Monday, February 7, 2011

Oil Supply and Demand and the Next Oil Price Spike

I gave this presentation to my energy economics class at Cornell last week.  In the presentation I describe how the supply and demand of the world oil industry have changed recently and use this analysis to argue that we will see an oil price spike within the next two years.  Enjoy.



Video Transcript:

"Hi this is Will Martin from PeakOilProof.com and today I’m going to be explaining how the next oil price spike will occur by analyzing the supply and demand of the oil industry.  I gave this presentation to my energy economics class at Cornell last week and I thought it would be good to put it online so that others better understand how the next oil price spike will play out.

This is the traditional economic view of the short-run supply and demand in the oil market.
As supply shifts to the left, for example from a supply disruption like terrorists blowing up a pipeline, the price will increase slightly, and demand will shift to create a new equilibrium.  Likewise, if demand shifted out to the right, perhaps as we moved into the summer driving season, price would increase and supply would shift out to meet it at a new equilibrium.
Many traditional economists believe that the supply and demand curves in the oil market are approximately linear and relatively inelastic with short-run price elasticities of supply and demand at .04 and -.04, respectively.

I, however, respectfully disagree with this traditional view.  When you look at the real world data of world oil production during the last oil price spike in 2008, we see that the actual short-run elasticity of supply was only .0075.
This means that the short-run elasticity of supply is far more inelastic than we would expect.  As oil prices went up significantly in 2008, the market failed to bring significant additional oil production online.
I will argue later in this presentation that in addition to the inelasticity of supply, the short-run demand curve is far more inelastic than most economists believe.

So with demand being more inelastic than expected, the real elephant in the room is the question of OPEC’s spare capacity.  For the last thirty years, OPEC has been one of the few players in the world oil market with the ability to pump more oil at a moment’s notice.  During the last oil price spike, many people questioned this spare capacity, asking, “Is OPEC tapped out?”
Obviously there are a number of reasons for OPEC to lie to the world about their available spare capacity.  Firstly, each OPEC country individually has an economic incentive to overstate their reserves.  In game theory, this is the classic “prisoner’s dilemma” situation.  Each member of the cartel is allowed to produce oil based on the amount of reserves they claim to have.  Since the actual exploration and production data that proves these reserve numbers are state secrets, there are no repercussions for lying about them, since it is impossible for the other cartel members to force you to prove them.  By overstating their reserves, a country is able to make more profit by producing more oil while the cartel keeps the market price high.
In addition to the economic incentive to lie about their oil reserves, OPEC members have huge political incentives to do so as well.  Countries may wish to overstate their oil reserves in order to make themselves seem more important than they really are to international economic and military partners.  Countries like the United States are heavily dependent on foreign oil and are therefore most likely to make economic and military alliances with countries that can supply them oil well into the future.  Many OPEC countries are in unstable areas of the world, surrounded by potentially hostile neighbors, so the incentive to overstate reserves in order to secure these international military partnerships is enormous.
It is also possibly beneficial to overstate reserves in order to quell political turmoil within one’s own country.

But when we look at the data during the last price spike, we see that OPEC’s spare production capacity worked largely as we would have expected it to.  The short-run elasticity of supply of OPEC oil was .048 – on par with what most economists would expect.  This means that, at least for now, the economic and political incentives for OPEC countries to lie about their spare capacity availability is not the driving force in causing the short-run global supply of oil to be more inelastic than expected.
So if OPEC is still able to pump oil on demand, why did we get the oil price spike in 2008?
Then answer is that OPEC’s spare capacity simply wasn’t enough to make the whole world’s supply more elastic.  The rest of the world’s oil producing countries are running full-tilt, producing as much oil as they possibly can as quickly as they possibly can.  There simply isn’t any additional spare capacity elsewhere on the world market.
In addition to this, there is the possibility that we’ve already hit the worldwide global peak in oil production and, outside of OPEC, the world’s available daily production capacity has already started to decline.  This is up for debate.  It will take a number of years before we can determine is this has actually happened, but what is obvious is that the world as a whole simply doesn’t have the additional spare capacity to increase supply as the price of oil spikes.

