Category: Energy

Review of 2017 Themes: The Doldrums

Review of 2017 Themes: The Doldrums

2017 was an uneven year for our market predictions. We were right on five calls, half right on one call and wrong on four calls. Continued bullishness and investor support for the Trump administration (despite abysmal poll numbers) torpedoed three of our calls.

  1. ? Fed stays the course: We expect the Federal Reserve will continue to raise rates as stated. We expect the Fed-Funds rate to rise above 1.5% over the course of 2017. The Fed started 2017 with a target interest rate of 0.50%-0.75% and finished the year with a target rate of 1.25%-1.50%. While the Fed raised rates, they met but did not exceed 1.50%, so we’re giving ourselves half a point on this one.
  2. × Equities Caution: We continue to advocate for a cautious allocation to stocks and expect to see negative returns for US equities this year. We were dead wrong on this call as US equities continued their bull market run through year eight.
  3. ? Artificial Intelligence: We expect performance for companies providing intelligence features in devices to outpace the consumer durables index over the next three years, we will evaluate ourselves annually on this call. Artificial Intelligence-related companies had a very strong 2017 as the Global Robotics and Artificial Intelligence Index was up 57.62%. Comparatively, the S&P 600 Consumer Discretionary Index was up 17.13%.
  4. ? Continental shifts: Over the next several years, we expect Indian markets to outperform those in China and the developed world. We were right on year one of this call. The S&P BMI India Index was up 29.56% in 2017. This compares to 26.67% return for the S&P Greater China Index and 21.83% return for the S&P 500 Index.
  5. × European upheavals: We believe European stocks to be more attractively priced than US equities…we expect European stocks to outperform US equities. While European stocks performed in-line with our expectations — S&P 350 Europe Index was up 10.75% on the year — the unexpectedly strong performance of US stocks (21.83% return for the S&P 500 Index) easily outperformed this total.
  6. × Dollar strength continues: We expect the dollar to remain strong against major currencies worldwide. Despite rising interest rates, the USD weakened against a basket of international currencies in 2017.
  7. ? Drones are going to be delivering much more than bombs: We expect companies building these technologies to outperform the freight and shipping transportation companies. While we view this as a long term trend, 2017 saw drone-related companies outperform. The Solactive Robotics and Drones Index was up 38.7% while the S&P 500 Transportation Index was up 23.52%.
  8. ? Renewable Utilities: Though the incoming administration is not supportive of renewables, we think renewable utility companies or YieldCos will outperform conventional, fossil-fuel based utility stocks. YieldCos saw a strong rebound in 2017 and handily outperformed traditional utilities. The Global YieldCo Index saw returns of 22.87% while the S&P 1500 Utilities Index returned 12.16%.
  9. ? Retail Real-Estate: We expect real estate companies that own large portfolios of malls and brick and mortar stores to underperform other real estate investments. This prediction came to fruition as brick and mortar stores, and particularly malls, continued to see a decline in foot traffic and a loss of market share to online shopping in 2017. The FTSE NAREIT Regional Malls Index was -2.68% and the FTSE NAREIT Shopping Centers Index was -11.37%. Meanwhile, the FTSE NAREIT Composite was up 9.29%.
  10. × Optimism about Trump presidency short-lived: We expect any investor-optimism surrounding the Trump presidency to evaporate rather quickly in 2017 as markets find he is unable to follow through on his lofty campaign promises. As we expected, President Trump has been unable to follow through on his campaign promises, and his approval ratings are among the lowest ever recorded for a first year presidency. However, a strong economy, robust corporate profits and the prospect of a tax cut allowed investors to shrug off his policy failures, chaotic management style and a criminal investigation to send equity markets to all-time highs.
2017 Q2 letter: A threat to human civilization

2017 Q2 letter: A threat to human civilization

Dear Friends,

The 2nd quarter saw the Fed continue its strategy of withdrawing stimulus from the US economy. Since December 2016, the Fed has raised rates three times, bringing the target rate up to 1.25%. Their most recent statements suggest the target rate will continue to rise if unemployment and inflation stay relatively stable. There have been several statements this month from Fed governors indicating the central bank plans to begin selling or rolling off the 3.6 Trillion dollars in bonds it has acquired since the financial crisis of 2008/2009. The Fed’s decision to increase its bond holdings by 400% during the financial crisis was an unprecedented action, and the reduction to more normal levels has been expected for some time.

The net effect of these moves for investors will be a rise in interest rates, a reduction in liquidity, and a less attractive environment for risky assets. Bond investors should see rates continue to rise towards more normal levels, a relief since bond yields have been historically low for the past several years. The sale of the Fed’s bond portfolio will also reduce the amount of money in circulation (the money supply) as private investors purchase the assets the Fed sells. This is expected to put further pressure on stock prices and riskier assets as funds are directed into these purchases.

Over the past few days, we have also seen the risk of political instability in the US rise to remarkable levels. It seems increasingly likely that the various investigations underway may lead to very senior members of the Trump administration and campaign facing a variety of charges.

From a valuation perspective, stock prices continue to look overvalued. Remarkably, the top five components of the S&P 500 (Apple, Alphabet/Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon) are all technology companies. What’s even more surprising is that with the exception of Apple, they are all trading at prices over 30 times earnings. Much of that gain has been recent, four of the  five have seen gains of over 20% in the past six months (the exception is Microsoft). Taken together, these five companies represent almost 12.5% of the index.

Overall market valuations are extraordinarily high, with the current P/E ratio for the S&P500 over 25. A longer term measure, which looks back at ten years of earnings (Cyclically Adusted or Shiller P/E) is illustrated in the chart below, alongside interest rates. Cyclically Adjusted P/E is at levels that have only been exceeded twice; before the tech-wreck of 2000 and Black Tuesday in 1929. This is partly because interest rates remain at historic lows. As discussed above, that is changing.

As a result of these factors, we continue to maintain a defensive posture and recommend clients an underweight allocation to high-risk assets.

Data source: Robert Shiller – Yale University

We would like to use the rest of our quarterly letter to discuss a longer-term risk, one that impacts not just the markets, but all of human civilization.

