Best stock to invest in – Clean Energy Finance Experts United Against Trump

Best stock to invest in

by Tom Konrad, Ph.D., CFA

This website,, endorsed Barack Obama for
President in 2008

and 2012. 

In those two elections, we based our endorsements on a
point-by-point analysis each candidates’ energy policies, favoring
the candidate who expressed the strongest support for policies to
transition our economy away from its dependence on fossil fuels.

This year, the comparison is so stark a point-by-point comparison
hardly seems worth the exercise. Here are a few quotes from the
candidates’ websites that drive the difference home:

On Climate Change

“I think it’s ridiculous, we’ve got bigger problems right now.”
“I won’t let anyone take us backward, deny our economy the
benefits of harnessing a clean energy future, or force our
children to endure the catastrophe that would result from
unchecked climate change.”


Accuses Obama of attacking coal, natural gas, and oil industries.
Will “save the coal industry” and rescind Obama’s Climate Action
Clinton: Says she

  • Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in
  • Cut

    energy waste

    in American homes, schools, hospitals and
    offices, and
  • Reduce American oil consumption through cleaner fuels and more
    efficient vehicles

on “day one”.

In short, the contrast is stark.  Clinton makes promoting
clean energy and reducing waste a high priority whileTrump wants
to revive coal, natural gas, and oil extraction.


Much criticism of both candidates revolves around their
personalities.  As an investment manager, I’m used to making
high stakes decisions about the future actions of a class of
people not known for their morals or honesty: CEOs and other high
level company management.  I deal with this credibility gap
by looking at manager’s incentives, especially their ownership and
recent purchases of company stock.  A manager with plans to
swindle shareholders will not be a net buyer stock on the open
market, which is why I put so much emphasis on insider buying in
my stock selection process.

When it comes to selecting a President, it’s possible to take a
similar approach.  Do we see signs that a candidate is
interested in personal enrichment at the expense of the American

The questions about Clinton center around her concealing
information (private email server, etc.) and donations to the
Clintons’ charity.  At worst, this seems to imply to me that
she is willing to stoop to underhanded methods for personal power
and influence.  The Clintons can’t spend charitable money
(beyond some publicly disclosed perks and salaries) on themselves,
although the charity clearly increases their public profiles and
influence.  Why does Hillary Clinton want personal
power?  To do what she’s been trying to do all along: Use it
to make the world a better place, at least as she sees it, and
perhaps ensure a place for herself in history.

Trump, in contrast, seems mostly motivated by personal wealth and
fame.  Helping people (other than himself and his family) has
never been something he even claimed to be interested in before
this election.  As with any other CEO, I’m a lot less
interested in what he says he is going to do than where I think
his incentives are.  In Trump’s case, that is almost
certainly the pursuit of additional wealth and fame, and I see no
evidence that he is likely to treat the American people any better
than the many contractors who worked on his projects and never got
paid.  Trump is proud that he was able to use the tax code to
avoid paying tax.  Taking advantage of the tax code is
something we all do, but few of us are proud of it.  The fact
that Trump is proud, perhaps even enjoys taking advantage of the
tax code, tells us that he is likely to take every opportunity to
make sure as much money goes into his own pocket as possible.

The choice seems simple: Do we want a President who wants to make
the world a better place and be remembered in the history books,
or do we want a president who wants to get richer and increase his
personal fame right now.

The Clean Energy Finance Experts

Perhaps you see it differently than I do, so I thought I’d share
the opinions of some other financial and clean energy
experts.  I sent a note to’s regular
contributors asking for their opinions.  Some prefer to stay
out of politics, but most expressed horror at the prospect of a
Trump presidency, even those who have doubts about Clinton.

Here’s what they had to say, in order of brevity:

Sean Kidney, CEO, Climate

Bonds Initiative

“Electing Trump would be akin to climate

“If Trump gets elected there goes US climate change policy and US
clean energy policy. I’m for Hillary 100% and happy to say so in
any way available. The alternative is akin to climate change

Joe McCabe, P.E.,
Renewable Energy Champion

“As a registered Republican, I can’t
support [Trump].”