Just as the supply of oil is far more inelastic than we expected, the worldwide demand for oil has also changed recently to become far more inelastic and at the same time, the world demand for oil continues to increase, shifting the demand curve to the right.
The inelasticity of demand is largely due to the developing world.  In the developed world, oil is purchased by corporations and consumed by people like you and me.  We all need to make the business case for purchasing oil at higher prices.  If we can’t justify the benefit of purchasing more oil at $150 a barrel, we will simply use less oil.  This is why demand in the developed world isn’t extremely inelastic.
Most of the worldwide economic growth in the past decade, however, has come from developing countries, where oil is often purchased by the government and consumed by government-owned companies.  These government-controlled buyers don’t necessarily have to make the business case for purchasing oil at high prices.   As long as buying the oil will help their economy grow, these government agencies will purchase oil no matter how high the price is.  In other words, their demand is far more inelastic than in developing countries.  Because these developing countries as growing so rapidly and becoming such huge players in the world market, this is making the overall global short-run demand for oil far more inelastic.
The key player in all of this is China.  China has been experiencing rapid economic growth for the past decade.  Their GDP grew 10% just last year.  Last year China exceeded Japan as the second largest economy while at the same time exceeding the United States as the world’s largest consumer of energy.  Much of China’s growing demand for oil comes from the rising middle class, who are now beginning to reach a more western standard of living and many are beginning to purchase the ultimate symbol of western life: the automobile.  Car sales in china have been exploding recently.  In fact last year more cars were sold in China than in any other country at any other time in history.  If the number of cars per capita in China were to reach the level we have in the US, China would singlehandedly use all of the current world oil production.

China has an enormous demand for energy and has been importing more and more oil lately.  When we look at China’s oil consumption during the last oil price spike, we would have expected, based on the standard economic model that China would have decreased their oil consumption.  What we see, however is that instead of an expected short-run elasticity of demand of -.04, the elasticity of demand was actually slightly positive.  China continued to increase oil consumption, even during the spike, meaning their demand for oil is almost completely inelastic.
It wasn’t until the stock market crash in the US, and the corresponding reduction in demand for Chinese exports, that their oil consumption fell.  But I’ll talk about oil shock-induced demand destruction a little later.

So just to recap, the standard economist’s view of the supply and demand in the oil market is wrong.  What we see during the last oil shock is a far more inelastic supply of oil and a far more inelastic (and growing) demand for oil.  As you can see from this chart, Chinese oil demand continues to increase and as the US begins to exit the current recession, we see the US demand for oil beginning to return to its historic levels.  These two sources of demand will combine to shift the demand curve to the right and cause the oil price spike in the next few years.

Here’s what the supply and demand chart for oil actually looks like.  As you can see, the supply curve is not linear, but in fact runs into a wall of an upper limit on available spare capacity at around 87 million barrels per day of global oil production.  As the demand shifts to the right, as the developing world continues to demand more oil and as the US recovers from the recession, we see a spike in the oil price.  The production shifts out a little bit, but the price shifts up a lot.  This is the economic mechanism for an oil price spike.

Now the traditional economist’s view of the oil price spike is that we shouldn’t be worried because the high price will bring more production online and cause consumers to be more careful with their consumption.  Many economists believe that the oil price spike didn’t have a significant role in the 2008 economic crash.
But when we look at the data, we see that an oil price spike preceded almost every single economic downturn in almost every region of the world.  Clearly oil price spikes are damaging to our economy.

Why are oil price spikes so damaging?   The answer is that the use of oil permeates every aspect of our economic lives.  The primary use for oil, of course, is as a transportation fuel.  We use it as a fuel in our cars to get us to and from work, to get us out to dinner with friends, to get us to the mall to shop, etc.  About 9% of our oil consumption goes to jet fuel.  This allows us to take a vacation to see our relatives, but it also transports all kinds of “just in time goods” that we use on a daily basis – everything from sushi to flowers.  About a quarter of the oil we use goes to diesel fuel to truck around all of the other goods we consume and to bunker crude to ship all of our goods over the oceans to America.
The remaining 19% of the oil we consume goes into the products we use on a daily basis as a direct input.  All plastics are made directly from oil.  The asphalt roads we drive on are made from oil.  Many people still heat their homes with oil.  Oil is used for paints and pharmaceuticals and explosives and even the synthetic rubber in our car’s tires.
And then, of course, a lot of oil goes into the production of the foods we eat – from the oil-based pesticides and fertilizers used to grow the food, to the tractors and semi-trucks that plow, plant, harvest and deliver our food.
Everything you see around you is either directly made of oil or has been transported there by oil. 

