We are living in interesting times. Within academia top level professors like Andrew Lo of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) present innovative work that links Economics to Psychology and Neuro-Physiology to explain why our traditional, rationality-based treatment of financial markets doesn't lead to solutions that work.

In-and-of-itself we already know that the so-called Efficient Market Hypothesis that played - and still plays - a central role in mainstream Economics and Finance is under siege. Behavioral Science literature (both within and outside Economics) provided us with too many strange examples of situations where people acted anything but rational. A few examples:

Overconfidence

Russo & Schoemaker (1989) performed a fascinating experiment. They asked a group of test candidates 10 general knowledge questions. But instead of asking them for their 'best guess' answer, they asked for a 90% confidence interval. In other words: 'Answer the 10 questions in such a way, that you expect to score 9 out of 10'. Outcome: only 1% of the participants succeeded!! The actual number of mistakes (i.e. answers falling outside of the confidence window) was 3-4 out of 10! This is indicative of decision takers suffering from a tendency to overestimate their abilities. Juggling around with numbers in today's Financial Crisis it is quite clear that it is not unlikely that quite a few decision takers that are at the helm in the Developed Economies of Europe and the US are suffering from this behavioral bias.

The unwarranted appeal of details

Kahnemann & Tversky (1982) created a nice experiment that indicates what happens with us when provided with more details. They told their test candidates about a lady called Linda and painted a picture of her: she was a bright, socially-engaged, sympathetic lady, active in her community and assertive. Through the various pieces of information that the test candidates received about her, they did more or less get the feeling that they knew Linda. Then, Kahnemann & Tversky asked them to provide them with the most likely answer to the question 'What do you think Linda is?':

a) A bank teller; or

b) A bank teller and woman activist

The funny thing is that 90 percent of the respondents chose b!. But obviously the best answer is a) since - with more details - the likelihood of b) being correct is smaller. This strange phenomenon of feeling more confident when knowing more details is also at work in today's Crisis, where you see that problems in Debtor nations in the Developed World does also translate into the phenomenon that a lot of funds are withdrawn from markets that do not suffer from the same fundamental problems. Emerging Markets went often even more down than the developed markets. Reason: in general Western investors know far less about these markets than they do about their own markets and they translate that into the 'certainty' that those markets will therefore be ''more risky''.

Loss Aversion, Risk Aversion and Gambling Behavior

When asked a choice between a certain profit of USD 240,000 or an uncertain gamble with a 25 percent probability of a USD 1 million gain and a 75 percent chance of leaving with nothing, most people will opt for the first option: the certain profit. Of course, when calculating expected gains, the second one will score USD 10,000 higher (0.25 x 1 million plus 0.75 x 0). But obviously, we have to subtract a risk penalty > 0 in the second case. Result: only the least risk averse or even risk-seeking (positive reward to risk) persons will choose the uncertain gamble.

But now, to make things a bit more relevant in today's Crisis, let's slightly change the example. Suppose we can now choose between a certain loss of USD 240,000 on the one hand and another uncertain gamble with a 25 percent probablility of a USD 1 million loss and a 75 percent probability of breaking even.  Applying the standard expected result mathematics we end up deriving that the certain example leads to a USD 240,000 loss of course and the uncertain example a USD 250,000 loss. In other words: the uncertain gamble is USD 10,000 less good already before subtracting the risk penalty!

Kahnemann & Tversky (1979) showed however that whereas the bulk of people opted for certainty when faced with a chance to generate profit, but with the uncertain gamble when faced with a loss chance: risk aversion was replaced by loss aversion. Not rational, but still it happens. And here we are in the Financial Crisis. Developed nations are nations that - most of the time - are led by politicians who have to be democratically re-elected. They will for sure take the risk in an uncertain gamble when the choice is between 'bad' (certain bet) and 'very bad but with a chance that results will be good' (uncertain bet). The bulk of the difference between negative and very negative outcomes will be visible after the next election date anyway, so better not to play it too safe when it is about negative things. In that case all will pin this event's tail on your government's donkey. Result: the likelihood of representatives of those parties finding a solution together that will reduce global risk is not too big. On the contrary: they will lavish themselves in the risky game with a lot of praying, postponing of tough decisions et cetera.

