Tag Archives: alternative

GLD: The Hurdles Still Remain

Summary We continue to have several things working against the gold sector at the moment. I have been selling more over the last week as this rally looked to be petering out somewhat, but I still have positions established in several gold and silver companies. If gold goes under $1,000 per ounce, then it will probably be the last time you will be able to buy it at that price ever again. The bearish hurdles that I talked about a few weeks ago in my last article on the SPDR Gold Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: GLD ) are still in place. In fact, they have become even larger since that time. We continue to have several things working against the sector at the moment. Those include the divergence between GLD and the gold stocks (HUI and XAU), the long-term downtrend that is still in place, tax loss selling into the year-end, and possible interest rate hikes at the December Fed meeting. The gold sector needs to overcome these before you can even start to talk about a new bull market. The latest sell-off in the precious metal sector began in early June, and since that time GLD has almost gotten back to even while the HUI is still showing a sizable loss. There have been many instances in the past when you suddenly get big divergences that occur in terms of where GLD/gold is priced at in relation to where the gold stocks are trading, and they usually don’t last long. At one point this month, the HUI was down about 35% while GLD was only down about 2.5%. That performance gap was extreme and it simply wasn’t going to be able to continue. Since that time, the HUI has outperformed, but it’s still lagging the price of gold by a fairly large margin. One of them is right though, and one of them is wrong. Either GLD reverses hard over the short-term, or the HUI makes some substantial gains during that time. ^HUI data by YCharts Given the price action in the HUI since the Fed meeting, one could argue that it’s the gold stocks that are correct. But it’s too soon to determine if this rally since the August lows is just a bear market bounce. Technically, the gold stocks appear to be breaking down, but I don’t like to rely on events that happen immediately after a Fed meeting, as the initial move isn’t always the correct one. Without question though, the long-term trend is still down. If the HUI can’t make a charge higher over the next several weeks, then investors will most likely start taking some tax losses in these gold stocks (if they haven’t already), as many have dropped substantially since the beginning of 2015. This will further fan the flames and we could get some major declines into the end of the year. I showed the YTD percentage loss for the following stocks in my previous article. Over the last few weeks, they have decreased even more, and the chart below reflects their current losses year to date. GG data by YCharts We also have the Fed and interest rates weighing on the gold market. Last time, I talked about how the Fed has been consistent with its message since 2012, in that the majority of members have been signaling for the last three years that they believe 2015 is when the first rate hike will occur. My argument remains that the Fed is going to lose credibility if it doesn’t raise rates this year. The weak jobs data in September had everybody believing that the Fed was on hold for the rest of 2015 and maybe well into 2016. As I said in my last update: I believe that rate hikes are still on the table, and this should be clear at the conclusion of the next Fed meeting in a few weeks. If this occurs, then gold could come under pressure again. Given the following statement out of the Federal Reserve, a 25 basis point increase at the December meeting is still a high probability event: In determining whether it will be appropriate to raise the target range at its next meeting, the Committee will assess progress–both realized and expected–toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments. Translation: baring a major decline in the U.S. and global stock markets between now and the end of the year, and assuming economic data doesn’t collapse, the Fed is most likely going to raise rates at the December meeting. GLD and the HUI could remain under pressure over the remainder of 2015, but I continue to believe this will be a “sell the rumor, buy the news” event, and gold will finally bottom soon after the first rate hike. It might not happen right away though, as there could be a slight lag. Contrary to popular belief, gold doesn’t perform poorly when rates increase. The last time the Fed embarked on a rate hike program was in 2004-2006, as the Fed Funds rate went from 1.00% to 5.25%. Gold went from just under $400 to… well, take your pick on which date and price you want to use. Clearly there was a huge bull market in gold occurring at the time. (SOURCE: FRED ) If you go back the the 1970’s, it was the same situation. And notice in both charts how gold increases immediately (or almost immediately) with the Fed Funds rate. In the chart above, gold was up about 20% in the 4-6 months that followed the first rate increase. (SOURCE: FRED ) There is one additional hurdle that the gold sector is facing at the moment, and that is the recent strength in the U.S. stock market. Anybody that has read my previous articles on GLD knows that I’m bearish on the U.S. indices. While I don’t expect a major collapse to occur, I do believe we could see a multi-year bear market with a 25-35% decline, or at best a sideways trading pattern. Stocks need to digest the massive gains that have been racked up since 2011. In other words, it’s time for a breather. But November and December are always strong months for stocks, and it seems like they are trying to have one last hurrah before finally giving way. You can see how GLD and the S&P have been trading inverse to one another over the last few weeks. Should the stock market continue to hold up, then gold wouldn’t have that firm bid underneath it as money would still be chasing these highflyers. Only when we see the S&P roll over we will see gold start to take flight. ^SPX data by YCharts My Updated Plan Of Action On