Janszen Interview on NPR on 05/01/2009 - Power Hungry...Energy Green Bubble?

[goadam1]

Re: Janszen Interview on NPR on 05/01/2009 - Power Hungry...Energy Green Bubble?

Our update of Debt Deflation Bear Market takes the view that $2.2 trillion in stimulus injected into the world economy between Q4 2008 and Q1 2009 can't fail to produce a bounce. But then what? The debt hangover legacy of the FIRE Economy has not been addressed, the financial oligarchs are still not allowing the broken banking system to clear, foreign official and private lenders continue to pull back, and with service and government jobs account for more than half the employment in the U.S., the U.S. labor force is geared toward a continuation of an unsustainable economy not the kind of economy that the U.S. needs to turn into to be competitive post-FIRE Economy.

The theme of the article: Re-inflation without restructuring. We use the term "decoupling" as a verb.

Stimulated markets or simulated markets?

On bank reform I'll give a D. But it is way to early to grade Obama and corpratist on structural reform. But who could resist the Faustian bargain of puff up the banks and it buys you the time to do some real changes.

But buying an alt energy bubble now seems bound to fail. What are you buying? The problem is we all have an idea of alt energy. Right now it seems like buying a tech bubble before there was an internet.

[EJ]

Re: Janszen Interview on NPR on 05/01/2009 - Power Hungry...Energy Green Bubble?

On bank reform I'll give a D. But it is way to early to grade Obama and corpratist on structural reform. But who could resist the Faustian bargain of puff up the banks and it buys you the time to do some real changes.

But buying an alt energy bubble now seems bound to fail. What are you buying? The problem is we all have an idea of alt energy. Right now it seems like buying a tech bubble before there was an internet.

At this time we are buying nothing.

[goadam1]

Re: Janszen Interview on NPR on 05/01/2009 - Power Hungry...Energy Green Bubble?

At this time we are buying nothing.

The only thing that comes close to green bubble right now is "smarter grid." A new grid is going to be big government money for someone. But grid investing is tied into IBM, GE and other big names that are just washing along with the greater market.

Why are coming generational plays not as important as energy to our traders. Isn't 2025 going to be a world of people needing hips and drugs? What about florida real estate? Senior living? They are going to vote whatever is left of US credit into soothing and extending their exit. Don't miss out on the bubble.

[goadam1]

Re: Janszen Interview on NPR on 05/01/2009 - Power Hungry...Energy Green Bubble?

We want government cheese.

[EJ]

Re: Janszen Interview on NPR on 05/01/2009 - Power Hungry...Energy Green Bubble?

The only thing that comes close to green bubble right now is "smarter grid." A new grid is going to be big government money for someone. But grid investing is tied into IBM, GE and other big names that are just washing along with the greater market.

Why are coming generational plays not as important as energy to our traders. Isn't 2025 going to be a world of people needing hips and drugs? What about florida real estate? Senior living? They are going to vote whatever is left of US credit into soothing and extending their exit. Don't miss out on the bubble.

We do not buy into the latest manufactured fantasy. We're too old for that. But then again so are Warren Buffet and his partners. Imagine how unhappy they must be not to get the memo.

[Guest]

Re: Janszen Interview on NPR on 05/01/2009 - Power Hungry...Energy Green Bubble?

EJ - Is there some alt-energy index we can choose to observe over the next 18 months, to plot whether it converges or diverges from this call? Something with a robust nuclear industry emphasis? We might benefit from tracking it, to ascertain this call with finality a year or two down the road. Also, if any significant subset of alt-energy were to actually rise robustly over the next year or two that would not appear to be something to dismiss as a bubble market artifact entirely, given that we will arrive at a quite notable energy crisis in the next 10 years?

This would appear at least on cursory inspection a sound sector for iTulip to remain amenable to as far as I could tell. Good solid, well moored story going forwards ten years, and all that.

Will we have a notable energy crisis within ten years or not? If one concludes no, then the case for alt-energy clearly weakens. If one concludes this widely repeated forecast is not overblown, then the case for alt-energy even at this early stage firms up? It's of course simplistic, but it is also an awfully *large* approaching issue. For me, the idea that this entire sector does not jolt to life until five years before the onset of full-bore crisis is one I struggle to accept.

That's why I can't quite understand why it's being referred to among members here as a "green bubble". It will only become a bubble in it's latter third of a stage, no?

