The Statistical Review of World Energy

BP just released the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, which is published annually, and covers consumption, production and other statistics on oil, natural gas and other forms of energy for 2009.

I just wanted to point out the statistics on domestic United States production of oil and natural gas.

Natural gas production moved up as everyone expected due to the large scale development of unconventional resource basins. United States natural gas production increased by 3.5% in 2009, the fourth consecutive year that production has moved higher.

A bigger surprise was on the oil side, as production in the United States increased by 460,000 barrels per day, a 7% increase and the largest since the early 1970’s.

It would be premature to read too much into this number, as a one year increase in production coming after a generation of declining numbers, might be a statistical blip. Also, the deepwater moratorium on drilling will impact domestic oil production going forward.

It is something for investors to watch, however, since the 2009 numbers don’t reflect the shift in capital away from natural gas and towards oil development that has gained momentum recently.

Here is a link to the full report.

Fed Details AIG Aid

The Federal Reserve Bank of New has added a new section to its web site detailing the assistance that the bank has extended to AIG during the financial crisis.

This aid was given, according to the bank, to "to preserve the stability of an already fragile U.S. economy and to protect the U.S. taxpayer from the potentially devastating consequences of the company’s disorderly failure."

This is all part of an effort by the Federal Reserve to be more transparent regarding its dealings with institutions.


The link is here

Berman Is Back

Those investors that dabble in the Energy Sector are probably familiar with Arthur Berman, who runs a blog called the Petroleum Truth Report, and has staked his reputation on a bearish point of view on the shale gas resources that are believed by many to be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Berman comes with impeccable credentials which lends an air of respectability to his writings. He is a Petroleum Geologist that worked for a major oil company for most of his career.

His latest piece was published on the Oil Drum, and I recommend that everyone read it, not because I necessarily agree with everything that he writes, but investors shouldn't fear an opposite opinion.

Here are some provocative excerpts from the post:

"The widespread belief that there is 100 years of natural gas supply in the U.S. because of shale plays is incorrect. Claims that shale gas has resulted in 100 years of supply are based on circular references without underlying documentation, and also do not take high decline rates or anticipated future demand growth into account."

"The current marginal cost of gas production is at least $8/Mcf, and prices will eventually rise to meet that cost."

"The Barnett Shale play is largely non-commercial because the controls on production are complex and difficult to predict."

Read the comments below the post as Berman makes substantial comments in response to readers questions.

Twitter Comment

I came across an interesting comment from Dick Costolo, the Chief Operating Officer of Twitter, as reported on Bloomberg News:

"We have to catch up to our valuation," Costolo said. “We’ve raised all this money. We’ve created this global brand. It’s one of the fastest -- if not the fastest -- growing brands in the history of the world. Now we have to go build the business that lives up to that valuation."

This is a shocking admission that the company is overvalued in the private market, and not something that you hear everyday from an executive at a Technology company.

Lympho-Maniac Charity Event

It's time once again for the annual Lympho-Maniac Charity Event held once a year in the spring in New Orleans. If you are not familiar with this event, it is organized by Chad Landry, an institutional equity salesman who works for Capital One Southcoast. He is also the proprietor of "Chateau Landry," but that's a story for another blog post.

The Lympho-Maniac event is a 70's retro dance party designed to increase cancer awareness with all donations and proceeds going to The American Cancer Society’s Patrick F. Taylor Hope Lodge in New Orleans. Chad is a cancer survivor and started this event up 10 years ago.

Chad is having a very special guest this year for the event, which is being held on Saturday, March 20, 2010. Donald Trump, Jr. and his wife are returning as judges of the dance contest. Click here for more details on the event.

Lympho-Maniac 2010 Promo from Scott Bellina on Vimeo.

If you can't make the event, consider making a donation through the Lympho-Maniac web site.

Exxon Mobil - XTO Energy - Part II

Another part of the Outlook for Energy: A View to 2030, released by Exxon Mobil a week before the XTO Energy deal really bothers me.

"ExxonMobil technologies have unlocked vast new resources of natural gas that previously were trapped in dense rock formations, as well as other types of so-called “unconventional” natural gas. These technologies have resulted in a significant upswing in U.S. natural gas production, and may have similar applications in other parts of the world."

How about this instead:

"Exxon Mobil sat around and watched smaller companies enter these new plays and drill circles around us because we thought that they were too risky, and that North America was too mature an area to be bothered with."

or

"We had the technology to unlock these unconventional shale resources, but didn't have the balls to use it on a large scale, and sat around and bought back stock instead. Now we have to pay up for these resources."

