Investec GSF Global Energy Fund Presentation Aug10 (HK)

GSF
Investec Global Energy Fund

Mark Lacey and J M kL d Jonathan W h th Waghorn Portfolio Managers
August 2010
Important Information
Investec Global Energy Fund (the "Fund") is an equity sector mutual fund. The Fund aims to achieve capital growth b i it l th by investing i th equity i t ti in the it instruments of i t t f internationally quoted companies th ti ll t d i throughout th h t the world involved in the exploration, production or distribution of oil, gas and other energy sources. Key risks of the product: Sector risk - The Fund invests in single sector and subjects to greater volatility than a broadly diversified portfolio. The sector may decline even while broader based equity market indices are rising. Smaller company risk The Fund may invest in smaller companies and their shares may be less liquid and more volatile than the shares of larger companies due to the smaller number of shares in issue and companies, the frequently less diversified and less established nature of the business. These factors can create a greater potential for significant capital losses. In the worst case scenario, the value of the Fund may be worth substantially less than the original amount you invested and in an extreme case could be worth nothing. The investment decision is yours but you should not invest in the Fund unless the intermediary who sells it to you has explained to y that the Fund is suitable for y having regard to y y p you you g g your financial situation, , investment experience and investment objectives. Investors should not only base on this material alone to make investment decisions. Please refer to the Fund Prospectus for the details of all risk factors.
Page 2 | Investec GSF Global Energy Fund | FOR PROFESSIONAL ADVISORS USE ONLY
04853
Target audience
This document is meant to be read only by professional investors, professional financial advisors and, at their exclusive discretion, their clients. No other person should rely on the information contained in this document. y plan to show this to y your clients, p please ensure that y comply with any applicable you py y pp If you p local marketing regulations. This document is not to be generally distributed to the public.
04853
Table of contents
Introduction Team and products Investment process Funds structure Investment case for energy equities gy The macro outlook for energy Key themes for 2010 Near term supply and demand L Long t term supply and d l d demand d Gas markets pp Appendix Performance
04853
The co-portfolio managers

Background
Mark Lacey 14 Years experience Co-Portfolio Manager Investec GSF Global Energy Fund Goldman Sachs Executive Director and Sachs, joint head of the Energy Research team Ranked number 1 analyst in oil and gas industry in 2007 Thompson Extel survey Jonathan Waghorn 14 Years experience Co-Portfolio Manager Investec GSF Global Energy Fund Goldman Sachs Executive Director and Sachs, joint head of the Energy Research team Rated 5 star analyst by Starmine for stock picking and earnings estimates (2007)
Credit Suisse Asset Management, Energy Previous energy research and industry experience (Wood Mackenzie & Shell and Resources Portfolio Manager International)
Top rankings independently recognised by both oil companies and investors with a proven t ac eco d of alpha generation both o g Only and o g/S o t st ateg es track record o a p a ge e at o in bot Long O y a d Long/Short strategies
04853
Global Commodities and Resources

Core team
Bradley George Portfolio Manager and Team Co ordinator Co-ordinator Global Dynamic Resources. Global Gold
LDN
George Cheveley
Co-portfolio Co portfolio Manager Global Dynamic Resources Base Metals & Bulks
LDN
Mark Lacey
Co-portfolio Manager, Global Energy
LDN
Jonathan Waghorn
Co-portfolio Manager, Global Energy
LDN
Daniel Sacks
Co-portfolio Manager Global Gold
CPT
Dawid Heyl
Investment Analyst, Soft Commodities
LDN
John Thompson
Investment Analyst, Soft Commodities
CPT
Scott Winship
Investment Analyst, Gold and Precious Metals
CPT
Kevin de Villiers
Trading
CPT
Ruchir Patel
Trading
LDN
Cumulative market and industry experience of over 100 years AUM of $4.5 billion in global commodities and resources as at 30 June 2010
An experienced team with diverse backgrounds p g

04853
Global Commodities and Resources

Current propositions
Global Commodities and Resources Fund Range
OEIC Enhanced Natural Resources Fund* $294m GSF Enhanced Natural Resources Fund* $58m
OEIC launch Date: 1 May 2008 Structure: UK OEIC GSF launch date: 4 Jan 2010 Structure: Luxembourg SICAV Long/Short absolute return. Full UCITS III powers Index: MSCI World Energy (50%) and MCSI World Materials (50%)
GSF Global Dynamic Resources Fund $114m

Launch Date: 31 Jan 2008 Structure: Luxembourg SICAV Index: 50% MSCI World Materials and 50% MSCI World Energy
GSF Global Energy Fund $1,236m OEIC Global Energy Fund* $359m
GSF launch date: 25 Jan 1985 Structure: Luxembourg SICAV OEIC launch date: 29 Nov 2004 Structure: UK OEIC Index: MSCI World Energy
GSF Enhanced Global Energy Fund * $55m

GSF launch date: 4 Jan 2010 Structure: Luxembourg SICAV Index: MSCI World Energy Long/Short absolute return. Full UCITS III powers
GSF Global Gold Fund $354m OEIC Global Gold Fund* $162m
GSF launch date: 26 Nov 1990 Structure: Luxembourg SICAV OEIC launch date: 10 April 2006 Structure: UK OEIC Index: HSBC Global Gold
GSY B Global Commodities & Resources Fund* Fund $287m

Launch Date: 31 Jan 2007 Structure: Guernsey B Long/Short absolute return
GSY B Global Energy Long Short Fund* Fund $56m

Launch Date: 15 Dec 2008 Structure: Guernsey B Long/Short absolute return
SA Commodity Fund * $78.5m#
Launch Date: 1 Feb 1995 Structure: South Africa Index: INVCM Benchmark
Commitment to commodities and resources fund management business