October 16, in the comments section in my previous article on GLD, I told readers that I had started booking some profits in a few precious metal stocks. The reasoning was many of these were hitting their 200 day moving averages, so I thought it might be prudent to lighten up a bit. I have been holding many of these stocks since the August lows, as that is when I jumped back in. Some positions were established on the morning of October 2, as GLD had a huge move to the upside. I thought it might be wise to take some gains and see what happened over the next few weeks. My plan was to buy these positions back only if a breakout was confirmed. (Source: StockCharts.com) I have been selling more over the last week as this rally looked to be petering out somewhat, but I still have positions established in several gold and silver companies. I’m just going to hold these and see what develops. I have no desire to buy anything at the moment given the recent weakness, I would need to see some positive price action in the HUI first. Right now 104 and 130 are the two levels I’m paying attention to. Below 104 and it’s time to get very bearish, above 130 and the rally could go further and possibly develop into a bull market. As long as the HUI remains in the middle of those, then I’m just going take a wait and see approach. My Strategy With Timing This Gold Bottom I want to talk a little more about my strategy when it comes to the gold market and why I was buying in early August, even though I still believed there was more downside over the next several months. To me, this all comes down to the math and probabilities, and buying at that time was a win-win scenario. I had two options: wait for a final capitulation and preserve 100% of my capital, or start to buy in and run the risk of losing some money. This is not about the amount invested, it’s about the percentages invested. The HUI peaked at 630 in 2011, in early August it was just above 100, or an 84% decline from peak to then-current trough. I know that the HUI isn’t going to zero, as no index has ever been wiped out completely. So the question is what could be left on the downside from the roughly 100 level. The Dow declined 90% during the Great Depression, a similar decrease in the HUI would take it to 63. That price target seemed to be a very real possibility. That would most likely result in a 50% haircut in the major gold stocks that make up the index. My thought process was to buy in 20% at the August lows, and see what transpired from that point. If I lost 50% on that capital invested as the HUI went to 63, but still had 80% cash on the sidelines, then I would gladly take that. For two reasons. One, being able to buy 80% in at 63 would be an incredible opportunity for some serious long-term gains. But even if the index declined further after I bought – to say 40 to 50 – didn’t matter so much. I know that the absolute lows during capitulation events don’t hold for long, and those losses that occur at the tail end are made up in just a matter of months. It only took a few months for the Dow to double off of the bottom, and a year later it had tripled from the lows. So if the HUI plummeted to 63 or lower, it would increase back to 100 in short order. I would also quickly gain back that money lost on the initial capital outlay in that scenario. Conversely, using 20% of my allotted capital to purchase gold and silver stocks at the August lows protected me from getting behind the eight-ball, if that turned out to be the absolute bottom. I’m always trying to stay ahead of the curve. And when I get ahead I want to keep pushing that envelope and increase my distance even further. Not taking advantage of this opportunity given would have been risking losing that positioning. Plus, if the bottom was established at that point, it would have meant I would have started to buy at the absolute lows. Worse case it would be a good trade as it was clear that these stocks were turning up in the short-term. So either scenario had a very positive outcome, which is why it was a win-win type of event. Let me be clear, this is only applicable to the current price environment of the gold stock sector or when trying to time the bottom of a sector that has already experienced a massive decline. The Last Time Gold Will Trade Under $1,000? Nothing really bullish has occurred yet in the gold sector. And with all of these hurdles that it faces between now and the end of the year, it opens the door for further downside. My ultimate target since the Fall of 2014 has been 90-100 in GLD, or roughly $950-$1,000 in gold. I still believe that if there is one more decline, that it’s most likely going closer to the 90/$950 target. If that occurs, then it will probably be the last time you will be able to buy gold under $1,000 per ounce ever again. Prices of all assets continually rise over time as the money supply increases. The fair value of gold is around $1,400 an ounce (my estimate given the growth in the money supply and just looking at the current cash cost environment). That’s not going to decrease as time progresses, it’s only going to increase as the consistent trajectory of M2 is higher, not lower. Gold is no different from other goods that are produced. It costs money to extract gold from the ground, and as the money supply increases, then so do those costs. Where those costs are at gives us a good idea of where gold should be trading. But all assets can trade well above or below fair value for a given period of time. Eventually though, the rubber band gets stretched too much (in either direction) and you get a reversion to the mean or an overshoot. Gold below $1,000 would be a stretch already at current money supply levels and growth rates. In 10-20 years, it would be impossible to have gold under $1,000, given the amount of inflation that would be introduced to the system during that time. Just like today it would be impossible to have gold under $300, which is where it was at 15 years ago. So if the price does get to under $1,000, enjoy it will it last, because it will most likely be the final time gold ever trades in the three digits. That just shows you how much upside potential this sector has.

