Joseph L. Shaefer's  Instablog

 

“And your inheritance is…

You get to take over payments on the family homestead when we go!”

 

For those thinking today of their kids’ inheritance, or indeed of their own future, there is a new dynamic that must be taken into account: so many people bought much more house than they would have or could have or maybe even should have because (a) the financing was cheap, (b) the qualifying was easy to non-existent, and (c) because “real estate always goes up, at least in our (choose one: town, state, city, region, whatever.)”

 

Unlike those Pollyannas who believe that last statement, I see a likely continuation of turmoil for most single-family residential real estate markets for a number of years.  There are many reasons for this, most of which I’ve seen discussed elsewhere.  But there is one more that I believe adds gasoline to what may be a burning funeral pyre of household wealth: the percentage of net worth that is represented by a family’s primary residence.  As a result of higher home prices during the Greenspan real estate bubble, people spent this “paper” wealth without actually having it in order to buy all sorts of consumables and steadily depreciating durables, rather than adding to savings and investment.

 

I read recently that the average percentage of their total net worth that currently-retired Americans have tied up in this one illiquid asset is somewhere near 80%.  More than three-quarters of most people’s net worth consists of equity in their homes!  The numbers are roughly the same for Boomers. 

 

This fact has massive implications for both the real estate market and the stock market.  In order to pass a portion of their net worth to their children and grandchildren, or to pay for their living expenses as they live longer than ever before, many homeowners will have to pass the house in which they live on to their kids – or sell it in order to pay for their own assisted living or other expenses.

 

It seems to me that this reality will result in a very large glut of houses for sale, not because of the good tidings of monstrous appreciation but because current homeowners will have to unlock that equity to get money to survive on.  In the good old days of the first decade of this millennium, they could simply take out a second mortgage or get an equity line of credit on the house.  But not many bankers are going to be amenable to lending money against an asset that hasn’t appreciated in years.

 

Because of this, I see Americans becoming far more willing, whether by circumstance or choice, to rent rather than own.  I think you can avoid that fate yourself by being aware of the trend and profiting from some of the implications of this scenario. 

 

One of those would be high-quality apartment REITs, by which I mean that both their apartments and their balance sheets are high-quality!  Some of the “vulture funds” recently established to buy apartment houses or entire developments of foreclosed rental properties may also do well.

 

Too many people are still relying on hope for a rebound in real estate prices, followed by 10% a year appreciation on the house they live in.  Worse, they fully expect to sell at the top when they leave it.  That’s not a plan, it’s a trap.  Over the past 20 years or so, Americans have accumulated more credit card debt, more student loans, higher car payments, and in general bought more “stuff”, all the while believing that they didn’t need to save for a rainy day because they were already engaging in “forced saving” by accumulating more equity in their homes year after year.  After all, “real estate always goes up, at least in our (choose one: town, state, city, region, whatever.)”

 

I said the stock market would also benefit.  Beyond your decision to buy or not buy the apartment REITs and vulture funds I discuss below, just being in the asset class of equities rather than the asset class of residential real estate may benefit you.  When the value of one’s biggest asset is rising non-stop, it becomes an excuse to save less and to diversify less.  The logic becomes “Why should I diversify into tech or materials or health care when the house two doors down just sold for $780,000?” rather than, “Gee, tech is getting to be too big a part of the portfolio I’m relying on to fund my retirement; maybe I should diversify into some metals and bonds.” 

 

The real estate wealth effect is a seductive force that encourages concentration rather than diversification.  Once people realize that it was a mistake to borrow and borrow against their home only to watch as it declines precipitously, they will be “once burned, twice shy” and anxious to diversify into other investment instruments like far more liquid stocks and bonds.  Stocks may be the best for younger retirees but for those who took a 30-year mortgage at age 55 and retired 10 years later, their forced home sale proceeds will likely find their way into the less volatile bond market, as they contemplate the now-mixed blessing of funding their lifestyle and mortgage payments for another 10, 20 or 30 years.

