Showing posts with label Peak Oil Proof Portfolio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peak Oil Proof Portfolio. Show all posts

Friday, April 15, 2011

ETF Spotlight: Australia - EWA

Australia, with its vast resource wealth and political stability, is uniquely positioned to benefit from peak oil by exporting energy and raw materials at higher prices to an increasingly energy-starved world.  At the same time, its geographic remoteness and depleting oil resources makes it uniquely susceptible to some of the worst consequences of peak oil.  Australia is, therefore, a bit of an investment paradox if one is looking to reduce their exposure to peak oil - there are a multitude of investment opportunities, but likewise a multitude of traps. 


Peak Oil

Australia reached peak oil production in the year 2000, followed by a 33% decline in production since.  So far over 80% of the proven oil reserves have been produced and oil production is expected to enter a rapid decline soon, with the Australian Government's "Australian Energy Resource Assessment" projecting an 85% decline in oil production over the next decade.  Australia is only the world's 34th largest oil exporter and, with rising oil consumption, is on track to become a net importer of oil within the next decade.  That's the bad news.

Australia's Peak Oil Year: 2000


Coal

The good news is that Australia is energy self-sufficient due to its vast reserves of coal and natural gas.  Australia is the world's largest coal exporter and the world's 12th largest natural gas exporter.  So despite the county's oil peak and rapid decline in oil production, Australia remains a net exporter of total energy.  Australia's massive coal reserves could allow the country to benefit enormously from peak oil through coal liquefaction technology.  Indeed, a number of Australian companies, such as Hybrid Energy, Monash Energy, Linc Energy and Syngas, are currently working to create fungible crude oil substitutes from coal.




Natural Gas

Australia's Gorgon Gas Project off the country's western coast is one of the largest natural gas export terminals in the world.  Expected to reach full production this year, the facility will pull natural gas from the North West Shelf and ship it as LNG to Japan, China and India.  Another project, the Gladstone LNG project in Queensland, will convert coalbed methane into LNG for export by 2014.  With Japan's recent earthquake/tsunami causing a nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima power plant, the role of natural gas in generating electricity will become more and more important as a worldwide public backlash against nuclear power forces existing older reactors into retirement and hampers the construction of future nuclear power plants.  Countries like Japan, with few energy resources of their own, will look to countries like Australia to provide them with the energy they need to maintain their modern society.  Developing countries like India and China, with their insatiable appetites for energy will also be major customers for these LNG exports.

 


Mining

In addition to its energy exports, Australia is one of the world's most important minerals exporters.  It is the world's largest producer of bauxite (used in aluminum production), 2nd largest producer of zinc, 3rd largest producer of gold, 3rd largest producer of iron ore, 3rd largest producer of uranium, 4th largest producer of silver, 5th largest producer of copper, and a world leader in the production of a number of other minerals.  Higher oil prices coincide with higher commodities prices in general, and many leaders in the mining industry, such as BHP Billiton and Vale, are predicting minerals prices to remain high.  Peak oil could very well lead to "peak minerals", making these resources extremely valuable to Australia in the long run.  These exports, however, are highly dependent on world economic growth.  If oil prices spike too quickly, the economies of the world could be pushed into a recession, thereby reducing the demand for industrial metals and hurting Australia's mining industry.  Since the mining industry is highly cyclical, investment in this sector should be timed properly and hedged through diversification of investment into other sectors.  Of particular concern, given that Australia hold's the world's largest uranium reserves. is whether the Japanese nuclear meltdown will hamper uranium exports.  Most analysts agree that even with a public backlash forcing retirements of nuclear power plants in developed countries, the increased demand for nuclear power in developing countries, like China, will outweigh this headwind.


Agriculture

Australia has the lowest "physiological density" of any country on earth, with only 43 people per square kilometer of arable land.  As peak oil makes energy-intensive agriculture more and more expensive, Australia will benefit enormously from exporting food to the world.  Perhaps more importantly, Australia has the most certified organic farmland of any country on earth, with 12 million hectares.  This also puts Australia in the enviousness position of having the lowest "organic physiological density" on the planet with only 1.9 people per hectare of organic farmland.  Because organic agriculture doesn't require the used of petroleum-derived pesticides and fertilizers, the food energy output per unit of energy input is about double that of our world's current petroleum-intensive agriculture systems.  From a food standpoint, Australia is completely "peak oil proof" and will likely play an extremely important global role as the world's struggles to feed nearly 7 billion people with less and less oil available for pesticides and fertilizers.

Global warming will shift much of the productive farmland from the north to the south of Australia over the next half-century.  In the short term, the country as a whole will experience more temperate weather, with longer growing seasons for many crops.  Water scarcity, however, may dampen much of the benefits gained from these advantageous changes.  Droughts and floods already plague Australian farmers.  Australia had its wettest spring on record last year, with Queensland and Victoria experiencing major floods.  At the same time, however, the southwest experienced severe drought with its driest and hottest year on record.  These types of events could potentially get much worse as a result of global warming.  Adapting to these changing climate conditions will require tremendous infrastructure costs for the protection from floods and the production and distribution of water.  Australia currently gets much of its drinking water for western cities through multi-billion dollar desalination plants.  Expanding the use of desalination, especially if it becomes required for crop production, will be extremely energy intensive and increasingly costly in the future. 


Sustainable Energy

One factor pushing Australia in the right direction is the environmental awareness of its citizens.  When it comes to environmental issues, Australians are the third most knowledgeable group of people (behind Swedes and Japanese) and they are the most likely group to purchase energy-saving appliances for their home for environmental reasons.  This environmental awareness likely stems from the 1970's when Australia's unique susceptibility to ozone depletion catapulted environmental issues to the forefront of minds.  Countries in the lower latitudes of the southern hemisphere were the first to be threatened by the growing hole in the ozone layer, and countries like Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, with their citizenry of fair-skinned European descendants, were particularly threatened by the cancer-causing UVB radiation leaking through the ozone hole.  Abroad, the Australian government became a leader in the fight against ozone-depleting CFCs, ultimately leading to the ratification of the Montreal Protocol in 1987.  At home, the Australian government pushed hard to educate its citizens on the cancer danger of ozone depletion.  It's famous "Slip Slop Slap" campaign greatly reduced skin cancer rates by encouraging children to "slip on a shirt, slop on sunscreen, and slap on a hat", and today, almost all schools employ a "no hat, no play" policy for children.  This massive environmental awareness campaign focused on ozone depletion likely had spill-over effects, with Australians today being more aware of all environmental issues facing them.  With the ozone hole problem, Australians saw an environmental catastrophe looming over them and were able to band together to enact international political change to solve the problem.  With global climate change, the country faces a similar challenge today, so it is no wonder that they are keenly aware of the need to push change both at home and abroad in order to solve the problem.

