It’s been a tough start to 2023 for shareholders of Linde (LIN). The industrial gas giant was a relative winner in 2022 with its stock declining roughly 5% compared to the S & P 500 ‘s drop of around 19.4%. But the new year has not been so kind with three straight down sessions, including nasty pullbacks Tuesday and Thursday. For such a high-quality company with a track record for delivering consistent, double-digit earnings growth, this is not the stock price performance we have come to know for Linde. Let’s take a look at some of the recent news that’s negatively impacting the company to figure out if this pullback is a buying opportunity. Russia freezing Linde assets First off, while U.S. markets were closed to observe the New Year holiday, Reuters reported Monday that a Russian court froze about $488 million of Linde assets. The legal action was at the request of a Russian joint venture that Linde stopped working on. The halt in the business relationship was done to comply with European Union sanctions after Russia invaded Ukraine. Long story short, Linde was prepaid $1.8 billion for work on a project, and Russian energy giant Gazprom is suing Linde to get that money back. It’s all pretty technical, but here’s what an analyst at BMO Capital Markets said about the news: “High level, we view this as a negotiation tactic tied to LIN’s suspension of the project and the eventual settlement of accounts. As a reminder, LIN holds ~$1.8B of cash/payments from Gazprom and its partners for the Ust-Luga gas complex (LIN lists this as a liability on its bal sheet). With LIN having stopped work on the project, it will be expected to return the $1.8B of proceeds minus the hours worked and the value of the equipment (both currently being negotiated). The freezing of the assets and valuing them at $488mm is simply part of that ‘negotiation.'” We’re not in the business of trying to predict the legal outcome or how negotiations will go, but what you do need to know is that Linde lost about $3.9 billion of market value Tuesday, as traders in the U.S. got their first chance to react to the news. That’s far beyond the value of what Linde was paid to complete this project. Therefore, we see the recent pullback as an overreaction. The next question is does any of this matter to future earnings? The answer here is no. Shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, Linde suspended business in Russia and announced plans to scale back operations. This means Russia has zero impact to forward earnings per share; it was excluded from Linde’s full-year 2022 guide and should not be factored into any analyst estimates for 2023 earnings. Again, we think the news was an overreaction. Upcoming Frankfurt delisting vote There is a second factor likely contributing to some of Linde’s declines over the past few days and it is harder to quantify. It relates to management’s proposal to delist from the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. Linde is currently listed on two different stock exchanges: the New York Stock Exchange in the United States and Germany’s Frankfurt Stock Exchange. Through extensive analysis, management concluded that a single stock listing in the U.S. could expand Linde’s valuation , which would benefit current shareholders. The voting on this proposal ends on Jan. 17 and should be known the day after at a shareholders’ meeting. If Linde shareholders approve the German delisting — and we think they will — some of the European investors and index managers who own the stock will be forced to sell because of restrictions. For example, some managers may be limited to only owning European listed stocks or track the German blue-chip DAX index. If Linde only trades on a US line, they can no longer hold it. While this forced selling could stretch out, what we think is happening Thursday, in the absence of any fundamental news, is that European investors trying to get ahead of the results of the vote. Declines in Linde’s industrial gas peer Air Products and Chemicals (APD) are relatively in line with the broader market selloff of more than 1% on the major benchmarks. Linde slide Thursday was more than 3%. Bottom line So, what are we doing with the stock? When we wrote our delist story in November, we said if there is a pullback related to so-called forced selling closer to the key dates, we would treat those declines opportunistically and look to buy. Linde is the type of company that can continue to perform well in a slowdown because of the resilience of its gas-selling markets, its pricing power, and productivity initiatives. Linde also has a huge opportunity to support the advancement of clean energy initiatives promoted through the U.S. government’s Inflation Reduction Act. And as we mentioned above, the Russia legal issues won’t have a material impact on Linde’s overall business. With some of the selling beginning to flush out but no changes to our positive long-term fundamental view, we are getting closer to upgrading our rating and potentially adding to our position. Linde is scheduled to report its fiscal fourth-quarter earnings on Feb. 7. While that may feel like a lifetime from now, at some point the fundamentals will matter again and all this technical pressure will take a back seat. We’re looking at a price at or below $300 to upgrade Linde back to a 1 rating as we have found that the company typically likes to ramp up its buyback program at those levels. We should note that Linde’s buyback is temporarily on pause until the upcoming shareholders’ meeting. It can resume repurchases afterward but under a predetermined plan until earnings. In our system, a 1 rating means we view the stock as a buy. Linde is currently a 2 rating, which means we’re waiting for a pullback to consider buying. (Jim Cramer’s Charitable Trust is long LIN. See here for a full list of the stocks.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust’s portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.
