by
Clean Energy Intel

TAN v STP, YGE and TSL

The chart above tells a particularly interesting story. Back in
November of 2011, having been bearish on solar for some months,
we argued that the market was finally beginning to see  href="http://www.cleanenergyintel.com/2011/11/solars-good-news-cut-backs.html"
>a process of rebalancing in the solar sector.
A key component of this of course related to a number of
announcements from Chinese solar players that they would bring a
halt to new plans to expand capacity – at least until the end of
2012.

This factor, alongside the prospects for demand growth outside
of Europe, led us to see the potential for a healthier market
for solar as 2012 progresses. Nevertheless, it remains obvious
that a powerful process of creative destruction
remains in place, with low cost module suppliers likely to push
out the weaker players. 

As a result, our main call was for an outperformance and
recovery of a basket of low cost tier one Chinese solar stocks -
Suntech Power ( href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/comm/content/suntech-power/">STP),

Yingli Green Energy ( href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/comm/content/yingli-green-holding-company/">YGE)
and Trina Solar ( href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/comm/content/trina-solar/">TSL).

The chart above shows the performance of these stocks versus the
solar ETF href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/comm/content/claymore-mac-global-solar-index-etf/">TAN
- from the closing prices on Friday November 25th, ahead of the
publication of our recommendation to go long on the following
Monday.

Clearly the trade has worked well with all three stocks having
performed strongly. STP, YGE and TSL are up 36%, 24% and 29%
respectively. Moreover, what is most interesting is
not just the recovery in the solar sector as a whole but the
significant outperformance of these tier one Chinese solar
players – must as anticipated. Whilst the the tier one Chinese
solar players have seen a very strong performance, the overall
solar ETF TAN is only up 5% – a reasonable recovery from the
bottom but nothing to match the performance of China’s low cost
suppliers.

Of course, it is too early to suggest that this is a new trend.
However, in many ways it does make sense and perhaps the market
is beginning to pick winners and losers in solar’s war of
attrition as both costs and average selling prices continue to
fall.

TAN v STP, YGE and TSL – 1 Year
View

The second chart above also underlines the fact that this
appears to be a new development. During the difficult period for
solar over the past year, tier one Chinese solar stocks have, in
broad terms, tended to follow the overall market -
with TAN down -64%, Yingli doing slightly better at down -56%,
and STP and TSL both under performing at down -66% and down -69%
respectively. Against this past performance, the recent
outperformance of tier one Chinese solar players looks like it
may be a new development well worth following.

In terms of where we go from here, it’s seems worth repeating our
previous analysis pointing to a healthy rebalancing in the sector
as a whole:

• On the demand side, the rest of the world has been making up
  for slack demand out of Europe. In particular, the latest data
  points to blistering demand in the US – more detail  href="http://www.cleanenergyintel.com/2011/12/us-solar-blistering-demand-v-expiry-of.html">here

• Likewise, China and Asia are showing extremely strong demand
  growth – see our article on the issue href="http://www.cleanenergyintel.com/2011/11/solar-asia-pacific-demand-to-help.html">here

• And most importantly, on the supply side, the major Chinese
  players have drawn a halt to their excessively aggressive
  capacity expansion plans – more detail href="http://www.cleanenergyintel.com/2011/11/solars-good-news-cut-backs.html">here. 

Finally, survey-based data from SolarBuzz also points to an
ongoing consolidation in the industry. You can read a fuller
discussion of this data href="http://www.cleanenergyintel.com/2011/12/solar-one-chart-that-highlights.html"
>here. In summary, the SolarBuzz survey
conducted in Q2 of the current year, pointed to manufacturers’
shipping plans of just over 8 GW of modules in Q3 of this year and
almost 9 GW in Q4. The somewhat obvious result was oversupply, a
continued inventory build and falling module prices. 

However, href="http://www.solarbuzz.com/industry-news/solar-photovoltaic-companies-shifting-focus-market-share-growth-profitability-2012">in

the latest SolarBuzz survey, conducted at the end of Q3,
those numbers have fallen to just over 6 GW for Q3 and a tad
over 5 GW for the final quarter of the year. This level of
adjustment is precisely what is required to finally bring the
industry back towards balance during the course of 2012. 

All of the data above of course simply highlights this new
realism on the production and capacity side of the
equation. Taken together, these factors should allow the
supply-demand imbalance currently facing the industry to be
eroded as 2012 progresses.