"no hat, no play"

From a peak oil standpoint, this environmental awareness is pushing Australia towards more sustainable sources of energy and reducing the energy intensity of Australia's economy overall.  Awareness of peak oil itself is high in Australia.  The country did, after all, create the first "peak oil movie" with the 1979 dystopian action film "Mad Max".  On a political level the Australian government is one of the few to have released a report officially acknowledging peak oil and analyzing possible mitigation strategies.  Even in my own blog stats, I receive a disproportionate amount of page-views from Australia on a population-weighted basis than I do from other developed countries, leading me to believe that Australians, on average, have a higher awareness of peak oil than people from other nations.  Culturally, there is also an emblematic tradition of rugged self-reliance in Australia, similar to America's western culture of independence and self-determination.  This cultural tradition will help Australia greatly as the world enters a post-peak phase, when sacrifices and difficult decisions need to be made.  This public awareness of global climate change and peak oil is slowly pushing Australian politicians to enact energy legislation that promotes more sustainable forms of energy.  Australia gets the vast majority of its electricity from coal-fired power plants, making it one of the world's worst greenhouse gas emitters on a per-capita basis.  Coal power is slowly being replaced with a number of renewable energy sources through state subsidies.

Similar to the US, Australia has no cap-and-trade carbon scheme but unlike the US, the Australian federal government has enacted a mandatory renewable energy target of 20% renewable electricity by 2020.  Individual states have imposed feed-in tariffs and state renewable energy targets, ranging from 15% by 2014 in South Australia to 25% by 2020 in Victoria.  Adoption of renewable energy in Australia has increased by 41% over the last 30 years but absolute adoption remains extremely low, with 6.4% of the country's electricity coming from hydroelectric dams, and only 0.7% coming from wind power.  Over the next decade, wind and gas adoption will increase significantly to meet these state targets, but coal will still remain the number one source of energy in Australia.  The sunny climate across vast parts of Australia makes the country a perfect candidate for solar power, and currently about 7% of households have solar hot water heaters on their roofs.  These systems typically have about a 5 year payback period for homeowners and are expected to become more widely used in the coming years.  Solar photovoltaic adoption, through both industrial scale projects as well as distributed home generation, will almost certainly increase in the future, especially with the government's favorable subsidies.


Land Transportation

Australia is the world's most sparsely populated developed country, with vast land distances separating cities from each other.  Despite a relatively extensive rail network, 72% of freight is moved by road, often by the iconic "road train".  These forms of transport, despite being far more efficient than the single trailer trucks used in places like Europe and the US, are still far less energy efficient when compared rail.  New rail lines, however, are being constructed, such as the Adelaide–Darwin line that was opened in 2004.

Australians are the third least likely group of people to use public transportation (after Americans and Canadians) and along with the French and the Americans, Australians are the third mostly likely to drive their car alone.  Australia currently does not have any high speed passenger rail lines and despite many feasibility studies, there are no plans for construction of any lines in the near future.  Like the US, Australia has a strong car culture, large sprawling suburbs and vast distances between cities in the west.  This all combines to make the country extremely dependent on gasoline for daily life.  Peak oil and correspondingly high gasoline prices will require tremendous societal change, as people move to more walkable neighborhoods, drive fewer miles and drive more fuel-efficient vehicles.


Sea Transportation

The vast physical distances separating Australia from other developed world economies (besides New Zealand) creates an "economic remoteness" that could potentially be greatly exacerbated by the onset of peak oil.  Because sea shipments require a lot of oil, as the price goes up, Australia could become less economically competitive against other nations for the trade of certain goods.  Australia's biggest trading partner is China, followed by Japan and the United States.  Shipping from Melbourne, the busiest shipping port in Australia, to Shanghai, the busiest shipping port in China takes 15 days to complete the 5,131 nautical mile journey.  For comparison, Norway's largest trading partner is the United Kingdom.  Shipping from Stavanger to Aberdeen requires a distance of only 274 nautical miles.

One way to look at this difference in "economic remoteness" is to compare the difference in shipping costs for the two countries at different oil prices.  Research from CIBC shows that to ship a 40 foot container the 5,724 nautical miles from Los Angeles to Shanghai, China, costs about $8,000 ($1.40 per mile) with oil at about $130 per barrel.  A regression analysis of the CIBC data shows that the predictive equation they use for calculating shipping cost per mile in relation to oil prices (with a statistically-significant p-value of 0.026 and a r-square of 0.95) is: Shipping Cost Per Nautical Mile = 0.185 + 0.011 * Oil Price.  With oil at $100 per barrel, the cost for a Norwegian company to ship a 40-foot shipping container of lingonberry jam from Norway to the UK would be about $350.  The cost for an Austrailian company to ship a 40-foot shipping container of vegemite from Austrailia to China would be about $6,600.  With oil at $200 per barrel, shipping the lingonberry jam would only cost $650 while shipping the vegemite would cost $12,200.  The average shipping container holds about $300,000 worth of goods (with a $100,000 standard deviation).  With profit margins of less than 2% in the food industry, the $6,000 profit for the Australian company shipping vegemite to China quickly disappears as oil prices rise, while the Norwegian company will continue shipping lingonberry jam to the UK at a profit.

The susceptibility of long-distance sea shipping trade to volatile oil prices is perhaps more important than the absolute costs of shipping.  According to a United Nations report on international trade, the price elasticity of inter-modal freight rates to oil prices ranges between 0.19 and 0.36.  This range is relativity inelastic, and it means that as oil prices fluctuate wildly as we enter the bumpy plateau of peak oil, companies in Australia that are heavily dependent on international sea shipments may experience significant economic pain.

In recent decades, the "graduation" of some Southeast Asian countries, like China, Singapore and Taiwan from "developing" to "developed" has created more trade partners in the region.  As the southeast Asian "tiger" economies continue to grow into a larger portion of the world's GDP, Australia's average economic distance will fall, while economic remoteness on relative terms will increase for European and western-hemisphere countries.  This should help Australia stay economically competitive for many exports.

Australia's vast mineral wealth could also help it overcome its economic remoteness.  The United States overcame the physical remoteness from its European trading partners in the 1700's by exploiting its vast natural resource wealth and exporting raw materials to these advanced economies.  Despite the cost of shipping, mineral exports will likely continue to remain competitive even in a post-peak enviornment.

The economic isolation from other trading partners may also make Australia one of the first countries to experience "localisation" of the kind Jeff Rubin describes in his book "Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller".  The most remote cities in the central and western part of the country may be forced to become more economically self reliant, producing more goods locally.  As a whole, the country will become more reliant on the export of services and less reliant on the export of manufactured goods, much as many economists are encouraging America to do now.


Air Transportation

As peak oil pushes up the cost of aviation fuel, air travel will likely become more and more expensive in the future.  Due to the vast distances required to travel to Australia, the country's tourism sector may be particularly hard-hit by peak oil.  Tourism currently represents 11% of exports and 4.2% of Australia's GDP, but it employs 5.7% of of the country's workforce.  The government realizes the importance of the tourism sector to its GDP and spends a lot of money trying to entice more international travelers to come visit.  Just last year, the government's tourism agency spent $3 million to get American talk show host Oprah Winfrey to promote American tourism to Australia.  International visitors, however, only contribute 23% of the country's tourism revenue, with the remaining 77% coming from Australian residents.  Just as "localization" will make communities more economically self-reliant, peak oil will likely make Australian's tourism industry more dependent on this large domestic revenue source, possibly at the expense of the country's major airlines like Quantas and Virgin Blue.