 

Real estate will have its day again but in the short to intermediate term I think the money to be made in real estate will be made (1) at the very high end where assets, not income, buys houses, often for cash; and (2) in rental homes and apartments which may be less grand than the current homestead but which leave money left over for living an enjoyable life.

 

There are three ways to profit from this state of affairs directly, of course: if you are young enough for it to make sense to purchase rather than rent, by all means do it.  A combination of low current prices and government confiscation of money from one taxpayer to assist another make it too attractive not to.   The legislation for taxpayer credits for buying a home may have been written by homebuilders, and passed by Congress, but if it benefits you, well, they’ve already taken the money from all taxpayers – if you qualify, you may as well take it.  They’ll just find another, bigger piece of pork to dispense somewhere else to less effect, anyway.

 

The second way you might benefit, especially if you are one of those sellers who must sell to release your equity, is to assist those buying their home, perhaps by taking back some of the paper yourself.  After all, it is secured by a property you know well. 

 

The third way, if you have cash to buy, is to buy a home or condo with the intent to rent it to others.  There will be plenty of second-home owners this year and next who are willing to sell those second homes in desirable vacation areas for far less than they paid for them.  You may not get rich but you will give others the joy of staying in a beautiful place while paying down your mortgage for you.

 

Since the three approaches above involve direct participation and research specific to each deal, many readers will prefer the first two I mentioned: apartment REITs and/or vulture funds. 

 

As to the former, I think people may be resigned to selling their homes to get money to live on, but I believe they will be unwilling to move down in quality unless their circumstances force them to.  If their illusory “paper wealth” was $550,000 in “equity” and it’s now reduced to just $250,000, they will still sell to get that $250,000 in cold hard investable cash, but the pain of doing so will be lessened if they move to an even nicer place than they left behind. 

 

If an apartment REIT avoided the temptation to stray from their normal, boring, business in the region they understood the best in order to rush, late in the game, into Las Vegas, Phoenix, Miami and other “hot” sectors -- buying at the top and getting no bargain in financing their late entry -- you can these firms selling at eminently fair stock prices, getting strong cash flow from properties that have not plummeted like those in the hot markets did.

 

Demand for these units will increase even if current homeowners don’t convert to renting in numbers as great as I expect.  We are still a nation of immigrants, and legal  immigration is expected to continue unabated during these hard times at an average rate of 1.7-2 million annually.  Also, we are likely somewhere near the zenith of unemployment.  As employment increases in 2010 and 2011, demand will increase from people moving out of relatives’ homes and shelters, as well as move-up renters renting better places.   Finally, many currently unemployed and those under-employed or anxious to change jobs as the times get better will prefer renting to owning simply because they need to stay mobile and unencumbered in order to follow their employment goals and dreams.

 

When it comes to the supply side of the equation, I see little new construction of multi-family rental housing as big projects will be severely limited by lack of financing.  Local banks, the source of most such financing, are less willing to loan to real estate firms after losing so much recently in foreclosures and builder bankruptcies.

 

So which firms do I think are most worthy of your attention?  Those with low leverage (low debt levels) and those with less exposure to previously-hot overbuilt markets like Phoenix, Miami, Las Vegas, Orlando and Tampa.  Both Mid America Apartment Communities (MAA) and Avalon Bay (AVB) qualify in these categories.

 

Here is where MAA’s properties are located:

 

 

 

 

 

 

And here are AVB’s. 

 

 

 

 

 

AVB is a bit heavier in California but their risk there is spread among many communities, some of which never became overheated and are thus still attractive.

 

Neither chased “growth”, neither overpaid for properties at the top, and neither are over-leveraged.  Essex Property Trust (ESS), BRE Properties (BRE), and Equity Residential (EQR) all do well in terms of their capital ratios but I don’t like their high exposure to some California and Florida markets I consider still ripe for further problems.  (Of these, I consider ESS the best.)  Since their California portfolio is small, Post Properties (PPS) might qualify for a top slot -- except their exposure to Atlanta, DC, Tampa and other formerly hot markets puts me off.

