In another sign of the turbulent times for the renewable energy sector, Spain's Abengoa has declared bankruptcy. The bankruptcy is notable for several reasons. First, it suggests how difficult the transition from conventional energy firms to solvent and stable renewable energy companies will be. Second, it shows how connected the economy is and how turbulence in the energy sector could easily spread to other sectors of the economy creating a broader economic slowdown at any point going forward. Related: Crude Tanks As OPEC Refrains From Cutting Production
Abengoa's problems today stem from overly aggressive decisions made during the years of heavy expansion that renewable power saw in Spain. Abengoa's bankruptcy is significant given the size of the company; the firm employs 24,000 people and is involved in a range of renewables businesses from biomass conversion to seawater desalinization. U.S. investment bank Citi led a secondary shares offering earlier this year which looks like a major embarrassment for the firm as this point. While Abengoa's shares have had a tough year thus far, investors still appeared to be caught by surprise to some extent by the bankruptcy filing as its Spanish shares plunged by more than half after the filing.
Abengoa's financing has been something of a black box according to analysts and that certainly has led to greater confusion among investors. Still, the firm is not alone in that approach to its capital structure as a number of other companies in the renewable sector follow the same pattern. Broadly speaking Abengoa's bankruptcy suggests the renewables space is still more dependent on subsidies than many firms would like to admit. It's unclear what it will take to get many firms operating on their own in a stable and solvent fashion. Renewables in general tend to require large amounts of upfront investment and hence often require significant amounts of debt investment. The problem is that debt becomes an anchor anytime a subsector becomes oversupplied with output or when demand falls due to recessions or secular changes in energy consumption.
Related: North America's Best Shale Patch
Conventional energy companies avoid these issues in one of two ways. Utility companies are generally granted a local monopoly, which enables them to regulate supply based on demand in exchange for some degree of government oversight. Oil and natural gas companies have some upfront costs, but their production costs overtime are also substantial and can be adjusted based on demand conditions. In both cases, conventional energy firms have advantages not available to renewable energy companies.
There is another reason to be concerned about the Abengoa bankruptcy though. One fact that many observers do not realize is how interconnected global economies are today. These connections of course extend between firms in different countries and the same industry, but also between firms in different industries and the same country. The Abengoa bankruptcy illustrates this point. The firm's declaration of bankruptcy sent Spanish banking shares tumbling over concerns that the lenders who are left holding Abengoa's 9B+ Euro's in debt may now face heavy losses and low recovery rates. This is a broader issue for the banking system in Spain. Related: Global Solar Alliance Sets $1 Trillion Investment Goal For 2030
According to the FT, "We don't believe that this should be viewed as a one-off. To our minds the events here show that Spanish banks have yet to take losses on a lot of debt," said Andrew Lowe, an analyst at Berenberg. "While they've cleaned up the real estate problems, they now have to tackle the forbearance issue in Spain."
The banking systems in Spain and across Europe are still reeling from the Eurozone crisis and these developments will not help in their quest for stability and profitability. It's unlikely that Abengoa by itself will bring down any major Spanish banks, but if Abengoa is a canary in the proverbial coal mine and more renewable firm failures are ahead, then all bets are off. Investors should hope this is not the case.
By Michael McDonald of Oilprice.com
More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:
Michael is an assistant professor of finance and a frequent consultant to companies regarding capital structure decisions and investments. He holds a PhD in finance… More
Comments
After several decades and countless billions in subsidy, maybe there is a reason it's still 'alternative'? if it ever worked, wouldn't it be mainstream long ago?
Energy is just a dangerous investment when the resource used by investors is unlimited and free or cheap and anyone can harvest it, or pillage and plunder it.
The fossil fuel industry is destroying the land to get to ancient solar energy buried in the ground. Often, the landowners will let their land be pillaged for a low price so other can burn what's buried, but after a decade, the fossil fuels are burned and the landowner has nothing of value left. On the other hand, even more land owners can let others put wind and solar harvesting on their land and earn money for hundreds of years from the harvest.
When demand for energy is high, profit seekers will borrow and pay laborers to produce as much as possible as fast as possible so they can pocket lots of profits as if the supply will be lower than demand forever. But then supply overtakes demand, and the profits vanish, but the debts still need to be paid.
For fossil fuels, the risk is the debt out lives the fossil fuels in the ground being pillaged.
For solar and wind, the debt is backed by capital assets that can produce energy for centuries, so the debt can be repaid, but it just takes longer. The land will not run out of free sun or free wind. Repair existing harvesters and operating them is much cheaper than the price paid for the energy they produce, so money will be able to repay the debt eventually but it might take ten years instead of seven, and maybe the interest rate is lower, but interest rates today are low for all savings.
Thus, it's better to own debt on wind and solar production than debt on fossil fuel production.