Molybdenum price predictions for 1, 5 and 10 years out

Writing a blog about molybdenum might arguably be seen as a rather obscure use of one’s time, so why do it?

Molybdenum, in the broader sense, constitutes a topic that is large enough to be interesting, while being narrow enough that one has a shot at getting a genuine understanding — a chance to develop expertise. And molybdenum isn’t trendy. I parachuted into the field because I liked the sound of the word. So there’s a chance to come in ahead of the curve.

Molybdenum, furthermore, is an eight, uhh make that a five, billion dollar industry, yet it’s not out of the question that its price can be predicted with a non-negligible degree of confidence. Molybdenum has fewer moving parts than corn, gold or oil. If the underlying variance stemming from forecasting the general direction of the economy can be hedged away, then molybdenum’s performance is even more amenable to prediction.

My current predictive model is pretty simple. I take an 18-year time series of molybdenum spot prices, and sample at 2-month intervals. Convert these samples to percentage moves. Using bootstrap resampling, draw (with replacement) from the aggregate of percentage moves to generate a forward time series. Repeat 10,000 times.

The results of this model are shown in the plot below. The distribution of outcomes sampled a year from now is shown in red, the distribution five years out is shown in blue, and the distribution a decade from now is shown in black. Both the blue and the black curves have substantial tails at high price, extending well off the 50 USD/lb x-axis limit. A year from now, the 10,000 trials average to 12.45 USD/lb, with a standard deviation of 4.75 USD/lb. Roughly speaking, the model suggests that there’s a 15% chance that a year from now, the price of mol will be above 17 dollars per pound, and a 15% chance that it’ll be under 8 USD/lb, an outcome that wouldn’t be too rosy for shares of GMO.

Remember, though, it’s just a model, and an excruciatingly simple one at that. Next up, some analysis of the model with an eye toward improving it.

TC Trading at Liquidation

It’s been a tough year for the molybdenum industry in general and Thompson Creek Metals in particular. The Denver-based miner has seen huge cost overruns on its Mt. Milligan copper-gold mine, a drop in mol production at its flagship pit in Idaho, and a rough start for the new Endako mill. The stock has lost most of its value and is trading near liquidation. It’s fair to say that its been a disastrous 18 months for the shareholders.

One factor that has contributed to Thompson Creek’s woes is the rapid drop in the price of molybdenum, which is currently trading at 11 dollars per pound. This is only a few dollars above production costs for a miner like TC, and has obliterated their cash flow right when they need it most.

In February 2011, when the price of mol was riding high at USD 17.80 per pound, I developed my forward price model for molybdenum, and ran it forward 10,000 times to create a Monte-Carlo simulation. Here’s a screenshot (from my February 2011 post) showing a few sample trajectories. Mol’s got vol, Man.

With the model in hand, we can better appreciate the risks that Thompson Creek was taking as a consequence of their exposure to molybdenum price fluctuations. If you listen to their conference calls over the past year, they are uniformly careful to couch their language with safe regulatory-approved palliatives and disclaimers, “forward looking statements, etc. etc.”. I cannot find any specific indications that they are evaluating their molybdenum price risk with a serious quantitative model. Even a simple bootstrap-based approach of the type that I’ve implemented should have been enough to give them some serious pause.

The following histogram is the result of running the February 2011 model 18 months forward to the present day (August 2012). I show the distribution of molybdenum prices predicted by the model, along with the current spot price as a guilty red bar.

Over 10,000 trials, the average Aug 2012 predicted molybdenum price was 18.1 dollars per pound. TC would not be trading with a two handle had that been the outcome. More importantly, however, the current 11 dollar per pound cost is only one standard deviation beneath the mean. With my model, which is propagated from the heady days of 17.8 dollar per pound mol, there was a 15% chance that the price would be at or below 11 dollars per pound. That, combined with a little forward thinking concering price inflation on big mining projects when the price of gold is sky high, could have kept TC from destroying more than a billion bucks of shareholder value.

Next up, what does the distribution of mol prices look like 18 months forward?

Wolfram Molybdenum


I guess everyone’s heard about Wolfram Alpha, the web service that responds to quantitatively oriented natural language queries by computing the answers from structured data.