For several decades now, scientists focused on studying global warming and climate change have shared their increasingly dire findings about the impact of human activity on the Earth’s biosphere. It is now abundantly clear to all, except the intentionally obtuse and dishonest among us, that human activity has impacted the Earth’s climate in a significant way. Our species’ use of fossil fuels has released an extraordinary amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, raising the average temperature across the world by 0.2° Celsius (0.36° Fahrenheit) each decade.

Economists have long understood that markets can mis-price public goods or services that have concentrated benefits for a few while costs are diluted among many. Within the economic literature, this is called the “tragedy of the commons”. The classic example is shepherds grazing their flocks in a meadow that is commonly owned. In standard political and economic theory, the government is meant to intervene to enforce a solution that furthers the general good and recognizes and allocates the true costs of such activity.

At this point, we should admit that US political institutions have failed to deliver on addressing climate change. The vast majority (85%) of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere have been generated since World War II. Over that period, the United States has been, by far, the largest greenhouse gas emitter. So, much of the responsibility for climate change lies with us. Yet, we have been for decades, and still remain, the chief impediment to decisive action on climate change. The Trump administration has made a very bad situation even more dire by announcing a withdrawal from the Paris agreement.

Nature, of course, couldn’t be less concerned about human politics. The content of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane has continued to rise, driving surface temperatures higher. This has manifested itself in a variety of ways. Glaciers have retreated across the world. The five hottest years in recorded history occurred within this decade, and 2016 set a new record. Coral reefs across the world are bleaching as water temperatures rise, stressing the marine eco-system. Hotter summers are impacting humans as well, with extreme temperatures rising causing heat-strokes, dehydration and deaths.

Most climate change models have assumed a 0.2°C increase per year in surface temperatures will leave the Earth’s with an average temperature 2°C (3.6°F) higher by 2100. Those assumptions now look woefully inadequate. Since we have not measurably reduced our greenhouse gas emissions, and the Paris agreements seem to have collapsed, 2°C degrees is an underestimate and the case for a 3-4°C rise becomes stronger.

As climate change and research into it has advanced, the risks of a runaway feedback loop have become clearer as well. Permanently frozen ground in the arctic regions of Asia and North America traps a large amount of methane. As the ground gets warmer, this methane leaches into the atmosphere. As temperatures rise and water becomes scarce, plant life across the world will be stressed. The risk and incidence of forest fires increases, and the loss of trees leaves more CO2 in the atmosphere. If rising temperatures, fire and drought impact major CO2 sinks like the Amazon forest, temperatures will rise even faster.

There is a reasonable likelihood that temperatures will have risen by 4-6°C (7-10°F) by 2100. 90°F days will be 100°F days. 100°F days will be 110°F days. Phoenix saw temperatures rise above 118°F last month, grounding flights. What happens when temperatures approach 128°F? If such an extreme rise in temperatures were to occur, the world is looking at a series of major catastrophies that could largely destroy human civilization.

Drought and heat would cause widespread human suffering and deaths. Food stocks would be harder to grow with much of the world’s breadbasket regions in China, India, Central Asia and North America undergoing desertification. Much of the southwestern United States could become an uninhabitable desert. Tens of millions of people would need to be resettled. This pattern would be replicated across the world. A NASA study indicates the Middle East is suffering through a 20 year drought that is more severe than any in the past 900 years. There are indications that crop failure and rising food prices have contributed to societal upheaval in the region. The Mediterranean as a whole is susceptible to drought and desertification.

The impact on agriculture worldwide would be many times more severe than seen during the dust-bowl. Marine life and fisheries would be devastated as ocean temperatures rise. And yes, sea-levels could rise 10 feet or more, making most coastal cities uninhabitable without civil works on a scale we have never seen before. Much of New York, London, Mumbai, Shanghai, Sydney, Rio De Janeiro, Singapore, Dubai, Miami, almost all of Bangladesh, and many island nations, would be lost.

It is virtually certain that such extreme conditions will lead to widespread forced migrations and fuel conflict between nations and individuals. This is one of the reasons the US Department of Defense treats climate change as the largest strategic threat to the country. Governments and political structures will undergo immense stress and opportunistic charlatans could come to power across the world.

All of this would significantly impact incomes, growth rates, earnings and most importantly health and well-being. We do not intentionally seek to be alarmist. However, the data and projections we have seen demand urgent responses and are alarming. There is a grave likelihood that we leave our children with a world in crisis. Without urgent, concerted action, large portions of our planet will become inhospitable to human inhabitation within our children’s lifetime.

Clearly, these events will impact investors and markets in profound ways. As we engage in long-term, inter-generational planning for clients, we want our clients to know that we take these risks very seriously and will continue to keep these considerations in mind.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Subir Grewal, CFA, CFP                                                                                              Louis Berger

2017 Q1 letter: Renewable energy in the Trump era

2017 Q1 letter: Renewable energy in the Trump era

Dear Friends,

The first quarter of 2017 was full of eventful news for markets. We saw a Fed rate hike, record low unemployment rates, all time highs for US equity markets and a new administration sworn in, with Republicans now in full control of Congress. In our view, this likely marks an inflection point for the current business cycle and market levels.

Since the election, we have received several queries from our socially responsible investors about the fate of environmental and climate change regulation under the Trump administration. We understand and share many of their concerns. We hasten to add, however, that infrastructure spending and projects are usually undertaken with long time frames in mind. Enterprises making decisions about what kind of power plants to build will consider the costs over a long term. They are well aware that the current administration and its policies are not set in stone.

We do not expect a raft of coal plants to be built over the next four years — in fact, 2017 has seen an acceleration of the closure of several legacy coal plants. Large plants typically take 3-5 years to build and operators have to factor in the possibility that they will face a changed regulatory environment just as the plants come online. Natural gas prices are likely to play a much larger role in determining what resource mix generates our electricity. The cost of utility scale renewable solar power continues to fall, and though it is not yet competitive with cheap gas, it is not far off either. The IEA estimated the average capital costs of photovoltaic solar plants under construction to be 35-45% higher than natural gas plants per unit of energy produced. An array of tax credits make solar competitive with gas. though the precise economics are driven by regional factors and weather. Wind and hydroelectric power are already competitive with natural gas.

