Morgan Stanley. Tesla non sarebbe un buon investimento.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-08-23.

«Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) is a leading global financial services firm providing investment banking, securities, wealth management and investment management services. It is headquartered at 1585 Broadway in the Morgan Stanley Building, Midtown Manhattan, New York City. With offices in more than 42 countries and more than 55,000 employees, the firm’s clients include corporations, governments, institutions and individuals.

Morgan Stanley, formed by J.P. Morgan & Co. partners Henry Sturgis Morgan (grandson of J.P. Morgan), Harold Stanley and others, came into existence on September 16, 1935, in response to the Glass–Steagall Act that required the splitting of commercial and investment banking businesses. In its first year the company operated with a 24% market share (US$1.1 billion) in public offerings and private placements. The main areas of business for the firm today are Institutional Securities, Wealth Management and Investment Management.» [Fonte]

*

In numeri, Morgan Stanley nel 2016 denunciava ricavi per 37.95 miliardi Usd, reddito operativo 8.5 miliardi, ed un asset under management di 1,300 miliardi. Più tutto il resto.

Di questa banca di interesse mondiale si può dire di tutto tranne che non sappiano guadagnare loro e far guadagnare i propri clienti, che le hanno dato da gestire un qualcosa come 1,300 miliardi di dollari.

Morgan Stanley sa più che bene come l’unico modo di mantener e di accrescere la clientela sia farla guadagnare.

* * * * * * *

«Whilst the electric vehicles and lithium batteries manufactured by these two companies do indeed help to reduce direct CO2 emissions from vehicles, electricity is needed to power them.»

*

«And with their primary markets still largely weighted towards fossil-fuel power (72% in the U.S. and 75% in China) the CO2 emissions from this electricity generation are still material»

*

«the carbon emissions generated by the electricity required for electric vehicles are greater than those saved by cutting out direct vehicle emissions.»

*

«Morgan Stanley, …. admitted that considering companies on a climate-change basis was not a perfect science»

* * * * * * *

Il risultato delle ricerche condotte dalla Morgan Stanley è riassumibile in due statement:

– se è vero che le automobili elettriche non sarebbero inquinanti, la produzione della corrente necessaria al loro funzionamento risulterebbe essere ancor più inquinante rispetto ai classici motori a combustione.

– Tesla non sarebbe società sulla quale operare investimenti strategici.

* * * * * * *

Ecco qualche spigolatura su Tesla.

Tesla. Vendite -24%, ma tanto lo stato ripiana….

Hong Kong. Tesla. Da grande mercato a zero vendite. Zero.

Denmark Is Killing Tesla (and Other Electric Cars)

Tesla’s sales in Denmark fell a jaw-dropping 94% last year – and Musk could see the crash from miles away

Tesla Bankruptcy Chances Increased Exponentially With The Capital Raise

Tesla: Capital Raise Now, Or Bankruptcy In 4 Months

Tesla Is Going Bankrupt And Is Still A Great Short

*

Trump. Tesla. Toyota fa fagotto e la lascia alla bancarotta

---

→ New American. 2017-08-18. Morgan Stanley: Tesla Not as Green as You Think

Morgan Stanley, the international banking behemoth, released the results of its study on the best “green” companies in which to invest. This is based, said the bank, on the assumptions that some, perhaps many, investors who have drunk the “green Kool-Aid” want to invest in ways to “save” the environment and fight against “climate change.” Missing from the top of their list is perhaps the most visible “green” automobile company: Tesla, Inc., formerly known as Tesla Motors.

After comparing the savings in carbon dioxide (CO2) achieved by Tesla’s high-mileage electric vehicles to all the “secondary and tertiary” factors involved in their manufacture, Morgan Stanley said, “The carbon emissions generated by the electricity required … are greater than those saved by cutting out direct vehicle emissions.” That Tesla wasn’t nearer to the top, said the bank, was one of the “biggest surprises” of its study.

Part of the problem, said the report, is that that electricity is largely generated by burning fossil fuels. With “72% [of electricity produced] in the U.S. [by fossil fuels], the CO2 emissions from this electricity generation are still material,” said the bank.

This echoed conclusions made back in May by British “greenhouse gas” expert Mike Berners-Lee, author of How Bad are Bananas?: The Carbon Footprint of Everything. Said Berners-Lee: “If you are a relatively low-mileage person, you should stick with your gas-powered car.” Enviros at left-liberal Salon magazine interviewed Berners-Lee, who admitted that “green” isn’t just measured by tail-pipe emissions, but by everything involved in building a Tesla:

Important factors in determining carbon emissions include the weight of the vehicle, driving habits and the source of the electricity that charges your car … it can be a much greener choice to keep the perfectly functional car you have, rather than go out and buy a new [green] one.

