Tag Archives: investment

Take The Long-Term View To Manage Volatility

By Tom Lee, Managing Director, Investment Strategy and Research, Parametric Volatility today is not materially above the long-term average. If we use the CBOE Volatility Index as a reference, volatility since the end of 2015 averaged a little over 21 ½. Long-term VIX averages in the high 19s. The reality is people think we are in a higher-volatility environment because we came from, historically, a relatively low-volatility environment. Volatility tends to cluster into regimes. The volatility environment we’re in now is more normal. What caused volatility to elevate? There are a lot of contributors to volatility. There are the experimental and divergent monetary policies that are being pursued across the globe, including negative interest rates. And there’s also an intuitive understanding that the longer we are in this experimental monetary policy phase, the higher the risk is of some unintended consequence. We’re going to have this uncertainty for a while. Asset allocation Having said that, I don’t think that volatility should drive changes in asset allocation. Volatility tends to cluster in regimes and it would be very hard for an investor to time an upward or downward move. I think investors should structure their portfolios for the long term. I would say that now is a very prudent time for investors to closely observe their portfolio and make sure they have transparency into all the risks they’re taking and address unintended risks. As an example, recently investors have become very interested in hedging their currency exposure – after the strong rally in the dollar. They’re hedging only after they’ve experienced the risk. We are advocates of investors trying to get ahead of the curve with respect to risk. Investors need to show fortitude as volatility picks up and not overreact to events in the market. Staying the course What can investment managers do? First and foremost, investment managers can come up with ways that help the client to stick to their policy portfolio. So, as an example, they can offer seamless rebalancing methodologies. Investment managers can be more transparent about their strategies. By this I mean every strategy has periods when the wind is at its back and periods where you’re running into the wind. Overall it’s helpful to be more transparent about what environments will be challenging for a strategy. And if managers are forthright with the client about this, it’s less likely the client is going to terminate them during a challenging period. Frequently, in hindsight, we see that these challenging periods were absolutely the wrong time to terminate a strategy. Low-volatility strategies Low-volatility strategies are always worthy of consideration but investors need to be conscious of what they’re getting into. Most strategies are constructed around two general themes, a risk metric construction process and a min-variance process. Risk metric just involves sorting the index by various volatility metrics. Minimum variance looks beyond risk metrics and incorporates correlations among securities. All low-volatility factor construction uses some type of concentration limits. You need to understand that these strategies don’t outperform in every situation, namely a down market. For example, the S&P 500 Low [Volatility] Index has underperformed the S&P approximately 15% of the time when the market was negative. So investors have to understand that they can have these downward surprises. If investors want to avoid these types of surprises, either asset allocation or diversification through the introduction of other risk premiums will provide them with greater certainty of low volatility when they most want it, and that’s in a negative market environment. Holding cash In regard to holding cash, I think it’s challenging for an investor in the long term. They are holding risk assets to fund future liabilities, which are growing faster than cash. Investors holding cash also struggle to realize when the market is bottoming so they can time their move out of cash into risk assets. If you are really thinking about holding cash as a modest form of protection, there are other strategies available. A very simple one is a disciplined covered-call selling program that will generate cash in a stressful environment and dampen some of the downside volatility. That, to us, would be more prudent than parking money in cash. Derivatives Derivatives can and have been used to control portfolio volatility. Historically investors have used long puts or put spreads to control downside risk in portfolios. I am generally not an advocate of this approach. It needs to be highly customized to the particular investor and it can lead to a lot of challenging decisions. How do you pay for the downside protection? Do you sell away upside? Experience shows that most investors become fatigued with the expense and tend to terminate programs, often right before a market experiences challenges. Options An alternative approach is to sell fully collateralized options. This approach seeks to capture the volatility risk premium, which is embedded in options. It often makes more sense to de-risk the portfolio and consider being a seller, rather than a buyer of the hedge. The first adopters of this type of strategy were endowments and foundations. More recently there is increased interest from Taft-Hartley funds that are dealing with particular pension funds and mark-to-market issues, as well as public fund investors. There are benefits of selling volatility in a transparent, liquid and fully collateralized manner. One preferred way of doing that is through index options and trying to capture what academic and market research has identified as the volatility risk premium. The result is that this premium can be captured in a transparent, liquid manner and it shows diversification benefits versus traditional assets. It can have a material and positive impact on a portfolio over time. Focus on the long term Many investors look at volatility and are fearful. They intuitively understand that rising volatility generally means more stressful market environments. Investors need to take a step back and focus on the long term, and not become reactionary or fall into short-term pitfalls and try to shuffle their portfolio to follow some latest fad. As markets evolve there may be better approaches available to them that allow them to achieve their ultimate objectives. So be open to new ideas. There’s a lot of really creative thought going on right now in different areas that maybe in a couple years will become more mainstream. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Monday Morning Memo: Passive – Smart – Smarter – Active

