X

Sign Up To Our Free Newsletter

Join Now

Thanks for subscribing to our free newsletter!

ERROR

CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 74-89% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.

  • 3 minutes Texas forced to have rolling brown outs. Not from downed power line , but because the wind energy turbines are frozen.
  • 7 minutes Scientists Warn That Filling The Sahara With Solar Panels Is A Bad Idea
  • 11 minutes United States LNG Exports Reach Third Place
  • 15 minutes Joe Biden's Presidency
  • 35 mins IS SAUDI ARABIA SENDING A MESSAGE TO BIDEN
  • 3 mins America Makes Plans to Produce Needed Rare Earth Minerals Domestically
  • 9 hours Texas forced to have rolling black outs, primarily because of large declines in output from fossil fuel power plants
  • 3 hours U.S. Presidential Elections Status - Electoral Votes
  • 3 days Here we go - again: plug-in hybrids cost motorists more than what they were told
  • 6 hours Texas Supply Chain Massacre
  • 2 days Top Conservative Lawyer Says Trump Can Stand Trial
  • 2 days “Cushing Oil Inventories Are Soaring Again” By Tsvetana Paraskova
  • 4 days An exciting development in EV Aviation: Volocopter
  • 4 days Former BP Exec "Biden not in war against oil" . . Really ?
Leonard Hyman & William Tilles

Leonard Hyman & William Tilles

Leonard S. Hyman is an economist and financial analyst specializing in the energy sector. He headed utility equity research at a major brokerage house and…

More Info

Premium Content

Why Oil Companies Can’t Replace Oil Profits With Renewable Profits

Last week we argued in Oilprice.com (“Can Renewables Become As Profitable As Oil and Gas?”, January 5, 2021) that oil companies could not maintain their expected levels of profitability by investing massively in renewable energy companies. The reason? A mismatch between business and financial risk in these very different industries.

In financial theory, there are two related concepts of risk that determine the level of expected investor return: business risk (the inherent operating risk of a going concern) and financial risk (the degree of leverage or debt managements utilize in the company’s capital structure). There are two key things to consider here. First, there is typically an inverse relationship between business and financial risk. Stated simply, the higher the operating risk of a business the less debt it can afford to carry. The reverse is also true. Inherently low risk businesses like regulated utilities can carry a significant amount of leverage.

The second point to make here in this regard is the role of management. No team of managers no matter how skilled can change the operating risks of the business. Operating risks are like DNA; they’re inherent in a business activity itself like drilling or mining. Debt levels on the other hand can be manipulated up or down subject to management discretion.

This has now become a problem for the oil industry. New investments in the renewables business have low business risk, are often regulated under long term contract and can be financed with considerable leverage. Oil exploration on the other hand is a relatively high business risk activity subject to market and political uncertainties and as a result typically employs far less debt on their corporate balance sheets.

Renewable energy companies are low risk businesses. And in business a lower risk usually means a lower return for investors. Or to put it another way, investors in wind turbines in west Texas accept a lower return than those say financing new oil exploration in Alaska. Consequently oil companies entering the renewable energy business must compete with existing builders, some state sponsored, who accept a lower return on investment than what an oil executive would regard as acceptable. And since capital is the biggest cost in the renewables business, those who accept the lowest return are usually successful in garnering the most new business. Related: UAE Oil Major Turns To Hydrogen

The most recent cost of capital estimates out of NYU’s Stern School of Business reinforce this point. We show three indicators of the problem. First, look at the cost of equity capital, that is, what shareholders expect to earn or they will not invest. Then consider the overall cost of capital. Note that oil investors want to earn almost three percentage points more than utility type investors for both equity capital and total capital (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Estimated cost of equity and of capital (Jan. 2021)

Cost of capital is a tricky measure, so let us consider the equity risk premium—in this case, how much higher of a return equity investors need over what they would earn if they bought the bonds of the company instead. As demonstrated by Figure 2, oil investors want an extra 390 basis points, while utility investors expect only about 230 basis points. Not only are oil bonds riskier (pay higher interest rates) but oil equity demands a higher premium over the bond coupon rate to invest. (See Figure 2.)

