This Contrarian Indicator Means Good News for Oil and Gas Stocks

By MoneyMorning.com.au

There’s a revolution coming.

In fact, it’s already here.

It’s an energy revolution. Of a kind perhaps not seen since wildcatters successfully drilled for oil at Spindletop, Texas in January 1901.

And as usual, just when the mainstream should be buying into this revolution, they’re doing the opposite, they’re selling.

What on earth are they thinking…?

For some time we’ve written about one of the greatest energy turnaround stories of all time.

If you go back just 20 years, all the talk in the US was of a looming energy crisis. The US was at the mercy of the OPEC oil cartel.

It was consuming way more oil than it produced.

And of course back then the thought of an oil crisis was that it would come if the crude oil price hit US$40 a barrel. So if oil hit US$100 a barrel that would be an unmitigated disaster, right?

Wrong. Oil at US$100 and above has proven to be the single most important factor in making sure the US avoided an oil crisis.

The building blocks of the free market

It was a simple case of supply, demand and price — the three fundamental blocks of the free market.

When prices rise, entrepreneurs and investors recognise the opportunity to make money from those higher prices. That means they tend to focus their resources and capital in these high priced areas.

In other words, high prices attract investment.

But high prices have another impact, especially in the case of the resources sector.

High prices can mean that previously uneconomical resources become economical. That’s exactly what has happened with the oil and gas industry as explorers and producers look to exploit the US’ vast reserves of shale oil and gas.

It has meant that now, as Bloomberg News reports:

The U.S. overtook Russia and Saudi Arabia as the largest combined producer of oil and gas last year…

The shale energy boom isn’t without controversy. The hydraulic fracturing (fracking) technique has been blamed for minor earth tremors in areas near where oil firms are fracking.

And there are also worries that the chemicals used in fracking may seep through to the water table, potentially contaminating water supplies.

But so far none of this is proven. And for as long as there isn’t any proven adverse impact from fracking, the drilling will continue, and the US will edge ever closer to energy self-sufficiency.

They’re selling, we’re buying

It’s fair to say that the shale energy boom has given fossil fuels a whole new lease on life.

For all the billions spent on green energy and nuclear power, it’s a fact that oil, gas and coal are still the number one energy sources. And odds are it will stay that way until other energy sources can achieve the same level of efficiency as fossil fuels.

To our mind that makes the fossil fuel energy sector a great source of investment opportunities.

But not everyone sees it that way. As the New York Times reports:

Stanford University announced Tuesday that it would divest its $18.7 billion endowment of stock in coal-mining companies, becoming the first major university to lend support to a nationwide campaign to purge endowments and pension funds of fossil fuel investments.

It’s a cute move. The university endowments are clearly responding to the pressure group activity of young students who have assumed the moral authority when it comes to investing.

But it’s also likely to be a big mistake. Scratch that, a huge mistake.

We remember similar outcries during the 1990s and 2000s. Only back then the moralising was against tobacco companies. University endowments took the same steps. As the New York Times reported in 1990:

Harvard University and the City University of New York have decided to eliminate stocks of tobacco companies from their investment portfolios, in what may be harbingers of a new tactic to highlight the dangers of smoking.

Again, a cute move.

But in terms of an investing decision it was a terrible move…

A great contrarian indicator

Since then tobacco firms have been among the best performing stocks on the market.

Between 1999 and today British American Tobacco [LON:BATS] is up 533%.

Reynolds American Inc [NYSE:RAI] is up 596%.

Lorillard Inc [NYSE:LO] is up 509%.

And Imperial Tobacco Group [LON:IMT] has gained 375%.

That’s compared to the benchmark US S&P 500 index, which has only gained 52.6% since 1999.

Call it a contrarian indicator if you like. But if the experience of the tobacco companies is anything to go by, the decision of big endowments to begin selling their fossil fuel stocks could prove to be the beginning of an almighty surge in the stock prices of oil, gas and coal companies.

Cheers,
Kris+

From the Port Phillip Publishing Library

Special Report: Secure and Protect Family Wealth for Generations

Join Money Morning on Google+


By MoneyMorning.com.au

A Technical Analysis of the Gold Price…

By MoneyMorning.com.au

The question that everyone wants to know is, ‘where is the gold price going next?’

I’ll focus on technical analysis to answer this question but first, it’s important to understand why people buy gold.

People typically buy gold for three main reasons:

  1. Protection from inflation
  2. Protection from economic contagion risk
  3. Diversification

Generally speaking, asset price inflation is the only form of inflation witnessed since the great financial meltdown of 2008/09.

To solve the debt problems, the US Federal Reserve began printing money in 2009. Since this date, the US S&P 500 is up over 150%. Real estate markets around the world have recovered and bond prices are up.

As a result, you have seen people exit their positions in gold and bonds in favour of buying equities.

This is a worldwide trend.

There is a growing belief that the US Fed and other central banks can save us all by printing money. Therefore, the perception of further economic contagion risk is lower. That’s even though the next crisis will likely be larger than the US Federal Reserve can handle.

The economic contagion risk has been lower since mid-2012 when Europe came up with a plan for its debt crisis. By the way, this is when the gold price began to reverse.

On the 26 July 2012, President of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi said he would do ‘whatever it takes’ to save the euro. In other words, they will print as much money as they have to.

Since this date, gold has fallen 38% to its low and it has been on a short term down trend ever since.
 
It’s important to understand that even though gold fell by 38% from its all-time high, the gold price went up for over 12 years straight. It went up 650% from July 1999 to September 2011.

Furthermore, during the 1970s bull market in gold, the precious metal increased 2,329% from a low of $35 in 1970 to a high of $850 in 1980. However, during that time, there was a period of 18 months in which gold fell nearly 50%.

The point is, this gold bull market is only halfway done! But gold is still going through a correction because asset prices don’t go up in a straight line forever.

Let’s dig deeper into the technical analysis.

The technicals show that gold is in a long term uptrend.

The most important signal is that gold has not broken through its ‘long term up-trend’. This long term trend started near the 2001 all-time price low. In fact, the recent correction saw the gold price bouncing ‘perfectly’ off the long term up-trend line.

Interestingly, around this time, gold found support at the 2010 resistance level for the second time. This is known as a double bottom, which is a long term bullish indicator. I’ve shown this in the above chart as the ‘current major support line’.

This indicates that, assuming gold doesn’t fall to a lower price, the US$1,180 level could potentially become the future long term price bottom.

Nonetheless, gold needs to break through its major ‘price resistance level’ of US$1,400. Throughout this year, it’s tried hard but with little success. If the gold price did break and hold the $1,400 level, it could be a signal that the next phase of the gold bull market has officially begun.

At the moment, gold seems to be forming a price consolidation between $1,200 and $1,350.

I like to see periods of consolidation because it means that information is being absorbed into the market.

Due to the consolidation, the long term price uptrend is forming with the short term down trend. This is known as a pennant.


The long term gold chart is showing a bullish pennant at the moment.

Despite this positive sign, I’m hesitant and believe that gold could still move either way as it’s still in a consolidation phase and in a short term down trend.

