January 9, 2017 Read More →

Financial Advisers on Investing in Renewables: ‘It’s Like Looking at Intel or Microsoft in the 1990s’

Paul Sullivan for the New York Times:

Given what President-elect Donald J. Trump has said about his energy strategy — he favors coal and wants to end federal subsidies to the clean energy industry — does it still make sense to invest in wind, solar and other alternative sources of power?

The answer is an emphatic yes, according to investment advisers, who say clean energy companies will continue to thrive during a Trump administration, regardless of what the president says or does. The sector has become as much about getting returns on investments and catching the next technological boom as it is about reducing greenhouse gases and helping the environment.

And clean energy is creating jobs in every state, not just the ones that have oil or gas in the ground. Even the most politically conservative states, like Kansas and Iowa, are leaders in wind power and are likely to continue investing in it.

“No longer is there a trade-off between what you believe in and what you can make money off of,” said Nancy Pfund, a founder and managing partner of DBL Partners, which made early investments in SolarCity and Tesla.

She predicts that investors “are going to redouble their efforts to migrate their portfolios to a 21st-century energy economy.” Even without subsidies, she said, alternative energy sources will be well positioned to compete with coal and other carbon spewers.

“It really has to do with the cost of wind, solar and electric cars compared to where we were 12 years ago,” Ms. Pfund said.

And there is momentum in the sector. Bill Gates, the Microsoft founder, recently announced a billion-dollar investment fund to put money into energy research and the reduction of carbon emissions.

But the challenge for all investors during the Trump administration and beyond will be to make sure that passions for change and innovation, or anger at environmental policies that favor fossil fuels, do not cloud sound investment analysis.

“Recently, people have taken the green mandate and said, ‘You need to invest in the future,’” said Chat Reynders, the chief executive and chairman of Reynders, McVeigh Capital Management, a $1.3 billion asset-management firm. “People have chased some investments that weren’t timely or were not quality investments in order to participate.”

For example, back in the 1970s, some investors were eager to back manufacturers of solar panels. But what was then a cutting-edge technology with high barriers to entry is now a commodity, with prices dropping as more manufacturers enter the market. This is good for the consumer, but not great for investors in the panel makers.

And solar power has very much gone mainstream. Walmart, which has panels atop its stores as it works toward 100 percent renewable energy use, and other companies have become huge producers and consumers of solar energy.

“You can’t put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to the economics driving solar, wind and battery storage,” said Thomas Van Dyck, managing director in the SRI Wealth Management Group at RBC Wealth Management.

“The economics are such that in California, wind and solar are the cheapest form of power you can put in place,” Mr. Van Dyck said. “If you’re a long-term investor, you need to look at these long-term trends.”

Despite the economic forces lining up behind clean energy, investors and analysts caution that people interested in investing in this area should be prepared for a rough ride in the short term.

“If you’re a long-term investor and looking out five to 10 years, it’s a no-brainer,” Mr. Van Dyck said. “It’s like looking at Intel or Microsoft in the 1990s — they had some cyclical issues, but look at them today.”

An often-cited cautionary tale of passion trumping economic reasoning is Solyndra, the solar panel maker best known for spending $527 million in government loans before collapsing.

Paul Herman, the chief executive of HIP Investor, an investment rater and portfolio manager, said investors looking for broad guidance should keep three things in mind. They should look for companies that are trying to save money and reduce risk through clean energy. This is the Walmart example.

They should monitor their investments in fossil-fuel producers closely, lest their stocks plummet again as renewable energy gets cheaper and the value of their reserves diminishes. And those with a longer-term investment horizon and a higher tolerance for risk should look for companies focused on energy innovations.

The last is the holy grail. Ms. Pfund’s firm, DBL Partners, had great success investing in Tesla and SolarCity, but she said she was not looking to mimic those investments today.

“The last thing I’m going to do is keep investing in the same old, same old,” she said. “The venture-backed electric car company was a smart investment 10 years ago, but today it’s things like storage — the batteries in a Tesla or stationary storage — that are going to play a huge role in the electric grid of the future.”

With storage, the energy created by the sun and wind can be used on demand — or on cloudy, calm days.

Mr. Reynders said he was steering clear of solar panels but liked companies that install the panels. He also said he thought the Trump administration would be good for alternative-energy investment, though not as its cheerleader. If the administration follows through on Mr. Trump’s plan to cut clean-energy subsidies, it could force a shakeout in the industry and prompt investors to pay closer attention to company fundamentals.

Full article: Trump May Not Like Alternative Energy, but Investors Should

1 Comment on "Financial Advisers on Investing in Renewables: ‘It’s Like Looking at Intel or Microsoft in the 1990s’"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed