 Series 6 轉換。預計首個 Series 7 轉換將於 2027 年第一季在印度廠區展開，使公司能在轉換美國 Series 7 產線前進一步優化部署。

管理層預計 2027 年印度成品產量將達到 2.2 GW 至 2.6 GW。在貿易條件支持的情況下，印度前段產能亦可在美國境內進行產線轉換期間供應美國廠區，有助於維持美國後段產能並保留部分第 45X 條款 (Section 45X) 的稅務抵減資格。

南卡羅來納州的 Series 6 後段加工廠將分兩階段投產。第一階段已於 2026 年第三季開始生產，第二階段預計於 2027 年年中商業運轉。管理層預計該廠區在 2027 年將生產 2.2 GW 至 2.5 GW。

第一太陽能在俄亥俄州用於 Series 6 尺寸鈣鈦礦（perovskite）模組的試產線，仍按計畫於 2027 年上半年具備營運能力。公司還宣布與 CubicPV 達成授權協議，補充了先前披露與 Oxford PV 的智慧財產權協議。

自上次法說會以來，第一太陽能新增約 1.4 GW 的美國總預訂量，平均售價約為 每瓦 0.36 美元（含適用的技術調整項目）。管理層表示，該批出貨量幾乎全數是在第 232 條款公告前完成定價或處於談判後期。

截至法說會當天，公司在美國的預訂量約為 4.9 GW，價格約為 每瓦 0.36 美元（含調整項目）。管理層指出，針對第 232 條款公布後的新機會與初期談判已調高價格，但拒絕提供具體的未來價格區間。

公司正將簽約重點轉向針對單一專案的協議，而非廣泛的多年度框架協議。管理層表示，這種做法能對許可取得、併網、融資及交貨時程提供更高能見度，同時有機會降低庫存、營運資金需求及倉儲成本。

管理層展望指引

第一太陽能更新了 2026 全年指引，以反映印度本土、國際 Series 6 及美國後段加工出貨量預期下降，導致預測營收與調整後 EBITDA 走低。

公司將全年印度本土銷售量預測下調約 0.7 GW。全美國境內生產產品的銷售量預測區間則維持不變。

目前預計全年與鈣鈦礦相關的支出總計約為 1.2 億美元，高於先前預測的約 1 億美元。維護公司 TOPCon 智慧財產權地位的相關法律支出增加以及鈣鈦礦研發費用上升，被南卡羅來納州廠區遞延的開工費用所抵銷，因此 2026 全年營業費用指引保持不變。

淨現金指引亦維持不變。管理層表示，出貨量減少導致的預期現金流入下降，將被較低的預測資本支出所抵銷。

針對馬來西亞廠區，管理層預計在 2027 年上半年做出二選一的營運決策：要麼以接近或達到該廠年產能 1.8 GW 的水準運作，要麼停產。公司預計兩種結果都不會對其常態性盈餘概況產生重大影響。

風險與關注焦點

• 客戶正在推遲較長期的採購，同時優先推進必須滿足近期安全港（safe-harbor）條款與完工要求的專案。
• 地方與州政府的反對、專案暫緩執行、許可限制以及併網延誤正影響開發進度。管理層提到了某一州實施暫緩令後，導致一筆潛在 2 GW 的客戶採購案中斷。
• 通貨膨脹、電池價格上漲及關稅變化正對專案經濟效益造成壓力，並使購電協議（PPA）的投標過程變得更加複雜。
• 最終監管指引、第 232 條款最低進口價格以及防囤貨執法的不確定性，正限制太陽能模組價格的能見度。
• 現有協議下約 4 GW 的可變動出貨量未包含在待交貨訂單中，且採用第 232 條款頒布前的價格。客戶必須在五個月內決定其中約一半的數量，其餘部分則將在 2027 年與 2028 年期間做出決策。
• 由於關稅、運費成本、合約條款以及該廠區獲得第 45X 條款優惠的途徑有限，馬來西亞的需求仍具不確定性。
• 第一太陽能正付出更高的法律費用以捍衛其 TOPCon 智慧財產權。公司還面臨涉及 Swift Current 的訴訟，並表示打算在規定期限內做出回應。

分析師問答亮點

2029 年預訂需求：管理層表示，客戶目前鎖定 2029 年供貨的緊迫性有限，因為他們正專注於近期執行、融資、併網及監管透明度。第一太陽能指出，其現有的待交貨訂單降低了為了爭取遠期出貨量而大幅降價的必要性。

第 232 條款公布後的定價：在第 232 條款公布後，公司已調高新機會與早期談判的價格。然而，實際實現的價格將因產品和製造產地而異。全海外生產的模組預計處於價格區間低端，而美國本土製造的 Series 7 產品則應享有最高價格。

針對單一專案的合約：管理層表示，專案層級的訂單可能在首次交付或試運轉前約 18 個月至兩年簽署。雖然這比框架協議提供的長期待交貨訂單能見度低，但提高了時程確定性與營運規劃效率。

技術定位：管理層表示，Series 7 CuRe 相較於 PERC 技術普遍具有發電效益優勢，但相較於 TOPCon 則可能略遜一籌，這取決於地理位置、地形、氣候及雙面發電性能。

稅務抵減流動性：第一太陽能資產負債表上有約 19 億美元 的應收政府補助款，其中約 18 億美元 與美國相關。公司預計 2026 年將產生約 21 億美元 的稅務抵減。管理層正在評估是否出售部分抵減額度以加速流動性，或在不接受出售折價的情況下尋求退稅。

法說會完整逐字稿

---

完整財報電話會議逐字稿

管理層陳述

Operator

Good afternoon, and welcome to First Solar's Third Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. This call is being webcast live on the Investors section of First Solar's website at investor.firstsolar.com. [Operator Instructions] And please note that today's call is being recorded.

