James Butterfill Archives

Battery Technology – don’t bet on lithium alone..

Lithium is currently the material of choice to produce batteries in a whole range of devices where mobile energy is required, the most prolific of which being energy storage, mobile phones and battery-powered electric vehicles. But what is the risk of lithium being usurped by an alternative material? Battery Technology – don’t bet on lithium alone..

The realities of lithium as an investment

There is huge investor interest in lithium and more broadly in battery/mobile energy technology at the moment, the question is raised in almost all meetings I have with clients who are looking for ways to invest in the industry. Investors are looking to future-proof their portfolios. Lithium is a growing technology with great potential future prospects while theoretically providing a form of hedge against the expected secular decline in the oil industry, which is facing the risk of cannibalisation from the rise of electric vehicles.

The caveat to this success of lithium

The caveat to this success of lithium is that it won’t be a direct path to success for varied reasons:

Electrical grid infrastructure – Currently the electricity grid does not have the required capacity to accommodate this change. According to the Green Alliance most residential streets do not have capacity for more than 6 cars to be charged at any time and as such would require significant infrastructure upgrades.
Affordability – The average cost of a car is US$24,000, with the cheapest electric car being $33,000, therefore despite the falling costs it still has a long way to go before it can properly compete with internal combustion cars.
The internal combustion engine –Electric vehicles are not only being challenged on price, significant improvements are being made with the internal combustion engine. The “thermal efficiency” of most petrol engines currently peaks at 25%, with a theoretical maximum of 50%, giving significant scope for efficiency gains. The latest battery packs are priced at US$350/kWh, while internal combustions engines are priced at around US$100/kWh. Costs have been falling rapidly for batteries but there is still a fair way for them to go for them to compete.

Despite all the news of battery supply problems at Tesla, lithium prices are 10% above the 90th percentile of the cost curve suggesting in the short term there is potential for a price correction.
Rare earth metals are commonly used in lithium battery production, and supply squeezes are common due to supply being highly concentrated in politically volatile countries. Additionally, child labour has been used in the past and raises questions about their suitability in today’s more ethical portfolios.
There is no futures market and no exchange for lithium; most deals are done between producers and manufacturers directly.
Lithium equities also do not have a particularly good correlation to the lithium carbonate price, and in fact have a much closer correlation to the oil price.

There are other competing battery technologies that could quickly unseat lithium as the material of choice. We have summarised the key battery technologies currently being researched or developed that pose a potential threat to lithium.

Hydrogen fuel cells

Hydrogen fuel cells have been in use for some time in varied forms, led by Japan where their use in vehicles has been met with mixed success. It is a very common element and on a per joule of energy basis, a hydrogen car will go further than a lithium car.

The biggest challenge so far has been capturing and storing hydrogen. In the US there are currently only 35 commercial hydrogen refuelling stations.

Due to these infrastructure constraints they are typically confined to public vehicle use, rolling out infrastructure for personal vehicles would be time consuming and expensive. Hydrogen powered vehicles are in development by some of the leading car manufacturers but there are unlikely to be popular until the infrastructure is in place.

Magnesium solid-state

Magnesium batteries have been commercialised as primary batteries, and are an active topic of research for secondary (rechargeable) batteries. Magnesium batteries offer inflammable batteries with a higher energy density than lithium ideal for cars where safety and mileage are paramount. Magnesium is also a widely traded, abundant material but so far it hasn’t found success as a rechargeable battery. The biggest challenge for magnesium has been making a solid-state rechargeable battery, but the Berkeley Lab Joint Centre for Energy Storage Research has recently discovered the fastest magnesium-ion solid-state conductor – a major step towards making rechargeable batteries a reality. However, it has a long way to go before a battery is likely to be produced.

Lithium Sulphur

Lithium Sulphur batteries could have 40% higher energy density than the lithium-manganese and the lithium-cobalt batteries we use today. Their wider use would also help the problem of producers having to source rare earth metals such as cobalt and manganese from politically unstable countries and likely reduce costs for consumers. The key issue for lithium-sulphide batteries is the extra mass required for a conducting agent and the risk of an irregular discharge leading to safety concerns.

Battery technology opportunities come in various forms

While lithium the metal is difficult to invest in and lithium equities do not accurately track the lithium price, there may be some indirect opportunities. Currently normal internal combustion engine cars use 20kg of copper, hybrids use 40kg and electric vehicles use 80kg, primarily in the wiring harnesses that transmit power to the drivetrains, the drivetrain themselves and the battery.

