The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it’s the illusion of knowledge (Stephen Hawking)

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so (Mark Twain)

Invest with smart knowledge and objective odds

THE DAILY EDGE: 6 JANUARY 2020

Happy and Healthy New Year

Did you miss THE RULE OF 20 STRATEGY GOES ALL CASH?

Also posted today: BOTTOM FISHING IN THE OIL POOL? THINK AGAIN!

COMPOSITE PMIs
USA: Business activity growth accelerates to five-month high in December

U.S. service sector firms indicated a moderate expansion in business activity at the end of 2019, with growth driven by a stronger rise in new orders. Foreign client demand also picked up, as new export orders increased for the first time since July. Subsequently, the rate of job creation ticked up to a five-month high despite only fractional pressure on capacity. Business confidence, however, remained well below the series average.

Meanwhile, service providers were able to increase their selling prices at a faster pace amid a quicker, albeit only modest, rise in cost burdens.

The seasonally adjusted final IHS Markit US Services Business Activity Index registered 52.8 in December, up from 51.6 in November, signalling a further rebound in output growth following a slump in activity during the summer. The moderate upturn accelerated to the fastest since July and was linked to more favourable demand conditions.

image

A second successive increase in new business drove the expansion in output, with stronger client demand leading to the fastest rise in new orders for five months. Although growth was relatively lacklustre overall, it signalled a turnaround from the slight contraction seen in October. Foreign client demand also improved, with service providers recording the first upturn in new business from abroad since July. The rate of expansion was fractional overall but was only slightly slower than the series trend.

As a result, service providers ramped up hiring efforts as employment rose for the second straight month and at the quickest rate since July. Although only modest overall, the upturn in workforce numbers was commonly linked to greater business requirements following an uptick in new order growth.

Meanwhile, backlogs of work were broadly unchanged at the end of 2019, as firms signalled little strain on capacity. Although some noted that greater new business inflows had put pressure on operations, others stated that orders and projects were completed in a timely manner.

On the price front, cost burdens increased for the third month running and at a quicker rate. The rise in input prices was generally attributed to higher supplier and wage costs. The increase was the sharpest since July despite being only modest.

At the same time, service sector firms were able to increase their selling prices at a solid pace. The rate of output charge inflation outpaced the rise in input prices and was the fastest since February. Greater output prices were largely linked to efforts to pass higher costs on to clients.

Finally, business expectations for the year ahead improved in December. Where firms foresee an increase in activity over the next 12 months, they attributed this to hopes of further boosts to new sales. That said, the degree of confidence was well below the series trend and levels seen at the end of 2018, with a number of firms reporting uncertainty as to the stability of client demand.

The IHS Markit Composite PMI Output Index* registered 52.7 in December, up from 52.0 in November, to signal a moderate expansion in private sector business activity. The upturn was the fastest since April.

image

Private sector new business grew at the strongest rate since July, with service providers recording a second successive and sharper rise in client demand. Similarly, firms indicated back-to-back expansions in new export orders, albeit both at fractional rates overall.

Employment also continued to rebound from the contractions seen in September and October, with both sectors registering a rise in staffing levels.

Meanwhile, rates of input and output price inflation quickened as private sector firms sought to pass higher costs on to clients and protect margins.

Finally, output expectations remained historically subdued as firms remained uncertain regarding future client demand.

Chris Williamson, Chief Business Economist at IHS Markit:

(…) the overall survey results are indicative of GDP rising at a relatively modest annual rate of 1.8% in December. The missing ingredient compared to this time last year is optimism about the future, with business sentiment regarding prospects for the next twelve months running well below levels seen this time last year, and close to the lowest for at least seven years. Indeed, much of the recent improvement in demand has come from stronger sales to consumers, with business spending and investment remaining under pressure amid this anxiety about the economic and political outlook.

Chinese business activity growth softens at end of 2019

The Caixin China Composite PMIâ„¢ data (which covers both manufacturing and services) pointed to another strong rise in total Chinese business activity in December. However, the rate of growth eased since November, with the Composite Output Index falling from a 21-month high of 53.2 to 52.6 at the end of the year.

image

Underlying data showed that business activity continued to expand across both the manufacturing and service sectors, with the former noting the steeper rate of growth. Manufacturing output rose solidly overall, despite the rate of increase easing to a three-month low. In the service sector, business activity expanded strongly overall, though growth also eased from November. This was signalled by the seasonally adjusted Chinese Services Business Activity Index posting 52.5 in December, down from a seven-month high of 53.5 in November.