At the risk of appearing sanguine, we think that technological advances, consumer preferences, and the economics of scale have brought us to the point where renewable energy will be competitive with conventional electricity generation going forward. Installed renewable capacity will continue to increase, with or without incentives. If fuel costs move higher, renewables will be become very attractive.

In our view, purchasing certain sectors based on the administration’s stated policy preferences is unlikely to lead to consistent gains. Our reasoning is based on the Trump administration’s penchant for changing direction at the drop of a hat, and secondly on the opposition to various aspects of their policy agenda from either side of the aisle in Congress. In the medium and long-term, valuations and the business cycle will determine investor success. Neither looks particularly fortuitous at the moment for risk assets (equities, or long-term/lower-quality bonds). We continue to recommend a defensive shift for clients based on these factors.

Regards,

Subir Grewal, CFA, CFP Louis Berger

What should investors expect if Trump wins?

What should investors expect if Trump wins?

First, we think a Trump victory is quite unlikely. That said, the probability is not zero, it’s likely to be around 15-25%. We routinely analyze even less likely events and their impact on markets, so we have considered the reaction of markets if Mr. Trump were to win the general election.

There will be almost no place to hide from the initial volatility after an unexpected Trump victory. We expect significant turmoil in the financial markets and we believe that in the short-term (days/weeks) there will be few safe havens. Mr. Trump’s economic policies are so unconventional, and his temperament so mercurial, that we expect almost all sectors and asset classes to be somewhat affected by negative uncertainty. Precious metals may be the only asset that benefits from a flight to safety.

Bonds have traditionally served as a safe haven in times of turmoil. We believe bond investors should not remain sanguine if Mr. Trump does win the presidency. As a leveraged developer, Mr. Trump has had a colorful and combative history with lenders. His natural bluster has been intermittently aimed at bond markets during this campaign and the prospect of a Trump administration in control of the US Treasury is bound to spook bond investors. He has suggested he would unilaterally default on US sovereign debt (arguably not a novel position since the Republican congress toyed with a similar position in 2011) and seek to renegotiate principal amounts.

Mr. Trump has made combative comments about the Federal Reserve and its current policies. He has also expressed dissatisfaction with the current low interest rate regime. Taken together, these sharp, unusual policy views create immense uncertainty about how Mr. Trump would manage the credit and repayment of US debt, the government’s relationship with the Fed, and other issues of concern to the broader credit markets. We expect FX markets to exhibit a flight to perceived safety which historically has benefited the Swiss Franc and Japanese Yen. Uncertainty about bonds and rates will also hit real assets heavily dependent on credit markets. We do not expect real-estate to do well.

When it comes to stocks, we expect broad declines in the short term, but some sectors will be harder hit than others. The banking and financial sector is likely to see a steep decline in market sentiment and levels. Mr. Trump has made several negative statements about banks and their business models. Banks are also naturally leveraged and very sensitive to market sentiment. None of this augurs well for the banking or financial sectors.

Given Mr. Trump’s combative stance on trade and trade agreements, we would expect sectors dependent on imports/exports in their global supply chain to be battered. This includes consumer discretionary, technology, heavy industry, materials, and depending on precise global footprint, energy companies. In contrast, consumer staples should play their standard defensive role.

The immediate sentiment towards the defense industry is somewhat more uncertain. Mr. Trump has, at times, advocated a combative posture on national security and war matters. In almost direct contradiction, he has also proclaimed he would reduce the defense budget and the number of military bases overseas in line with his “America First” pledge. Defense contractors dependent on Pentagon contracts for services to troops overseas are likely to see sentiment and stock prices decline. Large defense manufacturers should decline as well since Mr. Trump has expressed skepticism about some expensive weapons programs (the F-35 in particular). The foreign policy and defense team Mr. Trump puts in place will determine how this plays out in the longer-term.

Beyond the initial few weeks and months, we expect much will depend on the composition of Mr. Trump’s administration and his demeanor during the transition. A prospective Trump administration caught up in balancing spending, debt, legislative priorities and political considerations would normally be constrained. However, Mr. Trump is likely to have a compliant Congress, with Republican legislative majorities and both Senators and Representatives eager to please the new force in American politics. It is impossible to make longer-range forecasts of what a Trump administration’s policies would look like, simply because we do not know his true priorities. We would advise investors to be extremely cautious about bargain-shopping in the immediate aftermath of a Trump victory.

Mr. Trump is unlikely to win the election, but in the event he did, we believe markets will react very poorly, at least initially. He is in many ways, the opposite of a traditional conservative politician, disdaining societal norms and conventional politics. Mr. Trump’s election would engender policy uncertainty on a scale not seen for decades, upending long-range business plans and reducing risk-appetites across the board. We would advise investors to exercise caution in the event Mr. Trump wins.

2016 Q1 letter: Negative interest rates cap a rocky quarter

2016 Q1 letter: Negative interest rates cap a rocky quarter

Friends,

The first quarter of 2016 saw market gyrations far rockier than many prognosticators had expected. A sharp drop in commodities prices and oil in particular sparked fears of a global slow-down and impacted all asset classes. Increased oil production in North America and the prospect of renewed imports from Iran led to expectations of a supply glut. Slowing economies in China, Brazil and Russia along with concern about potential slumps in the EU and US drove demand expectations down. Together, they combined to drive oil below $30 a barrel, causing great distress among the highest cost operators. Producers relying on deep sea projects (Brazil) and hydraulic fracturing (or fracking, in North America) have been among the most severely affected. Many small to mid-sized servicers and production companies are facing possible bankruptcy and have been liquidating assets. This has impacted the high-yield bond market (where many of these companies raised capital) and led to job losses in states where fracking had created small oil booms.

The commodity decline also caused steep retrenchment in various equity markets and drove the Federal Reserve to signal a pause in its plan to raise interest rates to 1% this year. The S&P 500 dropped as much 13% during the quarter and the MSCI Global stock index fell 11%. The S&P 500 has since recovered for the year, along with oil prices. In our view, the concerns that drove the asset market declines have not abated. Global growth continues to be weak and numerous markets are showing the signs of a waning seven year bull market. We would continue to urge caution when investing in risk assets across most markets.

