#SMSF

Silver surges to 7-yr highs

Silver surged to 7-year highs overnight. We have long been fans of precious metals during a period of unprecedented central bank printing. The good thing is many people haven’t cottoned on to the value of silver.

ASIC climate change amateurs dictating terms to professionals

Non CC.png

The Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) is now seeking more oversight on corporates reporting on climate change. Since when did ASIC hold any sufficient expertise in climate science? Wouldn’t it be nice if ASIC placed more faith in capital markets to self-determine those risks instead of forcing ideologies into boardrooms via new regulations?

Don’t laugh. It is already happening. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and ASIC  are “getting closer” to the action in boardrooms and the workplace. Already, boards have had visits from an organisational psychologist and company employees have received random calls from ASIC officers for “off-the-record” chats seeking “inside information” on the behaviour of their colleagues. APRA even want to sit in on board meetings to ensure governance oversight!

Climate change reporting is the next big thing ASIC is going after. Despite having no expertise in the field, ASIC wants to dictate terms. By its own admission, it has conducted studies with simplistic approaches which probably accurately assesses its amateur credentials.

Back in September 2018, ASIC released a report where it stated the following,

We undertook a high-level review of the prevalence of climate risk and climate-change-related content in annual reports for all listed companies for the calendar years 2011 to 2017 (inclusive). We searched approximately 15,000 reports and analysed the aggregated results across listed companies over time and by market capitalisation. We defined ‘climate change content’ as a reference to any of the following key terms: climate change, global warming, carbon emission, greenhouse gas, climate risk or carbon riskThis is a relatively simplistic approach which did not involve assessing the context within which our key terms were used. Our analysis was not designed to produce qualitative conclusions but rather to provide high-level insight into the prevalence of express disclosure on climate-change related topics in listed company annual reports.”

The unfortunate result for ASIC was the chart above. It fell from 22% to 14% over 5 years, during a time alarmists warned things were getting worse. Non-ASX300 companies reporting climate change fell from 18% to 10% of the total. How could that be? Maybe 90% of the ASX knows better than ASIC about the effects of climate change on their businesses?

Easier for ASIC to lean on a KPMG study that said 48% of CEOs surveyed saw climate change as a risk despite 58% being more worried about technological disruption and 54% concerned about territorialism. Or in other words, 52% of CEOs don’t see climate change is an issue and a whole band in the 48% that did probably felt pressured by their internal PR departments to comply with ESG malarkey, save getting caught out straying from the corporate realpolitik.

Will we see companies feel pressured to hire Chief Climate Change Officers (CCCOs) approved by the Climate Council run by Tim Flannery to appease ASIC? Will they determine the strategic direction of Harvey Norman? Or will shareholders prefer Gerry Harvey and Katie Page to lead that charge?

What constitutes compliance? How will ASIC aggregate the corporate climate change related information it garners in a way that produces qualitative results? Will the positioning of three new potplants in the boardroom be counted as sufficient reporting in climate abatement disclosure as affixing solar panels to the factory roof or switching the CEO’s car to an electric vehicle? Will the mere mentioning of the word “climate change” in an annual report suffice? Will ASIC get a warm fuzzy feeling if it conducts another 15,000 ‘CTRL F’ searches for words where 100% of corporates measure it? Job done? Will “name & shame” tables be produced to bash a mining company for having higher emissions than a tech start up?

It was only last week we were told that banks, insurers and super funds would be put through tough new climate change “stress tests” to be run by the  (APRA). We weren’t aware that APRA’s expertise extended to climate change either.

APRA should look at the 29% growth in assets within the 600,000 self-managed super funds (SMSF) which invest as much money as the very industry funds who lobby it to change the rules to force such disclosures as a guide. It probably says that more Aussies want to manage their own affairs instead of having nanny state rules that limit the scope of what they can invest in. Shouldn’t investors have a right to invest in tobacco, mining or gambling stocks if they see compelling value which assists the ultimate aim of putting more savings into retirement?

