Reviewing major index sector performances in 2022

Not surprisingly, energy had a banner year in both Canadian and US indexes.

TSX:

The big two losers were health care (think: marijuana companies and biotechs dropping from grace), and information technology (think: Shopify and practically every technology IPO). Real estate was the third worst with a -24.3% performance (office REITs, in particular, were slammed more than the other sectors).

S&P 500:

The forward P/E on the S&P 500 of 16.8 still appears to be quite a rich valuation (5.95%) over the risk-free rate of interest (the one-year US treasury bond yields 4.7% at present).

Divestor Canadian Oil and Gas Index – Final Report

I will be terminating the Divestor Canadian Oil and Gas Index (DCOGI) effective today.  It took a bit too much effort to administrate (the dividends, in particular, were cumbersome) and also this might be a signal the fossil fuel trade is nearly over.

The DCOGI was created on February 5, 2021 with a hypothetical million dollars invested among 9 very well known Canadian oil and gas companies, with the larger companies having more weighting.

From an index level of 100 at February 5, 2021, the DCOGI ended 2022 at 283.9.

The comparators were the energy ETFs XEG.to, ZEO.to and the broad-based index ETF VCN.to.

XEG ended at 257.5;
ZEO ended at 209.6;
VCN ended at 113.2.

These values are all with one dividend reinvestment cycle at the end of 2021, otherwise for 2022 the cash from dividends accumulated yield-free.

In 2022, the DCOGI had an 11.9% cash yield based off of its initial cost, an indication of the incredible amounts of cash flow that have been spun off by this sector (the primary contributor to this was Tourlamine’s special dividends, with CNQ as a close second).

2023 should also feature, if indications suggest, that increased cash yields will be coming from ARX, BIR, CVE, PEY and WCP in relation to 2022.

I will leave the final spreadsheet here in case if anybody wants to continue the work, but otherwise it will be kept in an unmaintained state.

 

 

The perils of using scrip and central bank digital currencies

For those not familiar with the noun scrip, look at the Wikipedia article.

Historically scrip was issued by large companies to physically remote workers, for usage in their own facilities. The Hudson’s Bay Company was a classic example of this. In some cases, company scrip was nearly as good as money.

Today in our 21st century, we have digital scrip in the form of Apple and Google Play cards, in addition to more generalized gift certificates and the like.

Cryptocurrency is another innovation which is functionally the scrip of those that voluntarily choose to engage in the transaction of such digital tokens.

Sovereign currency, such as the US dollar and UK Pound, historically used to represent a certain amount of gold or silver, but those days have long since passed. The fiat currencies we use are backed with a single promise, and that is the ability to pay taxes to the government. Other than this fundamental value, fiat currencies trade on the perception of value conveyed by their participants. While scrip definitionally is referring to non-sovereign currency, functionally speaking, the green, red and brown pieces of polymer we hand around is a form of scrip, albeit with more legal authority.

However, with the digitization of everything, we are witnessing the fragmentation of various scrip. We see increasingly sophisticated schemes by scrip issuers to incentivize various behaviours of the recipients.

One 20th century invention was the Air Miles concept – spend in a preferred manner and eventually receive enough to purchase a commodity “for free” that otherwise would be wasted – an empty airline seat.

On the advent of this came a whole plethora of reward schemes.

However, all of these schemes are subject to the issuer’s fiat. We have seen this in the sovereign context when a country decides to devalue a fixed-peg currency (just look at the Argentina Peso as a great example).

Also, nominally valued scrip is subject to the ravages of inflation. A Costco gift card purchased a couple years ago most certainly purchases a lot less today than it did when it was originally purchased.

It is interesting to note that strict gift cards (money for store credit) have legislative protection (at least in British Columbia) and must be held as a liability to the issuer in perpetuity.  Only monetary inflation of the underlying currency degrades the value of this scrip.