High oil prices will also increase the cost of air-fright transportation for some internationally-sourced "just in time" perishable goods like flowers and sushi, which currently make up 80% of air freight shipments.  Such internationally-sourced time-dependent consumer products, both coming from and going to Australia, will become prohibitively expensive for all but the wealthiest people in the world, and will be gradually replaced with more locally sourced items.

Jet fuel sourced from biofuels, derived from feedstocks like camelina oil or algae, will enter the market as oil prices get prohibitively high for the aviation market to stomach.  Australia, with its vast agricultural resources that I described above, will be extremely well positioned to profit from this transition.  Movement towards aviation biofuels will also mitigate some of these pains, especially as improved crop technology, like better genetically-modified biofuel feedstocks increase the energy returned from energy invested, making them more cost-competitive against increasingly expensive oil.


Economic Energy Intensity

Australia's economy has a rather high energy intensity of 0.18 kilograms of oil equivalent per $5USD of GDP created in constant purchasing power parity terms.  This energy intensity is slightly better than the world average but lags behind the developed world's (OECD) energy intensity of 0.15 koe/$05p.  This is largely due to the energy intensive nature of some of Australia's largest economic sectors like mining and energy, as well as the energy-intensive nature of importing and exporting goods over the vast distances require to reach Australia.  The positive news is that Australia's economy has been becoming more and more energy efficient over the last 20 years and may still be able to make vast efficiency improvements, given the correct business enviornment.

Australia's Economic Energy Intensity


Economic Stability

Relative to many of the world's energy exporters, Australia has an extremely stable government, stable currency and stable civil society.  The Economist Intelligence Unit ranks Australia in the top category for democracy.  Transparency International ranks the country in the top category of least corrupt regimes on earth.  With a Gini index of 30.5, Australia ranks better than the European Union in terms of income equality, which has been show to be statistically correlated to social cohesion.  The government has extremely low debt relative to the country's GDP with the national debt representing only 22.4% of GDP.  The banking sector is very tightly regulated, far more so than in places like the United States, and as a result, Australia was able to largely avoid the late 2000's financial crisis.  The Australian dollar is the 5th most traded currency in the world and is often included in discussions about a future currency basket that could replace the US Dollar as the world's reserve currency.


Peak Oil Proof Portfolio: EWA

In the Peak Oil Proof Portfolio, I suggest investing in Australia through the iShares MSCI Australia Index Fund (EWA).  This ETF is a broad-market fund holding equity in companies across all of Austrailia's economic sectors.  The top 10 holdings of the fund are:
  • BHP Billiton (ASX:BHP)
    •  World's largest mining company
  • Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ASX:CBA)
    • Second largest company in Australia
  • Westpac Banking Corporation (ASX:WBC)
    • Australia's 2nd largest bank
  • Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (ASX:ANZ)
    • Largest bank in New Zealand and 4th largest bank in Australia
    • Major banker to  China, Vietnam and Indonesia
  • National Australia Bank (ASX:NAB)
    • Australia's largest bank
  • Rio Tinto (ASX:RIO)
    • World's 4th largest mining company
    • World's number 1 producer of coal and aluminum
  • Wesfarmers (ASX:WES)
    • Major retailer in Australasia - operates Coles, Target, Kmart, etc.
    • Largest private employer in Australia
    • Owns a coal mine and is a major LPG retailer
  • Woolworths (ASX:WOW)
    • Largest retailer in Australia and New Zealand 
    • Operates Woolworths supermarket chain, Safeway, etc.
  • Newcrest Mining (ASX:NCM)
    • World's 5th largest gold miner
  • Woodside Petroleum (ASX:WPL)
    • Major producer of offshore oil and gas in Australia
    • Oil exploration and production worldwide including in the US Gulf of Mexico

Other Investments

Since the EWA ETF is holds the market as a whole, it is not a targeted way of investing in only Australian companies that are likely to benefit from peak oil.  Some companies that could benefit from increasing energy prices are:
  • Energy Companies
    • Woodside Petroleum (ASX:WPL)
      • Offshore gas production in western Australian
      • Oil production in US Gulf of Mexico and Mauritania
    • Origin Energy (ASX:ORG)
      •  Australian and New Zealand oil and gas production
      • Major electricity utility in New Zealand
    • Santos (ASX:STO)
      • Australia's largest domestic gas producer
      • Major LNG exporter including coal-to-LNG
      • Major offshore exploration player in emerging markets
    • WorleyParsons (ASX:WOR)
      • Major engineering consulting firm for the oil industry
      • Major player in offshore drilling and Canadian oil sands
    • Paladin Energy (ASX:PDN)
      • Australia's second largest uranium mining company
      • Owns uranium mines in Africa
    • Caltex Australia (ASX:CTX)
      •  Retail-only (downstream) oil company - may get squeezed by peak oil
      •  Majority-owned by Chevron
    • Energy Resources of Australia (ASX:ERA)
      • Majority-owned by Rio Tinto
      • Australia's largest uranium mining company
  • Coal-to-liquids companies
    • Syngas (ASX:SYS)
      •  Working to commercialize a coal-to-diesel facility
    • Strike Oil Limited (ASX:STX)
      • Owns Hybrid Energy
      • Working to commercialize coal gasification for production of fuels and fertilizers
      • Gas production in Texas
    • Linc Energy Ltd  (ASX:LNC)
      • Combining underground coal gasification and gas-to-liquid
  • Renewable Energy Companies
  • Mining Companies
    • Orica (ASX:ORI)
      • Mining services company - provides explosives, etc.
    • Fortescue Metals Group (ASX:FMG)
      •  Iron ore exporter
    • Incitec Pivot (ASX:IPL)
      •  Mining services company - provides explosives, etc.
    • Alumina Limited (ASX:AWC)
      • Vertically-integrated aluminum producer
    • OZ Minerals (ASX:OZL)
      • Copper, gold and silver miner
    • OneSteel (ASX:OST)
      •   Iron ore exporter
    • Macarthur Coal (ASX:MCC)
      •  Major exporter of coking coal, used in steel production
    • Lynas Corporation (ASX:LYC)
      • Owns the Mount Weld mine, a potential source of rare earth metals
      • Mine production expected to start this year
      • Cash flow statement makes the company look like a huge money pit - yet to generate any revenue
    • Platinum Australia Limited (ASX:PLA)
      • Mines platinum and palladium
    • Tawana Resources (ASX:TAW)
      • Diamond miner, producing 13 million carats per year
    • Metals X Limited (ASX:MLX)
      • Tin miner
  • Agriculture Companies
    • Australian Agricultural Company (ASX:AAC)
      • Cattle ranching
    • Ridley Corporation Limited (ASX:RIC)
      • Animal feed producer
    • Tandou Limited (ASX:TAN)
  • Energy Efficiency Companies
    •  Air Change (ASX:IFC)
      • Improves efficiencies in HVAC systems

Investment Warning

This list of companies is just a starting point, investors need to do their due diligence.  Ideally, investing in these companies would be timed to coincide with favorable market conditions.  The bumpy plateau of peak oil may mean that oil prices will fluctuate wildly and that oil price spikes will create significant demand destruction followed by market corrections.  Oil is currently trading at over $120 per barrel, the highest it's been since the last oil price spike sent us into the worst recession since the great depression.  It may be prudent to hold off on equity investments at this point, as high oil prices may put a wrench in the current economic recovery.

