EAX Energy Action

EAX

I noticed that this company we use at work has listed on the stock exchange in the last month. They are an energy auction company, but also offer services to assist companies to reduce their energy efficiency. I had to go back (to here) to remind myself that I have excluded the 'efficiency' sector, but included companies who offer offset services (under the sector CARBON).

Carbon Tax and the Clean Energy Index

So, if you're paying attention, you'll know that I haven't yet resolved the Clean Energy Index, but I have created the index based on Capitalisation. I look at it most days, but I'll really just using it as a stand in and to learn about the different companies which make up the mix. Which means I can't really answer that question, however, looking at the cap index, after 9 months of nearly consistent decline, the index bounced up nearly 10% in the last week.

If you look at the image below, you'd probably suggest that the bounce is more related to the confidence that has returned to the share market in the last week or so. I've read that the market has already priced in the effects of the carbon tax, although I am rather skeptical of these kinds of statements, but perhaps stock traders are a lot cleverer than I give them credit for.


Today the 'cap' index moved up by 1.1%. I have no idea if that is a lot or a little for one day, but we'll see how it goes compared to the ASX200 over the next couple of days.

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme II

Today we got past the first hurdle on the putting in a pollution trading scheme. Here it's called a "Carbon TAX", which is Julia's way of inflicting the most pain on herself via the polls, but I'd rate it over the name Kevin failed to get through. There is a great review of this event over at Annabel Crabb's blog.

I first read about carbon trading around 10 years ago, probably in the book "Natural Capitalism", which you can read free online (Nat. Cap.) and at the time I thought it would never be possible for our society to get to that point. Today we're here, and it feels like no time has passed.

As a tongue in cheek celebration, I went out and bought cakes for the staff in the office. I don't think there was one other person in the office who thought it was even remotely sensible for us to bring in carbon trading, with at least one person boycotting the morning tea offer. At the end of 15mins of heated discussion, explaining to me why it was a bad idea, I only got back to my desk by 'agreeing to disagree'.

My point in relating this anecdote is to say that I think the carbon tax has a very small chance of survival, I hope that the Australian Labor party can sharpen up its ability to communicate, or that Malcolm Turnbull will replace the monkey who's leading the Liberals before the next election, but after 11 years of John Howard as PM, nothing would surprise me in Australian Politics.

Thanks Julia - you did a good thing.

 You can see what the Guardian thought here (the source of the image)

Splitting up the market

OK, so the last post bar one focused on how I could modify the split of the index to better represent the quality stocks - the different between a capitalisation approach and a fundamental approach. Remembering that I'm trying to create an index, which should be impartial to my feelings or intuition and rely only on data. So far, I'm still unresolved - as I look at the data right now, I have to make an algorithm which compares the losses of 30 companies against the profits of just 3.

At the same time, one of the biggest issues I see is that one of the best looking companies for selling and manufacturing of solar power (Silex or SLX) is also supplier of nuclear fuel processing technology. They are also the single biggest company in the index as it stands today - at around 28% of the index.

So the question I am pondering on this is - do you buy the for the upside or ignore them for the downside?

Or can I add something else into the equation? Sure, if we buy shares in SLX, the investment is in all the business units, but perhaps reviewing the fundamentals might adjust for their relative engagement in nuclear vs. solar - at least scale the 28% down by whatever the breakup of the business was.

I've spend a bit of time trying to understand the company and see where the money comes from or goes to, but it comes back to the same question: which fundamentals do you use to divide things up? Here, we have hardly any choice - the information in the annual report is:

SECTOR :          SILEX   SSOLAR   SOLARS  TRANS CHRONO
REVENUE         33%      66%           1%            0%         0%
BOOK               72%      11%           16%          1%         0%
PROFIT              $1M     -$18M       -$6M         -$4M     -$1.7M

By revenue, SILEX SOLAR and SOLAR SYSTEMS make up the larger share of the company - at 67%, but by book value (assets less liabilities) the make up a small fraction of it (27%). By profit however, is another story altogether - if fact, I can't do a percentage, since they give losses, while Silex systems uranium enrichment technology is providing positive results.

I have to get my head around comparing a profit to a loss as a percentage....

