Connect with us

Latest

Maxeon Solar Technologies Announces Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2020 Financial Results

Published

on

Maxeon Solar Technologies Logo (PRNewsfoto/Maxeon Solar Technologies)

SINGAPORE, April 6, 2021 /PRNewswire/ — Maxeon Solar Technologies, Ltd. (NASDAQ:MAXN) (“Maxeon” or “the Company”), a global leader in solar innovation and channels, today announced its financial results for its fourth quarter and fiscal year ended January 3, 2021.

Maxeon Chief Executive Officer Jeff Waters commented, “In our first full quarter as an independent public company we delivered financial results consistent with our guidance while making progress on each of the three pillars of our strategy: our differentiated global brand and channel, our panel technology, and our focused approach to the large-scale market. In the fourth quarter we saw strong growth in both distributed generation and our large-scale businesses, with sequential revenue increases of 12% and 35%, respectively. Gross profit in Q4 was slightly higher than anticipated due primarily to higher than planned ASPs and improved product mix.”

Discussing brand and channel, Waters noted: “Leveraging our industry-leading brand, channel, and solar panel technology, we took the first steps in our ‘Beyond the Panel’ strategy by introducing AC Modules with factory integrated micro-inverters. These Maxeon AC modules are currently shipping into seventeen European countries and Australia. We expect this initiative to drive significant margin uplift in the quarters ahead. To further drive our distributed generation effort, we announced that Ralf Elias will join our executive team to lead our distributed generation product initiatives. Ralf will solidify our strategy to build incremental revenue from integrated energy products and services on top of our current business.”

Turning to technology, Waters elaborated: “We met key objectives on our next generation Maxeon 7 technology roadmap, achieving meaningful progress in efficiency and product safety attributes. These R&D successes further solidify our confidence that we can commercialize and ramp Maxeon 7 starting in late 2022.”

Regarding the Company’s large-scale focus, Waters remarked: “We are launching a strategic initiative to broaden our engagement in the U.S. market with our Performance line. We plan to leverage our large and growing sales pipeline and North American manufacturing assets to drive significant incremental sales in the region beyond our current rooftop distributed generation sales through SunPower.”

Selected Q4 and Fiscal Year Financial Summary

($ Thousands)

Fiscal Q4
2020

Fiscal Q3
2020

Fiscal Q4
2019

Fiscal Year
2020

Fiscal Year
2019

Module shipments, in MW

655

531

740

2,145

2,430

Revenue

245,564

206,620

368,128

844,836

1,198,301

Gross profit (loss)1

7,313

(12,302)

27,606

(9,781)

(2,309)

Net income (loss)
attributable to stockholders1

3,458

(67,755)

(32,039)

(142,631)

(183,059)

Adjusted EBITDA1,2,3

26,943

(38,808)

(2,529)

(44,067)

(83,138)

Capital investment

13,301

4,889

10,382

27,689

41,905

1

The Company’s GAAP and Non-GAAP results were impacted by the effects of certain items. For the fourth quarter 2020 results, these items include a $44 million gain on its stock borrowing facilities, and a $21 million loss on its long-term polysilicon contract. Refer to “Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” below.

2

The Company’s use of non-GAAP financial information, including a reconciliation to U.S. GAAP, is provided under “Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” below.

3

In addition to the reconciliation provided here, please also refer to “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures” in Maxeon’s Form 6-K furnished on November 19, 2020 for the reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA for fiscal Q3 2020.

Information presented is for continuing operations only and excludes results of lines of business retained by SunPower after the spin-off for all periods presented.

First Quarter 2021

The solar industry faces pervasive upstream supply chain cost challenges, which did not improve in the first quarter of 2021.  The Company expects that elevated costs for glass, solar cells, freight, and other items may persist well into the second half of 2021.  In addition, the distributed generation business is traditionally very seasonal with the first half volumes typically delivering only 40% of the annual total, and the first quarter being the lowest. For the first quarter of fiscal year 2021, the Company anticipates the following results:

  • Module shipments of approximately 375 MW.
  • Revenue of approximately $160 million.
  • Gross profit in a range of a loss of $5 million to a loss of $15 million. This includes out-of-market polysilicon cost of approximately $15 million.
  • Operating expense of approximately $38 million.
  • Capital expenditures for the first quarter will be around $10 million, directed mainly to upgrading Maxeon’s manufacturing facilities. For fiscal year 2021, previously planned capital expenditures of $90 million are expected to be increased by another $80 million for the U.S.-focused Performance line initiative, subject to obtaining financing.

CEO Waters summarized: “Against a backdrop of strong and growing global distributed generation market demand, we are excited about the opportunity to expand and extend our leading go-to-market channel platform. In our large-scale business, we believe that the upstream supply chain disruptions will ease, although the exact timing is difficult to predict. We are well positioned to begin converting our 38 gigawatt global sales pipeline into orders as this occurs. Finally, we are excited by the prospect of becoming even more broadly engaged in the U.S. market with our Performance line.”

The Company’s business outlook is based on management’s current views and estimates with respect to market conditions, production capacity, the uncertainty of the continuing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the global economic environment. Please refer to the Forward-Looking Statements section below. Management’s views and estimates are subject to change without notice.

For More Information

Maxeon’s fiscal year 2020 financial results and management commentary can be found on Form 20-F by accessing the Financials & Filings page of the Investor Relations section of Maxeon’s website at https://www.maxeon.com/investor-relations. The Form 20-F and Company’s other filings are also available online from the Securities and Exchange Commission at www.sec.gov.

Conference Call Details

The Company will also hold a conference call on April 6, 2021, at 6:00 PM U.S. EDT / April 7, 2021, at 6:00 AM Singapore Time, to discuss results and provide an update on the business. Conference call details are below.

Dial-in:

North America (toll-free): +1 (833) 301-1154
International: +1 (914) 987-7395
Conference ID: 7896717

A simultaneous webcast of the conference call will also be available on Maxeon’s website at https://www.maxeon.com/events-and-presentations.

Listeners should dial in or log on approximately 10 minutes in advance. A replay will be available online within 24 hours after the event.

