Author: louis

All Eyes on Jackson Hole

All Eyes on Jackson Hole

 

“It’s like deja vu all over again.” — Yogi Berra

 

Let’s take a look at some economic bullet points, shall we?

* The stock market, after peaking in April, is in the midst of a summer swoon.

* The sovereign debt crisis in Europe is getting progressively worse.

* Unemployment remains stubbornly high and the housing market remains stagnant.

* Gold continues to climb as investors speculate that safe haven currencies like the USD, Euro and Yen will see continued pressure as debt levels mount.

*Quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve has recently expired and Government Stimulus money has run dry.

*Investors wait with baited breath as Fed chairman Ben Bernanke is due to give a highly anticipated speech at the annual Jackson Hole economic summit.

Sound like a good encapsulation of where the financial markets are today?   Perhaps,  but I’m actually describing where things stood last summer on the eve of the Jackson Hole summit.  While a lot has certainly changed in the past twelve months, many of the problems facing the global economy remain the same.

And so here we are, almost exactly a year later, and the markets are waiting/hoping/praying that tomorrow Ben Bernanke can pull a rabbit out of his hat in his Jackson Hole address like he did last August, when it looked as if the stock market rally was sure to falter.

So how did things play out last summer?

As we wrote in our last quarterly letter:

“When Ben Bernanke announced the QE2 plan on August 27th, 2010 the S&P 500 was trading at 1,064 (mired in a summer slump after peaking at 1,217 on April 23rd). Once the QE2 announcement was made, equity markets promptly rallied for the next 8 months, peaking at 1,370 in April 2011 on the belief that the Fed’s policies would provide the necessary support and impetus to boost economic growth.”

Many stock market bulls believe that a third round of quantitative easing will deliver similar results.  While we concede that another round of QE will likely give the stock market a short term boost, we don’t believe it will cure any of the underlying ills that the economy suffers from (high unemployment, anemic housing market, low consumer confidence etc).

But never mind all that negativity, a stock enthusiast might say, will there be a QE3?

It’s hard to predict.  The Fed’s dual mandate is to provide economic growth and boost employment.  While it can be argued that the last two rounds of quantitative easing helped the US economy avert a depression, the main beneficiaries of these market interventions, particularly the last round, seems to have been stock holders — not exactly the constituency most in need of the Fed’s support.   And to compound the problem, two byproducts of these policies have been rising commodity prices and a weakening dollar, which creates a whole host of other issues for consumers.

Given that the Fed’s fiscal policies have come under increasing criticism from all corners of the financial and political world, including from some of the Fed’s own Board of Governors, it seems to us that another QE round would be enacted only as a policy last resort.  It’s also entirely possible that the next fiscal action from the Fed would not be a QE package, per se, but rather something resembling Operation Twist, which was an approach used in the 1960’s.

But if the financial markets continue their move further south, the question becomes: what other entity could possibly intervene to provide support?  Congress has demonstrated, through the debt ceiling fiasco and the rise of Tea Party influence over the Republican party, that a stimulus bill would almost certainly be dead in the water.  And as we get closer to the 2012 elections, it becomes increasingly difficult for our elected leaders (namely Obama) to institute major economic policy decisions without being accused of playing politics, particularly in the toxic partisan environment of Washington.

So, really, that leaves the Fed as perhaps the only game in town when it comes to market intervention.  If things get worse, then there may be increased pressure on the Fed to act since they have the mandate and resources to step in — whether that means tomorrow or at a future date remains to be seen (and regardless what your views are on the Fed’s policies, at least they can reach a decision and act on it in a timely manner — unlike our distinguished members of Congress).

So, has this summer sell-off and rampant speculation of potential Fed action hanged our investments thesis?  Not really.  We remain cautious and reiterate what we said in our last quarterly letter, in July, before the stock sell-off began:

“We are a bit skeptical that equity markets can rally further without this backstop and recommend clients remain defensive until it becomes clearer that the economy can stand on its own two feet absent the crutch of Federal Reserve support.”

 

Must Read: Jeremy Grantham’s Quarterly Letter

Must Read: Jeremy Grantham’s Quarterly Letter

Terrific piece from the always insightful Jeremy Grantham of GMO on the state of the financial markets and where things may be headed:

Grantham August

From the Archives: Beware CNBC and the Permabulls

From the Archives: Beware CNBC and the Permabulls

On July 30, 2007 Jeremy Siegel — Wharton professor and author of the popular investment book Stocks For The Long Run — appeared on CNBC to give his take on the stock market.  To put things in perspective, this was before the credit crisis had erupted, at a time when the economy was still considered very strong, although there had been some cracks beginning to show in the facade.  The S&P 500, the broad measure of US equities, closed at 1,473.91 that day.   It was in the midst of a modest summer sell-off, having closed at 1,553.08 just 11 days before on July 19th (nearly the top of the stock market rally).

There were rumblings from certain corners of the investment world that the US housing market was in the midst of a major bubble that had the potential to drive the economy into recession.  However, investors like Mr. Siegel, who preaches buying stocks at pretty much ANY time (without regard to fundamental value) told CNBC viewers that the economy was humming along and there was no reason to panic.  He believed the housing market was a small piece of the economic pie and the global growth story would propel equity markets higher.

While we recognize that hindsight is 20/20, we think it’s important to note that if CNBC viewers had listened to Mr. Siegel and bought an S&P 500 index fund the next day, they would have enjoyed a two month rally into October of 2007, before watching a long and painful decline culminating in the March 2009 lows of 666.79.