If you support Nuclear energy, check these guys out - it's brilliant that they've maintained the two solar manufacturing businesses that we have here in Australia and it would be great if you could go out and buy some solar panels made in Sydney!!

http://www.silex.com.au/

Serendipitious Support

I went to the library today,  looking for books on indexes, but while I was there I found this book:

http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470283564.html

It starts:
"
Welcome to the next great bull market. ... Bigger and longer lived than the tech-stock and housing booms combined. I'm referring, of course, to clean tech.<br>
"
Within a few pages, he's excluding nuclear, clean coal and traditional hydro - which is also my point of view, but exactly how to enact that I have figured with the merging of solar and nuclear clean (see Silex SLX).

Drowning in a sea of data

Whilst I drown in a sea of data, or lack of data, the share market is continuing its downward spiral, each day making the proposition to buy more and more attractive.

But which stocks to buy and in which volume?

Here's a snapshot of the data I've been looking at and some notes on the quality*:

Price/Book - a:33/33, b 29/33
of which 7 companies are listed with different numbers
4 are negative numbers??

EPS - a33/33, b 31/33
of which 8 are different
only 4 of the 33 are positive numbers....

P/E - 4/33 for both, however
these are not the same companes and
the 2 that do overlap are different.
They are all positive, which probably means that all the rest would be negative, hence not reported.

As a quick thought, some mix between P/B and EPS would make some sense - that would include the Price, the profit and the book value should the operations cease to exist.

My thought is to take Market Capitalisation as step one, and they create a simple formula to weigh in the factors above.

Manana.


* a- is from Morningstar Australia, b is from Google Finance.

and down (Sept 2011)

I haven't given up - I've been doing two things:

1>watching as everything slide further and further downwards during September (with a mixture of horror and amusement). I think Michael Pascoe got it right when he said it would be funny if it wasn't peoples retirement savings that was being hit. The ASX plays out the most dramatic possible scenario after each evenings news from around the world : a report says China may not grow as fast this year: drop by 3%, the next day China's growth will be compensated by recovery in the eurozone, up by 2%. American have a good meeting, up 2%, Europeans say the wrong thing after a dinner with some banking mates: down 1%. The whole affair is like a teenage romance, up and down with every wind. Suck it up guys, there'll be good and bad days - don't sell. Unless you bought on speculation, not because there was any real value in the stock, but you wouldn't do that, right?

2>trying to decide how to resolve the 80-20 rule as it comes to this index. After the last post, I have really been wondering about the split, and whether I should bother with the bottom companies which represent individually less than 0.5%. (80-20 rule here is actually 80-30, where 80% of the index funds would be in 30% of the companies in the list).

The bottom 10 companies in the list (by capitalisation) represent 2.5% of the index - hence if they all rose in value by 50%, the impact would be about 1% growth in the index. That's not a lot of bang for your buck.

Secondly, until I've got a lot money to invest, it'll cost almost as much in brokerage as the value of the shares. And I'd like to actually buy some of the these share, because while they're all heading south, surely that means they just represent a bigger opportunity.

What I really want to do is re-sort the companies using some of the principles of fundamental indexation, but there is nothing compelling directing me which fundamentals to use. This has been the real drag on my 'getting' on with it, if I can have an excuse other than my own attention span. Fundamental indexes use revenue, employees, cash flow or sales instead of market capitalisation, but none of those things seem perfect to me - why would a company with a larger revenue go up more (or down less) than a company with a smaller revenue - perhaps they'd be more stable, but if you are talking about the companies here, a lot of them have negative revenue, or are really at a stage when revenues are no where near stable..

Can a fundamental index include such things as P/E ratio - to me this seems the most logical criterium on which to decide which stocks to buy - the stock with a lower price compared with it's earnings seems more likely to grow than one with a higher P/E, well it would if the earnings were positive and there was some hope of a distribution - which in this sector there doesn't seem to be much hope.

And further to that, I started to wonder if I couldn't use renewable ENERGY GENERATED as one of the factors in the buying decision. It seems unlikely that I can get that data without some serious mining, but maybe. This would knock out some of the spuriously large companies - like SLX, which as far as I understand, doesn't make anything from its solar business at this stage - it's positive looking numbers coming from nuclear fuel processing.

To start making some notes on the companies, I've created a 'page' on this blog (http://cleanenergyindex.blogspot.com/p/complete-list.html) where I'll collate any info that I find on the companies - starting with the market cap based ranking that they have.