The total amount of new business received by Chinese companies rose solidly at the end of the year, despite the rate of expansion slipping to a four-month low. This reflected a softer rise in new work placed at goods producers, which registered a modest increase overall. In contrast, services companies recorded a solid increase in sales that was the quickest since September. Anecdotal evidence attributed the upturn in new orders to greater client numbers, new product offerings and improved marketing strategies.

New export order growth weakened in December, with both monitored sectors registering only a marginal rise in new orders from overseas. In the service sector, the slight increase contrasted with a solid expansion during the previous month. Consequently, new export business at the composite level grew at the slowest rate for three months.

Overall, employment across the manufacturing and service sectors in China rose only slightly at the end of the fourth quarter. The upturn was driven by job creation at service providers, as manufacturing firms saw no change to their staffing levels. That said, the rate of payroll growth at services companies was only marginal, with a number of companies adopting relatively cautious approaches to hiring amid efforts to contain costs and boost efficiency.

After a slight fall in November, service providers recorded higher backlogs of work at the end of 2019. Panel members often mentioned that greater volumes of new work had imparted pressure on capacities. That said, the rate of accumulation was only marginal. In the manufacturing sector, outstanding business rose at a modest pace that was the softest for four months. At the composite level, unfinished workloads rose at a slightly quicker, albeit only mild, rate.

December data pointed to a further easing in the rate of input price inflation across China. Notably, services firms recorded the slowest increase in operating expenses since March. Although input costs rose at a slightly faster rate in the manufacturing sector, the rate of inflation remained marginal and much weaker than the historical trend. As a result, cost burdens at the composite level increased at the weakest rate for four months.

Sector data highlighted contrasting trends when it came to selling prices, with an increase in factory gate prices occurring alongside a fall in service sector charges. Though modest, the increase in the manufacturing sector was the most marked seen since October 2018. Output charges set by services companies meanwhile fell for the first time since September 2018, albeit only slightly. Selling prices at the composite level therefore rose at only a fractional pace.

Manufacturing firms based in China were generally optimistic towards the one-year business outlook in December. The overall degree of positive sentiment in the goods producing sector was up from October’s recent low, but still weak in the context of historical data. Meanwhile, the level of optimism expressed by service sector firms edged down to the second-lowest on record. Companies highlighted ongoing trade tensions, relatively subdued economic growth and staff shortages as factors that could dampen prospects over 2020.

Eurozone economy remains close to stagnation at end of 2019

The IHS Markit Eurozone PMI® Composite Output Index improved slightly during December, but still signalled weak economic growth. After accounting for seasonal factors, the index recorded 50.9, up from 50.6 in November and slightly better than the earlier flash reading. Despite the improvement to a four-month high the index nonetheless continued to post at a level amongst the lowest seen since the first half of 2013.

image

The divergence between the performances of the manufacturing and services economies remained noticeable in December. Overall growth remained centred on the service sector, with growth here reaching a four-month high. In contrast, manufacturing output declined at a rate not exceeded for nearly seven years.

imageAt the national level, Ireland moved to the top of the country rankings during December, expanding at the fastest rate for six months. Spain also registered a solid rate of expansion, as did France despite recording its slowest growth in three months.

There was some positive news in Germany, where there was a return to marginal growth following three months of contraction. In contrast, Italy remained inside negative territory for a second month, registering its worst performance in just under a year.

Supporting the upturn in overall activity was an increase of incoming new work for the first time in four months. Growth was, however, only marginal, and again undermined by weakness in foreign demand. Latest data showed exports falling for a fifteenth successive month, albeit to the weakest degree since the start of 2019.

With activity rising at a slightly faster pace than new business, companies were again able to reduce overall workloads at their units. Latest data showed that levels of work outstanding were cut for a tenth successive month during December, although the rate of contraction was marginal and the weakest since June.

Spare capacity, combined with soft new business growth, continued to weigh on hiring during December. Although payroll numbers increased again, they did so only marginally and to the weakest degree for five years.