I won’t become bullish on gold until it breaks through and holds the US$1,400 level. If we experienced a 50% retracement, similar to the 1970’s correction, the price of gold could fall to around $970 per ounce. 

The bottom line is:

  • If gold breaks US $1,400 and holds it’s a bullish signal
  • If gold continues to trend down below $1,300, this is bearish
  • If gold breaks$1,200, it could set a new price low.

Jason Stevenson+
Resources Analyst, Diggers and Drillers

Join Money Morning on Google+


By MoneyMorning.com.au

Bill Newman: Get Over Your Fear and Go for Black Gold in Argentina

Source: Peter Byrne of The Energy Report (5/8/14)

http://www.theenergyreport.com/pub/na/bill-newman-get-over-your-fear-and-go-for-black-gold-in-argentina

 

It’s been a long time since the Repsol fiasco in Argentina, and the oil-rich nation has been making steady efforts to encourage foreign investment in its energy sector. Bill Newman, vice president of international oil and gas with Mackie Research Capital, insists investors should focus less on political risk and more on the world-class Vaca Muerta shale play. In this interview with The Energy Report, Newman names oil and gas majors and junior explorers making progress, and recommends a few names that are taking advantage of Argentina’s production incentives.

The Energy Report: Let’s talk about the macro-economic picture for Argentina in terms of energy. What is the story there with the country’s growing deficit, the devaluation of the peso and the reliance on energy imports?

Bill Newman: Production of both oil and natural gas in Argentina has been declining for years. At the same time, demand has been increasing. This is accelerating Argentina’s energy deficit. The Argentina government understands that in order to slow production declines and eventually return to energy self sufficiency, a substantial increase in investment will be required, and a large portion of that capital will have to come from foreign investment. The bottom line is that the government knows it needs to attract capital, and that could translate into modest improvements to the energy sector in order to promote that investment.

In January 2014, we saw a rapid devaluation of the peso. The peso has subsequently stabilized but there is still some risk of further devaluation. Oil and gas is priced in U.S. dollars, which somewhat mitigates the impact of the falling peso. Producers could have lower operational costs in the short term, as most expenses are paid in pesos. Inflation remains a problem in Argentina, and the government is actively taking measures to prevent social unrest by negotiating with unions for higher wages to compensate for the weaker peso. But the government understands that increased foreign investment is one tool that could help to resolve the issue.

TER: Is Argentina increasingly attractive to foreign investors?

BN: It’s no surprise that the expropriation of Repsol’s 51% holding in Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales (YPF:NYSE) in April 2012 jolted investor confidence. But ever since then, the government has been trying to repair the damage by introducing new incentives to promote investment by energy companies. Argentina has also been working toward improving its reputation on the international stage through negotiations with the debt holdouts, and successfully negotiated a compensation settlement withRepsol (REP:MC) for the expropriated shares. This really is a complete turnaround from the direction the government was taking in early 2012. We think these efforts have reduced the perceived investment risk of Argentina, and that is starting to be reflected by increased investment. If Argentina holds the course, investors should start to focus less on political risk and focus more on the world-class Vaca Muerta shale play.

TER: What is the significance of the YPF $5 billion ($5B) settlement with Repsol?

BN: A large portion of the land that is prospective in the Neuquén Basin of the Vaca Muerta is held by YPF, so major oil companies looking for a meaningful position in the play might have to complete a deal with YPF. Before the settlement, most companies that were hoping to joint venture with YPF put their plans on hold. The $5B settlement is a signal to the market that the government is serious about repairing its reputation on the world stage, and the move should open the door for new joint ventures in 2014. With the improving outlook, many companies have announced expanded plans for Argentina. Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDS.A:NYSE; RDS.B:NYSE) plans to invest $500 million ($500M) into the unconventional shale plays in Argentina in 2014, which is approximately three times the amount the company invested in 2013. Also, Petrobras no longer has its Argentina subsidiary up for sale and instead now expects to make a large investment in Argentina this year.

TER: What is the story behind the $1.6B joint venture Chevron Corp. (CVX:NYSE) recently announced with YPF?

BN: The $1.6B investment is the second stage of the joint venture between Chevron and YPF to develop the Vaca Muerta shale play on the Loma Campana block. The first phase, which was a $1.24B investment, was completed early this year, and production from the Vaca Muerta shale is now about 20,000 barrels per day (20,000 bbl/d). The second investment includes 170 wells, and longer-term plans could include up to 1,500 wells and an increase in production up to 50,000 bbl/d and 100 million cubic feet per day (100 MMcf/d) of natural gas. We see the second Chevron/YPF investment as another vote of confidence for the Vaca Muerta shale play in Argentina.

TER: Who is drilling in the Vaca Muerta play, and with what kind of success?

BN: According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Argentina has the fourth-largest technically recoverable shale oil resource and the fourth-largest technically recoverable shale gas resource in the world, most of which is located in the Neuquén Basin. The EIA estimates that the Neuquén Basin alone holds a recoverable resource of 16 billion barrels and 308 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, so that’s a massive prize. The supermajors currently appraising the shale include Chevron, Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM:NYSE), Shell, Total S.A. (TOT:NYSE) and BP Plc (BP:NYSE; BP:LSE) through its ownership inPan American Energy (PAEYE:NASDAQ). Petrobras (PBR:NYSE; PETR3:BOVESPA) also has holds a significant interest. The three Canadian based junior oil and gas exploration companies that we cover with operations in Argentina are Americas Petrogas Inc. (BOE:TSX.V), Madalena Energy Inc. (MVN:TSX.V; MDLNF:OTCPK) and Crown Point Energy Inc. (CWV:TSX.V).

Recent Joint Ventures and Drilling Activity in Argentina
Source: Company reports, Mackie Research Capital

Americas Petrogas holds a very large land base in the Neuquén Basin, which the company acquired many years before the shale play took off. There has been a lot of activity by the supermajors on blocks directly offsetting its Los Toldos blocks. In April 2014, Shell farmed into two blocks held by Total, which are located near Americas Petrogas’ Los Toldos I block. Rumors are Shell paid approximately $6,000/acre. Also in April, YPF and Chevron announced another $140 million joint venture to drill nine exploration shale wells on the Narambuena block. Chevron also plans to drill four wells targeting the Vaca Muerta shale on the El Trapial block. A lot of money is being spent on lands very near to America Petrogas’ lands, which could help derisk the play. In September of last year, Americas Petrogas announced a formal strategic review process to attract new joint venture partners or buyers, and we think the $5B settlement to Repsol and the increase exploration activity can only help with the process.

Madalena has been a very active driller in the Neuquén Basin. The company recently drilled two Vaca Muerta exploration wells on the Coiron Amargo block, which will be fracture stimulated and tested in Q2/14. The Coiron Amargo block is located within the prime Vaca Muerta shale oil window and just to the east of the Loma Campana block, where Chevron and YPF are drilling. Madalena is also having a lot of success by drilling horizontal wells to achieve high flow rates from the conventional Sierras Blancas formation. So far the company has discovered six Sierras Blancas light oil pools on the Coiron Amargo block. But Madalena has shown the best way to develop the play is with unstimulated horizontal wells. In January 2014, Madalena announced that the CAN.xr-2(h) horizontal well tested up to 2,235 barrels of oil equivalent (2,235 boe/d), and in April the CAN-15(h) well, a second horizontal well targeting the largest Sierras Blancas structure, tested at 1,945 boe/d from only a portion of the horizontal leg. The company plans to drill three more horizontal Sierras Blancas wells this year, which should boost its production in Argentina. Madalena now has two high-impact plays to appraise on the Coiron Amargo block.