Figure 2. Cost of equity vs cost of debt (Jan 2021)

To put these numbers in perspective, bringing down oil company returns (based on 2017-2019 data) to utility levels would reduce industry net income by one third. But oil company managements thus far have only committed a small portion of their future capital expenditures into low risk, lower returns renewables investments. Related: Saudi Output Cut Boosts Demand For Russia’s Urals Crude

Royal Dutch Shell has been hauled into court to force the company to reduce carbon emissions faster than currently planned. People are starting to compare the oil companies to the cigarette manufacturers before they settled on paying for billions of dollars for damages rendered to public health. That legal threat could pressure big oil companies to quicken their pace toward lower carbon emissions. That implies lower returns faster.

There is another potential dilemma for investors as oil companies begin to transform themselves into energy conglomerates. The market does not value conglomerates as highly as the sum of the parts if separated. For instance, if division Z, on its own would command $10 in the market and division X $20, the company that owns both should sell for $30, but it does not.  It sells at a discount to the sum of the parts, if the two divisions seem to be in totally different lines of business. Discounts in the current market are as high as 30%. Maybe it doesn’t make sense, but that’s the way it is.  In this market, let’s say that renewable companies sell at higher valuations than oil companies. Oil companies that invest in renewables, then, probably won’t see the full value of the renewables in their stock prices because of the discount. They might do their stockholders a favor by giving them cash dividends to make their own renewable investments or by hiving off the renewable divisions as soon as they get some scale.  Running an oil plus renewable company does not look like a good way to create shareholder value.

Investors seeking income from renewables can find that now. New market technologies permit investors to create their own exchange traded funds, custom tailoring them to taste. They don’t need oil companies hoping to transform themselves especially if the transformation puts at risk existing sources of income. Oil companies face an enormous managerial dilemma and a real business question: can they decarbonize their industry without sacrificing investor returns? Right now we are not optimistic.

By Leonard Hyman and William Tilles for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:


Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage





Leave a comment
  • Mamdouh Salameh on January 19 2021 said:
    Investors invest in oil and gas companies because they expect to get a reasonably high return on their investments and certainly higher than renewables. Moreover, oil and gas will continue to be the core business of the global oil industry well into the future because they are very profitable and there will always be strong demand for them as long as the global economy continues to run on oil and gas.

    Another point worth mentioning is that there could neither be a global economy nor civilization as we know and enjoy without oil and gas. Some people might argue that there was a global economy and civilization before oil and gas came on the scene and I will wholeheartedly agree with them. But our generation has got addicted to a unique and most versatile energy source that is irreplaceable now or at least throughout the 21st century and probably far beyond.

    In the global oil and gas business risk and high return on capital go hand in hand. Renewables aren’t in the same category of oil as investing in them doesn’t carry the same risk as exploring for oil and gas and therefore they generate far less return on capital.

    That is why Big Oil has neither the intention whatsoever to transform itself into an energy industry nor the ability to achieve the lofty goal of zero emissions by 2050. It will be doing itself, the global economy and climate change a great service by sticking to the core business that has sustained it for decades while sensibly reducing its emission footprint.

    Dr Mamdouh G Salameh
    International Oil Economist
    Visiting Professor of Energy Economics at ESCP Europe Business School, London
  • Arch Region on January 19 2021 said:
    This is a well argued article as far as it went, looking at the structural foundation of oil profits compared with renewables.

    However it missed a second factor that may be even more important in reduced profitability. Oil not only is a riskier business that demands and deserves higher return on the dollar, but it needs immense concentration of investment. The scale of operation needed to look for oil, pump it, refine it, and distribute it globally, requires gigantic concentration of capital. This means there is diminished competition and the sector operates as a monopoly ala OPEC.

    The renewable energy sector is by contrast immency fragmented with vastly greater competition. Even small communities can chip in and buy a couple of turbines and make their own electricity.

    However it is not all gloom and doom for oil companies if they act quickly. Danish Oil Natural Gas divested 100% of their fossil fossil fuel assets, adopted a new name ORSTED, and entered the stock market on October 23 2017 at $19.98. After three years their stock at $65.20 is 326% of what it was on opening day as a clean renewables energy installer. Getting out of fossil fuels maybe on the average less profitable but for the early adopters there are terrific profits to be had.
  • Gary Tulie on January 22 2021 said:
    One possible way for oil companies to square the circle is to become renewable energy developers rather than owners. The model might include developing large offshore wind farms in the GW to multi GW range - using their vast offshore experience, then selling on the asset or maybe 90% of it to a risk averse client such as a pension fund whilst retaining a contract to operate and maintain the asset. In this way, they could employ their core competences for a higher faster return whilst offloading the asset to other entities with a lower risk appetite, and a willingness to accept a lower more certain return on investment.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News