The Carol Effect

Game theory does also report about the so-called Carol Effect which implies that the prettiest, most wanted girl in town might actually not be the one being courted by most guys. Guys will analyze their chances using three potential scenarios: first, I approach her and it works. Most guys will immediately think: if it would be that easy, what about the other guys? They would then compare their chance of success with the chance of failure and embarrassment. With the latter obviously being much larger than the first, except maybe for the most overconfident macho's. The embarrassment scenario with all its negative repercussions would get a zero or even negative utility score. Of course: winning the heart of Carol would be fantastic, but when multiplied with a very low probability it is not that likely that this score will really outweigh the multiplication of a much more probable non-successful event multiplied by the zero or even negative score. And: if we add to that the option that we don't approach Carol in the first place and continue to do what we are doing right now (i.e. ignore her), then it is very unlikely that Carol will be asked to have a drink with us.

 Actress Uma Thurman has confirmed that the Carol Effect does exist. When asked about it, she told interviewers that she did always have far less men approaching her than other girls did....

You might think: What is the relevant of all this for today's Financial Crisis? Well, when thinking of Carol think of China, Russia and Arab nations with big Wealth Funds filled with oil and gas dollars and you might understand what we mean when thinking of the macho guys as Western government leaders struggling alone with their Debts. Only when the Debt levels reach such levels that they have no choice anymore, will they go after Carol and ask her for help.....but by that time Carol might be old and not so pretty anymore. The latter could even be the result of us not going after her: because the Crisis will also affect her financial beauty.

Of course: there will be new Carols around, and new guys. But in democracies the new guys are probably new government leaders and the whole game will start again!

One thing that worries us though, is that part of the Carol effect - when applying it to the Financial Crisis - is not about the guys not being brave enough to approach the rich Carols of this world - but about Western leaders being too overconfident and cocky: 'We don't need Carol! We can do it alone!'.

Efficient or Adaptive Markets Hypothesis

The Efficient Market Hypothesis states that all publicly available information has been incorporated in prices in an unbiased way. This is the result of the interplay of rational decision takers and arbitrageurs. Whenever they find a mispricing their buying and selling behavior will automatically imply that prices will quickly adjust until equilibrium is re-established and prices reach their fair value again. This neo-classical doctrine has been the basis of important investment theories like Mean-Variance, the Capital Asset Pricing Theory, Black-Scholes option model et cetera. On the other hand the behavioral flaws mentioned above where presented as evidence that markets are not efficient. But most of the time the proof was presented in an ad-hoc manner.

Over the last decade top-level scholars like MIT's Andrew Lo have tried to structure the anecdotal, fragmented behavioral evidence in a way that would contribute to the derivation of a more structured alternative to the Efficient Markets Hypothesis (EMH). Lo's paper on the Alternative Markets Hypothesis (AMH) seems to be a good effort to do so. It links standard economic thinking - the bulk of which was the basis for mainstraim EMH style theory - to psychological and neuro-physiological ways of thinking. The latter is very much linked to evolutionary thoughts about how men's brains can be seen as a combination of a more reptillian emotional core, combined with a mammalian mid-layer and a humanoid upper-layer. The lower levels are more emotional, less deep and less logical, more spontaneous and less 'controlled' by us. Result: especially in situations of fear and/or greed these layers tend to gain in importance unless we really establish mechanisms to control them. Strange? Not really. Our history as mankind was one in which in the end the only thing that matters was 'survival'. But 'survival of the fittest' and 'preservation of the species' are not the same as 'survival of the richest' in financial markets. But a lot of our behavioral biases are related to us not being capable yet of controlling our lower level behaviors sufficiently when faced with new risks in financial markets. Compare it to the strange behavior of fish when out of the water. They make similar movements as the ones they would make when in the water. Difference: under water it would help them swim away from the danger or predator. On the land it is useless, and just tiring them.

Behavior of market participants in financial markets can therefore remain irrational and illogical for quite some time to go, and - when the emotional/irrational actors have sufficient market power / financial resources - this could go on long enough to kill the rational ones that try to arbitrage these mistakes away. In a New World Order in which Emerging Markets are here to stay, with their own wealth, different cultures, different actors, different political systems it is more than likely that the old tricks of what has literally become a collection of one trick pony's (Western financial institutions) might not necessarily be the best way forward anymore!

Also because of that, it is best to get the Carol's of this world as quickly as possible to the negotiation table to find a proper solution. And yes, that solution might even involve that Western countries have to accept a sell-off of certain larger firms, other entities or infrastructural projects previously considered ''strategic''. But then again: when it was about the Western nations gaining market share in the colonial countries the definition of ''strategic'' has been implimented much looser as well. With a bit of fantasy - and along the lines of EMH thinking - we could see it as one big, longer-term equilibrating force!