I would now like to turn the call over to your host, Byron Jeffers, Head of Investor Relations.

Byron Jeffers

Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us. With me today are Mark Widmar, Chief Executive Officer; and Alex Bradley, Chief Financial Officer. Mark will begin with an update on the business, followed by Alex with our financial results and outlook.

Before we begin, today's discussion will include forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Additional information regarding these risks and uncertainties can be found in our earnings press release, other SEC filings and the earnings material available on our Investor Relations website at investor.firstsolar.com. We undertake no obligation to update any of these forward-looking statements as a result of new information or future events.

During today's call, we will also discuss certain non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliation of these measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures are provided in our earnings press release and accompanying presentation. We encourage investors to review those reconciliations as non-GAAP measures should not be considered in isolation or a substitute for financial information prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP.

With that, I'll turn it over to Mark.

Mark Widmar

Thank you, and good afternoon. Getting on Slide 4. We continue to execute with discipline this past quarter advancing our U.S. manufacturing expansion, care deployment and perovskite R&D program while delivering strong financial results. We generated approximately $1.2 billion in net sales, expanded gross margin to approximately 58% and delivered adjusted EBITDA of $744 million.

Operationally, our continued CuRe deployment across the fleet is being executed through a disciplined learning-based approach that began with our Perrysburg Series 6 conversion in Q1 of this year. That approach now extends to our first Series 7 conversion in our India facility expected to begin in the first quarter of 2027, which marks the start of Series 7 CuRe replication across the fleet.

Beginning in India allows us to first refine the deployment process in a low earnings impact environment before replicating across our U.S. Series 7 fleet. During the subsequent U.S. conversions assuming a supportive trade environment, India front-end output is planned to be flexed to supply U.S. facilities, supporting U.S. back-end throughput and preserving partial domestic content and Section 45x eligibility production during the transition.

Accordingly, India's finished goods production in 2027 is expected to range from 2.2 gigawatts to 2.6 gigawatts. The pace in sequencing subsequent Series 7 U.S. conversions will be informed by learnings from the India launch consistent with the disciplined learning-based approach we have taken across all periods of technology transition.

In South Carolina, our Series 6 finishing facility is being brought online in two phases as part of the integrated manufacturing flow from Vietnam. The first phase started production in Q3. Second phase is expected to reach commercial launch in mid-2027. As we previously shared, we delayed the second phase by approximately one quarter so that Secure could be incorporated at commercial launch. Together, these two phases are expected to result in 2027 South Carolina production of 2.2 to 2.5 gigawatts.

Beyond CuRe, we continue to advance our next-generation technology road map, our Ohio pilot line designed to produce Series 6 size perovskite modules remains on track to reach operational readiness in the first half of 2027. We expect this line will enable field deployment of modules to further capture learnings and validate the manufacturing performance and durability profile of this next-generation thin film technology before we undertake broader scaling decisions.

Our licensing agreement with Cubic PV announced earlier today, together with our previously announced intellectual property agreement with Oxford PV, continues to support the development road map, providing access to foundational perovskite IP as we advance our technology road map.

Turning to the market environment on Slide 5. The Section 232 reclamation issued in August represents a meaningful shift for U.S. solar manufacturing. And we believe First Solar is well positioned to benefit as the shift takes effect. Combined with fundamentals such as continued demand strength from load growth and data center expansions, we see a long-term opportunity to translate this position into earnings growth.

Section 232 represents a structural change in how the United States approaches solar manufacturing. As the U.S. competes for global leadership in artificial intelligence, and the emerging low earth orbit economy, secure and affordable power will be foundational to both. The country cannot afford to depend on adversarial nations for technologies and supply chains increasingly central to our long-term economic prosperity and national security.

As a technology company and the only fully integrated utility scale solar manufacturer without dependency on a Chinese crystal silicon supply chain, we believe we are structurally positioned to benefit from this environment. Note, by 2027, nearly 80% of our global module manufacturing footprint will be located in the U.S.

Long-term demand fundamentals also remained strong. AI-related infrastructure, electrification and the onshoring of U.S. manufacturing are driving significant load growth. These customers need large-scale power quickly and solar plus storage remains one of the fastest and lowest cost solutions. They are increasingly focused on availability, delivery certainty, a bankable warranties and supply chain security attributes we have built our business around.

As it relates to bookings, we believe the market is working through a transition following the Section 232 announcement with significant influence from other key factors. As a reminder, a substantial portion of our existing backlog is comprised of multiyear framework agreements that are intended to supply customers with projects in various stages of development.

While entering into these types of agreements has historically driven significant additions to our backlog, they can also be more challenging for us to plan for and allocate against because of the inherent delivery timing uncertainty associated with projects in early stage of development.