By Detlef Glow Click to enlarge The Evolution of the European ETF Industry When the first exchange-traded fund (ETF) was introduced to the markets, it was clear that the aim of the portfolio manager was to track the returns of the underlying index of the fund as closely as possible. But since a fund faces some restrictions, such as transaction costs or limits on the maximum weighting of a single security in the portfolio, that are not applicable for the underlying index, the difference between the returns of the index and the ETF are in some cases quite significant. Since the investment industry (and therefore also the ETF industry) is always trying to optimize its processes, ETF promoters started to develop portfolio management techniques to minimize tracking error and the tracking differences of the ETFs. The Generation 2.0 ETFs not only aimed to track the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible, the managers also attempted to optimize the returns with modern portfolio management techniques to achieve additional income that contributed to their outperformance over the index. Looking at ETFs that try to generate outperformance the “old fashioned way,” the additional income must be seen as tracking error and therefore as a negative fact. These returns were, firstly, non regular returns. Secondly, modern portfolio management techniques such as securities lending or dividend optimization strategies added an additional layer of risk to the portfolio, for which the ETF investor might have not been compensated properly. Even though the quality of ETF returns has evolved significantly, there are still a number of critics around, since it seems in some cases to be easy to beat market-capitalization-weighted benchmarks. In other cases, such as with bond indices, critics say that market capitalization is the wrong way to build an index. These criticisms have led to the development of alternative weighted indices, ranging from simple equally weighted indices to highly complex methodologies that might employ quantitative and qualitative factors to determine the weighting of the securities in the index. But, even though some promoters offer ETFs that track an alternative weighted index, these kinds of products have not found their way into the portfolios of mainstream investors. But there was and still is scientific evidence that there are some factors in the markets-such as momentum, quality, size, and value-that investors can exploit to generate higher returns than those from a market-cap-weighted index. The introduction of these factors into the mainstream ETF industry started after the financial crisis of 2008 with the first minimum variance ETFs that suited the needs of investors looking for equity portfolios that don’t show as much volatility as their underlying markets. To make these products more appealing for investors, the ETF industry called these kinds of funds “smart beta funds.” The popularity of these products led to a race in the search for new factors that can be exploited by investors, since the index and ETF promoters wanted to offer new products to their clients. But the “new factors” found by the researchers were mainly market abnormalities that disappeared shortly after they were found, or the additional returns were too small to exploit in a profitable way, since transaction costs were eating away the premium. One of the major concerns of investors with regard to smart beta ETFs is that all the factors employed do not deliver consistent outperformance. In other words, smart beta ETFs show longer periods of underperformance that make it necessary for the investor to switch at the right time between different factors to avoid the longer periods of underperformance in their portfolio. But since the right timing is the hardest call in the portfolio management process, especially for retail investors, it seems likely that a number of investors shy away from these products. In the next product generation, the index and ETF industry are attempting to make the smart beta products even smarter by combining different factors. The products improve the common smart beta ETFs. In other words, they make the smart beta concept even smarter, since the factors described above do not deliver outperformance at any particular time. One of the aims of this approach is to build a portfolio that is either in different factors at the same time or that tries to switch between factors at the right time, i.e., to unburden the investor from the timing decision in order to capture as much premium from a single factor as possible. From these semi-actively managed portfolios it is only a small step to a fully active managed portfolio wrapped in an ETF structure. Even though some market observers would label this a scandal, the introduction of actively managed ETFs will be the next logical step for the industry. Even though the first ETF following an actively managed index in Europe wasn’t a success at all, a view to the other side of the Atlantic shows that actively managed ETFs can be successful. PIMCO was able to generate very high inflows when it launched its first actively managed ETF in the U.S. The success of PIMCO might be the reason more and more promoters of actively managed funds are preparing to enter the ETF market. From my point of view this makes a lot of sense, since the ETF wrapper is a very efficient structure that opens up new distribution methods for active managers. And, I don’t see a valid reason why promoters should not try to distribute their funds through all possible channels. But to be successful active ETF managers must not only have good products, they also must build the right infrastructure for trading their funds. To be successful in the ETF industry there needs to be more than a well-known name and the listing of products on an exchange. I strongly believe this introduction will work; we already see a number of active managed funds listed by market participants on the “Deutsche Börse” in Frankfurt. At the beginning the fund promoters did not support trading their funds on exchanges and in some cases tried to close down the trading, since they felt this distribution channel would offend their established distribution channels. Those times are over, but it is still not common to buy or sell a mutual fund on an exchange unless the fund has been closed for some reason. From my point of view the trading of actively managed ETFs will become a very common way to buy mutual funds for all kinds of investors, once fund promoters officially start to use this market as a distribution channel. It is not a question of if we will see actively managed funds traded as ETFs, it is only a question of when we will see this happen. The views expressed are the views of the author, not necessarily those of Thomson Reuters Lipper.