*The funds have not been authorised by the SFC and therefore are not available to Hong Kong investors. Fund sizes as at 31.07.10. #As at 30.06.10
04853
Executive summary
The Investec GSF Global Energy Fund
We seek to deliver returns that exceed those of the MSCI World Energy Index by: Using the fundamental and rigorous investment process that is being used across all Investec Asset Managements energy products Using our proprietary Energy Commodity Indicator to optimise the selection and timing of investments Leveraging our numerous high quality industry contacts to get access to the best industry and company information The Global Energy Fund has a high quality long term track record The Fund has returned 330% over ten years versus the MSCI World Energy Index (up 116%) in USD
Past performance should not be taken as a guide to the future and there is no guarantee that this investment will make profits; losses can be made. Source: Investec Asset Management, Lipper to 31 07 10 NAV based (inclusive of all annual management fees but excluding any Management 31.07.10, initial charge), gross income reinvested, in US dollars. Performance is of the A Income share class. Performance would be lower had initial charges been included.
04853
GSF
Investment process
Investment process
A structured and disciplined investment process
Commodity 1 Commodity analysis
Supply/demand and break-even price analysis indicates likely commodity price trends
Resource equity 2 Commodity Indicator

Screening process that measures the daily interplay between major resource equities and their specific commodity mix
Equity analysis
Proprietary earnings and valuation models P i t i d l ti d l for companies
Qualitative issues Q lit ti i
Market consideration forward curve volatility liquidity Sellside sentiment consideration, curve, volatility, liquidity. Sell side sentiment. Management meetings
Portfolio construction
Selection and weighting of best commodity and equity ideas
High q g quality idea g y generation translated into various portfolios p

These internal parameters are subject to change, not necessarily with prior notification to shareholders.
04853
Stage 1: Commodity analysis

Understanding of major new supply sources
Strong track record of fundamental oil and gas commodity research from Goldman Sachs Top 170 Oil and Gas Projects research was g y g y highly regarded and extensively used within the industry Presented work to: OPEC Saudi Aramco Major Oils Service companies Global energy portfolio managers
Stage 1. Commodity analysis

Supply/demand and break-even price analysis indicates likely commodity price trends
Backgrounds in fundamental co ac g ou ds u da e a commodity research od y esea c

04853
Stage 2: Commodity indicator

Each company has its own mix of commodities
Stage 2. The Commodity Indicator

Screening process that measures the daily interplay between major resource equities and their specific commodity mix
Commodity Indicator: Built bespoke commodity indicators to determine the relationship between the performance of the mix of commodities that the company is exposed to (commodity indicator) vs. the performance of the companys share price g p y y price. When High correlation between a companys commodity indicator and its share p these diverge, it provides a potential investment opportunity
Canadian oils have underperformed their commodity mix by 2% over the last 3 months, while the global Majors have underperformed theirs by 21%. Potential % oe a Long Only fund action: go overweight Majors, underweight Canadians
This is not a buy or sell recommendation for any particular security. Data as of mid 2009 and is meant for illustrative purposes only
04853
Statoil has underperformed its commodity mix by 17% over the last 3 months, while Repsol has outperformed its by 9%. Potential absolute return fund action: go long Statoil, short Repsol
Stage 3: Resource equity analysis

Full financial and valuation models for companies
Company models: We have built individual company models t d t d l to determine earnings and i i d valuations for around 150 companies Our models are maintained by the Fund Managers and contain our own forecasts The models have the following sections: Commodity assumptions Income statement Cash flow Balance sheet C it l structure Capital t t Margins, returns and gearing Divisional analysis Reserves and production summary Relative valuation (multiples) Absolute valuation (DCF and SOTP)
This is not a buy or sell recommendation for any particular security.
04853
Stage 3. Resource Equity analysis

Proprietary earnings and valuation models for companies
Data as of mid 2009 and is meant for illustrative purposes only
Stage 3: Resource equity analysis

Summary valuation comparisons for companies
Valuation comparisons include: Target prices and expected upside Valuation multiples IAM earnings estimates and consensus Margins, returns, gearing and growth p Valuation assumptions Share price performance Benchmarking The upside /downside to each target price is a key factor in both our Buy and Sell decisions
Stage 3. Resource Equity analysis

Proprietary earnings and valuation models for companies
Data as of mid 2009 and is meant for illustrative purposes only p p y This is not a buy or sell recommendation for any particular security.
04853
Stage 4: Qualitative issues

Market considerations and management meetings
Stage 4. Qualitative factors

Market considerations and management meetings
We consider all of the following factors before making an investment Meeting management. We will meet company management teams wherever possible prior to investing to discuss current operational performance and costs Trading patterns We have dedicated traders for all our equity and commodity trades patterns. Market liquidity. We monitor equity and commodity volumes, trading patterns and risk appetites S ll id sentiment. W maintain strong relationships with sell-side counterparties Sell-side ti t We i t i t l ti hi ith ll id t ti
These qualitative issues complement the quantitative analysis and co p e e our stock selection process complete ou s oc se ec o p ocess
04853
Stage 5: Portfolio Construction

Integrated Risk Management
An integral part of our investment process and portfolio construction d tf li t ti Internal Risk Team is led by Richard Saldanha Risk team reports directly to Investec Asset Management CEO, Hendrik du Toit Internal EMA Risk System Daily Portfolio Risk Reports (example on right), showing Value-at-Risk (VaR) and Volatility and risk tolerances for all funds M thl risk report d Monthly i k t decomposes country, sector, valuation and asset risk factors with VaR Matrix at 99%, 95% and 90% confidence level Allows what if scenario analysis
#The
funds have not been authorised by the SFC and therefore are not available to Hong Kong investors.
04853
GSF
Funds structure
Portfolio structure and construction limitations