We pointed out that the industry funds collect the highest fees from those socially responsible (SRI) portfolios, even though they chronically underperform the market. If we look at YTD, 1 or 10-year performance all of the SRI portfolios as indicated by published performance (listed on their websites) of local Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI) members, they have “underperformed” the benchmark index.

ACSI is behind this push for SRI. It even extends to pushing companies to have gender quotas, despite over half the members of ACSI failing to meet their own requirements. You can’t make this stuff up.

ASIC should promote free markets. It should rightly punish those companies that break laws. However, it should be up to shareholders to correctly assess risks. If climate change is a big deal then they can ask for their monies to be deposited into ACSI members’ SRI funds. The future growth of SMSFs will be a telling factor.  It will reveal those individuals looking to escape the grasp of limited investment options provided by rent-seeking industry funds looking to push their members into higher fee-paying products on the notion of saving the planet. Isn’t that just the type of red-flag the regulators should be looking to crack down on? Or does climate change grant get out of jail free cards? We all know the answer to that.

It is a disgrace. Amateurs dictating terms to professionals!

Harvey Norman Derangement Syndrome

img_1728

CM attended today’s Harvey Norman (HVN) AGM as an observer. This was a 2-hr lesson in HVN Derangement Syndrome by a handful of shareholder activists.

Two key takeaways – 1) there was overwhelming shareholder support for reappointments to the board, & 2) agitator and activist Stephen Mayne did little more than draw the ire of the audience as he rattled off what he believed to be a value-added commentary on the company’s approach to governance and supposed lack of independence, neither which he made a credible case for.

The ultimate irony expressed by Mr Mayne was his confession that he and his proxies would be voting FOR the reappointment of CEO Katie Page as a director, despite his constant interjections at the questionable state of governance at the firm. Seems 91% of shareholders want her to stay. Hardly a vote of no confidence.  Surely if he believed the board is the worst on the ASX for governance, why own shares at all? Crikey!

The flipside was the proposal for Mayne’s appointment to the HVN board received a 91% rejection by shareholders, reflective of their desire to maintain a winning formula. Chairman Gerry Harvey quipped, “who are the 8% of shares that voted for you?

Perhaps the area of focus by the media will be when Gerry Harvey decided to demolish Mayne by running through his trail of digital footprints, including one which described the activist ranking Aussie female politicians by looks with lewd comments such as “oozing sex and fun”, “very very tasty” and “dark, sensual and very attractive.” The chairman questioned whether Mayne was a “sexual predator?” Inappropriate? Whatever one’s personal view, Harvey and most present won’t be losing any sleep over it. Mayne can’t complain at being deprived of time on the microphone. Harvey was harsh but more than fair. It was not lost on anyone.

Mayne said to the media afterwards that, “He’s the worst in the market for governance and he’s only proved it here.” CM only hopes for more Gerry Harvey’s in the market. The leaders that don’t bend to all of the ridiculous woke causes which prioritise irrelevant factors over shareholder returns. As we pointed in an earlier CM, those industry super funds which prioritise social responsibility have all underperformed the ASX200.

It was hard not to be impressed by the global expansion. Katie Page ran through the enhanced footprint throughout Malaysia, Singapore, Ireland, Croatia and the poshing up of stores domestically to a premium standard.

This company has 18% compound returns since its listing. Dividend yield at present is 8%. One for the SMSF. This is a quality business. Management has conviction. There is a tangible track record.

Who on earth would want the likes of an activist who has now been rejected 50 out of 50 times to join ASX boards to occupy a spot at HVN? With such a resounding defeat, will Mayne sell his minuscule shareholding and move on? There are plenty of companies that will indulge Mayne’s desire for woke practices. This was nothing more than a display of Harvey Norman Derangement Syndrome.

Linius Tech – video Spotify on steroids

Linius.png

CM added Linius Tech (LNU.AX) to the SMSF today. Another diamond in the rough listed on the ASX. LNU basically does the following with its Video Virtualisation Engine (VVE),

[Linius empowers you] to instantly search the data within your video, and programmatically assemble the ultra-granular results, for the first time. Imagine the possibilities. Effortlessly give every viewer the exact video content they want in milliseconds – delivered as a single video ready for immediate playback on any web-enabled device or platform. No human hands required.”