Policy makers in several countries seem to have reached the end of their imagination when it comes to additional market stimulus. About 25% of the global economy now has negative interest rates. That includes the Euro-zone, Japan, Switzerland and Sweden. Banks are now being charged to maintain balances at the central bank. In a number of cases, banks have begun to pass these negative rates on to customers. This is bound to create great consternation. Depositors are not accustomed to being charged interest to maintain deposits. They may be used to seeing fees deducted from checking accounts, but most will be shocked to see savings accounts charged interest. In an environment where banks are already suspect in the eyes of many, this will lead to even more discontent.

From anecdotal evidence, customers have already begun to protest negative rates. We believe there is little sense in keeping rates negative for extended periods of time. In theory, it sounds reasonable to say there should be no zero-bound for rates. But humans are not theoretical creatures. We find being charged to keep our money in a bank rather strange, and customers will develop all sorts of behaviors to avoid this. These include keeping large sums of cash at home and purchasing safe haven non-financial assets (real-estate, precious metals etc.). Such behavior undermines the stated aims of negative rates, i.e. increasing the level of bank lending. The longer we maintain negative rates, the more distortions we introduce into the savings/money markets. In our view, this is not a policy that regulators should maintain for any period of time. It would be far more effective to apply fiscal stimulus in the form of government spending.

While markets have seemingly stabilized after a very volatile start to the year, we expect 2016 will see continued ups and downs with high risk assets remaining vulnerable to a price correction. We think this will present buying opportunities and we will continue to look for good entry points to buy equities we see as undervalued. We expect the market for bonds to remain very challenging for investors since rates are extremely low and corporate credit is deteriorating alongside the dip in global growth.

Regards,

Subir Grewal                                                                                                 Louis Berger

2015 year-end review of themes

2015 year-end review of themes

 

 

Overall, we did well on our call for 2015. We were right on six, half right on three others and had one wrong. In general, the year lived up to our expectations of a low return environment with the anticipated Fed rate hike being the biggest influence.

 

  1. If not now, when? If not the Fed, who?: We expect the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates in 2015. We expect rates to gradually rise to a 1.0%–1.5% target, which would still be historically low. We were right on this call, but the Fed chose to wait till December to raise rates to 0.50%.Though the Fed has signaled rates will be raised to 1.25-1.50%, we are calling this one half-right.

 

  1. No one rings a bell at the top of the market: […] we expect major US indexes (S&P 500, Dow Jones, Nasdaq) to finish the year in negative territory. We were mostly right here, two out of the three indices ended down. The S&P500 ended 2014 at 2,059 and 2015 at 2,044; the Dow Jones dropped from 17,823 to 17,425; but the Nasdaq rose from 4,736 to 5,007.

 

  1. Emerging troubles: Emerging economies will continue to stumble in 2015, this includes resource dependent countries such as Russia and Brazil which have run into roadblocks as energy prices have fallen dramatically. […] We expect emerging market stocks and bonds to underperform developed markets this year. The MSCI Emerging Markets Index ended the year down 17%. The Chinese markets ended the year down over 10%, Brazil was down almost 16%, Russia down over 6%, and India down over 2%.

 

  1. Commodities weighed down: […] We see commodities finishing the year flat to negative. The Goldman-Sachs Commodities Index ended 2015 down over 30%.

 

  1. +  The trouble with oil: We do not expect oil prices to substantially recover in 2015. […] We expect brent crude prices to remain under $60 by year’s end. Brent crude started the year around $57 and ended 2015 around $37.

 

  1. Playing defense: For US equities, we believe defensive sectors, including healthcare and utilities will outperform others over the course of 2015. In any sort of correction, we expect enterprises providing essential goods and services to maintain profitability and revenues. Over-levered companies that have benefitted from speculative euphoria in recent years are particularly vulnerable to sell-offs in our view. We were half right on this call as healthcare outperformed the S&P 500 Index in 2015 (S&P Healthcare Index +5.8%) while utilities lagged (S&P Utilities Index -7.9%).

 

  1. + Euro Crisis, back to the future: […] Depending on outcomes, another round of brinksmanship will likely begin between Greek politicians, the markets and EU officials. Over the past few years, attitudes have hardened and we believe there is a real chance that Greece may be forced to, or choose to leave the Euro. Over the course of the year, we saw another round of concerns about Greece that led to weeks of tense negotiation. The Euro ended the year down about 10% against USD (from 1.20 to 1.07) partly s a result of continued concern about the longer-term prospects for the Euro-zone. Though economic issues have faded from view as a continuing refugee crisis absorbs headlines, we do not believe the Euro-zones strategic challenges have been dealt with.

 

  1. + Junk bonds get kicked to the curb. […] With rates rebounding (even marginally), we believe investors will find the reward that comes with high yield bonds no longer worth the risk.  We were correct on this call as high yield bonds suffered their first down year since 2008.  The Barclays High Yield Bond Index was -6.77% for 2015.

 

  1. × Growth in Renewables: […] With oil prices falling again, we’ve seen many renewable stocks follow suit, as sort of a knee jerk reaction by investors. We think this provides a tremendous buying opportunity, particularly in the YieldCo space where, like utilities, companies own a portfolio of newly constructed power projects with long term power purchasing agreements in place.  We believe we’re a bit early on this call, but for year-end list-scoring purposes we were wrong.  Renewable energy stocks had a negative return for 2015 impacted by falling prices for conventional energy. Renewables did however, outperform traditional fossil fuel energy stocks.  The Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy Index was -6.21% while the S&P 500 Energy Index finished -21.12%.

 

  1. The Russian question: […] We are bearish on Russia and expect the Russian market to underperform in 2015. The Russian market ended the year down 6%.

 

2015 Investment Themes: The bells that toll

2015 Investment Themes: The bells that toll

 

  1. If not now, when? If not the Fed, who?: We expect the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates in 2015. We expect rates to gradually rise to a 1.0%–1.5% target, which would still be historically low. Short term rates after the tech wreck and 9/11 were kept below 2.0% for 3 years. For one of those years, rates were at 1.0%. Since the financial crisis of 2007/2008, rates have been kept below 0.25% for over 6 years. Both the level of the rates and the duration of the rate cut is extraordinary.

