By Chris Berry
There are convincing arguments to be made for both embracing and shunning the junior sector at this point in the cycle. At risk of flip-flopping, our take is more nuanced, but throwing the “baby out with the bathwater” at this stage is an unwise move.
I have said since Q4 2013 that I believe most commodity markets have finally bottomed. This does not mean that we have turned the corner and the commodity super cycle will pick up where it left off. That said, I think it’s worth examining the forces that brought us to this point and determining how to navigate in the current market environment.
A Band Aid on an Amputation
Recent attempts by global central banks to “fix” the global economy have clearly failed. One wonders if they can succeed in this task given their present set of tools. Flooding the global economy with excess liquidity thanks in part to a low (or zero) interest rate environment has only masked the challenges we face. If this weren’t true, then why does the US 10-Year bond yield 2.50% as I write?
This yield is the result after unprecedented Federal Reserve balance sheet expansion to $4.5 trillion in assets and a much higher duration on the portfolio. The results are strikingly similar in Japan and the Euro Zone. The bottom line is that attempting to fix the global economy (some would say “prop up”) has led to an era of abundance or excess. Depending upon your point of view, this can be a good or a bad thing. I’m going to argue that the type of abundance we see now is bad.
The Culprits and their Results
There are three major culprits which have combined to produce two primary excesses in the global economy. These culprits are:
- Low interest rates
- Ubiquitous technology
Though these factors have undoubtedly had some positive consequences (poverty reduction, productivity increases), after 2008 these forces have combined to produce two primary excesses. They are:
- Excess Labor
- Excess Capital/Cheap Money
These excesses are in large part responsible for the downdraft in commodities (and by extension the junior equity sector) in recent years. It is these excesses we must deal with in order to restore global economy to a sustainable footing and commence with a new commodity and credit cycle.
Mouths to Feed
The burgeoning middle class in Asia and the increased consumption is a central investing thesis of ours. We still strongly believe that this phenomenon will accelerate in the coming decades. That said, an individual joining the middle class can only succeed while earning a real wage to support new found consumption. With 600 million starting to live a middle class lifestyle in China with forecasts of another 200 million set to join in the next decade, it is incumbent upon the political class in that country to provide jobs for those looking for work.
Add to this total an approximate additional 650 million citizens in countries including Indonesia, Mexico, and Pakistan and 100 million who are not in the labor force in the United States and you can begin to see why real wages have stagnated in the West in recent years. A glut of excess labor has given employers power to dictate wages in pursuit of maximizing profit for stakeholders.
Below is a graphical representation of the reduction in US GDP and what excess labor means for lost output (and a lower quality of life) in the United States:
Adding speed to this convergence between East and West is education – specifically access to education.
Dan Alpert has written an excellent book titled “The Age of Oversupply” which echoes many of the sentiments in this Note. Regarding education, he states:
“In China alone, the number of students graduating annually from college has risen eightfold in the past 15 years…”
That’s an annual increase of 830,000 to 6.8 million per year in 2012. The numbers are significant in other emerging market economies as well. So the West is facing an increasingly educated global labor force with a dramatically lower cost of living. This should send shudders down the spine of both blue and white collar workers everywhere.
Capacity is No Problem
So as labor has become plentiful, global central banks have attempted to resuscitate the global economy through myriad programs including QE, Operation Twist, ZIRP, Three Arrows, and others. Here are the results of their efforts:
There are trillions of dollars in excess liquidity all looking for above average returns. As these programs continue (though QE is believed to be “ending”), you can see the long term, 34 year trend in US interest rates:
After all this pump priming by global central banks all we can muster in the US is a 2.50% yield on the 10 year government bond. Given this backdrop, is the global economy really on the mend?
It is for this reason (the confluence of low rates, globalization, and technology access) that we continue to believe that deflationary forces are of primary concern. In this environment, finding ways to increase productivity amidst excess will be key to your investment strategy. Doing more with less would appear to be the “new normal” such that it exists.
A Case Study in the Effects of Deflation
A case study in these deflationary effects can be seen with two companies not at all involved in the commodity or critical metals world: Blockbuster and Netflix.
In 2004, Blockbuster had a market cap of $5 billion, 5,000+ outlets, and 60,000 employees. Six short years later, the company was bankrupt, relegated to the graveyard of corporate history. Netflix (NFLX:NASDAQ) , the primary culprit for Blockbuster’s demise, operates in 20+ countries, has a $19 billion market cap, and does all of this with only 2,000 employees. This is a profoundly deflationary dynamic and a perfect example of the confluence of excess labor and technology.
The result is that Blockbuster was “netflixed”. This leads me into how to approach the junior commodity sector today and in particular the critical metals sector. A focus on disruption or those companies with unfair competitive advantages is a vital method I use to gauge the potential for the success or failure of an enterprise. Some examples of exciting disruptive opportunities across the economic spectrum:
As the excess of labor and capital/cheap money are worked off in the coming years, it is these types of companies that I am betting will be the new engines of economic growth going forward.
