Blog Entries

The Next Big Thing: It’s Not Alternative Energy, It’s Traditional Energy Through the Miracle of Fracking

Posted October 31st, 2011 by Darrell Armuth

 
From the Bloomberg editorial “Energy Revolution Keeps Carbon on Top,” by Nathan Myhrvold, former chief strategist and technology officer at Microsoft and the founder/CEO of Intellectual Ventures:

“A remarkable thing happened in Silicon Valley during the past decade. Venture capitalists and entrepreneurs set their sights on clean energy as the Next Big Thing. They audaciously hoped to reinvent energy by harnessing the incredible innovation that had transformed information technology and biotechnology. 

Some of the best venture capitalists in the business detached from their computing roots and focused on energy startups. The result was a staggering surge of capital into clean-energy technologies. Worldwide, from 2006 to 2010, about $535 billion in venture capital, private equity and initial public offerings as well as mergers and acquisitions flowed into 4,236 clean-tech businesses, according to a recent analysis by GlobalData.
Venture-capital investing is inherently high-risk, so it shouldn’t surprise or bother anyone that many of these startups failed — some rather spectacularly. Solyndra, the solar-cell company, for example, went bankrupt even after receiving a $535 million in loan guarantees from the U.S. Energy Department. But similar failures happened during the dot-com bubble. Remember pets.com and its infamous sock-puppet TV ads?
What is worrying is that almost a decade of energy investing hasn’t produced any home runs — no green-energy equivalents of eBay, Amazon, Google or Facebook. The modest, incremental advances we have seen don’t perceptibly move the needle on the energy problem.
In the meantime, however, a real revolution has happened in traditional energy — one that poses a serious challenge to companies and investors betting on alternative energy. This breakthrough is arguably one of the greatest advances in energy production since the 1960s. And it came not from a Silicon Valley company, or from MIT or Stanford, but from George Mitchell, the son of a Greek goatherd who immigrated to the U.S.
After graduating from Texas A&M, Mitchell tinkered with a variety of long-known techniques that had never been used in combination. One of these was horizontal drilling, which originated in the 19th century, was adapted for oil production by the Soviets in the 1930s and was perfected by oil drillers in the 1980s. A second idea was to inject fluid into the rock to fracture it into lots of pieces, thus allowing the gas and oil inside to flow more easily. 
A third technique that Mitchell tried was adding sand to the water to help prop open the cracks that formed in the rock. Together these approaches, collectively called hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” allowed drillers to inexpensively recover gas from tight shale rock.
Not so long ago, many people believed that the cost of oil and gas would rise indefinitely, thus supporting the market for alternatives. Mitchell’s miracle has changed that calculus, much to the chagrin of the Silicon Valley venture capitalists who caught the green-energy bug.”

Don’t Fear Chinese Manufacturing. Embrace It.

Posted August 25th, 2011 by Darrell Armuth

A lot of people “blame” China for the difficulties Western manufacturing is facing. The dramatic declines in the number of factories and factory jobs in the U.S. and other developed areas are matched by the increasing amount of production taking place in China, India, and the rest of the so-called developing world. The logical conclusion is that these developing countries are “stealing” our jobs.

The truth is that jobs are migrating from one area to another, as they have done for 150 years. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, factories have located where critical resources are available, and later moved when other resources replace them or become more important. The factories of the mid-19th century drew manufacturing from backyard workshops to central locations that offered water power. When steam and electricity eliminated the millstream’s advantage, plants were relocated closer to raw material supplies, labor pools, or markets. That trend continues.

Yes, low-level, labor-intensive work moved to China because labor is a lot less expensive there. But U.S. industrial output has continued to grow through continuously improving productivity and a migration to more sophisticated, higher-margin, less labor-intensive products.

China isn’t immune to this cycle. A growing middle class with its demands for higher wages and better working conditions is seeing jobs leave China for less-developed areas with the low wage rates that China can no longer offer. Chinese factories are now moving up to more sophisticated products and higher productivity in a continuation of the cycle.

In truth, China has seen job losses due to increasing productivity similar to those in the Western world. According to a 2004 report[1] by China’s Department of Industry and Transport Statistics, part of the National Bureau of Statistics: “The relative magnitudes of job loss in manufacturing in the developed world and China are similar, with both experiencing 15% declines between 1995 and 2002…For example, textiles was one of the worst hit industries in the U.S., with 415,000 jobs lost, but the losses in China were much greater, at 1.8 million jobs.”

Innovation is the key to the continued growth of Western manufacturing. And, yes, “continued growth” is the right description. Even though there are fewer manufacturing jobs here in the West, industrial output is still increasing year-to-year due to higher productivity. And that increasing middle class in the East will demand more Western products as their income and lifestyle improves. The weak dollar helps make our exports more attractive and imports relatively more costly, so demand for domestic products should increase here as well.

China is not the enemy. It is just another part of the manufacturing cycle, similar to what the U.S. was to Europe in the 19th century, Japan was to the U.S. in the 20th century, and Malaysia, Vietnam, and other countries are to China today. And so it goes. European manufacturing did not collapse when the young U.S. developed its manufacturing base — and U.S. manufacturing is not going away either.

by Mark Symonds is President and CEO of Plex Systems, and a member of the Manufacturing Leadership Council.

Dimensional Fund Advisors Best Mutual Fund Family of 2010

Posted June 28th, 2011 by Darrell Armuth

Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) was rated the top mutual fund family for 2010 by Baron’s magazine. This is great news for clients of SensiblePortfolios as all of its model portfolios invest exclusively in DFA funds.

DFA, is a global asset manager that oversees $206.5 billion in all and owns a mind-boggling 13,000 stocks, or about 70% of the world’s publicly listed equities. Because DFA’s investment process is purely quantitative, it doesn’t have the option of succumbing to fear in the face of adversity. It certainly helped that DFA focuses much of its attention on some of last year’s highest-performing equity areas – value, small-cap and emerging markets.

The privately held firm (Arnold Schwarzenegger is an investor) also is known for keeping a lid on costs that can rob shareholders of performance points, steering clear of some foreign markets where it doesn’t believe funds can get a fair shake on prices.

SensiblePortfolios’ Smart Strategy seeks to generate global market returns using mutual funds engineered by DFA.  We too  understand that controlling fees and expenses is important for long term success.

To learn more about our  Smart Strategy please visit www.sensibleportfolios.com.

Congratulation DFA and thanks Merriman Inc. for  the article.

I hope everyone enjoys the 4th of July weekend… Darrell