 

Among the vulture funds, I prefer those which buy properties in bulk from banks and brokers for resale or rental.  These funds buy properties that have already had the excesses wrung out of them, but sometimes bring their own problems in terms of having been abused or neglected.  That’s why I prefer to buy these in a basket via publicly-traded funds like Colony Financial (CLNY)  and Crexus Investment (CXS).  There are others, but I like the people behind these two, the experience of management, and the timing of their entry into the business the best.  Both are seeking apartment buildings where the developer has over-extended and is in need of immediate capital or is facing foreclosure on the entire project.  These funds ride to the rescue and take the liability off the developers’ hands, albeit at a price the developer would not normally accept. 

 

Given my premise that more Americans will be renting in the future out of necessity, that employment will (slowly) pick up, that many workers will want to live in apartments for greater job-seeking flexibility, that apartment rental rates and prices will be rising, and that there will be a paucity of new construction financing, I can think of no finer possibilities for your consideration than those I’ve discussed here. 

 

 

Full Disclosure: Long AVB, MAA, CLNY, and CXS.

The Fine Print: As Registered Investment Advisors, we see it as our responsibility to advise the following: We do not know your personal financial situation, so the information contained in this communiqué represents the opinions of the staff of Stanford Wealth Management, and should not be construed as personalized investment advice.

Also, past performance is no guarantee of future results, rather an obvious statement if you review the records of many alleged gurus, but important nonetheless –our Investors Edge ® Growth and Value Portfolio has beaten the S&P 500 for 10 years running but there is no guarantee that we will continue to do so.

It should not be assumed that investing in any securities we are investing in will always be profitable. We take our research seriously, we do our best to get it right, and we “eat our own cooking,” but we could be wrong, hence our full disclosure as to whether we own or are buying the investments we write about.

 

 

 

 

Government doesn't innovate.  There is no reason for it to do so and every reason not to.  Bureaucrats are promoted not because they can trim their overhead, but because they increase it.  The more projects you can garner, no matter how ill-conceived, and the more employees you have, no matter how extraneous or poorly-motivated, the more money you get from Congress.

 

Neither does the government have a profit motive.  It has a status quo motive.  Don’t upset any applecarts.  Don’t try anything that would make you stand out.  Administrate.  What kind of words are “administer” and “administrate”?  What kind of philosophy do they lead to?

 

Individuals can innovate.  Small business can innovate.  Big business can innovate.  Government?  Government can only take and give.  In that order.  It must first take from those that produce via taxes, licensing fees, regulatory fees, tolls, registration fees, and so on.  Then and only then can they “give” in the form of grants, food stamps, incentives, credits, welfare and other vote-buying schemes for favorite constituents and causes.

 

So what is needed if big government can only divert GDP to the IRS, the Post Office, Social Security, Medicare, the VA bureaucracy, junk science projects like wasting 50 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol, billions for banks “too big to fail”, a euphemism for too greedy to stay out of trouble and too cowardly to compete on a level playing field, and bridges to nowhere?

 

The profit motive.  But the profit motive left unchecked can lead to excesses, as well.  So one of the best actual uses of government is to have the legislative branch create regulations that prevent excesses, the executive branch enforce those regulations, and the judiciary interpret the grey areas that inevitably arise.

 

Let me give one example of the profit motive meeting responsible regulation that has created very important technological innovation.  Thousands more could be used, but this one is both recent and telling:

Suncor Energy (SU) is the oldest oilsands company working to extract oil from the bitumen deposits in Alberta.  It is also, because of the environmental sensitivity of the extraction process, one of the most highly regulated sub-sectors of the energy business.  “Tailings management” is a huge issue for SU and all the other companies involved in oilsands production.  That means they leave a lot of gunk and polluted water behind when they extract oil from tarry rock and sand.  (Tailings typically consist of water, sand, silt, clay and residual bitumen.)