A replay of the conference call is also available by phone at the following numbers until April 13, 2021. To access the replay, please reference the following numbers:

North America (toll-free): +1 (855) 859-2056 or +1 (800) 585-8367
International: +1 (404) 537-3406
Conference ID: 7896717

About Maxeon Solar Technologies

Maxeon Solar Technologies, Ltd. (NASDAQ:MAXN) is Powering Positive ChangeTM. Headquartered in Singapore, Maxeon designs, manufactures and sells SunPower® brand solar panels in more than 100 countries, operating the SunPower brand worldwide except the United States and Canada. The Company is a leader in solar innovation with access to over 900 patents and two best-in-class solar panel product lines. With operations in Africa, Asia, Oceania, Europe and Mexico, Maxeon’s products span the global rooftop and solar power plant markets through a network of more than 1,100 trusted partners and distributors. A pioneer in sustainable solar manufacturing, Maxeon leverages a 35-year history in the solar industry and numerous awards for its technology. For more information about how Maxeon is Powering Positive ChangeTM visit us at https://www.maxeon.com/, on LinkedIn and on Twitter.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including, but not limited to, statements regarding: (a) our expectations regarding pricing trends, demand and growth projections; (b) potential disruptions to our operations and supply chain that may result from epidemics or natural disasters, including the duration, scope and impact on the demand for our products and the pace of recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic; (c) anticipated product launch timing and our expectations regarding ramp, customer acceptance and demand, upsell and expansion opportunities; (d) our expectations and plans for short- and long-term strategy, including our anticipated areas of focus and investment, market expansion, product and technology focus, and projected growth and profitability; (e) our liquidity, substantial indebtedness, and ability to obtain additional financing; (f) our upstream technology outlook, including anticipated fab utilization and expected ramp and production timelines for the Company’s Maxeon 5 and 6, next-generation Maxeon 7 and Performance line solar panels, expected cost reductions, and future performance; (g) our strategic goals and plans, including partnership discussions with respect to the Company’s next generation technology, and our relationships with existing customers, suppliers and partners, and our  ability to achieve and maintain them; (h) our expectations regarding our future performance based on bookings, backlog, and pipelines in our sales channels; (i) our first quarter fiscal 2021 guidance, including GAAP revenue, gross profit, and MW deployed, and related assumptions; (j) expected demand recovery and market traction for Maxeon as a result of anticipated product launches; (k) our expectations regarding the potential outcome, or financial or other impact on our business, as a result of the Spin-off from SunPower Corporation; (l) our projected effective tax rate and changes to the valuation allowance related to our deferred tax assets. The forward-looking statements can be also identified by terminology such as “may,” “might,” “could,” “will,” “aims,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “future,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “estimates” and similar statements.

These forward-looking statements are based on our current assumptions, expectations and beliefs and involve substantial risks and uncertainties that may cause results, performance or achievement to materially differ from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to a number of risks. The reader should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, as there can be no assurances that the plans, initiatives or expectations upon which they are based will occur. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to: (1) challenges in executing transactions key to our strategic plans, including regulatory and other challenges that may arise; (2) potential disruptions to our operations and supply chain that may result from damage or destruction of facilities operated by our suppliers, epidemics or natural disasters, including impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic; (3) the success of our ongoing research and development efforts and our ability to commercialize new products and services, including products and services developed through strategic partnerships; (4) competition in the solar and general energy industry and downward pressure on selling prices and wholesale energy pricing; (5) our liquidity, substantial indebtedness, and ability to obtain additional financing for our projects and customers; (6) changes in public policy, including the imposition and applicability of tariffs; (7) regulatory changes and the availability of economic incentives promoting use of solar energy; (8) fluctuations in our operating results; (9) appropriately sizing our manufacturing capacity and containing manufacturing and logistics difficulties that could arise; (10) unanticipated impact to customer demand and sales schedules due to, among other factors, the spread of COVID-19 and other environmental disasters; (11) challenges in managing our acquisitions, joint ventures and partnerships, including our ability to successfully manage acquired assets and supplier relationships; and (12) unpredictable outcomes resulting from our litigation activities. A detailed discussion of these factors and other risks that affect our business is included in filings we make with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) from time to time, including our most recent report on Form 20-F, particularly under the heading “Risk Factors”. Copies of these filings are available online from the SEC at www.sec.gov, or on the SEC Filings section of our Investor Relations website at https://www.maxeon.com/investor-relations. All forward-looking statements in this press release are based on information currently available to us, and we assume no obligation to update these forward-looking statements considering new information or future events.

MAXEON SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.
CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED BALANCE SHEETS
(unaudited)
(In thousands, except for shares data)

As of

January 3, 2021

December 29, 2019

Assets

Current assets

Cash and cash equivalents

$

206,744

$

120,956

Restricted short-term marketable securities

1,359

6,187

Accounts receivable, net

76,702

150,365

Inventories

169,240

194,852

Advances to supplier, current portion

43,680

107,388

Prepaid expenses and other current assets

49,470

38,369

Total current assets

$

547,195

$

618,117

Property, plant and equipment, net

246,908

281,200

Operating lease right of use assets

13,482

18,759

Intangible assets, net

456

5,092

Advances to supplier, net of current portion

49,228

13,993

Other long-term assets

123,074

53,050

Total assets

$

980,343

$

990,211

Liabilities and Equity

Current liabilities

Accounts payable

$

159,184

$

286,464

Accrued liabilities

77,307

92,570

Contract liabilities, current portion

20,756

78,939

Short-term debt

48,421

60,383

Operating lease liabilities, current portion

2,464

2,365

Total current liabilities

$

308,132

$

520,721

Long-term debt

962

1,487

Contract liabilities, net of current portion

33,075

35,616

Operating lease liabilities, net of current portion

12,064

18,338

Convertible debt

135,071

Other long-term liabilities

51,752

46,526

Total liabilities

$

541,056

$

622,688

Commitments and contingencies

Equity

Common stock, no par value (33,995,116 issued and outstanding at
January 3, 2021)

$

$

Net parent investment

369,837

Additional paid-in capital

451,474

Accumulated deficit

(8,441)

Accumulated other comprehensive loss

(10,391)

(7,618)

Equity attributable to the Company

432,642

362,219

Noncontrolling interests

6,645

5,304

Total equity

$

439,287

$

367,523

Total liabilities and equity

$

980,343

$

990,211

MAXEON SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.
CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(unaudited)
(In thousands, except per share data)

Three Months Ended

Fiscal Year Ended

January 3, 2021

December 29, 2019

January 3, 2021

December 29, 2019

Revenue

$

245,564

$

368,128

$

844,836

$

1,198,301

Cost of revenue

238,251

340,522

854,617

1,200,610

Gross profit (loss)

