Bourgeoisie do-gooders are still warm at night

 

Provided by Cory Sims, AWMA®

 

If you’ve ever found yourself in the UK in January, you likely had a couple sweaters and a coat on hand. It’s cold, and while not Alaska cold, it’s cold nonetheless. The UK is so cold that when St. John’s College (part of the University of Oxford) professor and manager of the school’s financial affairs, Andrew Parker, received a demand from students that the school divest its investments in fossil fuel companies, Parker figured he could use this as a teaching moment (with the January winter as a willing ally).

Parker responded to the student’s demands with a concise retort:

“I am not able to arrange any divestment at short notice, but I can arrange for the central gas heating in college to be switched off with immediate effect. Please let me know if you support this proposal.”

It must have felt good for Parker to pen such a stinging rebuke. And to be honest, it probably wasn’t the most appropriate, but it appears the man had been stretched to the limit. Needless to say, the students weren’t pleased, and the fight continues, but it begs the question as to the lack of perspective and critical thinking we are witnessing worldwide at the moment. In terms of creating a cleaner planet, it would be tough to find a human being not interested or at least in favor of the notion. That much is certain. The tricky part is the measures we employ and whether they result in the desired outcomes.

The developed world is obsessed with a “fossil fuel-free future.” Fossil fuels produce carbon dioxide when burned, and the emissions trap heat in the atmosphere, ultimately leading to climate change. It’s not an energy source without its faults. But what doesn’t have a “cost” associated with it? Pools provide entertainment and relaxation to hundreds of millions of people yearly. They also kill hundreds of thousands due to drownings. Cars transport people and cargo millions of times per day and kill hundreds of thousands due to negligent or accidental driving. You get the gist.

Fossil fuels have their downsides, but the world economy is built on them. However, one movement that has been gaining steam (it better be clean steam) are environmental, social, and governance (ESG) funds. The premise - rather than continuing to invest in firms that are polluting or are harmful to the environment, we can shift our money into funds that are invested based on environmental, social, and governance factors. Collectively, our investment actions will better position us to combat climate change, and doing so will bring about a positive future. There are currently 300 mutual funds and ETFs (exchange-traded funds) focusing on ESG. Rating agencies such as MSCI or smaller firms like Sustainalytics provide composite scores, and those scores drive investments.

Here, however, is where we’re running into trouble. The composite scores vary dramatically across rating agencies. It turns out it’s SUPER hard to rate a company on environmental, social, and governance factors. And it’s even harder to come to a consensus on how to do it. Take Xcel Energy as an example. Xcel consistently ranks as one of the world’s worst when it comes to their carbon footprint. A substantial share of its power comes from coal, so this is understandable. Yet, Xcel is the first US utility company that has declared it will be 100% carbon-free by 2050. Moreover, it’s also a leader in constructing wind-generation facilities. Doesn’t the latter merit some positive scores then? 

How about Kinder Morgan? This is a gas pipeline company, and of course, scores poorly due to its carbon-intensive energy. Yet, in terms of the cleanest-burning carbons, natural gas is right up there. In fact, if natural gas could replace coal then we’d be much closer to reaching our overall environmental goals. Again, this should elicit a good score, but because it’s natural gas, red-marks across the line. You then have companies like Bank of America that score poorly with one ESG rating agency and above-average with another. At the end of the day, ESG investing comes down to whichever rating agency you believe in and their fuzzy qualitative measures.

This brings us back to our initial point - we can disinvest and reinvest ourselves immediately, but there will be consequences. There are always consequences. In the case of Oxford students, that would be cold dormitories. But it’s a whole lot worse for half of the world that depends desperately on stable electricity, heating, and a whole range of basic household needs. Energy has lifted millions out of poverty, and any threat to its stability would drive millions back into impoverished situations. It would be fantastic if a child living in a Lagos slum could study in the evening thanks to a wind farm’s electricity. But that’s not the case at the moment, and Lagos slums are not well-positioned to handle immediate supply shocks.

Those that tout renewable energy and ESG investing are overwhelmingly wealthy or enjoy the spoils of a wealthy nation. We’re not saying we shouldn’t march toward less reliance on fossil fuels. But demands to disinvest and shift our entire way of living overnight is plain irresponsible. It is also a bankrupt argument as wealthy nations didn’t become wealthy thanks to solar panels and wind farms.   

Tags:

• ESG
• Investing
• Stock Market

Tesla - The Market's Own Eddie Haskell

“Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”

– Milton Friedman

The first rule of economics is two-fold - resources are scarce, and resources have alternative uses. It’s rather intuitive if you let it sink in. When it comes to politics, however, can you guess what the first rule is? We’ll cut to it, no time for hints and innuendos – the first rule of politics is to ignore the first rule of economics.