A liquid hydrogen tanker truck taking a fuel delivery at the Linde hydrogen plant in Leuna, Germany, on Tuesday, July 14, 2020.
Rolf Schulten | Bloomberg | Getty Images
It’s been a tough start to 2023 for shareholders of Linde (LIN).
The new version is extremely disappointing as it is $9,000 more expensive than the Cybertruck RWD was supposed to be, and while it has more range than originally planned, Tesla has removed a ton of features, including some important ones.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Here’s what you lose with the Cybertruck RWD:
You get a single motor RWD instead of Dual Motor AWD
You lose the adaptive air suspension
No motorized tonneau, but you have an optional $750 soft tonneau
Textile seats instead of vegan leather
Fewer speakers
No rear screen for the backseat
No power outlets in the bed
The last one has been pretty disappointing, as it can’t be that expensive to include, and Tesla is basically removing $20,000 worth of features for only a $10,000 difference with the Dual Motor Cybertruck.
But the automaker appears to have come up with a partial solution.
Tesla has launched a $80 ‘Powershare Outlet Adapter’ on its online store:
When combined with Tesla’s Gen 3 Mobile Connector plugged into the Cybertruck’s charge port, it gives you two 120V 20A power outlets.
Tesla describes the product:
Powershare Outlet Adapter allows you to power electronic devices using Mobile Connector and your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s battery. To use this adapter, plug Mobile Connector’s handle into your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s charge port and connect the adapter to the other end of your Mobile Connector. You can then use this adapter to plug in any compatible electronic device you want to power.
For now, Tesla says that this only works for the Cybertruck and you have to buy the $300 mobile charging connector, which doesn’t come with the truck.
Electrek’s Take
I guess it’s better than nothing, but I’m still super disappointed in the new trim. It makes no sense right now.
Not only you lose the 2x 120V, 1x 240V outlets in the bed, but you also lose the 2x 120V outlets in the cabin. Now, you can can pay $380 to have a “Macgyver” solution for 2 120V outlets in the back.
I’m convinced that Tesla designed this trim simply to make the $80,000 Cybertruck AWD look better value-wise.
It looks like Tesla took out about $20,000 worth of features while giving buyers only a $10,000 discount.
It’s just the latest example of Tesla losing its edge.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The International Maritime Organization, a UN agency which regulates maritime transport, has voted to implement a global cap on carbon emissions from ocean shipping and a penalty on entities that exceed that limit.
After a weeklong meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO and decades of talks, countries have voted to implement binding carbon reduction targets including a gradually-reducing cap on emissions and associated penalties for exceeding that cap.
Previously, the IMO made another significant environmental move when it transitioned the entire shipping industry to lower-sulfur fuels in 2020, moving towards improving a longstanding issue with large ships outputting extremely high levels of sulfur dioxide emissions, which harm human health and cause acid rain.
Today’s agreement makes the shipping industry the first sector to agree on an internationally mandated target to reduce emissions along with a global carbon price.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
The agreement includes standards for greenhouse gas intensity from maritime shipping fuels, with those standards starting in 2028 and reducing through 2035. The end goal is to reach net-zero emissions in shipping by 2050.
Companies that exceed the carbon limits set by the standard will have to pay either $100 or $380 per excess ton of emissions, depending on how much they exceed limits by. These numbers are roughly in line with the commonly-accepted social cost of carbon, which is an attempt to set the equivalent cost borne by society by every ton of carbon pollution.
Money from these penalties will be put into a fund that will reward lower-emissions ships, research into cleaner fuels, and support nations that are vulnerable to climate change.