Over the course of this year, while not closing the door on framework agreements with appropriate contractual protections, our customer engagements have shifted more towards project-specific contracting with the 5 projects and delivery schedules. From our perspective, the enhanced certainty surrounding project-specific contracts allows us to optimize module allocation and delivery with a potential trade-off of slowing the pace of an extended multiyear contracted backlog.

At the same time, customers are focused on advancing mid- and late-stage projects where modules have already been secured, while deferring procurement on early-stage projects requiring delivery later in the decade. We see several factors driving this behavior, including increased nimbyism among community residents and growing state and local government opposition.

In addition, the overall inflationary environment, together with the continuously evolving tariff landscape, have challenged near-term project economics and require greater strategic planning on behalf of our development customers to address system cost increases unrelated to module pricing.

As one example, in certain cases, surging battery prices is challenging both projects in construction as well as projects at the PPA bid stage. Lastly, an incomplete regulatory picture with regards to the final FIAT guidance as well as the potential for Section 232 tariffs to continue to evolve, particularly as it relates to minimum import prices and the effectiveness of anti-stocking measures has generated volatility in the module procurement market and inhibited customer clarity as it relates to module pricing discovery.

The impact of these current dynamics on recent bookings is most pronounced from our Malaysia facility. While Vietnam is expected to supply the semi-finished product for our South Carolina finishing facility, Malaysia retains the capacity to produce fully finished international modules. We continue to evaluate demand for this product based on core unit economics, tariffs and trade conditions and customer contracting terms.

We expect the operating decision regarding our Malaysia facility to be binary, resulting in either operations at full or near full capacity of 1.8 gigawatt annually or a shutdown of production with a decision expected in the first half of 2027.

Given Malaysia's relatively small contribution to our manufacturing footprint, limited Series 6 blending opportunity in the U.S. absent a Section 45x credits and freight and tariff burdens, we do not expect either outcome to materially impact our run rate earnings profile.

Against this backdrop, we remain deliberate on bookings, and we are pleased with the results of this approach. Through today in the U.S., our largest market, we have booked approximately 4.9 gigawatts at approximately $0.36 per watt inclusive of ingesters. Moreover, our 44 gigawatt backlog gives us the ability to focus on contracting approaches on two strategic initiatives.

First, we seek to improve pricing on new module sales relative to our current backlog ASP, no pricing will continue to vary by product, Series 6 and Series 7 and by U.S. versus internationally made. Second, we seek to improve contract structures to further mitigate the risk of cost increases beyond our control, strengthening credit support and payment terms and firm up product delivery schedules. Our objective is to optimize across both upfront ASPs as well as long-term earnings profile through disciplined pricing, appropriate contractual protections, strong counterparties and alignment with our manufacturing and delivery strategy.

In summary, our focus on project specific versus framework agreements, customer focus on near-term project execution versus late data procurement, evolving market price discovery and our contracting discipline have moderated recent bookings on a volume basis. But on an economic basis, has generated improved pricing relative to our overall backlog. In addition, we remain focused on our ability to affect our contracting strategic initiatives and are confident in demand for our domestically produced product, particularly for [ 2029 ] and beyond when we have -- available supply.

With that, I turn the call over to Alex to discuss our bookings, financial results and outlook.

Alexander Bradley

Thanks, Mark. Turning to our bookings and backlog on Slide 6. We ended the quarter with 44 gigawatts on to contract, representing approximately $13.5 billion contracted value, exclusive of technology adjusters with scheduled deliveries extending through 2030. Since our last earnings call, we recorded approximately 1.4 gigawatts of additional U.S. gross bookings at an average selling price of approximately $0.36 per watt, inclusive of applicable technology adjusters.

Importantly, substantially all the volume was contracted or in late-stage negotiations and pricing in terms are largely set ahead of the Section 232 announced. In addition, there remains approximately 4 gigawatts of variable volume associated with previously signed contracts, not currently part of the contracted backlog, but pricing reflective of the pre-Section 232 environment, which our customers have the ability to exercise as of the date start. Approximately half of this volume has a decision day within the next 5 months, with the other half spread across the remainder of 2027 and 2028. Should our customers elect to receive this volume, it will be recognized as incremental bookings time of such election.

During the quarter, we also continued customer notifications related to contractual technology adjusters, aligned with our production plan and intended deployment sequence. These notifications represent a meaningful source of incremental backlog value as CuRe deployment advances across the fleet, with the majority of the adjusted value expected to be realized in 2027 and 2028.

In respect to adjust eligible volume, we would note that the ultimate realization of these adjustments is subject to the achievement of the underlying technology milestones, timing of future customer notifications and module delivery schedules and other contractual conditions. And therefore, the final value and timing may differ from the amounts and periods described.

Of that potential adjusted value, approximately 20% is currently associated with 2027 deliveries with the remainder weighted to 2028 and beyond. As we continue to progress customer notifications associated with existing bookings tied to our CuRe deployment sequence, together with new bookings removing the adjusted concepts as we sell our CuRe product with the technology embedded in the base ASP the value of the adjusters will roll off over time.

Turning to Slide 7. Net sales for the third quarter were approximately $1.2 billion, a decrease of approximately 23% year-over-year. The decrease was primarily driven by lower module volumes sold to third parties compared to the prior year period. Gross margin was approximately 58%, up roughly 20 percentage points year-over-year. The year-over-year increase was driven primarily by a higher mix of U.S. produced modules.