Full Publication

Christopher H. Browne

Christopher H. Browne of Tweedy, Browne & Co. died a few days ago and in memory of this value investor, here are excerpts from a speech he made to the Graham and Dodd Value Investing Center at Columbia University in November 2000.

"A whole body of academic work formed the foundation upon which generations of students at the country’s major business schools were taught about Modern Portfolio Theory, Efficient Market Theory and Beta. In our humble opinion, this was a classic example of garbage in/garbage out."

"Investment performance is generally measured against a benchmark, and claims to being long-term investors aside, the typical institutional client tracks performance on a monthly or quarterly basis versus the benchmark. Performance that deviates from the benchmark becomes suspect and can lead to termination of the money manager. Consistency of returns relative to the benchmark are more important than absolute performance especially in a world dominated by the hypothesis that asset allocation is more important than stock selection."

Columbia Speech

Exxon Mobil - XTO Energy

Exxon Mobil released a publication entitled Outlook for Energy: A View to 2030, about a week before the XTO Energy purchase. There was one part that caught my attention and gave a little hint of what they were planning:

"Natural gas supply to expand, particularly in the U.S. where unconventional gas supplies are expected to meet more than 50 percent of gas demand by 2030."

and later on:

"There will be an expansion of natural gas supply, particularly in the United States where unconventional gas supplies are expected to satisfy more than 50 percent of gas demand by 2030."


Full Publication

How Bad Could It Have Been?

A recent academic study called Financial Crises and Economic Activity, written by Stephen G Cecchetti, Marion Kohler and Christian Upper, has implications for the current strength and trend of the U.S. and Global economic recovery.

The paper examined 40 systemic banking crises since 1980 and evaluated the real output costs of these crises. The conclusion:

“First, the current financial crisis is unlike any others in terms of a wide range of economic factors. Second, the output losses of past banking crises were higher when they were accompanied by a currency crisis or when growth was low at the onset of the crisis. When accompanied by a sovereign debt default, a systemic banking crisis was less costly. And, third, there is a tendency for systemic banking crises to have lasting negative output effects.”

How bad could it have been for us this time? The mean peak to trough decline in GDP for the 40 crises was 18.4%, with a median decline of 9.2%. Also, in one crisis, it took seven years for GDP to get back to its pre crisis level.

Read the original study here.

FDIC Report

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) recently released its third quarter of 2009 Quarterly Banking Profile detailing a host of statistics on the banks under its jurisdiction. This report has been well covered, but one part I wanted to highlight was the section on the number of employees at the FDIC.

The number of employees has moved up from 4,476 in September 2006 to 6,298 as of September 2009. While this might seem like a lot, the total number of employees peaked at 22,586 in September 1991, during our previous banking crisis.

The point is that either current employees are much more efficient than they used to be back in the early 1990's, or the FDIC may be one of the few agencies to be adding jobs to the economy over the next few years. Just something to think about.

How To Destroy Value

It was reported today that Motorola (MOT) is shopping around its division that makes set top boxes and other equipment for cable and phone companies. The rumored asking price is around $4.5 billion.

That sounds great, but unfortunately for Motorola and its shareholders, the company paid $11 billion for it 10 years ago. Read how management gushed over it back then:

"This partnership will enable us to expand our portfolio for network access, delivering next-generation solutions along with 'home hubs' that will handle high-speed Internet access and video entertainment, as well as carrier-quality voice services," Motorola chief executive Christopher B. Galvin said. "People want access tailored their way and the ability to get online quickly and simply."

Some might say that Motorola didn't really pay $11 billion since it issued its own stock to complete the purchase. This is nonsense of course.

Deals like this might be a contributing reason to explain why Motorola stock has been a disappointment to many investors.

Interesting Article

I ran across an academic article recently that I haven't had time to read yet, but thought I would share it with readers of this blog.

The Financial Crisis as a Symbol of the Failure of Academic Finance? and it's available here.

This excerpt from the abstract drew my attention:

"Theoretical constructs such as the efficient markets hypothesis, rational expectations, and market completeness were too often treated as intellectual dogmas instead of (parts of) falsifiable hypotheses...the failure of academics to communicate the limitations of their models and to warn against (potential) misuses of their research - and sins of commission - introducing (often implicitly) ideological or biased features in research programs."