To their credit, the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) didn’t tell the oil companies how to clean up their processes – as was the case in the US, for instance, when Congress -- rather than passing legislation insisting upon cleaner tailpipe emissions however the private companies could do it -- instead dictated that henceforth ethanol would constitute 10% of the gasoline delivered at the pump.  Or, rather than the current administration determining that carbon emissions must be lowered by industry, they have chosen to push just one (for them) "true path": cap and trade.

But when government says that you must do something rather than how you must do something, it brings out the best and the brightest in search of innovation.  In Suncor’s case, the ERCB initiated stronger regulations on tailings ponds last February.  These regulations required operators to prepare detailed tailings plans, report on tailings ponds annually, and reduce fine particles in liquid tailings by 20% by June 2011, and by 50 per cent by 2013.

It might take decades for the fine solids to settle out naturally, so most companies today use a technique in which coarse sand and gypsum are added to accelerate the release of water and clean up the land.  This is called “consolidated tailings” (CT) technology and it reduces those decades to just a few years.   

Suncor’s innovation, made possible only after the ERCB, at the request of industry, removed their  requirement that CT technology be used and opened up the range of possibilities to whatever industry could come up with to reach the end state.

Suncor’s new process, called “tailings reduction operations” (TRO), mixes the tailings with a chemical polymer flocculent, with the tailings then deposited in thin layers over man-made sand beaches with shallow slopes. The resulting product is a dry material that is capable of being reclaimed in place or moved to another location for final reclamation, with the drying process occurs over a matter of weeks, not years.

One of the first lessons I learned as a young officer is that men will do more if their leader tells them what the end-state we want to achieve is rather than instructions on each step to get there.  The former shows trust in the experiences and knowledge of the NCO cadre, the other is for pathetic micro-managers.

 

If our greenest lieutenants get this training out of the box, why does our government still believe a people who tamed a continent, fought two world wars, and built the largest economy in the world need a nanny to tell us how to do everything? 

 

Intelligent and responsible regulation is needed as a check-and-balance on raw capitalism.  But intelligent and responsible regulation tells us what we want to achieve, then gets the hell out of the way while those with deeper knowledge, greater experience, and a profit motive roll up their sleeves and actually get the job done.

 

Full Disclosure: No position yet in Suncor (33 today).  However, the stock traded at 18 in February and 26 in July.  At 26, we’ll nibble; at 18-20 we’ll buy aggressively.

 

The Fine Print: As Registered Investment Advisors, we see it as our responsibility to advise the following: We do not know your personal financial situation, so the information contained in this communiqué represents the opinions of the staff of Stanford Wealth Management, and should not be construed as personalized investment advice.

Also, past performance is no guarantee of future results, rather an obvious statement if you review the records of many alleged gurus, but important nonetheless –our Investors Edge ® Growth and Value Portfolio has beaten the S&P 500 for 10 years running but there is no guarantee that we will continue to do so.

It should not be assumed that investing in any securities we are investing in will always be profitable. We take our research seriously, we do our best to get it right, and we “eat our own cooking,” but we could be wrong, hence our full disclosure as to whether we own or are buying the investments we write about.

 

More »

 

I have written about the coming likely shortage of cool, clean water for many nations (including some of those touted as “owners” of the coming century) here and in follow-on articles.  I also recommended specific companies in those articles that I believe will benefit from these shortages.

I’ll go further and speculate that the next horrific war, and the one the United States would be wise not to meddle in, may well be between two superpowers, China and Russia.  Here is the amount of Internal Renewable Water Resources (IRWR) that China has per capita: just 2,173 cubic meters IRWR per person.   Russia, on the other hand, with 1/5^th the population (and declining), has 30,001 cubic meters IRWR per person, nearly 15 times that of China. 