Gross margin also benefited from lower sales rates and utilization costs, tariffs and duties, partially offset by lower termination related revenue. Operating expenses were approximately $167 million. Research and development expense was approximately $67 million, reflecting continued investment in our technology road map, including development.

Net income was $571 million, up approximately 25% year-over-year. Adjusted EBITDA was $744 million, near the upper end of our previously communicated Q3 preview range, with an adjusted EBITDA margin of approximately 60%. Diluted earnings per share were $5.30 compared with $4.24 in the prior year period.

Turning to our balance sheet and capital allocation on Slide 8. We ended the quarter with approximately $1.5 billion in net cash remaining within our long-term target net cash range of $1.5 billion to $2 billion. Our balance sheet and projected cash generation continues to provide substantial financial flexibility.

In February, we laid out our approach to capital structure and capital allocation is prioritized maintaining the aforementioned $1.5 billion to $2 billion of net cash to provide resiliency to cyclicality and industry volatility. And to use additional cash to focus on growth technology deployment, innovation, R&D, technology road map advancements and M&A, especially related to complementary technology adjacent opportunities.

We further stated that we would evaluate applying cash generation in excess of the above capital priorities to share repurchases, pending clarity around third factors, including policy catalysts, new bookings volume and tax credit monetization. In line with this approach and following the Section 232 proclamation issued in Q3, our Board has authorized a share repurchase program of up to $500 million, effective immediately with no expiration date. This authorization reflects confidence in the long-term value of the business, while preserving our disciplined approach to capital allocation and ability to continue investing in technology development and growth.

Turning to Slide 9. Our full year 2026 guidance is updated to reflect a lower range of India domestic, international Series 6 and U.S. finishing volumes sold, with an associated reduction in revenue and adjusted EBITDA. As we stated in our original guidance in February, we entered the year assuming our India facility would flex production as needed to match successfully priced India-based demand in an inherently short book-to-bill cycle market.

We've accordingly reduced our full year India domestic volume sold forecast by approximately 0.7 gigawatts. We also stated in February that we entered the year assuming limited in-year demand for our Series 6 international product and bookings activity for 2026 deliveries has remained consistent with that assumption.

While the low end of our total U.S. component volume sold forecast reflects a modest reduction based on reduced Series 6 WIP share products sold, our forecast range for fully domestic products sold remains unchanged. As we look forward to next year, subject to a supportive policy and trade environment, we expect to increase exports from our India facility to the U.S. market to optimize the margin potential from this factory. And as Mark discussed, we expect to make a decision on the long-term operating path for our Malaysia facility in the first half 2027.

Core operating expenses primarily increased as a function of increased legal spend associated with defending our Topcon intellectual property position, which we believe has the potential to drive future revenue and earnings upside and increased R&D spend on perovskite development. Note, our full year perovskite related spend originally forecasted approximately $100 million is now expected to total approximately $120 million. This forecast increased in 2027 as we seek to advance this next-generation advanced technology.

Core OpEx increases were offset by a delay in certain start-up expenses of our South Carolina facility now expected in mid-2027, leaving our total 2026 operating expense guidance unchanged.

Net cash guidance remains unchanged. The reduced cash inflows from volumes sold, offset by a reduction to forecasted CapEx.

In summary, we remain well positioned as we close out 2026 and look forward to 2027, driven by U.S. policy framework supporting true domestic manufacturing, continued lower growth as the United States compete to lead in AI and utility scale solar ambition to meet the cost and speed to power requirements of a rapidly modernizing U.S. economy.

The drivers align well with our 44 gigawatts contracted backlog for mostly near-term deliveries and greater module supply availability in the 2028 beyond time frame, which we expect further improvements in pricing and contractual terms relative to our existing backlog. We continue to invest in our future, including our stage CuRe technology replication across the fleet, and increased perovskite spend in R&D, IP partnerships and our Perrysburg pilot line.

Our strong balance sheet allows us continued investment in the business while concurrently enabling capital return to shareholders.

And with that operator, please open the line for questions.

Operator

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

分析師問答

Moses Sutton

Maybe you could like elaborate on what seems like literally 0 urgency for developers to book '29 volumes. I sort of get the point on there's nimbyism there's positive economics, there's tariffs, but we also hear from developers they expect to really do a lot of safe harbor volume in [ 2029 ] Panel prices will structurally go up 50%. They don't have inventory that extends that far out, even if they do for the next 2 years. So -- sorry for the long question, but would there be a strategy change that's necessary? Would you cut price to $0.34, $0.35 and book the rest of the decade? It would seem that a little more agency for '29 than there used to be, maybe can elaborate a little more, because we do still expect at least 10 gigawatts of TAM each year in '29 and '30?

Mark Widmar

Yes. Well, look, I think the first thing I think we just need to maybe step back and reflect on is that everyone obviously is evaluating the execution against their development pipeline. And there's near-term initiatives and areas of focus that they're concentrated on right now and disruptions at certain times, as we indicated even as it relates to whether it's battery costs or other component costs, I mean, or the impact of tariffs that are swinging various projects around, people are all trying to work through that. They're trying to secure their financing. There's still interconnection challenges that people are working through. And then probably the biggest issue that people are continuing to struggle with right now is just the challenges that are continuing to happen in local communities even at the state level, in particular, from a government standpoint and trying to push back on deployment of data centers, as we indicated and maybe as a comment that we had in our prepared remarks.