Nonetheless, higher labour costs remained a key factor behind increased operating expenses at the end of 2019. December’s PMI data indicated another solid rise in input costs, with inflation little- changed since November. Output charges were also raised, although only modestly as competitive pressures and weak demand conditions limited pricing power.

Finally, confidence about the future improved during December to its highest level since May, though remained well below par. The improvement was broad-based, with the exception of France. Germany in particular saw a strong rise in confidence since November, although sentiment remained weaker than in Italy, Spain and Ireland.

The IHS Markit Eurozone PMI® Services Business Activity Index improved in December to a four-month high of 52.8, up from 51.9 in November. All nations covered by the survey recorded growth in activity, led by Spain and Ireland.

A similar-sized increase in new work was recorded in December, although growth was again dampened by a reduction in new export business, the sixteenth in as many months.

Capacity came under pressure, as signalled by a first increase in outstanding business for five months. Modest backlog growth subsequently encouraged firms to take on additional staff, albeit at the slowest rate since the start of 2019.

Rising staffing costs were again a key driver of input price inflation, which was little-changed at a marked level in December. Margins remained under pressure as output charges increased only modestly since the previous month.

Looking ahead to the coming 12 months, business confidence about the future strengthened to its highest level since July. The upturn was led by a strong improvement in sentiment amongst German service providers.

Chris Williamson, Chief Business Economist at IHS Markit:

Another month of subdued business activity in December rounded off the eurozone’s worst quarter since 2013. The PMI data suggest the euro area will struggle to have grown by more than 0.1% in the closing three months of 2019. (…)

image

U.S. Light Vehicle Sales Slip in December and for all of 2019

The Autodata Corporation reported that December sales of light vehicles fell 1.9% from November (-3.3% y/y) to 16.87 million units (SAAR). Earlier figures were revised. For the full year 2019 sales of 17.00 million units compared to 17.27 million during all of 2018 and have been fairly flat for the last five years. During the last three months, sales averaged 16.90 million units, the weakest three-month reading since April.

Sales of light trucks declined 3.8% (-0.7% y/y) to 12.14 million units, the lowest level since April. (…) Auto sales rose 3.3% (-9.4% y/y) to 4.73 million, the highest level since July. (..)

Imports’ share of the U.S. vehicle market fell to 22.1%. Imports’ share of the passenger car market fell sharply to 24.5%. Imports share of the light truck market held steady at 21.1% and remained up from the 12.0% low in January 2015.

image

image

U.S. Construction Spending Stronger than Expected in November

The value of construction put-in-place rose a larger-than-expected 0.6% m/m (+4.1% y/y) in November with significant upward revisions to both October and September. The Action Economics Forecast Survey had looked for a 0.3% m/m rise. As for revisions, the 0.8% m/m decline initially reported for October was revised to a 0.1% m/m gain while the 0.3% m/m decrease previously reported for September was revised up to a 0.7% m/m increase. The revisions were concentrated in private, residential construction.

Private construction rose 0.4% m/m (+1.6% y/y) in November with significant upward revisions to October and September. The initially reported 1.0% m/m decline for October was revised to a 0.1% m/m increase, and the 1.1% decrease previously reported for September was revised to a 0.3% m/m rise. Private residential construction surged 1.9% m/m (2.7% y/y) in November, led by a 3.4% m/m jump in home improvements, but also a 1.2% m/m gain in single family new house building. Multi-family construction was essentially unchanged in November after having fallen in each of the previous three months.

In contrast to residential construction, private nonresidential construction remained weak in November, declining 1.2% m/m (+0.2% y/y), its sixth monthly decline in the past eight months. Leading the weakness in November were lodging (-3.8% m/m), education (-2.0% m/m), power (-1.6% m/m) and manufacturing (-2.4% m/m).

Public construction increased 0.9% m/m (+12.4% y/y) in November with only modest upward revisions to October and September. Construction of highways and streets, the largest category accounting for nearly one-third of public sector building activity, rebounded in November, rising 2.2% m/m after having fallen 3.0% m/m in October. Education construction, the second largest category, was essentially unchanged in November from October following a 2.8% m/m gain.

image

Manhattan property decline worsened as Wall Street boomed Average sale prices for co-ops and condos dropped 7.5% in the fourth quarter
Fed Officials Say Global Economic Shift Is Keeping Rates Low San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly and Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan said population aging, tech advances and lower productivity have changed how the economy behaves

Speaking on a panel at a conference in San Diego, San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly and Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan said the aging of the population, technological advances and lower worker productivity have changed how the economy behaves.