Click here for the link to Andrew Lo's original article about the Adaptive Market Hypothesis from our LMG SlideShare page.

Click here for more about the Carol Syndrome

 The US government, in an effort led by president Obama on behalf of the Democrats but with the Republicans being the decisive factor, avoided Greek-like debt default. I know, European observers would like to correct us stating that there was no default in Greece and that the collective efforts of EU governments, ECB and the IMF avoided a default. But that is of course crap. If your debt is so high, that it is reaching twice the level of GDP we can all calculate that a country is bankrupt. With a GDP of 200 percent, even an interest rate of 2 percent would translate into a 4 percent required growth rate of GDP just to ensure that things won't eradicate further. And that 200 percent debt rate wasn't that far away anymore for Greece. So it was an impossible situation that could never be maintained without belt-tightening severe cost-cuttings. And that is why there was but one option for Greece. Go into a real default, which would then make investors look like big losers who would lose face, or change the terms of debt in a kind of 'soft default'. With the bulk of financial institutions in the European Union now being to quite some extent owned by their governments as a result of the Global Financial Crisis we are not really surprised to see government leaders opt for the soft landing scenario so that 'their' banks don't look like bad investors. But let's be fair: that is basically what they were. There was far too much money lend to and invested in the non-performing economies in Southern Europe in general and Greece in particular.

There is not really a credit crisis, but it is a liquidity crisis: money is elsewhere

But in an earlier Twitter message we also indicated that in the end Greece is not really the issue, and neither is Ireland nor Portugal. They are all relatively small compared to the economies that really matter in the world today. It is just a sign of times and huge nervousness that the Western world moves from one exaggerated crisis to another. At a time when Europe is struggling how to tighten the knots and cover the deficits prince Abdulwaleed of Saudi Arabia announced that he will - together with the Bin Laden (!) Construction Group build the tallest building of the world in Jeddah. The Kingdom Tower will be 1km tall. Higher than the Burj al Kalifa in Dubai. When will the Western world understand that the Changing World implies that when you pay a lot of money for oil, gas and other commodities and for cheaper products from China and India that then sooner or later those countries will be rich whereas you will have to make ends meet?

The solution was and is simple. Get those with money to the table and convince them that investments in the Western world are worthwhile since it could buy them a stake in economies that are still more advanced, based on superior human capital and a superior financial infrastructure. The Chinese, Arabs and Russians are ready. When will the Western world be that far?

The US Debt Ceiling and why its level was - of course - increased

 The clearest example of the changing world and the demise of former global empires and rulers is the debt crisis in the US. For weeks and months it was clear that without any interventions the US would reach the point where it could not continue to pay for all government activities and debt service anymore. The debt ceiling was reached. Democrats basically wanted a solution based on increased taxes, with Republicans as always opting for reduced spending. It was a fascinating theater play with in the end a logical outcome and somewhat obscure plot. Of course - finally - an agreement was reached. Reason: a non-agreement was too expensive to afford. In that case the credit rating of the US would definitely be reduced and that would immediately translate into higher interest rates and even more costs. And not just that: what is a bigger demise of a country that once was responsible for almost 40-50 percent of global GDP and 50 percent of global stock market value than to come out with a press release stating 'Sorry guys, we cannot pay our debts anymore''.

Analyzing the US Government Debt : 1970-current

LMG took a closer look at the data since 1970 and you see the result in the table below.

In the period 1970-current there were 5 Republican presidents and 3 Democrats. During that period GDP (nominal) went up from USD 1024.8 billion to USD 15227.1 billion. A huge increase but let's not forget that it was also a very inflationary period. We could have adjusted the figures for inflation of course, but we decided not to because the debt levels are in nominal values as well. Over the period Government Debt went up from USD 388 billion to USD 14332 billion. If we now calculate the Debt percentage as share of GDP we went from 37.9 percent of GDP in 1970 to 94.1 percent of GDP today. Scary numbers. Of course nothing like Greece - as a percentage - but be aware. The US is now by far the largest debtor nation in the world. One big credit card, financed by saving Chinese, Japanese, Russians and Arabs.

As you can see our table consists of 4 windows. The first one gives information about the presidency, party etc. The second analyzes the government debt, the third the development of GDP and the fourth links the two together. In the fourth window we also asked ourselves the question: which presidents were capable of reducing the debt percentage during their presidency? Answer: 4 out of 8. Their names: Nixon, Ford and Carter - not coincidentally the first 3 in our analysis period! - and Bill Clinton. Father and Son Bush, Ronald Reagan and current president Obama were the one who saw the Debt to GDP ratio deteriorate rapidly.