Nations may squabble over oil or gold or rare earth elements or some other commodity, but when it comes to water, there’s no squabbling, no protracted negotiation, no choice.  It is: get the water or die.  As I wrote once before, “All that fresh, clean water in Siberia has to look pretty good to China, a nation that, relative to its population, didn’t have much to begin with and has soiled, sullied, dirtied, and polluted what little remains.”

If China is in bad shape for potable water – hence their land grab of Tibet from which most of their still-clean water now flows – imagine India’s possible plight, with just 1,211 cubic meters IRWR per person, barely enough to sustain new life after taking into account agriculture, industrial uses, and survival consumption.

Now contrast China at 2173 and India at 1211 with, say, those two allegedly “over the hill” has-beens, the USA and Canada.  The U.S. has nearly 10,000 cubic meters IRWR per person, and Canada weighs in with an amazing 91,000.  Water is needed for tertiary oil extraction, to squeeze gas from shale, to cool solar water towers, to keep agricultural products growing, and for scores of other, otherwise economically untenable projects.

In nations like ours where water is readily and cheaply available, we take it so much for granted that we barely notice it.  Yet in terms of dollars devoted to providing that water, which industry is larger, the Internet or water treatment, transportation, delivery, and recycling?   I believe the answer is water.  How about education and water?  Water.  Health care or water?  Water.  Worldwide, this is big business.

In addition to the companies mentioned as I did my best to make the case for investing in water in those previous articles, I thought I’d offer up a few possibilities for those readers who prefer to gain diversification by investing in ETFs and mutual funds.  For your further research and analysis, may I suggest the following as a starting point:

Two ETFs are the grand-daddies in this business, PowerShares Global Water (PIO) and PowerShares Water Resources (PHO) – if you can consider 2 years old a granddaddy!  PIO is up about 50% this year and PHO about 20%.  But their long-term moves may be just beginning.  Yet another ETF in this space is First Trust ISE Water (FIW), up a hair less than PHO but a bit newer, as well. 

In addition to these three ETFs, you may also want to consider some open-end (traditional) mutual funds.  Among those dedicated to investing in the various facets of water are:

·         Allianz RCM Global Water (AWTAX) – LOAD FUND!!!

·         Calvert Global Water (CFWAX) -- LOAD FUND!!!

·         Kinetics Water Infrastructure (KWINX)

·         Sustainable Water (SMWNX)

Please note the first two are load funds.  I don’t personally buy load funds.  I figure I am paying enough in expenses to the mutual fund company so they can provide corner offices, company cars, bonuses for beating the S&P by 1/1000 of a percent, and other perks to their own executives.  I don’t need to also pay 4 or 5% to some broker to sell me the fund, as well.  But there may be those who don’t feel as strongly as I do on this issue.

Current water usage and future water demand doesn’t depend upon the actions of governments or the lining up of planetary bodies.  The investment case is simple: if population increases, water usage increases.  If more water is contaminated, more water has to be cleaned.  If there are more mouths to feed, more stuff must be grown – demanding more water. 

If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say we’ve already reached a tipping point in water, albeit one that may only be obvious in hindsight.  Whatever the world’s GDP growth is going forward, whether 3% or 8%, I’ll hazard a guess that water companies in the aggregate will average a good 2 ½% to 4% higher.

Water investments are not for the tip of your investing pyramid where you place higher-risk holdings looking to hit it over the fence.  They are for the foundation of your pyramid where you place Basic, Boring, Dull and Profitable companies and funds to provide stability in good markets and bad.

 

Among the more commonly-held companies owned by many of the seven funds above are Ameron International (AMN), Tetra Tech (TTEK), Flowserve (FLS), Kemira Oyj, Hyflux (HYFXF), Arcadis NV (ARCVF), Valmont Industries (VMI), Suez Environnement (SZEVF), Lindsay Manufacturing Co (LNN), Veolia Environnement (VEOEF), Nalco (NLC), Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO), Watts Water Technologies (WTS), Pentair Inc (PNR),  American Water Works (AWK), Itron Inc. (ITRI), Roper Industries (ROP),  Danaher (DHR), ITT Corp (ITT), United Utilities Group (UUGWF), and IDEX Corp (IEX).