That CO2 calculation which adds up everything involved a building a Tesla, or any other vehicle, is called “embodied carbon”: all the energy required to build the car from the ground up. That includes the extraction and processing of raw materials and shipping the parts and the vehicles themselves across oceans in oil- or coal-fired tankers. It also includes the cost of building the massive plants to assemble them.

For instance, Tesla received approval last December from the city of Fremont, California, to expand its present facility there by 4.6 million square feet, which includes 12 “growth zones” around the site. This expansion includes the steel, concrete, and plastic not only in its construction but in the production lines and computers that drive the robots. It also must encompass the tax credits that Fremont’s politicians no doubt granted to keep Tesla from building its plant elsewhere.

There’s another cost involved as well — one that neither Berners-Lee nor Morgan Stanley considered: the $7,500 tax credit provided to purchasers of the Tesla which is paid for by taxpayers. These “incentives” distort the market and tilt it in favor of Tesla against its competitors. Without those incentives, credits, and political enticements, Tesla (which, by the way has turned a profit in just two quarters in its 13-year existence) might just be a footnote in history.

In other words, one can never know whether Tesla’s electric car venture would ever pay off, either economically or environmentally. Once the government (state, local, or federal) gets involved in picking winners, it distorts the market because it is also automatically involved in punishing losers (those who don’t get the credits). So one cannot ever be sure whether the free market, driven by consumer choice, would reward Tesla with profitability or even allow its continued existence.

Just how great is that market distortion, thanks to governmental favoritism and media hype? Consider this: Tesla’s market capitalization (its stock price multiplied by shares outstanding) is now greater than that of General Motors! This despite the fact that Tesla lost $773 million in 2016 while GM earned a profit of more than $9 billion. This despite the fact that Tesla sold only 76,000 cars last year while GM sold 10 million.

Tesla just may be “building a better mousetrap” with its lithium-ion battery-powered automobiles. It’s too bad that the free market won’t be allowed to make that decision on its own.

---

→ Market Watch. 2017-08-18. Want to fight climate change? Don’t invest in Tesla

Climate change is almost unanimously considered one of the gravest threats facing humanity, with the worst-case scenarios representing massive environmental destruction. Investors hoping to combat it with their portfolio allocations can, but one famous environmentally focused company may actually be doing more harm than good.

Morgan Stanley identified 39 stocks that generate at least half their revenue “from the provision of solutions to climate change,” something it said was a central component of investing to make a difference, as opposed to just a making a buck.

“In our view, impact investing needs to begin with companies whose products and services have a notable positive environmental or social impact,” wrote Jessica Alsford, an equity strategist at the investment bank.

Not surprisingly, alternative-energy companies ranked the highest in terms of their positive impact, and the “top five climate-change impact stocks” were all manufacturers of solar and wind energy: Canadian Solar CSIQ, -9.86% China High Speed Transmission 0658, +0.00% GCL-Poly 3800, +0.00% Daqo New Energy DQ, -5.25% and Jinko Solar JKS, -9.99%

Not among the top companies? Electric-car makers, including Tesla Inc. TSLA, -2.76% Elon Musk’s company has been an investor favorite for years, even eclipsing Ford Motor Co. F, +0.09%  and General Motors GM, +0.23%  in market cap.

Tesla shares are up nearly 66% so far this year, but the good it may have been doing for portfolios may not translate to it doing good for the planet. Morgan Stanley said this was one of the “biggest surprises” of its study.

The bank grouped the “climate-change impact stocks” into four sector categories: utilities, renewable manufacturers, green infrastructure companies and transportation stocks. It then analyzed them on a number of metrics, including “the CO2 [carbon dioxide] savings achieved from the products and services sold by the companies,” as well as secondary and tertiary factors centered around the environmental impact of the making of these products.

This is where Tesla, along with China’s Guoxuan High-Tech 002074, +1.30% fall short.

“Whilst the electric vehicles and lithium batteries manufactured by these two companies do indeed help to reduce direct CO2 emissions from vehicles, electricity is needed to power them,” Morgan Stanley wrote. “And with their primary markets still largely weighted towards fossil-fuel power (72% in the U.S. and 75% in China) the CO2 emissions from this electricity generation are still material.”

