Feature

This is the third and final installment of our Special Reports on Electric Vehicles. Energy Sector Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy are publishing simultaneously with Technology Sector Strategy in this last installment. In the first report, we examined the current costs of owning a typical mass-market EV, comparing them to similar Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEVs). Even with subsidies, we found the cost of owning an EV was significantly higher than that of an ICEV. In our second report, we found pure-play EV manufacturers – TSLA, in particular – do not possess any material advantage over conventional auto makers. We also noted the very real risk today’s EV subsidies could morph into tomorrow’s EV taxes, which would seriously dent the exponential growth many EV enthusiasts are betting on, given the critical importance of these subsidies to EV sales.

In this final report, we look at different EV deployment scenarios and their implications for commodity markets, particularly oil, electricity, natural gas, lithium and copper. While EVs likely will experience dramatic growth - increasing by more than 30x the 3mm or so EVs on the road presently - they are unlikely to constitute more than 10% of the global automobile fleet in the next 20 years or so. This is at odds with assessments by some of the more enthusiastic supporters of the technology, which expect EVs to constitute anywhere from 20% to a third of the fleet by 2040. We conclude:

  • EV adoption will be impressive, but not as great as many supporters think, unless there is a huge technological breakthrough.
  • EVs will contribute to slowing demand growth for oil-based transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel), but not nearly as much reduction as possible through improved fuel efficiency of ICEVs.
  • EVs mostly should be charged at night, when excess grid capacity is greatest, favoring wind expansion and/or perhaps offering a lifeline for baseload generation sources.
  • Significant investment in power grids globally will be required to support EVs. More highly-flexible natural gas generation will be needed to balance grids amidst the expanding share of intermittent wind and solar generation.
  • Increasing EV deployment will lift lithium and copper demand.

Estimates Of EV Deployment Vary Considerably

Chart of the Week
Growth In Global EV Sales Already
Is Impressive
Chart of the Week

Fullscreen        Interactive Chart

Forecasts for EV uptake generally expect falling prices for the vehicles and their batteries, which are assumed to eventually make EVs cost-competitive with ICEVs. That said, there is little agreement on what sort of uptake EVs will have over the next 20+ years to 2040. These forecasts are updated regularly, and, most recently, have seen sharp upward revisions in long-term expectations.1 Within the EV market, the International Energy Agency (IEA) includes battery electric vehicles (BEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and fuel-cell electric passenger light-duty vehicles (PLDVs). EVs already have had a remarkable run globally, with cumulative sales reaching 2 million units by the end of 2016 (Chart of the Week).

Most analysis is restricted to BEVs and PHEVs; Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) expects BEVs to eventually account for 85% of EV sales, with PHEVs accounting for 15% of the EV fleet by 2040. Across the board, EV estimates have jumped significantly in the past year. In its 2016 World Oil Outlook, OPEC forecasted EVs would account for just under 7% of the global fleet in 2040 (141 million cars out of a total 2.1 billion, a level that is double the existing fleet).2 According to BNEF, OPEC now expects to see 266 million EVs on the road by 2040. In the past year, the IEA doubled its forecast for EVs on the road by 2030 to 58 million; Exxon lifted its 2040 estimate more than 50% to 100 million by 2040; BP raised its 2035 forecast 40% to 100 million; and BNEF lifted its 2040 forecast 31% to 530 million. Separately, Wood Mackenzie is expecting ~ 350 million EVs on the road by 2035, which would be more than double the 150 million it expects to see in 2030.3

Chart 2
Estimates Of EV Deployment Vary Widely
Chart 2

Fullscreen        Interactive Chart

To illustrate the range of estimates, we fitted two curves through various estimates: The first curve comprised EV estimates by oil majors and OPEC; the second, more aggressive curve, incorporates estimates from the International Copper Association (ICA), the IEA and BNEF. Both curves start with 2015 and 2016 actual EV data - 1 million and 2 million EVs on the road, respectively, in those years, according to the IEA, and 3 million EVs estimated for this year, based on the ICA's study.4 From 2018 onward, the curves reflect different estimates of EV uptake at different points in the future (Chart 2).