You may be asking, “What does this mean for critical metals?” I think the excesses are ultimately positives, as they will force resource companies across all market capitalizations to become more efficient, focused enterprises. Perhaps even more importantly, we can now see more clearly which metals are truly critical. It is vital to understand that each critical metal has its own supply and demand dynamic and lumping all critical metals underneath the same umbrella is a mistake in an environment where many of these companies are unloved and left for dead.
Disruption in mining and mining supply chains will be key as excesses are worked off over the next few years.
Disruptive Examples in Critical Metals
There are likely numerous examples, but here are a few I am focused on and why.
- Scandium – No scandium is currently mined anywhere in the world. The supply (15 tonnes per year) comes primarily from stockpiles and tailings. Scandium’s unique properties with weldability make it an ideal alloy with aluminum for jets and its ability to withstand heat make it an optimal choice for solid oxide fuel cells. The solid oxide fuel cell market can accelerate subject to a reliable supply of scandium. (In the interest of full disclosure I am long EMC Metals (EMC:TSXV, EMMCF:OTCBB), a scandium exploration and development play in Australia).
- Graphene and Materials Science – I really do believe that materials science is the “next frontier” and an understanding of some of the transformative technologies and their applications can help position you amongst the critical metals. Graphene has received much of the hype of late and though it isn’t economic to produce in mass commercial quantities, I think this will change going forward, with profound implications for several metals or minerals. It is more of a question of “when” as opposed to “if”.
- Tin and Cobalt – Tin and cobalt are two metals I have written on extensively. What makes them unique is the source of their disruption – government interference. The Indonesian government’s new laws banning raw ore exports has lit a fire underneath tin and nickel specifically. Cobalt is also subject to disruption based on the fact that it is mined in reasonably unsavory jurisdictions and it is also typically a byproduct. Given their need, in technological applications, an understanding of the source (and potential resolution) of any disruption is important.
- Aurora Control Technologies (ACT:TSXV, AACTF:OTCBB) and Argex Titanium (RGX:TSXV, ARGEF:OTCBB) are two prime examples of companies I think have the capability to disrupt their respective industries. This is solar panel manufacturing in the case of ACT and the titanium dioxide market in the case of RGX. I will be writing more on both companies shortly. As an aside, I have written a complete report on RGX you can access here. I am long RGX.
The Four Keys to Critical Metals and Takeaways
At this stage of the cycle, it should be clear that ignoring critical metals altogether is a mistake. The four primary key to success in an era of so many excesses are disruption or unfairness in a business model, inefficient markets (thanks to government meddling), a focus on the value chain in an industry, and an off take or strategic agreement which offers the ability to significantly de-risk an opportunity.
Despite the troubling economic headlines, I think it is important to remember the trend is your friend and while China's growth rate is indeed slowing, consumption has come a long way and still has a long way to go before catching up to Western levels.
The data above is backwards looking, but offers a powerful vision for future potential across the critical metals markets. I am currently more focused on growth in consumption rather than GDP growth and more focused on Services PMI data rather than Manufacturing PMI data in the emerging markets. A growing services sector is the “type” of growth I think you want to see as a country like China slowly alters its growth paradigm from export-based and fixed asset investment to one more focused on internal consumption.
All critical metals are not created equal and it is those disruptors in the space that are poised to lead us forward.
The material herein is for informational purposes only and is not intended to and does not constitute the rendering of investment advice or the solicitation of an offer to buy securities. The foregoing discussion contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (The Act). In particular when used in the preceding discussion the words “plan,” confident that, believe, scheduled, expect, or intend to, and similar conditional expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements subject to the safe harbor created by the ACT. Such statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties and actual results could differ materially from those expressed in any of the forward looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to future events and financial performance of the company which are inherently uncertain and actual events and / or results may differ materially. In addition we may review investments that are not registered in the U.S. We cannot attest to nor certify the correctness of any information in this note. Please consult your financial advisor and perform your own due diligence before considering any companies mentioned in this informational bulletin.
The information in this note is provided solely for users’ general knowledge and is provided “as is”. We at the Disruptive Discoveries Journal make no warranties, expressed or implied, and disclaim and negate all other warranties, including without limitation, implied warranties or conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or non-infringement of intellectual property or other violation of rights. Further, we do not warrant or make any representations concerning the use, validity, accuracy, completeness, likely results or reliability of any claims, statements or information in this note or otherwise relating to such materials or on any websites linked to this note. I own shares in ARGEF.
The content in this note is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all matters and developments, and we assume no responsibility as to its completeness or accuracy. Furthermore, the information in no way should be construed or interpreted as – or as part of – an offering or solicitation of securities. No securities commission or other regulatory authority has in any way passed upon this information and no representation or warranty is made by us to that effect. For a more detailed disclaimer, please see the disclaimer on our website.