It’s not what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you ‘know’ …that just ain’t so.
Though unconfirmed, this quote is often attributed to Mark Twain. Regardless of the source, there is a lot of wisdom in this old saying. We are weary of the unknown yet embrace what we feel as “known” without question.
The problem is, what we “know” is inherently biased by short-term signals. In contrast, optimal decision-making involves incorporating but modulating short-term indicators while marrying those with longer-term observations in order to inform our view of the future. As private market investors with a long-term horizon, we should be better at this than most. However, even the most rationale long-term investor can’t help being influenced by what we observe in the short-term, especially when those observations are echoed and repeated by nearly all market participant.
We are seeing some of this today in private real assets. I wrote previously in Catching the Wave about the strong macro themes driving infrastructure investment over the last several years. We continue to see those same themes attracting capital today. Indeed, it seems that nearly every infrastructure investor has been investing behind three key themes: Electrification, digitization and logistics. On the real estate side, we are hearing more generalist funds shifting to “only targeting” industrial and multi-family properties. Traditional energy, you say? No way. Invest in office, retail and hospitality? Are you trying to lose money!? There is a market consensus today that these assets have no future based on a reasonably short (albeit bumpy) recent past.
Mark Twain also famously said “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” So, with that in mind, what do we “know” that may not be so, and where are we potentially missing contrarian opportunities?
We’ve written extensively about the capital needs required to effectuate the energy transition. Over $4 trillion of capital is projected to be required to meet those goals. McKinsey recently put that number as high as $9 trillion. Not surprisingly, private investors have lined up to raise capital pools targeted specifically at this opportunity set.
eNERGY tRANSITION-oRIENTED fUNDS IN THE mARKET
Shown as a multiple of 2006 in Hamilton Lane Proprietary Fund Database
Although the future looks electric, are investors potentially missing some warning signs on renewable assets? And, conversely, are there attractive investment aspects of traditional energy that are being overlooked?
Let’s look at a couple of things. First, with significant capital going to fund renewable generation, we are seeing higher degrees of renewable penetration in power markets across the U.S. But, with higher degrees of penetration, we are also seeing higher levels of curtailment on renewable resources. The graph below illustrates this in the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) market. By the end of 2021, roughly 23% of the power generated in CAISO came from wind and solar generation as this market has made great progress in moving toward renewable energy goals. But, while wind and solar penetration have increased, so has curtailment of these power generation resources in the CAISO market. Curtailment means to reduce the output of a renewable resource below what it can produce, potentially indicating over-built resource capacity in a specific type of generation. This introduces certain risks to developers and owners of these assets. Significant upfront capital costs are required to develop utility scale solar and wind resources. These upfront capital costs are undertaken based on expectations of future power prices and resource utilization. Depending on the payment schemes in the market, high degrees of curtailment can be indicative of an overbuilt market and one in which an owner needs to lower their expectations around both power prices and resource utilization.
Penetration of Wind & Solar (rhs) vs. Curtailed Energy (lhs)
We also see valuation risk increasing for renewable assets, as well as the execution risk investors seem to be willing to take today on renewable project development pipelines. Look at the chart below:
You can see that EBITDA multiples for renewable energy companies are near all-time highs, with multiples hovering between 35-40x. In contrast, traditional energy companies are trading at 5-7x EBITDA. A multiple of 35-40x assumes significant future growth in the platform — growth that may be difficult to achieve given transmission and distribution constraints.
We are also noting some aggressive underwriting assumptions for renewable assets and perhaps overly aggressive projections about the retirements of some traditional energy assets in certain power markets. For example, consider the table below, which summarizes some of the underwriting assumptions we’ve seen versus what we feel are more realistic expectations around asset useful lives.
|Asset Type||Assumed Useful Life||Actual Useful Life|
|Coal-fired generation||40 years||50-60 years|
|Gas Combined Cycle||20 years||30 years|
|Utility Solar||30 years||15-20 years|
|Wind||20 years||10-15 years|
Why does this matter? Private investment tends to lean into markets where there is a strong belief of pending asset retirements that will require capacity substitutions from renewable resources. In addition, if useful lives are over-estimated on renewables relative to the actual capex requirements to build and maintain those assets, the risk of capital destruction increases.