And while the S&P 500 did rebound from those lows and post a twenty-six month rally,  peaking at 1,370.58 on May 2, 2011, that level was still 100 points below the price Mr. Siegel felt comfortable telling CNBC viewers to buy back on July 30, 2007 (and even when including reinvested dividends, the investment would still be under water).   Now that we are entering what appears to be another major stock sell-off, those same investors (assuming they held onto their initial purchase) will have to wait even longer to recoup their principal, never mind turning a profit.

Mr. Siegel, as evidenced by the title of his famous book, has built his reputation on an unwavering conviction that stocks will outperform almost any other asset class in the “long run.”   While we certainly agree that stocks can be good investments and have a place in most client portfolios, we also recognize they are amongst the riskiest asset classes available to investors.   For investors with a short time horizon (need access to their money in the near term), stocks, particularly during a market correction, can wreak havoc on a savings strategy.

Unfortunately, a cavalier approach to stock investing seems to be a problem for many investors.  The promise of outsized returns often seduces these investors into taking on far more risk than they should.  The financial services industry, which relies on the fees generated from investors taking on this risk, is often more than happy to encourage speculative behavior from their clients.   Compounding this problem are media outlets like CNBC, which benefit from increased ratings during bull markets, and have a vested interest in promoting a pro-market message to keep viewers tuned in.  After all, as an investor, if all your money was sitting in cash, why would you watch CNBC?

When we encounter a prospective client that needs help managing their investments, more often than not, it’s because they were too heavily invested in stocks (either on their own accord or through the advice of another adviser) and lost much more money than they expected.  Rarely do we encounter a prospective client that hasn’t taken on ENOUGH risk (all their money is in cash and they don’t know what to do with it).  As a result, our preference for downside protection over speculative growth resonates more with investors during market volatility.

While the stock market has experienced a severe sell-off over the past few weeks, it is still trading well above the lows of March 2009.  As I write, the S&P 500 is hovering around 1150.  Since we don’t own a crystal ball here at WSQ Capital, we don’t know for sure where markets are headed from here (we have an educated guess, but we don’t know with certainty). What we do know is that if we see a continued sell-off like we saw in 2008-09, higher risk portfolios with significant exposure to stocks will experience higher losses compared to those portfolios primarily invested in short term, investment grade bonds and cash.

So, when sizing up a volatile market such as the one we’re experiencing now, investors should ask themselves which they value more: downside protection or speculative growth?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where are we headed?

Where are we headed?

Stock markets around the globe have experienced a pronounced sell-off in recent weeks, culminating in yesterday’s 500 point Dow Jones Industrial Average decline.

For investors that follow our blog and quarterly newsletter, these events should not come as a major surprise, as we have repeatedly expressed our skepticism with the sustainability of the stock market rally.

In our view, the combination of high unemployment, a stagnant housing market, continued consumer thriftiness and the debt crisis in Europe (not to mention here in America) has tempered our enthusiasm for higher risk investments like stocks and commodities.  Instead, we have encouraged clients to be cautious and defensive, despite the seemingly unending rally in stocks.

While many market commentators have pointed to the debt ceiling debate and subsequent compromise as a catalyst for a short term sell-off, we think the problems run much deeper and poor economic data is more likely the cause of negative market sentiment.

Our pessimistic view on the economy was confirmed last week, when the US GDP for Q1 was revised down from an initial estimate of 1.9% to .4%, a huge 1.5% move down.   Second quarter GDP came in at 1.3%, well below analyst estimates of 1.9%.  This Q2 number could stand to be revised down next quarter.

In addition to the GDP data, on Monday of this week, the Institute For Supply Management (ISM), released their July factory index number (which tracks manufacturing orders).  This number fell to 50.9, well below analyst estimates of 55, and was the lowest number on record since June 2009.

Both of these data points suggest that the economy, which had been showing some signs of life after record amounts of government stimulus had been pumped in to help stave off a depression, is still nowhere near the levels of growth we saw pre-credit crisis.

So where does this leave investors?

We believe stocks will continue to sell off in light of structural headwinds in the US economy and persistent debt problems in Europe.

As a result, we continue to recommend a defensive portfolio for clients, with high quality, short term/intermediate bonds and cash making up the bulk of client holdings.

We think there will be an opportunity to buy high quality stocks on the cheap in the coming weeks and have targeted a list of companies using the following criteria:

  1. Large cap, US-based companies that have significant exposure overseas, particularly in developing markets
  2. Companies that pay a dividend, with a yield preferably above 4%, and have a proven history of paying dividends to investors in virtually every market cycle
  3. Preference for defensive/non-cyclical industries like consumer goods and utilities rather than banks or financials

We believe that longer term investments in these types of companies will perform well.  In the short term, they will provide cash flow through dividends, so investors will benefit by being paid to hold these stocks in the event the stock market trades in a flat or negative trajectory.

It’s important to note that this strategy may not be appropriate for every investor, particularly for those investors who may need access to their money in the short term.

We strongly recommend that investors do their own research and speak with an investment adviser before making any major portfolio changes.

If you would like to discuss our market views or investment selection process in further detail, please feel free to give us a call or send us an email.

10 SRI Fund Companies Every Green Investor Should Know

10 SRI Fund Companies Every Green Investor Should Know

So you want to invest socially responsibly, but aren’t really sure how to do it. Maybe you have a company retirement plan with SRI options or maybe you’ve saved some money and decided you want to put it to work. For those new to investing, mutual funds can be a good place to start.

What’s a mutual fund, you ask? Well, it’s an investment vehicle where investors pool their money together to be run by a professional manager. Mutual funds can invest in stocks, bonds or other types of securities. The benefits of mutual funds include: active management by a professional manager, diversification across several different investments and often low minimums to invest.

With green investing becoming more and more popular, there are a lot of SRI fund options now available to investors. I thought it’d be useful to provide a list of the 10 largest and most widely available SRI mutual fund companies. These are the fund families that have been around for a while, that know their way around a wind turbine or two, the Green Dream Team, if you will.

