Critical Reading for Rare Earth Metals Investors

By The Gold Report, on December 30th, 2011

Rare earth element coverage has exploded since The Gold Report started covering this sector in early 2009. At that point, the REE junior mining market was a $2 billion industry. Today, REE juniors are a $10 billion+ industry—give or take a one-day market fluctuation, and Streetwise Reports now has a dedicated newsletter to cover the sector: The Critical Metals Report. Let’s look back at how far we have come.

A quick search of media stories from the month of December, 2009 shows 24 clips including references to the 15 lanthanides and their related elements scandium and yttrium. By contrast, one day in December, 2011 produced 56 stories on the same resources. Even the tone of REE coverage has transformed over the years. Two years ago, an analyst piece from veteran metals consultant Jack Lifton titled “Underpriced Rare Earth Metals from China Have Created a Supply Crisis ” was a common headline as the world discovered that cheap supplies had left manufacturers vulnerable to a monopoly with an agenda. That supply fear made REE the investment de jour and sent almost all of the rare earth prices through the roof. In December of 2010, the headlines in big outlets like The Motley Fool announced that the “Spot Price of Rare Earth Elements Soar as much as 750% since Jan. 2010.”

Reality soon set in as investors realized that this was not a simple supply and demand industry. First, demand was still vague, subject to change and very specific about the type and purity of the product being delivered. Second, the ramp-up period for companies exploring, getting approval for development, mining, processing efficiently and delivering to an end-user was very, very long. Some became discouraged. That is why this year, the consumer finance site, The Daily Markets ran an article with the headline: “Why You Shouldn’t Give Up on the Rare Earth Element Minerals” by Gold Stock Trades Newsletter Writer Jeb Handwerger.

Through it all, Streetwise Reports has focused on cutting through the hype to explain what is really driving demand, how the economy and geopolitics shape supplies going forward and which few of the hundreds of companies adding REE to their company descriptions actually had a chance of making a profit.

Back in June of 2009, in an interview titled “The Race to Rare Earths,” we ran an interview with Kaiser Research Online Editor John Kaiser that concluded “China’s export-based economy, once dependent on American greed, is now but a fading memory. While the U.S. was busy printing and preening, the Chinese were long-range planning. But America wasn’t the only country caught off guard by China’s strategic, if surreptitious, supply procurement.” Even while other analysts were panicking, Kaiser was pointing out how investors could be part of the solution–and make a profit in the process.

“For the juniors, the opportunity right now is to source these projects. They get title to them, and when these end users want to develop them, they’re going to have to pay a premium to have these projects developed,” Kaiser said. “So it will not be economic logic that results in these companies getting bought out and having their deposits developed. It’ll be a strategic logic linked to long-term security-of-supply and redundancy concerns. And we’re seeing that sort of psychology at work in this market. It’s a bit of a niche in this market. Not as big as gold, but it is an interesting one because of the long-term real economy link implications.”

After years of covering the space by interviewing the growing chorus of analysts and newsletter writers singing the praises of rare earth elements, in June of 2011, we launched The Critical Metals Report to give exclusive coverage to the entire space, including rare earth elements, strategic metals and specialty metals. One of the first experts interviewed was Emerging Trends Report Managing Editor Richard Karn in an article called “50 Specialty Metals under Supply Threat.” He warned that investing in the space is not as simple as some other mining operations. “The market is just starting to become aware of the difficulty involved with processing these metals, which, in many cases, more closely resemble sophisticated industrial chemistry than traditional onsite brute processing. Putting flow sheets together that process these metals and elements economically is no mean feat.”

In this early article, Karn busted the myth that manufacturers would find substitutions, engineer out or use recycled supplies for hard-to-access materials. “The advances we have seen especially in consumer electronics over the last decade and a half have not been driven by lone inventors or college kids tinkering in their parents’ garages, but rather by very large, well-equipped and well-staffed research arms of powerful corporations. The stakes are high and if a certain metal is critical in an application, they will buy it regardless of the price,” he said.

Similarly, a July 2011 article for The Critical Metals Report featured Energy and Scarcity Editor Byron King sharing “The Real REE Demand Opportunity” driven by the automobile industry and beyond. He was one of the first to point out that not all rare earths are the same with Heavy Rare Earth Elements demanding big premiums.

“Going forward, the serious money will be in HREEs, which have a lot of uses other than EVs,” King said. “For example, yttrium is used in high-temperature refractory products. There’s no substitute for yttrium. Without it, you can’t make the refractory molds needed to make jet-engine turbine blades. If you can’t make jet-engine turbine blades, you don’t have jet engines or power turbines. The price points for these HREEs will reflect true scarcity and unalterable demand. People will bite the bullet and pay what they have to in order to get the yttrium.”