That’s a heck of a generalization, you’re thinking. Perhaps, but even the most “aligned” politician to whatever set of beliefs you hold, strays from basic economic principles every now and again. Moreover (and a much larger issue that should concern anyone who works and invests), many politicians have never grounded themselves in fundamental economic principles to begin with.

An often-used synonym for Friedman’s “government program” quoted above is a subsidy. Subsidies sound better than “government program.” Government programs sound drab and grey, comprised of slightly overweight state employees reviewing paperwork and taking frequent coffee breaks with plastic and paper cutlery. Subsidies, however, while far from “Angelina Jolie sexy,” do beat government programs by a landslide. Yet, a pig dressed up like a princess might fool one in a thousand, but it’s a pig at the end of the day, snout and muddy toes, lest you forget.

Subsidies are the government’s way of encouraging companies to undertake business ventures that the government deems in the public’s interest. We hear ad-nauseam that the US is a free-market system. Yet, a seminal 2012 CATO study revealed that our government spends in the neighborhood of $100 billion annually (8 years ago, imagine that amount in 2020!) in aid (code word - subsidies) to private actors covering a range of sectors:

• Farm subsidies
• Rural subsidies
• Energy subsidies
• Small business subsidies
• Export subsidies
• Aviation subsidies
• Earned income tax credit

These are the biggies, and big they are. But there are many more who’ve joined the party, and one of the biggest recipients is a company we’re all familiar with – Tesla.

Tesla is hip, Tesla is the future, and Elon Musk is that older cousin or uncle you wish you could present to your loyal Instagram followers. Yet, Tesla owes a great deal to you and I. We know this to be true because Musk and company spend $1 million plus annually on Washington lobbyists to ensure the government (taxpayer) subsidy faucet remains open.

Now, it’s surprisingly tough to find the exact amounts Tesla has received in government subsidies – either via direct grants, tax breaks, or “lax loans.” Early on, California shelled out $612 million in tax breaks to the auto manufacturer, and the Feds issued a $465 million “loan” to aid in building their Fremont factory. The rationale for spending taxpayer money to help Tesla develop was initially couched as an environmental initiative. Electric vehicles (EVs) will reduce harmful emissions, which will, in turn, slow climate change, and this is a public good.

The initial tax credit for buyers of a new EV was $7,500 per car (until the end of 2018). This was implemented for up to the first 200,000 cars sold (per manufacturer), which amounts to roughly $1.5 billion in taxpayer money that went to people who could afford to purchase a Tesla. In essence, this is a tax break for the wealthy, as Tesla’s aren’t cheap and their principal buyers are the upper-middle and upper classes.

There is no doubt that a world of EVs is better for our planet than gas-consuming automobiles. But, let’s return to the first rule of economics for a second. Resources (money, in this instance) are scarce, and resources (MONEY) have alternative uses. Is the goal in subsidizing Tesla, now one of the ten wealthiest companies on the planet, the smartest path to a cleaner environment?

There is a plethora of ways to shrink the size of our carbon footprint. In any given environment, planting trees alone yields numerous effects, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and absorbing and retaining rainwater. What’s the cost of a tree plant? Don’t bother Googling, it was a rhetorical question. 

Moreover, before Tesla, there were a host of other auto manufacturers that had already rolled out some exceptionally “clean” cars. Why is Tesla receiving the lion’s share of subsidies, then? It’s a tough question to answer, and while theories abound, at the end of the day, we now have one of the wealthiest companies in the world built in large part by taxpayer money.

It sounds counterintuitive, but when a company like Tesla is guaranteed market share, this slows innovation. Yes, Tesla has innovated, and EV technology is more advanced now, thanks to them. But their outsized market share creates barriers to entry for other individuals or corporations to compete. Second, anytime money is being dolled out, you can bet corruption is not far behind. Remember when we all lost half a billion dollars on Solyndra, the failed solar company?

Musk and company have perfected this business model. Back in 2013, they invited government officials from seven states to their Fremont auto factory. After an extensive tour, wowing attendees with advanced powertrain chatter and who knows what else, they sat the group down and explained Tesla’s vision for the future …

The Biggest Lithium-Ion Battery Factory in the World!

The room was mesmerized, and Musk had them frothing at the mouth. “How can we help?” “We want to be part of this!” Of course, they did, and Tesla then invited the group to bid on the project. If they wanted their state to house the biggest lithium-ion battery factory in the world, they needed to “SHOW HIM THE MONEY” (in your best Tom Cruise voice).

