Last week I started buying Cree (CREE: chart, web, Y!), and in typical fashion the stock dropped (along with just about every other equity) $2 after my order filled.

So, what’s a guy to do but buy more?

Fundamentally nothing changed with the company, although they are well positioned to take advantage of whatever bogus “green” legislation the Obama Administration may conjure up (i.e. trying to make light bulbs sexy again).

A technical trader may suggest that I should have waited for the pending drop in the chart, but that’s really not my style.

I’ve started adding shares in increments of 10 to set a good average price, and will continue to watch the company develop and their products mature.

Energy, Investing CREE, Stocks

The adage; “never waste a good crisis” continues to be more and more transparent as people start opening their eyes to what the government is saying versus what the government is actually doing. If you listen to what the Obama administration says, and compare it to what they do, you’ll certainly see a disconnect. Obama wants to create jobs, but also wants to increase taxes on those with the most money. I would like to think that he understands it takes capital to create jobs, and if you reduce capital, you reduce the incentive to create jobs. So does he really want to create jobs, or just continue to line the pockets of special interest groups and politicians alike under the guise of creating jobs?

I’ve always said that if you follow the money, you’ll find the incentive.

A prime example of this is Al Gore and his efforts to combat climate change. Ask yourself, why would an ex-politician go to such great lengths to promote such a controversial theory? And why would he spend so much money in his efforts? Follow the money.

Gore is Chairman of Generation Investment Management, LLP (GIM) that focuses on investing for the long term based off the idea that “sustainability factors—economic, environmental, social and governance criteria—will drive a company’s returns over the long term”. (If you have any idea what that really means, let me know.)

One major area that GIM tries to take advantage of is the “regulatory developments in climate policy and carbon markets, and the attitude shifts that are occurring among consumers, leading businesses and investors.”

Climate change is an urgent challenge that affects long-term corporate profitability, and therefore must be systematically integrated into investment analysis. The pace of climate change is accelerating and will have material effects on equity markets in the short, medium, and long term. -Source

Al Gore also founded and chairs the Alliance for Climate Protection whose mission is as follows:

Our mission is to persuade the American people—and people elsewhere in the world—of the importance and urgency of adopting and implementing effective and comprehensive solutions for the climate crisis.

The Alliance for Climate Protection is undertaking an unprecedented mass persuasion exercise based on scientific facts. Through a new combination of non–partisan alliances with Americans from all walks of life and innovative and far–reaching communication techniques the Alliance will focus on presenting the facts about climate change and its solutions to the general public in an accurate, clear and compelling manner.

Americans have always risen to meet the most important challenges to our nation’s and the world’s future. Together, we can address the climate challenge domestically and provide a robust economy for now and for our children. -Source

Based on the “Gore Connection” between these two entities, it would make sense why the Alliance for Climate Protection would want widespread emissions regulation and proactively support cap-and-trade legislation so that companies will be forced to lower their greenhouse gas emissions and buy carbon credits.

Surely they would recommend buying those carbon credits from none other than Generation Investment Management!

With this in mind, it’s not hard to see why Al Gore is so adamant about saving the planet from us dirty humans.  After all, the guy needs to make money somehow, and what better way than to scare those humans into giving him money for the greater good of the planet?

Actually, there would be a better way, and that would be if the government got involved and mandated that those dirty humans give him money for the greater good of the planet!

The Ties That Bind

Last week Gore came out and tried to push critics into a corner by suggesting that it’s silly to question the science (see the video below).

Rubbish.  You always question science, because there’s no such thing as a consensus in the scientific community.

It’s interesting that T. Boone Pickens appears in this discussion, as he’s in the same boat as Gore.  Pickens continued to push his “Pickens Plan” (which I wrote about in a skeptical post last year) to America in an effort to reduce the dependence on foreign oil and invest heavily in natural gas and wind energy.  Both efforts in which he already has billions of his own money at stake.

Can it be more “transparent”?

Follow the money, and you will find the incentive.

Energy, Environment Al Gore, Boone Pickens, climate chage, follow the money

Over the past several months I’ve ready many articles with various opinions on a “reasonable price for crude oil”.  Regardless of the source, or the magnitude of “reasonableness”, I often wonder: what’s so special about that number?

For instance, yesterday OPEC’s secretary general Abdalla el-Badri opined that “$70 to $90 per barrel is reasonable, as that range will support investment in new production”.

Well sure, if that new production costs less than $70 to $90 per barrel to produce.

The argument that el-Badri made was that OPEC controlled as much as 80 percent of the world petroleum reserves, and that they needed to develop that reserve “so we can have more supply to the world”.

I’m not sure that argument holds much weight.  Here’s why.

Ideally you want to have your production costs as low as possible so production is insulated against large price swings.  The lower the production cost, the longer the reserve will make economic sense to produce.

If you have high lifting costs for a substantial portion of your reserves, the the higher the chance you’ll have to shut in production due to the lower than production cost market prices.

The last thing you want to do is continually shut-in wells due to market volatility alone.  The drawback to that is that once prices rise above lifting costs, it will take a substantial amount of time to get production to market.  It’s not like flipping a switch on and off.

As we’ve seen in recent months, the effect of OPEC quotas, and their reduction, is questionable.  OPEC has cut hundreds of thousands of daily production, with no net result on the price of the commodity itself.

So what’s so special about $70 to $90 per barrel?

Ultimately that range makes development of unconventional reserves look more attractive.  However, with the balance of supply and demand shifting the scales in the other direction, raising the price of the commodity just to stimulate supply when demand can’t keep up doesn’t sound like a reasonable solution.

OPEC is set to meet again on March 15, and if crude prices are still hovering around $40 per barrel, you will surely see additional cuts in production.

To what effect will be interesting to see.

Energy commodity prices, crude oil, OPEC, supply and demand