Planet of the Humans is Michael Moore’s latest documentary which slays renewable energy – wind, solar & biomass – as well as electric vehicles which rely so heavily on fossil fuels in their production.
Think of it as Crony Capitalism 101.
Planet of the Humans is Michael Moore’s latest documentary which slays renewable energy – wind, solar & biomass – as well as electric vehicles which rely so heavily on fossil fuels in their production.
Think of it as Crony Capitalism 101.
Share markets have been decimated in recent weeks across the globe. This year to date (YTD) chart above shows the extent. It shouldn’t really have taken Coronavirus or plunging oil prices to lead to this. We’ve been living high on the sauce for two decades and even though GFC in 2008 was a rude hangover, our authorities thought doubling down on all those free money excesses would work again.
Let’s not get too carried away. On a 5-yr basis, shares haven’t exactly blitzed with the exception of the S&P500. The ASX has put on just under 7% in 5 years. Germany, Japan and Italy have gone down. So if one is 45% higher than 5-yrs ago with an S&P fund, is that a mass hysteria moment?
Automotive stocks have been dud investments over the last 5 years. It didn’t take Coronavirus to expose the underlying trends. BMW is don 52% on 5 yrs ago. Ford down 60%. Volkswagen -40%.
Industrial bellwethers like Caterpillar and GE have also not escaped stagnation. YTD, all of these stocks have bloody noses. Boeing has held up surprisingly well despite the MAX problems.
Yet if we look at the FAANGs (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix & Google), we can see that over 5 years, investors have made a bundle.
As these 5 stocks make up 15% of the S&P500 Index by weight, if they fall the impact is greater. With the exception of Netflix, these monsters are down 15~20%.
Fear not, our heavily indebted incompetent political class and complicit central bankers will concoct a new potion of even lower rates, more QE and further fiscal spending on wind farms, solar panels and roads to nowhere to keep the ship afloat. It may be a hapless task in the long run but just watch the printing presses move to full speed. The ride is about to get interesting.
We’ve been bearish for years based on the underlying tenet that financial market manipulation by authorities has merely distorted the most efficient clearing mechanism -free markets. The invisible hand will eventually win. Just not quite yet.
Italian Senator and former Deputy PM Matteo Salvini has called for a ban on short selling. Why? All he’ll do is exacerbate the sell-off by diverting capital from Milan to London. The politicians just don’t get it. That is why Milan FTSE All-Share index fell by 10.75% overnight. That market is down 23% YTD.
When the pandemic hit the economy, we should have known from last month that it would spread and impact global travel, trade and oil prices. Why did it take so long?
We wrote last week that the explosion in market chasing (especially levered) ETFs would exacerbate distortions on the downside. The main reason being is that options markets that hedge levered products see heavy delta bleed (pricing blowing out) during routs. The reason is in bull markets human nature is more comfortable taking risk. In bear markets, people panic hence needing larger insurance premiums to protect against the madness of crowds.
Essentially what that means is that when ETFs were a far smaller chunk of the market, today’s 7.8% drubbing may only have been -4% in equivalent terms. That is because the ETFs chase, not lead markets because their product design is to replicate the immediate past. Yet our first instincts are to compare these apples with oranges and equate them to 2008. Wrong. Furthermore, a larger part of the market is dominated by a smaller
So the question is, do we liquidate all of our shares into the falling knife or take the view that some wonderful opportunities will present themselves to get exposure to what we hopefully viewed as sensible long term investments.
We take the latter view. We need to separate Coronavirus (the disease) and the hysteria (eg hand sanitizer and toilet paper panic buying).
While the disease is problematic and will hit the economy hard in the coming quarters, the question is market hope pinned to government response will come back. The measures should continue to grow and grow until they have cauterized the wound. After all, we live in a market where financial TV programs are summoning the opinions of NY Mets baseball pitchers for their ideas on stocks.