Ormat Technologies’ (ORA) CEO Isaac Angel on Q1 2016 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

Ormat Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: ORA ) Q1 2016 Earnings Conference Call May 05, 2016 09:00 AM ET Executives Rob Fink – Managing Director, Hayden Investor Relations Isaac Angel – Chief Executive Officer Doron Blachar – Chief Financial Officer Analysts Paul Coster – JPMorgan Operator Good morning, and welcome to the Ormat Technologies, Incorporated First Quarter 2016 Earnings Conference Call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] Please note this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Rob Fink. Please go ahead. Rob Fink Thank you, operator. Hosting the call today are Isaac Angel, Chief Executive Officer; Doron Blachar, Chief Financial Officer; and Smadar Lavi, Vice President of Corporate Finance and Investor Relations. Before beginning, we would like to remind you that the information provided during this call may contain forward-looking statements relating to current expectations, estimates, forecasts, and projections about future events that are forward looking as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements generally relate to the company’s plans, objectives, and expectations for future operation and are based on management’s current estimates, projections, future results, or trends. Actual future results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties. For a discussion of such risks and uncertainties, please see Risk Factors as described in Ormat’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC. In addition, during the call we will present non-GAAP financial measures such as EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA. Reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP measures and management’s reason for presenting such information is set forth in the press release that was issued last night, as well as in the slides posted on our website. Because these measures are not calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP, they should not be considered in isolation from the financial statement prepared in accordance with GAAP. Before I turn the call over to management, I would like to remind everyone that the slide presentation accompanying this call may be accessed on the Company’s website, at ormat.com, under the Events & Presentations link that’s found on the Investor Relations tab. With all that said, I would now like to turn the call over to Isaac. Isaac, the call is yours. Isaac Angel Thank you, Rob, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us today for the presentation of our first quarter 2016 results and our outlook for the remainder of the year. Starting with slide 4, the first quarter was a great start to the year for Ormat. We executed well, delivering strong revenue and profitability, and our focus on improving our operational and manufacturing efficiency is the main driver for margin expansion and improved results. Both our product segment and electricity segment delivered improved results year after year. Our electricity segment delivered a 20% increase, reaching $108 million, due to higher electricity generation and new expansions coming on line. Our product segment grew 44%, to $44 million, benefiting from several large contracts signed in the previous years. Overall, total revenue grew 26%, to $152 million, which demonstrates strong growth as we overcome the impact of lower commodity prices which continues to affect a portion of our revenue in our electricity segment. In addition, we achieved high gross margin levels in both segments of our business, supporting significant increases in our overall profitability. This performance is due primarily to two factors: first, our balanced business model being vertically integrated; and second, our methodical efforts to improve operational efficiency. We have been focused on efficiency and operational excellence in every aspect of our business, and that effort is reflected in our numbers. I will elaborate on the progress being made and our plans for the future after Doron reviews the financial results. Doron? Doron Blachar Thank you, Isaac, and good morning, everyone. Let me start by providing an overview of our financial results for the three months ended March 31, 2016. Starting with slide 6, for the first quarter of 2016 total revenue increased 26.1%, to $151.6 million, compared to $120.2 million in the first quarter of 2015. Moving to slide 7, revenues in the electricity segment increased 19.9%, to $107.9 million, in the first quarter of 2016, up from $90 million in the first quarter of last year. Slide 8, revenues in the product segment were $43.7 million, an increase of 44.4%, compared to $30.3 million in the first quarter of 2015. Moving to slide 9, gross margin in the first quarter of 2016 increased to 42.1%, from 36.6% in the first quarter of 2015. Our electricity segment gross margin increased to 41%, due largely to new expansions coming on line, improved efficiency at the plant level, and also the transition to a new fixed-rate PPA for our Heber 1 power plant. Part of the increase in gross margin this quarter is driven by timing of operating expenses. We expect a lighter second quarter in the electricity