Full Citation

Blommestein, Hans J., The Financial Crisis as a Symbol of the Failure of Academic Finance? (A Methodological Digression) (September 23, 2009).

"Short-Termism" In The Market

I have blogged constantly about the value and importance of long term investing, and a recent report from the Aspen Institute came out with some practical proposals to fight what they call "short-termism" in the market.

Let's start with the problem as outlined by the institute:

"High rates of portfolio turnover harm ultimate investors’ returns, since the costs associated with frequent trading can significantly erode gains."

"Fund managers with a primary focus on short-term trading gains have little reason to care about long-term corporate performance or externalities, and so are unlikely to exercise a positive role in promoting corporate policies, including appropriate proxy voting and corporate governance policies, that are beneficial and sustainable in the long-term."

"The focus of some short-term investors on quarterly earnings and other short-term metrics can harm the interests of shareholders seeking long-term growth and sustainable earnings, if managers and boards pursue strategies simply to satisfy those short-term investors."

The report recommends market incentives to discourage such short term behavior. This would include revising the capital gains structure to impose a lower tax on stocks held for a longer time period, and an excise tax on short term trading.

These sound like sensible suggestions and should be taken seriously by the powers that be.

The full report is here.

Another Greenshoot

Another green shoot in the economy hit the tape last week:

"FedEx Corporation (NYSE: FDX) today announced that it expects to report earnings of $0.58 per diluted share for the first quarter ended August 31, down 53% from $1.23 per diluted share a year ago. The company's guidance for the quarter was $0.30 to $0.45 per diluted share."

"FedEx expects earnings to be $0.65 to $0.95 per diluted share in the second quarter, which reflects the current outlook for fuel prices and a continued modest recovery in the global economy."

How many green shoots equal a recovery?

BJ Services Take Under

Am I the only BJ Services (BJS) shareholder out there who thinks that this is a lousy deal? Is there any hope for a competing bid? BJ Services traded close to $40 back in 2006, and was as high as $33 last summer.

So we get .40 shares of Baker Hughes and $2.69 cash for a big total of $16.47. Wow, that's a big $0.63 premium over the previous close for BJS.

I know that the management of BJ Services has a reputation for being cheap, but that's not supposed to extend to when you sell your own company.

Article Shows That Sell Side Analysts Still Suck

An article entitled "Behavioural Bias and Conflicts of Interest in Analyst Stock Recommendations" published in the Journal of Business Finance & Accounting examines these issues:

"Whether sell-side analysts are prone to behavioural errors when making stock recommendations as well as the impact of investment banking relationships on their judgments. In particular, we analyse their report narratives for evidence of cognitive bias."

The conclusions:

"New buy recommendations on average have no investment value."

I think everyone already knew that, although I would add that in the short term they can drive the price of a stock up.

"Whereas new sell recommendations do, and take time to be assimilated by the market."

Again, fairly logical since sell side sell recommendations are fairly rare, they are likely to be more noticed.

"We also show that new buy recommendations are distinguished from new sells both by the level of analyst optimism and representativeness bias as well as with increased conflicts of interest."

Just as a review, representativeness bias refers to "A cognitive strategy for quickly estimating the probability that a given instance is a member of a particular category. We use it to judge the likelihood that something or someone belongs to a specific category."

"Successful new buy recommendations are characterised by lower prior returns, value stock status, smaller firms and weaker investment banking relationships."

Small Cap Value stocks with little or no analyst coverage rule.

So what does this all prove? That sell side analysts are humans just like the rest of us and suffer from deviant investment behavior despite what is arguably a higher formal education.

Mokoaleli-Mokoteli, Thabang, Taffler, Richard J. and Agarwal, Vineet,Behavioural Bias and Conflicts of Interest in Analyst Stock Recommendations. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Vol. 36, Nos. 3-4, pp. 384-418, April/May 2009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1400370 or DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5957.2009.02125.x

Health Insurance Debate

There has been a lot of media attention on the continuing debate over the Obama Health Care proposals that are tortuously making its way through the U.S. legislative process. Well here is another thing to consider - a new study by the folks at Stanford University, the Rand Corporation and the University College of London entitled:

Does Health Insurance Make You Fat?

The conclusion reached was that "We find stronger evidence that being insured increases body mass index and obesity."

Abstract

"The prevalence of obesity has been rising dramatically in the U.S., leading to poor health and rising health care expenditures. The role of policy in addressing rising rates of obesity, however, is controversial. Policy recommendations for interventions intended to influence body weight decisions often assume the obesity creates negative externalities for the non-obese."