That means that this agreement represents a global “carbon price” – an attempt to make polluters pay the costs that they shift onto everyone else by polluting.
Why carbon prices matter
The necessity of a carbon price has long been acknowledged by virtually every economist. In economic terms, pollution is called a “negative externality,” where a certain action imposes costs on a party that isn’t responsible for the action itself. That action can be thought of as a subsidy – it’s a cost imposed by the polluter that isn’t being paid by the polluter, but rather by everyone else.
Externalities distort a market because they allow certain companies to get away with cheaper costs than they should otherwise have. And a carbon price is an attempt to properly price that externality, to internalize it to the polluter in question, so that they are no longer being subsidized by everyone else’s lungs. This also incentivizes carbon reductions, because if you can make something more cleanly, you can make it more cheaply.
Many people have suggested implementing a carbon price, including former republican leadership (before the party forgot literally everything about how economics works), but political leadership has been hesitant to do what’s needed because it fears the inevitable political backlash driven by well-funded propaganda entities in the oil industry.
For that reason, most carbon pricing schemes have focused on industrial processes, rather than consumer goods. This is currently happening in Canada, which recently (unwisely) retreated from its consumer carbon price but still maintains a price on the largest polluters in the oil industry.
But until today’s agreement by the IMO, there had been no global agreement of the same in any industry. There are single-country carbon prices, and international agreements between certain countries or subnational entities, often in the form of “cap-and-trade” agreements which implement penalties, and where companies that reduce emissions earn credits that they can then sell to companies that exceed limits (California has a similar program in partnership with with Quebec), but no previous global carbon price in any industry.
Carbon prices opposed by enemies of life on Earth
Unsurprisingly, entities that favor destruction of life on Earth, such as the oil industry and those representing it (Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the bought-and-paid oil stooge who is illegally squatting in the US Oval Office), opposed these measures, claiming they would be “unworkable.”
Meanwhile, island nations whose entire existence is threatened by climate change (along with the ~2 billion people who will have to relocate by the end of the century due to rising seas) correctly said that the move isn’t strong enough, and that even stronger action is needed to avoid the worse effects of climate change.
The island nations’ position is backed by science, the oil companies’ position is not.
While these new standards are historic and need to be lauded as the first agreement of their kind, there is still more work to be done and incentives that need to be offered to ensure that greener technologies are available to help fulfill the targets. Jesse Fahnestock, Director of Decarbonisation at the Global Maritime Forum, said:
While the targets are a step forward, they will need to be improved if they are to drive the rapid fuel shift that will enable the maritime sector to reach net zero by 2050. While we applaud the progress made, meeting the targets will require immediate and decisive investments in green fuel technology and infrastructure. The IMO will have opportunities to make these regulations more impactful over time, and national and regional policies also need to prioritise scalable e-fuels and the infrastructure needed for long-term decarbonisation.
One potential solution could be IMO’s “green corridors,” attempts to establish net-zero-emission shipping routes well in advance of the IMO’s 2050 net-zero target.
And, of course, this is only one industry, and one with a relatively low contribution to global emissions. While the vast majority of global goods are shipped over the ocean, it’s still responsible for only around 3% of global emissions. To see the large emissions reductions we need to avoid the worst effects of climate change, other more-polluting sectors – like automotive, agriculture (specifically animal agriculture), construction and heating – all could use their own carbon price to help add a forcing factor to drive down their emissions.
Lets hope that the IMO’s move sets that example, and we see more of these industries doing the right thing going forward (and ignoring those enemies of life on Earth listed above).
The agreement still has to go through a final step of approval on October, but this looks likely to happen.
Even without a carbon price, many homeowners can save money on their electricity bills today by going solar. And if you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
In the Electrek Podcast, we discuss the most popular news in the world of sustainable transport and energy. In this week’s episode, we discuss the new Tesla Cybertruck RWD, more tariff mayhem, Lucid buying Nikola, and more.
As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.
After the show ends at around 5 p.m. ET, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:
Advertisement – scroll for more content
We now have a Patreon if you want to help us avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.
Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the podcast:
Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 4:00 p.m. ET (or the video after 5 p.m. ET):
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.