In the first scenario, we fitted a curve through BP's estimate for 2035 (100 million EVs on the road), and OPEC's 2040 estimate as reported by Bloomberg (266 million EVs). In the second, higher-uptake scenario, we passed a curve through a 2030 IEA forecast (58 million EVs per the IEA's Reference Technology Scenario) and a 2040 forecast by BNEF of 530 million EVs on the road.

BP estimates the number of cars globally will double from 900 million cars in 2015 to 1.8 billion cars by 2035, which is similar to OPEC's 2016 forecast. BP's forecasts for 100 million EVs on the road by 2035 implies 21.5% p.a. growth in EVs from 2018 onward. Assuming a 10-year life of EVs, total sales would have to increase by about 19% per year. By 2035, these 100 million autos would represent ~ 6% of the total number of cars, similar to OPEC's 2016 forecast.5 By 2040, this growth rate gets to OPEC's expected 266 million EVs on the road. The more optimistic BNEF estimate of 530 million EVs by 2040 represents one-third of the global fleet, based on its forecasts, which requires 25.2% p.a. growth in EVs (23% growth in EV sales) from 2018 through 2040.

To be sure, we could find little science behind these exponential growth estimates. Indeed, one of the IEA's projections - the so-called EV30@30 campaign, recently launched by the transnational Electric Vehicles Initiative it coordinates - appears to work backwards to model the pace of adoption necessary to achieve the EVI's ambition "of a 30% market share for electric vehicles...by 2030."6

Bottom Line: It is always possible a major breakthrough in battery technology results in a far longer range and far lower costs than the current generation of EVs provide, as we discussed in our earlier reports. This could, hypothetically, power EV sales above the high end of even the most optimistic forecasts. However, as things stand now and for the foreseeable future, EV ownership is a costly proposition with uncertain support for drivers looking to travel far and wide at a cost comparable to that of an ICEV. Without subsidies, it is doubtful sales would grow as fast as most projections forecast, and could even contract as was demonstrated by Tesla in Hong Kong and Denmark after EV subsidies were removed.7,8 There also is the risk that stout EV sales make subsidies too expensive for state and local governments to continue. This is not a remote possibility: It is popping up in America in several states.9

Until such time as battery technology makes such a breakthrough, EV uptake likely will come in at or below the 100 million units in the 2035 - 2040 forecast by the oil majors. This means the contribution of EVs toward lowering CO2 emissions and reducing particulates will also be lower than expected over the next 20 years or so.

A far larger contribution to lowering global CO2 emissions from automobiles likely will be made by ICEVs as they become more efficient in their combustion of fossil fuels under stricter government mileage and pollution regulations. For example, U.S. car manufacturers are currently mandated under law to increase their fleet average miles-per-gallon rates to 54.5 mpg by 2025, while in the EU, car manufacturers will have to meet a mandatory CO2 emission target of 95 grams of CO2/km. For new cars, this means fuel consumption rates will go to 4.1 l/100 km of petrol, or 3.6l/100 km of diesel.10

BP expects the demand for car travel globally will double between 2015 and 2035, which, all else equal, would result in a doubling of automobile fuel demand, which was estimated at 19 million b/d for 2015. However, due to improved ICEV efficiency - from better engine technology and lighter frames - and EV uptake, liquids demand from autos is forecast to increase only 4 million b/d. The company expects the average passenger car will get close to 50 mpg in 2035 vs. less than 30 mpg in 2015. Given these estimates, the reduction in liquids demand from cars attributable to EVs will be 1.2 million b/d by 2035, while the contribution from increased efficiency of ICEVs will be on the order of 17 million b/d (Chart 3). Overall oil demand from cars is expected to increase 4 mm b/d between 2015 and 2035 to 23 million b/d.