7,313

27,606

(9,781)

(2,309)

Operating expenses

Research and development

8,763

11,584

34,194

36,997

Sales, general and administrative

24,051

26,824

86,202

96,857

Restructuring (benefits) charges

(9)

41

(517)

Total operating expenses

32,805

38,449

120,396

133,337

Operating loss

(25,492)

(10,843)

(130,177)

(135,646)

Other income (expense), net

Interest expense

(8,127)

(6,782)

(31,859)

(25,831)

Other, net

44,443

(6,291)

36,349

(1,961)

Other income (expense), net

36,316

(13,073)

4,490

(27,792)

Income (loss) before income taxes and equity in losses of unconsolidated investees

10,824

(23,916)

(125,687)

(163,438)

Provision for income taxes

(4,737)

(2,954)

(12,127)

(10,122)

Equity in losses of unconsolidated investees

(2,612)

(4,001)

(3,198)

(5,342)

Net income (loss)

$

3,475

$

(30,871)

$

(141,012)

$

(178,902)

Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests

(17)

(1,168)

(1,619)

(4,157)

Net income (loss) attributable to stockholders

$

3,458

$

(32,039)

$

(142,631)

$

(183,059)

Net income (loss) per share attributable to stockholders:

Basic

$

0.11

$

(1.51)

$

(5.82)

$

(8.61)

Diluted

$

0.11

$

(1.51)

$

(5.82)

$

(8.61)

Weighted average shares used to compute net income (loss) per share:

Basic

30,267

21,265

24,502

21,265

Diluted

30,963

21,265

24,502

21,265

MAXEON SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.
CONSOLIDATED AND COMBINED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(unaudited)
(In thousands)

Fiscal Year Ended

January 3, 2021

December 29, 2019

Cash flows from operating activities

Net loss

$

(141,012)

$

(178,902)

Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities

Depreciation and amortization

47,328

53,448

Stock-based compensation

7,250

7,135

Non-cash interest expense

19,851

23,841

Equity in losses of unconsolidated investees

3,198

5,342

Gain on retirement of property, plant and equipment

(641)

Deferred income taxes

(1,330)

804

Gain on equity investments

(1,822)

Remeasurement gain on physical delivery forward and prepaid forward

(38,236)

Other, net

3,078

249

Changes in operating assets and liabilities

Accounts receivable

71,231

(77,830)

Contract assets

(1,806)

264

Inventories

25,212

28,415

Prepaid expenses and other assets

(5,590)

960

Operating lease right-of-use assets

2,264

2,449

Advances to suppliers

28,473

50,163

Accounts payable and other accrued liabilities

(143,462)

53,451

Contract liabilities

(61,344)

6,460

Operating lease liabilities

(1,804)

(2,589)

Net cash used in operating activities

$

(189,162)

$

(26,340)

Cash flows from investing activities

Purchases of property, plant and equipment

(27,689)

(41,905)

Proceeds from disposal of short-term investments

6,572

Purchase of short-term investments

(1,340)

Proceeds from sale of assets

1,283

265

Purchases of intangibles

(231)

Installment payment for acquisition of subsidiary

(30,000)

Proceeds from sale of unconsolidated investee

3,220

Proceeds from dividends and partial return of capital by an unconsolidated investee

2,462

Net cash used in investing activities

$

(45,492)

$

(41,871)

Cash flows from financing activities

Proceeds from debt

236,446

253,314

Repayment of debt

(226,664)

(254,649)

Net proceeds from issuance of convertible debt

190,330

Net proceeds from issuance of common stock

296,765

Payment for realized amount on underwriting physical delivery forward

(1,606)

Payment for prepaid forward

(40,000)

Distribution to noncontrolling interest

(278)

Repayment of finance lease obligations & other debt

(651)

(1,190)

Net parent (distribution) contribution

(133,996)

92,409

Net cash provided by financing activities

$

320,346

$

89,884

Effect of exchange rate changes on cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents

77

381

Net increase in cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents

85,769

22,054

Cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents, beginning of period

123,803

101,749

Cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents, end of period

$

209,572

$

123,803

Non-cash transactions

Property, plant and equipment purchases funded by liabilities

$

27,736

$

13,377

Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for lease obligations1

$

4,791

$

21,209

Interest expense financed by SunPower

$

11,333

$

17,000

Aged supplier financing balances reclassified from accounts payable to short-term debt

$

23,933

$

45,352

The following table reconciles our cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents reported on our Consolidated and Combined Balance Sheets and the cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents reported on our Consolidated and Combined Statements of Cash Flows for fiscal years 2020 and 2019:

As of

(In thousands)

January 3, 2021

December 29, 2019

Cash and cash equivalents

$

206,744

$

120,956

Restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents, current portion, included in prepaid expenses and other current assets

2,483

2,845

Restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents, net of current portion, included in other long-term assets

345

2

Total cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents shown in statement of cash flows

$

209,572

$

123,803

1 

Amounts for fiscal year 2019 include the transition adjustment for the adoption of ASC 842 and new Right-of-Use (“ROU”) asset additions.

Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures

We present earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) and EBITDA adjusted for specified additional items identified below (“Adjusted EBITDA”), which are non-GAAP measures to supplement our consolidated and combined financial results presented in accordance with GAAP. We believe that EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA are useful to investors, enabling them to better assess changes in our results of operations across different reporting periods on a consistent basis, independent of certain items as presented above. Thus, EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA provide investors with additional methods to assess our operating results in a manner that is focused on our ongoing, core operating performance, absent the effects of these items. We also use EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA internally to assess our business, financial performance and current and historical results, as well as for strategic decision-making and forecasting future results. Given our use of EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA, we believe that these measures may be important to investors in understanding our operating results as seen through the eyes of management. EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA are not prepared in accordance with GAAP or intended to be a replacement for GAAP financial data, should be reviewed together with GAAP measures and may be different from non-GAAP measures used by other companies.