Interpreting Technicals: Your Lying Eyes

Summary Technical analysis used to be a niche field of study. Now, all you need is to visit any stock market website, enter a ticker, and with the click of a mouse you can access all kinds of fun indicators. Study after study shows that most who rely on charts end up overtrading their accounts based on subjective analysis, massively underperforming over long periods of time. “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” – Groucho Marx Pop quiz: what is the level of the Dow Jones Industrial Average with dividends re-invested? Anyone remember chartbooks? Back in the day, chart books would costs thousands of dollar to be delivered to your front door, showing monthly or quarterly bar data. Trend lines would be drawn, and oscillators followed to help understand the potential for a trend to continue, or reverse. Technical analysis used to be a niche field of study. People would actually have to create candlestick charts by hand, draw in moving averages, and pull out rulers to form support and resistance lines. Not so anymore. Now, all you need is to visit any stock market website, enter a ticker, and with the click of a mouse you can access all kinds of fun indicators. Rarely are such indicators ever back tested to check for historical validity, but because human minds love to find patterns to remove uncertainty, even the most novice of traders or investors believes they are experts in a field that was once dominated by only a select few professionals. More so than that, most will look at a chart and immediately assume that something has done well or poorly based purely on that price data. Never mind the fact that study after study shows that most who rely on charts end up overtrading their accounts based on subjective analysis, massively underperforming over long periods of time. There is an even bigger problem with using your lying eyes to make a judgment call or say with conviction what the performance of a particular investment is. Nearly all charts show price-only data and are ex-dividend/distribution. If you happen to look at certain bond fund ETFs such as the iShares Barclays 20+ Year Bond Fund ETF (NYSEARCA: TLT ) or dividend focused equity funds such as the iShares DJ Select Dividend Index Fund (NYSEARCA: DVY ), you’re basis for determining how those funds performed if looking purely at a chart would provide a completely inaccurate understanding of historical returns. What you are seeing in a chart does not include what is a major component of total returns and actual wealth generation. Yet, with conviction most will look at a chart and proclaim that the performance of this or that investment or strategy (regardless of selecting an appropriate benchmark) is lackluster, completely ignoring any dividends and distributions that investment has paid out. Why do I mention this? Because it is a pervasive problem I find in the investment industry. Mutual funds, for many reasons, must distribute at the end of the year the sum total of all dividends and net trading gains (if any) made throughout the year. This tends to result in a lump-sum payment distributed at the end of the year assuming there is no tax loss carry forward to work off of. A look at a chart would show a gap down (as that end of year distribution is made), seemingly making the investment “collapse at the end of the year” resulting in a loss, which in reality it actually isn’t. It’s simply a price adjustment to a distribution. Yet, with conviction, people consider performance to be what they see in a chart which does NOT include that distribution adjustment, and as such does not show total return. Performance does not come from price alone, but from price + dividends/distributions. Charts only show price. Funds which focus on short-term anomalies such as our alternative Morningstar 4 Star overall rated ATAC Inflation Rotation Fund (MUTF: ATACX ) (rating as of 9/30/15 among 234 Tactical Allocation Funds derived from a weighted average of the fund’s 3-year risk-adjusted return measures) has tended to have such distributions over time. Looking at a price chart alone would make someone think the performance of such funds has been unappealing. Performance, however, would be inaccurately calculated from ex-dividend/distribution price charts alone. Oh, and the answer to that question about what the level of the Dow Jones Industrial Average is going back to inception in 1896 with dividends re-invested? It’s estimated to be well north of 1.7 million, as opposed to Dow 17-18,000ish today. Performance isn’t price, unless price is updated to reflect those very real payments. We document this in the summary version of our award winning papers (click here to download), and I think every now and then it’s good to provide a healthy reminder in a world of free charts. – Michael A. Gayed, CFA Opinions expressed are those of the author and are subject to change, are not intended to be a forecast of future events, a guarantee of future results, nor investment advice. The Fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses and other information are described in the statutory or summary prospectus, which must be read and considered carefully before investing. You may download the statutory or summary prospectus or obtain a hard copy by calling 855-ATACFUND or visiting atacfund.com . Please read the Prospectuses carefully before you invest. For each fund with at least a three-year history, Morningstar calculates a Morningstar Rating™ (based on a Morningstar Risk-Adjusted Return measure that accounts for variation in a fund’s monthly performance including the effects of sales charges, loads, and redemption fees), placing more emphasis on downward variations and rewarding consistent performance. The top 10% of funds in each category receive 5 stars, the next 22.5% receive 4 stars, the next 35% receive 3 stars, the next 22.5% receive 2 stars and the bottom 10% receive 1 star. (Each share class is counted as a fraction of one fund within this scale and rated separately, which may cause slight variations in the distribution percentages.) The ATAC Inflation Rotation Fund was rated against the following numbers of U.S.