In other words, “the carbon emissions generated by the electricity required for electric vehicles are greater than those saved by cutting out direct vehicle emissions.”

Morgan Stanley calculated that an investment of $1 million in Canadian Solar results in nearly 15,300 metric tons of carbon dioxide being saved every year. For Tesla, such an investment adds nearly one-third of a metric ton of CO2.

Morgan Stanley, which in February advocated for looking at gender diversity when analyzing companies, admitted that considering companies on a climate-change basis was not a perfect science.

“Very few if any stocks will have a 100% net positive impact,” read the report. “However, the extra layer of analysis on subsidiary effects must be a subjective judgement call, based on whether the additional impacts (of which there may be many) are sufficiently negative to offset the positive effect created by the core business.”

It added, “We even struggled to find total CO2 emissions data for most companies.”

Investing with an eye toward the environment is part of a growing trend of ESG investing, which stands for evaluating companies on environmental, social and governance grounds. Such investments favor companies that have strong environmental policies, or that treat their employees well, for example.

There are even funds that focus specifically on climate-change issues, like the iShares MSCI ACWI Low Carbon Target ETF CRBN, -0.10%  or the SPDR MSCI ACWI Low Carbon Target ETF LOWC, -0.12%  . Both exchange-traded funds have outperformed the broader S&P 500 so far this year, whereas the largest ETF to track the energy sector XLE, -0.51%  recently dropped into bear-market territory, defined as a 20% drop from a peak.

The low-carbon funds have seen increased usage over the past year, something analysts credit to the election of President Donald Trump, whose administration is seen as hostile to environmentally friendly policies.

Germania. Deutsche Bank esclusa dal novero delle banche mondiali.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-08-09.

A statue is pictured next to the logo of Germany’s Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt, Germany September 30, 2016. REUTERS/Kai Pfaffenbach/File Photo

I comportamenti irrazionali esitano invariabilmente in dolorosi insuccessi.

E l’esperienza storica insegna come ogni intervento politico sul sistema bancario ne denaturi la specificità e ne eroda la consistenza, anche fino al fallimento.

Se è ragionevole che lo stato dia leggi e regolamenti semplici e chiari anche per il settore bancario, altrettanto chiaro dovrebbe essere il fatto che tali interventi debbano prendere atto della realtà dei fatti: le concezioni politiche ed economiche utopiche sono la miglior ricetta verso il fallimento.

Le banche vivono imprestando denaro a chi poi renda il ricevuto e nel frattempo paghi interessi: il prestito politico diventa in breve un credito in sofferenza e tassi di interesse artificiosamente nulli o, peggio, negativi, impediscono alla banca di sopravvivere.

*

La orgogliosa Germania ha visto uscire dal novero delle principali banche mondiali Deutsche Bank, la cui proprietà non è più peraltro tedesca. Ma senza un sistema bancario a livello mondiale è del tutto impossibile sostenere una politica con ambizioni mondiali né, tanto meno, illudersi di poter nutrire ‘valori’ che si vorrebbero imporre a tutto il mondo. Già ci si è occupati di Deutsche Bank.

Deutsche Bank. Il Qatar mira al 25%. HBJ.

Deutsche Bank. Asset azionario e terrorismo. I proprietari.

Germania. Predicare bene e razzolare male. Il caso Deutsche Bank.

Germania. Incidenza economica del calo demografico. – Bloomberg.

*

«the biggest 25 private banks managed $13.3 trillion for clients with at least $1 million in assets, representing 63.2 percent of the market»

*

«The biggest gainer on the list was China Merchants Bank, which rose five rungs to 15th. Bank of China also entered the list, in 24th place»

*

«Deutsche Bank dropped out of the world’s top 15 private banks in 2016»

*

«Private banking assets at Deutsche Bank fell 28 percent in dollar terms to $227 billion at the end of 2016»

*

«The demand rocked confidence in Deutsche Bank and triggered billions of dollars in withdrawals by clients. The bank eventually settled for $7.2 billion.»

*

«Operating income in the industry was virtually flat as private banks faced up to low and negative interest rates as well as an increasing preference by wealthy clients for passive investments»

* * * * * * *

Le banche di interesse mondiale gestiscono 13.3 trilioni di dollari loro affidati da clienti almeno milionari: questa quota rappresenta il 62% del mercato. Sono clienti estremamente mobili, che non tollerano perdite: o li soddisfi oppure semplicemente se ne vanno. E su scala mondiale trovano pur sempre opzioni loro favorevoli.