I’ve provided a link to each company’s website embedded in their names.  Click on the links, take a look around and learn about how each company approaches SRI.

Calvert  Founded in 1976, Calvert offers the widest selection of socially responsible mutual funds in the SRI universe. They manage $14.5 billion for over 400,000 investors across several different stock and bond strategies. With 34 CSR-related resolutions filed with companies on behalf of its shareholders so far in 2011, Calvert is also one of the most active mutual fund companies when it comes to shareholder advocacy.

Domini  This asset management company was founded in 1990 by Amy Domini. In 1989, they launched the Domini 400 Social Index, an index of 400 U.S. corporations selected based on a wide range of social and environmental standards, one of the first of its kind. Domini is also very active when it comes to filing CSR-related resolutions on behalf of shareholders.

Pax World  Founded in 1971 by United Methodist Ministers Rev. Dr. Elliot “Jack” Corbett and Dr. Luther Tyson, Pax World was originally started for investors who wanted to avoid investing in companies that provided weapons or supplies for the Vietnam War. Over the years, they have expanded their strategies to include screening for several other CSR issues.

Ariel  One of the few investment firms whose founder and CEO is African American, Ariel was started by John W. Rodgers and one other employee in 1983. Ariel now has 71 employees and manages $5.5 billion across four fund strategies. They are known primarily as stock picking shop their four fund offerings invest exclusively in stocks (no bonds).

Green Century  Started in 1991, Green Century is a bit unusual in that it was founded by a group of non-profit environmental advocacy organizations or state PIRGs (public interest research organizations). A complete list of the organizations that own Green Century can be found here. Investment management fees go directly to these organizations and, according to their website, are used to fund environmental awareness public interest campaigns.

Parnassus  Founded in 1984, this San Francisco-based fund company manages over $4.8 billion in assets invested across five SRI strategies. Parnassus offers both stock and bond investment strategies.

Walden Founded in 1975, Walden helped launch the first U.S. mutual fund with anti-apartheid criteria. Now offering three SRI mutual funds, Walden is a division of Boston Trust and Investment Management Company.

Portfolio 21  Founded in 1982, this Portland-based firm runs a single fund strategy “designed to address the ecological risks and opportunities of the investment process in the 21st century.” According to Morningstar, the fund has approximately $420 million invested.

Winslow  Founded in 1983, Winslow has two SRI fund offerings, the Green Growth Fund and the Green Opportunities Funds.

Appleseed  The Appleseed Fund, launched in 2006, is the SRI fund that famously decided to exclude “too-big-to-fail” banks from their portfolio in 2010. Investment decisions are made by Pekin Singer Strauss asset management. According to Morningstar, the fund has approximately $150 million invested.

In addition to the above, some of the larger traditional mutual fund companies provide their own SRI offerings. It’s important to note that unlike the 10 fund companies listed above (whose core business is SRI), these guys provide several other non-SRI funds for clients.

Before investing, it’s important to do your research: check out the fund’s website to see what kind of SRI screens they use, read the fund prospectus and make sure the investment is appropriate for you.

As always, if you have questions or need help, contact a professional advisor with experience in socially responsible investing.

 

Image Credit: Tom Magliery

This article first appeared on Just Means.

2011 Q2 Letter

2011 Q2 Letter

 

The second quarter of 2011 saw equity markets close down slightly over the last quarter – the S&P 500 began the quarter at 1,325.83 and ended at 1,320.64.  Losses were on track to be far more substantial until the last week of June when the S&P 500 rallied over 50 points in the final 4 trading days after news of the Greek bailout and some encouraging US economic data.

Commodities, after experiencing an impressive two year long run-up, fell sharply in the second quarter.  Crude oil, which touched $115.52 per barrel on May 2nd, sold off to $89.61 by June 27th as economic indicators pointed towards a slowing global economy.  Mirroring the equity market rally, crude oil (and commodities as a whole) rebounded a bit in the last week of the quarter, closing at $95.08 on June 30th.

Perhaps the biggest news this quarter was the highly anticipated end of the Federal Reserve’s second quantitative easing program.  QE2, as it has come to be known, saw the Fed invest $600 billion into US treasuries in an effort to keep interest rates low, promote economic growth and stave off any signs of deflation.  It is debatable whether or not this program resulted in any long-term benefit for the US economy, but it certainly did provide monetary rocket-fuel for the rally in stocks and commodities.

When Ben Bernanke announced the QE2 plan on August 27th, 2010 the S&P 500 was trading at 1,064 (mired in a summer slump after peaking at 1,217 on April 23rd). Once the QE2 announcement was made, equity markets promptly rallied for the next 8 months, peaking at 1,370 in April 2011 on the belief that the Fed’s policies would provide the necessary support and impetus to boost economic growth.

Now that the second round has expired, and the possibility of a third round looks ever less likely, market participants may wonder whether equity markets can continue to move higher without that monetary stimulus.  We are a bit skeptical that equity markets can rally further without this backstop and recommend clients remain defensive until it becomes clearer that the economy can stand on its own two feet absent the crutch of Federal Reserve support.

Greek Debt. Another summer and another quarterly letter with a section devoted to the debt problems in Europe. And despite the passage of the latest round of bailout/austerity measures in Greece, we don’t believe this problem is going away anytime soon. Most observers expect Greece to restructure its debt over the next few years. As with the Russian default of 1998, any restructuring or default, though widely anticipated, will shock the markets. We expect concern will move rapidly to other countries in peripheral Europe as Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy will likely be the next group to find themselves sitting in the debt crisis crosshairs. As with most crises of confidence, European authorities will have to decide where best to build a firewall. Tough decisions will be made and in its exhaustion, Europe will likely realize that not every troubled sovereign can or should be saved. We believe neither Spain nor Italy can be abandoned, and we do not believe Ireland deserves to be. But as with many things that spur strong emotions, these events may take on a life of their own and force elected representatives to act in a knowingly destructive manner, simply to deflect virulent public opinion.