We believe that lithium technology, despite its potential for success is risky due to the potential for it being usurped by one of the aforementioned battery technologies. We remain convinced that mobile energy storage is likely to be a booming industry in the coming decades but the best approach may be to consider a wide range of technologies that can deliver mobile energy storage.

If the electric vehicle market rises to 140m cars by 2035, then this equates to around one third of total copper demand According to BHP Billiton (www.bhp.com 31st October 2017). The upgrading of the electricity grid infrastructure will require much more infrastructure spend, likely to further increase copper demand.

James Butterfill, Head of Research & Investment Strategy at ETF Securities

James Butterfill joined ETF Securities as Head of Research & Investment Strategy in 2015. James is responsible for leading the strategic direction of the global research team, ensuring that clients receive up-to-date, expert insight into global macroeconomic and asset class specific developments.

James has a wealth of experience in strategy, economics and asset allocation gained at HSBC and most recently in his role as Multi- Asset Fund Manager and Global Equity Strategist at Coutts. James holds a Bachelor of Engineering from the University of Exeter and an MSc in Geophysics from Keele University.

Bitcoin mining infrastructure doubled in Q4 2017

In the last quarter of 2017, many miners’ margins expanded due to the 226% rise in Bitcoin prices, making further investment into mining infrastructure more profitable. Consequently, there was a 111% increase in mining hash power. Bitcoin mining infrastructure doubled in Q4 2017.

Miners managed to double their mining infrastructure power in one quarter, which was well above the average hash power increase of 40% per quarter over the last 3 years. Although it is worth noting during the previous bubble in Bitcoin in 2013 similar rises in hash power occurred.

The increase in mining power has important ramifications for the marginal cost of mining bitcoin, because all it requires significant expenditure to purchase new mining rigs, arrange more warehouse space and negotiate electricity contracts.

In previous publications, we spent considerable time in understanding the marginal cost of Bitcoin. There are varied ways to value Bitcoin, but given it has some similarities to commodities we felt it would be worthwhile calculating the marginal cost of production.

While marginal cost varies for commodities as supply and demand changes, it is an effective way in understanding the long-term equilibrium price. Bitcoin is exceptional in that the supply is predictable, being determined by the structure of its underlying algorithm. The hash rate growth of the Bitcoin network, a measure of the speed at which Bitcoin blocks are mined, coupled with the known power consumption can be used to estimate the electricity consumption costs, the equivalent of the marginal cost of production that is often used to value commodities.

Using global power costs

Using global power costs we estimate the electricity consumption has risen from 1.3GW/hr at the end of Q3 2017 to 2.3GW/hr, which equates to US$3,000 spent in electricity for every coin. Due to the rise in mining infrastructure, including rig costs and assuming a 1 year lifespan of the rigs pushes the marginal cost up to US$9,380. We have included a matrix which assumes a 50% per quarter rise in hash power and the phased introduction of the new, more efficient Dragonmint mining rigs. The lifetime of a rig is debatable so we have included varied rig lifetimes.

Our analysis highlights that Bitcoin continues to trade above the marginal cost of production, although as the hash power of the network rises, the marginal cost rises sharply too.

Although Bitcoin is not a commodity, it is trading well above its marginal cost as it remains a very young digital asset, heavily influenced by regulatory risk, investor hype and the prospect that conceptually it is a compelling idea.

James Butterfill, Head of Research & Investment Strategy at ETF Securities

A mixed outlook for commodities in 2018

Commodities have enjoyed a great start to 2018, from the low point mid-December they have rallied 6.5%, the performance has been broad-based too, driven not only by the Iran issues inflating the oil price but a rally in industrial/precious metals and agriculture. A mixed outlook for commodities in 2018.

We are wary of some who are interpreting this as being a positive sign for broad commodities this year. Commodities as an asset class are a very heterogeneous group and we expect varied performance from each. So to start the year we thought we would provide a brief summary of our views.

Gold

Although we expect the Fed to continue to tighten policy, we think the downside risks to gold prices are limited because real interest rates will remain depressed as inflation gains pace in the US. However, a shock event, such as an equity market correction, could force gold prices higher. On balance we see little change in gold prices in the coming year. Investors continue to be optimistic about gold despite the rising interest rate environment, we believe this is due to investors now seeing gold as an insurance policy from geopolitical concerns rather than investment.

Gold price Forecast

Most of the variation in gold price in our bull and bear cases (compared to our base case) comes from assumptions around investor positioning. Many measures of market volatility are currently subdued. However, several risks – both political and financial – exist. Sentiment towards gold could shift significantly depending on which of these views dominate market psyche.