Investec GSF Global Energy Fund
UCITS III Long Only Fund Concentrated core portfolio, approximately 30-40 best ideas Weighting dependent on level of conviction, mindful but not driven by the benchmark Primarily a liquid portfolio Mi i Minimum market capitalisation of c.US$500 million although li idit i a more i k t it li ti f US$500 illi lth h liquidity is important f t t t factor As of 31 December 2009, 95% of the portfolio could be liquidated in one day Sector universe Integrated oils exploration & production equipment & services and downstream (refining and oils, production, marketing) Able to invest in coal and alternative energy although exposure is expected to be very limited Turnover expected to be between 100 and 150% p
Risk Profile Indicative Tracking Error Sub-sector weighting Individual stock weighting Investec GSF Global Energy Fund 6 - 10% Up to 3.0x vs. index 2% 10% (for both index and non-index)
These internal parameters are subject to change, not necessarily with prior notification to shareholders.
04853
Performance attribution
Investec GSF Global Energy Fund 1H 2010 and 2009
Key +ve contributors vs the benchmark in 1H 2010 were: Underweight BP. Overweight Smith International, Baker Hughes and Marathon Key ve contributors vs the ve benchmark in 1H 2010 were: Underweight ConocoPhillips and Occidental. Overweight Sevan Marine and Weatherford Key +ve contributors vs the benchmark in 2009 were: Underweight ExxonMobil and Chevron. Chevron Overweight Petrobras Petrobras, Afren, Quicksilver, Venture and Weatherford Key ve contributors vs the benchmark in 2009 were: Underweight BG, Woodside, NOV, Tullow, Schlumberger. Overweight ConocoPhillips and Frontier
This is not a buy or sell recommendation for any particular security. Source: Investec Asset Management
04853
Portfolio attributes Top ten holdings and benchmark positioning

Sector weightings (%) Date Integrated E&P Oil Sands E&P E&P subtotal Equipment and Services Refining Other Total Fund 49.1 3.5 35 30.9 34.4 15.1 0.4 1.0 100.0 MSCI World Energy 57.3 3.4 34 18.9 22.3 12.9 1.7 5.8 100.0 Top ten holdings Total S.A. Exxon Mobil Corp. Ultra Petroleum Corp. ENI S.p.A. Noble Corp. Marathon Oil Corp. p BG Group PLC Baker Hughes Inc. Petrohawk Energy Corp. gy p Chevron Corp. % 9.56 9.15 6.38 5.92 4.69 4.12 3.94 3.91 3.65 3.57
The portfolio may change significantly over a short period of time time. This is not a buy or sell recommendation for any particular security. Source: Investec Asset Management, as at 31.07.10.
04853
Portfolio attributes Current portfolio over/under-weights

Top Fund over-weights and under-weights versus MSCI World Energy Index
Overweights Ultra Petroleum Corp. Total S A S.A. Noble Corp. ENI S.p.A. Petrohawk Energy Corp. Marathon Oil Corp. Q Quicksilver Resources Inc. Baker Hughes Inc. Range Resources Corp. Southwestern Energy Co. % 6.08 4.60 4 60 4.30 3.44 3.43 3.02 3.02 2.95 2.79 2.61 Underweights Halliburton Co. Apache Corp Corp. Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Occidental Petroleum Corp. Schlumberger Ltd. Chevron Corp. ConocoPhillips p Royal Dutch Shell PLC (CL B) Exxon Mobil Corp. BP PLC % -1.26 -1.61 1 61 -1.74 -2.95 -3.32 -3.56 -3.63 -4.89 -5.02 -5.56
The portfolio may change significantly over a short period of time. time This is not a buy or sell recommendation for any particular security. Source: Investec Asset Management, as at 31.07.10
04853
Investment style analysis

Investments in the Global Energy Fund are likely to be impacted by many variables, including, but not limited t th global supply and d t li it d to, the l b l l d demand f th commodities d for the diti Factors influencing supply include: the actions of Organization of The Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) war and terrorism weather tax regimes the price of oil itself which influences the marginal return of producing oil and natural gas itself, Factors influencing demand include: economic growth around the world, and the relative growth of less developed countries versus developed economies weather the price of the commodity itself The Funds rely on a disciplined investment and portfolio construction process which may also not work at times. Factors affecting this could include commodity price movements and broader equity market movements
04853
GSF
The macro outlook for energy
Key energy sector themes for 2010 and beyond

OPEC actions: We expect compliance to slip further as Saudi bank rolls production increases elsewhere i th world, especially R l h in the ld i ll Russia i Range bound oil prices: We expect an average $70/bl Brent in 2010 (within a range of $60-85/bl) as OPEC supply the market in the short-term Destocking: We need to see inventories decline before prices can move significantly higher Iraqi production: It is too early to tell how much production can really increase over the next 10 years Investment: We expect capital expenditure to increase slightly in 2010 and then accelerate further in 2011 and beyond Non-OPEC production: Lack of investment should see non-OPEC production slipping US gas market recovery: g y We expect supply to fall and for inventories to decline, which is supportive to prices We expect demand to show signs of a recovery, which is supportive to prices M&A activity: y We expect the IOCs and NOCs to continue to be active in acquiring strategic assets With the discovery of new low cost gas shales, we believe that this is a key focus area p g quality, delivery and exploration success will be rewarded y y p Share prices: Management q
04853
Gas markets: more potential upside in gas than in oil

Gas prices appear more positively skewed than oil prices presently prices,
There is better fundamental economic support for natural gas prices than for oil prices Oil is trading well above the marginal cash cost of extraction while natural gas is trading close to it Oil prices have more downside risk while gas price offer more upside potential
8.0
7.5
Price required for marginal producer to make a 10% return on investment Price required for average cost producer to make a 10% return on new investment
160.0
6.0
6.0
120.0
Gas price ($ / mcf ) $
4.0
3.8
Current spot price