Debt ceiling debate. Meanwhile back on our side of the pond, a similar dynamic is playing out. With their 2010 reclamation of the House still fresh, Republicans appear determined to use their voting power to force budget cuts before approving a raise in the debt ceiling. Democrats, meanwhile, strongly prefer reducing corporate tax breaks and other revenue raising measures as a solution. Both sides are still far apart, but we expect they will find a workable solution before the August 2nd deadline.  In our view, a workable long-term solution must involve both revenue raising measures and cost-savings in major programs, especially Medicare/Medicaid. We agree with many market commentators that a default on US debt would be catastrophic and hope cooler heads will prevail ending this game of debt/budget chicken sooner rather than later.

 

Regards,

 

Louis Berger                                                                                        Subir Grewal

 

 

Green Investing: The Old Rules Still Apply

Green Investing: The Old Rules Still Apply

So let’s say you’ve got some money you’d like to put to work in a socially responsible investment.  Maybe you received a bonus at your job, maybe you inherited some money from a relative or maybe you’ve just been diligently saving over the past few years and want to earn more than the pitifully low interest rate your savings account is currently paying.

Like many other aspects of your life, you want this investment to reflect your values when it comes to social and environmental responsibility. So you’ve done some research and have read good things about a certain solar company — maybe a friend has invested in this company or maybe a green investment blog has mentioned it as a hot stock to own.  You believe the future is in renewables and solar power will play a major role in transitioning our energy grid away from a reliance on fossil fuels. So you take your savings and invest it all in this one solar stock.

Good idea?

Probably not.

Here’s why:

By investing your life savings into one stock, you are essentially risking your financial future on the performance of that specific company.  What happens if the renewable energy sector underperforms, like it has over the past few years?  What happens if this particular company gets undercut by a Chinese competitor and loses market share?  Or what happens if an emergency crops up and you need immediate access to your savings?  If you’re forced to sell when the stock is down, you may end up taking a loss.

Just because you want to be socially responsible with your money doesn’t mean you should ignore the fundamentals of investing.  All the old rules still apply.  So what are these rules and how should you apply them to a green portfolio?

1. Diversify. By investing your savings into one stock (like in the example above), you’re opening yourself up to a huge amount of risk.  A diversified portfolio will help mitigate this risk.  Instead of investing in one company, spread your money across several.  And don’t just stick to solar stocks, or stocks in general, a diversified portfolio should have a mix of many different types of investments: stocks, bonds, CDs, some commodities and maybe even real estate.  Mutual funds or ETFs (exchange traded funds) are often a good way to get diversified, as each fund share typically invests in dozens of different stocks or bonds.

2. Risk tolerance. If you’re new to investing, it’s important to have a handle on your risk tolerance. Stocks tend to be riskier than bonds, so if you prefer to stay on the more conservative side of things, stocks should only be a small portion of your overall portfolio. One rule of thumb in the investment world is for an investor to have bond exposure equal to their age. So, if you’re 25 years old, 25% of your portfolio would be invested in bonds.  75 years old = 75% in bonds.  The thinking being that younger people can afford to take on more risk than those folks closer to (or in) retirement.  Of course, everyone is different, and this rule generally applies to long term investing.

3. Time horizon. It’s also very important to know what your time horizon is ie when you’ll need access to your money.  If you’re investing with a specific short term goal in mind (1 year or less), it doesn’t make sense to put your money to work in high risk investments like stocks since they may lose value and you’ll be stuck taking a loss when you sell.  If your time horizon is longer, let’s say you have a retirement account you don’t plan to tap into for 20 years or more, you can afford to take on more risk and volatility that comes with exposure to stocks, commodities and real estate.

4. Emergency Fund. To avoid a scenario where you’re forced to liquidate your portfolio before you’re ready (you lose your job, there’s a medical emergency, a family member needs help, etc), you should have three to six months of living expenses set aside to cover any unforeseen events. It’s important to note that this account should be in cash, not CDs, since there are potential penalty fees if you need to sell out of a CD before maturity.

5. Keep Track of Your Investments. Even if you’re working with a professional advisor, it’s important to keep a close eye on your portfolio.  You should plan to review your holdings at least once per quarter.  Life events as well as market events can often impact how you will invest going forward.

If you incorporate these 5 rules into your investment approach, you should be well on your way to establishing a portfolio that is not only socially responsible, but financially responsible as well.

 

Image Credit: Vindiharet

This article first appeared on Just Means.

Societe Generale Floats New SRI Investment, Management Fees To Go To Charity

Societe Generale Floats New SRI Investment, Management Fees To Go To Charity

 

Earlier this week, Paris-based banking giant Societe Generale announced the launch of its first socially responsible investment vehicle. What’s interesting about this particular investment is that SocGen plans to donate 100% of their management fees to charity.

The exchange traded note or ETN will trade on the London Stock Exchange and will invest in a basket of 25 mainly European companies. The companies have been selected based on their environmental, social and ESG (Environmental Social Governance) track records.

The charity that will benefit from the management fee donations is Teenage Cancer Trust, a UK-based organization which focuses on the needs of teenagers and young adults with cancer.

Sounds like a great idea, right?  Invest in socially responsible companies and have your investment fees go to a worthwhile cause?  Well, not so fast.

Let’s take a closer look at the underlying investments, shall we?