What is clear is that debt, so often associated with Democrats, is not necessarily a Democrat thing. Ronald Reagan, whose presidency is so often seen as one of the better ones with the economy recovering after the poor 1970s albeit at a huge price when it became clear that Supply Side economics based on the so-called Laffer curve didn't really work, was one of the champions of increased net spending. If the net spending is the result of excess government spending on social welfare, jobs, health care, education etc (popular with Democrats) or defense (the latter often popular with Republicans) or simply because tax rates are too low (also a favorite of Republics) is basically a non-issue. When you spend more than you earn as a nation you do exactly what credit-card addicts do. The US did and does get away with it to a large extent, simply because a) the US Dollar is still a reserve currency; b) it is still the most powerful nation in the world militarily and economically with a 25 percent share of global GDP but remember: we started in the 40-50 percent regions. So, in other words: when you try - with just about 300 million people - to rule the world as a leading policeman while at the same time supporting your struggling domestic economy with 'credit card like' debt, it is obvious that it is a bigger burden to do so when you represent 25 percent of the world than when you represent 50 percent of the global cake.

Evaluation

LMG believes that it is a dead-end street that will - if we like it or not - lead to a New World Order, one in which the former have nots in the Emerging world will now play a far more important role. We believe that the multipolar equilibrium that will result from it will - in the longer run - be of the best interest to all parties involved, including the US. We do not see them fall back into Splendid Isolation but simply giving up part of that Global Police role will automatically translate into healthier economic fundamentals when combining it with bringing tax levels up to levels similar to what we see in other developed nations.

We are pretty confident that this will happen and when it does, that not the US but Europe will be the sick man in the developed world. Do not underestimate the vitality and dynamics of the US economy in the longer run. But in the short run, as long as the Western world is not yet ready to adjust to the New World Order, make sure you act careful using this confused interbellum to increase your exposure to Emerging Markets winners.

Reps or Dems: who are to blame?

Last but not least: typical US question.....who are to blame? The Republicans or the Democrats? The answer might be surprising and a paradox, but it is stated by the facts: the Republicans! They delivered 5 presidents who ruled the US for 28 years in the period that we analysed. The Democrats delivered 3 presidents who ruled a combined 14 years. The Republican Presidency translated into percentage debt increases of 49.9 percent net (see last column in the table), or an annualized increase of 1.78 percent. The Democrat Presidency translated into a percentage debt increase of 6.3 percent net (see last column in the table), or an annualized increase of a mere 0.23 percent. The problem of the US is not their health care or social security, it is the facilities for the rich and their defense spending.

What about Global Security?

Are we blind? Don't we see that without that spending the world would be an enormously dangerous place? That is what a lot of rightist politicians and other interested people might ask us. Of course we are not blind, but the fact is that the more you try to superimpose your own ideal system onto a world that clearly wants something else and that does have the big pockets now to go elsewhere - being not so dependent on you anymore - that sooner or later you stimulate and trigger terrorist uprisings in a similar fashion as what has led to the uprisings in the colonial empires of the past. The French, Portuguese, Spaniards, Brits, Dutch....they all know that sooner or later an expansionist system becomes too expensive. And the more you try to maintain it, the more expensive and violent it gets.

Time to get the rich Emerging Markets nations at the table. They are willing to invest. Sooner or later Kingdom Towers and other toy spending become boring. And it is a fact that the superiority in several areas (human capital, education, financial infrastructure etc) of Western economies is still there. If we allow leading business men or Ministers of Finance and Economics from Emerging Nations in, the likelihood that terrorists will be the ones showing up and taking the lead is actually getting smaller.

It might in the end be a sign of times that we should now focus on the Bin Laden Construction Groups of the world and not the Osamas!

The financial world continues to be in what we could label a situation of 'Red Alert'. In the US Republicans and Democrats try to avoid that the US will become one big Minnesota (although politicians in that state did finally reach an agreement concerning the new budget) with Obama's challenge now being to ensure that maximum acceptable debt levels will be increased on the one hand, and - an even tougher challenge - making sure that these maximum levels will remain maximum levels for quite some time to come. In other words: start working toward a reduction of debt levels. And of course: the second part of the challenge is the more complicated one.

With rating agencies considering to reduce the credit rating of the global leader from AAA to a far lower level, the US is already struggling. But when taking the value of the US Dollar as a refereeing judge it looks as if financial markets are still more or less OK with what is going on.