Cash cost of current supply for a marginal cost producer
80 - 85
80.0
55 35
2.0 20
40.0 40 0
0.0
Gas i G price versus gas economics i
Oil price versus oil economics i il i
0.0
Source: Bloomberg, March 2010

04853
Oil price ($ / 61)
Gas markets: US gas prices are very depressed

US gas prices have not recovered with oil
US gas prices are at depressed levels, despite the recent strength in crude prices Weak industrial demand and fears of over-supply have caused this price reaction We expect the US market to correct dramatically and for gas prices to rise from here
Spot US gas price (US$/ S i (US$/mmcf) f)
Source: Bloomberg, July 2010

04853
Global Gas Demand: Gas demand growth outpaces oil demand growth
Global gas demand grew 2.4% CAGR over the last 15 years Growth in LNG demand of ~7% CAGR over the last decade outpaced that of overall gas demand During 2009 growth in China India UK and US offset material year on year declines in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan 2009, China, India, year-on-year Japan LNG represents ~10% of total gas consumption, up from 6% in 2000 LNG will continue to gain its share of global energy demand as countries move away from coal and oil (on a relative basis) In contrast, non-OPEC crude oil supply has g pp y grown by only 5 mmbpd ( y y p (1% annually) during the last 10 y y) g years
Sources: Tudor Pickering Holt & Co, April 2010

04853
Gas demand: industrial demand recovery is critical

Industrial demand represents 35-40% of total gas demand
Between 35 and 40% of total gas demand is for industrial use Industrial demand accounts directly for c.30% 30% of power generation demand for natural gas is also for industrial use US industrial demand is still well below the December 2007 peak Recovery is underway, although we believe there is further to go g y Gas is more leveraged to an industrial demand recovery than oil
U.S. natural gas demand, 2008
Pipeline 3%
Industrial 30%
Power Generation 26%
Commercial 14%
Residential 22%
Other 5%
Source: Simmons, March 2010

04853
Gas markets: the cheapest energy source

Gas is cheaper than both oil and coal currently
Depressed prices leave gas as the cheapest energy molecule available Power producers will switch from dirtier coal into cleaner natural gas at $4.50/mcf The US gas market is likely to correct sharply as demand returns and supply falls
WTI oil vs natural gas price ratio

04853
Gas demand: Gas should benefit from coal displacement

Gas is cheaper and cleaner than thermal coal
Natural gas futures vs MMBtu equivalent coal futures prices
Source: Credit Suisse, April 2010

04853
Gas demand: future demand from power generation

An easy option for governments to reduce carbon intensity
Gas demand from power has grown significantly since 1997 Recent shale gas discoveries give confidence in future gas production We expect further gas-powered electricity generation growth Renewable energy economics are stretched while subsidies are likely to be delayed or restrained in the weak economic environment Gas offers the cheapest, easiest route towards reducing carbon intensity
Gas consumption from power generation sector
18 16 14 12
Capacity added by fuel type
bcfd
10 8 6 4 2 0
Source: EIA, Simmons

04853
1949 1951 1953 1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
Source: Platts, Simmons
Gas supply: capex and drilling have reacted quickly

Cuts likely to be too drastic and should lead to higher prices drastic,
Given the cut in US drilling activity in 2009, we expect a supply response in 2010 US E&P capital expenditure fell sharply in 2009 but should rebound in 2010 The gas-directed rig count is rebounding with a larger share in horizontal rigs The US market is back into balance There is a strong possibility that it goes into deficit balance.
Baker Hughes US gas rig count E&P year-over-year change in organic capex (%)
100%
E&P Year-over-Year Change in Organic Capex (%)
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%

04853
US shale gas production is an increasing source of supply

US shale gas production now represents around 17% of total US production. This compares to just 4% in 2004 We expect US shale gas production to double over the next six years Assuming well service costs remain stable gas producers will still need $6 50/MMBtu in stable, $6.50/MMBtu order to generate a cost of capital return
US Shale Production
Source: Credit Suisse, June 2010

04853
Basic cost analysis provides an indication of fundamental support

We estimate that total costs for the listed exploration and production companies is around $5.75/Mmbtu $5 75/M bt We estimate that total cash costs for the listed exploration and production companies is around $3.50/Mmbtu We continue to invest in the low cost, high organic growth and high return companies E&P company total cost per Mmbtu
$10.00
E&P company total cash cost per Mmbtu

$8.00 $7.00
$8.00
$6.00 $5.00 $5 00 $4.00
$6.00 $
$4.00
$3.00 $2.00 $1.00
$2.00
$0.00
$0.00
This is not a buy or sell recommendation for any particular security. Source: Credit Suisse, June 2010
04853
SWN UPL CHK XEC DVN CRZO UNT FST NBL EOG RRC HK NFX APA OXY MUR COG CRK BBG ROSE EQT KWK APC PXD SM WTI PXP SD
SWN UPL CHK CRZO XEC CRK EOG RRC DVN COG UNT NFX BBG FST HK ROSE APC GMXR KWK PVA PETD EQT SD DPTR
Gas supply: prolific shale plays but high decline rates

Shale play decline rates are prohibitive
Average first year decline rates on the shale plays are around 70% Over the first three years, declines average around 85% At the same time, Gulf of Mexico gas production is down over 40% in the last 10 years The shale plays are needed and the resource holders will be winners winners... ... but so will the service companies
Decline rates on US gas shale plays
Source: Simmons, March 2010