Essentially users get to have their own custom TV channel. A good video example can be found here. The added bonus is that advertisers would be able to even better target audiences by knowing individual preferences.

So a football fan can say: ‘I want to watch all the highlights from these six teams that are my favourites and in particular every time one of ten players scores a goal or gets a red card or a yellow card.”

Sports betting – Betting on horse racing generates over $116B in annual revenues globally. One could easily search which horse in a race is best suited to particular conditions. The more punters can use technology to finesse betting, the more likely they are to place bets. LNU announced in September 2019 that it has partnered with Racing.com to deliver a range of virtual video experiences to Racing.com viewers. Linius has entered into a Master Services Agreement with SportsHero (ASX:SHO)

LNU even works in education. Students often spend hours combing through recorded lectures, just to find small nuggets of information. Linius flips that experience on its head. It allows students to search and find any object – from text to audio and even facial recognition – across any video source.

Law enforcement – LNU connects the dots by automatically detecting related activities, objects or incidents from an infinite number of video streams and archives. Flagging a person for suspicious activity, then submitting a search for archived footage of the same individual. Immediately identify any other instance in which the person of interest has appeared across any video archives – even footage from different systems in separate locations and agencies. Now that’s high-impact, real-time intelligence sharing. And, because Linius is AI and analyst toolbox agnostic, it easily integrates with government-approved solutions like Darknet/YOLO, Caffe and Tenserflow.

Media & News – For the first time, media outlets can provide every viewer with a hyper-personalized video newsfeed. It’s the single biggest change in news video delivery – ever. Linius is the only one doing it. Think of all those chronic Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers who could search their inner rage using Linius enabled devices.

The company is partnered with Amazon Web Services, IBM and Microsoft. The company holds patents in the US, EU, Canada, S. Korea, PRC, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia and India.

This stock has been clubbed toward all-time lows. It most recently capped off a $4.5mn cap raise.

Given that we all observe many people nose deep in video feeds, this technology will allow them to tailor feeds to their liking. Broadcasters can charge circa $5pcm per subscriber and or use an ad-funded model; There are 1.8 billion sports subscribers. The European Premier League alone generated £2.8B in broadcast revenue in 2016-2017.  The global value of sports media rights reached $49.53B in 2018 of which soccer accounts for 40%.

At 3.5c, and contracts already signed with an Asian and soon to be EU broadcaster, this thing looks a ridiculously overlooked stock. On a DCF basis with a 20% discount rate, it looks fair value at around c.30c.

Add the Dutch to the $15.8tn pension shortfall

Negligence. No other word for it. Unrealistic assumptions coupled with a race to the bottom on interest products has meant the top 20 nations have a $15.8 trillion unfunded liability in pensions. CM wrote of the crisis awaiting US public pensions a while back.

It seems the Dutch are the latest bunch of pensioners to reach for the pitchforks at the prospect of having their retirement severely cut back. Shaktie Rambaran Mishre, chair of the Dutch pension federation (representing 197 pension funds and their members), said contributions might have to rise by up to 30% over the next few years to ward off the prospect of having to cut the pensions of 2 million retirees. That will go down a treat.

Zerohedge noted the lower Dutch risk-free rate is not low enough, and as a result about 70 employer-run pension funds with 12.1m members had funding ratios below the statutory minimum at the end of September, according to the Dutch central bank. And here lies the rub: if funds have ratios below the legal minimum for five consecutive years or have no prospect of recovering to a more healthy level, they must cut their payouts.

Can you imagine all of the Dutch who were looking forward to taking a round the world cruise to celebrate 40 years of hard work to face the reality that they’ll only be able to take a cruise down the Amsterdam canals.

This is an utter disgrace. You’d have to be asleep at the wheel as a regulator not to recognize expected returns on funds were so unrealistic as to beggar belief. Actuarial accounting lets you get away with it.