-domiciled Tactical Allocation funds over the following time periods: 234 funds in the last three years for the period ending 9/30/15. With respect to these Tactical Allocation funds, ATAC Inflation Rotation Fund received a Morningstar Rating of 4 stars for the three-year period. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. ©2015 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein: (1) is proprietary to Morningstar; (2) may not be copied or distributed; and (3) is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. Neither Morningstar nor its content providers are responsible for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information. Mutual fund investing involves risk. Principal loss is possible. Because the Funds invest primarily in ETFs, they may invest a greater percentage of its assets in the securities of a single issuer and therefore is considered non-diversified. If a Fund invests a greater percentage of its assets in the securities of a single issuer, its value may decline to a greater degree than if the fund held were a more diversified mutual fund. The Funds are expected to have a high portfolio turnover ratio which has the potential to result in the realization by the Fund and distribution to shareholders of a greater amount of capital gains. This means that investors will be likely to have a higher tax liability. Because the Funds invest in Underlying ETFs an investor will indirectly bear the principal risks of the Underlying ETFs, including but not limited to, risks associated with investments in ETFs, large and smaller companies, real estate investment trusts, foreign securities, non-diversification, high yield bonds, fixed income investments, derivatives, leverage, short sales and commodities. The Fund will bear its share of the fees and expenses of the underlying funds. Shareholders will pay higher expenses than would be the case if making direct investments in the underlying funds. All investing involves risks. Fund holdings and sector allocations are subject to change and should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any securities. Reference to other securities should not be interpreted as a recommendation of these securities. Diversification does not assure a profit nor protect against loss in a declining market. As of 10/21/2015, the fund does not hold any of the following securities in Its portfolio: SPY, IWM The ATAC Inflation Rotation Fund is distributed by Quasar Distributors, LLC. No other products mentioned in this piece are distributed by Quasar. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is a price-weighted average of 30 significant stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ. One may not directly invest in an index. The 2014 Charles H. Dow Award was open to anyone with an interest in technical analysis who submitted a paper prior to the deadline. The Papers were judged on the following standards; the paper is based upon the concepts of technical analysis, the topic is substantive, the research is thorough, include the results of applying the technique to a sufficient quantity of data that covers at least one full market cycle and preferably longer, shows the application of accepted standards of testing (including but not limited to, statistical significance, Chi Square, Monte Carlo simulations, and statistical correlation), the writing meets generally accepted standards of style for publications and college level writing, the analysis and conclusions are useful and enhance the understanding of market action, a paper shall not have been previously published in any media made available for public dissemination, and a paper should be written for an audience of knowledgeable technical analysts. The judging panel reserves the right to not select a winner if it deems that there are no submissions that are worthy of being given the award. The NAAIM Wagner Award was open to all investment practitioners, academic faculty and doctoral candidates in the field. The papers were judged on the following criteria; practical significance to practitioners of active investing (which NAAIM broadly defines as investment strategies and techniques that improve upon the risk-adjusted return obtainable from a passive, buy-and-hold, investment strategy), quality of exposition, analytical rigor, and novelty of results. An ideal paper would provide evidence of the validity of an active investing approach via an example of a trading system that outperforms the market by some well accepted metric such as risk adjusted return, annual return, drawdowns, etc. Examples of supporting evidence sought include backtesting details and parameter sensitivity analysis. A jury of scholars and investment professionals reviewed and awarded the prizes. The National Association of Active Investment Managers or NAAIM was formed in 1989 as a non-profit association of registered investment advisors who provide active money management services to their clients, in order to produce favorable risk-adjusted returns as an alternative to more passive, buy and hold strategies.