Molybdenum’s odd appeal derives in large measure from its obscurity. I was therefore a bit worried that Wolfram Alpha, with its 5 million lines of Mathematica code, its 10,000 servers, and its 10+ trillion pieces of curated data (“from primary sources with continuous updating”), would render molybdos.com utterly irrelevant. Especially given the steadily declining mol spot price and abysmal rate at which I have been producing new posts.

Furthermore, it turns out that Mathematica co-founder Theo Gray, who was several years ahead of me at University High School in Urbana, has a rather singular fascination with the chemical elements. Indeed, here is a picture from his website where he is showing author Oliver Sacks his wooden periodic table:

Molybdenum is element 42. I think it’s a fair guess that everyone who reads this site knows that:

The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is calculated by an enormous supercomputer over a period of 7.5 million years to be 42. Unfortunately no one knows what the question is.

So I was half-expecting Easter eggs galore:

But the results are thoroughly workmanlike, with an emphasis on molybdenum’s physical properties. Pretty much the same dry facts that you’ll find on the right-hand side of the Wikipedia page. Interestingly, though, Wolfram Alpha does mention that the sound speed in pure Mo is 6190 m/s, the fourth-fasted of any element. That’s Mach 18, fully 55% of the escape velocity from Earth’s surface.

There doesn’t seem to be much else, so the reading public will need to continue frequenting molybdos.com. The only pod of economics-related molybdenum data that I could coax out of the engine was a curiously out-of-date time series of molybdenum prices, running from 1912 to 1998:

Quite an interesting plot, actually. The price spike in 1980 was quite dramatic. In 2008 dollars, the 1980 spot price of mol reached 25.60 USD/lb, which was close (but not quite as high) as the great molybdenum bubble of 2005, where the spot price topped out at a staggering all-time high of 46.00 USD/lb.

Was Molybdenum a good inflation hedge? Here’s the result of typing united states inflation rate time series into Wolfram Alpha:

Copper Kings

Copper King William A. Clark

I was fascinated by the obituary for Huguette Clark that appeared in the New York Times a few weeks ago.

Huguette Clark’s eccentricities in themselves make for good copy — empty mansions, elaborate doll collections, predatory lawyers and accountants vying for control of a vast fortune. More remarkable, however was the fact that, at age 104, she was likely the last living link to the United States’ Gilded Age. Clark’s father was one of the three “Copper Kings” of Butte Montana, who monopolized the fabulous turn-of-the century copper mines, setting the stage for the creation of the appropriately named Anaconda Copper Mining Company.

Coincidently, right at about the time that Huguette Clark died, I received a query from a friend who recently inherited a block of Copper-Mol-Gold giant FCX‘s shares (via an original family holding of Phelps-Dodge, later acquired by Freeport-McMoran). The question, of course, is, given the rather precipitous slide that the primary copper and molybdenum producers have taken over the past few months, should one hold on or sell out?

Molybdos staff analyst Dr. Nutzmann had a look at FCX’s balance sheet, and offered a personal opinion (noting, as always, that this doesn’t constitute a recommendation of any kind. Consult your own financial advisor, etc. etc.)

FCX is trading at 4X book value, so the balance sheet won’t save the stock should copper demand entirely fall off a cliff. Current earnings level makes FCX still reasonably attractive, but not a sure thing.

Some reasons to worry:

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2011/03/10/510676/chinas-copper-as-collateral-addiction/
(and the links in the article)

I think if China continues to grow smoothly, copper is a good bet. If you are worried about a real estate bubble in China causing weakness in their economy, then copper might have some rough times.

The easiest recommendation is that an investor should not have more than 5% of his or her portfolio in FCX, and should sell some if that is the case. Below that level, I think it is good to have something like FCX in your portfolio.

Cool-headed valuations for your 401(k) are one thing, but there’s a certain undeniable intangible satisfaction to owning a big block of FCX. The boss may be a jerk, unable to neutralize life’s cheap shots within himself and therefore takes it out on you, with unreasonable demands. Yet even as you boil in your cubicle, the giant FCX Tonka trucks keep hauling the gold, the mol and the copper out of the gigantic pit. Dividend checks! As you buckle down under the unfairness, there’s a certain vicarious satisfication in the fact that as a Freeport shareholder, you’re naturally entitled to emulate the “copper crowd” of the Gilded Age:

…Broadway howls when the copper crowd whirl down in their automobiles. Every one in the party enjoys himself carte blanche at the Mr Heinze’s expense on these tours, and the commotion the Western visitors created last May during the annual Heinze tour furnished the newspaper with columns of good stories.