So there's a lot that they got going on right now. So engagements that we are having right now with customers. And we are starting to book pipeline of opportunities that are going out into that horizon and some even beyond '29 going into '30 and beyond as well. But everyone is kind of like I got all these near-term things I'm focused on at this point in time. I've got to work through these, get everything addressed I'm still trying to digest the implications of what happens with the full implementation around 232. People are still trying to think through the Fiat guidance is going to come out sometime either later this year or beginning of next year. And so I think there's clarity that everybody is looking for at that point in time.

So I think it's just a matter of just the timing of letting some of this work its way through and where their near-term priorities are to then think through the balance of the decade and what they still need to do. I mean everyone is really concerned now meeting their 48 safe harbor requirements, which these products have to be safe harbored by and completed and commissioned by the end of 2028. And there's not as much focus going further out into the horizon, and that's largely what we're seeing from customers.

Alexander Bradley

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

Mark Widmar

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

Operator

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

Joseph Osha

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

Mark Widmar

Yes, maybe I'll add a little bit color around that. Since the announcement of 232, we have revised and increased our pricing. In some cases, they were deals that were still in the early stage of negotiations. So we have increased pricing in those negotiations with customers. It -- and if it's a new opportunity that's come in our way that wasn't even in any form of conversation prior to the 232, then those prices have gone up relative to what we would have been indicating previously.

We still have to work through all those issues, right? And I think we're -- anytime you get through here in an environment of rising prices, there's a lot of price discovery that's going to get done. Everyone want to go out and they want to evaluate all other options and sort of discover where they think the pricing can be for different dynamics and whether they need the domestic content or how much of the domestic content from a point standpoint do they need. So they're going to do a lot of heavy lifting to sort of figure out and triangulate what makes the most sense.

Partly because they also have to, in most cases, go back and get approval through their boards. And when you see a price point in the market that was there previously and now that, that price point has increased significantly, then everybody has to then sort of do the due diligence around that. So what I would say is the deals that -- some of the deals that we have announced in this quarter were priced before the 232 in cases where we were in earlier negotiations with customers after the 232, we have looked to try to increase that and then clearly, any new opportunities that kind of informed the more comprehensive view of what we think the pricing environment is like today. But like I said, the price discovery is going to take a while before you'll start to see that volume being executed.

Operator

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

Philip Shen

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

Mark Widmar

Yes. Phil, the one thing on price, too, I just want to make sure that we've highlighted this before, it does vary by -- we have it in our prepared remarks as well. I mean the price for us -- for our Series 6 product is different than our Series 7 products. Our domestic -- high content domestic content product is different than a fully international imported module. So there's going to be a distribution of what that pricing could look like. And so if I'm selling something that's being imported from Malaysia as an example. That's going to be at the low end of that continuum. And if I'm selling our Series 7 product that's domestically manufactured here in the U.S., and that's going to be at the high end. So there's going to be a continuum around pricing.

As it relates to -- we just announced, again, I think, another quarter at $0.36 or something like that is what our -- since the last call, Con call, I think it was around $0.36. And we have deals and that's an average. We've got deals that are above that, and that's a momentum that we'd like to continue to carry on -- carry forward. But I also want to be careful of we've got to premarker out there with so much that still is as fluid and still evolving. I don't want to give an indication of what that price realization could be. We're just going to work to try to see how we can engage the market and capture the highest value relative to competitive alternatives. And Chris and silicon stays in the range that you referenced and then that gives us quite a bit of opportunity to improve pricing dynamics for our technology. But a lot of work still to go to get there.

Alexander Bradley

So maybe just two other comments. As it relates to the volume that we already have that may get elected by customers, that's going to range from somewhere close to current backlog average or somewhere close to where we're pricing now. So you're going to see a variety in that. But it's going to be between what we see historically and what we're seeing currently.

And then as you think about future pricing, Christmas silicon pricing is still most likely for deals in the next 12 to 24 months. And I don't think there's a good market for that price point when you get out into the late '28, 2029, 2030 time frame, which is when we have most available product to sell.

So one of the reasons I think customers are still doing price discovery is they don't necessarily have a good benchmark that far out, that's reliable or trustworthy. And so we're still working through our pricing relative to where we think the market is and customers trying to understand our pricing relative to where they think that market point will be.

Mark Widmar

Yes. And I think the other point maybe I'll highlight as well, Phil, is that, look, we still have a little bit of time before we get to full implementation on the 232. And what I will say is, I'm very happy to hear the kind of enforcement focus that the commerce has to address stockpiling. The problem is there's such an aggressive posture and risk-taking that people are willing to do in order to get a module into the U.S. at some pre-32 MIP. And so we're in a lot of stories of to what extent people are going to in order to try to get product into the market, whether it's a set the cell level or whether it's at the module level and just aggressively pushing the envelope. And I know Commerce is doing a great job of trying to enforce that and to prevent that from happening and stopping that. But the onsite of this stuff is coming from every angle. .