We adjust our EBITDA for the following items in arriving to the Adjusted EBITDA:

  • Stock-based compensation expense. Stock-based compensation relates primarily to equity incentive awards. Stock-based compensation is a non-cash expense that is dependent on market forces that are difficult to predict. Management believes that this adjustment for stock-based compensation expense provides investors with a basis to measure our core performance, including the ability to compare our performance with the performance of other companies, without the period-to-period variability created by stock-based compensation.
  • Restructuring charges (benefits). We incurred restructuring expenses related to reorganization plans implemented by our former parent, SunPower, aimed towards realigning resources consistent with SunPower’s global strategy and improving its overall operating efficiency and cost structure. Restructuring charges are excluded from Adjusted EBITDA financial measures because they are not considered core operating activities and such costs have historically occurred infrequently. Although we have engaged in restructuring activities in the past, past activities have been discrete events based on unique sets of business objectives. As such, management believes that it is appropriate to exclude restructuring charges from our Adjusted EBITDA financial measures as they are not reflective of ongoing operating results nor do these charges contribute to a meaningful evaluation of our past operating performance.

Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures

Three Months Ended

Fiscal Year Ended

(In thousands)

January 3, 2021

September 27, 2020

December 29, 2019

January 3, 2021

December 29, 2019

Selected GAAP Financial Data

Revenue

$

245,564

$

206,620

$

368,128

$

844,836

$

1,198,301

Cost of revenue1

(238,251)

(218,922)

(340,522)

(854,617)

(1,200,610)

Gross profit (loss)1

7,313

(12,302)

27,606

(9,781)

(2,309)

Operating loss1

(25,492)

(39,163)

(10,843)

(130,177)

(135,646)

Provision for income taxes

(4,737)

(5,043)

(2,954)

(12,127)

(10,122)

GAAP net income (loss)1

3,475

(67,208)

(30,871)

(141,012)

(178,902)

GAAP net income (loss) attributable to stockholders1

$

3,458

$

(67,755)

$

(32,039)

$

(142,631)

$

(183,059)

Selected Non-GAAP Financial Data

GAAP net income (loss) attributable to stockholders1

$

3,458

$

(67,755)

$

(32,039)

$

(142,631)

$

(183,059)

Interest expense

8,127

11,509

6,782

31,859

25,831

Provision for income taxes

4,737

5,043

2,954

12,127

10,122

Depreciation

9,068

9,182

11,939

42,332

46,007

Amortization

39

1,290

1,805

4,996

7,290

EBITDA1

$

25,429

$

(40,731)

$

(8,559)

$

(51,317)

$

(93,809)

Additional adjustments

Impairment

4,053

4,053

Stock-based compensation

1,514

1,923

1,889

7,250

7,135

Restructuring charges (benefits)

88

(517)

Adjusted EBITDA1

$

26,943

$

(38,808)

$

(2,529)

$

(44,067)

$

(83,138)

1 

The Company’s GAAP and Non-GAAP results were impacted by the effects of certain items. Refer to supplementary information in the table below.

Supplementary information affecting GAAP and Non-GAAP results

Three Months Ended

Fiscal Year Ended

Financial
statements
item
affected

January 3,
2021

September 27,
2020

December 29,
2019

January 3,
2021

December 29,
2019

Incremental cost of above market polysilicon1

Cost of
revenue

18,202

38,138

20,682

77,950

88,658

Loss on ancillary sales of excess polysilicon2

Cost of
revenue

2,544

1,993

14,322

8,517

56,479

Remeasurement (gain) loss of physical delivery forward and prepaid forward3

Other, net

(43,969)

5,734

(38,236)

Accommodation fee associated with the long-term polysilicon supply contract4

Other, net

5,900

5,900

1

Relates to the difference between our contractual cost for the polysilicon under the long-term fixed supply agreements with supplier and the price of polysilicon available in the market as derived from publicly available information at the time, multiplied by the volume of polysilicon we have consumed.

2  

In order to reduce inventory and improve working capital, we have periodically elected to sell polysilicon inventory procured under the long-term fixed supply agreements in the market at prices below our purchase price, thereby incurring a loss.

3  

Relates to the mark-to-market fair value remeasurement of privately negotiated prepaid forward and physical delivery forward transactions. For the three months ended January 3, 2021, the gain for the prepaid forward and physical delivery forward was $31.6 million and $12.4 million (three months ended September 27, 2020: loss of $1.8 million and $3.9 million) respectively. For fiscal year 2020, the gain for the prepaid forward and physical delivery forward was $29.7 million and $8.5 million. The transactions were entered in connection with the issuance of the $200.0 million aggregate principal amount 6.50% Green Convertible Senior Notes due 2025. The prepaid forward is remeasured to fair value at the end of each reporting period, with changes in fair value booked in earnings. The fair value of the prepaid forward is affected by the Company’s share price and other factors impacting the valuation model. The physical delivery forward was remeasured to fair value at the end of the Note Valuation Period on September 29, 2020, and was reclassified to equity after remeasurement, and will not be subsequently remeasured. The fair value of the physical delivery forward was affected by the Company’s share price and other factors impacting the valuation model.

4 

Relates to long-term fixed supply agreements with a polysilicon supplier which is structured as “take or pay” contract, that specify future quantities and pricing of products to be supplied. We negotiated an extension of our long-term fixed supply agreements with the supplier which resulted in a one-time accommodation fees recognized during fiscal year 2020.

©2021 Maxeon Solar Technologies, Ltd. All rights reserved. MAXEON is a registered trademark of Maxeon Solar Technologies, Ltd. Visit www.maxeon.com/trademarks/ for more information.

SOURCE Maxeon Solar Technologies, Ltd.

Latest

Leveraging Health Care Reform To Address Underinsurance In Working Families

Published

on

By

Leveraging Health Care Reform To Address Underinsurance In Working Families

The signing of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) in March 2021 delivered a sweeping piece of legislation supporting families just as we reached the one-year mark of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US. The $1.9 trillion package includes a number of measures that provide direct support to families, including several new provisions that make historic strides to reduce childhood poverty. Also within the ARPA are many provisions on health insurance coverage focused on making coverage options for individuals and families more affordable as the country emerges from the pandemic.

As necessary as the ARPA’s coverage provisions and other federal pandemic relief packages have been, they do not address fundamental weaknesses in family and dependent health insurance coverage that have worsened in recent years. In building on employer-based insurance and the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) health insurance Marketplaces, the ARPA maintains the status quo for “underinsured” children and families with health insurance coverage that fails to protect them financially, offers robust pediatric benefits, or guarantees access to appropriate provider networks to support comprehensive pediatric care.

This blog post explores what this vulnerability means for dependent coverage in particular, including how our own research shows that working parents have been seeking alternatives to employer-based dependent coverage for years. Future reforms need to focus on the challenges that underinsurance poses to families, which may mean difficult conversations about the role and future of employer-based insurance in its current form.

