Inflation begins - food inflation is the start

When does serious inflation really start? Well, if you had to pick a point, it might be at a point when many pundits believe deflation is likely, as has been widely discussed this spring and summer by professional money managers.

Two to three years ago, many investment talking heads (myself included) spoke of the potential for emerging and developed countries stock markets to diverge in, at least, the strength of their upward market trend. The idea being that the developed country markets would move sideways, while emerging markets would continue to thrive.

The credit crisis which culminated in the stock market plunge of 2008/2009 of course showed how correlated these markets could be during times of panic. However, there is nothing wrong with the general divergence thesis during normal times, with many emerging markets getting close to re-testing their 2007/2008 price levels. Divergence is or will be here, and remains as real a prospect as ever.

However, there is one place where divergence currently exists: the "anticipation" of inflation/deflation. In developed nations, the worry is that future deflation will set these rich economies on a two-decade Japanese-style slump. In developing economies, the worry is the opposite and, rather than an intellectual debate about the future, the issue is immediate and proximate: inflation, which IS (t)here. Especially food inflation.

Large developing nations, such as India, China, and Russia, have all recently reported jumps in their inflation rates, headlined by significant jumps in food inflation (see here, here, and here). This has even resulted in an overall significant jump in global food inflation too (see here). This is the result of climate change generally, which of course plays out via specific "natural events", such as drought, flooding, and "rainfall dosing" (which is a term I am using to describe the phenomenon of growing season rainfall remaining relatively the same, but is concentrated in far fewer days [but does not consist of "flooding", per se]). This is in addition to the lower yields that are produced from heat-stressed plants. Climate-change induced food issues are here, and they are here to stay for some time.

The only reason that inflation remains off the radar screen of many professional investment types is that, in the western world at least, the food budget typically consists of a very low proportion of overall income. Whereas, however, the opposite is true in the developing world (or more so, even, in the undeveloped world), food budgets constitute a much higher proportion of the total income. So, food inflation has a much greater effect in those countries and feeds into the total inflation picture very quickly. In food, the principle of substitution (the idea that, during inflationary times particularly, folks substitute cheaper but roughly similar items for more expensive ones) has only limited applicability: after all, everyone needs to eat.

Food inflation also enters the general inflation cycle very quickly too (especially farther down the income ladder a country is) because, aside from an inflationary element of its own, the inflation knock-on effect is very pernicious, as the factory worker, et.al, marches into the boss' office, and demands a raise to deal with his deteriorating ability to feed his family. This scene plays out exactly the same way, hundreds of millions times, in hundreds of thousands of bosses offices.

The dream that (some may have that) food inflation emanating in one part of the globe won't spill over somewhere else is likely to be met by the insistent ringing of the morning's alarm clock: free trade in food. As pricing for food rises - there and here - the knock-on effect will also be felt as like looking into a mirror - here and there.

Climate change, and its resultant outputs, will have effects ranging from the evisceration of the capital value of, particularly, long-dated low-yielding stripped bonds, to the more pragmatic, of the renewed popularity of the high-yielding home garden.

So, the weather issues of this summer's northern hemisphere's growing season provide a glimpse into the future: a future which is coming fast. For those who want to understand it better, there's no better place to point your binoculars than at the emerging market countries.

On a blog aggregator? Go here, The Confused Capitalist, for additional content and our growing focus on climate change investment strategy.

Thinking Ahead: Ten Years Out

One of the themes I've tried to engage readers in here, is that by playing some fairly obvious trends, and coupling those with reasonable valuations, is a relatively easy way to outperform the market.

One theme I've pounded on over the past one-and-a-half years is the emerging market theme. It doesn't take too much heavy lifting in the thinking department to realize that with soaring GDP growth rates of 8-12% annually in some of these countries, expecting their stock valuations to follow isn't much too much of a mental stretch, even for weak thinkers like me.

So, thinking ahead, and about 10 years out is a good target, it becomes much easier to think that an overweighted emerging markets position is likely to be both prudent, and very profitable. Now, the graphic above showing firestroms in California (currently displacing one million people) obviously suggests that this posting isn't about emerging markets.

That's correct - this is about alternative energy production. While climate change and global warming have been warned about and was easily readable in the popular media 20 years ago(Time Magazine, for instance, awarded Planet Earth as "Man of the Year" in 1989, due primarily to concerns about global warming), it's only recently that most people are finally waking up to the severity of the problem.