And so I think there's also that piece that people are waiting for. Let's let -- maybe there'll be a lot more product that does make it into the market somehow. And a customer may say, I'm willing to take some we buy some time because maybe I can get an opportunity to get some pre-32 volume that's been imported into the market at some increasingly low price. And that's informing their decision or at least create a willingness to wait, and we obviously are there to encourage commerce to do whatever they can to ensure that enforcement of preventing that stock filing. But that's not stopping the activities. People are willing to take a lot of risk, and it's very aggressive, and we'll have to see how effective commerce could be. So far, we applaud them for their efforts, there's no doubt about that.

Philip Shen

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

Mark Widmar

Yes. I think on the enforcement, I mean, I -- some of you may know that we did our ribbon-cutting for our new factory in South Carolina and secondary Nick was there and a number of the key members of his team were there. So it gives us a great opportunity to talk with them and to sort of continue to emphasize the importance of this enforcement, and they're 100% committed on the enforcement side and to do everything they can to prevent those types of things from happening.

And where we can, we are sharing insights with them and things we think could be helpful from that standpoint. And just to your point, I mean, the risk tolerance and that people are willing to take knowing that there's going to be that level of enforcement is not slowing some things down very much. I mean, yes, you can get 60 out of the -- if the number of importers of record went up from 200 to 400. And it's great that we caught 60 of them, but there remains another 140 that potentially are still getting around the current enforcement levels, right?

So -- and then as it relates to the MIP, look, I think is very clear if you haven't seen -- remarks at our ribbon cutting, I think you just ought to watch it. There's a couple of videos that are out there, and he's 100% clear the strategic intent of what we're trying to do here, which is to create U.S. manufacturing, U.S. jobs, U.S. supply chain, U.S. technology and things that can help enable energy independence and national security.

And so they're going to enforce this and they're going to put the right requirements in place of ensuring the domestic manufacturing can thrive and then put as many incentives as possible to encourage people to manufacture more here in the U.S., which I think is great.

Operator

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

Brian Lee

I know we're kind of dancing around the same topic, so I'll try my best as well. But it sounds like you guys are moving from being a contract go-to-market strategy to more of a spot market go-to-market strategy, which I think most of your peers do and now is the case even for First Solar a few cycles ago. So maybe, as you said, Mark, the bookings cadence moderates here with all the uncertainties, but the bookings cadence can potentially be more fluid on a quarter-to-quarter basis. I guess, is that fair? And are you equipped, I guess, from a sales force perspective to be able to manage through that?

And then again, on the pricing entitlement side of things that you keep referring to developers and all the uncertainties that they're having to grapple with. I guess what are you tasking your sales force with -- in terms of this price discovery process post 232? I would imagine they're not going to go anywhere lower than what you've been looking at recently, which is $0.36. But -- is it a range of like $0.36 to $0.40, $0.40 plus? Like what are the puts and takes around kind of what they're going out to market with?

Mark Widmar

Yes. So I think what we were trying to say, Brian, just as it relates to, a lot of the deals that we announced going back 3 or 4 years ago when we built our contract backlog. A lot of these were multiyear framework agreements that have indicative delivery schedules associated with them. And then as we said before, they had certain rights -- annual ship rights or quarterly ship rights, things could move around from that contracted schedule, but it wasn't tied to a specific project.

And what's happened when we do that is the volatility of our customers' development pipeline for various reasons is just whip stuff all over the place, right, in terms of, hey, this is what the contract was -- and now this is what the current requirements are given the state of their development portfolio of projects and what have you. And what we're trying to do now a little bit and not that we won't get back to that, we've got a couple of very large deals where there'd be more of that legacy kind of framework agreement, strategic partnerships. And we'll clearly do those. But near term, what we're seeing more is that everybody is like, I got a particular project, and I want to negotiate this particular project. And that gives us better clarity and uncertainty of the project where it sits in its permitting process where it sits in its interconnection process where it is in its financing, if it's approaching that or at least we know what the time line and the profile looks like and gives us a better clarity of the timing of when the shipments need to occur. So that's where the near-term focus is on that. But what I would say is that after this price discovery kind of it's better understood. I think we may see some customers moving into that other direction to say, "I really want to lock in and secure my project pipeline going out into '29-'30. And I said, we have some customers that are even wanting to start having some conversations that go beyond 2030.

So as it relates to the sales force, I somewhat alluded to that, first off, from a capacity standpoint, I don't think it's an issue with our capabilities of our sales team to handle that pivot, right, to more product-specific versus framework structures. But as I somewhat alluded to, is we have gone and we've repriced deals that were in the early negotiation phase and any deals that have come to us now are obviously reflected of what we believe the current market pricing should be.

So I'm not going to give you an indication of what that looks like. But we have recalibrated and I think the market fully understands that. But I also want to continue to go back. I mean there is a continuum of what those prices are going to be in near term, and I think if you alluded to this in prior calls, what we have right now available to book is more Malaysia finished good module coming into the U.S. or an India product coming into the U.S. And so that profile in terms of ASP entitlement is going to be on the lower end of that continuum, as I indicated, the lowest price point we would have for a module will be for that international product coming fully finished international product coming into the U.S. and then the highest will be kind of 100% domestically manufactured Series 7. So it can move around that average is reflected in the numbers that we've been giving you. But in any particular quarter, if I'm heavy on maybe international modules coming to the U.S., that would drive that average ASP down. And clearly, we'll provide color around that. But yes, I mean, pricing is reestablishing itself at a higher point than it has been historically, and we'll continue to see how price discovery works through

Alexander Bradley

Brian, just one follow-on point to that framework discussion. And 1 of the challenges that we've talked about over the last couple of years now is the period cost that we've been incurring around the amount of inventory we have to keep, the storage cost at a entry overall sales rate. If you think about when there's an ability to move volume around or when customers need to do that because the timing of their projects shift. I have to keep inventories to make sure I can see is all the available contracts for the house. That generally means my -- at my overall inventory position as well as the working capital position is worse.