Chart 3
Improved ICEV Engine Efficiency Will Be More Important
Than EVs In Tempering Oil Demand (And CO2 Emissions)
Chart 3

Fullscreen

EVs And The Power Grid: Growth In Renewables And Natural Gas Generation

In Part 1 of our Special Report, we calculated a Chevy Bolt would consume about 32,500 kWh of electrical power over a 100,000 mile/8 year lifespan.11 An additional ~4,000 kWh of annual power consumption to recharge an EV is a very significant uplift compared to current annual electric power consumption per household of 3,512 kWh in Germany, 6,343 kWh in France, and 11,698 kWh in the U.S.12

We see next to no possibility of a complete change-over in the existing fleet in the U.S. or EU to EVs between now and 2040, a popular forecast horizon. But thinking about how much additional electricity would be required for wholesale adoption of EVs by the existing fleet between now and 2040 is useful for framing the discussion of where this market is heading, given some estimates that the global EV fleet could expand to ~500 million vehicles by then.

There are about 253 million automobiles in the U.S.13 If all of these were converted to Bolts, the total incremental power consumption would be about 1 million GWh.14 U.S. electricity production would have to be increased by 27% from its current 3.7 million GWh to accommodate such a total adoption of EVs.15

Adjusting for the fact Europeans drive less than Americans, total power consumption on the Continent under an entire EV fleet would grow by about 0.7 GWh. Electricity production in the EU is 2.8M GWh, so EVs would require an expansion of about 25% in power production to accommodate the conversion of all the automobiles in the EU to EVs.16

A prevalent hope is that wind and solar would expand to fill these needs, but that will have cost and grid stability challenges that we will not be able to address in totality in this piece. Suffice it to say, over the past decade, wind and solar have added 0.24 million GWh to the U.S. power mix, and have already started to over-saturate some regional markets, creating distortions such as negative wholesale power pricing during periods of high renewable production and low demand. As renewables expand market share, such distortions will grow in prevalence, adding costs and headaches to keeping the grid stable while managing these unreliable sources of power.

Highly-flexible natural gas generation, able to ramp up and down to backstop intermittent and unpredictable renewable power supplies, has become more valuable and more useful due to its ability to stabilize the grid. Over the past decade, as wind power (80% of renewable additions) has eaten into the market for baseload coal generation, natural gas-fired generation has filled in the gap created by the lower coal generation at the times when the wind is not blowing. In all, natural gas-fired power generation has expanded by 0.56 million GWh over the past decade, over twice as much as renewables.

This effect can be visualized in the simplified but illustrative Chart 4. The top panel represents a daily power market supplied by baseload nuclear (20%), baseload coal (55%), and natural gas (25%-a combination of baseload and more flexible peakers). This top panel roughly approximates the U.S. power grid 10-15 years ago. This hypothetical market operates at about 60% capacity utilization over the course of the day (100% for coal and nuclear, ~30% for natural gas).

Chart 4
Intermittent Renewables Require More Flexible Gas-Fired Generation As A Backstop
Chart 4

Fullscreen

In the bottom panel, wind power is added to the portfolio to account for 5% of total power generation. Since the wind power generates maximum power when demand is near its daily low, making room for the peak of wind power requires crowding out baseload generation, in this case mostly coal and some natural gas. In this example, nuclear energy is prioritized to operate at full capacity. The coal generation that is displaced during night time has to remain off line all day long, with its lost generation made up for by wind at night and natural gas in the daytime when the wind isn't blowing.

In this scenario: wind now supplies 5% of the market's power, nuclear power still generates 20%, but coal's market share is reduced to 35%, and natural gas-fired generation is increased to 40%. Given the low utilization rates of the newly installed wind capacity (~ 20%) and the lower utilization of the installed coal capacity (down to 60-65%), total utilization of the power generation fleet falls to only 51%.

Due to the natural rhythm of daily power demand, the installed power infrastructure has ample spare capacity at nighttime, when most EV drivers would be looking to recharge their batteries. This spare capacity, however, generally lies in generation assets powered by fossil fuels. As nighttime power demand increases due to EV adoption, some of today's nuclear- and coal-baseload generation may benefit from that added demand offsetting the continued encroachment of wind power. Among renewables, nighttime charging would advantage wind expansion more than solar expansion.