"We build on earlier work demonstrating that this argument depends on two important assumptions: 1) that the obese do not pay for their higher medical expenditures through differential payments for health care and health insurance, and 2) that body weight decisions are responsive to the incidence of medical care costs associated with obesity. In this paper, we test the latter proposition – that body weight is influenced by insurance coverage - using two approaches.'

"First, we use data from the Rand Health Insurance Experiment, in which people were randomly assigned to varying levels of health insurance, to examine the effect of generosity of insurance coverage on body weight along the intensive coverage margin. Second, we use instrumental variables methods to estimate the effect of type of insurance coverage (private, public and none) on body weight along the extensive margin."

"We explicitly address the discrete nature of the endogenous indicator of health insurance coverage by estimating a nonlinear instrumental variables model. We find weak evidence that more generous insurance coverage increases body mass index. We find stronger evidence that being insured increases body mass index and obesity."

Bhattacharya, Jayanta, Bundorf, M. Kate Kate, Pace, Noemi and Sood, Neeraj,Does Health Insurance Make You Fat?(July 2009). NBER Working Paper No. w15163. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1435601

Value vs. Growth

The ancient battle between Value and Growth investing continues, with Barron's weighing in with its take on the issue. It's starting to remind me of the Hundred Year's War between France and England or that Star Trek episode where two planets have been at war for five hundred years.

Value Investing has underperformed growth investing over a six month or three year horizon, but Value Investing outperformed in the second quarter of 2009.

The problem with this and all other like statistics is that it artificially categorizes all cheap stock as Value stocks. Barron's uses the Russell indexes to measure performance, and specifically mentions Bear Stearns, Citigroup (C), Freddie Mac (FRE), General Motors, Macy's(M) and JCPenney(JCP) as being particularly harmful to Value investors.

Just because a stock is cheap doesn't make it a Value stock. This is pretty basic and is one of the first things any investor learns after picking up a book written on Value investing.

The Real Vampire Squid On The Face Of Humanity

Matt Taibbi’s article on Goldman Sachs has now achieved legendary status for the term he coined in this sentence:

“The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”

The entertaining article was a little short on facts, but who cares, after all, in an age where blogging dominates, no one cares about accuracy anymore. What really matters is shock value, and no one should be surprised that this article appeared in a mainstream media publication, as they are desperate to find a way out of its slow death.

I digress, though, as I am not writing this post to argue against the points that the author made. What I am writing about is to tell everyone that the real “vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity” is not Goldman Sachs but in reality is the “momentum” investor.

When I worked on a trading desk at Morgan Stanley, we had a more colorful name for them. We called them “fast money scum,” and we meant it.

The ethos of the momentum investor is simple in concept. Buy what’s going up. If it keeps going up, buy more. When momentum breaks, get out. Everyone knows who these investors are. When a stock you own is down 20% after it misses earnings by a millionth of a cent – that’s them.

The momentum investor has enabled all three bubbles in the last ten years – Technology/Internet, Real Estate/Homebuilding and Commodities. They do this by pushing stocks up far above what they should be trading for on a fundamental basis.

It wouldn’t be so bad if these investors were honest about what they do, but they are not. They usually manufacture or hide behind some fundamental story about whatever sector is bubbling up, usually in league with sell side enablers, who are enamored of the trading commissions they generate.

Even worse, the financial media - CNBC and Bloomberg TV - orient programming toward this group, by amplifying short term trends, rather than discouraging it.

This infects the entire market as institutional investors, most of whom are trained as fundamental investors, are forced to jump on the bandwagon, lest they be left behind in the relative performance game.

Momentum investors have cost ordinary investors trillions in wealth over the last decade, as many small investors buy into these fundamental stories and then don’t realize when momentum breaks and the plug is pulled.

Any new regulatory initiatives out of the Obama Administration should be oriented toward controlling or destroying these investors.

Sovereign Wealth Funds

Does anyone remember a year ago when everyone pundit and media outlet predicted that Sovereign Wealth Funds were going to take over the world? The assets they controlled were growing so quickly due mostly to the commodity boom that it was starting to create hysteria in the United States. It's amazing how quickly the conventional wisdom can change.

From the Financial Times:

"The financial clout of sovereign wealth funds has been savaged by the credit crisis as the value of their assets has plunged and forecasts for their growth have been dramatically scaled back."