Yet the evil pensions funds will be the villains even though the supervisor left these children alone with a box of matches. Just watch them come home and act surprised that the house has burnt down.

We’re getting a taste of the remedy from the State of Illinois. It is issuing bonds specifically to help plug the gap. Rhode Island has gone the other way – take a 40% haircut or risk having nothing. Way to go!

It is worth factoring the longer term risk of the fall in consumption that this will ultimately have if even a slither or $16tn is no longer recycled into the economy.

The irresponsibility of socially responsible investing

United Nations Sustainable Development Logo

Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) has been heavily pushed by members of the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI) for a while now. Apart from cynically cashing in on the generally higher fees generated by these “woke” funds, the returns have been nothing much to write home about. As Milton Friedman once said, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.

If we look at YTD, 1 or 10-year performance all of the SRI portfolios as indicated by published performance (listed on their websites) of local ACSI members, they have “underperformed” the benchmark index. One outperformed in the 5-year category. Hardly anything to crow about. So as much as they might feel warm and fuzzy for turning these funds into virtue-signalling investment vehicles, the outcomes for the monies entrusted to them is far from ideal. While investors should bear ultimate responsibility for where they deploy retirement funds, do they realise how much money they are torching by believing in this nonsense?

So why do these funds try to bully top-performing companies to conform to their irrelevant ideals which on the face of it do not appear to be working? If one reads through the fine print, many superannuation administrators pat themselves on the back that they are aligning portfolios to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). If one wants to champion best in class ethics, the UN is the last place anyone should look. Just look at the unethical scandal that occurred at UNAIDS. 

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out what these SDGs are – eliminating hunger, wiping out poverty, promoting gender equality, good health, clean water and sanitation, affordable clean energy etc. All wonderful things in and of themselves, but surely if the market agrees with them,  shouldn’t share prices reflect that?

Friedman spoke of free-market economics, “Well, first of all, tell me: Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course, none of us are greedy, it’s only the other fellow who’s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus [including the UN]. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system.

In Australia,  it would seem that many high performing companies, that aren’t ‘compliant as they should be‘, are being pressured to increase diversity, women on boards and all manner of meaningless benchmarks preached by the ACSI and its members.

Take the 30% Club which pushes to have 30% women on boards. While this started in the UK in 2010, it has spread across multiple jurisdictions including Australia. The 30% Club emphatically quotes from a McKinsey study,  “Companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on their executive teams are 21% more likely to experience above-average profitability than companies in the fourth quartile.” What this study doesn’t say is that the bottom quartile of companies maybe just poorly run, in spite of the genitalia of the board.

Don’t mistake the most important point to be made. If a board is best served by all women, you won’t hear a peep from investors if they can produce the best results. As soon as we start to try to enforce gender quotas, performance becomes predicated on chromosomes rather than capability. What next? Ensure fair representation of LGBT on boards? Religions? Races? Disabilities? Where does it stop when all that matters is ability that produces performance?

Take a look at the disaster that has befallen PG&E in recent times. In the interests of pandering to all these irrelevant SDGs, it can tell you the exact breakdown of the diversity of its workforce but can’t tell you the status of much of its infrastructure, some which have been directly responsible for the devastating wildfires in California. The company was forced into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Did diversity help shareholders? If one’s house is on fire, do we worry about identity? Or who has the skillsets to put out the blaze the fastest? QED.

Yet our woke investors keep pushing these trends. IFM Investors waxes lyrical about its climate change, 30% Club and carbon disclosure project. Good for it. It has a choice. It should live by the sword and die by it. If that is what it wishes to focus on why not allow the free market to; a) decide whether superannuation holders want to deploy funds in such a manner and b) let corporates decide if SRI is good for their businesses.

Yet, the latest push by these socialist fund administrators is to ensure that companies conform to the ‘Modern Slavery Act.’ Are these people for real? Who are they to try to enforce federal law? Talk about self-imposed authority. It is a safe bet that 99%+ corporates listed on the ASX behave are compliant in this regard because if not the punitive outcomes will be severe.