Reason probably being that the US understands that it does at the moment need the support of those with the big pockets, read: China and sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East. If you increase debt levels to new record levels, you better gain support from those who have the fullest pockets. Obama's talks with the Dalai Lama made it clear that the US president understands this simple business concept.

PIGS in Europe

But what about Europe? Nervousness remains in Europe, with a totally different approach so it seems. Greece, Portugal, Ireland and to a lesser extent Spain, Italy and maybe even Belgium are countries with external debt to GDP ratios that are troublesome or even disastrous (Greece). This is not just bad news for the Euro, but it should also be bad news for those who invested in these international securities. These countries were never of the same credit quality as German or Dutch or Swiss government bonds. It is the same old situation: lower rating or higher risk (and with ratings often not as good as they should be, this is not the same!) translates into higher interest rates. Those who go after these rates should know that sometimes this 'excess interest rate return' won't happen because of default.

In the old days with those countries having separate currencies, these defaults did not happen directly but indirectly. Instead of a default the Ministries of Finance would simply print more of the local currency, with the latter depreciating. But: in Eurozone we are now talking about a situation in which the local currency is international currency as well. Result: the borrowing countries cannot simply do that. And that means that they have but one choice: restructure the economy and/or go into default.

If we take Greece as the leading example (it is indeed also the show case that does get most international attention, because the catastrophe is worst there), then it becomes clear that we see on the one hand a lame restructuring effort with Greece expecting that international lenders will in the end take the bulk of suffering. The international financial community in Europe (ministers of Finance, ECB, Central Banks, Financial Sector) and abroad (IMF) seems to forget what the Americans understand perfectly well: in the end it is best to involve the have's when trying to find solutions for the have not's.

Balancing and How to accept the New Reality

China did already indicate that - as part of their international diversification policy for the reserve position - they will not necessarily let the Euro fail (if only for the sake of creating a better international power balance that isn't too dependent on the US Dollar!) but so far European leaders and IMF (with the exception of Germany beggars themselves, with struggling economies) have chosen to go for a DIY strategy. United we stand together: but without money.

Well, in that case the only way out is either loans that are almost perpetual with very low interest rates (and therefore effectively pose a subsidy to the weak financial countries!) or a restructuring that includes a default with lenders not getting everything back. Some Ministers of Finance (including the one here in the Netherlands) try to score points nationally by talking tough language, but of course they do realize that a tougher stand implies that it is their own lenders who will take a substantial part of the loss. And those lenders are - yep - the same banks that were to a large extent saved or even bought by Western governments during the Global Financial Crisis.

The bottom-line remains: Beggars can't be choosers. There was and is no credit shortage. It is just that flows went from Europe and the US into Emerging Countries and Gold and Switzerland (the latter two as example of flight into safe havens due to the onging nervousness, with the latter also caused by the imbalance that western leaders are now cultivating).

But still: we can listen for hours to TV, read opinion articles for hours and the only thing we do not hear is the story above. The beggars want to continue their belief that the world hasn't change, only to realize far to late that it did!

Nobel Prize Laureate dr Harry Markowitz (Nobel Prize 1990) taught us that diversification can create value by reducing risk levels more than that returns will suffer when combining different investments ranging from high-return, high-risk to lower-return, less-risk. And yep, if you click on the link to Markowitz in Wikipedia, one of the articiles in Selected Publications is joint work with your author, LMG's co-principal Erik L van Dijk.

This 'free lunch' is a reality of life most-of-the-time, but not always. Markets are also moving dynamically, with new asset classes and countries gaining in importance and others going into oblivion. At the same token the process of 'Globalization' will have an impact on diversification, because Globalization will increase correlations between asset classes and countries, thereby making the potential gains from diversification smaller.

But research has indicated that there is another type of diversification with potentially untapped, and maybe even larger potential benefits.

Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf reported on Karmijn Capital

a firm led by 3 women with decades of experience in Private Equity and with a very interesting strategy. As one of their prime filters when selecting their investments they look for firms with above-average female boardroom presence. Required: a female CEO and/or 25-75 percent female board representation. Just another effort by feminists to discriminate positively?

Nope!

McKinsey research has indicated that gender diverse companies generate 10% higher returns on equity and 48% higher earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT). Companies with more women in the board outperform those with less women by very high margins, both with respect to Return on Equity and Return on Investments. And even when we look at negative statistics we do see a positive difference in favor of the gender diverse companies. When analyzing bankruptcy statistics, Graydon found that 14.6 percent of entrepreneurs involved in a bankruptcy were women and 85.4% were men. If we compare that with the fact that about 25 percent of entrepreneurs in the sample was female and 75 percent male, women are underrepresented by 10.4 percent in the negative category, with men overrepresented by 10.4 percent.