04853
Gas supply: LNG volumes need at least $6 mmcf

It is unlikely that significant volumes will go to the US markets
We expect around 10bcf/d of new global LNG supply by end 2011 vs end 2008 Whilst new LNG projects have started, the majority of these volumes have been contracted Current prices indicate that any excess (spot) LNG cargoes will go to Asian markets, not to the US US gas prices need to be higher to incentivise LNG supply New LNG supply coming into the market
Regasification Capacity (Bcf/d) North America Europe Total Percentage Increase Liquefaction Additions (Bcf/d) Nigeria (Train 6) Qatar (Qatargas 4, Rasgas 6) Australia A t li (NWS 5) Indonesia (Tangguh) Yemen (Yemen LNG) Russia (Sakhalin II) Qatar (Qatargas 5, Qatargas 6, Rasgas 7) Total 2006 5.1 51 8.2 13.3 2007 5.1 51 10.2 15.3 15% 1H09 2.0 0.6 06 1.0 0.9 1.3 0.5 2.6 3.2 3.0 3.0 2008 10.7 10 7 13.4 24.1 58% 2H09 2009 15.2 15 2 14.7 29.9 24%
Return Sensitivity Analysis (IRR%)

Gas Price $/mmcf $4 Without NGLs With NGLs 0% 8% $5 4% 10% $6 7% 12% $8 11% 16% $10 15% 19% $12 19% 21%
Global LNG netback prices ($/mmcf)

February Netback Table ($/mmbtu) F b N tb k T bl ($/ bt ) Destination Ports Lake Charles Spain Belgium UK $5.04 $4.80 $5.35 $5.45 4.12 4.62 4.98 5.09 3.86 4.43 4.71 4.83 3.94 4.08 4.55 4.65 3.24 3.78 4.08 4.18 4.58 4.05 4.60 4.70
Source Ports e
2H08 0.5
1H10
Algeria Egypt Nigeria Qatar Trinidad
Cove Point $5.60 4.90 4.63 4.35 4.01 5.20
Altamira $5.80 4.87 4.58 4.68 3.97 5.32
India $7.20 6.07 6.35 5.94 6.90 5.45
Japan $7.80 5.84 6.12 5.91 6.73 5.39
Korea $7.80 5.91 6.19 5.97 6.78 5.44
Source: Waterborne LNG
Source: Tudor Pickering, Investec Asset Management estimates, April 2010

04853
Gas equities: M&A activity in the North American gas market

Exxon has made the boldest move We expect others to follow move.
Exxons $43 billion takeover of XTO is based on expanding their US shale gas expertise globally globally. In addition, there have been a number of other acquisitions in the North American gas sector over the last two years We cross reference our company valuations against these deal metrics On our estimates, we value companies based on the following approximate valuations: Marcellus Haynesville H Horn Ri River Fayetteville $9k/acre $20-25k/acre $7k/ $7k/acre $8-10k/acre
E&P acquisitions
Based on these valuations, at $7/mmbtu, we still see significant upsides to a number of the US E&P companies
This is not a buy or sell recommendation for any particular security. Source: Company data, Investec Asset Management estimates, April 2010
04853
Gas equities: Exxon acquisition of XTO

Valuation and RoACE of XTO at different gas prices
Exxon acquired XTO at the end of 2009 for $43bn, with a takeout price of c.US$48/sh We believe Exxon paid for a long term gas price of around $5/mcf At $7/mcf gas, the RoACE on the acquisition for Exxon is around 7% Exxon acquires XTOs knowledge as well as its US acreage
XTO valuation at various gas prices RoACE for Exxons purchase of XTO at various gas prices
This is not a buy or sell recommendation for any particular security Source: Investec Asset Management, March 2010
04853
Gas equities: gas equities offer potential upside even at $5/mcf

Upsides at different gas prices for US gas E&Ps
We see 60-80% upside in gas E&Ps at a $6/mcf long term gas price Even at $5/mcf, we see upside averaging over 40% We believe these names offer attractive upside and downside support All five names have some production hedged through 2010/2011
E&P sum of the parts valuation at various gas prices
This is not a buy or sell recommendation for any particular security Source: Bloomberg, March 2010
04853
Oil markets: near-term oil supply/demand balance

De-stocking is required in the short-term
We expect 2010 to be a year of de-stocking with OPEC crude production gradually increasing
Mmb/d OECD demand Non-OECD demand Total demand Non-OPEC supply OPEC NGLs OPEC 12 supply (Deficit)/surplus 2008 47.6 38.7 86.3 50.6 4.7 47 31.0 2009 45.5 39.2 84.7 50.5 5.4 54 28.6 (0.2mb/d) 2010F 45.5 39.7 85.2 50.5 5.8 58 28.6 (0.3mb/d) Based on current OPEC production rates Over the next 12 months we believe we need OPEC production to increase only marginally n order to keep the market balanced Flat non-OPEC production could prove optimistic in 2010 given the slow down in investment in 2008 and 2009 Flat year on year demand growth is in line with current IEA and year-on-year OPEC forecasts for 2010 Our 2010 forecast is below current IEA forecasts (40.6mb/d) and above the current OPEC forecasts
Source: Investec Asset Management, IEA, December 2009

04853
Near-term supply/demand
De-stocking is required to overcome the current inventory overhang
There is still around 61 days of forward cover in OECD stocks We need this forward cover to return to more normal levels of 52-56 days A return to these levels will allow crude prices to move sustainably higher
OECD total (crude + products) inventories, bn bbl OECD total inventories, days demand
Source: Collins Stewart Europe Limited, May 2010

04853
Long term demand: Non-OECD is the key driver

Per capita oil demand and car density remain very low
Non-OECD oil demand has grown at 2.6% pa (1973-2008) versus the OECD at 0.5%pa China and India per capita oil demand is a fraction of OECD levels Car density is rapidly increasing in China and India, and still a fraction of the OECD In contrast US and western European per capita demand will likely moderate contrast,
2009 per capita oil demand (bl)
Per capita oil demand ( ) p (bl)
2009 Oil Population Oil Consumption Demand (mb) (in mil) per capita (bls) US OECD Japan Germany China C India 6,948.1 16,615.0 1,589.0 895.0 3,303.0 1,211.7 308.7 1,190.6 127.7 82.1 1330.1 1,166.0 22.5 14.0 12.4 10.9 2.5 1.0
Global oil use by sub-sector