At the same time we are seeing an increased risk in some of the renewable generation assets, we may also be missing opportunities in traditional energy. With improving commodity prices and capital discipline, the E&P sector saw record free cash flow and strong free cash flow margins last year. That strength is continuing into 2022. And whereas producers have historically increased capex with higher commodity prices, they are now showing much more discipline in their capital spending programs. This capital discipline is expected to be a permanent change to their business models, as E&P companies have heard from shareholders that they need to live within cash flow and remain selective about new development programs.
Leveraged Free Cash Flow Margin
LTM, Median Across Selected Peer Sets
S&P E&P Selected Cash Flow
s&p 1500 Oil & Gas E&P (sUB-iNDEX) Capex vs. Oil Prices
2004-2021; Average WTI Price ($bbl) by Quarter vs. Capex (Rebased)
In making some of these comparisons, we put together the table below. As noted, there are some similarities we are seeing in renewables today relative to the shale revolution we saw years ago — namely, aggressive capital inflows, loosening underwriting standards and an apparent unwillingness to distinguish between resource grade.
On the flip side, we see limited capital interest in traditional energy assets despite high distributable cash flows, disciplined capex decision making and attractive entry valuations. Most of the lack of institutional capital interest in the traditional energy space is attributed to ESG concerns related to the future viability of these asset types. These concerns are warranted, but as we have previously noted, we believe energy transitions take time and that traditional sources of energy will continue to make up the bulk of global energy needs for the foreseeable future. After a few very difficult years of capital raising, we are seeing some capital start to flow back into the traditional energy space, which is being reflected in share price performance relative to clean energy alternatives.
Growth of $100
1/2/2014 - 2/24/2021
All of this is not to say that we should stop investing in renewables or reverse progress in the energy transition. It is to highlight though that despite strong macro tailwinds, investing is never without risk and we see elevated risk in the renewable sector today as evidenced by high entry price multiples, aggressive underwriting assumptions, increased asset curtailment and potentially unmanageable constraints related to interconnection, transmission and distribution.
When we hear themes repeated and see the majority of market participants pursuing similar themes, it becomes much easier for us to accept those observations as known fact. Those “knowns” then become the basis for future decision-making and we may inadvertently create self-reinforcing feedback loops that lead us to screen out observations that we deem inconsistent with our own set of facts. As a result, we only see opportunities that look and feel like what we want to see, and although data may be telling us that we need to reevaluate what we “know,” it becomes increasingly difficult to shift our frame of reference.
S&P Oil & Gas E&P Select Index – The S&P Oil & Gas E&P Select Index comprises stocks in the S&P Total Market Index that are classified in the GICS oil & gas exploration & production sub-industry.
S&P 1500 Oil & Gas E&P Select Index – The S&P 1500 Index tracks all stocks in the S&P 500, S&P 400, and S&P 600.
S&P 500 Index –The S&P 500 Index tracks 500 largest companies based on market capitalization of companies listed on NYSE or NASDAQ.
This presentation has been prepared solely for informational purposes and contains confidential and proprietary information, the disclosure of which could be harmful to Hamilton Lane. Accordingly, the recipients of this presentation are requested to maintain the confidentiality of the information contained herein. This presentation may not be copied or distributed, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Hamilton Lane.
The information contained in this presentation may include forward-looking statements regarding returns, performance, opinions, the fund presented or its portfolio companies, or other events contained herein. Forward-looking statements include a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors beyond our control, or the control of the fund or the portfolio companies, which may result in material differences in actual results, performance or other expectations. The opinions, estimates and analyses reflect our current judgment, which may change in the future.