Without a breakthrough in energy storage capabilities that could smooth out the intermittency of wind and solar, the growth in EV-related power demand will likely require continued increases in natural-gas generated power to continue to keep the grid stable. However, if there were a breakthrough in energy storage capabilities, it would also lower costs of non-renewable power sources, allowing cheapest baseload generation to supply all daily power demand rather than rely on more expensive and less efficient peakers. More on this in the section below ... .

EVs And Renewables Will Lift Lithium And Copper Demand

The foregoing discussion illustrates the point made by the American Physical Society, which notes, "At present, renewable variability is handled almost exclusively by ramping conventional reserves up or down on the basis of forecasts. However, as renewable penetration grows, storage and transmission will likely become more cost effective and necessary."17

Our first two reports focused on how costly lithium-ion-based battery technology is as a power-storage medium for EVs, but it remains the only commercially scalable alternative in use at present. Lithium-ion-based battery technology also is being studied and deployed on a small scale to address the stress imposed on grids by the variability of renewable-generated power. Large-scale deployment of this technology is possible in the future as more wind and solar generation is brought on line, providing a premium value for any technology that can help stabilize the grid.

This is a reflection of power markets' chief shortcoming - at least for now: Electricity cannot be stored in amounts that are meaningful to the operation of a large-scale utility grid, which means the relatively high variability of renewables will continue to require expensive back-up generation and ancillary services to keep grids operating reliably.

Solar advocates in California and elsewhere often promote the idea that batteries provide a mechanism for "grid level" storage of electric power for nighttime use, but the costs of today's technology are quite high--even under a scenario where battery cell prices fall to the cost of their materials.

A grid storage battery will likely undergo near-complete daily discharge and charge, so it will degrade rapidly. From a cost perspective, if the battery is not fully charged/discharged, the capital cost per kWh of the storage system rises accordingly. Most likely, batteries will be discarded when degradation hits 40% because their charge/discharge efficiency deteriorates. A battery with 40% degradation not only stores 40% less electricity, but it requires much more electric power to store it (more waste as more electric power is converted to heat).

From Part 1 of our EV series, we determine that GM's battery cost (list price) is about $262/kWh of storage. Assuming 420 cycles and 20% efficiency loss, such a capital cost translates into storage costs of $0.75/kWh, an astronomically high price to store power on a grid-level battery compared to average wholesale power prices of only $0.03/kWh and average delivered power costs of $0.104/kWh within the U.S.

We also determined that the materials cost of a battery cell is about $67.50/kWh, meaning a lower limit on price is ~$85/kWh for battery cells assuming the vendor is selling at a 20% mark up. If we assume a battery pack uses cells which cost $85/kWh, with the battery pack adding 50% to the costs, and the battery lasts 500 cycles before being discarded with an average 20% efficiency loss, the total storage cost will be ~$0.31/kWh (Table 1), still 10x the average wholesale price.

Table 1
Storing Electricity In A Lithium Ion Battery Will Always Be Expensive
Table 1

Fullscreen

Lithium ion batteries have certain advantages which make them suitable for EVs but they may not be the most suitable mechanism for utility-scale energy storage. Alternative approaches use pumped water, compressed air or different battery technologies such as flow batteries.

Pumped water has been in use for decades18 and can be up to 90% efficient.19 Unfortunately, it doesn't store much energy per unit volume, which means large reservoirs are needed to store large amounts of power. These reservoirs have environmental consequences as well as substantial capital costs, and require certain geographic characteristics to be cost-effective.20 In the lab, the lowest cost for energy storage is currently compressed air at $116/MWh ($0.116/kWh), but it is not clear whether this has been demonstrated on grid scale as yet.21 Even at $0.116/kWh, storage of alternative energy for nighttime charging would be a significant expense for utilities. Feed-in tariffs for solar power in Germany are currently €0.123/kWh ($0.14/kWh), meaning stored solar would cost about $0.26/kWh is stored in a theoretical compressed air storage system.22

Of course, there are occasional market distortions that drive wholesale power prices into negative territory when high renewable generation runs into low demand, so an argument might be made that a storage system that is paid to take power off the grid would be cost effective. For example, EVs which happened to be plugged in could be charged at advantageous rates. Similarly, grid-level storage would be paid to store electricity it could later sell. However, if EVs become mainstream the demands on the grid would almost certainly absorb more than the excess power occasionally produced today.