Road Other construction 6% 4% Heating 7% Ref inery f uel 5% Industrial f uel 8% Petrochemicals 6% Transport p 64%
Source: IEA, Investec Asset Management estimates 2008 , g Source: OECD and BP
04853
Long term demand: Car density and ownership growth

Whilst the growth has been strong we do not expect it to slow significantly strong,
We expect China to consume more units on an annual basis than the US by 2011 We estimate that car density in China and India will double within five years
International car sales key markets (millions of units)
1990-99 Global Sales North America Canada United States Mexico Western Europe Germany Eastern Europe Russia Asia China India South America Brazil B il 39.2 16.4 1.3 14.6 0.5 13.1 3.6 1.18 0.8 08 6.9 0.3 0.3 1.6 0.9 09 2000 46.6 19.8 1.6 17.4 0.9 14.8 3.4 2.4 1 7.9 0.6 0.6 1.9 1.2 12 2001-2007 49.5 19.4 1.6 16.7 1.0 14.6 3.3 2.5 1.4 14 10.8 2.6 0.8 2.2 1.4 14 2008 52.2 15.9 1.6 13.2 1.0 13.5 3.1 4 2.7 27 15.1 5 1.2 3.7 2.2 22 2009 50.9 12.7 1.5 10.4 0.8 13.6 3.8 3 1.5 15 17.7 7.3 1.5 3.9 2.5 25 2010F 52.7 13.9 1.5 11.5 0.9 12.5 3.2 3.2 1.6 16 18.8 8.8 1.6 4.3 2.7 27 Total W. Europe Russia Total Eastern Europe Total N. America China India Japan Korea Total Asia g Argentina Brazil Total S. America S.Africa Grand Total
Car density (cars per 1000 of population)

2000 467 140 147 359 4 5 413 171 31 140 90 76 87 109 2004 492 169 171 374 9 6 438 220 35 128 96 79 92 116 2007 495 206 199 380 16 6 451 247 40 145 107 89 107 122 2009E 499 231 221 372 24 8 452 268 43 165 119 99 105 126 2010E 500 234 225 367 29 9 450 280 46 172 124 102 104 127 2014E 508 265 252 357 47 13 452 329 54 196 147 119 112 135
Source: Scotia Capital/Investec Asset Management, February 2010

04853
Source: Global Insight, February 2010
Long term demand: Non-OECD demand growth

What if China and India follow the paths of South Korea and the USA
Industrial production growth in non-OECD countries should have a bigger impact on overall oil demand going f d d i forward d Whilst we expect OECD oil consumption per capita to reduce over time, this will be more than offset by the industrialisation of China and India alone
Non-OECD as a % of global demand
OECD Demand NonOECD Demand
Per capita oil consumption (barrels per year)

32.5 30.0 27.5 27 5 25.0 22.5 20.0 17.5 15.0 12.5 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 0.0 Japan USA South Korea China India
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Source: Simmons & Company; Investec Asset Management estimates estimates, February 2010
04853
Source: Simmons & Company; Investec Asset Management estimates February estimates, 2010
Long term supply: declines and poor exploration

A lack of exploration success and increasing decline rates
A lack of new discoveries and increasing declines should limit long term production growth Oil resources are still abundant, they are just not as low cost and accessible as those discovered between 1920 and 1970
Average oilfield decline rate ( p ) g (% p.a.)
25%
Num mber of discoveries / reserves discover (bnbls) red 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1850- 1900- 1910- 1920- 1930- 1940- 1950- 1960- 1970- 1980- 1990- 20001899 1909 1919 1929 1939 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2006 Volume discovered (bnbls, LH axis) Number of discoveries (LH axis) Average discovery size ( g y (bnbls, RH axis) , ) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0
A lack of exploration success p

420bn
7.0 6.0
>20% 20% 16% 15% 11%
10% 10%
5%
4%
5%
20bn
1.0 0.0 00
0% Before 1960s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s
Source: Goldman Sachs and Investec Asset Management estimates, 2010

04853
Source: AAPG
Average discovery size (bnb bls)
Long term supply: Reserve additions and value creation through exploration
Aside from a few companies, exploration success has been limited
Net present value of discoveries as a % of EV
80%
Reserves added to exploration since 2000 as a % of SEC reserves

250%
70% 200%
60%
50% 150% 40%
30%
100%
20% 50% 10%
0%
Soco INPEX Cairn India Tullow Galp Petrobras BG Murphy Anadarko Marathon Woodside Chevron Noble Energy Repsol Hess Reliance BP TOTAL Encana CNOOC Statoil Nexen ConocoPhillips RDShell Petrochina Devon Energy ENI ExxonMobil Apache Husky Energy Sinopec Corp BHP Billiton
0%
This is not a buy or sell recommendation for any particular security. Source: Goldman Sachs, February 2010
04853
Galp Tullow INPEX BG Murphy Reliance Cairn India Petrobras Woodside Repsol Soco Marathon Noble Energy ENI Sinopec Corp Anadarko Husky Energy TOTAL Chevron Statoil RDShell Apache CNOOC Hess BP BHP Billiton ConocoPhillips ExxonMobil Petrochina Nexen Encana Devon Energy Lukoil
Non-OPEC production: key regions are declining

North Sea Mexico and US falling fast despite capex spend Is Russia next? Sea, spend.
Mexico, North Sea and US oil production has been falling at c. 8% p.a. over the last few years. Assuming this decline rate slows to c 4% p a non OPEC production remains under pressure c. p.a., non-OPEC Given the maturity of the Russian oil fields, we believe that oil production from this region has peaked These decline rates should accelerate if oil prices were to weaken as a result of reduced capital expenditure
North Sea
7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000
1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009E 2012E 2015E
Mexico
( )
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009E 2012E
2 2012E
Russia Oil Production (mbl/d)