I wonder how many people here consider this estimation (10 years to open energy supply demand crisis) to be overhyped, while how many others consider that even quite reasonable to expect at this point.

We do not buy into the latest manufactured fantasy. We're too old for that. But then again so are Warren Buffet and his partners. Imagine how unhappy they must be not to get the memo.

[Glenn Black]

Re: Janszen Interview on NPR on 05/01/2009 - Power Hungry...Energy Green Bubble?

Canada supplies a significant portion of natural gas to the US. According to Canada's NEB (National Energy Board), Canada has less than 6 year supply of nat. gas left that is currently hooked to pipeline system (Speech by Vice-Chair NEB in Montreal 2005). Frontier gas exists, but no pipeline yet. Coal bed methane exists, but is much more expensive. LNG (liquified natural gas) available from Saudi, but very expensive. Similar situation exists in US.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Janszen Interview on NPR on 05/01/2009 - Power Hungry...Energy Green Bubble?

I wonder how many people here consider this estimation (10 years to open energy supply demand crisis) to be overhyped, while how many others consider that even quite reasonable to expect at this point.

I predict that for Americans, it will be much sooner than 10 years. This is not a prediction based on how much oil reserves exist, known or unknown, nor is it a prediction dependent on whether the American economy recovers. Actually, as a consequence of this prediction, the American economy will get much worse.

I predict that the primary form in which the Poom long predicted by iTulip impacts America will be in an oil price and supply shock worse in severity and longevity than any we've seen before.

For the rest of the world, it could be 10 years or more or less ... beats me. With Americans buying less oil, there may be enough left for others for a while, if we don't get some major war distorting the supply-demand curves.

[Raz]

Re: Janszen Interview on NPR on 05/01/2009 - Power Hungry...Energy Green Bubble?

EJ - Is there some alt-energy index we can choose to observe over the next 18 months, to plot whether it converges or diverges from this call? Something with a robust nuclear industry emphasis? We might benefit from tracking it, to ascertain this call with finality a year or two down the road? After all, if any significant subset of alt-energy were to actually rise robustly over the next year or two that would not necessarily be something to dismiss as a bubble market artifact entirely, given we will eventually arrive at quite notable energy crisis in the next 10-15 years? This remains a good sector for iTulip to remain amenable to in the macro view, no? Good solid, well moored story going forwards ten years, and all that.

Lukester,

I know you would rather hear from EJ (and I don't blame you!) but if you have an interest in Nuclear, take a look at two canadian equities:

Uranium Participation Corp (U.TO) listed on Toronto, also trading over-the-counter in the US under the symbol URPZF. The website url for the company is: http://www.uraniumparticipation.com Uranium Participation Corp. is a Holding Company domiciled in Ontario.

I own shares in Uranium Focused Energy Fund (UF/un.TO) which trades over-the-counter in the US under the symbol UFEFF. I paid $4.15 US for my shares (the Loonie was at .93 when I bought) so I have a loss (it closed today at $3.03US). Thank heavens I only own a few shares. This fund is managed by Middlefield Group. Their website url is: http://www.middlefield.com/uranium.htm

I wish I had a good feel as to whether Uranium prices were going to rise. The only research I've been able to obtain is from Raymond James Ltd. If you have further interest let me know and I'll post it on the site, preferably in a subscriber's forum. I have it as a pdf.

Tread carefully. But I thought you might want this info all the same.

[Guest]

Re: Janszen Interview on NPR on 05/01/2009 - Power Hungry...Energy Green Bubble?

Thanks for that, Raz-ter. I will dig up a couple of alternate alt-energy funds. We can set up a thread and figure out a formula for averaging the rise or fall of three or four of them, and then take a comparative reading a year out or so. Should be interesting feedback on a lot of the theses we are arguing today.

Lukester,

I know you would rather hear from EJ (and I don't blame you!) but if you have an interest in Nuclear, take a look at two canadian equities:

Uranium Participation Corp (U.TO) listed on Toronto, also trading over-the-counter in the US under the symbol URPZF. The website url for the company is: http://www.uraniumparticipation.com Uranium Participation Corp. is a Holding Company domiciled in Ontario.