SocGen has selected a basket of 25 companies that will make up this investment.  According to the press release, they arrived at these specific companies by “combining ESG metrics with financial and stock performance data” and thus “identified one company from 25 different sectors, considered to be leaders in their sector for ESG management, offering the best combination of financial as well as ESG performance.”

So, in essence, they are blending SRI and financial performance metrics to identify the cream of the crop in 25 different industries.  This is very much a best-in-class approach to SRI investing.  The upside to this method is the investor gets diversification across several different sectors (they aren’t just limited to renewable energy companies, for example).

However, there is a downside in this approach, particularly for the purist SRI investor.  By investing in companies across 25 different sectors, the investor will also get exposure to those industries that aren’t exactly poster children for CSR.

For example, one of the 25 companies SocGen has chosen is EADS, a Dutch Aerospace and Defense corporation. While their website highlights a commitment to several different CSR initiatives (and, to be fair, looks to be sincere), this doesn’t change the fact that part of their operations involve manufacturing missiles.  Designed to kill people. During times of war.

Another company that makes up this list of 25 is AngloAmerican, one of the world’s largest mining companies.  Then there’s OMV, an Austrian oil exploration and refining conglomerate.  And don’t forget Saipem, an Italian oil and gas equipment contractor.

To be fair, this is often how best-in-class SRI investing works. The best-in-class manager targets those companies that are CSR leaders in their respective industries and, in a sense, rewards their good corporate behavior by purchasing their stock. The thinking is that other companies will follow suit in order to reach certain CSR benchmarks in order to qualify for these investment dollars.

But what about the SRI investor who doesn’t want exposure to weapons manufacturers or a mining companies?  Well, this SocGen offering probably isn’t appropriate for that person.  And perhaps they would be better off putting their investment dollars to work elsewhere and using their gains to donate to a charity of their choice.

So what’s the moral of the story? Just because an investment calls itself socially responsible doesn’t mean it’s going to be appropriate for every SRI investor.

Always do your homework. And if you need help, talk to a professional investment advisor.

Image Credit: H005

This article originally appeared on Just Means.

Fukushima May Derail Global Investment in Nuclear Power

Fukushima May Derail Global Investment in Nuclear Power

As the tragedy in Fukushima continues to unfold, and the world watches helplessly, hoping for the safety of the Japanese people, a debate over the viability of nuclear power as a safe energy source has come to the fore, particularly in energy policy circles.

Many environmentalists have long supported nuclear power as an efficient, low-carbon emitting alternative energy source to traditional fossil fuel-based power like coal, oil or natural gas, particularly in population-dense countries like Japan where, because open unused land is scarce, large scale wind and solar power plants aren’t feasible. With global power supply needs rising and no major nuclear catastrophe in decades, many countries have embraced nuclear power in recent years.

While the full extent of the fallout from Fukushima has yet to be determined, some energy experts continue to defend nuclear power by pointing out that, statistically speaking, more people around the world have been killed by oil refinery explosions and coal mine collapses than by nuclear accidents. They also argue that the long term environmental impact by oil spill disasters like the Exxon Valdez and BP’s Deep Horizon can be just as devastating as a nuclear catastrophe. Energy creation, they argue, will always have its dangers, regardless of the methods used to procure it.

To quell growing fears of a possible nuclear disaster occurring within their borders, many governments are now taking a hard look at the risks and rewards of nuclear power.  China, one of the most ambitious governments in the nuclear power space (28 plants or roughly 40% of the world’s nuclear power plants currently being built are located in China), has ordered a temporary freeze on the approval of new nuclear projects.  It remains to be seen whether or not the crisis in Japan will merely slow rather than derail China’s foray into nuclear power as the nation’s voracious energy demands need to be met and the government has outlined plans to rely more on nuclear energy in the coming decade as it moves away from coal power.

Meanwhile, back home, Energy Secretary Steven Chu will testify before a House Energy Subcommittee today about the safety of nuclear power in the United States.  His prepared testimony can be viewed here. President Obama remains a proponent of nuclear power, as it is a key component to his national energy policy.  However, this support will come under scrutiny if the situation in Japan spirals out of control.  Some have speculated that Fukushima may have the same impact on US nuclear energy policy as Three Mile Island did in 1979, effectively tabling any plans for major expansion.

Obviously, the effects of a nuclear disaster like Fukushima cannot be downplayed. The long term environmental and societal devastation will likely be felt in Japan for decades.  Despite this tragedy, the question must be asked: can nuclear power still be considered a viable energy source?  Do the potential risks outweigh the rewards?  Can nuclear engineers learn from this tragedy and institute safety precautions to avoid another Fukushima?  Or is a catastrophic event inevitable just by the very fragile and potentially unstable nature inherent to nuclear power technology?

These are all very tough questions that will need to be answered one way or another.

 

This article first appeared on Just Means.

Climate Change Shareholder Resolution Roundup

Climate Change Shareholder Resolution Roundup

 

Earlier this week, Ceres released a report detailing the climate and energy related shareholder resolutions due to be filed by SRI investors during the 2011 proxy season. The number of resolutions filed against electric power and energy companies is 66, which is a record and a 50 percent increase over the 44 resolutions filed in 2010. Ceres, a national network of investors, environmental organizations and other public interest groups working with companies to address sustainability challenges, has been tracking sustainable shareholder resolutions since its inception in 1989.

The bulk of the resolutions target coal, oil & gas and utility companies. Real estate, financial services, healthcare, consumer staples, construction, and food processing companies are also targeted, although to a lesser degree.  Popular topics for resolutions this year include: linking sustainability metrics to executive compensation, adopting quantitative goals for reducing total green house gas emissions from products and operations, and reporting on the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing.  A complete list of the resolutions can be found here.