13,000 11,000 9,000 7,000 7 000 5,000 3,000 1,000
1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2 2009E 2 2012E 2 2015E
United States
10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000
6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000

1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006
2 2009E 2 2015E
Source: Investec Asset Management / Tudor Pickering, February 2010

04853
2015E
Long term supply: lack of project sanctions recently

The industry faces technical and resource-based challenges
Lack of project sanctions since 2006 is likely to make post 2010 volume growth difficult Water depth is getting deeper. This will impact both extraction costs per barrel and production delays
Source: Goldman Sachs, September 2009

04853
Non-OPEC production change year-on-year

Production from Brazil is unlikely to offset declines
Early indications are that Brazils sub-salt discoveries could contain as much as 60 billion barrels of oil i place il in l Significant first production is not expected until 2014, but significant investment is needed to achieve this target
3,000 ,
ecline) kbls/d No n-OPEC yoy prod uction growth / (de
2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 -500
1 000 -1,000 -1,500
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Perf ect delivery One percent more decline in the base
Delivery in line with history One percent decline and historical delivery
Source: Goldman Sachs, February 2010

04853
2014
OPEC: We need OPECs spare capacity

Based on a conservative demand outlook we see a need for investment in the industry outlook,
If demand grows from current levels, then OPEC spare capacity will be needed and could be fully utilised b 2012 tili d by In addition to non-OPEC producers, the OPEC member countries also need to invest heavily
Call on OPEC crude (mmb/d)
35 34 $120 33 32 31
mmbpd
115.0%
OPEC spare capacity (% utilised)

$140
120.0%
$100
OPEC capacity utilisation C
110.0% 110 0%
$80
$/bbl
105.0% Physical limit to demand
30 29 28 27 $20 26 25 $0 $60
100.0%
$40
95.0%
90.0%
85.0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E
Call on OPEC Crude
WTI
Base case
Historical delivery
1% increase in decline rates
Historical delivery and decline increase
p y, y Source: Simmons & Company, February 2010
Source: Goldman Sachs, February 2010 , y
04853
OPEC: Iraq is the real wild card

A significant amount of investment is needed
OPEC available spare capacity (50% of Iraq plans)
10% 8% 6%
Oil reserves of 115 billion barrels Projects announced so far are targeted to add 6.1mmb/d of additional capacity by 2017! Over $12 billion p.a. of capital expenditure is needed over this period
4% 2% 0% 06 07 08 09E 10E 11E 12E 13E 14E 15E 16E 17E 18E
OPEC available spare capacity (Iraq plans fulfilled)

12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 06 07 08 09E 10E 11E 12E 13E 14E 15E 16E 17E 18E
Source: Collins Stewart, Investec Asset Management estimates, February 2010

04853
Long term supply: marginal cost likely to remain high

Canadian tar sands projects are the marginal future producers
The industry will have to develop Canadian tar sands projects to satisfy global demand These projects require, on average, around $80/bl to make a cost of capital return These projects will set long term crude prices
Oil price required to make a Cost-of-Capital break even ($/bl) for potential new projects
Canadian tar sands projects
Source: Goldman Sachs, January 2010

04853
Long term supply: higher marginal cost of supply

We estimate that the marginal cost for oil in 2009 is around $80/bl
The development of marginal projects is currently in question, whilst spare capacity exists Once the spare capacity is exhausted, more marginal fields will be needed, thus supporting higher crude prices
Industry marginal cost curve (US$/boe)
Source: Goldman Sachs

04853
Refining not as bad as the 1980s

Spare capacity is still quite high though
Global refining capacity versus demand (kb/d) Global refining excess capacity by product
40% 100,000 35% 30% 25% kb b/d 60,000 20% 15% 10% 20,000 5% 19 84 19 86 19 88 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 20 06 20 0 20 8 10 20 e 12 20 e 14 e
Wor Excess Capacity as % of Product Capacity rld s
50% MS Estimates 40%
80,000
30%
20%
40,000
10%
0%
0%
-10%
Global MD capacity Global FO capacity World Tot Pdts Consumption (kb/d)
Global LD capacity Global 'others' capacity Global excess cap as % total capacity
Source: Morgan Stanley, June 2010

04853
19 84 19 86 19 88 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 20 06 20 08 20 10 e 20 12 e 20 14 e
Light Distillates Middle Distillates Fuel Oil
Refining Product margins and capacity differ by region

Europe Excess Capacity less diesel, more fuel oil
60% Europe Excess Capacity as % of Product Capacity y 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30%
19 96 20 00 20 06 10 e 19 92 19 86 19 88 19 84 19 90 19 94 19 98 20 02 20 04 20 08 12 e 14 e 20 20 20
N.America Excess Capacity lots more fuel oil, still short gasoline
N North America Excess Capa acity as % of Product Capac city 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% -100%
19 84 19 86 19 88 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 20 06 20 08 20 10 e 20 12 e 20 14 e
MS Estimates
MS Estimates
Light Distillates
Middle Distillates
Fuel Oil
Light Distillates
Middle Distillates
Fuel Oil
APAC Excess Capacity longer fuel oil, balanced light and middle distillate capacity
60% APAC Excess Capacity as % of Product Capacity y MS Estimates 40%
Middle East Excess Capacity not the export threat that is widely perceived
Middle East Excess Capac as % of Product Capacit city ty 70% MS Estimates 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10%
84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 e e 12 20 20 10 19 20 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 14 e
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
19 84 19 86 19 88 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 20 06 20 08 20 10 e 20 12 e 20 14 e
Source: Morgan Stanley, June 2010