Weeks later, Nevada brought in Tesla with $1.25 billion in subsidies. We’d be remiss in not mentioning that Tesla has lost in the neighborhood of $5.3 billion over the last 5 years. Taxpayers continue to subsidize a company that operates with massive losses, and one that has made Mr. Musk now the world’s fifth richest person. As of a week ago, he unlocked the second part of a $55 billion bonus package, and his total net worth has soared to $74 billion. This has all occurred with a product that 99% of Americans cannot afford nor can we conclude what the return on our investment (a cleaner environment) would have been with an alternative direction. 

The rest is history, but in reality, it’s not. It’s simply how things are done now, especially when you don’t take into account that resources ALWAYS have alternative uses.

Media Oxymoron

I'm starting to wonder if having an endless supply of outlets and talking heads is actually a bad thing. If you're somehow reading this in North Korea (great VPN by the way, hope you don't get caught), you're banging your head against your keyboard in frustration. You've got one talking head, and he'll take you head off if you don't agree!

Suffice it to say, the US is the polar opposite of North Korea. We've opened up the floodgates, and advice, opinions, word vomit, and some things even more rancid are now commonplace. We encourage differing points of view, active debate, free speech above all, but hopefully within a framework. For a while, we had that framework – it was the media.

If you're over 40, you remember the Big 3 channels growing up:

1) NBC

2) ABC

3) CBS

In the late 70s, an astounding 90% of prime-time viewing audience was centered on one of these three. By 1989 that number had fallen to 67%, but anything over 50% for a media outlet today is unfathomable.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of returning to the oligopoly of the 70s and 80s, or an authoritarian nightmare that is North Korea. But as the Internet has completely transformed how we receive information, it's also made it much more complex to decipher. If NBC, ABC, and CBS were colluding to brainwash me, I could buy that and perhaps seek my news on AM radio or via some other antiquated medium.

But today, I see a news story on CNN, catch a snipet of a podcast, read a provocative opinion piece in the New York Times, plug in for a roundtable panel on Fox News, and start the day all over again tomorrow with Squawk Box, literally squawking at me first thing in the morning. Before I consider oil futures, I'd love a cup of coffee and to move my Labrador off my head.

The current state of affairs is certainly no better. Since March, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had been warning against mass gatherings. We know the virus spreads quickly when folks gather together and talk, yell, sing, etc. in close proximity. Now, I don't care how you feel about the ramifications of contracting COVID-19. You might be healthy as an ox and want to play the health odds. Said odds are undoubtedly on your side, but the typical response back to "healthy ox guy" was we're not concerned about you, but instead you spreading it to others who aren't as healthy.

Ok, I don't want to fall down a COVID rabbit hole here, but the flip now to encouraging mass gatherings or restaurants keeping tables 6 feet apart but maintaining take-out lines packed with hungry patrons is plain confusing. And many of these recommendations are coming from CDC officials, epidemiologists, and other medical professionals.

Just so we're on the same page, this is nothing new for me. Working in finance, and glued to the market an unhealthy amount of time, mixed messaging is a mainstay. You'll see headlines like the following and naturally come to one conclusion:

- "Epic Job Market"

- "Earnings, Guidance Still Positive"

- "Volatility Has Settled"

- "Bullish Seasonality"   

Things are looking up!

Yet the very same week (and even the same day), another "reputable" outlet will come out with:

- "Fed Still Hiking"

- "High Debt Levels"

- "Sector Weightings Out of Whack"

- "Emerging Bear Market"

There are two ways to interpret any piece of information. In all actuality, there's more but stay with me. Here's a made-up statistic:

60% of dogs living on the street tested positive for rabies.

If you are a dog-lover and feel society should do everything in its power to throw all available resources at rescuing dogs and finding them a home, the information that you will communicate with this statistic is we are failing as a society to care for dogs, and as a result, 6 out of every 10 dogs we see living on the streets is suffering terribly from rabies. We must help these animals today.

Here's another angle. Say you are more inclined to get dogs off the street, but not necessarily into shelters to care for them, but rather have them euthanized. Your argument here would be that 6 out of every 10 dogs we see living on the streets is a danger to us because they suffer from rabies and could easily spread it to children or the elderly.

It's the same statistic, the same piece of information, but presented in two very different contexts. Mass gatherings are bad in a COVID-19 environment, but only bad sometimes. Volatility has settled in the market, but only in certain areas. Back in the days of the Big Three, we had one message. It might have been the "wrong one" depending on your personal views, but today's mixing is leaving everyone in a more confused state.