Near the Coiron Amargo block, Madalena holds a 90% working interest in the Curamhueleblock. The region could be the next hot area for shale exploration. As we mentioned, Chevron plans to drill four wells targeting the Vaca Muerta shale on its El Trapial block, which is directly adjacent to Madalena’s Curamhueleblock. Madalena also sees a lot of potential in the Lower Agrio formation, which is another shale play on the Curamhuele block. With the success of the Sierras Blancas wells and all the shale wells that are scheduled to be tested, we think Madalena could add a lot of value in 2014.

TER: How are Crown Point’s financial fundamentals looking this year, in light of its operational story?

BN: Crown Point’s current focus is on growing its conventional natural gas production through a low-risk drilling program in Tierra del Fuego, which is located on the southern tip of Argentina. The company also has conventional and shale oil potential on its 100%-owned Cerro de Los Leones block in the Neuquén Basin. Crown Point didn’t drill any wells last year because it was waiting for governmental approval for an extension of Tierra del Fuego concessions, which it has received. Crown Point just started a 10-well drilling program consisting of eight development wells and two exploration wells, so we expect production to grow from approximately 1,600 boe/d to over 2,000 boe/d by year-end. Natural gas prices have been steadily rising in Argentina, which has really improved the economics of the play. Also, last year the government introduced a new natural gas price incentive program that, in effect, sets the natural gas price to $7.50/million British thermal units for production above a baseline. Crown Point has applied for the program, so if the company is approved, it could have a big impact on cash flow. Investment in Tierra del Fuego is really picking up, and a few weeks ago YPF announced plans to invest $700 million ($700M) in Tierra del Fuego over a 10-year period.

One other near-term catalyst is that Crown Point is currently testing the La Hoyada x-1 exploration well on the Cerro de Los Leones block, which it drilled earlier this year. We are hoping for a test of over 200 bbl/d.

TER: Are there any other energy firms that you have your eye on in Argentina?

BN: I’ve been watching a company call Apco Oil & Gas International Inc. (APAGF:NASDAQ), which is 69% owned by WPX Energy Inc. (WPX:NYSE). APCO is partnered with Madalena on the Coiron Amargo block and with Crown Point in Tierra del Fuego. Apco really has a large land position in the oil window of the Vaca Muerta shale play.

TER: Bill, thank you for joining us today with this overview.

BN: My pleasure.

Bill Newman is vice president of international oil and gas with Mackie Research Capital Corp. He has been an energy analyst for 16 years. Bill holds a Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Calgary and has a CFA designation.

Want to read more Energy Report interviews like this? Sign up for our free e-newsletter, and you’ll learn when new articles have been published. To see a list of recent interviews with industry analysts and commentators, visit our Interviews page.

DISCLOSURE:

1) Kevin Michael Grace conducted this interview for Streetwise Reports LLC, publisher of The Gold Report, The Energy Report, The Life Sciences Report and The Mining Report, and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an independent contractor. He owns, or his family owns, shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None.

2) The following companies mentioned in the interview are sponsors of Streetwise Reports: Madalena Energy Inc. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc. Streetwise Reports does not accept stock in exchange for its services.

3) Bill Newman: I own, or my family owns, shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: Crown Point Energy Inc. I personally am, or my family is, paid by the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. My company has a financial relationship with the following companies mentioned in this interview: Within the last three years, Mackie Research Capital has managed or co-managed an offering of securities for, and received compensation for investment banking and related services from Americas Petrogas Inc. and Madalena Energy Inc. I visited the Buenos Aires offices of Americas Petrogas Inc. and the offices of Madalena Energy Inc. on January 27, 2012. All expenses were paid for by Mackie Research Capital Corporation. I was not paid by Streetwise Reports for participating in this interview. Comments and opinions expressed are my own comments and opinions. I had the opportunity to review the interview for accuracy as of the date of the interview and am responsible for the content of the interview.

4) Interviews are edited for clarity. Streetwise Reports does not make editorial comments or change experts’ statements without their consent.

5) The interview does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclaimer.

6) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise during the up-to-four-week interval from the time of the interview until after it publishes.

Streetwise – The Energy Report is Copyright © 2014 by Streetwise Reports LLC. All rights are reserved. Streetwise Reports LLC hereby grants an unrestricted license to use or disseminate this copyrighted material (i) only in whole (and always including this disclaimer), but (ii) never in part.

Streetwise Reports LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the information reported.

Streetwise Reports LLC receives a fee from companies that are listed on the home page in the In This Issue section. Their sponsor pages may be considered advertising for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1734.

Participating companies provide the logos used in The Energy Report. These logos are trademarks and are the property of the individual companies.

101 Second St., Suite 110

Petaluma, CA 94952

Tel.: (707) 981-8204

Fax: (707) 981-8998

Email: [email protected]

 

 

 

 

How to Exploit the Coming Natural Gas Export Explosion: Frank Curzio

Source: JT Long of The Energy Report (5/8/14)

http://www.theenergyreport.com/pub/na/how-to-exploit-the-coming-natural-gas-export-explosion-frank-curzio

There’s more than one way to invest in energy, and you don’t have to choose between majors and juniors. Frank Curzio, editor of the Small Stock Specialist newsletter, tells us exactly why every investor needs a diversified portfolio of juniors, large-cap oil and gas producers and natural gas services. In this interview with The Energy Report, Curzio talks of a shifting political climate and why it could mean a massive boom for U.S. natural gas exports. Don’t let yourself be caught out in the cold when the natural gas market catches fire.

The Energy Report: Frank, will the ongoing crisis in Ukraine keep oil prices above $100/barrel ($100/bbl)?

Frank Curzio: Yes, I think so. Even without the short-term effects of geopolitical risk, the fundamentals should keep oil at an average price of $95/bbl over the next few years in the U.S. I don’t see it trending too much higher, but I also don’t see it dropping.

The reserve replacement ratio for some large U.S. producers remains over 100%, which is good. International oil companies, like Saudi Aramco, Gazprom (OGZD:LSE; GAZ:FSE; GAZP:MCX; GAZP:RTS; OGZPY:OTC), PetroChina Company Ltd. (PTR:NYSE) and Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) have replaced less than 80% of their oil reserves annually over the past three years. That is troublesome.

Outside the U.S., it’s very difficult to find oil that’s economically priced. There’s plenty of oil, but in a lot of places—Russia and several spots in the Middle East, in particular—explorers and producers are having trouble finding oil that can be developed for less than $90/bbl.

However, demand is still strong. Some reports show people are driving less, but according to a report by IHS Automotive, a record 82 million (82M) automobiles were sold last year around the world. Airbus set a sales record last year, as well, demonstrating strong aviation demand. The emerging markets have been down, but I expect to see more stimulus packages targeted at producing short-term growth over the next few years from the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China), particularly China.