 

Full Disclosure: Long PIO, TTEK, HYFXF, and LNN.

The Fine Print: As Registered Investment Advisors, we see it as our responsibility to advise the following: We do not know your personal financial situation, so the information contained in this communiqué represents the opinions of the staff of Stanford Wealth Management, and should not be construed as personalized investment advice.

Also, past performance is no guarantee of future results, rather an obvious statement if you review the records of many alleged gurus, but important nonetheless –our Investors Edge ® Growth and Value Portfolio has beaten the S&P 500 for 10 years running but there is no guarantee that we will continue to do so.

It should not be assumed that investing in any securities we are investing in will always be profitable. We take our research seriously, we do our best to get it right, and we “eat our own cooking,” but we could be wrong, hence our full disclosure as to whether we own or are buying the investments we write about.

 

Some may scoff at the question.  "Of course they must decline," they say.  After all, we know that it is "likely" that in 2011 Canadian energy royalty trusts will lose their special status as non-taxpaying entities which flow income directly to unitholders (with no revenue flowing to the provinces or nation in which they are located except that paid by the very few employees of the trust who reside in that province or nation.)

Whether you like the Canadian provinces’ and Canada’s national decision or not, you must admit the current structure does seem a bit unfair – the Canadian provinces and national government provide roads for these companies’ royalty-paying firms to drive on, schools for their kids, etc., but the only income the provinces or federals  receive in return is the scant amount they receive from the personal income taxes of the few employees that work to flow the royalty income to the unitholders.

So let’s take a fresh look at Canadian energy royalty trusts as if they were already being levied taxes on their earnings since that will probably happen, like it or not, in 2011.  (There is always a slim chance that IF the Liberal Party wins the next election and IF they can get the votes and IF they decide to pursue it, the current tax-advantaged structure could continue.  I don’t consider it likely but if it did happen, it would give an “extra” rocket boost to the Canadian energy royalty trusts…)

These royalty trusts (often called “CanRoys”) usually own 100% of oil and/or natural gas wells and/or mineral rights on a portion of producing wells, and/or mineral rights on other types of properties containing “wasting” assets like oil and gas, such as coal or metals.  To be entitled to the current tax pass-through treatment, an outside company must do the actual work of extracting / producing the resource while the CanRoy has just a few employees to process their royalty income from the operators of the field or mine and distribute it pro rata to the unitholders.

Since most CanRoys own interests in a number of individual wells, oil fields, or mines, they offer an easy way to diversify investments across a number of different propertie, sort of like ETFs do for a particular investment sector.

Whether or not the CanRoys enjoyed a special tax advantage – and they will most likely not do so going forward – their success also rests upon two other factors that are equally important and which have gotten lost in the shuffle as everyone focuses upon their need to reserve funds to pay taxes:
1 -- What is the price of the underlying commodity, and
2 -- Is the CanRoy replacing assets faster than it is depleting them or depleting them faster than it is replacing them?

This last issue is quite important since, by the time the exploration and production companies spin off the assets by creating a new CanRoy or by selling them to an existing one, those wells or mines are typically beyond their peak producing years, so their revenue will gradually decline – by definition, their distributions, taxed or untaxed, will decline as well unless they are particularly adept at replacing assets either by being solid negotiators or by having cash to buy when the underlying assets are cheap.

Then there is the price (and just as importantly, the expectations of where that price will go) of the underlying commodity itself.  If other investors believe natural gas, for instance, is going to $1 per million BTUs (MMBtu) – as most did recently, when it was selling at $2 per MMBtu – but you choose to buy at the bottom, you could score quite the coup.  It's the same with these CanRoys.