segment with higher expenses that will result in lower margins, on average, in the rest of the year. Our product segment generated 45% gross margin, a particularly strong level for this segment of our business. It was mainly due to the different product mix and different margins in the various sales contracts, improvements made at our manufacturing facility which enables us to shorten lead time, as well as reduction in commodity prices that reduced the cost of raw material in subcontracting. We expect our gross margin in the product segment during 2016 to be higher than normal. The margin should normalize in 2017. Turning to slide 10, operating income for the first quarter of 2016 increased to $50.5 million, compared to $29.9 million in the first quarter of 2015, representing 69.3% increase. Operating income attributable to our electricity segment was $34.8 million, compared to $24 million in the first quarter of 2015, representing a 45.2% increase. Operating income of the product segment was $15.8 million, compared to $5.9 million in the first quarter of 2015, representing 168% increase. Moving to slide 11, net income attributable to the company’s stockholders for the first quarter of 2016 was $29.3 million, or $0.59 per diluted share, compared to $10 million, or $0.21 per diluted share, in the first quarter of 2015. Let me spend a moment speaking on our hedging strategy that is designed to mitigate the impact of changes in commodity prices. We continued to make progress in reducing our exposure to these fluctuations. In December of 2015, the Heber 1 contract was switched to a fixed-rate price, which mitigate our exposure and reduce the portfolio exposed to natural gas prices to approximately 90 megawatts and less than 10% of 2016 expected electricity revenue. Recently, we reduced our economic exposure to fluctuation in the price of oil and natural gas until the end of 2016, by entering into a derivative transaction. We recognized a net loss for this transaction of $0.1 million in the first quarter of 2016, which is recorded within foreign currency translation and transaction gains or losses, compared to a net gain of $0.3 million in the first quarter of 2015 that was recognized in the electricity segment revenue. Please turn to slide 12, adjusted EBITDA. Adjusted EBITDA for the first quarter of 2016 was $80.2 million, compared to $65.3 million in the same period last year, which represents a 22.8% increase. Reconciliation of the EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA is described on the appendix slide. Turning to slide 13, cash and cash equivalents as of March 31, 2016, were $148.5 million. We generated $27 million in cash from operating activities and invested $31 million in CapEx. The accompanying slide breaks down the use of cash during the quarter. Our long-term debt as of March 31, 2016, and the payment schedules are presented on slide 14 of the presentation. The average cost of debt for the company stands at 5.9%. On May 4, 2016, Ormat’s Board of Directors approved payment of a quarterly dividend of $0.07 per share for the first quarter. The dividend will be paid on May 24, 2016, to shareholders of record as of closing of business on May 18, 2016. In addition, the Company expects to pay a quarterly dividend of $0.07 per share in the next two quarters. This concludes my financial overview. I would like now to turn the call to Isaac for an operational and business update. Isaac? Isaac Angel Thank you very much, Doron. Starting with slide 16, for an update on operations. In the first quarter, we delivered strong results that demonstrate that we are making solid progress on our multiyear strategic plan. Moving to slide 17, we continue to make improvement in all aspects of our value chain. Specifically, we are focused on reducing manufacturing lead time, improving procurement to lower our material cost, and improving management control. This process translates into a significant improvement in gross margin and adjusted EBITDA margins. Turning to slide 18, another goal was to expand our electricity generation, both organically and inorganically. Electricity generation during the quarter was 1.4 million megawatt hours, an increase of 16.4% compared to the last year. This increase was due to commencement of the second phase of Don Campbell and McGinness Hills, power plants in 2015, as well as Plant 4 of the Olkaria III complex in Kenya which come on line in January this year. Beyond expansion, we continue to make plant-level adjustments designed to optimize our electricity generations. These adjustments include the elimination of older and less efficient components and modifying output based on the underlying resource. The goal is to improve profitability, and we are making meaningful process here, as well. In addition, we are also working to monetize the Don Campbell plant and further strengthen our balance sheet as part of our joint venture with Northleaf Capital Partners. Currently, we are conducting the required power generation tests under the agreement to determine the final terms for closing. Following the closing, Ormat Nevada will contribute Don Campbell 2 to ORPD, and Northleaf will buy their interest share. We expect to close this in the second quarter of 2016. Turning to