Moreover, as consolidation in the industry progresses, the
low cost tier one Chinese players should continue to outperform.
We continue to recommend being long a basket of SunPower, Yingl
and Trina Solar. Separately, we also recommended being long
First Solar and would continue with that trade.

Disclosure: I have no positions
in the stocks discussed.


Clean Energy Intel is a free investment advisory
service produced by a retired hedge fund strategist. You can read more at href="http://www.cleanenergyintel.com/">www.cleanenergyintel.com

Tom Konrad CFA

There are many proposed solutions to
the liquid fuels scarcity caused by stagnating (and eventually falling)
oil supplies combined with growing demand in emerging economies. 
Some will be good investments, others won’t.  Here is where I’m
putting my money, and why. 
This first part looks at biofuel strategies for replacing oil.

World oil supplies are stagnant, and in the not-so-distant future will
begin to decline.  If economic growth continues, demand for oil
will increase as well.  This will lead to a long term rise in oil
prices, which will only stop if 1) high oil prices or other factors
stop
or reverse economic growth, or 2) we find some way to use much less oil
for the same amount of economic activity.  Each of these scenarios
will have winners and losers.  In other words, investment
opportunities. 

Substitution

The most obvious strategy for dealing with peak oil is
substitution.  If we can find another form of energy in place of
oil, then our economy can grow without more painful adjustments. 
These strategies are among the most popular, because they hold out the
hope that we’ll be able to transition with a minimum of pain. 
That is wishful thinking.  There will be a market for petroleum
substitutes, but those
substitutes are likely to be more expensive and supply-limited
than oil currently is.  We will have to adapt in other ways as
well
as using substitutes.

The leading substitutes include

1. Biofuels and Biochemicals
2. Electric vehicles
3. Hydrogen
4. Natural Gas

Biofuels and Bioplastics
include a whole range of technologies which convert plant and animal
matter into useful substances similar to the extremely useful
transportation fuels, chemicals, and plastics that we currently get
from oil. 

Only some biomass is easy to convert into fuels, like sugars and
starches into ethanol, and oils into biodiesel.  But it is no
coincidence that such biomass is also useful as food.  We eat
these things because our bodies can easily convert them into useful
energy.  We don’t eat wood chips or grass because they are
difficult to digest and convert into energy.   Biofuels
substitution strategies all essentially involve diverting biomass from
somewhere else in the economy (or land on which to grow the biomass
from other forms of agriculture) to producing oil substitutes. 
The more inputs we divert, the more expensive the products we might
have
used those inputs for become.  This produces a commodity squeeze,
when the inputs become more expensive but the price for the output is
set by the oil price.  Such a commodity squeeze led to the current
problems in the corn ethanol and biodiesel industries.

Fortunately, we currently have a lot of biomass in our economy that is
currently wasted.  Waste oil can be easily converted into
biodiesel, and companies are looking at ways to convert the various
components of Municipal Solid Waste into ethanol or other
biofuels.  Municipal solid waste has a lot of biomass in it, but
its uneven nature means that it’s hard to convert into ethanol. 
Some of the best such waste is industrial food waste because it is
othen quite uniform, and homogeneity makes it easier to convert
into fuels. 

Although we are an extremely wasteful society, the amount of waste that
can usefully be converted into oil substitutes is small relative to the
amount of oil we currently use.  That means that as conversion
technologies are developed, there will be a scramble for useful
feedstock to convert to biofuels.  Since the limiting factor for
biofuels is likely to be feedstock, the companies most likely to
benefit from a trend towards biofuels are the people who own the
feedstock.  For example, corn farmers have done much better out of
the ethanol boom than the ethanol producers.  Although many
ethanol firms have filed for bankruptcy, and the ones that survived are
barely profitable, corn acreage and prices are still high compared to 5
years ago.

Conclusion

The href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2009/06/investment_ideas_from_the_advanced_biofuels_workshop.html">best
biofuels
investments
are
likely
to
be the companies that own or can
produce the feedstocks.  I particularly like the companies
that own or control municipal waste, since it’s currently free or even
has a negative price (i.e. people will pay you to take it off their
hands.)  That’s why href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/comm/content/waste-management/">Waste
Management
(WM) was one of my href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2009/12/ten_clean_energy_stocks_for_2010.html">Ten
Clean
Energy
Stocks
for
2010.  I also like href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2009/09/forestry.html">
forestry companies, since they currently produce forestry waste
that could become a valuable feedstock for cellulosic ethanol, or
simply be co-fired in existing coal plants to generate electricity
without net carbon emissions.