The 2011 Oil Shock

Special thanks to Dan Miethke in Australia for corresponding with me on this post.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

The Risks of ETFs - John Bogle's warning

A couple of months ago I had the chance to sit in on a lecture by John Bogle - the founder of the Vanguard Group and, arguably, the inventor of the Index Fund.

During his talk, he mentioned his concern with Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs), implying that they are far riskier than the average investor realizes.  This warning is particularly poignant, coming from the man whose work led to the invention of the ETF.  It is also worth discussing, as the Peak Oil Proof Portfolio is wholly comprised of ETFs.

John Bogle - Founder of the Vanguard Group

Bogle's argument against index-based ETFs, like SPY, are that they've become market behemoths - contributing to a significant portion of the investment in many companies.  The problem with this is that the investments in these companies are made not on the merits of the company, but solely due to the fact that they're part of an index.  For example, when an investor purchases shares of SPY, SPDR goes and purchases shares of each of the 500 component companies, in proportion to their market caps.  So SPDR would put a larger percentage of your money in the largest company (company #1) than in the smallest company (company #500) - but it would still invest money in every single company, regardless of how good an investment they each are fundamentally.  Because ETFs like SPY have so much market power, this "blind" investment of wealth in these companies (based solely on the fact that they are in, say, the S&P 500 index), can create a bubble enviornment where companies that are fundamentally weak continue to receive investor support simply because overall market sentiment is bullish.  Bogle argued that this can exacerbate the boom and bust cycle we've recently been seeing more and more often.

Because of this "blind indexing", a non-index regional mutual fund should theoretically outperform an indexed ETF, as the ETF blindly invests in an index for the region based on the weighted market capitalization of the companies in the index, while a regional mutual fund is steered by a fund manager into companies with the highest unrealized growth potential.  An analysis of mutual funds vs. their ETF equivalents in the Peak Oil Proof Portfolio seems to prove that this is true for country investment but not for commodity investment:
  • Countries
    • Australia - no direct mutual fund plays
    • Brazil
      • ETF: iShares MSCI Brazil Index: EWZ 
        • 1yr return: -0.70%
      • Mutual Fund: Dreyfus Brazil Equity Fund Class A: DBZ1Z 
        • 1yr return: +6.65%
    • Canada
      • ETF: iShares MSCI Canada Index: EWC
        •  1yr return: +14.08%
      • Mutual Fund: Fidelity Canada: FICDX
        • 1yr return: +16.75%
    • Norway and Scandinavia
      • ETF: Global X FTSE Nordic 30 ETF: GXF 
        • 1yr return: +16.48%
      • Mutual Fund: Fidelity Nordic: FNORX 
        • 1yr return: +19.19%
    • Russia
      • ETF: Market Vector Russia ETF Trust: RSX
        •  1yr return: +16.14%
      • Mutual Fund: JPMorgan Russia A: JRUAX
        • 1yr return: +26.03% 
      • Mutual Fund: ING Russia A: LETRX 
        • 1yr return: +25.28% 
      • Mutual Fund: Third Millennium Russia A: TMRFX
        • 1yr return: +20.30% 
  • Commodities - there are no direct plays because mutual funds hold company stocks rather than the physical commodities
    • Agriculture - no direct mutual fund plays
    • Metals
      • Gold - no direct mutual fund plays
      • Silver - no direct mutual fund plays
      • Industrial Metals - no direct mutual fund plays
  • Energy - 30%
    • Oil
      • ETF: Vanguard Energy ETF: VDE 
        • 1yr return: +14.73%
      • Mutual Fund: Fidelity Advisor Energy A: FANAX
        • 1yr return: +10.77%
    • Coal - no direct mutual fund plays
    • Renewable Energy
      • ETF: PowerShares Global Clean Energy Portfolio: PBD
        • 1yr return: -18.76%
      • Mutual Fund: Calvert Global Alternative Energy A: CGAEX
        •  1yr return: -21.82%

John Bogle's warning against ETFs seems to hold true for investing in foreign markets - the return on investment for mutual funds seems to be higher because of the freedom of the mutual fund manager to invest in higher-quality companies without having to maintain parity with an index.  The disadvantages of mutual funds, however, are numerous.  As you can see above, there aren't any mutual funds which are solely invested in Australia or coal or agriculture.  For commodities, there aren't any mutual fund equivalents of GLD or SLV.  If you invest in a gold-focused mutual fund, they will invest in mining companies rather than holding the physical metal.  ETFs tend to have lower fees and have a lower barrier to investment.  If, for example, you wanted to invest in the Nordic countries, you could buy as little as 1 share of GXF for around $20 today.  The Nordic mutual fund (FNORX), on the other hand, requires an initial investment of $2,500 with additional investments in $500 increments.  ETFs also beat mutual funds on liquidity.  ETFs trade like stocks as long as the markets are open, while mutual funds are only priced once a day and traded when the market is closed.  As I discuss in my "Profit from Peak Oil's Bumpy Plateau" post, this extra liquidity could be crucial if an oil price spike occurs and you need to quickly get all of your investments out of the market.

John Bogle's other main argument against ETFs is that they've turned index funds from long-term investment vehicles into short-term trading vehicles.  We see this today as ETFs have become some of the most widely-used investment vehicles for algorithmic trading computers.  Theoretically, this can make ETFs more susceptible to "flash crash" events, and Bogle argued that mutual funds better protect the long-term investor from such events.  However, if you look at the Vanguard 500 mutual fund (VFINX) versus the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY) for the week around the May 6th 2009 flash crash, you will see that they hardly diverged at all.  Bogle's critics would argue that rather than making the markets more unstable, ETFs actually add to market stability by greatly increasing trading liquidity.

The other main argument, not made by John Bogle, but nonetheless prevalent in discussions of commodity ETFs, is that if you want to invest in commodities, like gold, you're better off holding the metal in physical bars or coins, rather than in an ETF.  These critics say that all you're buying is a "piece of paper" and not an actual physical asset.  Stories about the risks of gold investment are everywhere.  Bullion companies like the "International Gold Bullion Exchange" sold gold they never owned.  Other bullion companies such as "Goldline International" have come under investigation for potentially misleading sales tactics.  Mining companies like "Bre-X Minerals" misled investors by overestimating their gold resources.  Electronic gold companies like "E-Gold" have failed to reimburse customers after their accounts were hacked.  But while there are certainly bad apples out in the marketplace, I find the "only buying a piece of paper" argument to be specious.  When you purchase shares in GLD, SPDR goes out on to the world gold market and purchases physical metal which it then stores at HSBC's vault in London.  GLD hires the firm "Inspectorate" to regularly audit their gold holdings.  The firm performs an annual complete physical audit as well as random testing throughout the year.  Inspectorate claims to be the "world leader in commodity inspection and testing".  Of course, cynics would argue that before the Enron's collapse, Arthur Andersen was the "world leader" in corporate auditing.  So while investing in an ETF is not completely risk-free, choosing between physical gold and a gold ETF is like choosing between the risk of burglary and the risk of fraud.  The risk of fraud is arguably lower, as you can always sue the company which defrauded you.  In the case of GLD, you'd be able to sue SPDR and possibly HSBC.  SPDR owns dozens of other funds and HSBC is one of the largest banks in the world.  In the case of fraud, you'd likely have a better chance of getting your money back than in the case of a burglar breaking into your house and stealing your gold coins.  The upside of ETFs over holding physical metals is enormous.  Buying physical commodities, transporting them, holding them in a secure location and then selling them again is enormously expensive and time-consuming.  The low fees, high liquidity and (arguably) lower risk of commodity ETFs clearly win.