Leading the way with a combined 16 resolutions where they are listed as the lead filers are the New York City and New York State Comptroller’s Offices.  This number represents over 20% of the total resolutions filed.

In terms of socially responsible investment companies, the following firms are listed:

Calvert  lead filer on four resolutions with Dr. Pepper Snapple, Yum Brands, Energen Corp and Amazon.com

Domini  lead filer on two resolutions with RR Donnelly and Southwestern Energy

Green Century  lead filer on four resolutions with Southern Company, First Energy, ExxonMobil and Occidental Petroleum

Miller/Howard  lead filer on four resolutions with PPL Corp, SCANA Corp, El Paso and Energen.

Newground lead filer on three resolutions with Berkshire Hathaway, Nordstrom and Time Warner.

Trillium  lead filer on three resolutions with Dominion, Royal Bank of Canada and Anadarko Petroleum.

Walden  lead filer on six resolutions with CR Bard, Emerson Electric, St. Jude Medical, Varian Medical Systems and Layne Christensen.

For Socially Responsible Investment managers who are engaged in activist investing (or, to a lesser degree, best-in-class investing), filing shareholder resolutions is one of the most effective ways to influence corporate business practices.

Shareholder resolutions are proposals submitted by a stockholder or a group of stockholders to be voted on at the company’s annual shareholder meeting.  They are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and can be filed by any shareowner holding a minimum of $2,000 in stock or 1% of the outstanding shares (whichever is less) for at least one year prior to a company’s annual submission deadline.  They are most effective when filed by a large shareholder or a coalition of smaller shareholders.  And while the resolutions may not pass when put to a vote, if they garner enough support, they can often pressure management to accommodate the resolution’s request, or at the very least, reach a compromise that will appeal to both sides.  Sometimes resolutions will be successfully withdrawn when management chooses to address the issue before allowing the resolution to come to a vote.   This preemptive move is often done when management doesn’t want too much attention drawn to the issue.

As a mutual fund shareholder, the SRI investor relinquishes his or her voting rights to fund management, which will vote on the investor’s behalf.  Therefore, it’s very important, particularly if you are interested in changing corporate policy, to know whether or not your mutual fund is engaging companies on issues most important to you.  Most SRI mutual funds will have a section of their website devoted to shareholder advocacy listing all the shareholder resolutions they have participated in.  By checking in periodically, you can get a sense of just how active the fund has been when it comes to advocating an agenda of corporate social responsibility.

Image Credit: Samantha Celera

This article originally appeared on Just Means.

Eco Investors Score Environmental Victories

Eco Investors Score Environmental Victories

Once a year, publicly traded companies across America hold annual meetings for their shareholders.  The purpose of these meetings is to elect board members, allow management to make presentations on growth outlook and attend to other business that requires shareholder approval.

These meetings, while often either dull town-hall type affairs or overblown media events (depending on the size and scope of the company), can be very important gatherings for investors interested in changing corporate business practices, particularly when management is resistant.   The way this is done is through the introduction of shareholder resolutions proposals to be put to a vote by an investor or a coalition of investors with shared goals.  In the socially responsible investment world, the filing of shareholder resolutions is one the most effective of ways of getting companies to change their behavior when it comes to CSR issues.

While some shareholder resolutions will make it to a vote, often times, they will be successfully withdrawn prior to a vote when a compromise is reached between management and shareholder.  This preemptive move is often done when management doesn’t want too much attention drawn to the issue, but will agree to address some of the key points raised in the resolution.

With annual shareholder meetings of publicly traded companies now largely behind us (they are normally held in the first quarter of a company’s fiscal year), it’s time to take a look at how successful socially responsible investors were in changing corporate behavior when it comes to environmental business practices.

As I wrote in my previous post Climate Change Shareholder Resolution Roundup, according to Ceres, there was a total of 96 climate change and energy-related shareholder resolutions filed by SRI investors in the 2011 proxy season. The majority of these resolutions (66) were filed with electric power and energy companies by large institutional shareholders: pension funds, mutual funds and non-profit organizations.

Earlier this week, The Financial Times ran a piece detailing many of the victories socially responsible shareholder activists had in the climate change arena this year. Some of the highlights include:

20 shareholder resolutions were successfully withdrawn.

Southern Company, the Atlanta-based utility company, has agreed to publish a report analyzing the risks of water shortage by November 2011.  The lead filer for this resolution was the Connecticut Treasurer’s Office.

Resolutions for Peabody Energy and Arch Coal to issue reports on greenhouse gas omissions have been withdrawn.  The lead filer for both of these resolutions was the New York State Comptroller’s Office.

Resolutions calling on JC Penney and Marriott to adopt climate principles have been withdrawn.  The lead filer for both of these resolutions was Calvert Funds.

For readers interested in a more detailed list of SRI shareholder resolutions filed in 2011, the following websites are good resources:

The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility

Ceres

Investor Environmental Health Network

This article originally appeared on Just Means.

Will Events in the Middle East Spark a Renewable Energy Revolution?

Will Events in the Middle East Spark a Renewable Energy Revolution?

One area of the financial markets most impacted by recent events in the Middle East and North Africa is the price of crude oil.  Since the majority of global crude reserves are concentrated in this part of the world, political unrest or disruption to production can often send prices soaring.

While the unrest was originally isolated to Tunisia and then Egypt (two countries with limited oil reserves), the resulting domino effect has inspired public uprisings in many other countries in the region, including Libya, which sits on the largest oil reserves in Africa.  As the citizens of these nations continue to take to the streets and topple the autocratic governments once in control, investors are bracing for a period of widespread political turmoil not seen for decades in this part of the world.