I’ll take up some of the other substitution strategies in the next part
of this series.

DISCLOSURE: Long WM.

DISCLAIMER: The information and trades
provided here are for informational purposes only and are not a
solicitation to
buy or sell any of these securities. Investing involves substantial
risk and you
should evaluate your own risk levels before you make any investment.
Past
results are not an indication of future performance. Please take the
time to
read the full disclaimer href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/disclosures.html">here.

Tom Konrad, CFA

If you like to take risks, want to fight climate change and prepare for
the impact of peak oil, and would also like a chance to make a big return on your
investments, here are ten investments you can make that might do all of those
things. 

A small part of my portfolio is usually in small, risky green companies with
the promise of big returns.  This year, however, I’m too bearish to own
many small, risky companies, but I’m still making some long-shot bets that could
pay off big.  Last year, my list of ten green energy gambles
had two
stocks that returned over 100%.  This
year, I’m hoping to do better by looking for profit on the short side of the
market.

In December, I made the case that green
and peak oil investors should be looking to the short side of the market. 
Declining supplies of oil and gigantic debt are bound to be a drag on the economy
for years to come.  Some companies and industries will be hurt more than
others.  Action to reduce carbon emissions will have both winners and
losers.  No matter how many green jobs are created, some industries will be
hurt.  Spotting the companies that will be hurt is easier than spotting the
beneficiaries: They’re the ones trying
hardest to derail climate legislation. They may succeed, but if they fail, we’ll
see it in their stock price.

Putting Your Money Down

On the short side, these gambles are going to be puts on companies or
industries I highlighted in my Green Energy Investing for Experts series. 
I’m using puts because they have the right sort of payout for gamblers: if the
stock does not fall much, you lose the premium you paid for the put.  If
the stock falls a lot, the put pays off in a big way.

One other advantage of puts is that they are more accessible to the ordinary
investor than shorting.  It’s much easier to get trading authority to buy
options from your broker than it is to get permission to sell calls or short
stocks.  It’s even possible to buy puts in a brokerage IRA, where federal
regulation prohibits shorting. Because this is a list of picks for 2010,
I’m only going to use puts that expire in January 2011, giving us a target date
of one year.

Should you be buying puts in your IRA? Your investment advisor would almost
certainly tell you "no."  But he’d probably also tell you that
"you should hold stocks for the long run." This conventional wisdom makes
no sense if you expect peaking fossil fuels to cause economic
decline.  Holding stocks for the long run also didn’t make sense when Jeremy Siegel’s
book with that title

was published in 1998.  If you’d bought the S&P 500 at the high in
1998, and sold at the high in 2009, you would have lost 9% over 11 years. 
If you’d bought at the low in 1998, and sold at the low in 2009, you’d have lost
27%.  

That’s not the kind of performance I want in my account.  
Nevertheless, you should use puts judiciously.  This is gambling,
even if peak oil is tilting the odds in our favor.  For myself, the money
in this type of bet is a very small part of my portfolio.

The Picks

*These ticker symbols will change after the second quarter
2010.

**Since options are typically illiquid and often go without
trading for days, this price is not the most recent trade, but the average of
the bid and ask price.

My Long Pick

On the long side, I have one energy
efficiency stock that I decided not to add to my Ten
Clean Energy Stocks for 2010 because of liquidity concerns.  

This stock is Power
Efficiency Corporation (PEFF.OB.)  I first heard about them over two
years ago when BJ Lackland, the company CFO called us up and said he wanted to advertise
on AltenergyStocks.com.  They had read one of the many articles I write
about energy efficiency, and why it should be at the core of a clean energy
portfolio, and decided that our readers would get the benefit of cutting
energy use of escalators, elevators, rock crushers, and other variable-load,
constant speed motors with clever controllers.  Did you realize that a
single escalator can draw about 6kW?  One kW is about the amount of energy
used by a typical home. Power
Efficiency’s controller cuts that to about 4kW.  In other words, if an
escalator runs 12h a day, one of their controllers will save enough energy to
run an entire home. 