 

  1. No one rings a bell at the top of the market: US stock markets ended the year at almost three times the lows reached at the bottom of the market less than six years ago. We expected sharp corrections last year that failed to materialize. We are renewing our call this year and urge equities investors to exercise caution. And while we recognize the US stock economy looks healthier than those overseas, we expect major US indexes (S&P 500, Dow Jones, Nasdaq) to finish the year in negative territory.

 

  1. Emerging troubles: Emerging economies will continue to stumble in 2015, this includes resource dependent countries such as Russia and Brazil which have run into roadblocks as energy prices have fallen dramatically. The challenges are different, but as impactful for economies with internal imbalances created by over-investment in infrastructure such as China, and those facing enormous upheaval and political instability like Turkey. In the Chinese case, we are particularly concerned about the state of local and provisional government finances. We expect emerging market stocks and bonds to underperform developed markets this year.

 

  1. Commodities weighed down: With a slow-down in emerging markets and the global economy in general, we expect commodity prices to continue to come under pressure. While prices in certain commodities may stabilize, we do not expect a bounce back to levels seen in recent years.  We see commodities finishing the year flat to negative.

 

  1. The trouble with oil: We do not expect oil prices to substantially recover in 2015. It is clear that major OPEC participants in the middle-east are keen to minimize the profitability of oil as a source of funding for rebel groups in the region. They are also responding to medium-term strategic threats from unconventional oil producers (shale, deep sea, and tar sands) by forcing prices to levels that makes investment in such projects unprofitable. Continued unrest in major oil producing regions (Middle East, Russia, Venezuela) does not seem to have impacted supply or prices. We expect brent crude prices to remain under $60 by year’s end.

 

  1. Playing defense: For US equities, we believe defensive sectors, including healthcare and utilities will outperform others over the course of 2015. In any sort of correction, we expect enterprises providing essential goods and services to maintain profitability and revenues. Over-levered companies that have benefitted from speculative euphoria in recent years are particularly vulnerable to sell-offs in our view.

 

  1. Euro Crisis, back to the future: The Euro and Greek debt crises have faded from world news headlines over the past three years. A series of loans by the EU and IMF have succeeded in bringing down interest rates on Greek debt. In the past two months, however, a confluence of factors have roiled European markets. An impending election and veiled threats to renege on prior commitments by the party leading in Greek polls (Foriza) weigh heavily. We also expect court rulings on whether the European Central Bank can follow in the Fed’s footsteps with quantitative easing . Depending on outcomes, another round of brinksmanship will likely begin between Greek politicians, the markets and EU officials. Over the past few years, attitudes have hardened and we believe there is a real chance that Greece may be forced to, or choose to leave the Euro.

 

  1. Junk bonds get kicked to the curb. If, as we expect, interest rates rise over 2015, the long winning streak of high yield bonds will likely come to an end.  Junk bonds have benefitted from the Fed’s zero interest rate policy as savers have been forced to invest in increasingly lower quality bonds in order to find yield.  With rates rebounding (even marginally), we believe investors will find the reward that comes with high yield bonds no longer worth the risk.

 

  1. Growth in Renewables: 2008 saw high flying clean energy stocks taken to the wood shed when oil prices collapsed.  The thinking then was that renewables were not viable in a world flush with cheap energy.  While that thesis made sense seven years ago, the renewable industry has grown in leaps and bounds since.  Utility scale solar and wind projects have proven to be viable sources of energy as costs have come down and demand for renewable power has increased globally.  With oil prices falling again, we’ve seen many renewable stocks follow suit, as sort of a knee jerk reaction by investors.  We think this provides a tremendous buying opportunity, particularly in the YieldCo space where, like utilities, companies own a portfolio of newly constructed power projects with long term power purchasing agreements in place.

 

  1. The Russian question: 2014 has been a disorienting year for Russia. Ukraine, a neighboring state with long historical ties to Russia saw enormous unrest leading to a revolutionary change in government and the potential breakup of the country into Eastern and Western factions. Russian forces occupied and appear to have annexed the region of Crimea. Meanwhile, declining oil prices have placed substantial pressure on Russian public finances and may begin to erode support for Mr. Putin among both the grassroots and his oligarchic supporters. It is difficult to see non-traumatic paths out of the morass. Under Putin’s leadership, Russia’s structural problems (declining population, aging industrial base, and undiversified economy) have become worse. We are bearish on Russia and expect the Russian market to underperform in 2015.
2014 Themes: Year-End Review

2014 Themes: Year-End Review

2014 Themes: Year-End Review

 

  1. × The bond decline continues: …The 20 year treasury began 2013 at 2.63% and ended the year at 3.70%. We wouldn’t be surprised to see it exceed 4.50% by the end of 2014….  We were flat out wrong on this prediction. Increasing uncertainty overseas drove demand for treasuries that was not countered even by the unwinding of the Fed’s bond buying program. 20 year treasuries ended 2014 at 2.49%, while the 30 year was at 2.76%.

 

  1. × Equities: Last Call at the QE punchbowl …These will put a lot of pressure on stock prices. With multiples at cyclical highs, conditions are ripe for a significant correction, especially in US markets. We advise investors to avoid complacency and prepare for a potential 20%+ correction in 2014.  We were wrong on this prediction as well. The S&P 500 ended the year up almost 13% and earnings were at an all-time high for the index.

 

  1. ? Bitcoins backlash: …Despite the concerted efforts of many conspiracy theorists, we do not see a major reckoning for fiat currencies in the offing and therefore continue to caution against allocations to alternative or commodity based currencies. We were right on this call. Bitcoin prices fell from over 750 at the beginning of 2014 to start 2015 under 300.

 

  1. ? Social Media Mania: …We are long-term believers in the transformative potential of technology, but do not believe current valuations are anywhere near reasonable. Investors will have to be a lot more selective in 2014 if they are to avoid the kind of fall we saw in the early 2000s. We expect to see several of these high-flying tech IPO darlings come back to earth this year. A number of 2012 and 2013’s high-flying social media IPOs saw prices collapse, this included companies like Twitter, Yelp, Zynga, Groupon. Others like Facebook and LinkedIn retained or regained their heights.

 

  1. ? Go Global or Go Home: …We believe media companies with strong properties are on the cusp of another period of growth in market-share. At reasonable valuations, they represent an attractive long-term investment. At the same time, we believe strong regional, cultural media properties will also find traction in their home markets and any areas with affinity. This is more of a long-term prediction and we expect to evaluate it over time.

