Print This Post
Comments on Stocks and Oil
Stocks continue to recover from their panic bottoms of last November, many of them having doubled or more from then (case in point: General Electric). All this seems very healthy to me given the lack of real world data indicating any sort of resumption in economic growth. We get only data indicating a slowing in the rate of decline. On top of that, we know there are more shocks to come: huge default rates in loans on commercial real estate which lags the economy, the likely bankruptcy of both Chrysler and General Motors with the unknowable risks which bankruptcy entails, and an open ended risk of a global pandemic of Swine Flu. Given those well know negatives facing us “down the pike”, recent market strength seems impressive.
Meanwhile some specific stocks are grabbing my interest. Lynas (LYSCF), the Australian rare earth element mining company about which I’ve written several times has made some recent eye-popping advances including a nearly 50% move (to $0.35 per share) just today. Trading has been halted in Australia pending news of a new financing - which is obviously seen by insiders as positive. Lynas is one of those little companies that could represent a potential opportunity for many multiples of gain over the next year or three. It should begin shipping product in Q1 or Q2 of 2010 from its world-class deposit. Increasing numbers of analysts are noting the potential supply shortfall for rare earth metals given their use in many high-tech products - not least of which is batteries for hybrid cars. I haven’t bet the ranch on Lynas but at this point I would be more inclined to be a buyer than a seller. I started buying the stock around $0.50 a share and my positions have just today turned net profitable for the first time.
Another highly speculative stock (I’d say a good deal more speculative than Lynas) is Zenn Motors (ZNNMF), about which I’ve also written recently. Zenn is a speculation on EEstor, a battery and ultracapacitor startup-stage company that recently announced that key metrics of their energy-storage product have been independently confirmed. The product is in development and no working prototypes have been seen publicly. The original announcement of permittivity certification was subsequently amplified to show that it works over a range of temperatures including very low temperatures.
The EEstor product could be a world class game changer on the order of atomic energy or the internet. Zenn has some equity in EEstor and some rights to use their product for cars. The only thing on which I can judge the risk/reward of owning Zenn stock is internet “chatter.” My sense is that the recent product news has been impressive to people who seem to have a background to understand it. There seem to be fewer attacks on EEstor as a “fraud” and “vaporware” purveyor. Of course I’ve never had that fear because the company is funded by one of the most sophisticated and successful venture capital investors ever, Kleiner Perkins. So the company’s business plan could fail, but if so, that won’t be be due to fraud.
The EEstor announcement - and some apparent leakage of it before it hit the public - pushed Zenn stock up by a factor of three. Since the announcement it has retraced somewhat. Is it worth buying here? If I didn’t already own it, I’d want to have some. How much is enough is an individual question - about which I am still noodling.
Meanwhile, the possibility of an EEstor revolution in energy storage is one reason why I’ve become a bit queasy about owning SQM, the Chilean fertilizer and lithium play that today reported excellent earnings for Q1. If EEstor’s product is for real, the future use of lithium for car batteries could become much more questionable. Some people have already raised questions about whether the lithium-ion battery is a realistic solution for hybrids, including analysts Jack Luftin and John Peterson. Their arguments are too complex to repeat here but the links will give them to you. Essentially they are technical opinions to the effect that lithium-ion batteries are inherently unsuitable to the task of powering a plug-in hybrid electric full size vehicle.
I’m not swayed as much my Luftin or Peterson as I am by the possibility of EEstor coming through with the sort of technology game changer that is needed for next generation cars to make economic sense. I think EEstor has given ample warning that something big could well be in store for battery technology. And if it’s not EEstor, perhaps there are others working on similar new technologies. I would not want to wake up one morning and find that the primary reason for SQM’s 22 P/E has been blown up and the new P/E is 10. So for whatever it’s worth to anyone, I have stepped back from SQM for now. I no longer own it.
The Price of Oil
Last week I wrote that the $50 price of oil was a bit confounding to me because there is so much of a glut of oil right now both in storage and in excess capacity underground. I said the high price in the face of a glut could be due to the highly contangoed futures market and thus to speculation. A few right-wingnuts who apparently think that either speculation does not exist or that it is a God-given right and therefore should never be “attacked” wrote to tell me I was off base. So I’ve been thinking about it some more.
For whatever it’s worth, here’s my conclusion. First, it’s clear that the condition of contango or of backwardization is a function of speculation so there is almost always a fair degree of speculation in the futures market for oil. Since oil swings from one condition to the other - contango or backwardation - regardless of the absolute level of the front month, there is clearly no explanation for why it swings other than speculation. I don’t say that such speculation is good or bad, just that it is an important input to the futures curve. The speculators are determining the shape of the curve based on their expectations for future market tightness and if the curve is steep enough, as is currently the case, the far out months can impact current prices.