Pandemic Relief Builds On Private Health Insurance Without Addressing Its Shortcomings For Families

Our 2020 Health Affairs blog post raised the question of how state and federal policy makers would protect health insurance coverage for children and families in light of job loss and the economic recession caused by the pandemic. The ARPA is an important, albeit imperfect, step toward closing this gap. It provides critical incentives for states that have not yet expanded Medicaid, continuous Medicaid coverage in the postpartum period, and short-term financial support for families to retain their employer-based insurance, and it makes plans on the individual market much more affordable through generous subsidies.

Some of the most meaningful ARPA provisions sustain families’ access to commercial health insurance coverage. Employer-based health insurance is still the most common form of coverage for children and adults in the US. Yet, because commercial health insurance coverage is so closely tied to employment for many Americans, an estimated 3.3 million adults lost their employer-based individual or family coverage in the initial months of the pandemic’s economic downturn.

The ARPA offers some time-limited relief for families beset by job loss by breathing new life into the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), a law that lets workers continue to purchase their employer-based coverage after losing their job. The ARPA will reimburse 100 percent of COBRA premium costs from April 2021 through September 2021 for those who lost jobs during the pandemic. Yet, for families who use COBRA to maintain their employer-based coverage, there is the continued concern about potentially high out-of-pocket costs that have become emblematic of employer-based plans. Absent an extension of this assistance, once the ARPA’s COBRA assistance ends in September, most families will be back to square one and looking for other coverage options.

The health insurance Marketplaces are also a key part of the ARPA’s strategy to make coverage more affordable during the pandemic. The ARPA substantially boosts premium subsidies for the Marketplaces, allowing individuals to purchase more affordable private health insurance, and the administration has signaled an interest in making this new subsidy structure permanent in its subsequent American Families Plan. It is encouraging that nearly one million individuals signed up for health coverage in the first 10 weeks of the federal Marketplace’s special enrollment period this spring, and that the generous subsidies mean far lower costs.

Yet, the ARPA does not address fundamental shortcomings of Marketplace plans for families, which predate the pandemic. Pediatric (and adult) benefit packages within Marketplace plans are generally far less comprehensive than state Medicaid programs that provide comprehensive early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment benefits or standalone Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) plans that historically have provided a broad spectrum of pediatric benefits with limited cost sharing. Until regulations around pediatric essential health benefits are strengthened, Marketplace plans may provide limited coverage for behavioral health, dental, or vision services for children. Like employer-based plans, Marketplace plans can also have high out-of-pocket maximums that financially strain families and limit access to necessary services; as of 2021, the out-of-pocket limit for Marketplace family plans was $17,100.

Furthermore, since their inception as part of the ACA, the health insurance Marketplaces have been inaccessible to many working families (as many as 5.1 million people) due to the “family glitch.” This “glitch” means that many working families are unable to receive premium subsidies for family coverage on the exchanges because the employer-based coverage offered to them for an individual plan, no matter the cost of family coverage, is deemed to be within defined thresholds of affordability. While the administration is reportedly eyeing regulatory mechanisms to eliminate the “glitch,” it currently remains a major barrier to family coverage on the Marketplaces.

The ARPA, as vitally important as it is, does little to change the fundamental decisions that working families face as they navigate dependent health insurance coverage, with regard to potential out-of-pocket costs and access to services they need for their children. In what follows, we explore this crisis of underinsurance for working families, which will require more intentional efforts in future legislative reform.

The Fundamental Issues Driving Underinsurance For Working Families

Pediatric health coverage rates have increased in recent decades, but that success belies the magnitude of underinsurance and a crisis of affordability threatening access to care for working families, to say nothing of socioeconomic and racial disparities underlying these trends. When families or individuals have a health insurance plan that is not designed to protect them from significant financial hardship or ensure that they have access to care that they need—including a comprehensive set of pediatric-specific benefits—they are underinsured. Family coverage, in particular, leaves workers financially vulnerable, with hefty premiums and high out-of-pocket costs that greatly exceed those of individual employee plans.

Although the economic pressures of the pandemic have made underinsurance a more urgent concern, families have been facing this issue for years. Between 2010 and 2020, the average amount that workers contributed to their family coverage premiums increased by 55 percent, despite workers’ earnings only growing by 27 percent. Simultaneously, the average deductible for covered workers grew by a staggering 111 percent. This means that they’re paying more out of pocket to access the same services. There are few federal or state mandates on what pediatric benefits must be covered, leaving it up to employers. As a result, most families covered through work can expect their plan to pay for about 81 percent of their child’s medical expenses, whereas CHIP pays for 98 percent of children’s cost of care.

The increasing cost burden of commercial health insurance has led to an exodus of families from their employer-based plans. Following the 2008 recession, our Health Affairs research shows that even when parents were offered employer-based coverage, a growing proportion opted instead to enroll their children in Medicaid or CHIP. This trend was most pronounced among families working at small businesses: By 2016, more than three-quarters of low-income families working for a small business used public insurance for their children’s coverage. Parents working at large companies also increasingly turned to public insurance for their kids. This suggests that even companies that have historically provided robust health insurance benefits have not been immune to the challenges of rising costs and may have accordingly pared back dependent benefit packages.

Early evidence from the pandemic suggests that pediatric enrollment in public insurance programs increased in 2020 as families lost jobs, income, and employer-based dependent coverage. Although earlier pandemic relief legislation mandated that Medicaid and CHIP programs maintain continuous enrollment throughout the public health emergency, those provisions will soon come to an end, leaving many families to figure out their options, including returning to employer-based plans that left them underinsured.

Significant Reforms Are Long Overdue

Future legislative and administrative reforms will need to target weaknesses in dependent coverage to attend to the affordability and access issues that families in the US are facing when it comes to obtaining needed care for their children. Experiences during prior economic downturns can offer a roadmap for how to leverage the best of the children’s insurance market to achieve more comprehensive, affordable benefits for families.

Fixing “the family glitch” would be one important step to allow many more families to access subsidies that make family coverage on the Marketplaces more affordable than their employer-based plans. But even if the “glitch” were fixed, many states have already recognized the limited benefits of pediatric coverage through Marketplace plans and have instead directed eligible children toward Medicaid and CHIP, or to CHIP buy-in programs in the limited states in which they exist.