Moreover, if some of these funds own stocks like Tesla in their international portfolios, perhaps they might consider such a hip and trendy investment has an indirect connection to child-slave labour in DR Congo where 70% of the world’s cobalt is mined to go into the Li-ion batteries.

There is one absolute truth in finance. In good times, any mug CEO can be successful. It is only when markets turn sour that the “quality” of decent management is truly appreciated in how they successfully manage to mitigate risk in an ugly downturn. In a difficult market climate, only the fittest survive and if companies have strayed off the reservation to appeal to investors, it will soon become self-evident in the results.

As we stare at the precipice of a potentially deep global recession, the previous paragraph will be all that matters. Because those corporates too busy hitting diversity targets, installing genderless bathrooms and ensuring they have double-checked all employees have complied with Earth Hour will be slaughtered when markets take a pounding.

These SDG focused funds will soon see that they are part of one giant herd and as performance starts to suffer in this crowded trade, the stampede toward the exit will reveal just how irresponsible the push to ram through such irrelevant metrics at the very companies who caved in was.

As a contrarian investor, the best investments will be in exactly those companies that shun(ned) this foolhardy exercise and forged a path in the spirit of Milton Friedman. Afterall they understood what it really means to be “free to choose.” So back up the truck in tobacco, mining and fossil fuel stocks on any pullback. After all, mean reversion will see these stocks outperform if nothing else.

Don’t forget Harvey Norman (HVN). How could it be that the company is worth 4x the combined value of Myer and David Jones, the latter two businesses focused on pleasing the United Nations rather than customers?  Hmmm.

Isn’t that the ultimate ready reckoner for these SDG funds? The market is always right. If the performance of the funds deployed isn’t making the grade, don’t attempt to force the best of breed to comply to your self imposed standards. Embrace companies that follow their lead. Not the other way around. It begs the question, what on earth are people who should believe in free markets doing to thwart it functioning efficiently?

Perhaps investors have the clearest indication of socialist activism by the very requirement to join the club. “ACSI drives strong ESG performance in companies in which our members invest because ESG creates long-term value…We use our collective impact to influence companies and financial markets in the interests of our members as long-term investors…Commitment to these beliefs is a pre-requisite for membership of ACSI.

Never has it been a more sound decision to set up an SMSF.

How to clean up in the adult diaper boom

Zuiko.png

Zerohedge is reporting on the large market scope for adult diapers.  One-fifth of the world’s population will be of retirement age by 2070. The beauty for the diaper manufacturers is that adult diapers have 4x the margins of infant diapers despite exactly the same ingredients and production techniques. Asia is ageing fast, especially China and Japan. Incontinence affects 40% of people over 65yo so the market dynamics have rock solid foundations, even if wearers don’t.

Unicharm and P&G are two monsters in the diaper game. But who makes the equipment that makes them?

In a former life as an equity analyst, CM covered a business called Zuiko Corp (6279 JP) which made the machines that make the diapers. It is a captive business. All machines are built to spec. 50 metres long and weighing 20 tonnes. 850 diapers per minute.

The company has the largest share of the market in Asia. It used to be around 80% when CM covered the company and supply chains are very sticky. Zuiko is owned c.10% by Unicharm in Japan.

Zuiko has had quite patchy performance, despite the wonderful structural backdrop. Private equity must look to a buyout. The company has pretty poor investor relations and shareholder communications. The shares are in the dumps, at 7-year lows. It is quite hard to find a business that has such favourable, defensive growth characteristics which is in need of proper leadership.

Zuiko has effectively no debt, ¥10bn  (c. US$90million) in cash which represents around 48% of its market cap. Looks like one for the SMSF.

ALP, first find a purpose before you choose your next leader

On what planet does Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen honestly believe he is a viable candidate for the ALP leadership? Of course the Coalition welcome such an appointment as they’ll be guaranteed another 3 years in government. Does Bowen believe that the electorate will grant what he calls a “blank canvas” and give him a fair go? Like any good retail store, the best assets are put on display where people can see them first. If the repudiated policies of the election just finished were the best he had to offer, what hope has he got ‘connecting’ with the base? Will this be the “these were the policies I wanted but Bill Shorten didn’t let me run them” campaign? If that were so Bowen stands for nothing so will fall for anything,

Bowen co-led the most dreadful campaign. Telling hope owners to forget if their houses slipped into negative equity and throwing two fingers up at self-funded retirees telling them if they didn’t like it not to vote for Labor. At least that message cut through.