So what is an investor to do?  The answer is "it depends" - it depends on the risk tolerance and trading preference of the investor.  If you plan to buy and hold company stock for the long term, mutual funds may be the best "set it and forget it" plan.  If you believe that the sky is going to fall, or the government is going to seize your gold investments, or that the next market crash will trigger "bank holidays" where trading will be halted - you may very well be better off holding physical metals.  If, however, you plan on actively trading your portfolio to take advantage of changes in the market, ETFs are the best way to invest.

Monday, January 3, 2011

Profit from Peak Oil's Bumpy Plateau

As we enter the new year, it's time for everyone to come out of the woodwork and make their predictions for 2011.  In the past two weeks, there's been a cacophony of expert opinions predicting higher oil prices this coming year.  JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America Merrill Lynch both predict $100/bbl oil.  The ex-CEO of Shell predicts $5 gasoline.  These predictions are backed up on Wall Street with oil futures recently shifting from contango to backwardation - signaling tight physical supplies of oil.  Many experts are stating that we've passed the peak of world oil production at least two years ago and that 2011 could become a repeat of 2008 for oil prices as we trudge through the "Bumpy Plateau".

If the US economy maintains its brisk recovery in 2011 and the Chinese economy continues to increase its oil consumption at a record pace, the quickly-rising demand for oil will run straight into the wall of peak oil production in 2011, causing the price of oil to spike well above $100/bbl, and leading to a demand-destruction-induced double-dip recession.

The world economy can handle slow, steady increases in the price of oil, but fast spikes in the price of oil can have devastating consequences on the economy.  As I mentioned in my demand destruction post, there's a possibility that this post-peak-oil enviornment will lead to a series of oil price spikes followed by market crashes.  As these spikes and crashes hit, the world oil production swings along with the price of oil, masking the true worldwide oil peak - this is referred to as the "Bumpy Plateau".   As an investor, you should be looking to protect yourself and profit from these oil price spikes and market crashes during the bumpy plateau period.

The Peak Oil Bumpy Plateau

The way to profit from oil price spikes and market crashes during the "bumpy plateau" is as follows:
Step 1: Hold the Peak Oil Proof Portfolio now.
Step 2: "Sell High": As the oil shock "alarm bells" go off, short the market, sell your holdings, put the proceeds into crash-resistant holdings.
Step 3: "Buy Low": Use limit orders to buy the Peak Oil Proof Portfolio and high growth stocks at their lows following the market crash.

----------

Step 1: Hold the Peak Oil Proof Portfolio now.

The Peak Oil Proof Portfolio is designed to diversify your holdings across asset classes, industries and countries that are best positioned to profit from a post-peak-oil world.

The Peak Oil Proof Portfolio has been beating the S&P500 for the past few months, showing the strength of these holdings.  This portfolio will allow you to profit from the current market and will limit the damage to your portfolio of a market crash should you fail to get the timing right.

Step 2: "Sell High": As the oil shock "alarm bells" go off, short the market, sell your holdings, and put the proceeds into crash-resistant holdings.

This is the difficult step, as it requires you to keep an eye on the market and to move quickly when an oil spike occurs.

One way to look out for a oil price spike is to analyze the current price as a ratio of the S&P500 to Oil.  In a price spike, this ratio typically goes "out of whack" as the price of oil moves much faster than the market.  As I mentioned in the demand destruction post, if the S&P500/Oil ratio goes below 12, the oil price spike is nearing the limit that the market can handle, which usually leads to a market crash.  Using a ratio of 12 is conservative, and it won't maximize your profits.  In the last two oil shocks the ratio actually dipped below 10 for a few days - so a more aggressive ratio (such as 10) can be used to try to maximize your profits if you're willing to take a bigger risk and keep an eye on the ratio minute-to-minute.

If you look at most recent oil shocks, you can see that the price peaks were signaled by sharp changes the price of oil right before the price spike caused a market crash.
  • 1990 Oil Shock:
    • Throughout July 1990, oil prices were around $20/bbl - an S&P500/Oil ratio of 15-20
    • Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2nd; oil prices doubled to around $40/bbl over the following 2 months - an S&P500/Oil ratio of less than 10 as oil exceeded $35/bbl
    • The price spike pushed the US economy into a recession in October of 1990, causing the stock market to crash over 20% and pushing the price of oil back down to $20/bbl by the end of the year
  • 2000's Energy Crisis:
    • Starting in 2003, oil prices steadily rose from an average of $30/bbl to a top of $147/bbl in 2008.
    • Throughout most of this increase in oil prices, the change was slow enough that stock market increased along with the oil prices to keep the S&P500/Oil ratio around 15-20
    • In the early summer of 2008, the price of oil spiked and the S&P500/Oil ratio dropped below 10.  Shortly after this signal in mid-July, the oil hit an all time high of $147/bbl, the market crashed in October and the world entered the "Great Recession".
    • By the end of the year, oil prices had fallen down to $30/bbl - back to a 15-20 S&P500/Oil ratio.
In 1990, you could have shorted an oil ETF (if they had existed) at a price of $35/bbl (when the S&P500/Oil ratio dropped below 10) and then bought the ETF 3 months later at $20/bbl to cover your short, for a return of 75%.

Similarly, in 2008, you could have shorted an oil ETF at a price of $125/bbl (when the S&P500/Oil ratio dropped below 10) and then bought the ETF 6 months later at $30/bbl to cover your short, for a return of over 300%.

So once you see the S&P500/Oil ratio drop below 12, you should start selling your stocks, and putting the majority of the proceeds into stable currencies and stores of value.  Some examples of "stable" holdings are:
  • US Dollars - in your account as cash
  • Gold - GLD
  • Swiss Francs - FXF
Then, you should take some of your proceeds (as much as you're comfortable gambling with) and short the market.  Some examples of ETFs you can short are:
  • The Market - SPY
  • A Consumer Discretionary ETF - XLY
  • A Financial Stocks ETF - XLF
  • Real Estate - IYR
For your short positions, you can put in "buy to cover" limit orders to close out your positions and take profits as the market crashes.  Using a series of limit orders will allow you to gradually close out your order without having to stare at a computer screen all day.  For example, if you start shorting SPY with $15,000 while SPY is at a price of $150, you'd short 100 shares of SPY, then you'd put the following orders in:
  • Close out 20% of your holding if SPY falls 20%: Place a "buy to cover" order for a 20 shares at a limit of $120
  • Close out 40% of your holding if SPY falls 30%: Place a "buy to cover" order for a 40 shares at a limit of $105
  • Close out 40% of your holding if SPY falls 40%: Place a "buy to cover" order for a 40 shares at a limit of $90

Step 3: "Buy Low": Use limit orders to buy the Peak Oil Proof Portfolio and high growth stocks at their lows following the market crash.

In much the same way that you should use limit orders to cover your short positions as the market crashes, you should use limit orders to buy stocks at discount prices.