“There have been substantial structural changes in the U.S. economy since the 80s and 90s and even since the early 2000s,” Mr. Kaplan said. “We talk a little bit too much about cyclical phenomena and maybe not enough about the structural changes.”

The response to these structural changes can’t come from the Fed, he added.

“We need structural reforms away from monetary policy if we’re going to improve the level of potential growth,” he said.

Ms. Daly said this “new world” make it possible to push the unemployment rate lower and draw more people into the labor force. On the other hand, she said, low inflation and low interest rates could make it difficult for the Fed to fight a downturn using its conventional tools of lowering policy rates.

“We don’t have to worry about inflation taking off so we have a little more room to find full employment,” she said. “On the flip side of that, we are going to be fighting inflation from below.” (…)

Ms. Daly said one solution would be to allow inflation to push above 2% following downturns to make up for previous weakness in inflation.

In the long term, the U.S. will need help from fiscal policy makers to push up its potential for strong economic growth, the two officials said. (…)

EARNINGS WATCH

The Q4’19 earnings season is underway with 16 early reporters boasting an 88% beat rate and a +4.1% surprise factor. Sadly, the good news stops here.

These 16 companies had an actual earnings drop of 18.8% on a +2.3% revenue growth rate. At the beginning of Q3’19, these same companies reported a 19.2% earnings decline on a 0.6% revenue gain. During Q4’18, these same companies had a tax rate-boosted 18.7% earnings gain on a 9.2% revenue jump.

In effect, Q4’19 earnings for these companies are 4.1% below their Q4’17 level even though revenues are up 11.6%. Of the 16 companies having reported, 9 are consumer-centric, 2 Industrials and 5 IT.

Total S&P 500 earnings are seen declining 0.3% in Q4 (Refinitiv/IBES), helped by a 2.2% buyback effect (+2.0% in Q3).

TECHNICALS WATCH

The 13/34–Week EMA Trend Chart from CMG Wealth remains bullish. Other CMG Wealth technical charts are also positive with the notable exceptions of NDR’s Crowd and Trading Sentiment charts which are both negative.

This one from Ed Yardeni calls for ST caution:

image

Iran and the United States: What Comes Next (By: George Friedman)

(…) All of this has to be framed in the strategic context. The U.S. does not want to engage in extensive operations in the region. Washington is depending on sanctions and proxies. Iran still wants to maintain its sphere of influence into the Mediterranean, but above all, an even greater priority is the neutralization of Iraq and the stabilization of its own country. Iran can’t afford to allow Iraq to become a bastion of anti-Iran forces, nor can it wage a conventional war against the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Iran must therefore use what it has used so effectively in the past: special and covert operations. It follows that Iran will take its time to respond. It also follows that the U.S. and its allies, having bought time by killing the head of the Quds Force, must use the time effectively.

Trump administration pressed Dutch hard to cancel China chip-equipment sale: sources

The Trump administration mounted an extensive campaign to block the sale of Dutch chip manufacturing technology to China, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lobbying the Netherlands government and White House officials sharing a classified intelligence report with the country’s Prime Minister, people familiar with the effort told Reuters. (…)

The U.S. campaign began in 2018, after the Dutch government gave semiconductor equipment company ASML, the global leader in a critical chip-making process known as lithography, a license to sell its most advanced machine to a Chinese customer, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

Over the following months, U.S officials examined whether they could block the sale outright and held at least four rounds of talks with Dutch officials, three sources told Reuters. (…)

The pressure appears to have worked. Shortly after the White House visit, the Dutch government decided not to renew ASML’s export license, and the $150 million machine has not been shipped. (…)

ASML has never publicly disclosed the identity of the Chinese customer, but Nikkei and others have reported that it is Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp (SMIC), China’s biggest chip-making specialist. (…)

BOTTOM FISHING IN THE OIL POOL? THINK AGAIN!