La Germania paga un severo scotto all’aver pensato ed agito in modo ideologico, utopico.

– La prima calamitosa utopia è quella che l’Eurozona sia finanziariamente omogenea. Ciò è falso: tipicamente i paesi mediterranei hanno esigenze opposte a quelle dei paesi del nord. Nessuna banca centrale può soddisfare simultaneamente esigenze discordanti.

– La seconda utopia è che la Germania possa essere egemone. Per essere grande, la Germania avrebbe dovuto rinunciare ad essere immensa. Nei fatti, ed il mercato lo dimostra ampiamente, il suo sistema finanziario è semplicemente troppo limitato per poter sostenere le ambizioni dell’ideologia valoriale di Frau Merkel. Non sussiste mercato finanziario che non affondi le sue radici in un solidissimo comparto produttivo. Se è vero che la Svizzera abbia un florido sistema bancario senza una rilevante produzione industriale, è altrettanto vero che non abbia ambizioni egemoniche.

– La terza utopia consiste nell’aver optato per una politica economica di earning e tassi negativi nel tentativo di poter contenere gli effetti di debiti pubblici oramai ingestibili. È stato un tentativo disperato di mantenere in vita una Eurozona morta e defunta, non senza la malizia di poter ricattare gli stati fortemente indebitati ai propri voleri, imponendo loro i così detti ‘valori’ di Frau Merkel, non da ultima la politica migratoria.

– La quarta utopia è che la politica possa governare finanza ed economia. È un cascame dell’ideologia comunista prima, socialista e liberal dopo. Se sicuramente sia vero che la politica abbia il potere di imporre un lungo periodo di tassi negativi, sarebbe altrettanto vero che alla fine dovrà ben constatarne come non abbia salvato nulla e nessuno, esitando solo nella distruzione totale del sistema. I clienti abbandonano in massa le banche che non possano oppure non sappiano far fruttare i propri capitali.

– La quinta utopia è di portata sul medio – lungo termine. Se i grandi capitali non disdegnano sicuramente il cogliere buone occasioni di guadagno immediato, la loro vocazione è nei fatti una allocazione di lungo termine, e tale è solo un impiego nel sistema produttivo. Ma valutata nel medio – lungo termine la situazione tedesca non solo è improduttiva, ma anche irredimibile a causa della crisi demografica che incombe: gi autoctoni sono in via di estinzione. Senza personale qualificato non esiste collettività e, quindi, il relativo sistema economico. E questo fatto è lucidamente presente agli occhi dei grandi investitori.

* * * * * * *

Bene.

La Germania si avvia mestamente a celebrare il funerale di un sistema bancario una volta fiorente.

È stato assassinato da un’ideologia avulsa dalla realtà dei fatti.

---

→ Reuters. 2017-08-07. Deutsche Bank tumbles down private bank rankings after tough 2016

ZURICH (Reuters) – Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) dropped out of the world’s top 15 private banks in 2016, a year marked by negative headlines for Germany’s biggest lender, rankings by wealth management researcher Scorpio Partnership showed on Monday.

Private banking assets at Deutsche Bank fell 28 percent in dollar terms to $227 billion at the end of 2016, sending it tumbling five places to 16th in Scorpio’s rankings of the 25 biggest private banks in the world.

Deutsche Bank faced a rocky 2016 in which the U.S. Department of Justice wanted the bank to pay $14 billion for mis-selling toxic mortgage-backed securities before the 2007-2009 financial crisis.

The demand rocked confidence in Deutsche Bank and triggered billions of dollars in withdrawals by clients. The bank eventually settled for $7.2 billion.

Swiss bank UBS (UBSG.S) kept its place as the world’s biggest private bank with $2.06 trillion in assets under management, Scorpio found, followed by Bank of America (BAC.N), Morgan Stanley (MS.N) and Wells Fargo (WFC.N).

Switzerland’s Credit Suisse (CSGN.S), which has prioritized private banking under Chief Executive Tidjane Thiam, was overtaken by Royal Bank of Canada (RY.TO) and fell to sixth.

The biggest gainer on the list was China Merchants Bank (600036.SS), which rose five rungs to 15th. Bank of China also entered the list, in 24th place.

Overall, Scorpio found the biggest 25 private banks managed $13.3 trillion for clients with at least $1 million in assets, representing 63.2 percent of the market.

Operating income in the industry was virtually flat as private banks faced up to low and negative interest rates as well as an increasing preference by wealthy clients for passive investments.