When they first became an advertiser, I was reluctant to give them an extra
boost by mentioning them in articles, because of the conflict of interest. 
I did mention them a couple times, but never as prominently as this, and always
with a disclosure about the relationship.  Last fall, however, I finally
decided to take the plunge, and made a significant investment in the company,
simply because I think it’s a good investment.  Now that my own money is
where my mouth is, I feel much better writing about the stock.  I can now
honestly say that this is a company that I would invest in myself.

Liquidity matters because PEFF trades on the Bulletin Boards.  If too
many readers rush to buy, the price will shoot up and make it no longer a good
value.  This happened in a small way to C&D
Technologies (CHP) which I included in the top
10 list.  That stock was up over 20% the three trading days after I
published my top 10 stock list, despite the fact that CHP had a daily turnover
of about $300,000 and there was no other news.  There was news of an Army
contract the following day, though, so part of the run-up could have been driven
by people in the know illegally trading on the information.  I’ve come to
believe that that type of insider trading is quite common, because I often see
stock prices moving in anticipation of this sort of announcement.

Power Efficiency only has a daily turnover of a little over $1,000. 
Since you’re gamblers, I’ll just suggest that you get in early, or wait and hope
for a correction after this article bumps up the stock price.

Weights

You’ll note in the table that I’ve assigned weights.  These are mostly
intended for tracking the performance of the portfolio over the year, and were
chosen to reflect my general confidence in each of the bets.

I expect that readers are not going to buy all these securities in these
proportions. In fact, you will probably be better off if you only buy a few of the
suggested puts, and use different strike prices than the ones I’ve
listed.  Only buying a few will save you money on commissions, while using
different strike prices will help you get reasonable prices on these illiquid securities. 
I’d suggest using limit orders as well, to limit the price impact of your
individual orders. 

How Much to Buy

Unlike last year, this portfolio is meant as a complement to my 10 Green
Picks for 2010.  If you have a larger portfolio and an account where you
can buy options, this portfolio can be used as a complement to that portfolio if
you are worried about a fall in the market as a whole.  The dollar
investment in these puts should only be around one to five percent of your total
long portfolio positions if you’re trying to hedge your exposure.  If you
are confident that the market will fall drastically and hope to profit from such
an event in 2010, you might invest more.  I personally don’t have that much
confidence in my own sense of timing.  I have a long history of being
much too early on my market calls, going back to the start of my investing career
in the late 90s, when I thought this Internet fad was going to end at any time.
It took three more years.

Benchmarks

Because this is a mostly a portfolio of Puts, ordinary benchmarks don’t make
sense.  Instead, in order to compare like to like, I plan to use a put on
an index ETF which also expires in January 2010.  My first choice for an underlying
ETF would be SPY, but long dated puts on SPY expire in December, not
January.  Instead, I’ll use a put on the DIAMONDS Trust (DIA), which
tracks the Dow Jones Industrial Average.  In particular, my benchmark will
be DIA Jan 2010 $75 Put for the 80% of this portfolio on the short side. This
put is currently trading under the ticker ZAVMO.X,
with the average of bid and ask prices at $1.49.
For the long side of the portfolio, I’ll use the Powershares
Wilderhill Clean Energy ETF (PBW), with a 20% weight, which closed on
January 8 at 11.74.

How the portfolio performs relative to this benchmark will give some
indication of how useful my sector and stock picking  is, even though the profitability
of this portfolio will mostly be determined by the direction the market takes in
2010.  If we have another year like 2008, this portfolio should be
profitable no matter how bad my sector picks were, while if next year is a
repeat of 2009, no amount of sector picking is going to save this portfolio from
a loss (barring some catastrophic event for one of the particular
companies.)  In other words, the benchmark is there to test how good my
ideas in Green
Energy Investing for Experts really were.

I’ll update you on how this portfolio and my
top 10 picks are doing each quarter, just like I did last year.  

DISCLOSURE: Long
PEFF.  Short EWW, DAL, AMR, LUV, BTU, CNX, HOT.

DISCLAIMER: The information and trades
provided here are for informational purposes only and are not a solicitation to
buy or sell any of these securities. Investing involves substantial risk and you
should evaluate your own risk levels before you make any investment. Past
results are not an indication of future performance. Please take the time to
read the full disclaimer here.