Storage has always been the up-and-coming technology in power markets, particularly for variable generation like wind and solar. Elon Musk has committed to building a 100 MWH lithium-ion battery farm - the largest in the world - in New South Wales, Australia's most populous state, before year-end. Musk committed to this on a bet he could complete the project within 100 days after an interconnect agreement is executed. While large, this is hardly the utility-scale battery of the future that would be needed to maintain a stable grid. Wind and solar in the U.S. generate over 800,000 MW hours per day.

Even so, given the growing potential for battery storage for grids with relatively high levels of renewables, and the expected boom in EV sales even modest growth forecasts imply, battery demand should flourish. Batteries likely will remain the single largest application for lithium going forward (Chart 5).

Chart 5
Batteries Will Remain Largest Lithium
Application
Chart 5

Fullscreen

Chart 6
Global Lithium Reserves
Are Concentrated In Chile And China
Chart 6

Fullscreen

We are not particularly bullish lithium tactically nor strategically, given our assessment that world reserves, which are concentrated in Chile and China, total ~ 14 million MT by the U.S. Geological Service's reckoning. This is sufficient to cover any EV or battery-driven demand (Chart 6). Lithium is not a commodity market that can be directly traded, therefore, for investors seeking to get long this exposure, we recommend they consider the Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF, which has outperformed broad commodity exposure - e.g., the S&P GSCI total return index - since mid-2016 (Chart 7).

Chart 7
Lithium ETF Outperforms
Broad Commodity Exposure
Chart 7

Fullscreen        Interactive Chart

The growth of the EV market and the continued build-out of grids around the world also will require additional copper supplies over the coming decades. Another study commissioned by the International Copper Association (ICA) found the growth of EVs, renewables and environmentally friendly buildings and electrical equipment could increase copper demand by some 4 million MT by 2030.23 Current consumption of copper is ~ 24 million MT/year.

Bottom Line: The growth of EVs and renewable generation will be supportive for lithium and copper demand. However, we are not particularly bullish either commodity at present. Lithium supplies should be sufficient to cover demand coming from EV and battery markets. Because it is a difficult commodity market to invest in directly, we recommend investors seeking to get long exposure to this market consider the Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF.

Copper offers a deep commodity market in which to take exposure. Tactically and strategically, we remain neutral copper, given our expectation Chinese demand for the metal likely will moderate over the next year or so.24 However, we continually monitor this market and will notify investors when our assessment changes.

Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President
Commodity & Energy Strategy
rryan@bcaresearch.com

Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President
Energy Sector Strategy
mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com