As the problem continues to grow in the public mind, so too will the demand for solutions. These will be invoked on a political and individual basis. As the negative consequences of inaction become more and more and more visible and the predictions more dire, many will begin making personal change AND demanding societal change. This is inevitable.

Note: If you're on a blog aggregator, you can visit The Confused Capitalist here (or here: http://confusedcapitalist.blogspot.com/) for additional articles and exclusive content!)

What is also inevitable is major changes to our type of energy consumption and to the pattern of use. For instance, emerging economies will begin to use far more energy than in the past. This is good for them, but not good for the planet. The energy hogs of the planet - that's us in the western world - will finally begin to reduce consumption outright - not just on GDP weighted basis. Since we were "first in" to this pattern of inefficient energy use, it also is right that we strive to be "first out" of the pattern.

This brings us to our investment opportunity. Looking ten years, does anyone see a world in which the general populace isn't pressuring the politicians to fund alternative energy, to create incentives/disincentives to change energy use, and possibly even to restrict certain types of energy use? Perhaps rationing, a popular method for "spreading the pain" and acknowledging that we're all in this together, will become popular.

In any case, I personally cannot envision a world in 10 years where alternative energy isn't a significantly larger economic sector than it is today.

Of course, my much beloved ETFs provide a way to play this trend while avoiding single company risk. The recent launch of three ETFs targeting this sector might lead some to utter the usual cliques and say that this is a clear sign that this market segment has "topped". Yet the reasonable valuations, societal trends, and my common sense, tell me "no", that is not the case at all. And that is why I am willing to significantly overweight my portfolio to this segment.

While I do not pretend this is a comprehensive list, here are three ETF names in this sector:

Market Vectors Global Alternative Energy ETF (GEX) started trading on the New York Stock exchange. The fund, tracks the Ardour Global index (Extra Liquid), which is comprised of stocks in 30 publicly traded companies engaged in alternative energy production. These stocks are selected from a stable of 250 companies in this space. At least 30% of the names are not US-domiciled companies, and may therefore be attractive to those wishing some diversification out of the US currency. It is however, a relatively concentrated ETF, with 60% of the value being held in the top ten positions. Yahoo Finance shows the current PE as ~30.

Power Shares Global Clean Energy Fund (PBD) is based on the WilderHill New Energy Global Innovation Index. The Index seeks to deliver capital appreciation and is composed of companies that focus on greener and generally renewable sources of energy and technologies facilitating cleaner energy. The modified equal weighted portfolio is rebalanced and reconstituted quarterly. It currently holds 84 positions. It also has limited exposure to US companies, with only 26% of the ETF having US domiciled companies. Yahoo Finance shows the current PE as ~26, while information from PowerShares says the PE is ~42.

Finally, an all US domiciled companies is the First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge ETF (QCLN)which started trading in February, covers five sub-sectors of the alternative energy industry: renewable power generation, renewable fuels, energy storage and conversion, energy intelligence, and advanced energy-related materials. The investment has above average concentration, with the top ten positions holding 55% of the value. It seeks to track the NASDAQ Clean Edge U.S. Liquid Series Index. Yahoo Finance reports the PE as ~25.

One caution with all of these ETFs is that they are presently quite small, none having assets of more than $100 million. But I predict that will change dramatically by the time 2017 has rolled around. Clean energy - a future whose time is now for the investor.



JW

The Confused Capitalist

Raising the Median - Gas Mileage - Global Warming

In light of this morning's posting, I'll offer up a very small suggestion. Reduce your global warming load with a cheap bike conversion.

200 mpg, 20 mph+. All for a $400 conversion. Paid for once you've saved the cost of five fill-ups for your SUV.

Great for those small trips under six or seven miles or so. Fifty dollars gets first crack at it! As seen in Popular Science.

Better and cheaper than a Segway.

More here on the revolution.

And since this IS an investment blog, the extra savings you can put into the market. (OK, it's weak, I know, but hey ... you've got to try ... can't give up ...)

"I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do."

- Helen Keller


JW

The Confused Capitalist

Investing in a Hothouse World

I often lament to some friends that I don't understand why a few souls don't seem to get the whole "global warming" thing. For those of us in the great white north (Canada), we are well aware of how dramatically our winters have changed over the past twenty years.