In the U.S., manufacturing is strong; gross domestic product is expected to hit 3%. Housing starts are solid in this low-interest rate environment, which will be around for years according to the Federal Reserve Bank. All of these are fundamental changes that will result in oil prices averaging $95/bbl over the long term.

TER: You’ll be speaking at the Stansberry Society Conference with T. Boone Pickens. He takes the position that the U.S. should look to clean energy and capitalize on low domestic natural gas prices by converting heavy truck fleets from diesel to natural gas. Can that be accomplished?

FC: Yes, I’m siding with Boone Pickens; the process has already begun. Wal-Mart, UPS, Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Waste Management are all switching their engines from diesel to natural gas—compressed (CNG) or liquefied (LNG), so they’re also building CNG and LNG fueling stations.

Fuel costs are the biggest expense for transportation companies. Using natural gas instead of diesel amounts to huge savings for companies with large fleets.

TER: What about cars? Can infrastructure be put in place so they can use natural gas?

FC: Some pickup trucks are already being converted to use both natural gas and gasoline. I rode in one when I visited Westport Innovations Inc. (WPT:TSX; WPRT:NASDAQ), and the only difference I noticed was that the engine made no sound at all.

Nearly every auto manufacturer produces cars that run on natural gas—they just don’t do it in the U.S. because we don’t have enough fueling stations yet. When that changes, natural gas cars will be huge. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE:NASDAQ) is building CNG and LNG fueling stations, but infrastructure has to be in place before natural gas will become a mainstream fuel for cars. It could happen as soon as five years.

TER: When natural gas prices were low, many coal-burning power plants switched to natural gas. When the price surpassed $6, some returned to burning coal. Will that dance continue or will more utilities switch to natural gas permanently?

FC: I think we’ll see a move to natural gas. There are price spikes and volatility in every commodity. Overall, you need to look at the average price of things, like $3.50/bbl for natural gas over the course of our 100 years’ worth of supply.

We have such a huge supply of natural gas that we have to burn it because we have no place to store it. Think about that for a minute. We have so much natural gas, we are burning it. This tells me the price of natural gas will remain cheap long term, thus making it a much better alternative to coal, both economically and environmentally.

TER: The last time we talked, you had just returned from a tour of U.S. shale plays, and you were bullish on the amount of oil and natural gas coming out of the ground. Do the decline rates and transportation challenges worry you?

FC: Declining rates are a concern, as is depletion, but not in the short term.

I noticed this on my visits to the Permian and Eagle Ford. Depletion rates are high. But we still have so many locations to drill in these areas. For example, the Permian has so many layers; you can drill in the Wolfcamp, the Sprayberry and the Cline. Some experts say that oil production from the Cline could be three times bigger than the Eagle Ford. Four or five years from now, declining rates will be a big concern, but not in the short term.

Transportation challenges are more immediate. Three trains carrying oil crashed in North Dakota, which is significant, considering that 70% of the crude developed in the Bakken is shipped by rail. We also saw trouble shipping from Texas to the northeast.

Instead of worrying, I see it as an opportunity, especially for investors. We have to figure out why there have there been 6 incidents in the last 12 month and find a solution. This is an opportunity to improve our rail system.

We also have an opportunity to improve the infrastructure by building more pipelines. This is a great opportunity for companies like Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. (KMP:NYSE) and El Paso Pipeline Partners L.P. (EPB:NYSE). These companies have high multiples because they have high yields and we’re in a low-interest-rate environment. However, both will benefit from the long-term pipeline infrastructure trend.

TER: How can these pipelines be approved and built?

FC: Pipeline systems need to be approved, but they won’t because it’s all about votes, not about what’s good for the country. Of course, the process needs to be regulated, and we need to be concerned about the environment, but it seems people would rather save birds and plants than lower our poverty rate. We need to open up fracking in areas all over the country. We’ve drilled tens of thousands of wells, and we haven’t seen too many earthquakes. If it’s done right and regulated correctly, we’re sitting on a massive opportunity. We just need to open this system up a bit so more small towns, and the entire country, can benefit.

TER: In your Small Stock Specialist newsletter, you named getting governmental approval to build LNG export facilities as the biggest hurdle for energy companies selling U.S. natural gas overseas. When do you see that changing? How much money is on the table due to the gap between U.S. and European natural gas prices?

FC: Here in North America, we can produce natural gas at a much cheaper price because we have so much of it and we have the best techniques, namely fracking and horizontal drilling. Natural gas prices are 200–400% higher in the rest of the world, so there’s been a mad rush to build LNG export facilities so we can sell to Europe, Asia and elsewhere.

Getting to that point is quite a process. First, you have to get through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which has been dragging its feet because of politics. Only six LNG export facilities have been approved since 2011, but there are more than 24 in the pipeline.

The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act was recently submitted to Congress as a means of bypassing the DOE’s current regulations to make it easier to build and permit all the facilities that were in the pipeline at the time of the bill’s submission. The situation in Russia and the Ukraine is changing legislators’ minds—even Democrats. Russia supplies most of Europe with energy; every time Russia gets mad, it threatens to shut off the natural gas. If the U.S. could export our cheaper natural gas to Europe, it would cripple Russia. If enough Democrats get on board, you could see LNG export facilities built nearly as fast as a new McDonald’s opening across the street.

Of course, we still need regulation. Companies will have to go through certain processes, but in the long run, it could represent a massive infrastructure build valued at more than $200B. That’s great news for companies like KBR Inc. (KBR:NYSE), which earns 40% of its revenue building LNG facilities. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V.’s (CBI:NYSE) revenue will soar as well. If this bill gets passed, it will be fantastic in the short and long term.

TER: KBR was beat up in the market recently, but it’s still a really large stock, as is Chicago Bridge & Iron and McDermott International Inc. (MDR:NYSE). Do you buy these stocks on dips, or do you just buy and hold them?

FC: It all depends on where the stocks are trading. Right now, I’d wait for a pullback on Chicago Bridge & Iron, but I would definitely buy KBR right away.

McDermott, which builds offshore oil platforms, may be one of the most hated stocks in the sector. The stock dropped from well over $20 to around $7 and is trading at book value. There is almost no downside risk here, which I rarely say. The company has a decent balance sheet, so if it can get a few orders—any positive catalyst—it will shoot up more than 25% in the short term. McDermott is a low-risk, very high-reward play.

TER: On the topic of shales, not all are the same: some are more advanced, some are oilier than others. In your opinion, where are the sweet spots?

FC: It’s very important for an investor to focus on companies in the sweet spots. You don’t want to buy a company just because it has Eagle Ford or Bakken in its profile. The specific place that the company is drilling is important. In the Bakken, production could cost as much as $80-90/bbl or little as $60-$65/bbl, depending on where the company is drilling. The Eagle Ford comprises some 27 counties, but the sweet spots I note include Gonzales, McMullen and Lavaca counties.

TER: What companies of interest are working in these sweet spots?