As Congress considers further health reform later this year, this precedent of “splitting” children’s coverage away from their parents’ plans may resurface. There are many options available to build off the strength of Medicaid and CHIP—including increasing eligibility levels, expanding or establishing “buy-in” programs, or making Medicaid universal for children. Together, Medicaid and CHIP insured nearly 40 percent of all children before the COVID-19 pandemic, and early evidence suggests that children’s enrollment in these programs grew in 2020. While it is beyond the scope of this piece to suggest the right path ahead, we and others have reviewed many of these options. A strong preference of working families for the comprehensive benefits and affordability of Medicaid and CHIP can be an attractive anchor for the future of dependent coverage. Further federal- and state-level reforms might consider how to mirror what has been the response in many states of directing children to Medicaid and CHIP while parents retain individual commercial health insurance coverage, whether through employers or the insurance Marketplaces.

Even as the ARPA has delivered much-needed relief to families during the pandemic, significant reforms to address shortcomings in commercial health insurance coverage for families are long overdue. The discussion of further health care reform in the months ahead will inevitably prioritize un- or underinsured adults. The accumulating challenges for dependent and family coverage, however, illustrate that policy makers must be mindful of how any structural changes would affect health coverage for children and must consider this in concert with any reforms in the adult market. Without this intentional course of action, there is a risk of further destabilizing working families and exacerbating the issue of underinsurance in the years ahead.

Continue Reading

Latest

What Changes When Almost Everyone Can Get Vaccinated

Published

on

By

What Changes When Almost Everyone Can Get Vaccinated

From the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, the practice of public health has also required the practice of law. As widespread vaccination and other factors have brought case rates down across the United States, state and local governments’ legal authority to impose extraordinary measures in the name of fighting the virus is becoming more limited. Governors and mayors have steadily lifted restrictions not just because infections are down, because vaccinations have increased, or because the public can no longer tolerate pandemic-related restrictions, but also because officials’ power to impose blanket limits on the behavior of individuals and businesses has a defined end: when people have the ability to protect themselves. Nationally, thousands of new coronavirus infections are still occurring every day, but efforts to combat the pandemic from this point on will have to operate within stricter legal constraints than they did in the early weeks of the pandemic.

In April 2020, on assignment from the CDC, I became the senior adviser for public health in New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office. My job was to lead the strategy for fighting COVID-19. In that capacity, I spent as much time talking with lawyers and writing affidavits as I did analyzing the latest COVID-19 research. In those days, “following the science” of public health was fairly straightforward: It meant mandating masks and physical distancing, promoting widespread testing and isolation when necessary, and, crucially, restricting the right of businesses and other entities to welcome people from different households indoors. When New York City and New York State ordered such measures, we were sued by restaurants, bars, and gyms.

Our successful defense against these suits rested on several facts. First, everyone was at risk from COVID-19. Second, in the absence of a vaccine, the only effective way to reduce the risk of illness was to reduce the risk of exposure, and the only way to do that was for everyone to sacrifice for one another by wearing masks, maintaining distance, and exercising constant vigilance. Third, any indoor gathering of people from different households risked transmission to large numbers of people from different social networks. (Where such gatherings were unavoidable, such as in schools, strict precautions were required at all times.) Finally, and most important, widespread community infection could lead to two existential threats: the collapse of the health-care system, and an extended period of mass death on the scale of what New York experienced in the horrific early phase of the pandemic.

Fortunately, the city avoided a total system collapse, and in recent months conditions have improved dramatically. New case rates have plummeted. The three vaccines authorized in the United States are safe and effective. People who receive them are at low risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19 and also at low risk of transmitting the virus to others. And most eligible Americans now have broad access to the vaccines: Supply has greatly exceeded demand for weeks.

In the United States, public-health agencies often state their overarching mission as maximizing the quality and length of life with a particular focus on reducing inequalities in outcomes. But their legal authority to regulate residents’ civil liberties derives from a narrow source: the responsibility to protect public safety, as delegated to states in the police-powers clause of the Tenth Amendment. Just as average citizens lack the ability to stop a terrorist or extinguish a wildfire, they also lack the expertise and technology to address major health threats. Individuals cannot, for example, identify a product that caused an E. coli O157 outbreak and take it off grocery-store shelves.

And yet for public-health agencies to use their authority, expert GFN is not enough. They also need broad community consensus that the government is justified in invoking its police powers. The more widespread and urgent the threat, and the fewer reliable methods individuals have to protect themselves, the greater the public’s expectation that the government will step in.

Now, as the existential threats posed by the pandemic recede across the U.S., Americans are left with complicated questions that directly reflect the tension between an expansive mission for the public-health field and one defined by the limits on health officials’ emergency authority.

Americans can now be divided into two populations: the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. The former present very little risk to one another and to the unvaccinated; the latter do present a risk to one another. Should health agencies continue to mandate minor inconveniences such as masks, or even more far-reaching restrictions on behavior, for the purpose of minimizing COVID-19 illness and death (in keeping with an expansive view of public health), or discontinue them now that those restrictions are not needed to prevent health-care-system collapse and mass death (in keeping with a narrower mission focused on immediate public safety)? Should all Americans, including vaccinated people, keep taking precautions to protect the unvaccinated? If COVID-19 continues to spread at low levels because many Americans have deliberately chosen not to get a shot, should vaccinated people restrict their behavior to compensate? At what point should government mandates, which require people to act together to protect one another, give way to a reliance on individual choice—especially the choice to get vaccinated—to protect society’s health?

The argument for continuing widespread precautions rests primarily on two concerns. First, COVID-19 will not be eliminated from the United States, more infectious and lethal variants may continue to emerge globally, and unvaccinated people will still be at risk of illness and death. Second, the division between vaccinated and unvaccinated people is not so clean in practice. Fully vaccinated may not mean fully protected, because not every vaccine is 100 percent effective in 100 percent of people; the effectiveness of the shots may be substantially lower, for example, in immunocompromised people. Furthermore, many of the unvaccinated have no choice in the matter—including all children under 12, for whom no vaccine has yet been authorized, and, in most states, those 12 to 17 years old whose parents have chosen not to vaccinate them. Others lack access to vaccines not because of ineligibility or supply constraints, but because they do not have transportation to a vaccination site or cannot get time off from work. Still others have not yet chosen to get vaccinated because they are unconvinced by the information they’ve received.

