Edward Guinness: Solar-Powered "10-Baggers"
Source: Brian Sylvester of
The Energy Report
Edward Guinness, co-manager of the Guinness Atkinson
Alternative Energy Fund, says the best opportunities in the
alternative energy space involve solar power. "We are unusually
positive on the solar sector," Edward says, noting that power
produced from solar sources will double in 2010. Edward divulges
some solar-powered "9- or 10-baggers" in this exclusive interview
The Energy Report.
The Energy Report:
Edward, please tell our readers about London-based Guinness
Atkinson Asset Management and its namesake Alternative Energy
The origins of Guinness Atkinson go back to the early 1990s when
Tim Guinness and Jim Atkinson set up the U.S. division of Guinness
Flight Asset Management. After Guinness Flight had been sold to
Investec, Tim and Jim were able to buy the U.S. business in 2003
and called it Guinness Atkinson Asset Management. At that time,
Guinness Atkinson had around $100 million under management. We have
since grown that to around $500 million, and we have launched three
additional funds, two of which are in the energy space.
We run a conventional energy fund, the Guinness Atkinson Global
Energy Fund, and the Guinness Atkinson Alternative Energy Fund. We
have been running funds with our conventional energy strategy since
1998. The average annualized return, even though we have had such
terrible markets recently, is still around 16%. Within that we had
been looking at the alternative energy space, but we had only ever
made one investment in an alternative energy stock.
Tim decided that the alternative energy industry had reached the
size where there was a big enough universe for us to form a
separate fund, and that it merited a separate fund because the
long-term dynamics of the industry are highly attractive and are
different from those of the conventional energy space.
In March 2006, with Matthew Page and myself as co-managers, we
launched the Guinness Atkinson Alternative Energy Fund. We had very
good success in the first two years; we built the fund up to $150
million under management. We're now back to around $45 million
under management. I feel the sector and the fund have been through
quite a rough period, but we're getting to a point where concerns
about the economy are built into stock prices, and absolute
valuations in terms of price multiples are very low. We're pretty
excited about the next 18 months for the fund.
You launched the Guinness Atkinson Alternative Energy Fund in 2006
for U.S. investors. Then you launched the Guinness Alternative
Energy Fund in 2007 for non-U.S. investors. Do you think European
investors' appetites for alternative energy exceed those of U.S.
investors? If so, what do you think accounts for that?
I think European investors generally have a greater understanding
and enthusiasm for the sector. That's based on the fact that in
Europe there is much greater visibility of the actual technology in
terms of the huge number of wind and solar projects and the returns
that are being generated by those projects.
At the same time, I think investors in Europe are more cautious
on investing in funds, whereas American investors are much more
sophisticated in recognizing the benefits funds bring to an area
That's noteworthy. So with American investors and alternative
energy, is it a case of "out of sight, out of mind?"
Perhaps. I think people in the U.S. are more concerned about the
broad market, and if people are worried about the broad market,
alternative energy is another area that they're worried about. I
don't think investors have returned to thinking this is an area
that is actually going to outperform even if the economy goes
sideways, which is what I think will be the case.
You see alternative energy as something of a hedge against the
I wouldn't describe it as a hedge, but I think it's something that
over the next 5 to 10 years can do well even if the broad market
doesn't. You might say that's a hedge, but it's not in the sense
that it should perform very well if the broad market actually goes
All right, let's play devil's advocate for a moment. A recent
Guinness Atkinson research report said, "Oil is fine, but running
out; yet demand for energy is rising. We have to find alternatives
that will be affordable and secure." But the world's proven oil
reserves stand at 1.3 trillion barrels or enough to last 80 years
at current consumption rates. It's also thought that the industry
will discover at least half of those reserves or more during the
next 80 years. Are we getting ahead of ourselves when it comes to
short- and long-term demand for alternative energy versus fossil
I think the question as posed is not looking at the whole picture.
I think that the other piece is that the oil still in reserve is
becoming more and more expensive to extract. If we pay enough, we
will keep finding oil for hundreds of years because clearly that
would subsidize more and more advanced extraction techniques. What
that means is that prices are going to rise over the next 10 to 20
years. Even if you look at extraction from the oil sands, my
understanding of the cost of production there is $50-$60 a barrel.
For natural gas, there's been a huge enthusiasm about shale gas,
but the marginal cost of production there is not at $4 per thousand
cubic feet (
), which is where the current gas price is. I understand that it's
more like $6 or $7 per MCF.