Some random items, including some administrative housekeeping:

1.  If you haven’t seen it, it’s worth reading DOE Secretary Chu’s op-ed on weatherization and all of the governmental support being thrown toward that part of energy efficiency.  Heady times for residential and commercial energy efficiency efforts.  Side note:  The Secretary of Energy is publishing his op-eds in the Huffington Post now?  Wow, this Internet thingy might actually be catching on.

2.  How the government “picks winners and losers” is a topic of much conversation these days, re: cleantech and otherwise.  It’s especially a topic given the structure of some of the programs being used to accelerate commercialization and adoption of clean technologies — such as the DOE loan guarantee program, etc.  See, for example, this interesting editorial in the Washington Post that a colleague pointed out to me today, and the very good discussion we had on the PE Hub panel on the topic here in Boston this week (note: link may disappear behind subscriber wall soon).  It’s tough, though, to come up with strong alternative solutions to what’s being done.  There are gaps that need to be specifically addressed, especially at the seed / very early stage (where ARPA-E is intended to aim) and at the “first of a kind” project finance stage (which is where the loan guarantee is intended to aim).  There isn’t enough funding to support every deserving effort, nor would we necessarily want that (define “deserving”?).  I’ve seen proposals to do it more hands-off, by having the money go in some form to private sector investors who would make the decisions, perhaps as matching funds to provide leveraged returns for private LPs in the fund, to fix the risk v. reward imbalance that created the capital gap.  Some of these ideas have merit, but even then some government body needs to be determining which funds would receive the leveraging support and which wouldn’t.    Broader market-based systems (including cap and trade, carbon taxes, ITCs, PTCs, etc.) are more diffuse in impact and harder to target at specific capital gaps.  And doing nothing is not an option.  So I’ll let the debate go on, but my feeling is that you simply have to design the best policy you can, hope the DOE can attract the best decision-makers that they can (and I’ve seen some really smart people go into the DOE over the past year or so), and accept a necessarily imperfect process.  Easy to say, hard to stomach. 

3.  Speaking of policy issues, a few days back I wrote about a study which examined coal-fired generators in the U.S. and concluded that there could be a relatively low natural limit on carbon prices under a cap and trade scheme.  I mentioned a few gaps I saw in the analysis, and for you wonks out there like me, a reader wrote in and pointed out another important one:  Elasticity of demand means that some of the costs on the generators will be passed downstream, so that they would require higher carbon prices than indicated in the study before making the decision that shutting down is worth it.  Of course, generators would also be able to pass some of the costs upstream as well, in all likelihood.  It’s still a very intriguing study conceptually, but between failure to address elasticities of demand in the electricity value chain, and the other factors I mentioned in the post, I’m not sure I would want to do any significant investment planning around the specific price limits they indicate.

4.  An administrative note:  Over the 4+ years of writing this column, I’ve attempted (not always successfully) to hew to the most rigorous of blogosphere rules regarding notification of self-interest, in that I’ve tried to note whenever I’ve mentioned a company in which I have some stake in their success.  But in my current position that’s becoming impossible, due to the breadth of indirect investment activities involved.  I can’t reveal self-interest in many cases without possibly revealing some fund’s confidential information, and I can’t mention some companies and not others because then the occasional obvious failure to mention a deal becomes an indicator by itself.  So my choices are either to never mention any companies at all ever again, or simply to ask you all to trust me that I won’t too horribly pump up a company or fund where I have a significant self-interest, without noting that.  I may still mention self-interest sometimes if I can, but not always.  Is that okay?  Tough call, and I’ve wrestled with it for a while.  Flames, suggestions, etc. are all welcomed in the comments or via email.

5.  Another administrative note:  Yes, I know I’m horribly behind on listing deals that get announced in the sector.  Apologies, but still, no one seems to have complained yet.  Maybe I can stop that practice?  Or maybe a smart Sloan student reader wants to help me with it?

Tom Konrad, Ph.D., CFA

My Quick Clean
Energy Tracking Portfolio continues to outperform all benchmarks and
expectations… is it luck, or did I stumble onto a better way to invest in
green energy stocks?

I continue to be stunned at how the portfolio which I intended as an easy
way to duplicate green energy mutual fund performance at much
lower cost continues to blow those green
mutual funds out of the water.  I last published an update
on this portfolio at the end of May, and was shocked to find that it had
beaten the funds it was intended to replicate by over 20% in 3 months.  The
trend continues… it’s now almost 7 months later, and the portfolio has widened
its lead over the mutual funds by 30%.