“As a registered Republican I cannot endorse this candidate who
my party has put forward. Donald has repeatedly indicated that
climate change is a “hoax”, both on Twitter and in media
interviews. He does not possess the minimum requirements for the
position of President of the United States. Hillary Clinton gets
my vote this time.”

Garvin Jabusch, Chief Investment Officer at Green Alpha Advisors

“There really is only one choice this

“Hilary Clinton for President. In the critical climate and
economic growth topic of renewable energy, the contrast between
Clinton and the GOP nominee could not be more stark.

“Trump has called climate change a hoax, vowed to revitalize
coal, promised to break the US’ commitment to the Paris Climate
Accords and, perhaps most tellingly, has selected North Dakota
Congressman Kevin Cramer as his energy adviser and probable
Secretary of Energy. Representative Cramer is an oil and gas
industry lapdog and a proud climate skeptic.

“Clinton, meanwhile, has made actual energy expert Trevor Houser
her energy advisor (Houser is co-author of Economic Risks of
Climate Change: An American Prospectus). Clinton has a policy goal
of deriving enough electricity from solar PV to power every home
in America within 10 years of her inauguration. She says that’s
about half a billion panels or approximately 150 gigawatts’ worth,
which is more than three time the capacity the US has installed,
ever, up till now. Clinton has said  ‘someone is going to
become the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. It’s going
to be China, or it’s going to be us.’

“If you care about having a shot at avoiding the worst outcomes
of climate change, there really is only one choice this November.

Debra Fiakas, CFA, Managing
Director of Crystal Equity Research

“Trump is willing to swindle… our
country… with a hollow promise of ‘return to greatness.’”

“While I am not necessarily a fan of Hillary Clinton, the choice
in this election is clear.  Despite her weak understanding of
truth, her persistent lack of good judgment and sometimes sloppy
execution, I will be voting for Clinton.
“About ten years ago I heard Donald Trump described as a “preening
egotist with a muskrat on his head.”  At the time I thought
it was a bit harsh and expressed this view to my daughter. 
Her response was “he is grotesque.”  As I look back on
Trump’s conduct over the past months, it is clear that egotist and
grotesque are quite appropriate descriptions.   A vote
for Donald Trump is a vote for an opportunist and a bully who has
artfully used bigotry to garner support from those who truly do
feel left out of the election process.  They are left out for
good reason  –  their ideas are contrary to our
democratic ideals and otherwise foolish
“Reports that Trump expressed intentions to move forward with a
reality TV program from the White House are more than likely
true.  Trump is willing to swindle the most vulnerable people
in our country  –  unemployed, poor, uneducated and
emotionally unstable  –  with a hollow promise of
‘return to greatness’ just for the sake of an elaborate brand
building scheme.  It is shameful.  What is even more
shameful is that so many people in this country have been willing
to support him just for the sake of gaining power.
“Three paragraphs and not one word about the environment or
energy!  So sad that this election has put the most critical
problems before us on the back burner while we debate the history
of weight gain and loss by a Miss Universe contest winner from a
two decades ago.  Most likely those who want to see change in
the stewardship of the environment will need to take the more
costly and time consuming approach of working with each state
government.” Endorses Clinton

For many of my colleagues, and doubtless many readers, this
election seems to be about choosing the lesser of two evils. 
That said, it’s pretty clear which candidate is playing the role
of Satan, and which is just the black sheep in-law. 

For myself, the decision is even easier than that.  I
believe that Hillary Clinton has the skills and motivation to be a
good or even great President.  She may not be totally honest
or have perfect judgement as Debra Fiakas says, but she does know
our imperfect political system from many angles and has shown
herself willing to reach across the aisle for the greater
good.  In my opinion, her goals for the country are (in stark
contrast to her opponent) mostly the right ones, and I hope her
long political experience will help her be much more effective at
accomplishing those goals in spite of a highly dysfunctional

Tom Konrad, Ph.D., CFA

DISCLOSURE: It’s also worth noting that our holdings of clean
energy stocks will perform better under a Clinton presidency
than under Trump.  I would not be surprised if a Trump
presidency sent the whole stock market downwards, and not just
clean energy stocks. Coal companies might benefit, if that’s your sort of thing.

– Best stock to invest in

Learn How To Be #1 on Google Results

Source link