A Primer On Alternate Energy ETFs

Despite a multitude of macro challenges like deflationary worries in Europe, a slowdown in China and Japan, along with the oil price carnage in the market, the long-term outlook for the alternative energy space has held up pretty well. Climate change is one of the defining challenges of the century. Given the attempts to combat global warming worldwide, environmental considerations have been driving demand for alternative energy sources. The latest report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) shows that renewable energy will be the fastest growing power source through 2040. “Clean energy” has long been the focus of the current administration. President Obama’s “Climate Change Action Plan” and the favorable green energy trends have already done a lot in pushing the sector northward. On Aug 3, 2015, the White House revealed the final version of the ambitious climate policy. This Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) program seeks to cut CO2 emissions from the nation’s power plants. The Obama administration has vowed for CO2 reduction of 28% by 2025 and 32% by 2030 from 2005 levels. This version turns out to be a little stronger than the draft proposal released last summer, wherein the EPA had proposed total CO2 reduction of 29% by 2025 and 30% by 2030. Per the International Energy Agency, the share of renewables in total power generation is expected to rise to 33% in 2040 from 21% in 2012 globally. Again, the EIA report reveals that electricity generation from renewable sources is projected to increase to 18% by 2040 in the U.S. Wind and solar production have been rising at an exponential rate and renewable energy sources can now generate electricity at a price very close to the electricity generated by fossil fuels. Per the latest report released by the Solar Energy Industries Association (“SEIA”), the U.S. solar energy industry grew 8.7% year over year to reach 1,393 megawatts (“MW”) DC in the second quarter 2015. This is a landmark for the market, with cumulative installations reaching the 20 GW DC mark, buoyed by strong contributions from each of three segments: utility, commercial and residential. The SEIA expects the U.S. PV market in 2015 to witness yet another strong year, with installations reaching 7.7 GW DC, representing a 24% increase over 2014. Again, the American Wind Energy Association (“AWEA”) reported that the U.S. wind industry installed 1,661 MW during the second quarter of 2015, bringing the first half 2015 installations to 1,994 MW. This is more than double the capacity installed in the first half of 2014. Just as pro-environment regulations have given a boost to the alternative energy sector, trade conflicts between some of the major solar product manufacturing countries have complicated the landscape. Solar trade relations have particularly heated up with China and the U.S. trying their level best to protect homegrown interests. The Commerce Department in December 2014 set anti-dumping duties at about 52% on most module imports from China and at 19.5% on most imports of Taiwanese cells. It has also slapped 39% anti-subsidy tariffs on most China-made panels. The new duties would further escalate trade tensions between the two countries at a time when the two nations were planning to work together in the common fight against global warming and carbon emissions. The U.S. believes that Chinese manufacturers have hitherto benefited from unfair subsidies offered by their government. Globally, China, the world’s prime manufacturer of solar panels, is emerging as the market leader for solar PV to meet the growing need for clean energy. The Chinese economy has been struggling and its stock market has sold off dramatically in recent months. As the world’s biggest producer of solar panels is now contending with lower growth forecasts (below 7% for 2015), decreasing exports along with industry overcapacity as well as the ongoing decline in the stock market, its solar industry may also be at risk. Beyond the China factor, the sector as a whole – and solar stocks in particular – have taken a beating ever since oil prices began to tumble last June. This weakness has persisted this year as well. The decline in oil prices has made renewable energy stocks unattractive, sparing neither U.S. nor Chinese solar companies. While the