Of course, it will be all academic, but confidence is the only thing that matters from here. As soon as we get on top of Coronavirus, markets will swing back into action and many will simply fall for the same tricks like Pavlov’s dog and the short squeeze will send stocks powering back.
Governments now have a legitimate excuse to blow out deficits and borrow to save us. In that sense, this pandemic is a blessing in disguise. That isn’t to trivialize Coronavirus but to note that politicians will do almost anything to stay in power, even if the long term consequences will linger long after they’re out of office.
Where will they spend? The automotive sector has been in the doldrums for ages. Expect to see EV related subsidies which will be a boon for the EV battery plays – we’ve bought Jervois Mining (JRV.AX) which is about to start a cobalt mine in Idaho.
Think of support to the aviation industry when the crisis is under control. Boeing and Airbus. Don’t forget that American Airlines renewed 900 aircraft soon after it announced Chapter 11 bankruptcy back in 2011.
Think construction – cement companies and construction machinery companies tend to benefit from public works programs. We continue to hold gold (have done since 2001) as the ultimate insurance policy when the whole system can no longer heal with band-aids.
So get ready to buy some bargain-basement names with cash flow survivability, especially if you have a self-managed super fund.
Yes the underlying economic backdrop is dreadful but there will be one last hurrah!
If global warming alarmists ever wanted to pick an industry as steeped in unreliable forecasts as climate scientists, one would find it hard to beat investment banking. Having been in that industry for two decades, the list of woefully misguided and poorly researched puff pieces is endless. There is a reason global banks are trading at fractions of their former peaks. They don’t add much value and most never picked the GFC of 2008. If they were smarter, greed wouldn’t require recessions.
Never mind. When JP Morgan economists are portending climate doom, why not hitch them to your global warming wagon? There is a kind of conflict of interest. Evil, greedy fat bonus paying tax avoiding corporates preaching virtue on climate.
By the way, you won’t find a research analyst who believes they don’t deserve air travel at the pointy end and luxury limousine transfers to and from the airport.
Yet they are aligned with the hypocrites at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) which told us at the 1500 private jet junket at Davos that it’s central bank members are “climate rescuers of last resort.” This despite their monetary policies having played a major part in fueling overconsumption via the debt bubble. Ultra low interest rates will ultimately have a profound effect on carbon emissions – a global economic crisis of epic proportions which won’t require one wind turbine or solar farm to achieve. They’ll save the climate by destroying the wellbeing of so many in the process.
On the one hand, JP Morgan can now claim some kudos for allowing such free thinking which isn’t at the behest of the investment banking team.
Maybe it’s worth pointing out that most banks keep meticulous (but useless) data on the readership of such reports. Much like the media chasing advertising dollars through clickbait, research analysts strive for internal point scoring to boost their year end review chances to push for bigger bonuses to their excel spreadsheet obsessed line managers who look at quantity, not quality. So if a warmest piece can create noise, irrespective of the quality of the content, then that serves a purpose for internal bosses.
Such has been the hollowing out of investment banking research teams, the last remaining life jackets are in short supply. It was only last year that Deutsche Bank closed its entire global equity platform. While regulation is part of the problem, there is simply very little value add to convince clients to pay for.
While the report supposedly chastised the bank’s lending of $75bn to the fossil fuel industry, in a world of ESG, which puts ideology ahead of risk assessment, JP Morgan can now claim it has seen the light so it can hopefully fool green tech companies in need of cash that they are worthy environmentally friendly financiers. This will also give the public relations team a welcome talking piece to the media and ESG retirement fund managers that they practice social responsibility.
Back to the report. On what pretense do the JP Morgan analysts have for the climate crisis threatening the human race? Citing the IPCC (where scientists have slammed the processes which prioritize gender and ethnicity over ability and qualification) and the IMF (which couldn’t pick economic growth it it tried) are hardly the sort of data one would gladly source as gospel to compile a report.