Oh, and I downloaded the rest of the data - just to prove to myself it really did make no difference whatsoever. You can see for yourself below:

down and down (2010-2011)

It's not a pretty picture when you chart this thing. Below are around 20 of the 33 stocks charted over the last 18months and in order of weighting per capitalisation.

Only 5 of these stocks had a positive change in value over the last 12months, and as you can see the impact of those changes is nothing compared with the negatives in everything else. 

Why have I only charted 21? only because I haven't had time to pull down all the data for the others and I starting to see a certain impact that I thought I should write about. As you can see, the slice of the pie gets smaller and smaller, to the point where more than half of the companies in the index make up less than 1% each of the total index. Hence, even if their share price doubles, the impact on the index would be just 1%. 

I guess this is a well known effect in indicies - just as the ASX200 is dominated by the big four banks and BHP, the index below would be dominated by the biggest companies in the renewable sector.

I don't think there is any way that the last twelve months could be anything but negative (here around 50% of value is lost in 12months), but I still wonder if there isn't another way to build the index so the largest companies don't dominate quite so heavily. Given that almost none of the companies were paying dividends, it isn't an advantage to preference companies with a larger capitalisation from that point of view, and the smaller companies may have a higher chance of being the 'next big thing' if they strike it lucky with the technology they are working with (or the market sector they are in) and if they are all sitting below 1%, then the clean-tech-index investor isn't going to share in that windfall.

Anyway, off to download more data...

sino-clean-tech

The guys over at ACT (http://www.auscleantech.com.au/) have launched a new index for Asian cleantech. This is a great idea as China seems far more engaged in a direct way than the western countries are in renewable energy - I think they will have far more impetus to change, with the option being to not have access to any power, or to develop/install small scale renewable power.




That being said - it looks a lot like the ASX200 over the last few years - a big drop at the end of 2008 followed by a lot of not very much action.




Check it out, here:




WWW.SINOCLEANTECH.COM

Spread - the first three indicies (+INFIGEN)

I have created the three indexes discussed in the previous post - all in Google Finance, and you can immediately track back from today to see what happened to the index over time. It's not quite right to do, because the index should be updated each quarter or year, and looking backwards, we're not normalising for IPO or share splits.

The chart below shows the spread (by % of the total $ in the fund) of the sub-sectors in the three indexes, and there are some major differences: 

Geothermal takes over if you spend $1 on each company because there are lots of companies in that sector, they are all small companies with low share prices, which is why they drop back with the other techniques.

Solar is always important, but grows as you move to a by cap division, as does the storage sector.

Buying one share of each company biases biofuel because MBT has a share price of $4.42 each, but a size of $44million, i.e. only 10million shares are available. Just that example explains why this is not a sensible way of creating an index.

In either event, the wind sector (really just one company, Infigen) becomes much more important when you use a capitalisation methodology. This was a surprise to me - in the renewable energy sector, there is one company with a size in the share market equal to 10% of the entire sector - and it's a company I don't know anything about! At least that gives me something to look into.  (http://www.infigenenergy.com/)

I'm not sure if the Capitalisation method is really the way to go, but it does make the sectors look reasonably balanced. Perhaps wind is still a bit low when you see that Wind energy currently makes up 10x more of the Renewable energy generated in Australia than does solar.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Australia). 

They're not here because the other companies are private or part of larger groups, see also:

Pac Hydro (part of IFS)

Wind Prospect

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The good thing about writing this blog is that it makes articles I see in the paper more relevant. For instance, having written the above sentence, in the last week, I saw an article in the business section about Infigen hoping to be profitable within two years. 

http://www.theage.com.au/business/infigen-in-the-black-in-two-years-20110830-1jk2u.html

But the interesting little snippet I got from that was this:

"

By around 2014, much of the present surfeit of renewable electricity certificates will have been absorbed

"

I found that an interesting snippet, but I'm not sure why - presumably because the MRET targets are not high enough to really push the energy providers into the renewable sector.
>>>>>>>>>>UPDATED 3/9/11

Infigen was in the news again today http://afr.com/p/opinion/infigen_blown_off_course_by_debt_6vfmg3oGqtyPaJUnYIWOFN
with the gist of the article being about the debt they cuurently have. The paper had created a nice graphic showing price projections over the next twelve months, but as far as I can tell, their only source of opinion was morgan stanley, and then they seem to have have reduced three years of growth into one and suggesting that the price in Aug 2012 could be up 150%.

update - deleting the chaff

Hunting around for information on the Revenue of the companies missing from google shows that GEN (genesis research) is not in the biofuel sector as included in the ASX list, but in fact a research company with gene thearapy technology.

