David Fuller and Eoin Treacy's Comment of the Day
Category - General

    Email of the day on nuclear energy

    I am a pre-subscriber, but I was a little underwhelmed by the portion of today's first item, from David Brown, that I have access to.

    He doesn't say who the "real expert" that he quotes on the new energy system is.    A nuclear power station is a controlled version of a nuclear bomb, thus the enormous amount of energy available. I fully concede that today's power stations are completely safe in their operation. But of course, there is the question of safe disposal of the waste, which the extract doesn't address;  and also the security required for that waste, to prevent it getting into rogue hands.

    It is irritating to have statistics such as coal being 4000×, gas 100× and hydro 30× more dangerous than nuclear, without any detail as to how these figures are calculated (although that detail would require a lot more space).

    Just because someone writes in such a haughty fashion doesn't necessarily make him an expert.   Top scientists usually write with courtesy, and with a degree of humility, acknowledging that they could still be wrong, since the world of atoms and nuclei may still have some surprises up its sleeve for us.

    I do concede, however, that, since I do not have access to the full discussion, some of these points may have been raised there.

    Many thanks Eoin, for the commentary that I do have access to.   Your commentary on extracts often clarifies points which seemed obscure, and is always full of common sense!

    Read entire article

    Email of the day on quantitative tightening

    What is your opinion on the latest figures of the Fed's policy of quantitative tightening?

    Read entire article

    JPMorgan Sees 'Vicious Cycle' as Top China Trust Misses Payment

    This article from Bloomberg may be of interest. Here is a section:

    Missed payments on multiple high-yield investment products by a major Chinese shadow lender may trigger a “vicious cycle” for property developers’ financing and more delinquencies for trust products, JPMorgan Chase & Co. warns.

    Liquidity stress is intensifying for indebted developers and their non-bank creditors after a unit of Zhongzhi Enterprise Group Co., one of China’s largest private wealth managers, failed to deliver on-time payments for multiple products, the US bank’s analysts including Katherine Lei wrote in a report Monday.  

    About 2.8 trillion yuan ($386 billion), or 13% of China’s total trust assets, may see rising default risks, given their exposure to the property industry and local government debt, the report says. Up to 80% of local government financing vehicles may not be able to repay their debt principals, JPMorgan estimated.

    “The trust defaults may set off a vicious cycle on POE (privately-owned enterprise) developers’ onshore debt,” the analysts wrote. “This follows that rising concern of developer defaults weakens investment sentiment and, as a result, trust companies may not be able or willing to roll over existing real estate-related products.”

    Read entire article

    UBS Ends $10 Billion State Backstop That Helped Seal Merger

    This article from Bloomberg may be of interest. Here is a section:

    The decision offers reassurance on “the health of the Credit Suisse non-core portfolio,” Citigroup analysts said in a note. “The early voluntary repayment could potentially also help in other matters, such as negotiating the retention of the Credit Suisse Swiss business.” 

    The fate of the Swiss bank has been widely watched as Swiss-based companies and politicians have voiced concerns over the market power that the combined bank would exercise. UBS plans to make a decision in the third quarter on whether it will fully integrate it with its own Swiss unit or seek another option such as spinning it off or listing it publicly.

    Read entire article

    Global Oil Demand Hits Record and Prices May Climb, IEA Says

    This article may be of interest to subscribers. Here is a section:

    But in the meantime, world markets are tightening, leaving oil inventories in developed nations about 115 million barrels below their five-year average, according to the report. Global stockpiles are set to deplete by a hefty 1.7 million barrels a day in the second half of the year, and preliminary data appears to confirm declines in July and August, the IEA said.

    Major consuming nations have criticized the Saudis and their allies in OPEC+ for constricting supplies, warning that a renewed inflationary spike would squeeze consumers and endanger the global recovery. Nonetheless, Riyadh has said it could deepen current cutbacks if necessary. 

    Output from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and its partners plunged last month to near a two-year low as the Saudis implemented a unilateral cut of 1 million barrels a day. Russia, a fellow member of the coalition, is also reducing exports.

    Read entire article

    Email of the day on trends for the next decade

    Thank you for this sweeping overview mid-week. Your conclusion that the next decade will be more about honing our trading instinct begs the question, what sectors would make the best tradeable core in this scenario? Would it continue to be technology where volatility provides outsized moves, or commodities where the underlying asset would be a store of value? As a follow-on question, would growth vs value become an obsolete paradigm, replaced perhaps by “cyclical sectors are king” paradigm? Thank you!