It seems everyone is an expert on climate change nowadays. Central banks, ASIC, APRA, RBA, the Australian Medical Association and now investment banks. As we pointed out earlier in the week, where were the scientists who made a b-line to speak at the National Climate Emergency summit in Melbourne? That’s right 2/3rds were activists, lobbyists, left-wing media and academics with no scientific background.
You know when alarmists are channeling bankers, that they are running out of credible evidence. Even worse, most banks have an uncanny ability to act as contrarian indicators.
We can be sure that a whole lot of malinvestment will continue thanks to governments trying to declare emergencies to justify infrastructure spending to replace sensible business friendly structural reforms that would have a far better chance of keeping them in power for longer.
In closing, it seems even the media has lost faith in investment bank research, choosing to channel NY Mets baseball pitchers for commentary on stocks instead.
There is a lot of irony when studying electric vehicles (EVs) and government policy. The lack of consultation with the very industry it seeks to regulate is mind-boggling. This picture of an EV charging station powered by a diesel generator along the Nullarbor highlights how poor the thought processes are. The problem governments face is that they are starting with a narrative and trying to reverse engineer the data to fit it. Sadly, the market will ultimately decide – that means consumers.
3 years ago we met with an EV parts supplier, Schaeffler AG, which openly admitted the task to meet the government EV demands was being impeded by their own desire to out virtue signal each other.
Schaeffler said, 200 cities across Europe had EV policies as distinct as the other. Therefore carmakers were struggling to meet all of the non-standardised criteria which was driving up production costs and making EVs even further out of reach. Instead of all working for the “same” outcome, the parts suppliers were saying until governments came to a sensible balance, the delays would continue.
The irony is that the broad range of EVs available in the market is too narrow. Of course we can argue in 15 years that will have vastly changed. The question is whether production can keep up.
First of all, governments around the world tend to generate around 5% of total tax revenues from fuel excise. You’d be a fool to think that EVs won’t end up being stung with a similar registration tax to offset it. It is already happening. Cash strapped Illinois has proposed the introduction of a $1,000 annual registration fee (up from $17.50) to account for the fact EVs don’t pay such fuel taxes.
Secondly, the UK government may well have to introduce cash-for-clunkers style subsidies to entice people to ditch their petrol power for an EV. Because, unless someone owns a classic car, the second most expensive household asset will be near worthless meaning many may not bother to switch by 2035. That will put huge pressure on the auto industry and dealers to convert sales.
Third, the infrastructure to be able to charge millions of EVs overnight will need significant upgrades, especially to the power grid. If the UK wants to go down the renewables path good luck in meeting the surges in demand because EV charging will be highly random. People won’t be happy to be sitting at home waiting for a charge and realising that 200,000 others want to do so at the same time on a cloudy day with no wind.
Then there are the automakers. While they are all making politically correct statements about their commitments to go full EV, they do recognise that ultimately customers will decide their fate. A universal truth is that car makers do their best to promote their drivetrains as a performance differentiator to rivals. Moving to full EV removes that unique selling property. Volkswagen went out of its way to cheat the system which not only expressed their true feelings about man-made climate change but hidden within the $80bn investment is the 3 million EVs in 2042 would only be c.30% of VW’s total output today. Even Toyota said it would phase out internal combustion in the 2040s. Dec 31st, 2049 perhaps? Mercedes have vowed to keep diesel and petrol on the menu out to 2050.
Put simply, why is the government trying to dictate the technology to an industry that has made such amazing advancements in safety and technology? By all means, have a zero-emissions target by 2035 but offer the industry complete technological freedom to achieve it. The consumers will ultimately decide and if carmakers are forced to meet a target that was based on ill-advised government policy, we shouldn’t be surprised if dealers are forced to close or car makers requiring bailouts.
Also at 2m vehicles a sold annually in the UK, it won’t get to dictate where car makers allocate their global EV inventory. If easier market conditions – based on the available output and cost per vehicle to meet the standards – are found in the US, China or Germany, the costs to Brits to make the shift will make the 2035 target even more pointless. Pricing themselves out of the market.