This chart from Ed Yardeni will likely alert the value investor in you. It sure made me work!

image_thumb[1]

Natural resources investors Goehring & Rozencwajg provide more bait to wet your appetite for undervalued sectors in this overvalued equity market:

In the thirty years we have been investing in global natural resource markets, we cannot remember seeing greater value than we do today in the global oil markets. With both crude
and oil-related securities, the price action appears to have completely divorced itself from underlying fundamentals.

By any measure, oil and oil-related securities are radically undervalued. Over the last 120 years, we estimate it took 17 barrels of oil on average to buy one unit of the S&P 500. Today it requires over 53 barrels. The only time it has taken more was during the parabolic dotcom blow off–incidentally an excellent time to become an oil investor. At the same time, energy-related
equities now make up a mere 4% of the S&P 500 by weight. Not only does this represent the lowest level in at least 20 years (when our records begin), it is 75% below the peak levels reached in 2008 at which point energy stocks made up 16% of the S&P 500.

In particular, the bear market in oil exploration and production companies has created value that can hardly be believed. We analyzed the universe of all US-listed E&P companies with market capitalizations over $100 mm and proved reserves that are at least 50% oil. We then compared the current stock price to the net-debt adjusted SEC PV-10 measure from their 2018 10Ks. As you may recall, a company’s PV-10 measures the discounted cash flow of all proved reserves at the prevailing oil and gas prices. Under normal market conditions, E&P stocks trade at a premium to their SEC PV-10, reflecting the expected value of any future reserves not yet “booked” in the reserve statement. However, due to the overwhelming bearishness among energy investors, the average company now trades at a 12% discount to its net-debt adjusted SEC PV-10 per share value. While we have seen individual companies trade at a discount, we cannot recall a time when the industry average was less than its SEC PV-10 value. We should point out that the price used in most companies’ SEC PV-10 analysis for 2018 was $55 per barrel, not materially higher than today’s price.

We also computed the discounted value of the companies’ proved developed producing reserves (PDPs). This represents the most conservative possible measure of value: a company’s
discounted cash flow from currently producing wells only. As you might imagine, it is very unusual for an E&P company to trade at a discount to this most conservative measure. Today, we estimate that twelve of the twenty-nine companies in the universe are trading at a discount to their PV-10 value using only their PDP reserves. Furthermore, the average premium to PDP PV-10 value across the entire industry is now only 7%. Once again, we have never seen anything remotely like this before. Investors often act irrationally at the bottom of long, drawn-out bear markets and we believe that is what we are witnessing today. (…)

In past cycles, as energy prices fell and E&P stocks sold off, two groups of investors would begin to accumulate positions: natural resource specialists and value investors. Our analysis tells us that natural resource funds continue to suffer material redemptions as investors look to reallocate capital away from the industry. We estimate that nearly 25% of the industry’s assets under management are flowing out through redemptions each year and this figure shows no sign of abating. As a result, resource fund managers are constantly forced to sell positions to meet redemptions, instead of stepping in to take advantage of the deep value. Value managers are also suffering net redemptions. After a difficult ten-year period, growth continues to outperform value and investors continue to chase the momentum of the former by selling the latter. In past cycles, value investors could be counted on to buy during extreme bear markets. but today they are either on the sidelines or liquidating positions to meet redemptions as well. In fact, active managers in general are seeing capital being allocated away into passively managed index funds. As we mentioned earlier, energy now makes up its lowest ever weighting in all the major indices. Therefore, as capital gets redirected from actively managed funds towards passive index funds, energy shares end up being liquidated.

There are no natural buyers for natural resource stocks in general and energy stocks in particular. This has allowed the sell-off to be more severe than past cycles and resulted in unprecedented value for those able to invest in this most contrarian space.

Goehring & Rozencwajg go on to demonstrate that equity markets are totally missing the point on energy stocks, that oil demand is stronger than statistics suggest and that supply, particularly from U.S. shale areas will prove materially less than expected.

Spending one’s working life analysing and investing in natural resources companies is a constant challenge trying to keep pace and understand the large number of low-visibility macro and micro variables impacting these industries, making forecasting in these industries an exercise akin to shoveling clouds.