Brian Piccioni, Vice President
Technology Sector Strategy
brianp@bcaresearch.com

Johanna El-Hayek, Research Assistant
johannah@bcaresearch.com

Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant
HugoB@bcaresearch.com

Michael Commisso, Research Analyst
michaelc@bcaresearch.com

  • 1 Please see "Big Oil Just Work Up to Threat of Rising Electric Car Demand," published July 14, 2017, on bloomberg.com, which catalogues recent upward revisions of oil companies, OPEC and the IEA. See also "Big Oil Makes Big Increase on EV Forecasts" published August 7, 2017, by hybridcars.com.
  • 2 Please see "2016 World Oil Outlook," published by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) on its website at opec.org. In its 2016 Outlook, OPEC forecast non-conventional powertrain passenger vehicles - e.g., natural gas vehicles, hybrids, fuel-cell vehicles, PHEVs and BEVs - would account for 22% of the global automobile fleet by 2040, up from 3% in 2014. "Most of the growth in non-conventional powertrain passenger vehicles will come from BEVs," according to OPEC.
  • 3 Please see "Future of renewables: a radical disruption," published by Wood Mackenzie and its affiliate GTM Research August 9, 2017.
  • 4 Please see the IEA's "Global EV Outlook 2017, Two million and counting," and "Copper demand for electric cars to rise nine-fold by 2027: ICA," published by reuters.com June 13, 2017.
  • 5 Please see "BP Energy Outlook, 2017 Edition," published by BP. By comparison, WoodMac's 350 million EV forecast represents 21% of its estimated global fleet by 2035.
  • 6 Please see p. 4 of "Global EV Outlook 2017, two million and counting," published by the IEA. The EVI consists of the governments of Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, which represent "most of the global EV stock and (include the) most rapidly growing EV markets worldwide." It is led by the U.S. and China, although the IEA notes the U.S. leadership is under review.
  • 7 Please see "Tesla Sales Fall to Zero in Hong Kong After Tax Break Is Slashed," published by the Wall Street Journal July 9, 2017. The Journal notes Tesla sales went from just below 3,000 units to zero following the loss of subsidies.
  • 8http://www.thedrive.com/news/11089/denmark-ev-sales-plummet-with-tax-break-elimination
  • 9 Please see "Behind the Quiet State-by-State Fight Over Electric Vehicles," published by The New York Times in its online edition March 11, 2017. The Times notes, "Today, the economic incentives that have helped electric vehicles gain a toehold in America are under attack, state by state. In some states, there is a move to repeal tax credits for battery-powered vehicles or to let them expire. And in at least nine states, including liberal-leaning ones like Illinois and conservative-leaning ones like Indiana, lawmakers have introduced bills that would levy new fees on those who own electric cars."
  • 10 Please see the U.S. Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 199, published October 15, 2012, particularly the rules beginning on p. 62627, and the European Commission's "Climate Action" publication "Reducing CO2 emissions from passenger cars," updates August 23, 2017. The new U.S. presidential administration has indicated it will challenge or amend the regulations, but thus far they are still the law. BP expects the average passenger car will get close to 50 mpg in 2035 vs. less than 30 mpg in 2015.
  • 11 The first two instalments of our Special Report - "Electric Vehicles Part 1: Costs of Ownership," and "Electric Vehicles Part 2: EV Investment Impact" - were published August 3 and August 17, 2017. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com.
  • 12http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-electricity-consumption
  • 13http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-ihs-automotive-average-age-car-20140609-story.html
  • 14 4,000 kWh * 1000 * 253 M
  • 15https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_02.html
  • 16 4,000 kWh * 1000 * 263 M * 8/12 (adjusting for fewer miles traveled per year). Whenever electricity is distributed there is a loss of electric power through a variety of mechanisms. Transmission losses range from 4 to 9% in the EU so the actual demand on power producers to deliver power for EVs will be greater than the actual power required to charge the EVs.
  • 17 Please see p. 2 of the APS's report entitled "Integrating Renewable Electricity on the Grid."
  • 18http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/pumped-hydroelectric-storage
  • 19https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/
  • 20http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph240/galvan-lopez2/
  • 21https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/energy-storage-costs-lcos-lazard-lithium-ion-flow-batteries
  • 22https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/.../recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf
  • 23 The study was summarized by MINING.com in an article published May 16, 2017, entitled "These 5 trends will boost copper demand."
  • 24 Please see "Copper's Getting Out Ahead Of Fundamentals, Correction Likely," in BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy published August 24, 2017. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.

Performance Overview

Chart 8Chart 8

Fullscreen        Interactive Chart

Cumulative Total

CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN SINCE October 6, 2015
OVERWEIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS71.4%
UNDERWEIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS-38.8%
S&P 500 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MARKET-CAP WEIGHT48.4%
S&P 500 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUAL-WEIGHT50.7%