solar energy sector’s long-term potential is undeniable, the industry is faced with a number of near-term challenges that will likely keep these stocks under pressure. That said, the demand for solar energy is strengthening at a rapid clip and analysts see no fundamental correlation between the oil plunge and solar share losses. ETFs to Tap the Sector For investors seeking to play this trend in ETF form, the following series of alternative energy ETFs could make interesting picks. PowerShares WilderHill Clean Energy Portfolio ETF (NYSEARCA: PBW ) Launched in March 2005, PBW tracks the WilderHill Clean Energy Index and manages an asset base of $102.9 million which it invests in a portfolio of 45 stocks. It is well diversified across various sectors. Information Technology takes the top spot with a 51% allocation followed by Industrials (18%) and Utilities (15%). The fund’s top 10 holdings jointly contribute 31.7%. The product invests almost 90% in companies that are involved in the generation of cleaner energy and conservation. It charges a hefty 72 basis points in fees. Market Vectors Global Alternative Energy ETF (NYSEARCA: GEX ) Launched in May 2007, GEX tracks the Ardour Global Index, focusing on companies that are primarily engaged in the business of alternative energy comprising solar power, bioenergy, wind power, hydro-power and geothermal energy. The fund holds about 31 stocks in its pocket, has assets under management of $84 million and charges an expense ratio of 64 basis points annually. Apart from robust holdings in the U.S., the product offers solid exposure to China and some European countries. From a sector perspective, Industrials and Information Technology take the largest share with a respective 45% and 27.7%. Further, the fund’s top 10 holdings jointly contribute 62.69% to the fund. Vestas Wind Systems A/S, Tesla Motors Inc. (NASDAQ: TSLA ) and Eaton Corp Plc (NYSE: ETN ) are the top three holdings, with 28.88% of asset allocation in total. PowerShares Global Clean Energy Portfolio ETF (NYSEARCA: PBD ) This ETF follows the WilderHill New Energy Global Innovation Index, giving investors exposure to about 105 companies that are engaged in renewable sources of energy and technologies facilitating cleaner energy. Assets under management are just over $62.7 million and the expense ratio is 76 basis points a year. The fund’s top 10 holdings contribute 17.95% to it. PBD is heavy in Industrials, as this represents 31.36% of the fund. This is followed by Information Technology (30%) and Utilities (27.15%). In terms of countries, the U.S. dominates with 30.17% followed by China with 17.16%. First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index ETF (NASDAQ: QCLN ) This ETF tracks the NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index and follows a benchmark of clean energy companies, giving exposure to 48 such companies in total with an asset base of $83.3 million. The fund charges investors 60 basis points a year in fees for the exposure. The top 10 holdings comprise 55.18% of the total fund. Technology firms dominate this ETF, accounting for 31.96% of the assets, followed by Oil and Gas stocks with about 22.66%. In terms of geographical diversification, the fund is almost entirely focused on the U.S. market. iShares S&P Global Clean Energy Index ETF (NASDAQ: ICLN ) This ETF tracks the S&P Global Clean Energy Index with 29 holdings and an asset base of $71.8 million. ICLN charges investors 47 basis points a year in fees for the exposure. In terms of geographical breakdown, China leads the list with 26.33%, while the U.S. holds the second spot with 24.12%. ICLN is more inclined toward Renewable Electricity, representing 26.29% of the fund, although Heavy Electrical Equipment receives a big chunk as well (20.31%). The fund appears to be highly concentrated in the top 10 holdings with a share of 58.11%. Bottom Line The depletion of fossil fuel reserves, new and advanced technologies, accompanied with more competent alternative energy applications have made green power more feasible, injecting optimism into the sector. Yet, investors should closely track the political factors that could impact the sector. These include eco-friendly mandates and renewable energy agendas to see if potential benefits will spill over to the renewable companies and the sector ETFs. Original Post