Winners and Losers

In May, I hypothesized that the out performance might have been due to how I
constructed the portfolio: I chose five stocks from the top holdings of the
mutual funds which had performed worst over the preceding three years.  I
did this because there is a fairly well-documented
winner-loser effect [pdf], that shows systematic price reversals in stocks
that show long-term gains or losses.  In particular, stocks showing long
term losses are more likely to make gains in following years than long term
winners.

I tried to test if the out-performance was solely due to winner-loser
effects by going back to my original data and seeing how a portfolio constructed
with winners rather than losers would fare.  To my surprise, the
"winners" portfolio also significantly outperformed the
mutual funds (by 10% over 3 months).  I’ve updated the performance of the
"winners" portfolio as well, and it also has increased it’s gains
compared to the mutual fund portfolio, and is now outperforming by 15% over 7
months.

Winner-loser effects seem to be playing a role, but at most, they explain about a quarter of the out-performance of the "Losers"
portfolio so far.  There may be other, as yet unknown, causes of the
superior performance of the "Losers" portfolio.  

No matter what the cause, for winner-loser effects to explain all of the
difference, the "Winners" portfolio would have to be under-performing
the mutual funds by about as much as the "Losers" portfolio is
outperforming.  Where did the other three quarters of the out-performance
come from?  Is it just luck?

"Losers" Tracking Portfolio

*Dividend and split adjusted.

"Winners" Tracking Portfolio:

*Dividend adjusted.

Mutual Fund Portfolio

The Other Three Quarters

Since I did the first update, I’ve come up with three hypotheses to
explain the phenomenon:

1. Higher Beta: The stocks I picked may be more sensitive to market moves
   than the mutual funds as a whole.  Since the market has been rising,
   the "Winner" and "Loser" portfolios have been rising
   more.
2. Cleantech sectors: My picks put more emphasis on certain Cleantech sectors
   than do the funds; perhaps the overweight sectors have driven the
   out-performance.
3. Mutual Fund Manager skill: The mutual fund managers are likely to hold
   more of their favorite stocks than they hold of other stocks.  If they
   each have a few good ideas, then I am taking advantage of those good ideas
   by selecting my portfolios from the mangers’ top five holding.  The
   high diversification of the mutual funds keeps mutual fund shareholders from
   fully benefiting from their managers’ skill.

Below, I’ve graphed the performance of the "Winner" and
"Loser" portfolios against several possible benchmarks: the blended
performance of the mutual funds, the S&P 500 index, and five green
energy ETFs (ICLN,
QCLN,
PBW,
PBD,
and GEX.) 
Since the ETFs each track a difference index for the Cleantech sector, it’s
reasonable to assume that they represent the performance of the average
Cleantech stock.

This promises to be a fairly long investigation, so I plan to break it up
into a series that I’ll publish over the next few days.  I’ll add links to
the articles here
as I publish them.  The first one, in which I look into my "Higher
Beta" hypothesis, will be published here shortly.

It could turn out that none of my hypotheses explain the out-performance
we’ve seen.  In that case, it could be luck, or it could be something I
have not thought of.  

Easy Green Money… Too Good to be True?

I’m hoping that I find some evidence for mutual fund
manager skill.  To do that, I’ll need to eliminate the other possibilities.
If I can, we can expect this method to produce
out-performance in the future, and under any market condition.  In other
words, my attempt at a tracking portfolio might just be a better way to play
green stocks.  An easy way to play green energy, without having to pay high
fees?  It sounds to good to be true, but in the wild west of green energy
investing, in might last for a year or two.

What do you think?  Is there  something else I should
investigate?  If so, please leave your suggestion in the comments.

DISCLOSURE: Tom Konrad and/or his clients own LXU, ELON, and
AMSC. The Guinness Atkinson Fund is an advertiser on his website, AltEnergyStocks.com

DISCLAIMER: The information and trades provided here and in the comments are for
informational purposes only and are not a solicitation to buy or sell any of
these securities. Investing involves substantial risk and you should evaluate
your own risk levels before you make any investment. Past results are not an
indication of future performance. Please take the time to read the full
disclaimer here.