A123's Planned IPO Moves to the Front Burner
After six months of regulatory silence and $100 million in new funding, A123 Systems amended
the SEC registration statement for its proposed IPO on June 23rd.
While this latest filing may simply be A123's way demonstrating its
ability to raise matching funds for a scaled back ATVM loan request of
$1 billion and pending applications for $438 million in direct Federal
grants, my sense is that the proposed IPO will probably come to market
in early September. Since ATVM loans will require 20% cost sharing and
direct Federal grants will require 50% cost sharing, the IPO will
probably be a good deal larger than the
$175 million contemplated by A123's original filing.
I'm very interested in A123's IPO for several reasons. First, it will
be underwritten by Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Merrill
Lynch and Lazard, which will give us the first clear picture of how the
top-tier investment banks and institutional investors value
pure-play energy storage companies. Second, the emergence of A123 as a
sub-sector leader will encourage lesser Li-ion battery developers to
adopt comparably transparent disclosure metrics that will make it much
easier to
assess their relative strengths and weaknesses. Third, the existence of
a large, adequately capitalized and business driven leader in the
Li-ion sub-sector will probably dampen some of the unbridled
optimism we've seen in the markets for transition stage Li-ion battery
developers. Finally, the A123 IPO is likely to launch a renaissance of
interest in a basic industrial sector that's been undervalued and
ignored for years.
I spent some time over the weekend studying A123's draft prospectus and
was
able to glean important current data that tends to highlight the
yawning economic chasms that Li-ion technology must bridge before it
can compete in applications where the end-user has a choice. During the
first quarter of 2009, A123's cost of goods sold was
$1.89 per watt hour, which does not compare favorably with an average
cost of roughly $0.20 per watt hour for lead
acid batteries. Likewise A123's $41 million investment in property,
plant and equipment that can manufacture up to 151,000 kWh of batteries
per year is at least an order of magnitude greater than the capital
cost of lead-acid battery manufacturing facilities.
I fully
expect that capital outlays and manufacturing costs for Li-ion
batteries
will both decline dramatically over the next ten years. For the short-
to
medium-term, however, I expect gross profit margins in the Li-ion
sub-sector to remain narrow and sales revenues to ramp-up slowly as
Li-ion battery
chemistry and manufacturing methods progress through two or three
generations of technological change. It all boils down to baby
steps;
learning to crawl, then toddle, then walk and then run. The bumps,
bruises, skinned knees and tears are all part of the learning process.
As regular readers know, I come from the lead-acid side of the battery
business and believe that over next ten years the bulk of the expected
revenue growth in the energy storage sector will flow to established
manufacturers of inexpensive lead-acid batteries that can do the
required work for a reasonable cost even if they are bulkier and
heavier. Over the longer term, I expect leading Li-ion battery
developers like A123 to overcome a myriad of cost, performance, safety,
cycle-life, abuse tolerance and raw material constraints that I've
written
about in other articles, and ultimately usher in a golden age of cheap
energy storage for applications ranging from portable power, to
vehicles with plugs, to a smart grid that smoothly integrates a host
of emerging power generation technologies. The changes won't come
overnight and they will be expensive, but by 2020 the world will be
very different from the one
we live in today.
While I'm not so old that I avoid buying green bananas, I expect to be
cold, dead and buried long before competition from Li-ion batteries
results in a year on year decline in global sales of lead-acid
batteries. Nevertheless, A123's upcoming IPO is certain to focus
the market’s attention on the storage sector in a whole new way. Since
I've been around long enough to know that a rising tide of investor
sentiment lifts all of the boats in the marina, I think astute
investors ought to be doing their boat shopping now.
A123's Planned IPO Moves to the Front Burner was posted on AltEnergyStocks.com.
| Tweet | |||||











Comments
Some equipment is very simple to manufacture and easy to operate, while others are much more complicated not only to create, but their operation many times requires skilled personnel who have been required to acquire specialized training to run the equipment.
Posted by: valve replacement | June 29, 2009 04:01 AM
Valve replacement, the high cost of Li-ion batteries is due to a wide variety of factors including complex device designs, expensive fabrication methods, and costly raw materials. The hope is that future R&D will simplify both device designs and manufacturing methods while materials advances reduce those costs. At the end of the day, however, the value of a battery is calculating the net value of the stored energy (end-use value reduced by input costs), multiplying that figure by the expected number of charge-discharge cycles, and then reducing everything to a discounted present value.
Current proposals to use $15,000 of batteries to save $1,400 in annual gasoline costs get real hard to justify on pure economic grounds.
Posted by: John Petersen | June 29, 2009 06:28 AM
@John Peterson: Keep investing in buggy whips if you must, but your comparisons are not valid. The value of a battery is not only measured in $/whr, but in whr/cubic m, and whr/kg. Lead-acid loses badly in both of the latter two metrics.
In your battery-powered car proposal you neglected the cost avoided in purchase and maintenance of a gasoline tank and motor (plus starter, plugs, distributor, oil changes, etc.) transmission, exhaust system, cooling system, and other related infrastructure.
To that I would add the projection that the cost of gasoline will most likely rise far faster than the cost of electricity.
Posted by: Bud Bundy | June 30, 2009 12:38 PM
Bud, there are far better men than I who have concluded that PHEVs and EVs do not make economic sense with gas prices under $7 to $10. Just bear in mind that it's not me you're criticizing. It's the DOE, Sandia, Carnegie Mellon, UC Davis and everybody else that's taken a look at the issue.
I firmly believe that gas prices will reach that level faster than any of us would like. I also believe that with several years of research, development and testing battery technology will advance to a point where PHEVs and EVs not only make sense, but save a good deal of money. Getting to that point will require a series of baby steps and believing that Li-ion battery producers will be profitable business enterprises before about 2020 is not rational. The capital costs are too high and the technical uncertainties too great. Someday they'll be a wonderful investment opportunity. Today is not that day.
Posted by: John Petersen | June 30, 2009 02:34 PM