FC: I like Swift Energy Co. (SFY:NYSE). It sold its non-core assets and put the money into drilling in McMullen and La Salle counties. The company didn’t raise quite the money it wanted, so management lowered production rates. The company’s stock took a hit, but it will still produce a ton of oil in Eagle Ford. It’s a fantastic buy.

In the Permian Basin in Texas, I like Laredo Petroleum (LPI:NYSE). It has more than 900 drilling locations. The company has already hit a few big wells.

Penn Virginia Corp. (PVA:NYSE) is in the Eagle Ford and its stock is up a lot. The company will report earnings soon, but I might want to wait for a pullback before buying.

The three biggest shale plays are Pioneer Natural Resources Co. (PXD:NYSE), Continental Resources Group Inc. (CRGC:OTCBB) and EOG Resources Inc. (EOG:NYSE).

These three companies have market caps between $20–50B, which makes them takeout targets. They still have 15–20% production growth, so if you can buy a Pioneer, Continental Resources or EOG for $20–50B and get at least 20% production growth for the next 3–5 years, that seems like a pretty good deal to me. After all, the major oil companies are spending record amounts of cash—and are struggling to grow production.

These three companies own hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of acres in these sweet spots and are set to grow production quickly, potentially four or five times faster than the average major oil company.

TER: What about oil services companies? Is there still money to be made there?

FC: Yes, but I would stick to the international plays that I’ve been recommending for a couple years :Schlumberger Ltd. (SLB:NYSE), Halliburton Co. (HAL:NYSE), Baker Hughes Inc. (BHI:NYSE) and Weatherford International Ltd. (WFT:NYSE).

The Eagle Ford extends into Mexico, where PEMEX just signed a $1.9B deal with Schlumberger to start development. Additionally, rig counts in Saudi Arabia are near record highs. These four companies get 60% of their sales from overseas. The rest of the world is just starting to frack, and while there will be political hurdles to overcome, fracking will win out. When that happens, these four companies will benefit hugely.

These companies not only grow three to four times faster than the average S&P 500 company, but their stocks are cheaper, too. They’re still trading at 20–30% discount to the average S&P 500 company; 13 times earnings compared to 16 times for the average S&P 500 company. Even at their 52-week highs, they are cheap considering their valuations, and they are in the middle of a massive long-term growth trend.

And don’t forget Barclay’s estimate that oil companies plan to spend more than $700B on capex this year. A lot of that will filter down to oil service companies, but the four I mentioned are the best.

TER: In a risk-averse environment, are larger oil companies still willing to invest in difficult megaprojects—to spend $5B+ for offshore work or in far reaches of the Arctic?

FC: They have no choice. The only way they can produce more is by spending more. In 2000, oil companies took on seven megaprojects (defined as projects that cost $5B or more). In 2012, the oil companies took on 37. That upward trend is another good sign for the infrastructure plays.

Take the Gorgon gas project in Western Australia, for example. It was expected to cost $30B, but it’s up to $52B, and it isn’t even done yet. However, that cost isn’t shouldered just by Chevron Corp. (CVX:NYSE) or Exxon—several companies split the bill.

We’re seeing this trend in the LNG export facilities, too—five or six companies building a facility together as a big joint venture. In order for them to replace their reserves, they have to spend money, which is good for infrastructure companies.

TER: Why should investors consider the names in your Small Stock newsletter rather than sticking with blue chips?

FC: I think they need to go with both. I try to limit risk through small-caps, while retaining massive gains, so it’s important to own some large caps that pay a high dividend, like Chevron and even Exxon. You could own those companies forever.

However, it’s important to own smaller companies because of the upside potential. If you bought Continental or Pioneer seven years ago, you would be up 500–1000%.

An investor needs a basket of companies of all sizes; the large caps are steady and the small caps are speculative. It’s my job to make sure people find the good speculations that offer limited downside and huge upside.

TER: Great advice. Thanks for your time and your insights.

Frank Curzio is the editor of Small Stock Specialist, an investment advisory that focuses on stocks with market caps of less than $3 billion. He is also the editor of Stansberry & Associates’ exclusive Phase 1 Investor advisory. Before joining Stansberry, Frank wrote a stocks-under-$10 newsletter for TheStreet.com. He’s been a guest on various media outlets including Fox Business News, CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report,” and CNBC’s “The Call.” He has also been mentioned numerous times on Jim Cramer’s “Mad Money,” is a featured guest on CNN Radio, and has been quoted in financial magazines and websites. Frank’s “S&A Investor Radio” is one of the most widely followed financial broadcasts in the country. Over the past 15 years, Frank’s investment strategies, including value, growth, top-down and technical analysis, have regularly produced 200%, 300% and 500% winners for his subscribers.

Want to read more Energy Report interviews like this? Sign up for our free e-newsletter, and you’ll learn when new articles have been published. To see a list of recent interviews with industry analysts and commentators, visit our Interviews page.

DISCLOSURE:

1) JT Long conducted this interview for Streetwise Reports LLC, publisher of The Gold Report, The Energy Report, The Life Sciences Report and The Mining Report, and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an employee. She owns, or her family owns, shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None.

2) The following companies mentioned in the interview are sponsors of Streetwise Reports: None. Streetwise Reports does not accept stock in exchange for its services.

3) Frank Curzio: I own, or my family owns, shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I personally am, or my family is, paid by the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. My company has a financial relationship with the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I was not paid by Streetwise Reports for participating in this interview. Comments and opinions expressed are my own comments and opinions. I had the opportunity to review the interview for accuracy as of the date of the interview and am responsible for the content of the interview.

4) Interviews are edited for clarity. Streetwise Reports does not make editorial comments or change experts’ statements without their consent.

5) The interview does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclaimer.

6) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise during the up-to-four-week interval from the time of the interview until after it publishes.

Streetwise – The Energy Report is Copyright © 2014 by Streetwise Reports LLC. All rights are reserved. Streetwise Reports LLC hereby grants an unrestricted license to use or disseminate this copyrighted material (i) only in whole (and always including this disclaimer), but (ii) never in part.

Streetwise Reports LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the information reported.

Streetwise Reports LLC receives a fee from companies that are listed on the home page in the In This Issue section. Their sponsor pages may be considered advertising for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1734.

Participating companies provide the logos used in The Energy Report. These logos are trademarks and are the property of the individual companies.

101 Second St., Suite 110

Petaluma, CA 94952

Tel.: (707) 981-8204

Fax: (707) 981-8998

Email: [email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

Live Longer, Get Richer with Patrick Cox

Source: Peter Byrne of The Life Sciences Report (5/8/14)

http://www.thelifesciencesreport.com/pub/na/live-longer-get-richer-with-patrick-cox

It’s what every biotech investor dreams of: Transformational advances in healthcare technologies that allow us to live for centuries and accumulate wealth exponentially. Patrick Cox, editor of the Transformational Technology Alert, is doing his part to make the dream reality. In this interview, Cox tells The Life Sciences Report about two companies with proprietary intellectual property in DNA-based therapeutics and regenerative medicine that could change the world.
The Life Sciences Report: Patrick, you will be speaking at the Altegris Advisors LLC/Mauldin Economics conference in San Diego later in May on the topic of investing in a transformational world. What do you mean by “transformational”?