slide 19, another part of our expansion strategy involves targeted acquisitions. We recently signed definitive agreements to acquire gradually 85% of a geothermal plant in the island of Guadalupe. We expect to close this acquisition during the second quarter. This acquisition will be immediately accretive to Ormat CPS. Turning to slide 20, for an update on projects under construction. We plan to add 160 to 190 megawatts by the end of 2018 by bringing new plants on line, expanding existing plants, as well as adding capacity from the recent acquisitions. The expansion plan includes the Platanares geothermal project in Honduras, which is currently under construction, and we expect to reach commercial operation by the end of 2017. We also initiated development efforts in two projects in Nevada. Tungsten Mountain and Dixie Meadows are each expected to generate 25 to 35 megawatts once they come online in 2017 or 2018. While the drilling activity is ongoing in both projects, we are making progress towards securing PPAs. We believe that these projects may qualify for the production tax credit. In Sarulla, Indonesia, engineering and procurement for the first and second phases has been substantially completed, but it’s still in progress for the third phase. Construction for the first phase is in progress, with major activities related to mechanical and electrical equipment installation. The infrastructure work for the second phase is in progress. Major equipment, including Ormat’s OECs and Toshiba’s steam turbines, for the first phase has arrived at the site and currently installed. The drilling of production and injection wells is also in progress for all three phases. The project is still experiencing delays, mainly in field development of the second phase and third phases and cost overruns. With respect to Ormat’s role as a supplier, all contractual milestones under the supply agreement were achieved and main shipment of the second phase is on its way to the site. Manufacturing of third phase equipment is progressing as planned. The consortium expects that the first phase of operations to commence towards the end of 2016, and the remaining two phases of operations are scheduled to commence within the 18 months thereafter. The projects I just described, as well as additional projects under various stages of development, are expected to support our expansion by the end of 2018. Besides the investment in new projects, we are continuing our exploration and business development activities to support future growth. On slide 21, let me briefly discuss the recent agreement with Alevo. On March 30, 2016, Ormat signed an agreement with a subsidiary of Alevo Group S.A., a leading provider of energy storage systems, to jointly build, own, and operate the Rabbit Hill Energy Storage Project, which is located in Georgetown, Texas. The storage market is one of the most developing, growing, and exciting areas in the energy industry today, and this agreement moves us for the first time into the energy storage arena. We view this market as key to our long-term growth plan, as it helps us to further diversify revenues and support our position as a leader in the renewable energy industry. Under the terms of the agreement, Ormat will own and fund the majority of the Rabbit Hill Energy Storage Project and will provide engineering, construction services, and balance of plant equipment. Alevo will provide its innovative GridBank inorganic lithium ion energy storage system in conjunction with the power conversion systems. In addition, Alevo will provide ongoing management, operations, and maintenance services for the life of the project. We do not expect this first entry into the storage market to generate material revenues for Ormat. However, we do believe this collaboration will allow us to make significant progress towards our expansion in this field. We continue to actively explore opportunities in this area and remain focused on building relationships and collaboration with established technology providers. We believe that such collaboration can leverage our experience, relationships, and project management, and other capabilities. If you could please turn to slide 22, you would see that our CapEx requirement for the balance of 2016 stands at approximately $245 million. We plan to invest a total of approximately $75 million in capital expenditures on new projects under construction and enhancements. And additional approximately $170 million are budgeted for exploration activities, development of new projects, investment in new activities that reflects expenditure under the new strategic plan, and maintenance CapEx for operating projects. In addition, $51 million will be required for debt repayment. Turning to slide 23, for an update on our product segment. Our backlog as of May 4, 2016, stands at approximately $214 million. Moving to slide 24, for a regulatory update. We shared with you the tremendous efforts Ormat’s team is investing in order to accelerate growth of the electricity segment to increase its portion in the future. In addition to shortening the manufacturing construction lead time, we are also investing efforts to shorten the development process. One of the hurdles in the geothermal development is obtaining key permitting