I've deleted it from the list.

Make that 33 companies.

If you're interested in that stuff, you can find them at : http://www.genesis.co.nz 

How to divide up the index?

This is where I am way out of my depth. Also where the industry starts to get a little mysterious. You probably learn this in first term of business school, but who's got.time for that. If you knew nothing, what would you do?

Buy one share of every company.
This would be easy. The cost would equal to the sum of the share prices and the weighting would be the share price divided by the price. The trouble with this is that not every company has the same valuation on their shares - as I understand it you can raise the same amount of capital, but offer a different number of shares, 10 $10 shares is the same as 100 $1 shares, still a company "worth" $100, but with fewer investors. But it would totally stuff an index based on the above principle. From our list we have the following proportion of each company:

32% of MBT a biodiesel company
21% of SLX solar and uranium enrichment
13% or ORE a lithium producer
7% of RDX, a battery producer
and less the 3% of the other 30 companies.

last 12 months 25.11 - 14.36 (-43%)

Buy $1 of every company
Here the cost would be equal to the number of companies in the index - $34 or any multiple thereof and the weighting of every company would be exactly the same - in our case 3%. This might make a kind of sense, since you are putting a each-way bet on every company in the index, but it's not how index funds are calculated.

last 12 months 19178-10361 (-45%)

Buy based on the size of the company
The theory behind this method should be that the bigger the company, the more likely they are to succeed, which seems fair enough, even if you would miss out on the rising stars.

This can be done in a number of ways - I don't know how I know, but maybe through listening to the news I know about market capitalisation, how much a company is worth. It's the share price times the number of shares.

Market Cap
This is easy to do, but it also leads to some interesting results, with a range of spread similar to what we saw if we just bought one share in each company.

Silex (SLX) becomes our biggest holding (26%) because it is the biggest company in the index
Infigen (IFN) is number two at 11%
Orecobre is third at 10%.
There is nothing else greater that 7%

last 12 months 16424 - 10338 (-38%)

Revenue
Of the 34 companies, google lists the revenue of all but 6 of the companies. There is one with a negative revenue. I have no way of validating this data so I am going to have to do some more work on this. A quick check shows that what Google shows as revenue for CBD Energy appears to be 6-month income according to a statement released via ASX.

I'll come back to this when I have more info - it's relevant because the leading minds declare that share price (and hence market capitalisation) skew your index towards the popular shares, which are not necessarily where the growth is. There is a really great example of this in a chart of a fundamental index against a market capitalisation which shows the growth and contraction of the tech-sector during the bubble and burst of 2001. Using a fundamental index eliminates this issue because the companies underlying 'fundamentals didn't grow at the same pace as the share prices, so the fundamental index would not have picked them up, unlike a capitalisation index.

see: http://au.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-047027784X,descCd-description.html

Buy based on the potential of the company.
Here I guess you could do a broad analysis of the profit, EBITDA, P/E or the change in share price in recent times. I'm not going to spend any time with this at the moment as it doesn't seem to be the most relevant for an index type fund.

For reference, here is how S&P develop the ASX indices... LINK

worldwide energy production

Our starting list

MBT Mission Newenergy Limited
ARW Australian Renewable Fuels Ltd.
AEB Algae Tec Ltd
SWW Solverdi Worldwide Limited
SBI Sterling Biofuels International Limited
COZ CO2 Group Limited
CCF Carbon Conscious Limited
WAG Wag Limited
WAS Wasabi Energy Limited
GDY Geodynamics Limited 
EHR Earth Heat Resources Ltd
PTR Petratherm Ltd
GRK Green Rock Energy Limited
HRL Hot Rock Ltd
PAX Panax Geothermal Ltd.
GER Greenearth Energy Ltd.
KEN KUTh Energy Limited
TEY Torrens Energy Limited
GHT Geothermal Resources Limited
DYE Dyesol Ltd.
CBD CBD Energy Limited
QTM Quantum Energy Limited
SOO Solco Limited
EVM EnviroMission Limited
GXY Galaxy Resources Limited
ORE Orocobre Limited
CFU Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited
RFX RedFlow Ltd
EDE Eden Energy Ltd.
CWE Carnegie Wave Energy Limited
IFN Infigen Energy

ON THE FENCE:
SLX Silex Systems Limited

JAT Jatoil Limited

OUT:

GEN GENESIS FPO NZ (deleted 22 Aug - R&D in Gene Research)

How do we size up?