However, the story is different with reward schemes.  Similar to sovereign currency devaluations, owners can be spontaneously diluted. An airline seat costs more miles to purchase, or perhaps the availability of seating is less desirable.

Reward schemes are everywhere now, to the point where nearly every single major corporation out there with any retail presence has these annoying and low value (to the consumer) schemes to incentivize certain behaviours. The promoter of the program wants to pull off an Aimia (the payday is selling the accumulated customer data on the points program), while the end retailer wants to drive certain types of sales using scrip as incentive. It is nearly always to the detriment of the consumer.

In Canada, most recently I noticed the Freshco/Safeway/Sobeys chain (owned by Empire (TSX: EMP.A)) is subscribing to “Scene”, which was originally a creation of Cineplex (TSX: CGX) and Scotiabank (TSX: BNS) to give people free movies.

Other grocery stories, such as Save-on-Foods (Save on More) and Superstore/Shoppers Drug Mart (Loblaws/George Weston) (L.TO/WN.TO) have their own scrip schemes – PC Points.

Suncor (TSX: SU), via Petro Canada, runs a popular “Petro Points” scheme.

McDonalds (NYSE: MCD), and all the other fast food operations, which are “appifying” themselves, have their own arbitrary points system.

It goes on, and on and on, and the hapless consumer is plagued by the administrative burden of figuring out if any of this is worth the time/energy hassle to functionally get minor discounts off their aggregate purchases.

What’s great from the company perspective is that you can effectively be your own central bank and decide to pull the rug on your customers whenever you want without any recourse by those holding the scrip.

Nothing illustrated that better than Starbucks (Nasdaq: SBUX) pulling off a “Christmas surprise” on their rewards program.

Their original scheme was that for every dollar you purchased stuff at their stores, you would receive two stars. Accumulate 50 stars and get a free coffee. Accumulate 150 and get a free fancy drink.

Effective in February, they announced that this will now be 100 stars (a 100% inflation) and 200 stars (a 33% inflation), respectively.

What’s funny is that when the inevitable blowback came on Twitter, the generic response was:

Hello, we continually want to update the Starbucks Rewards program so that we’re meeting the changing needs of our members while ensuring we’re still able to deliver some of the benefits members know and love.

Learning the language of corporate-speak is a reason why I would perish in a corporate communications role. The dishonesty would drive me insane.

The reality is that I am sure there was a cottage industry of people banking Starbucks scrip and this liability (in addition to future liability) needed to get whittled down in the face of a rapidly escalating cost environment.

Fortunately, I do not subscribe to many of these schemes, but as scrip systems continue to get more and more fragmented, there may be less of a stimulatory effect on the consumer, resulting in a dimunition of such schemes as they aren’t going to be nearly as lucrative as the original scrip schemes were.

However, for now, definitely the lesson is if you’ve been accumulating scrip, it’s generally good to spend it as you get it.

The ultimate test of this theory will be when sovereign nations start to centralize currency distribution via the speculated central bank digital currency (CBDC) scheme. It will be politically inevitable that CBDCs will eventually be tinkered with in a manner similar to corporate reward schemes. “Buy ESG-compliant product XYZ for 20% less CBDC dollars!”, or “Donate to Ukraine and receive a 10% tax credit off of your capital gains tax on your next disposition of Russian corporate debt!”, etc.

Initially, the rollout of CBDCs will be a straight replacement for currency, but just like how the Income Tax Act has been perverted beyond all reason, the currency itself will be tinkered around with for political reasons to incentivize certain behaviours.

The difference between adding complexity to the Income Tax Act and adding complexity to your nation’s sovereign currency is that a currency derives value from being fungible and universally accepted.  A “rewards scheme” CBDC will inevitably chip away at this, which will ironically depreciate the value of such currency.

It makes me wonder if barter is going to make some sort of comeback.

The effort it takes to get a coal mine going

Headline: Ottawa says no to Glencore’s Sukunka open-pit coal mine project in B.C.