I think we are quite weak "peak oil" believers; while the
reserves are finite, we don't think we've peaked yet. We're
consuming 86 million barrels a day today; we think that in the next
15 years consumption is going to go to 100 million barrels a day.
We think that demand will be met, albeit at higher prices.
Actually, our view on demand is that it's going to be even stronger
than that based on the strength of Asian demand.
The reason to be enthusiastic about alternative energy is
because of the rising costs for fossil fuels, rather than the idea
that next Thursday we're suddenly going to run out. The flipside
for the alternative energy industry is that you have technologies
that are still falling in costs.
But nonetheless, prices for alternative energy remain comparatively
high at the moment, if you were to average the various forms.
That is a fairly common myth. If you look at the core technologies
that are deployed today of hydro, biomass and geothermal, sources
of alternative energy are competitive with coal, nuclear and
natural gas on a price basis. And the cost of wind can be as low as
$0.05 a kilowatt-hour on good sites, which is broadly competitive,
provided that the wind supply remains below 25%-30% of the mix, and
we're nowhere near that yet. Solar is clearly a lot more expensive,
but it's getting considerably closer. The path for solar to reach a
point where it becomes quite a viable distributive source of
electricity without significant subsidies is within our grasp.
Germany has put the most effort toward getting it there, and
they do have high electricity prices. The electricity prices in
Germany are north of $0.30 per kilowatt hour, and the feed-in
tariffs that they are now paying to the solar providers are only
just above that. The tariffs will fall through those levels in the
So Germany's taken the approach that "it's expensive now but will
only get cheaper, and it's sustainable." Is that correct?
The way the German industry works is that if you install a solar
panel, you get a guaranteed price for the electricity that it
generates, which is actually not subsidized by the government. It
is subsidized by the energy consumers and the cost is passed across
all users. The additional uplift to people's bills to pay for that
is between $2-$3 a month per household-that's not a crazy amount in
the vast scheme of things. The government does not fund this, so it
doesn't weigh on government finances. We're not worried that that's
going to be one of the first schemes to be cut, although we do
expect the tariff declines to continue as planned.
Once you start to have a feed-in tariff that is below the retail
electricity price, you will then start to lower the blended cost of
electricity as you get more and more solar panels installed.
In America, some states have introduced progressive legislation to
encourage the adoption of different forms of alternative energy. Do
you believe that the United States needs a broad alternative energy
plan akin to what Germany has introduced?
Clearly, the German policies have effectively resulted in a high
level of installation; so to a point, yes. I think the U.S. at the
moment is a market that shows huge potential in the solar space
that it is struggling to fulfill. The main areas being worked on in
the U.S. are utility scale projects. Such projects have been a
struggle with the weak economy, because the price that the large
utilities are prepared to pay for power purchase agreements (PPAs)
is low. That also relates to low natural gas prices. But the cost
the people are paying in the U.S. is still 20%-30% higher than what
people are now paying in Germany for fully installed projects.
There's huge fat yet to come out.
We are optimistic that the U.S. is a bit like a large ocean
liner, and that once it gets pointed in the right direction and
gets going, it will build up a huge head of steam.
On the wind side, the U.S. had a market-leading position four to
five years ago, albeit with jerky levels of installation. Every
other year the government would introduce a two-year extension to
the subsidy program. You would have one year of massive
construction, and then everyone would put away their tools for a
year, which was pretty unhelpful.
China has overtaken the U.S. as the world's leading installer of
wind turbines. Our understanding is that the prices that the
utilities are prepared to pay for PPAs means that lots of wind
projects in the U.S. are now on hold. And we're looking for that
market to be a smaller market in 2010 than it was in 2009, which is
something we'd like to see addressed because it's not a very
long-term view on things.
You mentioned China. What impact is China having on alternative
It's been reasonably popular to paint China as the bad guy of
change in the last five or six years, and I am not convinced that
that is entirely warranted. While they are still building new coal
plants because they have to, they have some of the most progressive
policies-aggressive policies as well as progressive-for putting new
wind and hydro plants in place.
They have been supportive of the solar industry in terms of
expanding the manufacturing base, which has been a key driver in
getting costs down. The cost of solar modules has fallen by over
50% in the last two years.
They're also looking at putting in place tariffs that would
encourage the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) in China. I
think they've identified the industry as a real core growth sector
in which they can be key players on a global basis. About 25% of
our portfolio consists of Chinese companies. And those are Chinese
companies that typically have their listings elsewhere.