Logical? We believe so. Behavioral and neurological research indicates that women are better multi-taskers and entrepreneurship is a complicated activity that involves a lot of multi-tasking. On the other hand, men are hunters, good in activities that require a lot of focus and quick decision taking. But with the bulk of management boards or entrepreneurs being male, an overfocus on these qualities could easily lead to trouble. Men do also have a tendency to overestimate their qualities when successful, whereas women's careful combination of various factors in a more realistic multi-factor setting will provide a countervailing power that - when combined - will lead to a better outcome. Other research has also indicated that when looking at stock market results, this mutlifactor/multitasking quality has also resulted in women being at least as good - if not better - than herds of their male peers.

But still: inner circle effects, glass ceilings and the competitive strengths of men in inner-office 'combat' - in combination with cultural factors - have led to a situation in which women are underrepresented. LMG believes that the strategy of Karmijn - when applied in an objective manner without falling for a positive discrimination like trap - does hold a lot of potential, and we will carefully follow the initiative to find out if it could be of interesting to our investment clients, be they institutional or high net worth investors.

The Energy Trends and their Investment Impact

It is not necessarily a nice story for those in the Western world or even for China. This is a story that indirectly predicts good times for the LEAST popular Emerging Markets areas (Africa, Middle East and Russia). LEAST popular when looking to behavioral biases that is. Some countries are just more liked than others. China can top the tables in terms of executions year after year, but they remain those nice, friendly smiling nice people that we know from the restaurants in our towns and villages. Russians, Iranians, Arabs? They are the crooks! Not our LMG words, but it is too obvious that this is often how the implicit biases go. Sociologist Hofstede has done a lot of research into cultural and behavioral differences and a lot of other scholars have used his work to analyze these factors even further. See also our SlideShare presentation on the impact of Cultural and Behavioral Biases on our market picking activities in more exotic investment destinations.

And this means that we should also not forget a Central Asian powerhouse like Kazakhstan or other smaller Frontier Markets with energy or commodity wealth. Kazakhstan was basically Alma Ata (the other big city) and a well-known speedskating stadium (Medeo) some 20 years ago. Economy? Did they have that over there? And compare that with the newly created capital Astana now.

These trends do also translate into continued tensions in the Middle East. Arab Spring? Westerners liking Democracy there? Doesn't make sense unless it maintains a status quo that will ensure an ongoing majority allocation of oil and gas revenues to Western energy companies and indirectly the countries they represent. We do not believe that this is feasible in a world in which US-NATO political dominance is challenged by Chinese (energy needy), Russians (still powerful and with energy and other resources) and sooner or later also loaded Wealth Funds from the Middle East plus growing richness in Brazil and India. 

These realities will make Africa, MENA and Russia far more interesting investment places than most people tend to think, unless we are willing to start battles to stop it. Unfortunately we are not totally sure if that will be unrealistic (see the Middle Eastern experience), just comfortable that an equalizing balance of power in the world will make it a lesser option than right now or in the past.

What about Renewable Energy?

Note: does this mean that LMG is a non-believer in Renewable Energy? Of course not. What we believe is that Renewable Energy will be a huge growth market, but initially mainly for the West as a kind of fancy, elite choice to opt for things that cater to energy need AND the emotional well-being of the people buying it with them being willing to pay a premium for the latter. 

It is simply impossible for it to be a realistic full alternative for traditional primary energy sources without people willing to pay that premium AND/OR change their lifestyle. But lifestyle change is also an elite choice that one cannot demand from Emerging Countries unless well-off Westerners pay for it directly. And that is where the story ends: no Western country is in the business of providing Developing Nations with much more than they are currently doing and preferably in a form (bibles, blankets, emergency medicine) that cannot help grow the economy in the longer run (so as to maintain market dominance). Result: Renewable Energy is a good product with growth opportunities (in a similar fashion like wellness centres are) with definitely good investment opportunities in Renewable but the bulk of the Energy Market growth will be in Traditional Primary Sources for quite some time to come. 

Adding things up, nuclear is here to stay. Only caveat: that 'HERE" might be more 'THERE' in some countries (Germany probably using France) than in others (FRANCE, RUSSIA, USA) who want a piece of the action.