    Read entire article

    Email of the day on a third industrial revolution, doing more with less and a nuclear revival from David Brown:

    It was a memorable 3 days with you last week. It gave us time to discuss several things in depth, including our new industrial revolution. Thank you for capturing some of the key points in your recent writings. I gave a lengthy presentation on our new 3rd Industrial Revolution at David Fuller's Markets Now meeting in London, February 2015, and Forbes interviewed me a few weeks later. Here is an extract from the article:

    "We clearly have the new communication system, the internet, and I suggest we can reasonably date the beginning of this industrial revolution to the mid 1990s when desktop PCs became linked for the first time by Tim Berners-Lee’s World Wide Web and Marc Andreesen’s Mosaic/ Netscape system. The internet is well ahead of the other two factors."

    This was some years before Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum took up the theme. And yes, I do rank it as the 3rd, not 4th as Schwab does: the development of computer tech in the 1970s-1980s hardly constituted a revolution. It did not drive a massive increase in productivity because it lacked most of the key factors required for an industrial revolution.

    Back then, we did not have the internet, the first of the 3 new factors required, and which more recently has given a massive change in communication and in distribution of information and goods. That became feasible from 1994 when Netscape appeared and especially from 2007 with the first iPhone followed by other smartphones.

    However, the other two required breakthroughs are still missing today. Our new industrial revolution has stalled with just 1 of the 3 essential factors in place. Our financial system is completely unreformed and inefficient; and we have not rolled-out a viable new energy source.

    In fact, in my opinion, the Western world has gone seriously off-track in the eight years since I first presented on this in 2015. You captured the issue very succinctly when wrote "The basic assumption is technological innovation allows us to do more with less". "The challenge in the energy and financial sectors is the solutions being proposed do less with more." The current direction of travel on renewable energy is worrying. In addition to the gross inefficiency, unreliability, and cost-ineffectiveness, of wind and solar power, we have the bizarre belief in shipping wood chips across the Atlantic to fuel 'green' energy in the UK. Apparently, returning to the energy source that pre-dated our 1st and 2nd revolutions constitutes progress!

    I do not have much idea about the new financial system, but the new energy system is obvious and that is the topic of this note to you today, Eoin. From our discussions last week, I believe you are of the same view, and it would be good to pass this on to all subscribers of Fuller Treacy Money. I recommend this article. At last we are beginning to see writing by experts in the energy sector, real experts, with factual information. This article on nuclear power will (hopefully) be followed by many more.

    Here are some key points from the article:

    The only viable and scalable low-carbon power technology is nuclear. Today, more than 400 reactors generate about 10 per cent of world electricity. They are emissions free and reliable. Their only problem is that they are perceived to be dangerous and are violently opposed by some groups.

    Dangerous, nuclear is not. Per unit of energy generated, nuclear power has proved to be much safer than any other major power generating technology. Coal, gas and hydropower are respectively 4000, 100 and 35 times more dangerous.

    In the event of an accident where all power supply is lost, all modern reactors will shut down safely. Over the last 60 years the only nuclear powerplant accident with directly measurable health consequences has been at Chernobyl. The reactor there was operated in defiance of all safety principles and used obsolete technology without shielding: its failure has no relevance to a discussion of normal nuclear reactor safety.

    Many different designs of small modular reactors which are built on a production line basis are proposed and several are now under construction. None of them can melt down and release radiation.

    A rapid switch from expensive, impractical wind and solar power to reliable nuclear is the only way of meeting the net zero goal while keeping the lights on and society in general functioning.

    Nuclear power needs to be recognised as a low emissions source of electricity that is superior to wind and solar power. Subsidies, mandates and other enormously expensive policies intended to promote wind and solar power must be abandoned and the money switched to expediting nuclear power.

    Governments need to face the fact that wind and solar power can never deliver their net zero dreams of low cost, reliable, emissions free electricity. They have only two realistic options: switch to nuclear power, or abandon net zero.

    The article is referring to current fission technology, and - as you mentioned recently - we may soon have even more powerful and efficient fusion energy to follow.

    I am hoping that we are past peak nonsense about so-called 'green technologies' and that realism will begin to reassert itself. Eoin, it would be good if you can periodically update us on investment themes related to nuclear power. And let's return to the topic of what might constitute "doing more with less" in a much-needed new financial system.

    Thanks and best wishes to Aisling and family. It truly was wonderful to host you last week.

    Read entire article

    US Authorities to Probe Fatal Tesla Model Y Crash in Virginia

    This article from Bloomberg may be of interest. Here is a section: 

    The probe comes as the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is in the midst of a series of investigations targeting Tesla, its products and its chief executive officer, Elon Musk. Federal regulators are looking into possible problems with the company’s seat belts, steering wheels and driver-assistance features. 


    The Florida collision is the 54th included in NHTSA’s Special Crash Investigation of advanced driver-assistance systems like Tesla’s Autopilot. The broader probe began in 2016 after a fatal accident in Florida involving a Model S that was being operated with its automated driving system activated.

    Tesla vehicles have been involved in all but nine of the incidents that have been added to NHTSA’s investigation. The automaker, which has disbanded its media relations department, didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    Read entire article