All opinions, estimates and forecasts of future performance or other events contained herein are based on information available to Hamilton Lane as of the date of this presentation and are subject to change. Past performance of the investments described herein is not indicative of future results. In addition, nothing contained herein shall be deemed to be a prediction of future performance. The information included in this presentation has not been reviewed or audited by independent public accountants. Certain information included herein has been obtained from sources that Hamilton Lane believes to be reliable, but the accuracy of such information cannot be guaranteed.
This presentation is not an offer to sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy, any security or to enter into any agreement with Hamilton Lane or any of its affiliates. Any such offering will be made only at your request. We do not intend that any public offering will be made by us at any time with respect to any potential transaction discussed in this presentation. Any offering or potential transaction will be made pursuant to separate documentation negotiated between us, which will supersede entirely the information contained herein.
Certain of the performance results included herein do not reflect the deduction of any applicable advisory or management fees, since it is not possible to allocate such fees accurately in a vintage year presentation or in a composite measured at different points in time. A client’s rate of return will be reduced by any applicable advisory or management fees, carried interest and any expenses incurred. Hamilton Lane’s fees are described in Part 2 of our Form ADV, a copy of which is available upon request.
The following hypothetical example illustrates the effect of fees on earned returns for both separate accounts and fund-of-funds investment vehicles. The example is solely for illustration purposes and is not intended as a guarantee or prediction of the actual returns that would be earned by similar investment vehicles having comparable features. The example is as follows: The hypothetical separate account or fund-of-funds consisted of $100 million in commitments with a fee structure of 1.0% on committed capital during the first four years of the term of the investment and then declining by 10% per year thereafter for the 12-year life of the account. The commitments were made during the first three years in relatively equal increments and the assumption of returns was based on cash flow assumptions derived from a historical database of actual private equity cash flows. Hamilton Lane modeled the impact of fees on four different return streams over a 12-year time period. In these examples, the effect of the fees reduced returns by approximately 2%. This does not include performance fees, since the performance of the account would determine the effect such fees would have on returns. Expenses also vary based on the particular investment vehicle and, therefore, were not included in this hypothetical example. Both performance fees and expenses would further decrease the return.
Hamilton Lane (Germany) GmbH is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hamilton Lane Advisors, L.L.C. Hamilton Lane (Germany) GmbH is authorised and regulated by the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin). In the European Economic Area this communication is directed solely at persons who would be classified as professional investors within the meaning of Directive 2011/61/EU (AIFMD). Its contents are not directed at, may not be suitable for and should not be relied upon by retail clients.
Hamilton Lane (UK) Limited is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hamilton Lane Advisors, L.L.C. Hamilton Lane (UK) Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). In the United Kingdom this communication is directed solely at persons who would be classified as a professional client or eligible counterparty under the FCA Handbook of Rules and Guidance. Its contents are not directed at, may not be suitable for and should not be relied upon by retail clients.
Hamilton Lane Advisors, L.L.C. is exempt from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services licence under the Corporations Act 2001 in respect of the financial services by operation of ASIC Class Order 03/1100: U.S. SEC regulated financial service providers. Hamilton Lane Advisors, L.L.C. is regulated by the SEC under U.S. laws, which differ from Australian laws.
Any tables, graphs or charts relating to past performance included in this presentation are intended only to illustrate the performance of the indices, composites, specific accounts or funds referred to for the historical periods shown. Such tables, graphs and charts are not intended to predict future performance and should not be used as the basis for an investment decision.
The information herein is not intended to provide, and should not be relied upon for, accounting, legal or tax advice, or investment recommendations. You should consult your accounting, legal, tax or other advisors about the matters discussed herein.
The calculations contained in this document are made by Hamilton Lane based on information provided by the general partner (e.g. cash flows and valuations), and have not been prepared, reviewed or approved by the general partners.
As of July 27, 2022