I own shares in Uranium Focused Energy Fund (UF/un.TO) which trades over-the-counter in the US under the symbol UFEFF. I paid $4.15 US for my shares (the Loonie was at .93 when I bought) so I have a loss (it closed today at $3.03US). Thank heavens I only own a few shares. This fund is managed by Middlefield Group. Their website url is: http://www.middlefield.com/uranium.htm

I wish I had a good feel as to whether Uranium prices were going to rise. The only research I've been able to obtain is from Raymond James Ltd. If you have further interest let me know and I'll post it on the site, preferably in a subscriber's forum. I have it as a pdf.

Tread carefully. But I thought you might want this info all the same.

[cjppjc]

Re: Janszen Interview on NPR on 05/01/2009 - Power Hungry...Energy Green Bubble?

Lukester,

I know you would rather hear from EJ (and I don't blame you!) but if you have an interest in Nuclear, take a look at two canadian equities:

Uranium Participation Corp (U.TO) listed on Toronto, also trading over-the-counter in the US under the symbol URPZF. The website url for the company is: http://www.uraniumparticipation.com Uranium Participation Corp. is a Holding Company domiciled in Ontario.

I own shares in Uranium Focused Energy Fund (UF/un.TO) which trades over-the-counter in the US under the symbol UFEFF. I paid $4.15 US for my shares (the Loonie was at .93 when I bought) so I have a loss (it closed today at $3.03US). Thank heavens I only own a few shares. This fund is managed by Middlefield Group. Their website url is: http://www.middlefield.com/uranium.htm

I wish I had a good feel as to whether Uranium prices were going to rise. The only research I've been able to obtain is from Raymond James Ltd. If you have further interest let me know and I'll post it on the site, preferably in a subscriber's forum. I have it as a pdf.

Tread carefully. But I thought you might want this info all the same.

A few years ago I did very well with CCJ and another one I can't remember. Sold that one, as well as some of the CCJ. Held the rest for far to long. Just sold it recently. Still hold DNN. That's up like 300% from it's bottom. But I'm still down over 60% on that one. They are volital to say the least.

[stockman]

Re: Janszen Interview on NPR on 05/01/2009 - Power Hungry...Energy Green Bubble?

This would appear at least on cursory inspection a sound sector for iTulip to remain amenable to as far as I could tell. Good solid, well moored story going forwards ten years, and all that.

Will we have a notable energy crisis within ten years or not? If one concludes no, then the case for alt-energy clearly weakens. If one concludes this widely repeated forecast is not overblown, then the case for alt-energy even at this early stage firms up? It's of course simplistic, but it is also an awfully *large* approaching issue. For me, the idea that this entire sector does not jolt to life until five years before the onset of full-bore crisis is one I struggle to accept.
.

You might look at the energy ETFs- some focus on alternative or clean energy. That would make it easy to track a basket, then for individual names you could review the holdings to select those that fit your preference.

Here are a few (this is a good ETF filter/search site)

PBW GEX TAN ICLN PUW NUCL NLR PBD PKN KWT

http://www.xtf.com/research/index.aspx


If you like break out / trend positioning the best charts short term are those in the nuke category- NUCL, NLR, PKN

[stockman]

Re: Janszen Interview on NPR on 05/01/2009 - Power Hungry...Energy Green Bubble?

Stimulated markets or simulated markets?

Dalio's group May 5 2009 Daily Observations-

To Repeat:
The Fed’s Money Creation Is Negating the Credit Contraction
Which Has Eliminated the Worst Case Scenario
“Because we have been so bearish on the economy and financial markets for some time, and because we shifted our view last week, we want to reiterate our change in view and the reasons for it, so it is repeated below. If it was clear last time, skip what follows and go on to the next section that begins with “In other words…”.
“In other words, we believe the U.S. economy will be most similar to the Japanese environment of slow real growth with big swings (+/- 5%) around this slow (2%ish) real growth trend. For example, we think that there’s a good chance that there will be a big spurt in growth late in the year as there are temporary corrections in a) the decline in inventories that caused production to fall faster than consumption and b) the spike in the savings rate. Though this will be just a technical bounce, it probably will reinforce the impression that there is a strong reversal, reinforcing a short covering rally and possibly creating fears that all the Fed’s stimulation was too much. As the inventory adjustment will pass and the trend in the savings rate will be flat or higher, trendline growth should be a shade over 2% because anything more will cause debt growth to be faster than income growth (unless there is a big devaluation of the dollar). Also, the big bankruptcy, debt-restructuring process of weak credits will take place despite the Fed’s money printing over the next year and will continue for some time beyond that. Because the sizes of debts and non-debt obligations (e.g., pension, health care, etc.) are so large relative to the likely cash flows to meet them we can not imagine that they will be serviced in real dollars (i.e., without a major devaluation/inflation), so we now assume that they will be dealt with via greater money creation – i.e., we assume that the Fed will do whatever it takes to produce the desired level of nominal GDP growth (and that the market place will determine how that’s split between real growth and inflation).”