For example, you can use limit orders to purchase VDE, one of the ETFs I recommend in the Peak Oil Proof Portfolio, at a discount following a market crash.  If VDE's high was $120 before the crash and you want to own $60,000 of it, during the crash, you can put in some limit orders to purchase it at cheap prices:

  • Buy 20% if it falls 20%: Place a buy order for a 125 shares at a limit of $96
  • Buy 40% if it falls 30%: Place a buy order for a 285 shares at a limit of $84
  • Buy 40% if it falls 40%: Place a buy order for a 333 shares at a limit of $72
Of course these limit prices are just an example and you'll need to adjust the prices and quantities based on how much you want to invest, how how far you think the market will crash and what balance you want to strike between buying low and risking not being able to buy at all.  This should be repeated for all of the ETFs in the Peak Oil Proof Portfolio.

A market crash also gives you the opportunity to purchase some "high growth" ETFs while they're temporarily inexpensive.  Some examples of ETFs that you might want to snatch up are:
  • China Small Cap - HAO
  • India - EPI
  • Emerging Markets - EEM
  • Gulf States - GAF

With oil prices low from demand destruction, these high growth stocks could easily out-perform the Peak Oil Proof Portfolio as investors pile back in to stocks once the market begins to recover again.  These high growth stocks can be held until oil prices begin to climb again, at which point they can be sold and the proceeds can be invested into the Peak Oil Proof Portfolio, which, due to its commodity-heavy holdings, should outperform the market as oil prices reach their highs again.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Demand Destruction from Peak Oil

Demand Destruction is a term used to describe a series of economic actions that occur when oil prices become too high for the global economy to absorb them.  In this environment, the economy goes into a recession and the price of oil correspondingly crashes.

Oil's primary use is as a transportation fuel - 81% of the world's oil is refined into liquid transportation fuels (46% for gasoline, 9% for jet fuel and 26% for diesel and other liquid transportation fuels).  The remaining 19% of the world's crude oil production goes into heating oil, electricity generation, plastics, synthetic rubber, asphalt and tar, wax, lubricants, adhesives, solvents, explosives, paints, sealants, corrosion inhibitors, cosmetics, fragrances, pharmaceuticals, fertilizer, pesticides, food flavorings, food additives and other industrial and commercial products.

As oil prices increase, the input prices for the variety of goods listed above (including food) increases.  These increased input prices, along with the increased transportation cost for these goods from higher fuel prices are normally passed on to the consumer.  This increase in consumer goods prices is pure oil-price-induced inflation.  While consumers must stomach these increased consumer goods prices, they must also pay more of their budget for gasoline.  As the price of gasoline goes up, consumers will use less gasoline (which is what most economists are referring to when they talk about demand destruction in oil), but at the same time, the consumer will also be using more of their disposable income on gasoline, which leaves less money to spend on consumer goods (which are now more expensive due to oil-induced inflation).  This creates a secondary (and more significant) oil demand destruction as the economy shrinks from lower consumer spending.

One way to visualize demand destruction is to look at the average American consumer.  The average American consumer lives on a tight budget.  As the price of gasoline increases, the consumer begins to drive less.  They will likely still drive to work every day (what we could consider their "base level" of oil demand), but they may cut back on their other driving - such as going out to eat during the week or driving to see family on the weekends.  They might postpone that family vacation to Hawaii.  All of these actions decrease their overall oil consumption.  If the consumer is on a particularly tight budget, they may start carpooling or taking the bus to work - further reducing their oil demand.  Meanwhile, the price of everything they purchase, from groceries to prescription drugs, has increased - cutting in to their discretionary consumer spending budget and further reducing their overall spending on non-essential travel and non-essential purchases.

Because 75% of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck (the vast majority of whom are also being squeezed by significant credit card debt) and 70% of the US economy is dependent on consumer spending, when you aggregate the drop in consumer demand from one person across all the consumers in an economy, the economy goes into a recession.

Globally, we can aggregate the effect on consumer spending across the world economy.  The UK, Germany and many other developed countries are very similar to the US in that their economies are extremely dependent on consumer spending.  In China, consumer spending only accounts for 40% of the country's economy, but because it is a large exporter of consumer goods to developed economies, China's economy is extremely dependent on consumer spending in the developed world.

Research has shown that the primary way in which oil price shocks affect the economy is through a reduction in consumer spending.  At a certain price of oil, consumer spending falls off sharply; the world economies reach a "tipping point" and enter a recession.

Of course this is a very simplistic way to look at the world economy, and obviously there are many other factors at play.  There is evidence that the world's developed economies have become less dependent on oil over the last few decades.  As a result, oil price spikes may not have as damaging an effect on the world economies as they have had in the past.  There remains a great deal of uncertainty over how oil price spikes effect the macro economy, but one way to look at the problem is as follows:

As the world economy grows, the short-run demand curve for oil shifts to the right.  Normally the short-run oil supply curve would shift to the right as OPEC increases production and previously-uneconomical oil fields come back online in the rest of the world.  But in a post-peak-oil world, OPEC's ability to increase production is limited and this short-run demand curve cannot move any further to the right.
As you can see, in a peak-oil world, short-run quantity supplied hits a wall and the price of oil keeps increasing.  This is the economic mechanism that causes a "price spike".

When the price of oil become too high, the economies of the world can't afford the additional oil cost; the world economy goes into a recession and the short-run demand curve for oil shifts back to the left.  Since oil production is inelastic in the short-run, the price of oil plummets.  This is the core of "demand destruction".

As the oil price drops due to lower oil demand, the low oil price helps the economy slowly recover.  This economic recovery brings more demand for oil and the cycle continues.

This cycle of oil price spikes, recession and oil demand destruction is referred to as the "bumpy plateau".  This mechanism may hide the true peak of world oil production for a number of years as oil price spikes and recessions cause the daily world oil production rate to vary significantly as we get close to and pass the point of world peak oil.

(Source: Colin Campbell – Association for the Study of Peak Oil)

In the long run, as the worldwide oil production rate moves down the far side of Hubbert's Peak, the supply curve will shift to the left at the global aggregate depletion rate, further increasing prices.  In the long-run, high oil prices should help encourage increased investment in additional oil drilling as well as increased investment in oil alternatives such as shale oil and tar sands projects.  However, due to the rapid nature of price movements and demand destruction, the market sends mixed price signals, hindering the investments needed to shift the long-run demand curve to the right.

In the long run, people will trade their SUVs for hybrids or move closer to work and companies will increase the fuel efficiency of their operations, and purchase more fuel efficient trucks and airplanes, etc.  All of these efficiency improvements that would shift the long-run demand curve to the left, however, take a long time to implement and are particularly difficult to justify when the price of oil plummets along with the economy due to demand destruction.  The average consumer will be feeling financial pain during the recessions and when they see that the price of oil has plummeted (due to demand destruction) they may not see the need (or be able to) trade in their vehicle for a more fuel efficient model.  The average consumer "trade cycle" for cars is 52 months, far longer than the duration of a typical price spike and demand destruction cycle, meaning our society will be slow to increase vehicle fuel efficiency.  Indeed, even now with oil prices rising nearly 15% over the last 6 months, sales of SUVs and pickup trucks are outpacing sales of cars in America by the widest margin in 5 years.  Consumers simply don't understand the price signals.