That's because one key difference between CanRoys and US royalty trusts is that, in the US, once a trust is formed with x number of properties, they are not allowed to acquire additional properties. Because they are restricted to owning only their original properties, by definition their distributions will decline over time until, ultimately, the trust will be dissolved. But CanRoys can be actively managed so they can issue new shares or debt in order to buy more properties.  For this reason alone, I would prefer the CanRoys to US-based royalty trusts.

So how do we best assess the three primary factors that will determine the distribution payouts – and capital gains prospects – of CanRoys going forward?  And which ones might stack up the best?

1.  Tax changes.  Penn West Energy (PWE) in 2007, the year after the national government announced that CanRoys would be converted to tax-paying corporations in 2011, said the following in their Annual Report: “For U.S. investors, the distribution yield net of the SIFT and withholding taxes would fall by an estimated 25.1 percent in 2011 and 23.8 percent in 2012 and beyond.”  Okay, let’s say that for this variable, distributions will decline by 25%.  So a 10% yield will become “just” 7.5%.  A 12% yield would decline to “only” 9%.  Etc.

2.  The price of the underlying commodity.  It seems to me this is where the pendulum swings back in the CanRoy investor’s favor.   Is there any question that India, China and the other emerging nations will use more gas, oil, coal, uranium, timber, etc. in the future than they do today?  If I walk today, I covet a bicycle.  If I have a bike, I wish I had a scooter.  If I have a scooter, I imagine what it would be like to have a car.  There will be cyclical downturns of course, but the secular trend goes only one way: demand up, supply struggling to keep up.  If oil, gas, coal, etc. rise in value by 25% even as the distributions decline 25%, that means no change.  So far, advantage CanRoys.

3.  Asset replacement.  Is the CanRoy replacing assets faster than it is depleting them or depleting them faster than it is replacing them?  Here the advantage goes to the larger, better-capitalized CanRoys.  Currently, the limits on how many new units Canadian trusts can issue is based on their market capitalization. This places smaller trusts at a competitive disadvantage, but any nimble firm that replaces assets faster than it produces them will do well.  Advantage: All CanRoys, especially the bigger ones and especially the ones that have a lower payout ratio (meaning they keep a good chunk of cash to acquire new assets at good prices) and a long reserve life (meaning they can pick and choose when to buy assets.)

Based upon the above 3 criteria, I can suggest for your consideration and research the following CanRoys:   Enerplus Resources Fund (ERF), Pengrowth Energy Trust (PGH), Petrofund Energy Trust (PTF), PrimeWest Energy Trust (PWI), Provident Energy Trust (PVX), Penn West Energy Trust (PWE), and Harvest Energy (HTE).  Of these – again, based upon my 3 primary criteria – I am buying ERF, PWE and PGH.
 

Beyond the usual market risk caveats and the caveat not to place all your eggs, or even all your yield eggs, in the same basket, I should note that since Canadian trusts are not organized as corporations, in theory unitholders currently have unlimited liability for the actions of the trust. In practice, however, it unlikely in the extreme that unit holders will ever be liable for the trusts’ actions.  And – in the Every Cloud Has a Silver Lining Department – as they convert to corporate status, even this disadvantage goes away.
 

Advantage: CanRoys, old or new.
 

Full Disclosure: Long ERF, PWE, PGH.

The Fine Print: As Registered Investment Advisors, we see it as our responsibility to advise the following: We do not know your personal financial situation, so the information contained in this communiqué represents the opinions of the staff of Stanford Wealth Management, and should not be construed as personalized investment advice.

Also, past performance is no guarantee of future results, rather an obvious statement if you review the records of many alleged gurus, but important nonetheless –our Investors Edge ® Growth and Value Portfolio has beaten the S&P 500 for 10 years running but there is no guarantee that we will continue to do so.

It should not be assumed that investing in any securities we are investing in will always be profitable. We take our research seriously, we do our best to get it right, and we “eat our own cooking,” but we could be wrong, hence our full disclosure as to whether we own or are buying the investments we write about.

 

More »