At the same time then, if that product all does move to the right from a schedule perspective, now I end up having the warehouse materially more volume than I expected. So generally speaking, it's become harder for us to plan around that, and we're seeing a significant financial impact from that. if we move to more of a project-based model where there's a certainty around an individual project, the timing of that project and delivery schedule that allows me to plan on the operational side, much more efficiency, reduce working capital and reduce storage costs as well. So provides that operational financial efficiency that we're looking for.

Operator

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

Jonathan Windham

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

Alexander Bradley

Yes. So you're right. On the balance sheet, there's about $1.9 billion. About $100 million of that is related to India. So you got about $1.8 billion in the U.S. And then part of that $1.8 billion relates to credits that were generated last year and we have yet to file -- yet we have just filed our tax return we get to receive refundability for those. But if you look at this year's credit generation, the forecast is about $2.1 billion of credit to be generated this year. If you look at the 2024 credits, we sold most of those. We did keep a portion of them to file our 2025 tax return in October of 2025, and we received refund for what was about $120 million in about 3 months' time.

And importantly, even within that 3 months, the government was actually shut down for about a month of that. So the turnaround time from filing to receiving the cash relatively short. As it relates to this year, we haven't made a decision yet. We've not made any assumption around a reduction in the carrying value of those credits. If we were to sell them. We've seen that the market through the first half of this year, I think, was a little softer to credit sale value. That's picked up pretty significantly towards the back end of the year as large corporates have better position and understanding of the tax position coming into year-end and looking for tax planning actually. So we're seeing a lot more how reach and interest around those credits. We're in some discussions around potential sales there. But we'll look to balance how much we would like to sell to pull some liquidity forward versus how much we're comfortable filing for fundability for because then you're not taking a discount on that sale. So it's a balancing after we're in discussions around those as well.

Operator

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

David Arcaro

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

Mark Widmar

Yes, I'll take the first one and I'll let Alex take the Malaysian comment. So yes, so basically, what happens on a -- if we're being specific to a project. Again, modules use at the forefront of your procurement-led decision, you want to secure that technology because it also drives your design of the factory, right, or the sign of the project, excuse me. So crystalline silicon and Catell design your factory and your plant, excuse me differently. There's different string count, different voltage and other parameters, which you would want to optimize for. Generally, we don't have the same constraints as it relates to the tracking -- backtracking requirements because we don't deal with the same efforts impact of shade or defuse light and those types of things. So there's a lot that has to be done early on. And so you're going to want to source that module and lock that up so you can be unencumbered now to figure out do you want to design and optimize at the project level.

So it could be 18 months, 2 years before the first delivery would start to happen or at least for sure until the project would be commissioned. So it doesn't really -- it shortens your time line a little bit from a visibility standpoint, but it doesn't really significantly shorten it. But it gives you better certainty. -- there's no doubt about that. People would be willing to go out into 2030 in a framework kind of construct. And projects normally would be commitments that would go out into 28 or into early '29 is probably not as far out as they would want to go, but still more than enough visibility to properly understand the project and price it appropriately.

Alexander Bradley

And David, as it relates to Malaysia, yes, I do believe we have enough visibility going into the first half of next year. We've effectively been carrying that asset running at very low throughput for the whole of this year. And we've done that deliberately, we could thought the and the utilization costs associated with that was worth the option value of having the ability to run what would be up to about 1.8 gigawatts of international volume.

As we look through the 232 announcement, as Mark said, the customer base the transition fully understanding what that looks like and trying to work through what their need is going to be. We want to make sure we have the optionality in Malaysia in the event of that significant demand does materialize. We've also said that we have an order of how we want to make sure our factories sell. So first, we look to make sure our U.S. content is sold. Secondly, we look to make sure we're selling our finishing line production of our utility in South Carolina. And then after that, the full international product. We're also going to be bringing more volume from India over into the U.S. next year, subject to the trade and tariff environment that makes sense. So I think we'll have the understanding of the marketplace that we'll need by the first half of next year, and we're still looking at that as an option value and seeing how the effect of the 232 plays out.

Operator

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

Vikram Bagri

Apologize for another question on pricing, but this is important. On this call itself, you've heard pricing either go down by a couple of cents or go up by $0.20. So Mark fully appreciate the lack of clarity about the environment we are in. But for CD7, is there a construct you can provide for pricing that we should keep in mind. So if pricing for silicon-based panels move higher, we should assume a certain discount to that, which some people will characterize as quality discount.