An ODE for predicting mol prices

An ambitious young feller could make a good living trading molybdenum if he knew just where the price of mol was headed. The problem, of course, is that the price of molybdenum shows odd fluctuations and is not particularly easy to predict. Here’s the trajectory (as charted by the London Metal Exchange) for the first three months of 2011.

My working hypothesis is that molybdenum prices can potentially be predicted with some degree of accuracy in advance, and that construction of a successful model is less daunting than would be the case for larger, more complicated commodities such as oil, gold and wheat. Fred Adams visited the office last month, and we took a crack at an initial formulation at a governing ordinary differential equation:

In the above, P is the mol spot price, D is worldwide demand, and S is worldwide supply. The last term on the right hand side is a stochastic forcing term — no crystal ball is perfect!

More explanation is, of course, in order. Stay tuned.

The North Campus Mineral Zone

If the global economy continues to grow, then energy use will also continue to grow, and that’s good news for the primary molybdenum producers. The strong correlation of the molybdenum equity names with one another is quite interesting, given the relatively low short-term correlation of the stocks with the molybdenum spot price. There’s a medium-duration long-short strategy sitting there to be exploited, I’m quite sure, but the details have yet to be worked out.

Of more pressing urgency is the matter of university finances. The state budget situation does not look good, so I’ve looked a little further into developing UCSC’s potential mineral resources.

As readers know, the UCSC campus sits astride a block of Salinian granite that contains mineralized gold-bearing quartz veins. The presence of the glittering metal in the folds of the pristine redwood-forested hills came to my attention through some notes in an 1890′s era California geological survey:

The website mindat.org lists the location of the Stribling mine as latitude +37 deg, 1′, 11”, longitude 122 deg, 2′, 60” W. This location is on an odd hairpin bend in the San Lorenzo River, located in Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park, just adjacent to the property line of the UCSC North Campus:

On the geological map, the hairpin bend seems to be associated with the Ben Lomond fault, which is a high-angle fault that has produced over 600 feet of vertical slip since the Miocene era. The fault runs through the Pogonip open space, and defines the very steep eastern border of the Campus, before continuing north into Henry Cowell Park.

One can only do so much with Google Earth and an Internet connection. Next step is to get out into the field and do some prospecting.

LBO

Brother, can you spare a couple mil? It’s been rough days on both the mol desk and on the exoplanet radial velocity desk. So far this year, TC’s stock price is down 20%, hitting molybdenum bugs where it hurts:

If that chart weren’t bad enough, 1,235 Kepler candidates have flooded the market, driving new planet prices to historical lows. In recent trading on the Oklo electronic exchange, uninflated hot Jupiters orbiting V=13-14 stars were changing hands for USD 1,200. Further price deterioration is expected as new production from the Persian Gulf region starts to come on line:

Rather than sit around and grumble, Philip Nutzman and I have been working out the details of a strategy that can take advantage of the depressed TC stock price, while dramatically increasing free cash flow in our core exoplanet businesses. The scheme? A roaring 80′s Barbarians-At-The-Gate inspired leveraged buyout of TC!

The full details, of course, are proprietary, but I can tip our hand a little bit: We’ll be issuing junk bonds paying ~10% to underfunded university pension plans. Despite their junk rating, our bonds will be quite attractive, as they’ll be contingent on the success of the deal. We’ll use the 2.6 billion in capital thus raised to initiate a leveraged buyout of TC at a ~20% premium over the current basement-level stock price. Once we’ve gained control, we’ll sell off the Mt. Milligan copper-gold project to a large-cap copper major for ~1.2 billion. We’ll use the cash thus obtained to start paying down the bonds, and help ourselves (or rather, we’ll help the exoplanet desk) to TC’s 300 million in cash. Continued operations at the Endako and Thompson Creek mines will be used to retire the remaining bonds over the next 5-7 years.

Now before the TC executives come at us with a pitchfork, let me remind everyone that I’m being strictly tongue in cheek. In addition, see also the web log disclaimer!


Disclaimer

Nothing on this site should be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell any specific security nor as a solicitation of an order to buy or sell any specific security. Before making any trade for any reason you should consult your own financial advisor. The author may hold long or short positions in any of the securities discussed either before or after publication of an article mentioning such a security.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.