For confirmation that speculation is an important input to oil pricing I cite the recent statements of officials in numerous countries, both producers and consumers including the Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi. They maintain that speculation has been an important input into oil pricing and they want to regulate markets to eliminate the ability of very large financial players to influence the price of oil.
The statement issued by the officials said that volatility in the market is harmful to both producers and consumers and that “financial markets have an impact on oil price formation,” according to Kyodo. It said officials, tackling the issue of supervision of over-the-counter markets and transparency, called for “further harmonized actions such as introduction of position limits.”
My conclusion, and the working hypothesis which I intend to use going forward as an investor unless better information changes my mind, is that the near term price of oil is a function of both fundamentals and speculative influences. That’s not a radical idea. It probably works for most markets, particularly stock markets. The trick is to figure out at any given time what the relative input of the fundamental and speculative elements are.
My guess is that when oil dipped below $40 the fundamentals were overwhelmingly driving the price. At $50, speculation that future years will bring much higher oil prices (which is also my own view) is having an important supporting role for the near month price. Were it not for such speculation, I do believe the spot price would be in the $35 - low-$40 range. That’s just my opinion. The more important judgement is whether that trend is likely to increase or diminish over the near future. The tendency is to think it will stay the same, which usually is not the case.
My sense is that if the economy actually begins to turn around, bullish speculation in oil will increase for two reasons. First, speculators will judge that fundamental demand for oil will increase. Secondly, the dollar is likely to come under pressure, which makes oil more valuable as an asset class. So, will the economy actually begin to improve any time soon? I think it’s a little too early to expect that, especially with Swine Flu hanging over everything. I think the downward momentum of the economy has some more to go. Hopefully only a few months, but possibly a lot longer.
My bottom line, therefore on oil? The price is probably not likely to move much very soon. Oil stocks, however, could still continue to do quite well as they have since last November if the general level of stocks continues to rise. That’s because a rising stock market is seen by investors as an early sign of an improving economy - which implies a higher oil price down the line for the two reasons mentioned above. The expectation of higher future oil prices can support continued appreciation for oil equities.
Eventually the economy will in fact turn around and begin to grow again, which will clearly support the oil price more strongly. So my sense is that even if oil equities underperform stocks as a class over the next 3 - 6 months, they are likely to do better than the average stock as the economic recovery begins to take shape. The MLP’s in particular, such as PWE, since they pay good dividends, are therefore especially attractive at this point.
Tags: peak oil investments
Print This Post



12 responses so far ↓
1 Karol // Apr 30, 2009 at 3:49 am
“Down the road…the other way…is the way to go…the people say…they don’t know…where I’ve been…felt so go that I’m going there again”
No, not likely.
Jim,
It’s seems to me that some lessons just don’t get learned. I invested in Nova Bio Fuel and got burnt. I’ve invested in many tech stocks and got burnt. I invested in SQM and made a couple bucks (and I’ve been out for many months now).
Just for fun, a couple million barrels of spare oil, why that’s only single double hull tanker.
Next
I got a friend who’s currently driving the states. He’s going 5,000 miles in a Cad. with a 300 hp engine and getting 25mpg @ 75mph that is until he’s forced to buy in the eastern states 10% ethanol which drops his mileages 15% to 21mpg. He claims the Cad performs the same but I think not. We both give on the mileage factor (I think ethanol will damage his engine). But at least the corn farmers are happy.
So, what’s my take on Lynas and Zenn. No more shooting for the moon or Angel investing for me. I’m black gold solely.
It sure would be a wonderful world if DXO paid a dividend. I would be happy! We want everyone to be happy right?
Also, it is good to note how the world is responding to the new flu. I see symmetry in the way its responded to the $147 /9-11 of peak oil.
Good investing to you.
2 Jimp // Apr 30, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Jim Kingsdale,
Thank you for sharing your wisdom and thoughts on Lynas corp, etc.
Your posts have given me very valuable investment direction.
Jimp
3 Isaac // Apr 30, 2009 at 8:18 pm
As I understand it, an ultracapacitor such as Eestor is developing will be linked with a battery to give a combined electricity output for the motor. If this is correct then batteries, whether lithium or Pb-C or NiMh will still be necessary. Likely all off the above. I would think a small commuter vehicle would put a paramount emphasis on low weight batteries, whereas a delivery van would be concerned more with frequent stop-start and heavy loads- and could ‘afford’ heavier batteries.