I'm not sure if size counts - it would help stabilise things, but our starting list just didn't include larger companies. And what do we compare against, what is our 'benchmark' from an investment point of view?
(remember we now have 34 companies with a total capitalisation of $2B)

Australian Index Investments offers an energy index (here) with just 20 companies. Although they all sit in the S&P ASX200, which means the companies range from $0.17B to $140B (the range of the ASX200, I haven't looked at the companies in that much detail), which means that the footprint is at least $4B.

The 100 ASX Small Ords index companies run from about 40M to $3000M, with a median of $360M. You can find all this out at S&P.

Compared with the two indexes mentioned at the start of this blog, our fund is pretty small : $2B against $11B or $47B. And compared with the ASX Small Ords our fund is pretty small: a median company size of $22M.

Benchmark?
It would be pretty meaningless to try to 'beat' the ASX200 when none of the companies are in that league. If renewable energy is the grow area it should be, then the clean energy index should significantly perform any generic index, sadly though, at the moment renewables aren't the star in an investors portfolio. Part of the reason I started writing this was because I believe in the growth.

For the meantime, I'll check it against the ASX200 (XJO) and ASX Small Ords (XSO).

Oh, and also the ASX200 Energy sector (XEJ)

An index with less than 1% of the market???

What kind of index has only 0.8% of the market capitalisation?

Not this one.

After a quick look through the companies listed in the ASX cleantech factsheet, there is no way I am leaving them all in. But this does raise some interesting questions. An index is not supposed to be selective, it should include all the companies in the sector, even if they look like dogs. But I feel compelled to put a filter on the companies involved. This is really hard to describe up front, since I wasn't really sure what I was looking for, but I think the key is energy - clean energy. I'll try now to summarise why I'm excluding some things, but sadly some of this is going to happen behind the scenes.

First off is the biggest company in the list, SIMS. They take metal scrap and turn it back in to metal for industrial purposes. That is really important, and most likely really profitable, since they've been doing it since 1917. Is recycling important - you bet, do we need to do it better and more frequently - yep. Is it part of my clean tech index - nope. For ease, I'll drop the entire WASTE category.

That makes 63 companies, Capitalisation of AU$3.2B

Next is WATER. From a brief look, these companies are about looking after our water-based environments. Not really about energy.

Gone. 57.

OTHER? Gone. 53. (These are mainly investment firms, who hold stock in the sames stocks anyway)

VEHICLES? This seems to be a small number of companies developing better engine technologies. OK, but not energy.

50.

ENVIRONMENT? That sounds good, but a quick look shows these are really engineering consultants who have a branch in the 'environmental' consulting, which as I understand is just telling mining and development companies that they are meeting minimum environmental criteria, not really making anything better.

GONE. 45.

BIOGAS? This is only two companies, larger companies making energy from diesel for remote areas. I'm not a fan - why not go solar? Gone. 43.

BIOFUEL? This is one of those grey areas - but it seems they are making diesel from renewable sources, so let's keep it in just to give us a fair range. The trucks and trains will probably run on diesel for a while, let's make it from aussie farms.

CARBON? Perhaps, I'm not sure about this one, at some point we are going to have to work on offsetting the current pollution while we develop the alternatives.... Also, there has to be a pop in this sector when the carbon tax comes in, so lets keep these three companies in.

EFFICIENCY? I like some of this sector, but really, which companies on the ASX are not engaged in making what they do more efficient? That's a fundamental to running a business. It would be different if they were specifically engaged in making homes or vehicles more energy efficient, but I don't believe this is the sector the ASX is talking about. For now it's GONE.

That leaves just 34 companies. AU$2079M or 0.2% of the ASX.

I don't quite believe it. I'm going to have to come back to this, but I can say it takes a lot of time to look through to see what companies do, and if you were paying attention, you'll see I really don't know what I'm talking about here. All I've done is look at 1-5 of the companies summary in Google Finance and see if I like what they say. I also believe that some of the bigger companies could go in here, maybe Origin energy? But I'd have to think a bit more about that.