And I imagine pricing also depends on several of the factors, project and contractors, but all else being equal, is there a construct where pricing for silicon-based panels moved higher than $0.47 or $0.45, we should assume a certain fixed discount for CD7 -- UA CD7. And then related to that, Mark, you talked about a number of items, limiting the ability of developers to make long-term plans. Is competition in panel manufacturing is also one of the factors, which is sort of like prohibiting them from committing to supply of panels. Do you think the lack of urgency to book 2029 is also a function of new capacity coming online potentially in the U.S. from other suppliers of panels? Or how do you see the competition evolve over the next couple of years in the sector?

Mark Widmar

Yes. So I'll talk on the -- so if you take S7 as an example, -- just one thing to make clear, you made a comment about quality discount. I don't know if you're familiar with how energy predictions are done for crystalline silicon technology, they actually have a quality factor that they use, which would basically reduces the energy profile of the technology as part of the energy prediction on which that does not apply at all to First Solar's technology. So we don't have any quality factors that are assumed in the energy predictions that are underwritten by and supported by the -- the banks. So I'm not sure what your point is around that, but crystalline silicon clearly does. They have a meaningful quality factor that is being used when they do the energy prediction for that technology.

What I would say, if you take a Series 7 CuRe product and you compare it from an energy profile because again, energy to what our customers pay for. And what the value of that product would be relative to a PERC technology, it would be an advantage to PERC, so there would be no discount to PERC. It would also vary with where it is because obviously, our technology does not have what CuRe will have better bifaciality than our QED product is our bifaciality is lower than crystalline silicon. So if you were to go further north East where you get a better impact of bifaciality, then you'll see a different outcome.

If you go to the other Southwest or to the Southeast and more hot and human hot climates or hot human climates, you're going to see a better outcome for our technology. And then if you compare us to Topcon, which again, the vast majority of anyone producing or selling a Topcon products in the U.S. is a prince on our IP, which we will stand by and completely enforce that, then you'll have a slightly different outcome. We would actually be average slightly disadvantaged to Topcon of a few pays. So it depends. I mean you've got different situations, different geographies, different terrains. A lot of different things factor into that and determine the relative competitiveness of the technology.

So -- but I would say general rule thumb, Series 7 going to be advantaged against PERC and disadvantaged by relative to Topcon.

As it relates to the competition and how that all plays out, you have to think through how much are you willing to -- first off, is the competition in the manufacturing that's coming in the U.S., truly Fc-free, truly unencumbered by any dependency from the Chinese, whether it's the supply chain, whether it's the tools and the manufacturing equipment, whether it's the IP, right?

A lot of our customers do their own subjective analysis and have concluded that there is a substantial risk still that these entities are not Fc-free, and they don't want to take on that risk. That puts us in a much better position. There's no doubt about that, and that's also why I think you're going to find customers leaning into developing partnerships with First Solar that go longer dated. I believe I remember reading one of the filings recently for one of the U.S. manufacturers, and I believe almost 100% of the sales that they're generating this year is to a related party, and I understand that related party to be a Chinese counterparty.

So I mean it tells you just looking at that as an example, that in certain situations, customers are not willing to take on that risk. And we still don't have full clarity around FAC yet, and I think that's why people are being a little gun shy.

Operator

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

Unknown Analyst

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

Mark Widmar

Yes. As it relates to the exclusions, look, I do believe because, again, the program incent and motivation is to try to ensure manufacturing here, reshoring of manufacturing, true manufacturing, truly unencumbered by Chinese or adversarial countries dependencies. Each one of those will be determined on a circumstances basis and work through with commerce to say is their true substance to this. And then in general, the focus with commerce is to limit the period of time at which that exclusion would be provided.

I don't stay on top of it. I don't know. My team may have better insights than I do in terms of how any exclusion been granted at this point in time. It's not clear to me that there have been any granted exclusions. I know there's been some representation of statements that have been made, but I don't believe there's any actual exclusions that have been communicated publicly at this point in time. But that's something that we're going to have to, to stay close to and understand.

I'm perfectly fine though competing. We've always said U.S. manufacturing on a level playing field First Solar is more than happy to compete on our own merits and our technology and the competitiveness of our manufacturing process in our supply chain. So some of that does happen. And then it will evolve, and that will create the domestic industry that I do believe still is a strategic thread that's important for us as a country.

Assuming we do it right, right, assuming it truly is U.S. technology, U.S. manufacture and U.S. supply chains, right? Creating American, U.S. jobs and supporting American families. There's no doubt about that. That's absolutely critical from that standpoint.

As it relates to the lawsuit, I really can't comment much of anything around that. We actually will be filing our response here shortly for the required time line. And I think there'll be better clarity around the issues in the allegations that have been raised during that -- during the -- part of that lawsuit. What I will say is that we have always -- even with the engagement with Swift as we've always said we will stand by and we will support under the parameters of our limited liability warranty, the obligations that we have. Again, that largely is reflective and relates to the Series 7 initial product launch that we had indicated that there was a couple of issues that came out as part of that launch that resulted in an initial stabilization of that technology to be below expectations.

And then underneath that program we put in place. We said we would remedy those issues with customers. And we engaged even with Swift to have that have that conversation. I think where the challenge comes in is where people are asking for revenues that are outside the parameters of the warranty. And that's just -- that's not something that we will do. But we will be more than -- we'll stand behind the technology, and we have that conversation with Swift in this case. And they chose to try to pursue a different approach where they think they could be successful. And again, you should see our response in our filing coming out here in the next several weeks.

Operator

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