House Mountain Partners Founder Chris Berry also addressed the impact of electric vehicle demand on vanadium, a popular steel alloy strengthener now being used in lithium-ion batteries in the interview “Can Electric Vehicles Drive Vanadium Demand? “

“The use of vanadium in LIBs for EVs is not significant yet, but could eventually become important as the transportation sector electrifies. One of the real challenges surrounding LIBs is settling on the most effective battery chemistry. In other words, what battery chemistry allows for the greatest number of charge recycles, depletes its charge the slowest and allows us to recharge the fastest? Today, based on my research, lithium-vanadium-phosphate batteries appear to offer the highest charge and the fastest recharge cycle. It seems that the lithium-vanadium-phosphate battery holds a great deal of promise, offering a blend of substantial power and reliability. I am watching for advances in battery chemistry here with great interest,” Berry said.

In September, Technology Metals Research Founding Principal Jack Lifton shared his insights on why some junior REE companies are prospering while others wither and die. In the article, “Profit from Really Critical Rare Earth Elements,” he said: “Rare earth junior miners are now being culled by their inability to raise enough capital to carry their projects forward to a place where either the product produced directly or the value to be gained from the company’s development to that point by a buyer can be more profitable than a less risky investment. The majority of the rare earth junior miners do not understand the supply chain through which the critical rare earth metals become industrial or consumer products. Additionally, they do not seem to recognize the value chain issue, which can be stated as ‘How far downstream in the supply chain do I need to take my rare earths in order to be able to sell them at a profit?’”

Then Lifton made this important point for Critical Metals Report readers. “It is very important for the small investor to understand that the share market does not directly benefit the listed company unless the company either sells more of its ownership or pledges future production for present, almost always sharply discounted, revenue.” As always, Lifton encouraged investors to follow the money to a specific end rather than the general market demand often envisioned by investors accustomed to the more defined gold market.

In October, JF Zhang Associates’ Principal Consultant and Chief China Strategist J. Peter Zhang shared his insights on “U.S. Manganese Supply as a Strategic Necessity.”

Manganese is now largely used largely in the production of low quality stainless steel, but is being incorporated into lithium-ion batteries. That increased demand is focusing attention on the limited supply outside China. “There really is no electrolytic manganese metals production in the U.S. or anywhere outside China except for a small percentage from South Africa. We don’t produce even a single ounce in North America. Relying on other countries to supply essential commodities (like oil for instance) is always a problem. If China suddenly decided to reduce production, or in the likely event that its domestic demand increases, the world would be out of options. Policymakers need to understand this risk and Congress needs to take action to minimize the potential impacts,” he said. “From the end of 2008 to 2009, China tied things up. Since then, the price has doubled, tripled and quadrupled. That should be a wakeup call. North America needs to either establish a strategic reserve system for critical metals or build production capacity to mitigate supply risk. I think there is some sense of urgency right now, but a lot more needs to be done.”

Picking the right junior is the trick. In the November article “Navigating the Rare Earth Metals Landscape” Technology Metals Research Founding Principal Gareth Hatch outlined the odds. “TMR is tracking well over 390 different rare earth projects at present; I can’t see more than 8-10 coming onstream in the next 5-7 years. Projects already well past exploration and into the development and engineering stage, and beyond, clearly have first-mover advantage.”

Just this month, in an interview entitled, “The Age of Rare Earth Metals” Jacob Securities Analyst Luisa Moreno compared the impact REEs will have on our daily lives with the transformation in the Bronze Age.

“There is an economic war over the rare earths, with China on one side and other industrialized nations on the other—Japan, the United States and the E.U. China is probably winning. It has decreased exports in the last few years and increased protection. It has attracted a great deal of the downstream business and it is positioning itself well. At this point, it produces most of the world’s rare earths, and prices are at record highs. Japan and the other countries have been left with few options, and those options are more expensive, such as substitution, recycling and adapting production lines to use less efficient materials.” Moreno then pointed to the seven companies that could come to the world’s rescue and usher in a miraculous new world of smaller, stronger, more powerful gadgets based on a steady supply of REE materials from reliable sources.

Macro-economic insights, specific investment ideas and the most current expert advice: That is why we have become critical reading for the REE investor today and will continue to be required reading in 2012. Are you getting the latest information on Critical Metals companies? Sign up here and enjoy a year of TCMR free. You can also hear top experts in the space commenting on the ideal way to start REE investing on our YouTube page.



Leave a comment   Financial Markets   , , ,  

I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today

By Doug Gentry, on December 30th, 2011

Was it Popeye’s friend, Wimpy, who kept asking for a hamburger on credit? Today’s credit markets are anything but robust, with reduced demand and supply for borrowed funds. Always eager to find obscure terms for modern dilemmas, economists refer to this condition as a liquidity trap. With a little prodding from Facebook friend and neighbor, Patrick, we’ll give the concept a once over.

Jumping to the conclusion (and resisting the academic approach of a slow, careful warm-up) there is bad news and good news about liquidity traps. The bad news is that they make it difficult for the Federal Reserve to execute monetary policy. Creating 100s of billions of dollars has a muted impact on our economic recovery. The good news is that the liquidity trap dampens the significant inflation we might expect with the creation of all that money.