Patrick Cox: Transformational technologies change existing paradigms by causing massive disruption—destroying old industries while creating new ones. That is what we are now experiencing: The old ways are obsolescing as new solutions emerge.

TLSR: How is this playing out in the life sciences realm?

PC: Innovations and discoveries in the life sciences are bigger than in other fields. Especially with DNA, which is an ancient system of incredible complexity and sophistication. DNA-based breakthroughs in medical research are personally valuable to most people. The new DNA-based industry aims at curing diseases and extending the healthy portion of our lives significantly.

TLSR: What transformational companies do you like in the biotech world?

PC: I am not going to give away the companies I will be talking about at the San Diego conference.

TLSR: Even irrational beliefs can have market consequences.

PC: Correct, but how do you predict what irrationality will do? In the long run, productivity and profits will triumph.

TLSR: Are DNA-based vaccines predicted to be cheaper than the status quo?

PC: The status quo does not approach the same clinical targets. However, DNA vaccines are not terribly expensive. The plasmids on a large scale are inexpensive, and electroporation is not a costly technology. There is one machine and a disposable unit, so the production cost is not significant. These are pharmaceutical products, so the production cost does not really matter, as the prices are market-based.

TLSR: When a company makes a transformational breakthrough, such as in DNA vaccines, does this strengthen our economy?

PC: The macroeconomic drivers in life sciences are tied to the radical increase in life span that has taken place very recently. Since the American Revolution, life spans have more than doubled. In my lifetime, the average life span has increased by more than 30 years. We still have a social service model instituted when birth rates were high and life spans were relatively short. In 1950, just before I was born, I think there were about 16 workers for every retired person. Today, it’s fewer than three working persons per retired person. Moreover, healthcare costs go up as we get older. Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease are incredibly expensive to treat and live with. When people lived to 65 on average, those diseases were not particularly evident.

TLSR: What about regenerative medicine?

PC: Regenerative medicine is the most transformational of all the medical therapies, because it has the potential to reverse cellular aging. BioTime is working with stem cells that it can program to become cardiomyocytes, heart muscle cells. BioTime’s researchers have seen the cells self-assemble in a dish and begin to beat like a heart! And we know from animal experiments that rejuvenated cardiomyocytes can integrate into the heart and heal damaged heart muscles. Stem cells are looking good.

TLSR: Does BioTime have a product based on this stem cell research?

PC: It has a subsidiary, ReCyte Therapeutics Inc., which is developing a delivery system for rejuvenated cardiomyocytes—sort of an epoxy that can be molded. It can make joints or flesh in reconstructive surgery. It creates a permanent matrix in which stem cells prosper, including in the heart. Third-party testing has validated this approach. But ReCyte Therapeutics’ first product is slated to be endothelial precursors.

TSLR: What are endothelial precursors?

PC: Among gerontologists, there is a saying, “You’re as old as your endothelium.” The endothelium is a thin layer of cells inside the entire circulatory system—heart, arteries, capillaries. When you are young, it provides nitric oxide, which is an important neurotransmitter because it passes through cell walls. It is very short-lived, but it is responsible for vessel dilation. If you need additional blood flow for exercise or injury repair, or for any reason, the endothelium activates nitric oxide, which causes dilation and increases blood flow. When that does not work, there are all kinds of consequences—erectile dysfunction, hypertension, macular degeneration. It is a big killer, which is why the endothelium is the most important target for regenerative medicine.

TLSR: How can this process be industrialized?

PC: The endothelium does not regenerate by cell replication inside the cell walls. It exists as precursor cells inside the marrow of the larger bones, where the immune system resides. These cells simply circulate, find where they are needed, and engraft. If you were injected with your own endothelial precursor cells, they would migrate to the marrow of your large bones. We now know, from doing research on blood cancers, that the immune system can be rebooted without ablating bone marrow to generate replacement of old, sick endothelial precursors with new ones.

Michael West, who founded Geron Corp. (GERN:NASDAQ) and now owns Geron’s IP, did this with cows. And Geron and BioTime have merged on the stem cell/regenerative medicine front. Dr. West ablated the bone marrow of one group of cows and then injected epithelial precursors. But as a control, he also injected the precursors into cows without ablative bone marrow. In both groups, the younger, healthier endothelial precursors replaced the older, unhealthier ones.

Blood cancer researchers have found the same thing. This is really a remarkably simple process. It is now possible to take cells from the patient, convert them to induced pluripotent stem cells [able to become any kind of cell], engineer them to become endothelial precursors, and then simply inject them into the patient. The precursors migrate to the bone marrow and replace the older, nonfunctioning or less functional endothelium with what is essentially a child’s endothelium in terms of health and functionality.

TLSR: That sounds transformational in more ways than one.

PC: I’ll say.

TLSR: How will the costs of healthcare decrease in your transformational model?

PC: Think about the cost of a heart attack and the subsequent care—hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime right now. I predict that the cost of endothelial precursor therapy will eventually get that cost down to $10,000. Given the hundreds of thousands of dollars we spend on an Alzheimer’s patient today, it’s very unlikely that any of the drugs or the cells that are used to cure Alzheimer’s will cost even a significant fraction of today’s price tag.

TLSR: There will be less need for palliative care and radical surgery?

PC: That is right. Also, working careers will lengthen appreciably. People in the investment business know the impact of exponential growth on a portfolio. Despite the fact that everybody is worked up about income inequality, the real cause of income inequality is the fact that we have a much older and larger population. Older folks have worked long and grown their portfolios. As we extend life spans and careers, income inequality will increase spectacularly, as older people continue to get richer.

TLSR: What kind of life span do you look at for the average human of the future?

PC: A life span of centuries. Right now, our lives are bounded by our Hayflick limit—we are born with potential for about 120 cell replications. This is determined by the telomere, which is the nub on the zipper of an individual’s DNA. Every time a cell replicates, we use up one of the telomere nubs. When we run out, the cell simply stops reproducing. Modern medicine is mostly trying to stop diseases that kill us before we reach our Hayflick limit. And we will do that. We will cure heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s, liver disease; we will beat viruses; and we will end the factors that cause accelerated aging—inflammation, fibrosis, mitochondrial dysfunction. This will take us to a life span of about 120 years.

Beyond that, we will turn to regenerative medicine to rejuvenate cells, and there are a number of ways to do this. The first major breakthrough will probably be endothelial precursors rejuvenating endothelium, which will largely eliminate heart disease and stroke.

TLSR: Are we going to end up with 20 billion people who are 300 years old?

PC: That is a myth. If you look at the math, we are in serious depopulation right now. The West is disappearing. Iceland’s birth rate is so low that the country has come to grips with the fact that it is disappearing as a culture. Japan is trying to increase its birth rates. Africa and the Middle East still have relatively high birth rates, but they are falling too. As they fall, we will see a diminishing global population. We are using a fraction of the earth’s surface to produce food, minerals and energy. I am not at all worried about population.

TLSR: If you were able to live another 200 years, what would you do?

PC: I am interested in particle physics, and music and skateboarding.