For now, here's what we've got left:

Solar                                 6 685
Storage & Fuel Cells         5 679
Wind                                 1 267                    
Geothermal                      11 212
Biofuel                               7 104
Wave                                 1 68
Carbon                               3 64

Total                                  34 2079

So solar is the biggest sector by capitalisation, but geothermal is much bigger in terms of companies.

Solar is only the largest because of the inclusion of Silex, who recently acquired "Solar Systems", a great company with reflecting concentrating solar technology. Other than that acquisition, the bulk of their business is in uranium enrichment for the nuclear power industry. GULP. Take them out and you drop out another $500M and one of the most promising solar companies around. I'm leaving them in. For now.

What would I put in the index?

Well, the sad fact is, despite my 'passion' for green technologies, I really don't know that much about the business world around me. Who's doing what? Of course I know a few examples that have turned up on my radar, but not enough to base an index on.

Thankfully, ASX makes it easy for you: CleanTech Fact Sheet. This was updated in June 2011, but there's no history of previous versions, so I have no idea if it'll be around for long. I've downloaded a copy and had a look.

There are 76 Companies listed, each with it's market capitalisation and a description of the market segment it is in, they break up as follows:

Name # Cap $M

Waste 13 4911

Geothermal 11 212

Efficiency 9 356

Biofuel 7 104

Water 6 59

Solar 6 685

Storage & Fuel Cells 5 679

Environment 5 124

Other 4 34

Carbon 3 64

Vehicles 3 28

Biogas 2 544

Wind 1 267

Wave 1 68

I was surprised by this list. There are around 2000 companies listed on the ASX and only 76 of those can be called clean tech. ($8B out of $1000B) And of those, by far the biggest segment is waste recycling. SIMS alone makes up nearly half the value of this group.

I'm not sure I agree with the ASX. It's a good place to start, but my green-tech index is going to have to have a tighter screen...

Now I see why there were so few companies in the other indexes.

Are there any ASX indexes for renewable energy?

What does Wikipedia say?

YES!

But it's a qualified yes. It just gives one:

Altex Australia

run by Bakers Investment Group, who also run a Coal industry index, what?

since 2006

118 Companies

$47B

compared against ASX300

A bit of web surfing and I also come up with:

ACT CleanTech

since 2007

75 companies

$11B

ASX200 + ASX Small ords.

Seems OK, they post a monthly report and have annual charts. Looks like it's a good time to invest - from a peak of around 140 in 2007, the index is now sitting around 50, lower even than during 2008-09 (PDF)

also the Ethical Investor magazine has it's own index

Ethinvest Environmental Share Price index.

since 1996

40 companies.

Sadly this one requires membership and doesn't make it clear what or how the index is created. It's from an interesting web site / magazine, which you might be interested in if you are reading this : Ethical Investor

How hard can it be? Online tools seem pretty good these days, maybe I can make my own. Greg's green-tech index. Let's have a go... if only to learn a bit more about the sharemarket and green companies.

A good time to start

If I had a million dollars.....

I'd use it to help people who are doing things I believe in.

Like building solar power plants, designing greener homes, commercialising the green technologies that I've been reading about for years. I started the project of doing that a few years ago when I had some cash and took it to Ethical Investment Advisors to find a good place to stick it. Now I have a small amount of money invested with a bunch of anonymous companies who are trying to pick the winners on the stock market.

They're not doing so well.

But they still charge me high rates to do it. Recently I stumbled on the recently opened Climate advocacy trust, which invests in the ASX200 and acts as a shareholder activist to try to push issues of climate change into Australia's bigger companies. They charge me a bit more, but I'm glad they are doing something good with the money while I am tied up working.

I like the concept of Index funds -just accept the nominal returns of the market and reduce your costs to a minimum. It sounds reasonable and there are plenty of comments in the media about fund managers not beating the market. However, index funds generally miss the point of my aims, they focus on sectors or company size - I want to put my money in the green revolution, can I put my money in a green index?

That is the start of this blog...



PS. This is not a financial advice page - I am not qualified or certified to give any advice on any financial matter. I'm also not qualified to talk about renewable energy - everything you see here is my own personal opinion. I'd like to thank Divacultura that we live in a nanny state where such warnings are necessary and I'll give you my opinion that her blog is fun. It's here: divacultura