Posts Tagged ‘uscap’

Climate Action Partnership Stock Portfolio vs. Dow, S&P

March 12, 2009

We contended previously that membership in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership does not speak well of a company’s mission or strategy, although there are admittedly good performers on the list. This is because a well-managed corporation does not need government mandates to force businesses and individuals to buy its products (e.g. alternative energy sources, compact fluorescent lamps). As an example, if General Electric was up to the job of engineering cost-effective wind turbines and solar panels, it would probably not be able to make them quickly enough to keep up with demand even without tax credits to encourage their purchase. When Henry Ford engineered an affordable alternative to horses and their solid waste, he did not need government mandates to sell his product either.

As an experiment, we created a hypothetical stock portfolio that assumes the purchase of $1000 worth of each USCAP corporate member’s publicly traded stock on January 2, 2002. (It does not include Duke Energy, DUK, because there appears to have been a stock split of some kind, Shell Oil, which has multiple symbols, or NRG, which was not listed in 2002.) This gave us $18,000 in eighteen stocks. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was 10,073.40 and the Standard and Poor 500 closed at 1,154.67 on January 2, 2002. March 9’s closes were 6,547.05 (down 35%) and 676.53 (down 41.4%) respectively. Our hypothetical $18,000 worth of USCAP stock (18 companies) would be worth $10,555.58 (down 41.36%) on March 9. In other words, a portfolio of equally weighted USCAP publicly traded corporations underperformed the Dow, and just about equaled the S&P 500. Had we also purchased $1000 worth of former USCAP members Lehman Brothers and AIG, our $20,000 investment would now be worth about $10,556 or so, i.e. down 47 percent from January 2, 2002. (more…)

Americans Wake Up to Obama’s Carbon Emission Scam

March 7, 2009

We reported previously that the U.S. Climate Action Partnership’s (USCAP’s) members include some of the country’s worst-managed corporations, as demonstrated by their need for government bailouts. These include former USCAP members AIG and Lehman Brothers, as well as government-dependent entities like General Motors and Chrysler. Our position is that companies that need government mandates to force people to buy their products or services contribute nothing to society, and they should not be in business. If General Electric, for example, cannot engineer cost-effective wind turbines and solar panels, and must instead get the government to require businesses and utilities to buy its products, it is a liability to the country and should not be in business. This message comes across clearly in Kimberley Strassel’s “If the Cap Fits,” from the Wall Street Journal.

    GE makes all the solar equipment and wind turbines (at $2 million a pop) that utilities would have to buy under a climate regime. GE’s revenue from environmental products long ago passed the $10 billion mark, and it doesn’t take much “ecomagination” to see why Mr. Immelt is leading the pack of climate profiteers.

Americans are fortunately waking up to Barack Obama’s plans to raise prices for consumers and knife the unions and workers who helped elect him by imposing carbon taxes that would enrich special interests (USCAP members) while driving energy-intensive businesses offshore. (more…)

U.S. Climate Action Partnership: Wall Street’s Oscar the Cat

October 27, 2008

Kimberley Strassel’s If the Cap Fits: Why our CEOs are warming to Kyoto shows that the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP or CAP for short) includes many companies that seek corporate welfare in the form of government-mandated purchases of their services or products. Many of USCAP’s members do not, in fact, even claim to produce a product or service, and are dependent on donations or grants. The recent performance of USCAP’s portfolio also suggests that the Climate Action Partnership is Wall Street’s Oscar the Cat: a harbinger of bankruptcy, desperate mergers, and generally poor business performance.

Let’s begin, however, with what Kimberley Strassel has to say.

    There was a time when the financial press understood that companies exist to make money. And it happens that the cap-and-trade climate program these 10 jolly green giants are now calling for is a regulatory device designed to financially reward companies that reduce CO2 emissions, and punish those that don’t.

    Four of the affiliates–Duke, PG&E, FPL and PNM Resources–are utilities that have made big bets on wind, hydroelectric and nuclear power. So a Kyoto program would reward them for simply enacting their business plan, and simultaneously sock it to their competitors. Duke also owns Cinergy, which relies heavily on dirty, CO2-emitting coal plants. But Cinergy will soon have to replace those plants with cleaner equipment. Under a Kyoto, it’ll get paid for its trouble.

    DuPont has been plunging into biofuels, the use of which would soar under a cap. Somebody has to cobble together all these complex trading deals, so say hello to Lehman Brothers.

    …Finally, there’s General Electric, whose CEO Jeffrey Immelt these days spends as much time in Washington as Connecticut. GE makes all the solar equipment and wind turbines (at $2 million a pop) that utilities would have to buy under a climate regime. GE’s revenue from environmental products long ago passed the $10 billion mark, and it doesn’t take much “ecomagination” to see why Mr. Immelt is leading the pack of climate profiteers.

(more…)