 

  1. ? Commodities Wane: Commodities, for the most part, have been in a relatively flat holding pattern since the 2008 bubble. We expect commodity prices to remain weak or stagnant throughout 2014. We do not anticipate large rises in economic activity in the offing, which means commodity prices will remain depressed.  We do not expect gold or other precious metals to recover and anticipate further declines. We were right on this call, almost spectacularly so on oil, which fell almost 50% to under $60 a barrel. Gold was largely flat. The S&P/Goldman Sachs Commodity Index lost 35% over the course of the year.

 

  1. × Wages and Profit: The past few years have seen corporate earnings rise while average wage income has stagnated along with labor costs as a portion of GDP. We expect 2014 to reverse some of this trend as a declining unemployment rate and an evolving political climate make for higher wages and a higher minimum wage floor. We believe this will put pressure on industries and companies that rely on a large, low-paid work-force. After-tax corporate profits as a percentage of GDP rose to over 10% during 2014. This is higher than at all previous periods in US history. The last period that came close was 1929, the eve of the Great Depression when they reached 9.1%. Pre-tax corporate profits hit 12.5%, tying the prior high set in 1942 when companies benefited from increased demand for industrial goods as the US entered World War II.

 

  1. ? Health-Care Strengthens: Gains in the Health-Care Index have outpaced that in the broader markets by about 10% in 2013. 2014 is the first year the impact of the Affordable Care Act will be felt in revenues of insurers and health-care providers. We expect health-care revenues will rise and the sector will continue to outperform the broader market this year as well.  The S&P healthcare service index rose over 24% during 2014. The healthcare equipment index rose over 18%. Both handily exceeded the overall S&P gain.

 

  1. ? Atlantic tug of war: The Euro has appreciated against the Dollar over the course of 2013, as the European fiscal crisis has been pushed off center stage. We believe the Fed’s tapering will reverse this move and we will begin to see the dollar appreciate as rates rise in the US. We were right on Euro valuation, the Euro fell over 12% during 2014 to end the year under 1.20.

 

  1. ? Water Works: We have been concerned about water-related infrastructure for a number of years. Most population growth is occurring in regions with limited access to large quantities of fresh water and this problem is more acute than any issues with power generation. We believe consumers and regional planners have begun to appreciate this as well and we will see a rise in investments directed towards water infrastructure. Major engineering companies and water utilities should benefit, as will firms with consumer products that improve efficiency.   While we view this as a long term investment trend, 2014 saw US water-related stocks substantially outperform the S&P 500 index.  The Dow Jones US Water Index was up 24.67% for the year.
Understanding the Risks of Crowdsourced Clean Energy Investing

Understanding the Risks of Crowdsourced Clean Energy Investing

Below is an article written by Louis about the recent trend in clean energy crowdfunding.  It was first published by Green Tech Media and the original article can be found here.

 

For clean energy investors, Title III of the JOBS Act could change the game.

Prior to its implementation, investing in clean energy startups or small-scale utility projects has been a pursuit reserved mainly for venture capital and private equity firms investing on behalf of their institutional and high-net-worth clients. The barrier to entry into these funds is high, with six- to seven-figure minimum buy-ins typically the norm. But in a post-JOBS Act America, we’re entering a crowdfunding-inspired era where barriers to entry are crumbling.

Take Mosaic, for example, where an investor with as little as $25 and an internet connection can fund a portion of a solar project via an online investment platform.

Sounds great, right? Well, it is. But as with any other investment opportunity, putting money to work in crowdsourced clean energy projects comes with risks. And as crowdfunding gains in popularity and scope, these risks may be glossed over or simply ignored by an enthusiastic investing public eager to put their money where their eco-conscious mouth is.

So what are the risks, exactly?

Let’s take a closer look at Mosaic — not because its offering is especially risky (compared to other crowdsourced investment opportunities, it’s not), but because it’s currently the poster child for this new business model.

In a nutshell, Mosaic helps investors of any size lend money to small-scale solar projects in need of capital. As a result, the solar projects get financing, Mosaic is paid a fee, and investors earn interest on their loan. Think of it as Kickstarter meets Kiva for solar project financing.

Here’s Mosaic’s pitch, in the company’s own words, taken directly from its website: “Mosaic connects investors seeking steady, reliable returns to high-quality solar projects. To date, over $5.6 million has been invested through Mosaic and investors have received 100% on-time payments.”

Below this statement is a list of Mosaic’s projects (all of which have been fully funded) showing annual payments of 4.5 percent to 5.5 percent. This number is net of Mosaic’s annual 1 percent management fee on loans that mature in five to twelve years.

Steady and reliable returns of 4.5 percent or more per year on your investment, plus pride in knowing your money is supporting a clean energy project. Sounds terrific. Everybody wins.

So what’s the catch? Is there a catch?

To answer this question, we have to take a closer look at Mosaic’s prospectus, a densely worded document that lays out the deal terms and accompanying risk factors in explicit detail. After all, the language found on the website is meant to sell prospective investors on Mosaic, not scare them away.

So, onto the prospectus, where on page 2 of the offering memorandum, in capital letters, we get this: “These are speculative securities. Investment in the notes involves significant risk. You should purchase these securities only if you can afford a complete loss of your investment.”

Speculative securities; significant risk; complete loss of your investment. Not quite the sunny language we found on the website. So what exactly are investors getting themselves into here?

It turns out these loans are not made directly to the solar project. Rather, they are funneled through an intermediary (Mosaic), which deploys capital to the projects on behalf of investors. So when an investor lends money to one of these projects, what they’re actually getting is an unsecured note issued by Solar Mosaic LLC, which is meant to “mirror the terms of the corresponding loan.” This is an important distinction, as certain bondholder rights are lost in this structure.

This leads us to the most important risk factor for investors to consider.

Default risk

What’s the risk that the issuer will fail and be unable to make interest payments or pay back your principal? Unlike bank CDs (insured by the FDIC), Treasury bonds (backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. federal government), or municipal bonds (which often carry third-party insurance), Mosaic notes are uninsured, unsecured corporate bonds.