However, it won’t much matter because many of the politicians making the move won’t be in government come 2035 to clean up the mess.
FNF Media was curious as to how the tally for Warringah MP Zali Steggall OAM’s ‘Roadmap to Zero‘ (R2Z) worked. As is often the case with these grassroots woke causes, the structure of the claims can be misleading. Amateur data collection methodology can undermine the very cause. We reveal how easy it is.
R2Z currently claims 551 ‘households’ have signed up from the 66 when we first looked into it earlier in the week. Technically this would mean that 0.8% of households in the Warringah electorate have signed her compact, up from 0.1%.
To turn that on its head, Steggall, who ran on a campaign of climate change, can’t seem to get the other 99% of households in the electorate over the line to sign up to R2Z.
Looking deeper into the sign-up process we found it only involved one’s email, name and postcode. That’s all. So one could technically live in Newtown, input a Mosman postcode and sign up. There doesn’t seem to be a process to cross-reference the signatories to the electoral roll.
One would think if the honourable member wished to truly get an accurate map of where the more environmentally conscious residents lived, a fixed address may have been a more useful process to ensure that the inputs were a) legitimate and b) where resources might need to be focused. Easy to have people tick a “privacy” waiver if indeed they are passionate enough to save the planet.
It is a bit hard to claim ‘household’ when one’s full address can’t be logged. There is nothing stopping all members of the same household signing up of the same person using multiple emails. This just reduces the quality of the data collection from a statistical perspective.
As awful as 0.8% of households is, 0.35% of the 147,333 Warringah residents is even worse.
Beyond the fact that 99% of her own electorate seemingly doesn’t care for R2Z, The Guardian ignores that and concludes,
“The woman who toppled Tony Abbott in Warringah at the last election on a platform of climate change action now has the whole parliament in her sights as she seeks bipartisan support for a climate change framework bill aimed at transitioning Australia to a decarbonised economy.”
She won on a platform to remove Tony Abbott.
Ironically The Guardian includes her R2Z link as a “conscience vote” which sort of undermines the argument,
“Steggall and the crossbench have begun a conscience vote campaign online and within their communities. They hope to win over enough government MPs to see the bill, which has been modelled on existing legislation in the UK, New Zealand and Ireland, pass in Australia.”
She better pray politicians don’t judge her bill on the strength of the commitment of the residents or households of Warringah.
FNF Media endorses Steggall’s view reported by The Guardian
“With the government’s party room once again at war over climate policy, Steggall said it was time to let individual MPs speak for their communities rather than toe a party line.”
Warringah has spoken, even with the risk of dodgy data collection. Mickey Mouse awaits updates on how to save the planet.
These climate activists are unhinged lunatics. This is the justification that Extinction Rebellion (XR) used for trashing the Brussels Autosalon was as follows,
“The truth is, no car is green…The private car is no longer compatible with the Climate and Ecological Crisis….Governments must stop pouring billions into roads and instead make mass public transport affordable, accessible, reliable and convenient.”
The Brussels Times reported that 187 were arrested and charged €2,000 each. Febiac, the auto show organizer, said XR’s display at the event caused a whopping €367,829 in damages.
There is a difference between protesting and breaking the law by trashing private property.
Febiac, to its credit, gave XR approval to protest under certain guidelines. The organizer’s Joost Kaesemans said, “We sat together with people from Extinction Rebellion for the salon, we told them they could hold a demo, sing songs and hand out brochures...But we also told them that if they bothered visitors and wreaked havoc, we would take measures. They did not stick to that, so there are consequences.”
So even when the organizers play ball, the fools of XR think they have carte blanche to act as they please. Hopefully XR protestors are forced to pay up, serve time and get handed a bill for wasting the time of the police.
If only XR protests were about saving the planet and not seek to control the way others live their lives.
One final question – does XR have a strategy to re-employ the 15mn that work in auto related industries? Of course not.