OK, back to the beginning. During times of slow or no growth and high unemployment the Federal Reserve can create/inject money, largely by increasing reserves that banks have in their accounts with the Fed. They can do this by buying U.S. treasury bonds on the open market, or even by buying troubled/toxic assets from banks. This increase in the supply of money allows interest rates to fall, which in term spurs demand for more consumption and investment. This is classic monetary policy. With mild downturns this is often enough to increase growth and kick start the economy. For the most recent 2007-2009 recession the Fed took these actions, a number of times in a number of ways, and those actions were not sufficient. Now the target short term interest rate – the Fed Funds rate – is essentially at zero. The Fed can’t lower the interest rates any further. Here’s a graph of the Fed Funds rate since 1980. The big peak at the beginning of the graph was the result of aggressive Fed action to contain inflation. Now, though, the rate has sunk to the very floor.

Fed Funds Rate - St. Louis FRED databaseFed Funds Rate – St. Louis FRED database

One thing that is happening is that while reserves are building up in our financial system, the banks are holding on to them rather than increasing their lending. Some argue that the banks are using the added funds to improve their balance sheets, which were hurt by the dramatic loss in value of securitized mortgages and other derivative assets, and to build up enough cash to pay executive bonuses. The banks argue that demand for credit by qualified borrowers is low. I don’t put much credence in the latter explanation.  One apt analogy for this situation is that the Fed is trying to push on the end of a string, in order to get the economy going.

There is another layer to the liquidity trap concept, and that has to do with the buying public’s (people and business) expectation for inflation. The theory goes that if buyers expect inflation in the future, they will increase buying now. They expect the value of their cash or savings to go down during inflationary times, so they seek to use it now, while its value is still high. This works with traditional monetary policy where an injection of money would be expected to increase inflationary pressures.

On the other hand if purchasers believe that inflation will be controlled, then there is less pressure to buy now. That’s what is happening now. Despite what some politicians suggest, inflation is not right around the corner, and buyers are in no hurry to convert their cash into goods. We see evidence of this with the continuing low interest rates on U.S. bonds. Expectations of high inflation would push those interest rates up. Low inflation expectations, even in the face of increasing money supply is another symptom of a liquidity trap.

This scenario played out, to grim effect, in Japan in the 1990s, as their central bank poured money into the banking system and no one responded. Their “lost decade” was one of almost zero growth.

This paper by a New York Federal Reserve staff economist explains things in more detail, complete with impenetrable equations.



Leave a comment   Economic Theory   , , , , , ,  

Compelling Proof of the College Bubble

By Simon Grey, on December 30th, 2011

In Academically Adrift, Arum and Roksa paint a chilling portrait of what the university curriculum has become. The central evidence that the authors deploy comes from the performance of 2,322 students on the Collegiate Learning Assessment, a standardized test administered to students in their first semester at university and again at the end of their second year: not a multiple-choice exam, but an ingenious exercise that requires students to read a set of documents on a fictional problem in business or politics and write a memo advising an official on how to respond to it. Data from the National Survey of Student Engagement, a self-assessment of student learning filled out by millions each year, and recent ethnographies of student life provide a rich background.

Their results are sobering. The Collegiate Learning Assessment reveals that some 45 percent of students in the sample had made effectively no progress in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing in their first two years. And a look at their academic experience helps to explain why. Students reported spending twelve hours a week, on average, studying—down from twenty-five hours per week in 1961 and twenty in 1981. Half the students in the sample had not taken a course that required more than twenty pages of writing in the previous semester, while a third had not even taken a course that required as much as forty pages a week of reading.

One of the subtle cultural shifts arising from the education bubble has been how people are inclined to view college. It used to be that people went to college for an education. Now people go to college in order to ensure having a good job later on.* In essence, the role of college has shifted from education to credentials.

As such, it should not be surprising that colleges dumb down both their admission requirements and their curriculum, for the goal is not education. Rather, the goal is giving students customers a piece of paper that says they are smart. This claim doesn’t have to reflect reality in any meaningful way because most students don’t bear the direct costs of their “education.” Therefore, students are considerably more willing to spend their parents’ money and their future income on degrees that become less and less valuable.

Basically, then, the dumbing down of academic standards is proof of the education bubble because the free and cheap money subsidizes marginal students who would otherwise have no business being in college. This subsidy is then seen in the dumbed-down curriculum, for students expect to have something to show for the time and money they’ve put into college, and it’s easier to satisfy customers by giving them a degree regardless of their actual accomplishments.

*One thing that always puzzles me is how parents think that four to six years of extended adolescence is better for their children’s future than having an actual full time job is. But that’s for another post.



One comment   U.S. Economics   , , , , ,  

Economic Events on December 30, 2011

By B.P.T., on December 30th, 2011

At 3:00 PM Eastern time, the Farm Prices report for December will be released, giving investors and economists an indication of the direction of food prices in the coming months.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts


Leave a comment   U.S. Economics   ,