In our bull case scenario, where we would see a more dovish Fed, gold could rise to US$1420. There are also numerous risks which can push demand for gold futures higher:

• Continued sabre-rattling between US/Japan/South Korea and North Korea;
• The proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran escalates;
• A disorderly unwind of credit in China;
• Italian policy paralysed by the inability to form a government after the election;
• Catalonian independence pushing Spain close to civil war
• A potential second general election in Germany; and
• Market volatility measures such as the VIX (equity), MOVE (bond) spike as yield-trades unwind

In our bear case, we assume the Fed delivers four rates hikes in 2018 as it tries to anchor inflation expectations. 10-year nominal Treasury yields rise to 3.3% by the end of the year, while the US dollar appreciates. By year-end inflation falls back to 1.6%. In this scenario we assume that the absence of any geopolitical risk or adverse financial market shock. In this scenario gold could fall to US$1110/oz by end of 2018.

Crude Oil

In 2018, US production will likely hit an all-time high, surpassing the cycle peak reached before the price war in 2014 and above the 10 million barrel mark last hit in 1970. There is little indication that the backwardation in futures curves is going to stop US production from expanding. Unless investors are constantly reminded of geopolitical risks, the price premium tends to evaporate within a matter of weeks.

Inventories have been declining across the OECD although we are unlikely to see the decline in inventories continue. US shale oil production can break-even at close to US$40/bbl. With WTI oil currently trading at US$60/bbl, there is plenty of headroom for profitability and we expect a strong expansion in supply.

Break even by play

In late 2017, OPEC and its 10 non-OPEC partners posted their best level of compliance with the production curb deal to date. We think that compliance in the extended deal announced end-November will fall short of expectations in 2018. Russia’s insistence on discussing an exit strategy and a review in June 2018 indicates that the patience of non-OPEC partners in the deal is wearing thin.

With the US expanding supply and OPEC likely to under deliver on its promise to consistently curb production, we expect the supply to grow. At the same time demand is unlikely to continue to grow at the current pace, with prices having gained 33% over the past year.

We expect the oil price to remain in a range from US$45 to US$60/bbl for 2018, although a significant geopolitical upset in the Middle East could cause temporary price spikes.

Industrial Metals

We expect the star performer for 2018 to be industrial metals. They are likely to benefit the most from improving EM growth, at the same time we expect supply to remain in deficit in 2018 as the lack of investment in mining infrastructure continues to bite.

Emerging market (EM) demand is crucial for commodity markets as they represent 70% of industrial metals demand. In this respect, we expect any weakness in commodity prices to be largely offset by solid demand growth, again led by China. Although concerns remain over the build-up of debt, Chinese policymakers have continued to show a willingness to support the financial system with stimulus to ease financial conditions.

Since industrial metal prices began to fall in 2011, capital expenditure by miners collapsed. In mid-2017 capital expenditure by the largest 100 mines was 60% lower than in mid-2013. Given the long lag times behind investment and completion of mines, we don’t expect the tightness of mine supply to reverse any time soon.

Miners have been cautious to increase spending as they wait for the price recovery to prove sustainable. Historically we have seen about a year-long lag between a recovery in price and a recovery in capital spending. It is likely in 2018, as commodity prices continue to rise, that we see capital expenditure growth turn positive, although the damage of 4 years of lack of investment in to mining infrastructure has already occurred and is why industrial metals remain in a supply deficit.

Miners margin vs Supply/Demand

Historically we have found that metal markets begin to move towards a balance two years after miner profit margins hit rock-bottom. Miner margins fell to a low of 2% at the beginning of 2016 and since have recovered to just over 7%. So if we see a repeat of historical patterns, we should see supply begin to improve in late 2018, but it could take years to move back into balance.

James Butterfill, Head of Research & Investment Strategy at ETF Securities

Bitcoin power consumption – an approach to valuation

There are varied ways to value Bitcoin, but given it has some similarities to commodities we felt it would be worthwhile calculating the marginal cost of production. While this varies for commodities as supply and demand changes, it is an effective way in understanding the long-term equilibrium price. Bitcoin power consumption – an approach to valuation.

Bitcoin is exceptional in that the supply is predictable, being determined by the structure of its underlying algorithm. Bitcoin’s algorithm dictates that after a specified number of blocks are mined the reward for mining halves. A linear path for the Bitcoin reward schedule has been established, and this is likely to continue as long as Moore’s law for exponential growth in processing power continues. The last coin is likely to be mined by 2130, but 99% will be mined by 2027.

The hash rate growth of the Bitcoin network, a measure of the speed at which Bitcoin blocks are mined, coupled with the known power consumption can be used to estimate the electricity consumption costs, the equivalent of the marginal cost of production that is often used to value commodities.