[metalman]

Re: Janszen Interview on NPR on 05/01/2009 - Power Hungry...Energy Green Bubble?

Dalio's group May 5 2009 Daily Observations-

To Repeat::p:p
The Fed’s Money Creation Is Negating the Credit Contraction :p>:p>
Which Has Eliminated the Worst Case Scenario:p>:p>
“Because we have been so bearish on the economy and financial markets for some time, and because we shifted our view last week, we want to reiterate our change in view and the reasons for it, so it is repeated below. If it was clear last time, skip what follows and go on to the next section that begins with “In other words…”.:p>:p>
“In other words, we believe the U.S. economy will be most similar to the Japanese environment of slow real growth with big swings (+/- 5%) around this slow (2%ish) real growth trend. For example, we think that there’s a good chance that there will be a big spurt in growth late in the year as there are temporary corrections in a) the decline in inventories that caused production to fall faster than consumption and b) the spike in the savings rate. Though this will be just a technical bounce, it probably will reinforce the impression that there is a strong reversal, reinforcing a short covering rally and possibly creating fears that all the Fed’s stimulation was too much. As the inventory adjustment will pass and the trend in the savings rate will be flat or higher, trendline growth should be a shade over 2% because anything more will cause debt growth to be faster than income growth (unless there is a big devaluation of the dollar). Also, the big bankruptcy, debt-restructuring process of weak credits will take place despite the Fed’s money printing over the next year and will continue for some time beyond that. Because the sizes of debts and non-debt obligations (e.g., pension, health care, etc.) are so large relative to the likely cash flows to meet them we can not imagine that they will be serviced in real dollars (i.e., without a major devaluation/inflation), so we now assume that they will be dealt with via greater money creation – i.e., we assume that the Fed will do whatever it takes to produce the desired level of nominal GDP growth (and that the market place will determine how that’s split between real growth and inflation).”

yeh, everyone's a ka-poom theorist now.

[jk]

Re: Janszen Interview on NPR on 05/01/2009 - Power Hungry...Energy Green Bubble?

Dalio's group May 5 2009 Daily Observations-

To Repeat::p:p
The Fed’s Money Creation Is Negating the Credit Contraction :p>:p>
Which Has Eliminated the Worst Case Scenario:p>:p>
“Because we have been so bearish on the economy and financial markets for some time, and because we shifted our view last week, we want to reiterate our change in view and the reasons for it, so it is repeated below. If it was clear last time, skip what follows and go on to the next section that begins with “In other words…”.:p>:p>
“In other words, we believe the U.S. economy will be most similar to the Japanese environment of slow real growth with big swings (+/- 5%) around this slow (2%ish) real growth trend. For example, we think that there’s a good chance that there will be a big spurt in growth late in the year as there are temporary corrections in a) the decline in inventories that caused production to fall faster than consumption and b) the spike in the savings rate. Though this will be just a technical bounce, it probably will reinforce the impression that there is a strong reversal, reinforcing a short covering rally and possibly creating fears that all the Fed’s stimulation was too much. As the inventory adjustment will pass and the trend in the savings rate will be flat or higher, trendline growth should be a shade over 2% because anything more will cause debt growth to be faster than income growth (unless there is a big devaluation of the dollar). Also, the big bankruptcy, debt-restructuring process of weak credits will take place despite the Fed’s money printing over the next year and will continue for some time beyond that. Because the sizes of debts and non-debt obligations (e.g., pension, health care, etc.) are so large relative to the likely cash flows to meet them we can not imagine that they will be serviced in real dollars (i.e., without a major devaluation/inflation), so we now assume that they will be dealt with via greater money creation – i.e., we assume that the Fed will do whatever it takes to produce the desired level of nominal GDP growth (and that the market place will determine how that’s split between real growth and inflation).”

thanks for posting that. i have a lot of respect for dalio. is he recommending equities and/or commodities here? and does he place much credence in the possibility of "a big devaluation of the dollar?"