That's a sign that this industry is moving to a much more
commoditized level where the ability to manufacture at low costs is
what's most important. The Chinese are doing the same in the wind
industry, although they're probably five years behind where they
are in the solar industry.
In your fund's portfolio, 17 of the 36 companies are solar energy
companies. Why is there such a heavy weighting toward solar?
First, we are unusually positive on the solar sector. Industry
analysts were expecting this year to be a terrible year for the
solar industry. Actually, it looks like the industry is going to
have grown from around 7 gigawatts (
) last year to somewhere in the 13-14 GW range this year. The
industry's size has doubled. This means that companies have been
able to operate plants at full capacity or above, which has been
hugely positive for margins.
People are very worried about demand next year. But what we're
seeing from the core players is that these companies are managing
to sell out 2011 demand because the companies doing the major
installations have good project pipelines on which they can make
decent internal rates of return (IRRs). They are planning on
pushing ahead with those.
Here is another thing to think about. Solar is mostly a utility
product now, but as the costs come down, it's going to be much more
of a residential offering. Residential solar in Germany now
accounts for 70%-80% of all sales. I think that the mobile phone
industry will at some stage prove to be an interesting parallel
because people are talking about residential solar in the U.S.
being a very niche product. You see some new developments with the
installation. But once the costs come down to a point where people
can generate $0.10-$0.15 per kilowatt hour and receive financing so
that they're not actually carrying all the up-front costs, I think
you will start to see the dynamics of the industry in the U.S.
It's hard to say how quickly it will develop, but at the right
price, a large percentage of the households in the U.S. will have
We're really excited about the solar space. We think the
evaluations are hugely attractive, and solar is the space that has
the most potential to grow. It's the area where we're most likely
to catch some 9- or 10-baggers within the portfolio.
What are some of those companies that you believe could actually
increase 9 or 10 times?
I would pay attention to
Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd. (
. Then there's
Trina Solar Ltd. (
. Trina and Yingli are, I'd say, top-tier Chinese module
manufacturers. They are both getting good brand positioning, as
well as good brand awareness in European markets.
I would also look at
LDK Solar Co Ltd. (
Renesola Ltd. (NYSE:SOL; AIM:SOLA)
. These are two companies that have been hugely punished for being
highly leveraged. But as things turn around, that leverage becomes
a huge plus in terms of the potential returns.
Both of them are low-cost wafer manufacturers, which is part of
the manufacturing process for making solar panels. They are cost
leaders in that specific space, which is actually starting to
experience something of a bottleneck.
How about some other alternative energy ideas?
Two other companies are in a completely different area that
highlights another interest we have. We have holdings in companies
WaterFurnace Renewable Energy, Inc. (TSX:WFI)
LSB Industries, Inc. (
, both of which are leading manufacturers of ground source heat
pumps. Those are two stocks we hold in the efficiency sector.
What I am really excited about is that when we start to see a
pickup in U.S. housing starts, I think they will be primary
beneficiaries. It seems like every new development has a major
focus on energy, and ground source heat pumps are the most
cost-effective way of improving the energy consumption of a
development. We think they'll become, if not required by
among developers. Both those companies have performed really well
through what have been extremely difficult times, which shows the
recognition for those products and how strong the demand is.
Why do you only have two geothermal companies in your fund's
In terms of geothermal, I would love to have more in geothermal
because I am a huge geothermal enthusiast. However, the number of
listed companies in the space is very short, and some of them are
lower-quality companies where we might have some concerns. And a
number of companies in this space have been trading at very, very
high multiples, which we haven't liked.
Ormat Technologies Inc. (
, which is one of our holdings. I would describe them as the Google
Inc. of the geothermal space. They're the ones with
lower-temperature geothermal sites, which I think will be key to
the growth of the sector. They do installation and they've built a
huge portfolio of plants, which they're not getting full value for
in the market. I would love to find more companies like Ormat that
we could hold at the same sort of valuation, but there just aren't
the opportunities out there.
One of your holdings in the Guinness Alternative Energy Fund is
First Solar Inc. (
, which is ranked seventh on
list of the world's fastest growing companies. Tell us about that
We try to have the 30 best ideas in our portfolio, and it is one of
those ideas. First Solar is the world's leading thin film
manufacturer. They have a cost advantage on a dollars-per-watt
basis for installing solar, which makes them very, very attractive
for large-scale utility projects. Notwithstanding that, they have a
low efficiency cell, so if you're looking to get the most energy
from your roof, they're not the best way to go about it. If space
is not a constraint, they are definitely on the list of people that
will be considered for any project.