Tanya Plibersek withdrew her nomination stating she “wasn’t ready”. Is that what a deputy for 6 years does when her boss vacates the top job? She clearly sees the next 3 years as toxic. So her loyalty to party is limited to her own ambitions of taking the top job once other members of the team have become political cadavers. CM spotted her pre-election in Hermes in Sydney so she is most definitely a champagne socialist.

Anthony “Albo” Albanese is the true Labor man who has never been given a title shot. He too is of the left, but he is eminently likable. He is a down to earth battler. However will his party see him as one to lead them back out of political oblivion? The hard left has been the problem.

Then that leaves Jim Chalmers. He is young. Served as an advisor to Rudd. He was pretty ordinary on Q&A last night. He won’t prosecute like Albo can.

The ALP first has to find a purpose before it selects a leader. If it does it the other way around it will only foul up the works and elevate the chaos this unlosable election has already brought upon them. To make a rash choice and then in-fight over policy direction will turn them into a carbon copy of the US Democrats

The lesson was loud. The electorate rejected radical climate change policy, punishing pensioners, identity politics, class warfare and the politics of envy. That Chris Bowen thinks he can lead the party back from the pits of despair with that legacy behind him means he is more delusional than Malcolm Turnbull.

It is worth remembering that experience is a hard teacher. You get the test first and the lesson afterwards.

Hubris always leads to Nemesis

3 for 3. As CM mentioned, the betting agencies are a curse. Paying out early smacked of arrogance. Bill Shorten was running in a t-shirt this morning saying he’d win. Hubris leads to nemesis.

PM Scott Morrison has done an impressive job to beat Bill Shorten given the poison left behind by Malcolm Turnbull. If anything this will hurt more for Turnbull than Shorten. Just goes to show that unlosable elections can be lost. Independents like Julia Banks were summarily thrashed despite backing by Alex Turnbull.

CM always believed this was a cost of living election. Climate change wasn’t an issue even though 16yo Greta Thunberg weighed in. People didn’t want more taxes.

Bill Shorten has to step down. He was simply untrustworthy on numbers. Not having numbers on climate change were a bad sign.

This election is not over but it seems even Labor MPs are conceding that the Coalition has won. Perhaps the aggressive activity to oust Abbott was part of the problem. It diverted resources away from other battles. They won the battle but lost the war.

Actually, vote on the political emergency

No surprise to see The Guardian parrot on about a climate emergency. The editorial completely misses out on the political emergency we face. The economic climate is a massive issue facing Australia. When Bill Shorten tells us that he “will change the nation forever” we shouldn’t view that positively. It is probably the honest thing he has said. Labor’s policy suite is the worst possible collection one could assemble to tackle what economic headwinds lie ahead. Our complacency is deeply disconcerting.

First let’s debunk the climate noise in The Guardian.

The math on the climate emergency is simple. Australia contributes 0.0000156% of global carbon emissions. No matter what we do our impact is zip. If we sell it as 560 million tonnes it sounds huge but the percentage term is all that is relevant. Even Dr Finkel, our climate science guru, agrees. What that number means is that Australia could emit 65,000x what it does now in order to get to a 1% global impact. So even if our emissions rise at a diminishing rate with the population, they remain minuscule.

Bill Shorten often tells us the cost of doing nothing on climate change is immeasurable. He’s right, only in that “it is too insignificant” should be the words he’s searching for.

Perhaps the saddest part of the Guardian editorial was to say that the Green New Deal proposed by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was gaining traction in the US. It has been such a catastrophic failure that she lost an unsolicited vote on the Senate floor 57-0 because Democrats were too embarrassed to show up and support it. Nancy Pelosi dismissed it as a “green dream.” At $97 trillion to implement, no wonder AOC says feelings are more important than facts.

