Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Jerome a Paris:
you can set it into stone from the start (given that you need most of the money upfront to build the windfarms). Markets (banks, anyway) are happy to give you a fixed rate
And then if the interest rate environment changes the cost of refinancing an equivalent energy stream will be different. Balance-sheet risk doesn't go away just because all your debt instruments are fixed-rate.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 06:23:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They can always invest in a property bubble.

Part of the insanity of the markets comes from insisting on returns which can only be created by bubbles.

Stability isn't quantified or considered a financial good - which is unfortunate, because volatility and uncertainty are excellent ways to destroy opportunities for real wealth creation.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 07:11:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:
Part of the insanity of the markets comes from insisting on returns which can only be created by bubbles.
I wonder if most people realise the meaning of required rate of return when they learn the basics of finance.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 07:20:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When I was at the recent annual conference of the Swedish Green party, I spoke with some guys from Vattenfall. They told me that the required rate of return they were supposed to reach, as mandated by the government, was 15 %. Need I add that I started raving incoherently at them?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 09:28:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Mig
I wonder if most people realise the meaning of required rate of return when they learn the basics of finance.

The "required rate" is determined by the issuer of the loan each time a loan is issued. US credit card issuers charge up to 30%, including fees, etc. 15% to 18% returns on equity is the rate that TBTF financial pirates "require" on an ongoing basis. The Fed is "requiring" almost nothing for TBTFs just now. Everyone else falls in between. Other than the Fed, if anyone reasonably thought they could get a higher return, consistent with acceptable risk, they would "require" that higher rate.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 06:08:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This required rate of return is of course denominated in fiat currency eg $, €, £ - issued as a claim over debt.

The required rate of return by an investor in gold or in energy, on the other hand is zero per cent. These investors are not aiming to make a profit: they are aiming to avoid a loss.

There are currently tens of billions invested in energy markets - typically through futures markets and structured finance, but occasionally directly "peer to peer" (eg Shell's transaction with ETF Securities) - at zero percent in dollar terms.

Such funds could easily be deployed as direct investment in future energy production. Renewable energy, and energy savings, then have an advantage over all other forms, since it is possible to monetise energy which is essentially free.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri May 21st, 2010 at 08:37:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:
Stability isn't quantified or considered a financial good - which is unfortunate, because volatility and uncertainty are excellent ways to destroy opportunities for real wealth creation.
You can always make bets on the volatility by trading options.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 07:21:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course. And the markets love volatility for that reason.

Meanwhile in the real economy, volatility and high returns mean unemployment and impoverishment.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 07:34:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can't you avoid the need for refinancing by loaning the money over say 20 years?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 09:29:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But each new project that gets financed changes the environment in which the existing ones operate. A market return on capital for a state of the art wind farm may look good.

But an off-market return on capital for a 5-year old farm maybe doesn't look that good any more. If interest rates are lower you'd want to refinance to take advantage of the lower costs, or new developments will price you out of the market. If interest rates are higher the present value of your production drops.

This is part of what drives the business cycle: the conditions at which a project is financed may be wholly inappropriate years later.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 09:44:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't see the problem. If interest rates go up, you're safe with your current loan. If they go down you refinance.

And you will hardly be priced out of the market by new more cheaply financed windfarms, when wind is just a few percent of the total power supply.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 09:59:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If interest rates are lower you'd want to refinance to take advantage of the lower costs, or new developments will price you out of the market.

There is no problem with that which can't be solved by a 20-year take-or-pay contract with the receiving utility.

Feed-in-tariffs and preferential scheduling laws are, as far as I can tell, simply a way to force utilities into long-term take-or-pay contracts with an industry that isn't considered Serious, and/or where the utilities have more market power than the individual wind development.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 04:24:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Balance-sheet risk doesn't go away just because all your debt instruments are fixed-rate.

Possibly.

But a going concern with a fixed-rate loan portfolio and sufficient net revenue to cover financial costs, investment and maintenance of its capital plant can tell The Market to sod off and value its assets according to its own internal discount rate.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 04:20:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Impeachment gets real

by ARGeezer - Jan 17
18 comments

A Final Warning

by Oui - Jan 10
111 comments

Environment Anarchists

by Oui - Jan 13
4 comments

More Spanish repression

by IdiotSavant - Jan 6
8 comments

Occasional Series