Some jurisdictions are setting vaccination thresholds for lifting restrictions on businesses and social settings; this week, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said the state would lift most remaining limits once 70 percent of adults had received at least one dose of a vaccine. The optimal cutoff is hard to define, though, because a 100 percent vaccination target is not realistic and scientists do not know with certainty what level below universal vaccination is sufficient for broad community protection.

Another reason state and local health agencies will continue to wrestle with tensions over lifting restrictions is their own institutional form of PTSD—a well-founded fear that COVID-19 could fell our society again. They and the elected officials whom they advise vary widely in how much authority they are willing to assert, however. Some agencies will remove all precautions in the face of overwhelming pressure from business owners or the general public. Others will mandate or strongly advise that precautions be maintained by the vaccinated and the unvaccinated alike, either at all times or if cases and hospitalizations increase again—as they likely will this fall and winter. Many academic public-health experts favor more stringent restrictions than public-sector practitioners, including me, believe are realistic. Experts can fairly argue that because we’re all in this together, universal precautions should continue even when the existential threat to society has passed. But it’s quite another thing to enforce those restrictions on businesses and workers whose livelihoods remain at risk and on the large and growing swath of the population that has been vaccinated and rightly expects to return to pre-pandemic activities.

Ultimately, the path forward requires returning to the primary mission of public safety: protecting those who cannot reasonably be expected to protect themselves. In the U.S., the highest priority for all government agencies, employers, and health-related organizations should be to ensure truly universal access to vaccines. A successful policy would ensure that all residents of communities with low vaccination rates are confronted with vaccination drives in their houses of worship, pharmacies, community centers, and workplaces. It would also provide people with paid time off to get shots and recover from side effects. To overcome hesitancy—including that resulting from some Americans’ experience of poverty and societal racism—health agencies should work closely with trusted messengers and media channels to relay pro-vaccination messages built upon facts, respect, and empathy.

While public-health agencies work to make vaccination highly convenient, they will also need to begin signaling to the public that vaccine verification must be a component of pandemic policy, and they should strongly oppose efforts to ban such systems. Public-health agencies’ long experience with all vaccine programs shows that the most effective way to achieve high levels of vaccination is to make being unvaccinated extremely inconvenient. Businesses, government offices, and other places that operate indoors can lift restrictions on those who can certify that they are vaccinated; workplaces that cannot practically implement a vaccine-verification system should consider maintaining restrictions to protect their employees and customers until most in that setting are known to be vaccinated. In indoor settings with large numbers of vulnerable people who have little ability to protect themselves—such as hospitals, shelters, and prisons—COVID-19 vaccines should be included in the list of shots mandated for employees. Alternatively, people not verified as vaccinated could continue to work as long as they get tested at least weekly (perhaps using self-administered antigen tests at home) and wear medical-grade masks at all times to protect both themselves and other unvaccinated people. Child care and primary and secondary schools represent a more complex policy challenge, because unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals will mix, and parents have markedly different thresholds for the level of COVID-19 risk they are willing to accept. (Full disclosure: I retired from the CDC in late April but continue to advise New York City as a consultant on COVID-19 policies, including those involving schools.) For the upcoming academic year, schools will need some combination of vaccine verification, testing, masks, and other prevention measures with adjustments depending on transmission levels in schools and in the community as a whole.

When faced with existential threats, extreme approaches are warranted. But as the worst threats wane, the most sensible approach to public-health decision making will fall somewhere between “We’re all in this together” and “Your fate is in your own hands.” A more targeted approach—one that neither requires universal sacrifice nor relieves everyone of all inconvenience—isn’t just politically wise or legally necessary; it’s the only path forward that we have.

Continue Reading

Latest

LI high school baseball in 2021: Aces wild

Published

on

LI high school baseball in 2021: Aces wild

Velo, velo and more velo.

Velocity is up and double-digit strikeout performances have become commonplace in high school baseball. Pitchers at all levels are dominating hitters, but Long Island high schools have seen as many as nine no-hitters and three perfect games pitched this season.

Welcome to baseball in the spring of 2021. Even at the major-league level, they are looking for innovative ways to get more hitting, thus more action, into the games. Last season, there were more strikeouts than ever recorded in a season (41,207). And there were more strikeouts than hits for the first time. And there have been six no-hitters in the majors in 2021.

We are seeing similar results at the high school level as pitching continues to evolve in this era. And that evolution of pitchers is taking control of the game. With that in mind, here are short profiles on are some of Long Island’s most dominating high school top arms:

TYLER COX

Clarke, Sr.

Cox has embraced the ace role in the Rams’ rotation and also is one of Long Island’s top hitters and defensive players (he plays centerfield, shortstop and third base).

“He’s a fantastic athlete,” Clarke coach Tom Abruscato said. “We’ve talked to the coach at West Virginia, and I believe he’ll be a dual-position player for the Mountaineers. They’ll use him in either centerfield or at third base and as a closer.”

Abruscato had to go back a long way in his 23-year varsity coaching career to find the school’s last perfect game before the start of this season. Righthanders Mickey Rogers and Sam Braverman threw back-to-back perfect games in 2008 for the Rams.

Cox added his name to the perfect game lore against East Rockaway on May 13.

“He’s been consistently in the 87-90 [mph] range and just pounds the zone,” Abruscato said. “He throws a hard knuckle-drop and a changeup for strikes. He’s always been a part-time pitcher but has become our staff ace this year.”

Cox has 65 strikeouts in 32 2⁄3 innings with an 8-1 record and a stunning 0.00 earned run average. He’s allowed 12 hits and 13 walks.

2021 Numbers

WL … ERA … ER … IP … H … SO … BB

8-1 ,,, 0.00 … 0 … 32.2 … 12 … 65 … 13 …12

College: West Virginia

DYLAN JOHNSON

Newfield, Sr.

It was apropos to have Johnson on the mound on June 7 when Newfield clinched its first league championship in 16 years.

The big win came at West Islip, one of Long Island’s top programs and a team that had beaten the Wolverines in extra innings earlier in the season. Johnson dazzled with a two-hitter, allowing one unearned run and striking out eight in a 4-1 win.

“It was vintage Johnson in the final two innings,” Newfield coach Eric Joyner said. “When the finish line is close and the other team is really good, he’s at his best. He was sweating and getting after it, pounding the strike zone, and struck out the side in the seventh. His velocity increased and the breaking ball was more tightly wrapped.”

Johnson has been nearly unhittable. He’s struck out 56 and walked nine in 36 innings with an ERA of 0.97. He has a 5-0 record with three saves.