I don’t think anybody should be shocked these days that opening up a new coal mine in British Columbia is next to impossible. It will be killed at the environmental regulatory process.

Glencore has been at it since 2013 and halted in 2016 and 2018 to obtain more data on cariboo and water quality and perform further consultations with various First Nations bands. Interestingly enough, one of the identified impacted First Nations bands, McLeod Lake Indian Band, issued a letter in support of the project. The various reports made for fascinating reading.

On this post, I am not making judgement on the environment assessment process or to determine its efficacy or whether it was a good decision made or not; however, I will point out the obvious that this is not the only project to be bludgeoned on the entrails of the environmental ministry and it will not be the last. What this does, however, is provide a huge layer of incumbency protection on the existing projects (especially looking at Teck).

Practically speaking, there are two coal miners in British Columbia – Teck and privately-held Conuma Resources. Looking at their transparency reports (Teck, Conuma) it is like the proverbial elephant and mouse in terms of their contributions to the government.

The last (to my knowledge) issued environmental assessment certificate given to a coal miner in BC was to HD Mining in 2017 for their proposed 6 million ton a year metallurgical coal mine project near Tumbler Ridge, BC. While there was a very colourful story to this company almost a decade ago, today it is pretty obvious that the project is still dormant.

Considering that Teck got rid of its interest in its Quintette coal mine (for a not insubstantial $120 million) to Conuma very recently, there is still obvious economic value in these residual interests even if they are dormant.

However, developing a new mine from scratch in BC is going to be very difficult to clear through the government regulation. Incumbency protection is very significant.

Oil futures curve finally flipped

The following is an extract of the WTI oil futures curve:

The price of current-day (spot) crude is about 1% cheaper than the price of oil half a year out.

Let’s run a refresher course on the basic mechanics of futures pricing.

All things being equal, a clean futures curve will price the interest rate curve into forward prices, minus storage costs.

For instance, if today you can buy a barrel of oil for $100 and tomorrow you can sell it for $110, you would want to dig the trench in your backyard and store the oil there for a day so you can sell it for 10% profit. (You can do the math on an annualized return over a day!).

Ignoring storage costs, if you have to chew up $100 of capital to hold your oil, there is an implied carrying cost to holding that oil instead of selling it immediately to put into risk-free securities. This is a function of interest rates.

So a theoretical market would reflect this opportunity cost loss.

Let’s pretend your interest rate is 5%.

One would be indifferent to a $100 spot price today vs. $105 a year from now, again, emphasizing no storage costs.

For financial futures, other than a few electrons, there are no storage costs. This is why you see S&P 500 futures pricing up roughly a percent for each three months of the contract duration. Sophisticated funds can arbitrage by buying the index today and selling the future 3 months out, and pocket the spread – don’t forget about those equity dividends! This is a very roundabout way of investing in a 3 month interest product.

However, for commodities, there are storage costs and also the ebb of projected supply and demand characteristics of the underlying. An example from the natural gas market – the blowup at the Freeport LNG facility (which is still under repair) had their futures project, quite rapidly, increased supply over a limited time frame. When the promises of an early repair date evaporated quicker than LNG at room temperature, the futures curve adapted accordingly.

Another variable concerning physical commodities is that physical ownership might convey some other benefits that come with income – such as gold leasing.

Going back to crude futures, this is the first time awhile where the spot month is exhibiting a “normal” sloped curve, at least for the first half year or so. The “peak” of the curve is in October 2023 and then the price slopes downward again. This is an unusual situation.

It’s been clear to me since the June peak that the game has changed from one of scarcity to one of much more conventional metrics – can you identify the firms that will survive in a lower price environment? Do you actually want to be in a space that might potentially be a “grind to the bottom” again as companies increase capital investing and have balance sheets to sustain potentially unprofitable production?

We went through that in 2014, where supply really accelerated and crushed the crap out of the oil and natural gas market.

The question here is whether supply is nearly as constrained (either for ESG reasons or geological reasons) as the narrative would suggest.