TLSR: Thanks for your time today, Patrick.

PC: A pleasure.

Patrick Cox is the editor of Transformational Technology Alert. He has lived in the world of technology breakthroughs for the past 30 years. He has written more than 200 editorials for USA Today and has appeared in The Wall Street Journal and on CNN’s “Crossfire” television program. In the late 1980s, he edited and published one of the first industry-insider software magazines, writing about topics like open-source and user-supported software long before those ideas were widely understood. Later, Cox wrote presentations and speeches for the CEO of Netscape. His consulting work has taken him to Fortune 500 boardrooms and inside the war rooms of national political candidates. His independent research is based solely on his investigations in transformational wealth-building companies and close consultation with Nobel Prize-winning economists and scientists.

Want to read more Life Sciences Report interviews like this? Sign up for our free e-newsletter, and you’ll learn when new articles have been published. To see recent interviews with industry analysts and commentators, visit our Streetwise Interviews page.

DISCLOSURE:

1) Peter Byrne conducted this interview for Streetwise Reports LLC, publisher of The Gold Report, The Energy Report, The Life Sciences Report and The Mining Report, and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an independent contractor. He owns, or his family owns, shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None.

2) The following companies mentioned in the interview are sponsors of Streetwise Reports: None. Streetwise Reports does not accept stock in exchange for its services.

3) Patrick Cox: I own, or my family owns, shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I personally am, or my family is, paid by the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. My company has a financial relationship with the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I was not paid by Streetwise Reports for participating in this interview. Comments and opinions expressed are my own comments and opinions. I had the opportunity to review the interview for accuracy as of the date of the interview and am responsible for the content of the interview.

4) Interviews are edited for clarity. Streetwise Reports does not make editorial comments or change experts’ statements without their consent.

5) The interview does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional and any action a reader takes as a result of information presented here is his or her own responsibility. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclaimer.

6) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise during the up-to-four-week interval from the time of the interview until after it publishes.

Streetwise – The Life Sciences Report is Copyright © 2014 by Streetwise Reports LLC. All rights are reserved. Streetwise Reports LLC hereby grants an unrestricted license to use or disseminate this copyrighted material (i) only in whole (and always including this disclaimer), but (ii) never in part..

Streetwise Reports LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the information reported.

Streetwise Reports LLC receives a fee from companies that are listed on the home page in the In This Issue section. Their sponsor pages may be considered advertising for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1734.

Participating companies provide the logos used in The Life Sciences Report. These logos are trademarks and are the property of the individual companies.

101 Second St., Suite 110

Petaluma, CA 94952

Tel.: (707) 981-8204

Fax: (707) 981-8998

Email: [email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

EUR/CAD Daily Trend Is About To Reverse

Technical Sentiment: Bearish

 

Key Takeaways

  • Canadian Housing Starts rise to 195K, beating forecast of 177K;
  • Euro rallies then slips hard as Draghi indicates ECB is ready to act as soon as June;
  • EUR/CAD is about to break a major Daily trend if it falls below 1.5000.

The 2-year EUR/CAD uptrend is about to reverse as technicals line up with fundamentals and the pair is about to break below 1.5000. A support break here will confirm the first major reversal signal. The market might not even wait until tomorrow’s Canadian Employment Change and Unemployment Rate, and only a really disappointing print will slow the action down as far as the Canadian Dollar is concerned. Meanwhile, after waiting for a while for volatility to pick up, EUR traders are likely to continue the sell-off for a while.

 

Technical Analysis

EURCAD 8th May

In March EUR/CAD reached a major Fibonacci Retracement, more specifically 1.5449 – 61.8% from 1.7503 down to 1.2127. The pair traded above this level for a few days, as high as 1.5584, before sliding back down at a fast pace.

On the technical side, a break below the large psychological round number 1.5000 represents an invalidation of the bullish trend. A break leads to the first Lower Low in two years. Long-term traders will have begin unwinding their long positions as price falls deeper below this level, which in turn will create more negative pressure.

A secondary pattern, depicting the same story as the trend break, can be observed on the Daily time frame in the form of a Head & Shoulders formation. The Shoulders Tops are lined up perfectly at 1.5304 and the pattern will be activated once price breaks the 1.5 support.

EUR/CAD has already crossed below the 50 and the 100-Day Moving Averages. The next logical target is the 200-Day Moving Average, currently priced at 1.4572, but price will also encounter an intermediary support level around 1.4788 (price pivot zone from December 2013 – January 2014).

Daily Stochastic is bearish and heading towards oversold territory, but it’s not there yet. This suggests there is plenty more downside available before price rallies and attempts to create a Lower High (to keep the new trend configuration intact).

Resistance lies above today’s high at 1.5235 and ultimately at 1.5300. Only above the second level the bearish scenario will be invalidated completely.

*********
Prepared by Alexandru Z., Chief Currency Strategist at Capital Trust Markets

 

 

 

 

 

 

How to Find Junk Bonds That Don’t Stink

By Andrey Dashkov, Research Analyst, caseyresearch.com

Riddle me this: Why would anyone ever buy junk bonds or a junk bond fund? Before we get to the answer, I would like to point something out that seems to be a given, but that astonishingly few investors think about: bonds are debt instruments, so investing in bonds means investing in debt, governmental or corporate.

Note that credit ratings from agencies like Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch do not reveal the whole picture about the risk these bonds represent. Bond ratings only deal with one risk: default. They are supposed to help investors discern investment-grade bonds from the lower-rated junk bonds. AAA-rated bonds, on average, have a historical default rate of zero; B-rated bonds, on the other hand, have a default rate of 4.3%.

With so many negatives, why buy these debt instruments? The reason that junk bonds are so popular with investors is that if there are enough interest-rate differentials to offset the default risk, junk bonds can be a better deal than their triple-A peers and make for a diversified bond portfolio.

Diversification is a complex subject. With bonds in particular, to really understand diversification, one must look behind the curtain.

There are two rules of thumb when it comes to bonds:

  • When interest rates rise, bond prices fall. This is true for fixed-rate debt, and it works most of the time.
  • Investment-grade bonds are good while speculative-grade bonds are just that and have a much higher risk of default.

The Guggenheim Battle

Let me illustrate my point with two Guggenheim funds: Guggenheim BulletShares® 2018 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCI) and Guggenheim BulletShares® 2018 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (BSJI). Both are target-maturity funds expiring in 2018.

BSCI runs the full gamut of investment-grade ratings (from AAA down to BB-) and currently pays 2.2% yield to maturity. On the surface, it is well diversified and should be safer because of the investment-grade ratings.

The BSJI portfolio is diversified among lower-rated bonds and pays 4.9% yield to maturity. The junk bonds historically have a higher rate of default. In a default, normally bondholders don’t lose all their money, because they’re higher up on the creditor ladder; however, on average they lose about half.

Safety‘s in the Duration

Average effective duration is a measure of the sensitivity of the price of a fixed-income investment to a change in interest rates. For the BSCI portfolio, it’s 3.9; for BSJI it’s only 3.2. You need to understand that duration is a historical calculation and an estimate. As the TV commercials say, “Individual results may vary.”