These mixed price signals and economic volatility also make financial modeling difficult for firms.  This, combined with the difficulty in justifying capital expenditures during a recession, means the implementation of efficiency projects in firms (which would help them become more resilient to future price spikes) may be slow.  This will further reduce the ability of our society to shift the long-run demand curve to the left.

For oil companies, these periods of low oil prices due to demand destruction also make it difficult to finance new oil projects which would help offset the global depletion rate.  This prevents the long-run supply curve from shifting to the right against the leftward shift caused by the global aggregate oil depletion rate, the net result of which is increasing oil prices.

Large-scale shifts in transportation infrastructure (high-speed rail, electric cars, renewable electricity generation, etc.) will likely only be possible with extreme government involvement.  Given the history of partisan government gridlock during recessions (as we are seeing now), these fundamental infrastructure changes may take a significantly long time to implement, thereby prolonging the bumpy plateau.

The last oil price spike we had was in 2008, when crude oil reached an all-time high of $147 per barrel.  It would appear then, that $150/bbl is the upper limit in price of what economies can afford without tipping into a recession. This price, however, is based 2008 dollars and because the US government has injected trillions of dollars into the economy through bailouts and quantitative easing since then, it isn't known what the trigger will be in dollar terms the next time around.

A better way to find the demand-destruction-inducing price of oil is to look at oil prices as a ratio to other commodities or indices.

After analyzing 25 years of data, I found the following ratios:

Gold/Oil Ratio ($/troy ounce : $/bbl)
Average over 25 years - 16:1
Ratio when Oil hit $147/bbl (July '08) - 6.5:1
Ratio when Oil crashed to $30/bbl (Dec '08) - 27:1
Ratio when Oil hit at multi-decade low in 1998 - 27:1
Ratio today - 16:1

S&P500/Oil Ratio (Index in $ : $/bbl)
Average over 25 years - 29:1
Ratio when Oil hit $147/bbl (July '08) - 8.5:1
Ratio when Oil crashed to $30/bbl (Dec '08) - 29:1
Ratio when Oil hit at multi-decade low in 1998 - 107:1
Ratio today - 14:1

After running the data through a statistical trading model, I found the optimal trading triggers, based on these ratios.

If the S&P/Oil ratio goes below 12, oil is about to become so expensive that it will "break the system", in this case, Sell Oil, Short the S&P 500.

When the economy crashes, if the Gold/Oil ratio goes above 20, oil is too cheap compared to gold, in that case, Buy Oil.

We're currently seeing an upward swing in commodities prices.  You should be holding oil and other commodities at this point.  The best trigger to keep an eye on for the next few months is the S&P/Oil ratio - if oil prices begin to spike and this ratio drops below 12, Sell Oil, Short the S&P 500.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

ETF Spotlight: Norway and Scandinavia - GXF

This week's ETF spotlight focuses on the Global X FTSE Nordic 30 ETF (GXF).  Scandinavia is one of the world's most energy secure regions, with large Norwegian oil reserves, wide renewable energy adoption, and broad social and government efforts to reduce energy consumption.  The Nordic countries are are also some of the world's most economically and politically stable economies and stand to benefit greatly from peak oil.

The village of Reine in Lofoten, Norway
(Credit: Petr Å merkl)

Norway is the world's 5th largest oil exporter and 3rd largest gas exporter - ahead of Kuwait and behind Iran, the UAE, Russia and Saudi Arabia.  Western Europe gets much of their oil from Norway's offshore fields in the North Sea and this resource has provided an incredible source of wealth for Norway - accounting for approximately 50% of all exports.

Starting in 1996, the Norwegian government started funneling the excess proceeds from its oil exports into The Government Pension Fund of Norway.  In 2010, the fund topped half a trillion dollars, and currently holds 1 percent of the global equity markets.  The incredible size of Norway's sovereign wealth fund has greatly increased the country's resilience to the possible harmful effects of peak oil.

Norway's North Sea oil production peaked in 2001 at 3.4 million b/d and has been declining at a rapid 13% rate since.  The decline rate is a cautionary tale for anyone who thinks that enhanced oil recovery technology will save the world from peak oil; Norway is a world leader in such technology and rather than postponing the country's production peak, it has merely allowed it to continue to produce oil for a longer period time at production rates that are still declining from their peak.

While Norway's oil production peak might, on the surface, make it in an unattractive peak-oil investment play, there are a number of reasons why Norway could benefit greatly from peak oil - including the country's large existing oil reserves, energy independence, potential arctic oil reserves, position as an oil technology leader, societal push for energy efficiency, large existing renewable energy infrastructure and political and economic stability relative to other oil exporters.

Despite Norway's oil field depletion rate, the large size of the existing oil reserves and the government and societal push for energy efficiency make it unlikely that the country will become a net oil importer in the near future.  This leaves it in the enviable position of being one of the few energy independent nations on earth.  This should allow Norway to not only ride out any oil shocks, but also to profit from them.  Additionally there's some research which shows that energy independence allows economies to continue to grow during worldwide recessions.

Norway is also actively pursuing the exploitation of new sources of oil in the Arctic Ocean.  Oil companies are extremely optimistic about the potential for vast quantities of oil in the Arctic, with some experts saying that reserves could total 25-50% of the world's undiscovered oil.  Norway, along with the United States, Russia, Denmark and Canada, stand to benefit greatly from this "final frontier" of oil exploration.

Norway is a worldwide leader in offshore oil rig technology, due largely to the fact that the North Sea is one of the harshest drilling environments on earth.  Winter temperatures are frequently below freezing and waves can regularly exceed heights of 10 meters - with one instance of a 25 meter wave hitting an oil platform in 1995.  In overcoming these unprecedented technological hurdles, Norway has developed some of the world's most advanced offshore oil drilling technology, and stands to benefit from exporting it to companies which wish to drill in even harsher environments, such as in the Arctic.

Additionally, Norway is a technology leader in advanced oil recovery from carbon sequestration.  Statoil currently operates the world's largest carbon sequestration facility and should be able to easily export its technology and expertise to other oil companies wishing to increase oil production and reduce carbon emissions - both major economic issues for oil companies in the future.  Additionally, this carbon sequestration technology could potentially be combined with underground coal gasification technology to carbon-neutrally harness the 3 trillion tons of coal which lie off Norway's coastline (a reserve 3 times larger than the entire world's onshore coal reserves).

Norway has also long been a leader in offshore oil rig safety standards, with its Det Norske Veritas classification being one of the world's toughest regulation standards for offshore vessels.  As a result, Norway stands to benefit from the current push to retrofit existing offshore oil rigs to higher safety standards, due to new government regulations resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Scandinavia has significant existing renewable energy infrastructure.  Norway, due to its vast network of hydroelectric dams, generates 99% of its electricity from renewable energy.  It is also the first country to commercialize tidal power.  Finland generates about a quarter of its electricity from renewable sources.  Denmark, long known for its windmills, generates about 20% of its electricity from wind power and manufactures a significant portion of the world's wind turbines.  Scandinavia's large renewable energy infrastructure, combined with a current push for electric car adoption, will greatly reduce the region's exposure to the negative effects of peak oil in the future.