With the 12-year time limit to act before we reach the moving feast known as the tipping point, it gets confusing for climate sceptics. Extinction Rebellion wants things done in only 6 years. The UK House of Commons still can’t get a Brexit deal done inside 3 years but can act instantaneously to call a “climate emergency” after meeting a brainwashed teenager from Sweden. It speaks volumes of the desperation and lack of execution to have to search for political distractions like this.

The ultimate irony in the recent celebration of no coal-fired power in the UK for one week was fossil fuel power substituted all of it – 93% to be exact. Despite the energy market operator telling Brits that zero carbon emissions were possible by 2025 (40% of the current generation capacity is fossil fuel), it forgot that 85% of British homes heat with gas. Presumably, they’d need to pop on down to Dixon’s or Curry’s to buy new electric heaters which would then rely on a grid which will junk 40% of its reliable power…good luck sorting that out without sending prices sky high. Why become beholden to other countries to provide the back-up? It is irrational.

Are people aware that the German electricity regulator noted that 330,000 households (not people) were living in energy poverty? At 2 people per household, that is 1% of the population having their electricity supply cut off because they can’t afford to pay it. That’s what expensive renewables do. If the 330,000 could elect cheap electricity to warm their homes or go without for the sake of the climate, which would they choose? 100% cheap, reliable power. Yet Shorten’s plan can only push more into climate poverty which currently stands at 42,000 homes. This is before the economy has started to tank!

If one looks across Europe, it is no surprise to see the countries with the highest level of fossil fuel power generation (Hungary, Lithuania & Bulgaria) have the lowest electricity prices. Those with more renewables (Denmark, Germany & Belgium), the highest. That is Australia’s experience too. South Australia and Victoria have already revealed their awful track record with going renewable. Why did Coca-Cola and other industries move out of SA after decades? They couldn’t make money with such an unreliable

Ahh, but we must protect our children and grandchildren’s futures. So low have the left’s tactics sunk that using kids as human shields in the fight for climate change wards off conservatives calling out the truth because it is not cool to bully brainwashed kids. We should close all our universities. As the father of two teenagers, CM knows they know everything already so there is little requirement for tertiary education!

The Guardian mentioned, “But in Australia, the Coalition appears deaf to the rising clamour from the electorate [on climate change].” Really?

CM has often held that human consumption patterns dictate true feelings about climate change. Climate alarmist Independent candidate Zali Steggall drives a large SUV and has no solar panels on her roof! Her battleground in the wealthy seat of Warringah is probably 70%+ SUV so slapping a Zali bumper sticker does nothing but add to the hypocrisy.

Why do we ignore IATA forecasts that project air travel will double by 2030? Qantas has the largest carbon offset program in the world yet only 2% elect to pay the self-imposed tax. Isn’t that telling? That is the problem. So many climate alarmists expect others to do the heavy lifting.

SUVs make up 43% of all new car sales in Australia. In 2007 it was 19%. Hardly the activity of a population fretting about rising sea levels. In Warringah, waterfront property sales remain buoyant and any bank that feared waves lapping the rooves of Burran Avenue would not take such portfolio risk, much less an insurance company.

Shorten’s EV plan is such a dud that there is a reason he can’t cost it. Following Norway is great in theory but the costs of installing EV infrastructure is prohibitively expensive. It will be NBN Mark II. Will we spend millions to trench 480V connectors along the Stuart Highway?

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. That would cost closer to $14bn, or the equivalent of half the education budget.

The Guardian griped that “Scott Morrison’s dismissive response to a UN report finding that the world is sleepwalking towards an extinction crisis, and his parliamentary stunt of fondling a lump of coal”

Well, he might doubt the UN which has been embroiled in more scandals related to climate change than can be counted. Most won’t be aware that an internal UN survey revealed the dismay of unqualified people being asked for input for the sake of diversity and inclusion as opposed to choosing those with proper scientific qualifications. The UN has climbed down from most of its alarmist predictions, often citing no or little confidence of the original scare.