Greg Mullins, the former chief of NSW Fire and Rescue said today, “Just a 1 degree C temperature rise has meant the extremes are far more extreme, and it is placing lives at risk, including firefighters…Climate change has supercharged the bushfire problem.”
CM could not hope to hold a flame (no pun intended) to his knowledge of fire behavior but why does the WA Government’s own fire service website, Bushfire Front (BFF) contradict him,
“Compared to slope, wind strength, fuel quantity and dryness, temperature is an insignificant driver of fire behaviour. Experienced firefighters do not fear a 40-degree day per se. This is because even on a hot day, a fire in one or two-year old fuel can be controlled; on the same day a fire in 20-year old fuels with high winds would usually be unstoppable.”
One of them must be right. Could it be that Mullin’s personal beliefs about climate change are a factor? After all he serves as an author for the Climate Council.
Mullins also said that ” We saw it coming. We tried to warn the government.”
Indeed BFF notes clearly,
““Large wildfires are inevitable”
This statement is, to put it politely, bosh. Large wildfires can only occur when there is a combination, at the same time, of three things:
• an ignition source,
• severe fire weather and,
• a large contiguous accumulation of fuel.
Remove any of these three and you cannot have a large wildfire (= megafire).
We obviously can’t control the weather, nor can we hope to eliminate all possible avenues of ignition. The only factor we can control is the large contiguous accumulations of fuel. Therefore, broadscale fuel reduction burning is the only defence we have against large wildfires. This will not prevent fires occurring, but it will ensure fires are less intense, are easier and safer to control and will do less damage.
Does it work? Yes it does, as has been shown many times, over many years, by the experience of Western Australian forest managers. The “proof of the pudding” is the incidence of large wildfires in Western Australian forests over the last 50 years. There were a number of very large fires in Western Australian forests from 1900 to 1960, but after the 1961 Dwellingup fire disaster, the wide-scale fuel reduction program carried out by the then Forests Department, ensured that the fuel accumulation was well controlled. The graph below demonstrates this very clearly. It was only after the burning program gradually fell away following a diversion of resources away from forest areas, that the area of wildfires began to climb again after about 1990.”
How is it that so many of these fires have been started by arsonists? A 16-yo has been alleged to have started fires in central Queensland. Johannes Leak’s cartoon was absolutely on the money.
Even assuming Australia pandered to Mullins and went zero carbon emissions tomorrow, could he guarantee that the bushfires would slow or end? Even though Australia is such a tiny contributor to global CO2 emissions? Could he show the science behind his beliefs on fires and the link to climate change even though 85% are deliberately, suspiciously or accidentally lit?
Of course the climate alarmists immediately endorse his words because he is a firefighter. Although are his words on climate change anymore relevant than those of the AMA?
Maybe we should reflect on the politics within the upper echelons of the fire services? Not so much the rank and file front line fire fighters but the bureaucrats who make daft decisions such as buying a Boeing 737 fire-bomber which can only be used at 4 airports rendering it highly inflexible (as much as it’s a great political sales point) or a military helicopter which spends 5hrs in maintenance for every hour it is in the field working. Or replacing 1yo trucks with brand new ones because records are poorly kept?
Nope, just blame climate change for it. Get out of jail free card for everything.
As ever the Climate Council of Australia rarely gets numbers right. Now they are benchmarking electric cars against Norway as a “leader”. While all these wonderful benefits might accrue to Norwegians, Norway is a poor example to benchmark against. Not to mention Wilson Parking won’t be too keen to join the party without subsidies.
Norway is 5% of our land mass, 1/5th our population and new car sales around 12% of Australia. According to BITRE, Australia has 877,561km of road network which is 9x larger than Norway.
Norway has around 8,000 chargers countrywide. Installation of fast chargers runs around A$60,000 per charging unit on top of the $100,000 preparation of each station for the high load 480V transformer setup to cope with the increased loads.
Norway state enterprise, Enova, said it would install fast chargers every 50km of 7,500km worth of main road/highway.