Brent crude oil now trades at approximately $114 per barrel, a rise of over 20% since the beginning of the year.  Some oil analysts speculate that crude oil could reach as high as $220 per barrel if conditions in Libya and Algeria continue to deteriorate.  If unrest spreads to Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producer in the world, prices could spike even higher.

When oil experiences major price shocks like we’re now seeing, the topic of America’s reliance on it as the lifeblood of our economy inevitably comes to the fore. Before the Great Recession hit in 2008, Brent crude oil had reached over $140 per barrel and there was a very public debate over how best to address this issue (remember “Drill Baby Drill” anyone?).  It was at this time that renewable energy was rapidly gaining traction as a necessary and economically viable alternative.

Once the recession took hold, however, oil prices collapsed.  And suddenly, the idea of weaning America off foreign oil and shifting our energy infrastructure towards cleaner alternatives was quickly relegated to the back burner, replaced by other issues deemed more pressing by our elected officials: unemployment, the real estate market implosion, bank scandals and universal healthcare.

Since falling below $40 per barrel in early 2009, Brent crude oil prices have steadily climbed in the past two years due to a weakening dollar and a pickup in global demand.  More recently, in response to the events in the Middle East, these gains have accelerated and its impact will hit US consumers where it hurts most: their wallets.  If this spike proves to be long-lasting rather than temporary, it will likely be an enormous drag on our economy, possibly crippling the fragile recovery underway.  According to an economist at Deutche Bank, a $10 increase in oil prices translates into roughly a 25 cent increase in retail gasoline prices. Every one penny increase in gasoline is then worth about $1 billion in household energy consumption.

If political instability continues in the Middle East and North Africa, higher oil prices will likely be with us for the foreseeable future.  And perhaps these higher oil prices is just what our elected officials in Washington need to move conservation and the reforming of our national energy policy back to the top of the agenda.

Image Credit: Vattenfall

This article originally appeared on Just Means.

Following the Herd: Should SRI Investors Join the Stampede into ETFs?

Following the Herd: Should SRI Investors Join the Stampede into ETFs?

The National Stock Exchange recently announced that assets invested in ETFs surpassed the $1 trillion mark for the first time in December 2010. This is more than triple the amount invested in 2005 ($311.3 billion). And while there were 221 ETFs available to investors in 2005, in December 2010 there were 1,099, a nearly five-fold increase.

While it’s clear both investors and the financial services industry are embracing ETFs as the investment vehicle du jour, the question is should socially responsible investors follow suit?

First, let’s start off with the basics. What is an ETF?

An Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) is an investment vehicle that holds a basket of securities (stocks, bonds, currencies, or commodities) and trades intraday on an exchange, much like a stock.

Unlike mutual funds, most ETFs are passively managed, meaning they track an index without a manager actively making investment decisions (essentially running on autopilot).

Much like the ETF industry as a whole, there has been an explosion of socially responsible ETFs that have come to market in recent years, many of which are invested exclusively in renewable energy companies.

So what are the benefits to ETF investing?

Low costs  Without a manager buying and selling, expense ratios for ETFs are often significantly lower than actively managed mutual funds.

Intraday trading  Unlike mutual funds, which only price once per day (and can only be bought or redeemed directly through the fund company), ETFs trade on an open exchange and can be bought and sold over the course of the trading day. There is also no minimum holding period, so an investor could buy and sell the same ETF several times over the course of a day (not recommended).

Tax efficient  Since there is little to no turnover in these portfolios, there are fewer realized capital gains that are passed on to the investor.

Targeted strategies  Some ETFs are set up to track a specific industry or group of companies.  For example, an SRI investor can now invest exclusively in solar or wind power companies through ETFs.

Does this mean SRI investors should be flocking to ETFs?  Not necessarily.

While there are many benefits to ETFs there are also several potential drawbacks:

Passive management While this helps to keep costs down, a lack of a portfolio manager can potentially hurt an investor, particularly if markets take a turn for the worse or an individual company becomes a bad investment.  With ETFs, so long as the company is part of the index, it remains in the portfolio.

Performance  An ETF will rarely outperform the index it’s tracking.  This is because the companies that administer ETFs charge a nominal fee.  Mutual funds may not always beat their benchmark index, but a talented manager often does, and sometimes by a large margin.

Increased risk  Since many SRI ETF strategies are concentrated in a specific sector or industry, the investor is exposed to greater risk, particularly if that sector or industry falls out of favor with investors.

Transaction costs  While ETFs don’t carry sales loads and generally offer lower expense ratios, they do come with transaction costs in the form trading commissions.  So an investor who frequently trades ETFs will have those additional fees to consider.

So what is an SRI investor to do?

While ETFs possess some great features and can make a nice addition to a socially responsible investment portfolio, it’s important to note they also come with risks that should be carefully considered.  As always, if you’re new to investing or are unsure how best to incorporate ETFs into your investment portfolio, contact a professional advisor to help you.

Image credit: Wegmann

This article originally appeared on Just Means.

Do Socially Responsible Mutual Funds Engage in Greenwashing?

Do Socially Responsible Mutual Funds Engage in Greenwashing?

Pop open the hood of a typical socially responsible mutual fund and it might surprise you what you find. Often SRI funds, particularly those that invest in the large cap equity space, will hold stock in companies or industries that some SRI investors may find questionable: Oil companies, Too-Big-To-Fail banks and Pharmaceutical companies are all often found amongst the top 25 holdings of many of these funds not exactly the cutting edge renewable energy and organic food producers an SRI investor may expect to find.

So why is this? And should these funds still be considered socially responsible?

Well, it depends on your point of view.