Its taking longer than I’d hoped, but we’re getting closer to some very interesting vehicles (and less permafrost).
4 Karol // May 1, 2009 at 4:32 am
comments on stocks and…
If I had a short on the peso and was taking a profit related to the swine flu’s effect on the peso… I’d be sure to donate to health care. That’s good investing!
5 drivin98 // May 1, 2009 at 7:11 am
The guys name if Lifton, not Lufton.
6 KV // May 3, 2009 at 6:15 am
Jim,
This is per Munger of Berkshire:
“We need to remove from the investment banking and the commercial banking industries a lot of the practices and prerogatives that they have so lovingly possessed,” Munger said. “If they are too big to fail, they are too big to be allowed to be as gamey and venal as they’ve been — and as stupid as they’ve been.”
Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway, run by Munger’s long-time business partner Warren Buffett, nevertheless is a large investor in some of the biggest U.S. banks.
Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRGmF1WqsCgA&refer=home
The problem is oligopoly through a few big boys controlling politics and corrupting all that we hold dearly as “free”.
7 Jim Kingsdale // May 3, 2009 at 6:44 am
KV, in my view Munger is totally correct. Here’s an example of what needs to be done: Citi is battling to pay big bonuses to top traders in their Phibro subsidiary, one of the largest commodities trading operations in the world that they acquired some years ago. The govt. response should be to force Citi to sell Phibro, for 2 reasons. First Citi needs the equity capital to support their banking operations and second, there’s no need for taxpayers to stand behind a huge commodities trading operation that could lose billions overnight - as have others.
8 KV // May 3, 2009 at 8:57 am
Jim,
And, Citi is going to be in line for additional $10 B! Why is it so hard to separate bank operations: banking, investment banking, speculative nonsense, and any other esoteric stuff they may do? I am sure they do that for their internal accounting but refuse to disclose! With that, we can allow bad parts to die!
I also think “bonus” as MAIN part of compensation is nonsense. Most other professionals and workers get paid a salary and may be a performance bonus that is rarely greater than 10%. That is why I somethines refer to them as snake-oil guys!
This is where Munger’s comment is so important for achieving a change in finance industry.
This also true of mutual fund companies. All they want to do is collect their fees based on assets! The asset pool is perpetually increases as people work and contribute to 401K, IRA, and pensions etc. Their need for yield has been a contributor in supporting risky CDS and other conditional notes etc.
9 Frank Sutton // May 3, 2009 at 10:30 am
Jim,
why do you think that the worst is over?
10 KV // May 3, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Obama on Financial sector…
“What I think will change, what I think was an aberration, was a situation where corporate profits in the financial sector were such a heavy part of our overall profitability over the last decade,” he said told the New York Times Magazine.
“Part of that has to do with the effects of regulation that will inhibit some of the massive leveraging and the massive risk-taking that had become so common.”
Obama said some of the job-seekers who may normally have gone to the financial sector would shift to other areas of the economy, such as engineering.
“Wall Street will remain a big, important part of our economy, just as it was in the ’70s and the ’80s. It just won’t be half of our economy,” he said.
“We don’t want every single college grad with mathematical aptitude to become a derivatives trader.”
Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5412OP20090502
11 Jim Kingsdale // May 3, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Frank - the worst is over in the real world, I think, because the banking system, the heart of the economy, is no longer in peril of breaking down. Credit is moving toward normal. The second derivitive of economic activity is improving (things are declining at a slower pace) and there are signs of leveling off, e.g. consumer spending.
The stock market could - and will - have periods of retrenchment, but it is essentially a forward looking indicator and when one looks forward far enough (defined differently by various observers) the consensus is coming to believe it’s far more likely to be an environment of growth than of further decline. China is also looking like a plus.
That said there are certainly challenges in store, not least the auto companies and what I expect will be continued sluggish OECD auto demand until next generation cars are available.
12 GH // May 14, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Jim,
I’m not convinced that half of SQM’s PE is based on future EV lithium needs. Maybe 2-3 points. Remember there is growing demand for lithium batteries for many other portable devices (music, phones, laptops, palmtops, eBooks, GPS), which are already sold in quantity and would likely need to be re-designed to utilize EEstor’s technology. But the major impetus behind SQM, in my opinion, is their fertilizer business… and that’s money in the bank. (Actually, better, these days :-).
- GH
Leave a Comment