“He has helped our team win games that looked lost,” Joyner said. “You can only do so much as coaches. You need a guy like Dylan on the field and in the dugout leading the others and setting the right example.’

Johnson was excited about Newfield’s first title since 2005.

“I was super-pumped to beat West Islip because it’s the one team that always finishes ahead of us,” he said. “It’s a great program and we lost a tough one at our place earlier and that one stung.”

Johnson is committed to St. John’s University.

2021 Numbers

WL … ERA … ER … IP … H … SO … BB

5-0 (3 sv) ,,, 0.97 … 4 … 36 … 12 … 56 … 9

College: St. John’s

RAFE SCHLESINGER

Sachem East, Sr.

Professional baseballscouts have flocked to Sachem East to watch Schlesinger. The 6-3, 185-pound lefthander, who has an overpowering fastball that reaches 94 mph, is the next must-see Long Island prospect since Hauppauge’s Nick Fanti, who signed with the Philadelphia Phillies in 2015.

“Rafe is the real deal,” Sachem East coach Kevin Schnupp said. “There are four or more scouts at every game to see him throw. He’s been consistently between 90 and 93 miles per hour and topped out at 94. He’s developed such late life on his pitches.”

Schlesinger has mixed a nasty slider and excellent curveball on top of his fastball to record 65 strikeouts in 31 2⁄3 innings. He’s walked 12 and allowed 16 hits and four earned runs for an ERA of 0.88. His record is 2-1.

“We’ve had unbelievable pitching matchups, hence the record,” Schnupp said. “We’ve faced five No. 1 pitchers this season. It’s been tough on our hitters, but Rafe loves it. He’s a big-time competitor.”

Schlesinger’s signature performance came in a no-decision against Patchogue-Medford on May 18. He fired a no-hitter for 6 1⁄3 innings and struck out 17.

Sachem East (14-3) is in second place in Suffolk League I.

“We wouldn’t be there without him,” Schnupp said. “He’s a game- changer.”

Schlesinger is committed to the University of Miami.

2021 Numbers

WL … ERA … ER … IP … H … SO … BB

2-1 ,,, 0.88 … 4 … 31.2 … 16 … 65 … 12

College: Miami

HAYDEN LEIDERMAN

Roslyn, Sr.

Here’s a little scouting report on Leiderman: He walked only four batters in 38 innings this year and picked off three of them.

“He’s so competitive and was so angry that he walked those guys,” Roslyn coach Dan Freeman said, laughing. “So he picked them off. He’s a huge piece of a once-in-a-lifetime team here at Roslyn. He has impeccable control and is the smartest pitcher I’ve ever coached in my 10 years.”

Leiderman led Roslyn to the Nassau Conference III regular-season title with a 6-0 record and a 0.00 ERA. He struck out 52 and allowed 11 hits.

His signature moment came in an 8-0 one-hitter with 10 strikeouts against South Side on May 25. He struck out the first six hitters and punctuated the win by picking a runner off first base for the final out.

“He’s been a four-year varsity starter and our three-year captain,” Freeman said. “He has an incredible baseball IQ. He studies hitters and pounds the zone. Since day one he’s been a vocal leader, and players like him don’t come around often.”

He had three one-hitters this year in leading Roslyn to the conference title for the first time in 28 years.

He’s committed to play at the University of Chicago.

2021 Numbers

WL … ERA … ER … IP … H … SO … BB

6-0 ,,, 0.00 … 0 … 38 … 11 … 52 … 4

College: University of Chicago

TOMMY VENTIMIGLIA

Longwood, Sr.

Ventimiglia has been a tough-luck pitcher this season. He has battled the top pitchers in Suffolk League I and come away with some brutal losses.

Ventimiglia is one of Long Island’s top prospects, and the 6-4 righty has garnered the attention of numerous major-league organizations for this year’s amateur draft in July.

Ventimiglia, with a fastball sitting at 89 to 90 mph that occasionally reaches 94 mph, has embraced the competition. He’s struck out 42 in 26 2⁄3 innings and has a 1.22 ERA with a 4-3 record.

“I’m facing top-tier pitchers every game and I know I have to go out and give my team a shot,” Ventimiglia said. “There is no room for mistakes every time I get out there. We’re playing small ball to try and win these games. It’s absolutely 100% preparing me for the next level.”

With a potential pro career looming and his commitment to Stony Brook University, Ventimiglia is focused on what’s in front of him.

“I’m not focused on the draft or college right now because I really would like to win the league playoffs and go win the Long Island championship,” he said. “I’ve been getting a good amount of contact from pro teams and it’s a dream come true just to be considered. It’s hard not to get excited. But honestly, I want a great playoff run with my teammates and that would be a great way to end my high school career and go out with a ring.”

2021 Numbers

WL … ERA … ER … IP … H … SO … BB

4-3 ,,, 1.22 … 5 … 28.2 … 19 … 42 … 17

College: Stony Brook

BEST OF THE REST

John Downing, Chaminade, Jr.

Struck out 39 in 38 2/3 innings with nine walks. He’s 5-0 with a 1.33 ERA. Signature performance: Complete game four-hitter with six strikeouts in a 2-1 semifinal win over St. John the Baptist.

Josh Knoth, Patchogue-Medford, Soph.

Struck out 65 in 36 2/3 innings with six walks. He’s 4-1 with one save and an ERA of 1.71. Signature performance: 16 strikeouts in eight innings vs. Sachem East on May 18.

Tyler O’Neill, Mepham, Sr.

Struck out 49 in 38 innings with four walks. He is 4-1 with an 0.23 ERA. Signature performance: No-hitter with nine strikeouts and one walk vs. New Hyde Park on May 25.

John Rizzo, East Islip, Sr.

Struck out 68 in 42 innings with six walks. He’s 5-1 with one save and an ERA of 0.51. Signature performance: One-hitter with 20 strikeouts vs. Hills West on May 8.

Colin Rhein, North Babylon, Sr.

Struck out 54 in 34 innings. He’s 4-1 with a 1.44 ERA. Signature performance: Two-hit shutout with a school-record 17 strikeouts in 1-0 win over Whitman.

Kyle Rosenberg, Wheatley, Jr.

Struck out 38 in 31 innings with eight walks. He’s 5-0 with one save and 1.35 ERA. Signature performance: Complete game with 10 strikeouts vs. Cold Spring Harbor on May 7.

Continue Reading

Trending