There are three main reasons why a socially responsible mutual fund would invest in these types of companies:

1. Screening practices. While most SRI mutual funds will immediately rule out certain industries like weapons manufacturers, tobacco companies and gambling, most other industries can be fair game, particularly if the company in question meets a fund’s positive screening criteria.  So while an SRI investor may not love the idea of owning stock in a multi-national pharmaceutical manufacturer, for example, if that company has adopted business practices that minimize environmental impact while protecting workers’ rights and human rights, it may pass the fund’s screening test.  That said, these terms can be relatively nebulous, so it is up to the fund manager to define what exactly constitutes a company with a strong environmental track record.  Since there isn’t necessarily a hard and fast metric for quantifying social responsibility, it’s important to note that standards can differ from fund to fund.

2. Best-in-class. One approach to socially responsible investing is to invest in those companies that are leaders in their particular industry when it comes to corporate social responsibility.  This strategy often targets industries that generally have poor reputations of engaging CSR issues.  The thinking here is, in a sense, to reward those companies that place a high value on CSR, with the idea that CSR will benefit the company in the long term and may help to influence wider industry practices.  So while an oil services company may not sound like an ideal candidate for an SRI portfolio, a best-in-class approach would consider that company if it had strong environmental protection measures in place or owned stakes in renewable energy businesses.  This approach affords an investor the opportunity to gain exposure to an industry that may normally be excluded by other SRI funds.  This strategy can backfire spectacularly, for instance with BP.  Before the Deep Horizon disaster last spring, BP had been viewed as one of the few environmentally-friendly oil services companies (whether or not this view was warranted is another issue entirely).   It had been a top choice for best-in-class SRI managers due to its perceived leadership on CSR issues (changing their name from British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum certainly didn’t hurt that image).  After the devastation to the Gulf of Mexico, and BP’s subsequent mishandling of the clean-up effort, BP’s CSR image was irreparably damaged.  Best-in-class SRI fund managers began dumping the stock and were forced to defend why it was in their portfolio to begin with.

3. Activist investing. The third reason why an SRI mutual fund would take a position in a company with questionable CSR pedigree is to change the company’s business practices from the inside. By taking a large stake in a company, the activist SRI manager can gain board seats or file shareholder resolutions in order to push the company towards reforming their business practices.  While the end result can be effective, delivering immediate reforms is often unrealistic since there is generally a long lead time required for an activist investor to change how a company does business.  Often times, fund shareholders can be left scratching their heads when they see the holdings found in an activist investor’s portfolio, so it is important for the shareholder to know why the manager is holding the company and to see what kind of resolutions they have filed on the shareholder’s behalf.

While the above approaches may explain why an SRI mutual fund would hold stock in certain questionable companies or industries, there can still be instances of greenwashing.  So what you do as an investor to protect yourself?

1. Read the prospectus see what kinds of companies the fund holds.  Make sure you understand their screening process and the criteria they use when selecting an investment.

2. Contact the fund company  if you see an investment in a company engaged in a business that doesn’t meet your social responsibility standards, reach out to the fund company and request an explanation as to why it is being held in the portfolio.

3. Track shareholder resolutions follow-up with the fund and make sure they are filing resolutions if they say they are.

Like any product that is being marketed to the green scene, there will always be those companies looking to cash in on a trend. It’s up to the investor (and, if the case may be, their trusted adviser) to do his or her own due diligence and not take fund at its word when it uses socially responsible in the fund’s name.

Image Credit: Wikimedia
This article originally appeared on Just Means.
AFL-CIO Invests $274 Million into LEED-Certified Construction Projects

AFL-CIO Invests $274 Million into LEED-Certified Construction Projects

AFL-CIO, the largest federation of unions in the United States, announced the creation of 1,653 LEED-certified housing units and approximately 4,100 union construction jobs through investments by their Housing Investment Trust (HIT), a fixed-income investment company registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

To date, HIT has committed $274 million to eleven LEED-certified construction projects in Minnesota, California, New York and Massachusetts. These projects include: a 94-unit multifamily complex in San Francisco, a pediatric center in Yonkers, redevelopment of a 92-unit affordable housing complex in Boston and a 337-unit mixed-use community in St. Louis Park (just outside Minneapolis).  The sum total of capital invested into these projects is estimated at $660 million.

“The HIT is proud of its long history of socially responsible investing,” said HIT Executive Vice President and Chief Investment Officer Stephanie Wiggins, in a prepared statement. “Investing in LEED-certified projects that help conserve natural resources while providing healthier places to live and work is just one more way the HIT is making a positive difference in the lives of working people and their communities.”

LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) is a certification system created by the United States Green Building Council with the purpose of providing third-party verification that a building project meets the highest standards in sustainable green building and performance measures. The USGBC considers the following criteria when determining whether or not a project meets LEED certification standards: energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts.  In addition to certifying construction projects, the USGBC offers a LEED professional credential, which has certified over 157,000 building professionals since its inception in 1998.

According to the AFL-CIO website, HIT, first registered as a housing investment trust with the SEC in 1981, manages nearly $4 billion dollars in assets for approximately 350 institutional investors, which include union and major public employee pension plans.  Investing almost exclusively in high credit quality multi-family and single family mortgage back securities and other mortgage-backed instruments, HIT targets socially responsible construction projects with a mandate of expanding the supply of affordable housing, creating family-supporting union jobs, opening doors to home ownership for working families and revitalizing communities where union members live and work.

In addition to funding LEED-certified projects, HIT also launched a Construction Jobs Initiative in 2009 (in response to the significant drop-off in construction work as a result of the Great Recession with the goal of creating 10,000 union construction jobs by the Spring of 2011.  In the summer of 2010, HIT released a report documenting the progress of this initiative: 9,000 union construction jobs created through $695 million in direct investment.

 

Image Credit: Matthew Bisanz

This article originally appeared on Just Means.