Australia has 234,820km of highways/main roads. Fast chargers at every 50km like the Norwegians would require a minimum of 4,700 charging stations across Australia. Norway commits to a minimum of 2 fast chargers and 2 standard chargers per station.
The problem is our plan for 570,000 cars per annum is 10x the number of EVs sold in Norway, requiring 10x the infrastructure.
While it is safe to assume that Norway’s stock of electric cars grows, our cumulative sales on Shorten’s dud election plan would have required far greater numbers. So let’s do the maths (note this doesn’t take into account the infrastructure issues of rural areas where diesel generators power some of the charging stations…shhhh):
14,700 stations x $100,000 per station to = $1,470,000,000
4,700 stations x 20 fast chargers @ A$60,000 = $5,640,000,000 (rural)
4,700 stations x 20 slow chargers @ A$9,000 = $846,000,000 (rural)
10,000 stations x 5 fast chargers @ A$60,000 = $3,000,000,000 (urban)
570,000 home charging stations @ $5,500 per set = $3,135,000,000 (this is just for 2030)
. That’s . . . worth . government which t production equivalent . That’s not .
CM has often made reference to the uselessness of EV police vehicles. The idea is that a fossil-fueled vehicle is ready to go ASAP. This radio transcript from Freemont Police in San Jose serves to highlight the biggest flaw of using EVs. When an emergency is in progress will, “sorry, in our quest to save the planet you’ll have to wait another 3 hours before we can attend to your domestic violence dispute. Bear with us. The car is on the charger” cut it?
Note the police in the Democratic People’s Republic of Victoria has selected Teslas for police cars.
Yet we already have so many beta test examples to reject the use of EVs.
In 2016, the LAPD bought $10m worth of BMW i3s to show its commitment to climate abatement. Sadly, the cars went largely unused as they were unsuited for police work.
LAPD Deputy Chief Jorge Villegas said of the purchase, “Money well worth it…It’s all a part of saving the Earth, going green … quite frankly, to try and save money for the community and the taxpayers.”
But sources say some personnel are reluctant to use the electric cars because they can only go 80-100 miles on a charge. And the mileage logs we obtained seem to back that up.
From April 2016 when the project started through August 2017, we found most of the electric cars have only been used for a few thousand miles…And a handful are sitting in the garage with only a few hundred on them.
One in service since May 27, 2016, had just 400 miles on it!
That’s an average use of 6 miles a week!
With the monthly lease payment of a little more than $418, this one costs taxpayers over $15 a mile to use!… It just doesn’t make any sense!”
CM one posted this question to someone from the NSW St Johns Ambulance with respect to discussions about EV ambulances. He said unequivocally,
“We have Webasto heaters in our cars in the colder areas. Running off the diesel they can operate 24/7 if needed. If we don’t have them some of our equipment doesn’t work like our tympanic thermometers, the blood glucose reader and then there is the problem of having cold fluids in the car. This is a problem if we are giving them an IV because we can make a patient hypothermic if it’s cold. Then there’s just the general environment inside the cab. It needs to be warm in winter.”
That is the point. Emergency services need to be able to operate on call. 5 minutes to fill up with gasoline or diesel means that efficient utilisation and dispatch is guaranteed for at least 500km+.
If end users have to weigh having their lives saved or rescue the planet, it is a no brainer which they will choose. We already know that Tesla P100Ds have done 167,000km in CO2 before they’ve left the factory. “To Protect and serve after a fast charge” should be emblazoned on the doors.
Good to see that kids are still kids. Before demanding we selfish adults take climate action immediately, they obviously need to fuel up on McDonalds, a brand that represents the complete anti Christ of their cause. Dipping nuggets into plastic BBQ sauce bowls, eating from cardboard hamburger boxes and drinking from single use waxed paper cups and plastic straws all stuck in a disposable paper bag.
Tells us all we need to know. The saddest thing is these kids are blissfully unaware of their own hypocrisy.
It is more likely that a McDonalds diet will kill them way before Mother Nature does.