The repayment of principal with interest hinges on the success of the solar project and its ability to generate the necessary cash flow. Because of the way these notes are structured, investors will have two entities to worry about: the borrower (solar project) and the issuer (Mosaic). If the solar project fails, the investor will not receive interest payments and risks losing the invested principal. If Mosaic goes bankrupt (even if the solar project is successful), the investor also may not receive interest payments and risks losing the principal.

Oh, and by the way, if things do go south, the investor “will not have any recourse to the borrower under the loan.” If the solar project fails, you’re relying on Mosaic to recoup your principal through litigation, and the investor “will not have any security interest in any of MSI’s (Mosaic Solar Investments) assets.” That means if Mosaic goes belly up, don’t expect its other assets to cover your losses.

Since the performance of each note is tied directly to the success of the individual solar project, the next factor to consider is credit risk.

Credit risk

How can you quantify which projects are in the best position to repay the loan? Remember, if the project fails, it’s the investor’s capital at risk, not Mosaic’s (although the company’s reputation would likely take a hit). Most publicly traded bonds carry a credit rating from one or more of the major ratings agencies like Moody’s, S&P or Fitch. While these ratings should not be considered gospel (just ask anyone invested in “AAA”-rated mortgage-backed securities in 2008), they can provide a useful marker to help investors gauge the default risk of the borrower.

While Mosaic is working with Standard & Poor’s via truSolar to develop a scoring system for solar bonds, there currently isn’t any third-party analysis of the credit quality of the borrowers. Investors can conduct some limited due diligence on their own, but most will be relying on the judgment of Mosaic’s underwriting team, which have only been at this since 2012. So while there may have been 100 percent on-time payments to date, this is based on a very limited track record.

Since the notes are only available on Mosaic’s platform, another factor to consider is liquidity.

Liquidity risk

What happens if you need access to your principal before the loan matures? With publicly traded bonds (treasuries, corporates, municipals), there’s a secondary market where investors can sell their bonds prior to maturity. With Mosaic’s notes, there is no secondary market.  Also, there isn’t a mechanism in place for investors to redeem their notes prior to maturity. So if your note matures in twelve years, your money will be tied up for the duration. Think of it as a bank CD: you’ll be able to withdraw interest payments, but your principal is illiquid.

This lack of liquidity on a longer-term bond can expose investors to interest rate risk.

Interest rate risk

Right now, we’re living in a time of historically low interest rates. As anyone who holds money in a checking or savings account can tell you, yields on cash are virtually nonexistent. This is a result of the federal funds rate (the rate at which banks borrow money from each other) being set at essentially 0 percent. This impacts rates across all loans, keeping them low — until rates go up again.

And make no mistake, rates will rise. It’s not a question of if, but when and by how much. A twelve-year Mosaic note paying 5.5 percent per year may look great today, but if interest rates are substantially higher a few years from now, you’ll be stuck in an illiquid investment paying below-market rates.

In addition, there are a few other risks to consider.

Technology risk

Will the solar technology being used in this project still be viable twelve years from now? What happens if there’s a major breakthrough in panel performance that causes the panels used in your investment to become obsolete? Or what happens to the warranty on the solar panels if the manufacturer goes out of business?

Catastrophe risk

With climate change impacting weather patterns, what happens if a natural disaster (hurricane, tornado, flood) wipes out the solar farm you’re invested in? Mosaic requires borrowers to carry property insurance, but how would the lack of cash flow during repair work impact interest payments?

Do all these risk factors mean investors shouldn’t put money to work into Mosaic or other crowdsourced clean energy projects? Not necessarily. In fact, these types of investments can make a nice addition to a diversified portfolio. And Mosaic deserves a lot of credit for successfully building out this business model and proving it’s viable, not to mention wildly popular amongst clean energy investors.

However, just like any other investment opportunity, investors need to carefully consider all the risks involved prior to putting their money to work.

 

 

What You Need to Know About How Clean Energy YieldCos Work

What You Need to Know About How Clean Energy YieldCos Work

If you follow the clean energy investment space, you’ve probably heard the term “YieldCo” thrown around quite a bit in recent months.

YieldCos have burst onto the investment scene and quickly become the company structure du jour for publicly traded power producers looking to capitalize on their renewable energy assets.

In the past year, we’ve seen a flurry of activity in this space as companies such as NRG, TransAlta, NextEra, and Abengoa have spun off the renewable portions of their power portfolios into separately held YieldCos.

Following their lead, SunEdison plans to spin off 524 megawatts of solar farms across the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and Chile into a YieldCo called TerraForm Power later this month.

The YieldCo structure has become so popular that analysts at Deutsche Bank expect as many as six more entities to become publicly traded in the coming twelve to eighteen months. And even private equity behemoth KKR is getting into the act by acquiring a 33 percent stake in Acciona with the goal of cashing in on a future YieldCo spin-off.

So what exactly is a YieldCo, why are companies suddenly attracted to this corporate structure, and most importantly, should you consider investing in one?

Let’s start with the basics. YieldCo is shorthand for “yield company.” In the investment world, yield is synonymous with income. So, essentially, a YieldCo is a corporate structure where the income component (generated by the underlying assets) is emphasized.

YieldCos are similar in concept to an MLP (master limited partnership) in the oil and gas sector or a REIT (real estate investment trust) in the real estate sector. All three investments are designed to provide a dependable stream of cash flow to investors.

Whereas MLPs use oil or gas pipeline income and REITs use commercial real estate lease income, YieldCos use completed renewable energy projects with long-term power purchase agreements in place to deliver dividends to investors.

So why are so many companies embracing this new structure? The primary reason is to unlock shareholder value. By spinning off their renewable power assets into a separate, high-yielding entity, power producers are attracting interest from two types of investors who may not have been interested otherwise: socially responsible investors and income investors.

The SRI investor

Prior to creating a YieldCo, most power producers commingled renewable energy assets with their other businesses. For example, in addition to wind and solar, NextEra has exposure to natural gas, nuclear and oil-fired power plants. A purist socially responsible investor may have avoided buying NextEra stock specifically because of this exposure (even though NextEra has long been a leader in the renewable energy space).