Yet this election is truly about the cost of living, not climate or immigration. The biggest emergency is to prepare for the numbers we can properly set policy against.

We have household debt at a record 180% of GDP. We have had 27 years of untrammelled economic growth. Unfortunately, we have traded ourselves into a position of too much complacency. Our major 4 banks are headed for a lot of trouble. Forget meaningless stress tests. APRA is too busy twiddling its thumbs over climate change compliance. While the Royal Commission may reign in loose lending, a slowing global economy with multiple asset bubbles including houses will come crumbling down. These banks rely 40% on wholesale markets to fund growth. A sharp slowdown will mean a weaker dollar which will only exacerbate the problem.

We have yet to see bond markets price risk correctly. Our banks are horribly exposed. They have too little equity and a mortgage debt problem that dwarfs Japan in the late 1980s. Part/whole nationalization is a reality. The leverage is worse than US banks at the time of the Lehman collapse.

We have yet to see 10% unemployment rates. We managed to escape GFC with a peak of 6% but this time we don’t have a buoyant China to rescue us. Consumers are tapped out and any upward pressure on rates (to account for risk) will pop the housing bubble. Not to worry, Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen assures people not to panic if their home falls into negative equity! This is the level of economic nous on the catastrophe that awaits. It is insanely out of touch.

Are our politicians aware that the US has to refinance US$8.4 trillion in US Treasuries in the next 3 years? That amount of money will crowd out a corporate bond market which has more than 50% of companies rated BBB or less. This will be compounded by the sharp rise in inventories we are witnessing on top of the sharp slowdown in trade (that isn’t just related to the trade war) which is at GFC lows. The 3.2% US economic growth last quarter was dominated by “intellectual property”, not consumption or durable goods.

China car sales have been on a steep double-digit decline trajectory for the last 9 months. China smartphone shipments dwindle at 6 year lows. In just the first four months of 2019, Chinese companies defaulted on $5.8 billion of domestic bonds, c.3.4x the total for the same period of 2018. The pace is over triple that of 2016.

Europe is in the dumps. Germany has had some of the worst industrial production numbers since 2008. German GDP is set to hit 0.5% for 2019. France 1.25% and Italy 0.25%. Note that in 2007, there were 78mn Europeans living in poverty. In the following decade, it hit 118mn or 23.5% of the population.

Global bellwether Parker Hannifin, which is one of the best lead indicators of global industrial growth, reported weaker orders and a soft outlook which suggests the outlook for global growth is not promising.

This election on Saturday is a choice between the lesser of two evils. The LNP has hardly made a strong case for reelection given the shambolic leadership changes. Take it to the bank that neither will be able to achieve surpluses with the backdrop we are headed into. Yet when it comes to economic stewardship, it is clear Labor are out of their depth in this election. Costings are wildly inaccurate but they are based on optimistic growth scenarios that simply don’t exist. We cannot tax our way to prosperity when global growth dives.

Hiking taxes, robbing self-managed super fund retirees and slamming the property market might play well with the classes of envy but they will be the biggest victims of any slowdown. Australia has run out of runway to keep economic growth on a positive footing.

We will do well to learn from our arrogance which has spurned foreign investment like Adani. We miscalculate the damage done to the national brand. Adani has been 8 years in the making. We have tied the deal up in so much onerous red tape, that we have done nothing more than treating our foreign investors with contempt. Those memories will not be forgotten.

There will come a point in years to come where we end up begging for foreigners to invest at home but we will only have ourselves to blame.

The editorial closes with,

However you choose to exercise your democratic decision-making on Saturday, please consider your candidate’s position on climate and the rapidly shrinking timeframe for action. We have endured mindless scare campaigns and half-baked policy for too many decades. We don’t have three more years to waste.

This is the only sensible quote in the entire article. The time for action is rapidly shrinking. However, that only applies to the political and economic climate. One can be absolutely sure that when the slowdown hits, saving the planet will be furthest removed from Aussie voters’ minds.