Recommendations

S&P 500 TECHNOLOGY SUB-SECTOR OVERWEIGHT NEUTRAL UNDERWEIGHT
S&P 500 Internet Software & Services GOOGL (+20.9%) - 24/11/2015
FB - 24/11/2015
AABA - 24/11/2015
AKAM - 24/11/2015
VRSN, Q - 24/11/2015
S&P 500 SoftwareMSFT (+61.4%) - 08/10/2015
CRM (+25.4%) - 17/01/2017
EA - 24/05/2016
ATVI - 24/05/2016
ORCL (-34.1%) - 08/10/2015
ADSK (-46.2%) - 17/01/2017
S&P 500 Technology Hardware, Storage and PeripheralsHPE - 10/01/2017
HPQ - 08/12/2015
WDC (-124.2%) - 14/04/2016
AAPL (-71.2%) - 19/01/2016
STX (+22.9%) - 06/10/2015
S&P 500 IT ServicesIBM (-5.5%) - 19/04/2016
S&P 500 Communications EquipmentJNPR (+19.2%) - 23/08/2016
FFIV (+13.7%) - 08/12/2015
HRS (-46.7%) - 08/12/2015
MSI (-29.6%) - 08/12/2015
CSCO (+5.9%) - 08/12/2015
S&P 500 Semiconductors and Semiconductor EquipmentSWKS (+55.4%) - 31/05/2016
TXN (+52.4%) - 22/12/2015
QRVO (+35.3%) - 22/12/2015
MCHP (+82.6%) - 22/12/2015
XLNX (+42.6%) - 22/12/2015
MU (+66.2%) - 06/10/2015
INTC - 22/12/2015
ADI - 22/12/2015
KLAC - 22/12/2015
AMAT (-79.8%) - 31/05/2016
AVGO (-73.4%) - 22/12/2015
NVDA (-403.8%) - 22/12/2015
QCOM (-12.0%) - 22/12/2015
S&P 500 Electronic Instruments and ComponentsGLW - 06/09/2016
TEL - 02/02/2016
FLIR - 02/02/2016
APH (-28.5%) - 06/09/2016
Non-S&P 500RPD (+14.6%) - 14/06/2016
CHKP (+28.9%) - 14/06/2016
QLYS (+106.4%) - 16/02/2016
FTNT (+46.3%) - 16/02/2016
CYBR (+16.1%) - 16/02/2016
TER (+65.7%) - 22/12/2015
SIMO (+55.0%) - 06/10/2015
SOXX ETF* (+28.0%) - 11/15/2016
VDSI - 14/06/2016
PANW (+1.2%) - 14/06/2016
FEYE (-9.8%) - 16/02/2016
PFPT (-115.1%) - 16/02/2016
ASML (-74.5%)* - 22/12/2015
IMPV (+6.3%) - 14/02/2017
DDD(+40.3%) - 06/06/2017
SSYS(+21.4%) - 06/06/2017
Non-S&P 501MTLS - 06/06/2017

* EQUALLY -WEIGHTED BASKET OF ON, MTSI, CRUS, IDTI, IPHI, MRVL , CY, CAVM , MSCC, AND MXL UNTIL APRIL 18, 2017. SOXX ETF AFTER.

Closed Recommendations

COMPANY S&P 500 TECHNOLOGY SUB-SECTOR RATING RECOMMENDATION DATE CLOSING DATE TOTAL
RETURN
SANDISK (SNDK)S&P 500 Technology Hardware, Storage and PeripheralsOverweight06/10/201523/10/201528%
WESTERN DIGITAL (WDC) S&P 500 Technology Hardware, Storage and PeripheralsUnderweight06/10/201623/10/201516.5%
HP ENTERPRISE (HPE)S&P 500 Technology Hardware, Storage and PeripheralsOverweight08/12/201710/01/201753%
CORNING (GLW)S&P 500 Electronic Instruments and ComponentsOverweight02/2/201606/09/201629%
VASCO DATA SYSTEMS (VDSI)Non-S&P 500Overweight16/2/201624/06/201620.2%
LINEAR TECHNOLOGY (LLTC)**S&P 500 Semiconductors and Semiconductor EquipmentOverweight22/12/201510/03/201755.4%
SMALL SEMICONDUCTOR STOCKS***S&P 500 Semiconductors and Semiconductor EquipmentOverweight15/11/201618/04/201713.1%
MATERIALISE (MTLS)Non-S&P 500Overweight04/10/201606/06/201763.6%

** ACQUISITION BY ANALOG DEVICES COMPLETED ON MARCH 10, 2017
*** EQUALLY -WEIGHTED BASKET OF ON, MTSI, CRUS, IDTI, IPHI, MRVL , CY, CAVM , MSCC, AND MXL.