If you are inclined to bottom fish energy equities, also consider these factoids unexplored by the above quoted duo:

It does take about 50 barrels of Brent oil to buy one unit of S&P 500, making oil seemingly cheap compared to some other periods, but I hardly see any meaningful point in this relationship, certainly not a clear high/low pattern one can secure a valuable hat on. The fact is that the economy needs less and less oil to grow.

image

Price to Book for the median U.S. energy stock is currently 1.2, near the very bottom of its 25-year 1.0-3.0 range. Trailing ROE, measuring the return on said Book Value, was 4.3% in 2019, also near the low end of its 0-18% range. Unless ROE can recover meaningfully, the low P/B is justified by the current low return on book.

Energy sector ROE has historically been intimately tied to oil prices which rose from $13 in 1994 to their current $66 with flares exceeding $120 in 2008 and 2011-12. As this CPMS/Morningstar chart illustrates, the problem is the constant decline in the energy industry’s ROE per dollar of oil prices (red line):

image_thumb[13]

The industry’s trailing 12-month cashflow margin is 17%, at the low end of its 25-year range of 15-30%. But when oil prices averaged $65 in past years, cashflow margins were 19% (2015), 22% (2010), and 25% (2007). This industry clearly has a cost (or efficiency) problem that, to this day, shows no sign of abating. Lower cashflow margins reduce funds available for production and exploration, even more so when oil prices are low.

The median energy company has a debt/equity ratio of 0.7, at the high end of its 25-year range and nearly double its 2006 level when oil prices were also $65. Critically, higher leverage has not translated into higher ROE. The average D/E ratio is 1.0, down from 1.3 at the end of 2015 but well above its 0.8 high between 1993 and 2014. Some large companies are highly leveraged.

As recently revealed by the WSJ, North American oil-and-gas companies have more than $200 billion of debt maturing over the next four years, starting with $41.2 billion in 2020, reaching $68.1 billion in 2022 according to Moody’s Investors Service. It is not clear whether the apparent asset values quoted above fully take this high debt leverage into account.

Energy equities are currently selling at 17.0 times forward EPS per Ed Yardeni’s numbers. The 6.6% discount to the S&P 500 P/E of 18.2 is nowhere near its 30% level of 2000-01, just before Energy’s strong outperforming decade, and hardly compensates for the uncertainty inherent to the sector’s macro variables and its poor, deteriorating fundamentals:

image

Forecasting oil prices has been an elusive and slippery activity, even for full time seasoned analysts like Goehring & Rozencwajg. Good luck if you buy energy stocks on a rising oil price forecast. If you are right, you are still invested in a leveraged sector with poor cost control and numerous moving macro parts offering very limited visibility. If you are wrong, you find yourself holding a sharp, oily knife.

While I do not pretend to be part of a typical family (though not very far from it), I can only notice that of my 9 immediate family households, five recently changed one of their cars and four opted for either a hybrid electric vehicle (1) or full EV Teslas (3). One of our sons bought a Model X and we and a nephew each now drive a Model 3. Frankly, these are truly unique and really great cars, totally redefining the car ownership/driving experience with unique, efficient software that gets regularly updated to constantly improve the car efficiency, safety and driving/owning pleasure. Of my immediate family’s combined 12 cars, 3 no longer need to visit a gas station, ever, and one only very occasionally.

In many respects, Teslas remind me of the cellular phone in the early 1990s. Early adopters bought Blackberries and IPhones for their portability. When people started to realize/understand the power of the software embedded in these little boxes, they wanted/needed them for their various and ever expanding functionalities. Cellphones went from portable telephones to increasingly convenient, efficient and evolving software in the pocket. It may not be long before people realize/understand what owning a Tesla really means: beyond being a great electric vehicle, a Tesla is convenient, efficient and evolving software on wheels. This disruptive trend is there to stay and accelerate.

This chart from Ed Yardeni shows world oil production’s relentless rise…

image_thumb[5]

…while this chart, using the U.S. EIA numbers, illustrates how production keeps outrunning world consumption.

image

The truth is that oil has a growing demand problem that some producing nations attempt to offset with complicated and elusive controls of a pool of supply that is becoming more and more marginal. Meanwhile, technology keeps reducing production costs for the marginal barrel, dragging down commodity prices along with margins for this high legacy costs industry.

In such a context, it is difficult to see who will be the next “natural buyers of energy stocks”. Certainly not the increasingly environmentally conscious young investment managers and their increasingly environmentally conscious clients, and certainly not the growing cohort of Tesla owners.