In addition to its renewable energy sources, Scandinavia is leading the world in an effort to reduce its oil consumption.  Major Scandinavian cities like Stockholm, Copenhagen and Oslo are extremely walkable, have readily available public transportation and lead the western world in bicycle use.  In Copenhagen, 36% of all citizens commute by bicycle and the city has set a target for 50% of citizens to do so by 2015.  In Sweden, 43% of the country's electricity comes from renewable sources and the government has drawn up plans to make the country oil-free by 2020.

The Scandinavian countries have robust economies with stable currencies.  The Norwegian Krone has even been called "the world's safest currency" - a distinction which is particularly salient during the current currency wars, with the world's largest economies in a race to the bottom to devalue their currencies.  The Scandinavian countries are some of the wealthiest on earth; all rank in the top 20 for gross domestic product at purchasing power parity per capita, with Norway holding the 3rd spot, behind only Qatar and Luxembourg.  They are also some of the most productive, with GDP-PPP per hour worked ranking Norway as the most productive country on earth.  Sweden, Finland and Denmark also all rank within the top ten of the world's most competitive economies.

On its own fundamental merits for currency stability, government stability, economic stability and potential for economic growth, the Scandinavian countries make an ideal investment target.  When combined with their focus on energy independence and the vast resource wealth of Norway, investing in the Global X FTSE Nordic 30 ETF (GXF) is a great way to protect your portfolio from peak oil.

GXF Top 10 Holdings:
  1. Novo Nordisk - Danish Pharmaceutical Company
  2. Nordea Bank - Nordic Banking Conglomerate
  3. Ericsson - Swedish Telecommunications Company
  4. Nokia - Finnish Mobile Phone Company
  5. Statoil - Norwegian Oil Company
    • Operates in 34 countries worldwide
    • Technology leader in harsh-environment offshore drilling
    • Offshore safety leader
    • Technology leader in carbon sequestration
  6. H&M - Swedish Clothing Company
  7. Svenska Handelsbanken - Swedish Bank
  8. Volvo - Swedish commecial truck Manufactuer
    • Produces some of the world's most fuel-efficient commercial trucks
    • Volvo Cars is owned by the Chinese Geely car company
  9. Sandvik - Swedish Materials, Mining & Construction Company
    • Large upside potential from increase in commodities prices
  10. Danske Bank - Danish Bank

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Book Report - The Impending World Energy Mess

Robert Hirsch is perhaps most well known for writing the famous "Hirsch Report" in 2005, which was the first official US Government report, written for the US Department of Energy, which publicly acknowledged the threat of peak oil and the potential catastrophic effects it could have on the US economy.  Along with the two co-authors of the Hirsch Report, Dr. Hirsch recently published a book aimed at the general public entitled "The Impending World Energy Mess".

Generally the book does a very good job synthesizing all of the various complexities associated with peak oil, from the overestimation of OPEC reserves (pg. 33), to the summary of current peak date forecasts (ch. 7), the challenges to mitigation strategies (pg. 130), the Energy Return on Energy Invested of alternatives (ch. 13), and the obstacles to scaling up alternatives (ch. 14).  It is very comprehensive in the way it takes each alternative, one by one, and analyzes their market potential and the challenges and risks of their adoption.

One criticism of the book is that the authors chose to treat climate change with a good deal of skepticism.  Obviously the "climategate" scandal shed a lot of negative light on the way scientists build their climate models.  Correlation of temperature changes to greenhouse gas emissions does not necessarily imply causation and anyone who's familiar with modeling - for example, financial modeling - knows that the modeler can adjust the countless assumptions to make their model come to pretty much whatever conclusion they desire.  So while there may be a great deal of skepticism (much of it funded by the largest greenhouse gas emitters) about the anthropogenic roots of global climate change, there is little doubt about the basic scientific measurements confirming global warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  So the problem comes down to the simple question: "are you confident enough with your skepticism of the anthropogenic roots of global climate change to risk doing nothing and potentially endanger all future generations of life on earth?".  Which brings us to the "precautionary principle".  For a group of authors who so competently apply the precautionary principle to the problem of peak oil, it's disheartening to see them completely ignore it for climate change.  Certainly, the militaries of the world (including the United States, Canada, Germany, China, & Russia) understand the issue and have been actively building contingency plans for wars resulting from global warming and peak oil.  If our militaries are taking the two problems seriously, perhaps we should as well.  After all, the solutions to our energy security problem, our peak oil problem and our climate change problem are the same: become more efficient in our use of energy, transition our transportation infrastructure to be less dependent on fossil fuels, and build massive new sources of renewable energy.

In chapter 16, the authors name specific countries as peak oil winners and losers, and their conclusions largely mirror the Peak Oil Proof Portfolio:
  • Winners: Oil Exporting Countries
    • Russia
      • I recommend RSX in the Peak Oil Proof Portfolio
    • Canada
      • I recommend EWC in the Peak Oil Proof Portfolio
    • Saudi Arabia
    • Mexico
      •  Hirsch fails to recognize Mexico's 2006 peak and massive 13% decline rate since
    • Norway
      • I recommend GXF in the Peak Oil Proof Portfolio
  • Losers: Oil Importing Countries
    • United States
      • Major economic downside potential as China spends US dollar reserves on oil
    • China
      • Massive recent oil investments (in US Dollars) may help mitigate problem
    • Japan
    • India
    • South Korea
    • Most of Europe - specifically Germany, France and Spain

    On a side note, I had the opportunity to sit in on a discussion panel two nights ago with Michael Nash, the director of the new movie "Climate Refugees".  He told a story of a night he had in China a few years ago where he had a few drinks with some Chinese officials after randomly sharing a cab with them.  He asked them what they really thought of the way the United States was handling its energy security and climate change policy.  The officials responded that they would love nothing more than for the US to have another 10 years of political impasse over energy policy - that while the US has been squabbling over building an energy bill, China has gone from being a developing country to the world's largest consumer of energy and the world's largest producer of wind turbines and solar panels.  The Chinese officials rightly deduced that if the United States waits any longer to get serious about its energy problem, that not only will the US be in severe economic trouble, but that it will be buying the solutions to its problems from the Chinese rather than building them domestically.  As Dr. Hirsch accurately surmises in the book, "the risk of widespread economic disaster is so great that immediate action is mandatory."  If the US politicians don't get serious about creating a comprehensive energy plan to transition the US economy towards energy alternatives, the United States could end up as the "biggest loser" of the above list.


    Additional investment advice is given in chapter 18, including:
    • Avoid holding long-term bonds
    • Consider investing in inflation-protected TIPS bonds
    • Invest in commodities as a hedge against energy-induced inflation
      • I recommend GLD and SLV in the Peak Oil Proof Portfolio
    • Avoid investment in consumer goods companies
    • Consider short sales of stocks
    • Invest in countries which are energy secure
    In chapter 11, the authors also recommend their preferred technologies which countries could adopt in an Apollo-style "crash program" to mitigate the effects of a worldwide oil production decline.  Since each technology carries with it significant technical and political risk, I believe it's best to invest broadly in oil (VDE) and alternatives (PBD) and avoid trying to pick technology winners and losers.

    As for the Peak Oil Proof Portfolio, it's up 4.16% since its inception, vs. 3.07% for S&P 500.