Please enter your email address


Please login to print this page


Why You Lost Money on Green Investments

The green investment revolution has been, to put it mildly, underwhelming. As a recent WSJ headline put it , ‘so much promise, so little return’. Joseph Dear, CIO at CalPERS, called green a “noble way to lose money” and joked that these eco-friendly investments often carry an “L” curve (for loss-making) instead of a J curve. As a result, Dear has promised to scale back his fund’s green investments and will even pull back from VC generally (due to the abysmal returns over the past decade). It would seem the venture capital industry got the green-theme wrong; that this wave of innovation and opportunity was over-hyped and that investors under-appreciated the difficulty of bringing these new technologies to market.

That’s frustrating. As I saw it (and continue to see it), the green revolution was never going to be easy. And, perhaps more importantly, it was never something that the venture capital industry was going to be able to do on its own. The scale of capital required for green energy companies, for example, make them utterly incompatible with the traditional VC model. Think of it this way, the go to market strategy for some of the biggest and most transformative green energy companies would need to combine a technology company with a power generation company and a series of large-scale infrastructure projects. There’s really no way a VC alone – or even a syndicate of VCs – could pull this off. If you’re launching a green energy company, then you’re basically deciding to launch a new industry.

So venture capital lacks the necessary resources to fund such capital-intensive industries to commercialization. So where should these green companies get their growth capital? I think the sovereign funds and pension funds that believed in the green revolution should have been ready, willing and able to do something beyond writing a check to Sand Hill Road and crossing their fingers. But for these pensions and sovereigns, making these investments would have meant stepping well outside the comfort zone. Why? Because the nature of the risks embedded in these green companies placed them beyond the reach of traditional investors.

In other words, there are far, far more risks to “de-risk” (to use the VC parlance) in a green energy play (for the reasons cited above and more), which means that a green-growth stage company will not resemble a traditional growth-stage company. And, in all likelihood, the cash flows will not yet exist for the excel-based investment deciders to do their discounting or be able to get comfortable with the high valuations ascribed to green growth. I guess what I’m saying is that the nature of a “growth stage” company in the green space and a traditional growth stage company will probably be different. An investor might want or even need to apply a standard financial model to a clean energy company, but I’m not sure that’s the right way to go about this.

Leave a Comment    (6)

Comment
  • POST

That's a good point, Girish. The example that jumps to mind is what Google is trying to do with driverless cars... a massive project that could be quite game-changing that only a wealthy corporate would try to take on.

Apr 02 2013 at 3:28 PM EST

Ashby Monk
 

Given the amount of capital required, the long gestation period and technology risk, you should also consider the role corporate venture groups can play in funding green technology.

Apr 01 2013 at 11:52 AM EST

Girish Nadkarni
 

Thanks for the comments. Fair points that I'll run through and dismantle in order going down ;) 1) Some have been dogs and some of the technologies haven't worked. That's the nature of VC and goes beyond green. 2) I specifically said in the post that I was interested in technologies that didn't need subsidies or government help. Read the last para. 3) Tesla Model S is awesome. I don't own one... nor do I own Tesla stock. I just think it's a good sign the car is back ordered for months. 4) Green investing masquerading as finance? Or finance and economics masquerading as science? Your proven cash flows and proven capabilities mentality would see many of the large scale projects of our time bypassed for the small and the easy. 5) We get the NYTs in California. Thanks for checking. 6) I never said this was a "can't miss" investment opportunity. In fact, I said pensions and sovereigns should work together to capture some diversification, as building companies ... indeed industries ... is inevitably risky. 7) My main point in all of this was to scold pension and sovereign funds for outsourcing all of the investment functions to small scale and short term asset managers... especially when they're trying to build HIGH SCALE AND LONG TERM industries. Thanks for the comments. Ash

Mar 28 2013 at 11:27 AM EST

Ashby Monk
 

The reason that investors lost their shirt is that they bet on a dog. Most green energy plays are hyped dogs. They cost too much for a basic life sustaining fungible commodity. They will always cost too much due to inherent technical limitations, e.g. the sun does not shine at night.
Caveat emptor! Beware techno-babble. If the whiz bang needs a subsidy, or mandated purchases, or a favorite Congressman, to survive, keep walking. Or run.

(I engineered a score of nukes, two score fossil fueled power plants, and spent decades assessing advanced technology.)

Mar 27 2013 at 10:35 AM EST

R. L. Hails Sr. P. E.
 

Tesla Motors is a successful company/investment because the Model S won Motor Trend Car of the Year? BS. Tesla will succeed based on building cars that sell well and deliver what buyers want at a price they are willing to spend, all the while making the company a decent profit. Not from winning praise from automotive journalists.

Mar 27 2013 at 9:53 AM EST

Ben Deerdundat
 

This post shows exactly why green "investing" is really a political philosophy masquerading as finance.

Your point is, to have any chance of being successful, green technologies need to have massive scale. Problem is the amount of capital required is so large, it is not possible to commercialize at a smaller scale and use proven cashflows as funding and leverage for future capital investment. (The normal approach to startup and growth phase investing).

The crux of the problem is - it is impossible to prove that these technologies will deliver an advantage in cost, quality or speed.

Your example of Elon Musk and the Tesla is a joke. Sure the car won some bullshit award. It was also lampooned in an article in the New York Times (maybe you don't get that out in California). Sales are massively underperforming expectations, the company is losing money and it is not clear if it will ever scale or reach beyond a core of committed "price no object" Justin Beliebers.

This is the core of the problem. The early scaling phase - when costs are falling rapidly as adoption goes mainstream - are simply not there, because, ultimately, electricity is a commodity.

What you are left with is a "we know the future" millienialism. It is not clear that companies will "free us from hydrocarbons". Even if they do, it is NOT clear they will make money. Look at airlines. They free us from the ground (temporarily, at least), but they make no money and earn miserable returns on capital.

The idea that this is a "can't miss" investment opportunity and that pension funds and sovereign wealth funds should risk their members future in heavily speculative positions is irresponsible and dumb.

Mar 27 2013 at 1:36 AM EST