The only way forward, for now, is to consume as much information as you can from multiple outlets and then arrive at your own decision. This will take up 7 hours of your day, and then after that, you need to figure out how to work, take out the garbage, read a story to your kid and carve out some time for a Netflix Series. Quite a world we've crafted for ourselves.  

Media and Predictions

There is an old adage in fundraising – urgency above everything. Consider the following pitch:  

Indigenous tribes in Papua New Guinea are going through a rough time. Freshwater supplies are being compromised by tribal land wars. While many will survive, a portion will be without water come December. Can you help?

The problem is apparent, but the urgency is lacking. Assuming we’re months away from December, the donor has time, and 9 times out of 10, he or she will wait.

If we switched it up however and said: 

Indigenous tribes are dying day by day in Papua New Guinea. Freshwater has been severely compromised, and the only hope is to increase supply and water delivery today. We need your help immediately.

This is not necessarily a lie. Death is occurring (a nasty secret, death takes place everywhere, every day). Perhaps it’s not at the rate that’s insinuated, but happening nonetheless. 

This puts the potential donor in a rough spot. You might not have heard of Papua New Guinea, but clearly, without freshwater (and your help), people’s lives are on the line. 

Another industry that adopts this same tactic is the media. “Urgency above everything” likely emanated from successful news outlets as opposed to fundraising gurus. People are curious, social, and tribal. News that brings to light a threat to the “tribe” will be absorbed at much higher rates than news that is agnostic or non-threatening. 

We are currently living through an excellent example of this. The media is on a tear. Comparisons to the Great Wars, 9/11, the frail rotting away while the rest of us ride out the quarantine with Netflix and a glass (or three) of a fine Argentinean Malbec. I don’t know about you, but this notion that we all suddenly have endless hours of free time on our hands seems to have passed my house by. Perhaps Fred and Marjorie three doors down can wake up at 10, enjoy a leisurely lunch, and binge watch Ozark while their children autonomously connect to their online classes and remain quiet as church mice. My sense is this isn’t occurring anywhere, but the media could give a crap. That doesn’t coincide with the narrative. 

Again, “urgency above everything” depends on a clear and present danger. We must urgently hunker down and do nothing or else …  

Barry Glassner wrote an enlightening book a decade ago – “The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Fear the Wrong Things.” From a sociological standpoint, there might not be a more important book you could read right now. In fact, right now is the perfect time. You’ve got the time, right? 

The main takeaway – the media fuels itself on scares. Everything from road rage to teenage suicide, workplace violence, and the most insidious of them all – “granny dumping.” Have you callously dumped your grandparents? If not, rest assured your neighbor has (perhaps it was Fred and Marjorie). In fact, these are all widespread issues in America and why we are a decadent society doomed for failure and ruin!

We’re all guilty of tuning in, be it traditional, primetime television, cable news, or Youtube. It’s the classic car crash scenario, you see it coming and swear you won’t be like the rest of the sheep and slow down to stare, but what do you do – slow down and stare. 

Jim Cramer is another fascinating one. He makes a living yelling at you to buy, hold, or sell a stock. With a bunch of computers surrounding him, a spacious work area, and a disheveled tie (meant to indicate he’s been hard at work crunching numbers and working on behalf of your portfolio), Cramer is supposed to come off as passionate. This all equates to the perfect person to place the future of your 401K with. Yet, has anyone ever followed up on Mr. Cramer’s advice? What’s his positive hit rate? 

Cramer is akin to Nostradamus. The guy never predicted the economy would level off and sustain average growth rates of 1.9% for four years. That’s boring and who cares if it comes true. But he obviously predicted 9/11 when he wrote: 

“The sky will burn at forty-five degrees, fire approaches the great New City. Immediately a huge scattered flame leaps up.”

And lest we forget the great fire of London: 

“The blood of the just will be demanded of London burnt by fire in three times twenty plus six.”

I wish Nostradamus had opined on my Vegas trip in 1991 when I lost a king’s ransom at the craps table. Had I known ahead of time, I might have kept driving and hit Santa Monica for a long weekend. 

We’re living in an era where news could not be more prevalent. The problem is, our notion of the word “news” (wrongly) assumes an underlying premise that there is a fact (truth) attached to said news. Perhaps this was the case 80 years ago, but no longer. A tweet is not news, despite it being framed as such. 

The survivors to emerge from all this won’t come from a specific sector. Instead, it will be those who can absorb the news (noise), digest it, segment it, and rationally reason which pieces are the likeliest to be closest to the truth. This skill is vital for financial, social, and emotional security. The people that entertain or presume to inform us do not have our best interests at heart. Rather, advertisers pay them handsomely and we consume it like a Kardashian episode. 

Think strategically, act rationally, and keep Fred and Marjorie in your prayers.