It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
You don’t have to believe this theory, but something like it seems to be pretty popular. In particular, environmental, social and governance investors often express some version of this; they talk about the need to transition to green energy and question the long-term viability of fossil fuels.
• The world runs on oil right now, demand for oil is high, the price of oil is high, and getting oil out of the ground is lucrative.
• In X years — pick a number — the world will not run on oil, because the environmental effects of burning oil are bad, and eventually, through some combination of better green-energy technology, consumer demand and government regulation, the world will stop burning oil.
• Therefore the oil-drilling business will produce a series of cash flows that is large now and will, over the next X years, decline to zero.
Answer 1 seems wrong, on this theory: If you make long-term oil investments, and oil is doomed in the long term, then your investments are wasteful. You are taking profits that belong to shareholders and wasting them on inertia.
1) Do what you’ve always done. Drill lots of oil, acquire new leases, explore the deep ocean, make long-term investments in drilling technology, keep being an oil company, hope it all works out.
2) Pivot to renewables.[1] Drill oil for now, but make your long-term investments in green energy; build wind farms or drill geothermal wells or whatever, so that in X years, when the world stops using oil, you will be able to sell whatever it does use.
3) Drill the oil you’ve got, but plan for decline. Stop making lots of new long-term investments in oil fields. Maximize current cash flow, and spend it on stock buybacks. Eventually, in X years, your cash flows will be zero, and you will close up shop gracefully. But in the meantime there is money coming in, and rather than waste it on drilling new oil fields, you give it back to shareholders.
I should add that, like, pure-play wind-farm companies might have another advantage over oil companies in building wind farms: Their cost of capital might be lower. ESG investors tend to reward companies with good ESG scores (like green-energy companies) and penalize companies with bad ESG scores (like oil companies). This can have the (intended) result of lowering the cost of capital of green companies (lots of ESG investors want to buy their stock) and raising the cost of capital of polluting companies (nobody wants their stock). We talked a few weeks ago about a paper on “Counterproductive Sustainable Investing: The Impact Elasticity of Brown and Green Firms,” by Samuel Hartzmark and Kelly Shue, arguing that this has the effect of making polluting companies more short-term-focused: If your cost of capital is high, near-term projects are worth relatively more and long-term projects are worth relatively less, so you will focus on the short term. Hartzmark and Shue argue that in particular this means that polluting oil companies who get little love from ESG investors will decide to drill more oil to maximize short-term cash flows, but it does also suggest that polluting oil companies might decide to do less oil exploration and other long-term oil-focused investment, and spend more of their cash flows on stock buybacks. Your model could be something like “ESG lowers the cost of capital of green firms and raises the cost of capital of polluting firms, to encourage green firms to invest more for the long term and encourage polluting firms not to plan to stick around.” And then a lot of stock buybacks from oil firms would be a reasonable ESG outcome.Oil-and-gas companies have built up a mountain of cash with few precedents in recent history. Wall Street has a few ideas on how to spend it—and new drilling isn’t near the top of the list. ...
Even as an uncertain economic outlook has weighed on crude in 2023, making the energy sector the S&P 500’s worst performer, cash has continued flowing. Companies that previously chased growth and funneled money into speculative drilling investments, weighing down their stocks, have instead tried to appease Wall Street by boosting dividends and repurchasing shares.
The cash has helped make up for stock prices that often seesaw alongside volatile commodity markets. Steady returns also buoy an industry with an uncertain long-term outlook as governments, markets and the global economy gradually shift toward cleaner energy. …
President Biden has called on producers to ramp up output in a bid to lower prices at the pump. “These balance sheets make clear that there is nothing stopping oil companies from boosting production except their own decision to pad wealthy shareholder pockets and then sit on whatever is left,” White House Assistant Press Secretary Abdullah Hasan said. ...
“U.S. oil-and-gas producers are less focused on capital spending than they have been in years,” said Mark Young, a senior analyst at Evaluate Energy.
The cash buildup owes itself to other factors as well. Many companies have paid off debt racked up during growth mode, when they dug much of the top-tier territory for wells. While some companies have pledged huge sums to carbon-capture technology or hydrogen production, clean-energy investment has been slowed by lower expected returns and the wait for yet-to-be-finalized regulations in Mr. Biden’s climate package.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
Comments
A CEO is often just a hired gun who if he hits these short-term profit targets can make a fortune and cash out of their stock options bonuses at their earliest convenience, even if their short-term decisions destroy the company five or ten years down the road. Share buybacks fit nicely—for them—into this model. Buybacks create a short term boost in earnings per share and the stock price. This short-term mindset, pervasive on Wall Street, is destructive to businesses, our economy, and in the case of the oil industry regarding climate change and renewable energy, which requires long-term thinking and investment, our entire planet. Changing how executives are compensated could help correct the problem.
IMHO most investors just look for an ESG label slapped onto a company or fund. Many ratings services rate companies relative to their industry peers, meaning that you'll have as many top rated oil companies (percentage-wise) as any other sector. MSCI, ESG Ratings Methodology, April 2023. Hess press release, Oct 11, 2021. Bloomberg, ESG Investors' Best Intentions Slam Into Surging Oil Stocks, March 15, 2023 (via FA-Mag, no paywall)
There's ESG investing from a risk perspective (i.e. use ESG considerations in evaluating the business prospects for companies- how well are they mitigating risks); ESG investing from what I choose to call a "feel good" perspective (negative screens - I won't personally profit from bad acts); impact investing (improving behaviour of companies, improving their business prospects). These are all different, though they're all labeled (marketed) as ESG.
If your cost of capital is high, near-term projects are worth relatively more and long-term projects are worth relatively less, so you will focus on the short term
This a very serious issue in developing countries that cannot afford long term investments. The world (IMF, etc.) needs to establish better lending policies. Instead, we have oil companies putting money into short term foreign projects in exchange for building roads (that are used to transport equipment) and schools and internet infrastructure and providing needed jobs, turning villages into company towns.