The shares are actually expensive compared with other stocks we
have in the solar space, probably because of their product
differentiation and strong management team. First Solar's
management has promised quite aggressive targets and has
over-delivered on those targets. We think very highly of the
company, notwithstanding the fact that its multiples are in the
high teens on an earnings basis. It is very well placed to be one
of the leaders over the next 5 to 10 years.
Yes, but its Q210 results were $1.84 per share, down from $2.14 per
in Q209 and $2.00 per share in Q110. Those results were based on
lower margins for their panels. To me, that suggests that there is
growing competition and it has forced them to lower prices. Is that
It is a threat, but to put it in perspective, I think they're at
around $0.80-$0.90 cost per watt for manufacturing panels today.
The best-in-class solar companies in the PV space in China are
hoping to get to $0.80 a watt in about two year's time. I
understand that the road map for solar takes them down to the
$0.50-$0.60 level. We're reasonably optimistic that they are going
to be able to maintain their advantage.
Clearly, margins are a little bit tighter. They now have price
competition coming from panels that are much closer to their price
point, but they are still below the general PV module price
They're expanding the business into what I describe as higher
quality earnings. They have a very good pipeline of projects that
they are developing. While the margins in those projects are lower,
they will enable First Solar to keep growing the core business and
position the company for growth.
You have to think about the margins not just in terms of them
being squeezed, but also the fact that their margins are going to
be higher quality. By higher quality, I mean margins that can't be
eroded because they're direct cash flows from projects.
What's First Solar's share price upside?
That's a stock where I'm hoping to make maybe two to three times my
money over the next three to five years. It has a $12 billion
market cap. I think turning it into a $30 billion company is quite
doable, but also quite a challenge.
Do you have some final thoughts on the alternative energy
Yes, I think people should be looking to make the alternative
energy sector a small part of their portfolio that is focused on
growth. Clearly, alternative energy is still at an early stage, but
I really want investors to be clear that this is not a technology
play. You are investing in companies with real revenues and real
earnings. And you're not relying on huge changes in technology for
the industry to grow.
We're only at the foothills today. I mean if the wind industry
continues growing at 20% per year, which has been its growth rate
for the last 10 years, we would only get to 10% of the world's
electricity generation by 2023. And the solar industry, which has
been growing around 30% a year for the last 10 years, would only
get to around 5% of world electricity from solar by 2023. At that
point, I think investors will have seen substantial returns on
their investments in this space.
Many thanks, Edward. We appreciate your time.
Edward Guinness joined
Guinness Asset Management
in 2006. Mr. Guinness is co-manager of the Guinness Atkinson
Alternative Energy Fund. Prior to Guinness Atkinson Asset
Management, Mr. Guinness worked for HSBC in corporate finance
beginning in 1998, and then in 2002 joined Tiedemann Investment
Group, New York, in merger arbitrage. Mr. Guinness graduated from
Magdalene College, University of Cambridge, with a Master's
degree in Engineering and Management Studies in 1998.
Want to read more exclusive
interviews like this?
for our free e-newsletter, and you'll learn when new articles have
been published. To see a list of recent interviews with industry
analysts and commentators, visit our
1) Brian Sylvester of
The Energy Report
conducted this interview. He personally and/or his family own
shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview:
2) The following companies mentioned in the interview are sponsors
The Energy Report:
3) Edward Guinness: I personally and/or my family own shares of the
following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I personally
and/or my family am paid by the following companies mentioned in
this interview: None. I am invested directly in one of our
alternative energy funds.
The Energy Report
is Copyright © 2010 by Streetwise Reports LLC. All rights are
reserved. Streetwise Reports LLC hereby grants an unrestricted
license to use or disseminate this copyrighted material (i) only in
whole (and always including this disclaimer), but (ii) never in
The Energy Report does not render general or specific investment
advice and does not endorse or recommend the business, products,
services or securities of any industry or company mentioned in this
From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its
directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as
well as persons interviewed for articles on the site, may have a
long or short position in securities mentioned and may make
purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or
Streetwise Reports LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or
thoroughness of the information reported.
Streetwise Reports LLC receives a fee from companies that are
listed on the home page in the In This Issue section. Their sponsor
pages may be considered advertising for the purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Participating companies provide the logos used in The Energy
Report. These logos are trademarks and are the property of the
Streetwise Reports LLC
P.O. Box 1099
Kenwood, CA 95452
Tel.: (707) 282-5593
Fax: (707) 282-5592