By creating a YieldCo, they were able to segregate their renewable power assets from fossil fuel and nuclear power plants while still retaining ownership in both. The same purist SRI investor who may have balked at owning shares in NextEra’s entire power portfolio (via the parent company) can now invest in a pure-play renewable company via NextEra’s YieldCo.

The income investor

In addition to being renewable, YieldCos by design are created to house completed power projects with long-term PPAs in place. This means the more capital-intensive, less cash-flow-positive business units like R&D and construction can be retained by the parent company. Without these capital-intensive units under the YieldCo’s umbrella, a higher portion of the profits can be paid out to shareholders via dividends rather than reinvested back into the company.

Given the current historically low interest rate environment, many income investors (who are traditionally more risk-averse compared to growth investors) have been pushed out of their bonds-and-blue-chip-stocks comfort zone and forced to find yield elsewhere. Enter the YieldCo, which, like MLPs and REITs, emphasizes cash flow over growth and owns a portfolio of lower-risk assets.

Now that we’ve established what a YieldCo is and why companies are creating them, the question remains: are they worth investing in? Like any other investment, a YieldCo has pros and cons that an investor should carefully consider before putting any money to work.

Pros

  • YieldCos provide SRI investors with a pure-play clean energy investment vehicle (while a few may contain fossil-fuel exposure, most are 100 percent renewable).
  • Since they are consist of completed projects with long-term PPAs in place, YieldCos are less speculative and carry lower risk relative to other clean energy stocks (such as biofuels, solar panel manufacturers, etc).
  • Unlike other clean energy stocks (which are growth-oriented), YieldCos are designed for predictable income via dividends.
  • A YieldCo will provide a geographically diverse portfolio of several power projects.
  • Unlike energy MLPs, cash flows from YieldCos aren’t dependent on fossil fuel prices, so they don’t carry a commodity price variable.

Cons

  • YieldCos will likely be vulnerable to rising interest rates. Low rates have allowed power producers to borrow money on the cheap to build and acquire new assets. Higher rates will mean that these activities will become costlier. Also, while historically low rates have drawn income investors into alternative asset classes, higher rates will mean they can return to the safety of bonds.
  • For growth, YieldCos will be dependent on having a pipeline of new projects to add to their portfolios. This means risk exposure to future legislative and tax policies (which are currently favorable toward renewables), which could adversely impact the costs associated with construction and acquisition.
  • YieldCos are equity investments, so they will tend to trade with the movements of the stock market, which means they are susceptible to stock-market volatility.
  • Utility-scale solar and wind power are still relatively new sources of energy, so it’s a bit of an unknown what the life cycle of these assets will be. It’s difficult to project what maintenance costs will be twenty to 30 years from now. Will energy production (from solar in particular) degrade over time, and if so, how will this impact cash flows?

On balance, for an investor comfortable with stock market volatility and looking for a pure-play renewable investment that provides income and is less speculative than many other cleantech investments, YieldCos will likely make a nice portfolio addition.

That said, valuations for several YieldCos seem quite rich at the moment. Yes, it may be an exciting space to be in, but just like any other stock investment, you need to pick your entry point carefully. As always, the fundamentals of investing still apply.

 

This article originally appeared on Greentech Media.

 

 

Buyer Beware: Has the SEC Uncovered a Green Con?

Buyer Beware: Has the SEC Uncovered a Green Con?

When UK-based CO2 Tech began trading in the public equity markets in 2007, they appeared to be an ambitious, forward-looking company poised to tackle global climate change head-on.  According to one of their early press releases, they referred to themselves as a provider of cutting-edge, sophisticated anti-global warming technologies along with a full range of expert consulting, and environmental products and services to businesses, industries and governments. In another release, they touted proprietary carbon absorption software designed to streamline pollution abatement technology in which pollutants are removed from air by physical adsorption onto activated carbon grains.

These press releases often featured enthusiastic quotes from company CEO, Helga Schotten, who seemingly knew how to talk the talk when it came to credentialing CO2 Tech’s climate change expertise and boldly predicted that CO2 Tech would revolutionize the way the world does business when it came to reducing carbon emissions. Investors took notice.

The company began trading on January 25th, 2007 at $2 per share, with light volume: only 1200 shares traded hands. But the volume on the subsequent days spiked enormously – particularly for a small, relatively unknown company – peaking at 12,204,795 shares on January 30th.  Curiously, despite this huge uptick in volume, the stock price quickly took a nose dive. After peaking at $7 on the second day of trading, by February 2th 2007, CO2 Tech was trading at $1.17 per share.  By February 9th, 2007 it was down to $.40 per share.  By May 2007 the share price had fallen below $.10 per share, never again to recover.  It now trades at less than 1 penny per share.

So what exactly happened to the company that pioneered the cost-effective heavy duty evaporator unit”?

According to a complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on February 18th 2011, CO2 Tech was nothing more than a sham company run by swindlers capitalizing on the climate change craze, generating more than $7 million in illicit profits from unknowing investors.   The SEC claims CO2 Tech never had substantial operations, lied about their business relationships and expertise, and used off-shore entities to launder proceeds from the stock offering.  It was a classic pump and dump scheme — promoters artificially inflated the company’s share price through false press releases (the pump) and then sold these overpriced shares to public investors at a profit (the dump), leaving these unsuspecting investors holding the bag.

Pump and dump schemes are fairly common in the risky world of penny stocks, where smaller, often illiquid companies trade on the Pink Sheets an electronic quotation system with minimal listing requirements.  However, what makes this case unusual is the company in question specifically and quite brazenly targeted the SRI market. If the SEC charges are true, then the group behind this fraud used social responsibility as a means to attract and dupe investors.

What does this mean for the SRI investor?

Just because a company has issued shares and trades on an open market doesn’t necessarily make it a legitimate company with viable business prospects. Given the rapid growth in profile of socially responsible investments in recent years, there will undoubtedly be those individuals and entities looking to exploit this trend. As an SRI investor, it’s important to be vigilant not just for greenwashing, but, as alleged in this case, outright fraud.  When it comes to investing in individual companies, particularly those that are smaller entities with limited financial filings available to the public, it is essential that proper due diligence is conducted before any money is invested.  If you feel that you can’t conduct the necessary due diligence on your own and are still interested in investing, contact a professional advisor to help you.

Image Credit: fotdmike

This article first 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.

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.