Estimating historical power costs

Bitcoin emerged in late 2009 with enthusiasts mining on their personal computers, which at the time became profitable but was a very inefficient approach. Consequently manufacturers began selling dedicated ASIC miners which drastically improved efficiency. These ASIC miners began emerging in 2013, with each new model having a much more powerful hash rate, leading to an explosion in overall network hash rate as more miners joined the network. The power consumption of these commercial Bitcoin miners is well known, as is the overall hash rate.

Using historical global power costs we estimate the electricity consumption to currently be 1.7GW/hr, which equates to roughly 600,000 households usage, or US$4.2mn spent every day. At the current rate of growth in the Bitcoin network, power consumption costs will be more than double that of today by end-2018. We have created a matrix, highlighting if current trends continue in network growth what the power consumption will be, it is worth noting that current watts per tera-hash are trending down as mining equipment becomes more efficient, although this is not enough to offset the growth in mining infrastructure.

Marginal cost of production

To estimate marginal cost of production the total number of coins produced per day is divided by the mining cost: at current consumption and production levels this is approximately US$2015, well below the current price. However, if the cost of purchasing the Bitcoin mining hardware is factored-in, and assuming a one-year replacement cycle, the current marginal cost of production would be US$6,600. The lifetime of a mining rig is difficult to tell but we now believe it is close to 365 days (having previously assumed 2 years), being superseded by better models, with commercial mining operators quick to replace existing hardware to remain competitive.

Predicting future marginal cost

As the future network hash rate is likely to follow Moore’s law and the mining difficulty follows a linear path future, electricity costs can be estimated. We anticipate the marginal cost of Bitcoin will have risen to US$14,000, including hardware purchase costs by the middle of next year, roughly where today’s prices are. However, by early 2020 the reward for mining Bitcoins (as dictated by the Bitcoin algorithm) will halve, pushing marginal costs to roughly US$60,000.

Using marginal cost of production is just one approach at valuation, it could be argued that the current high valuations are justified because even if the probability of mass adoption is small, the impact on price would be very large, this is perhaps why we are seeing so much speculation and volatility. Our analysis makes several assumptions that the marginal costs is very sensitive to, such as rig lifetime, power costs and network hash-rate growth.

We know from other commodities price behaviour that they can deviate quite far from the marginal cost and stay detached from it for quite some time, this at the very least gives us an indication as to what price it isn’t profitable to produce.

James Butterfill, Head of Research & Investment Strategy at ETF Securities

Jerome Powell increases the risk of a FED policy error

The announcement of Jerome Powell as the next US Federal Reserve (FED) Governor has the potential to increase the risk of a FED policy error in 2018 and beyond.

The FED has indicated in its economic projections that it expects to raise interest rates by 75 basis points in 2018, so potentially three 25bps rate rises. This is in stark contrast to the futures market pricing, which is expecting only 35 basis points rise in 2018. Recent analysis by Prattle, who ran some algorithms on public statements from potential FED governors, have revealed that he could be significantly more dovish that Janet Yellen. We are cautious on this analysis because the last public statement he made mid-year was a carbon copy of what Janet Yellen was saying at the time, revealing at least that he tends to toe the party line and according to Pantheon Macroeconomics he has never dissented.

“Jerome Powell has never dissented”

Jerome Powell’s formal background and education have not been in economics, rather legal and finance. He expressed his reluctance over implementing a third round of quantitative easing, but he adopts the mainstream view of the FED that gradual rate rises are appropriate. Given his career history and having so far not publicly stated his dissent in meetings suggests he is likely to be more reliant on his team of economists in the Federal Reserve to form opinion, who are known to be generally hawkish. Conversely, there are potentially four vacant regional governorships in 2018, it is likely that these positions will be filled dovish individuals as its very much in the interests of the current political administration to have accommodative monetary policy to help fund tax cutting initiatives against the backdrop of substantial government debt.

Our worry is that this tussle between newly installed doves and a governor more reliant on hawkish economists makes the policy path for 2018 quite uncertain. It also comes at a time when inflationary pressures are likely to build. The labour market suggests the wage pressures are likely to rise significantly in 2018, another element that may require a more hawkish policy path.

Transitory factors such as mobile phone tariffs, medical care costs and air fare costs, all of which have been falling until recently, will begin rolling out of the inflation data in 2018, implying there are far more upside risks to prices.

It is likely that Jerome Powell will pursue a similar path to Janet Yellen in the first half of 2018, but as inflation begins to pick up, a more polarised FED increases the probability of a policy error later in 2018.