Because of this dramatic change, most folks here don't subscribe to any of the junk science school of thought claiming that global warming is either:

1. Not occurring, or
2. Due to naturally occurring phenomena

To most of us Canadians, it's pretty clear what's going on. Recently, asset manager Eric Sprott of Sprott Asset Management, a firm with $3.4 billion under management, weighed in with a 56 page missive, entitled Investment Implications of an Abrupt Climate Change. In that document, Mr. Sprott says it's "shockingly clear" we've caused a spike in greenhouse gases, and further says that ...

"We are now in uncharted territory and may well be on the cusp of a warming of the planet at a rate well beyond what can be predicted using our limited knowledge of history."

Mr. Sprott considers further trends such as the massive industrialization of much of the world's remaining rural populations, and other trends in place as not projecting a bright future for the planet. Water shortages, food shortages, droughts, too much rainfall in places, rising sea levels, ever accelerating weather change, etc. Pretty much the usual bane of stuff that we manage to ignore every day, without too much thought or effort.

In any case, a goodly portion of the paper is directed to current statistics, events, and trends relating to global warming. (But I must tell you I learned something new: the paper suggests that the melting of the permafrost and its' sequestered methane gases as being an absolute tipping point - page 25 is a must read page).

By page 28, Mr. Sprott arrives at the investment risks and opportunities. He suggests the following sectors are at risk, if there is a 20% emissions constraint regulated:

• Automobile
  
• Chemicals
• Electric utilities
• Metals and mining
• Oil and Gas
• Banks (some banks have high rates of commercial loans, whose clients may be subject to various types of business risk from global warming)

Unfortunately, Mr. Sprott doesn't offer too many investment opportunities. He points to obvious ones, such as nuclear, wind and solar power as being some. He suggests however, that the ethanol craze is just adding to the global warming load (production of ethanol fuels requires more energy inputs than they produce), and that hydrogen as a fuel isn't quite ready for prime time. He suggests that micro power projects may offer some potential as well.

Finally, he suggests a hyper-inflationary environment could ensue at some point, thereby accelerating demand and prices for commodities in general, and gold in particular.

As one sentence in the document points out, a Swiss Re (insurance) executive stated that ...

"Global warming has accelerated from a problem that might affect our grandchildren, to one that could significantly disturb the social and economic conditions of our lifetime."

In light of this, may I suggest one further solution we can provide as investors? Perhaps directly investing a very small portion of our investable assets, towards some source of lowering the warming load. Whether this is in a company that is in nuclear, solar, wind power, or any other investment that lowers or reduces the warming load, it doesn't really matter. By helping to provide more abundant equity available, we'll help spur the advance of technologies to save the life of this planet. Sometimes we have obligations beyond that just of short-term investors - we have obligations as human beings.

May I suggest 1/10 of 1% of your investable assets this year, or a minimum $100, increasing by a similar amount every year for nine more years? Consider it a donation - a donation in an area we have special knowledge and awareness in - the investment field. If we wait too long, the cost may be far, far too high.


The Confused Capitalist

Energy Demand: Nuclear Renaissance?

As investors, it pays to be ahead of the rest of the investing crowd. Nuclear energy may offer one such option. While the focus of the Wall Street crowd today is oil and gas, future gains in uranium may vastly outstrip those remaining in the oil and gas field.

Today, it's estimated that, in addition to the 440 operational nuclear plants around the world, there'll be another 60 on-line to serve the growing world-wide energy demand, by 2020. Additionally, some environmentalists, such as James Lovelock, Ph.D., now embrace nuclear power as the only way to avoid complete environmental catastrophe. Add to that the obvious demand that will continue to occur as China's and India's 2.2 billion citizens become part of industrialized societies and the demand side of the equation is obvious.

What is less obvious is that the uranium industry has been undermining for years, perhaps even decades now. This deficit, currently estimated, at about 25 million pounds annually (of a total demand of 150 million pounds), has been met by the over-stockpiling of uranium from the 1950s-1970s, and by the decommissioning of Soviet nuclear weapons in this decade and the 1990s.

However, the "well is running dry", so to speak as these sources are themselves being drained. All of which leads us to a long-term investment thesis, of uranium producers experiencing very good gains for a lengthy time period, perhaps as long as ten years. Uranium mine approvals, world-wide, are subject to obvious governmental red-tape and this is only overcome at considerable time and expense.

In the interim, sit tight and enjoy what I believe will be superior medium to long term investment gains. The largest global producer of uranium is Cameco, on the NYSE as "CCJ".


JW

The Confused Capitalist