in order to test prospect viability. We have been supporting and lobbying the geothermal components of Senator Dean Heller’s Geothermal Exploration Opportunity Act to simplify geothermal exploration review process in the future. Under the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015, which passed the U.S. Senate on April 2016, an agreement was reached to approve 29 amendments, including Senator Heller’s Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act, which streamlines permitting for renewable energy projects on federal land. If the bill will pass the House unchanged, it will be significant achievement in improving ability to assess potential geothermal resources faster than before and, by that, to accelerate the development process. Turning to slide 25, for 2016 guidance. We are reiterating our 2016 full-year guidance. For the year, we expect total revenue to be between $620 million and $640 million. We expect revenue in our electricity segment to be between $410 million and $420 million. For the product segment, we expect revenues to be between $210 million and $220 million. We expect 2016 adjusted EBITDA to be between $300 million and $310 million. I’m very pleased with our performance. The first quarter represents a strong start to what we believe will be another great year for Ormat. And that concludes our remarks for today, and I thank you very much for continued support. Operator? Question-and-Answer Session Operator [Operator Instructions]. The first question comes from Paul Coster from JPMorgan. Please go ahead. Paul Coster Yes, thanks, few quick questions. First up, you’ve made tremendous progress in the electricity segment in terms of improving the yield of the existing assets. How far are we, though, from sort of the point of diminishing returns in terms of that focus? Isaac Angel Hi, Paul. Thanks very much. What was the last part of your question? Paul Coster I’m just wondering have you got to the point of having realized the efficiencies at this point, do you still have further opportunities ahead? Isaac Angel Paul, as we explained last year, this is going to be a very long journey, and we barely touched only part of the efficiencies that we have planned. We’re working on a [indiscernible] basis, and we still have a long way to go until we will actually finish all the efficiencies that we are planning to do. Paul Coster Okay. The backlog is continuing to come down. Is there anything being added in to backlog? Or, are we just simply depleting it as a result of the Sarulla project? Isaac Angel First of all, you realize that the $256 million Sarulla project is a very large project and, obviously, it affects the backlog. On the other hand, as I said last conference call, we are making a tremendous effort, and we are in the middle of a journey to increase our electricity segment which will continue to grow faster than in the past. But if we are looking forward, I would not be worried about the backlog. And there is also another thing that you should take into consideration. We decreased seriously our delivery time, for something like from 20 months to less than 12 months, which means that projects that we are signing which used to be for the year after, now they are kicking in within the next 12 months, which makes a difference in the calculation of the backlog. Paul Coster So, in other words, you’re expecting backlog to plateau soon and maybe even start rebuilding? Does that sound – is it possible that would happen within the 2016 timeline? Isaac Angel I’m writing this down, Paul, and I hope it’s going to happen. Paul Coster Okay. My last question is oil and gas prices have actually ticked up a bit recently. Is there any way in which you might start to capture the benefit of a positive inflection in prices before the point at which you move as many of these projects as possible to a fixed rate? Isaac Angel We still have about one-third of our exposure in oil and two-thirds in natural gas, which is barely moving. On the one-third which is going up, it is not something that’s going to change in the near future, which is our Puna power plant, and we hope we are going to catch the increase. And maybe Doron would like to add here something. Doron Blachar Hi, Paul. We took a different approach to the hedging due to the very, very low prices at the beginning of the year. So, we actually are able to enjoy some of the increase in the oil prices, not all of it, but some of it. And on the gas, if the gas prices are relatively stable to the beginning of the year, there isn’t much change. But as prices goes up, it gives a potentially better performance next year with the higher prices on the oil and natural gas prices. Paul Coster Very good. Thank you so much. Isaac Angel Thank you Paul. Operator [Operator Instructions]. This concludes our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Mr. Isaac Angel for any closing remarks. Paul Coster Okay. Thanks a lot operator. Thank you very much for your continued support during the year, and we are very optimistic, management here in Ormat. And see you next conference call. Operator The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today’s presentation. You may now disconnect. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!