Using duration history as a guide, for every 1% rise in interest rates, the market price of BSCI should drop 3.9%, while BSJI would drop just 3.2%—a difference of 18%.

When Treasury rates rise and the spread between them and corporate debt narrows, many investors flock to government bonds on the (shaky) premise that they are safer. As a result, the demand for corporate bond funds like BSCI drops and their prices dwindle. This is why BSCI has shown higher interest-rate sensitivity.

High-yield funds, on the other hand, attract a different class of investors: the more adventurous types who are willing to take a greater risk for the extra yield. Ironically, however, the extra risk isn’t necessarily there.

For the past year, highly rated corporate bonds have experienced much wilder swings than the high-yield sector. At least part of that is due to investors not jumping ship—since there are no “high-yield Treasuries,” there’s no ship for high-yield investors to jump on.

Not that they would want to. We won’t go into the whole inflation protection debate here, but when push comes to  shove and Treasuries finally show their junky nature, viewer discretion will be advised.

For Correlation, Pick the Weak Ones

BSCI and BSJI are both bond funds, but their correlation to 10-year Treasuries paints a much different story. The correlation (a statistical measure of how two securities move in relation to each other) between the 10-year Treasury rate and BSCI is -0.6. That means when interest rates rose, BSCI’s price dropped in 60% of all cases. One would have to take a loss and sell the fund in the market or hold it at an interest rate much lower than current market.

The one-year correlation between 10-year Treasuries and BSJI is 0.08—in other words, when interest rates rose, BSJI rose only 8% of the time.

Within a portfolio, it’s best to hold assets that are correlated as weakly as possible. If some of your investments become too interest-rate sensitive, one-year correlation data suggests that a junk bond fund like BSJI will diffuse the risk better than a fund that has a lot of investment-rated debt in it. I know it’s counterintuitive, but that’s how it has worked during the past year. Remember, the correlation coefficient would differ from what I calculated if you looked at another time period.

Baby Boomers on the Hunt for Yield

Yield is the primary reason many baby boomers and retirees own bonds, and they generally plan to hold them to maturity. If that’s you, and if you don’t have to sell the bonds before maturity—and have the stomach to endure day-to-day price swings—you should be fine.

Here’s the bottom line. Currently BSJI has a yield to maturity of 4.9%, while BSCI has a yield to maturity of 2.2%. So which looks safer? That depends on what risk you are trying to avoid.

BSCI, as I said before, is diversified among higher-rated corporate bonds and has a lower probability of default. Because of that low risk, it is currently paying 2.2% yield to maturity.

Should the interest rates on Treasury bonds rise, you would face two choices: hold the bonds until maturity and lose money via inflation… or sell them in the aftermarket and lose money too.

Why would an investor buy a so-called “safe” bond fund that doesn’t keep up with inflation?

With the Guggenheim High Yield Fund paying 4.9%, should interest rates rise, you would take a smaller loss if you needed to sell before maturity. If you held on until maturity—even with the possibility of higher default—your yield would be more than double that of the “safe” bond fund.

The Key Takeaways

What the rating agencies tell you is spotty at best. Sometimes a bond or bond fund that looks great on the surface will underperform its counterpart that conventional wisdom would deem too risky. When it comes to bond portfolios, duration and correlation will tell you much more about risk than letter combinations created by institutions whose criteria for safety may be substantially different from yours.

If you’re new to the bond market, learn everything you need to know about how to evaluate bonds… which types of bonds can fit nicely into your portfolio… and how to understand your risk/reward options… with the free Miller special report, Bond Basics. Click here to get it now.

 

The article How to Find Junk Bonds That Don’t Stink was originally published at caseyresearch.com.

AUDUSD: Resumes Strength, Eyes Key Resistance.

AUDUSD: Having resumed its bullish offensive following a one-day pullback, AUDUSD looks to strengthen further. On the upside, resistance resides at the 0.9400 level where a violation will set the stage for a run at the 0.9460 level and then the 0.9500 level. A break will aim at the 0.9550 level and then the 0.9600 level. Its daily RSI is bullish and pointing higher suggesting further strength. Conversely, support stands at the 0.9366 level. A reversal of roles as support is likely to occur here but if that fails to occur expect more decline to occur towards the 0.9300 level. Further down, support comes in at the 0.9250 level followed by the 0.9200 level. All in all, the pair remains biased to the upside on further strength.

By www.fxtechstrategy.com

 

 

 

 

ECB holds rates, repeats ready to ease further

By CentralBankNews.info
    The European Central Bank (ECB) maintained its key refinancing rate at a record low 0.25 percent and reiterated that it would continue with a high degree of monetary accommodation and was ready to act swiftly with further easing, including the use of unconventional measures, to tackle the risk of “a too prolonged period of low inflation.”
    ECB President Mario Draghi told a press conference in Brussels that the moderate economic recovery in the euro area was continuing in line with expectations and price pressures were subdued, but medium and long term expectations were still anchored to the bank’s objective of inflation that is below, but close to 2.0 percent.
    “Looking ahead, we will monitor economic developments and money markets very closely,” Draghi said, adding that “possible repercussions of both geopolitical risks and exchange rate developments will be monitored closely.
    ECB officials have recently expressed their concern over the impact of the high exchange rate of the euro and overnight, interbank rates for the euro, known as Eonia, have recently moved higher. Higher market rates and the strong euro have the effect of dampening economic activity and making euro area exports less competitive internationally.

    “We firmly reiterate that we continue to expect the key interest rates to remain at present or lower levels for an extended period of time,” Draghi said. The ECB last cut its rate in November 2013 after a cut in May for a total cut of 50 basis points last year after a 25 point cut in 2012.
    The euro has been firming since March last year and was trading just below 1.39 to the U.S. dollar today, up 1.5 percent since the end of 2013.
    Euro area inflation rose slightly to 0.7 percent in April from 0.5 percent in March, mainly due to higher services prices, as Draghi said he had expected.
    He expects inflation to remain around the current levels over coming months but new projections will be released in June.
    In March ECB staff cut the inflation forecast for 2014 to 1.0 percent, but maintained the 2015 forecast at 1.3 percent and is forecast to average 1.5 percent in 2016, still below the ECB target.
     Economic growth in the euro area rose by 0.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013 from the third quarter. On an annual basis, Gross Domestic Product rose by 0.5 percent, the first expansion on a year-on-year basis in the last eight quarters.
   But unemployment remained unchanged at 11.8 percent in March.
    “Recent data and survey indicators confirm that the ongoing moderate recovery continued in the first quarter and at the beginning of the second quarter,” Draghi said.
    The ECB’s March forecast fore 2014 growth was revised up to 1.2 percent from 1.1 percent, and the 2015 growth forecast to 1.5 percent from 1.3 percent.
    The OECD also lifted its 2014 growth forecast to 1.2 percent from a previous 1.0 percent, and the 2015 growth forecast to 1.7 percent from 1.6 percent. But the inflation forecast was cut to 0.7 percent this year from 1.2 percent and there 2015 inflation forecast to 1.1 percent.

    http://ift.tt/1iP0FNb