What this all means is that as we endure an oil price spike, we have two types of demand destruction.
The primary demand destruction is what most economists talk about when they use the term “demand destruction”.  That is, as the price of oil goes up, the price of gasoline at the pump rises and people and companies begin to curtail their gasoline consumption.  Demand for oil is directly destroyed.
But at the same time, there is a second, and far more economically damaging, form of demand destruction taking place.  The secondary demand destruction comes from the increase in the price of all goods as the price of oil spikes.  Because oil is used as an input in almost everything we consume in our modern lives, as the price of oil increases, the price of all other goods goes up.  Everything from plastics to beef gets more expensive.
It’s been estimated that it takes 6 barrels of oil to raise one steer.  At $100 per barrel, this works out to about $1 per pound of beef.
So during an oil shock, the price of oil moves up quickly and at the same time, the price of almost every other good increases along with it.  Because wages don’t increase along with the price of goods, consumers have to spend more of their income on the necessities in life such as the gasoline needed to drive to work or the food on their dinner table.  This leaves the average consumer with less discretionary income to spend on other consumer goods, so when you aggregate this across the whole society, the demand for all goods goes down – thereby further decreasing the demand for oil.  This is what people are referring to when they say that high oil prices are a “drag on our economy”.

So why is there this secondary demand destruction and why is it so damaging to our economy?
The simple answer is that the average American is already on a tight budget.  75% of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck and the majority are being squeezed by significant debt.  Because wages don’t increase along with the rapid increase of the price of goods during an oil shock, people simply have even less disposable income during an oil shock.  Because people are spending more of their budget on gasoline or food, they have less money to spend on clothes or DVDs or vacations.
Because 70% of the US economy is dependent on consumer spending, when consumers start spending less money on the non-essentials, the economy goes into a recession.  We see that the situation is similar in the UK, Germany and most other developed countries.  China has an economy that is less dependent on consumer spending, but because their economy is dependent on exporting goods to consumers in developed countries, when that demand goes away, they also enter a recession.
This is why oil price spikes are usually followed by global recessions.

There’s one caveat to my prediction of an oil price spike within the next two years.  There’s a very real possibility that the current economic recovery could fall back into a double-dip recession.  This would preempt an oil price spike by halting the increase in oil demand.
There are a lot of threats that could push us back into a recession.  In the United States we currently have about 10% unemployment and over 16% underemployment.  Our national debt has reached completely unsustainable levels and is not even being funded by China any more.  In fact China has recently become a net SELLER of treasury securities.  The Fed now purchases more government debt than every other foreign government combined.
The state and municipal debts are no better.  We could see a wave a municipal bond defaults which could push the market back into a recession.  Many state budgets are worse than our federal budget.  We could see a wave of state bankruptcies, and many state legislatures are currently debating changing their state constitutions to allow this.
Housing prices have also recently begun to double dip, which could push the market down as it did in 2008.
The situation in Europe is no better.  Governments like Portugal, Ireland and Greece are completely bankrupt.  There’s the possibility that this crisis could spread to Spain, which is too big of an economy for the EU to bail out – it’s essentially too big to fail – and it could bring down the Euro with it.
China has been growing so rapidly and pumping so much money into their economy that there’s a possibility that they’ve created a real estate bubble and a credit bubble.  We could see a repeat of the American credit crisis occur in China.

But assuming all of that doesn’t happen and assuming that we continue to grow out of this recession, I believe we will see an oil price spike within the next two years.
The million dollar question is: “can consumers handle oil over $100 per barrel”.  As we saw during the last oil price spike, there seems to be a ceiling of oil prices that the consumer simply can’t handle.
The current price of oil has already gone up 40% in the last 6 months.  We’ve seen Brent Crude oil break $100 per barrel last week and the US economy hasn’t even fully recovered yet!  Because the United States uses a quarter of the world’s oil, as we exit this recession, it will shift the demand curve to the right, causing an oil price spike.  We saw Dow reach 12,000 just last week – if economy continues to recover at this pace, we could see a price spike much sooner than expected.

So that’s how the oil supply and demand picture really looks, and why we’re probably going to see an oil price spike within the next two years.  If you want to read more, you can go to peakoilproof.com"

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.