04853
Light Distillates
Middle Distillates
Fuel Oil
Light Distillates
Middle Distillates
Fuel Oil
GSF
Investment case for energy equities
Investment: Energy equities relative to energy commodities

Energy equities provide more leverage than the crude price
The GSF Global Energy Fund has outperformed the crude oil price since 1994 t f d th d il i i We believe energy equities are likely to outperform the commodity long term as a result of: Operational leverage: if the crude price doubles, the operating profit of a company with a 50% margin will treble G Growth: most energy companies can grow th t i while commodity investments have no ability to grow Exploration success: most energy companies deliver value through exploration which is not available directly through the commodity Long term performance in USD
(From D (F December 1994 t J l 2010) b to July
2,000
Investec GSF Global Energy A Inc (MF)
1,800 1,600 1 600
MSCI World/Energy TR (IN) WTI crude oil
Performa ance growth
1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0
Past performance should not be taken as a guide to the future and there is no guarantee that this investment will make profits; losses can be made. Source: Lipper to 31 07 10 NAV based gross income reinvested annualised and gross of annual management 31.07.10, based, reinvested, fees in US dollars. The performance is shown since inception of MSCI World Energy index at 30.12.94. Source: Bloomberg to 31.07.10 for WTI crude oil
04853
Dec-94 Jun-95 Dec-95 Jun-96 Dec-96 Jun-97 Dec-97 Jun-98 Dec-98 Jun-99 Dec-99 Jun-00 Dec-00 Jun-01 Dec-01 Jun-02 Dec-02 Jun-03 Dec-03 Jun-04 Dec-04 Jun-05 Dec-05 Jun-06 Dec-06 Jun-07 Dec-07 Jun-08 Dec-08 Jun-09 Dec-09 Jun-10
Investment: Energy equities versus a crude ETF

Energy equities have strongly outperformed crude oil ETFs
The Investec Global Energy fund has delivered a b tt i d li d better investment return than the t t t th th ETF Securities crude oil ETF (CRUD LN), since its inception (October 2006) The Investec Global Energy Fund has delivered strong correlation with the crude price over this period Performance in USD
(From October 2006 to July 2010)
Past performance should not be taken as a guide to the future and there is no guarantee that this investment will make profits; losses can be made. Source: Bloomberg, July 2010, based on A Income Share.
04853
Investment: A valuation opportunity in energy equities

Energy equities are not pricing in our long term commodity assumptions
We believe we are in the middle of an investment cycle in the energy industry Energy equities generally outperform markets during investment phases Energy equities have historically outperformed the crude price While the near term commodity may be uncertain energy equities seem to be discounting a more bearish long term outlook than we expect Th M j The Majors and E&P h d E&Ps have d de-rated and are not pricing i f t d d t i i in forward oil prices d il i The E&P companies are trading at asset-backed valuation discounts e believe s still cheaper o oil and on a Street a o explore o We be e e it is s c eape to buy o a d gas o Wall S ee than to e p o e for it The Service companies have de-rated as if the investment cycle is over
04853
Energy equities: a long investment phase ahead

The investment phase is continuing
We still need to build more oil and gas production capacity to satisfy long term demand growth We expect the current investment phase to last for another 10+ years
Energy stocks and net investment, long term gy , g
Exploitation phase Investment phase Exploitation phase Investment phase Exploitation phase Investment phase Exploitation phase
11.5 13.4 Net Energy investment (right axis) 11.0 11 0 10.5 10.0 9.5 Net Energy Capital Stock (left axis) 9.0 8.5 11.9 11 9 8.0 11.6 7.5 7.0 1908 8 1915 5 1929 9 1936 6 1943 3 1950 0 1957 7 1964 4 8 1978 1985 5 9 1999 2006 6 1901 1922 1971 1992
13.1
12.8
12.5
12.2
11.3
Source: Goldman Sachs

04853
Investment: Energy equities sector relative performance

The energy sector historically outperforms during investment phases
Energy equities generally outperform during investment phases
Energy stocks vs S&P 500, recent
2.5
Energy stocks outperform

2.0
Reb based to 100, Nove ember 1973
Energy stocks underperform
Energy stocks outperform
12 years
18 years
18 years
+20 years
1.5
1.0
0.5
Investment phase
0.0 00
Nov-73 Nov-75 Nov-77 Nov-79 Nov-81 Nov-83 Nov-85 Nov-87
Consolidation Consolidation phase Phase

Nov-89 Nov-91 Nov-93 Nov-95 Nov-97 Nov-99 Nov-01
Investment phase
Nov-03
Nov-05
Nov-07
We e pec this investment p ase to be s g ca y longer than the 1970s e expect s es e phase o significantly o ge a e 9 0s
Source: Datastream, January 2010
04853
US oils relative to US markets
Nov-09
2030
Oil company valuations are still below historic levels

Despite crude prices being significantly higher than historic levels
The super-majors have de-rated significantly over the last ten years. The emergence of new competition h d i titi has driven thi this Super-majors have not priced in the rise in commodity prices
22x 20x 18x EV / debt adjusted cash fl a low 16x 14x 12x 10x 8x 6x 4x 2x 0x 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2 2009E 2 2010E 2 2011E BP Chevron Ch ExxonMobil E M bil RDShell RDSh ll TOTAL
Independent E&P companies are trading below the long term marginal cost of extraction
This is not a buy or sell recommendation for any particular security. Source: Investec Asset Management, March 2010
04853
Company Exposure: It is more difficult to differentiate between integrated oil companies

All the companies below have strong free cash generation, but the European companies tend to pay a hi h di id d higher dividend The European Majors offer around 6% dividend yields
8.0% BP 7.0% RDShell Chevron TOTAL ExxonMobil
The global Majors offer around 6% free cash flow yields BP

10.0% 8.0% 6.0% Chevron ExxonMobil RDShell TOTAL
6.0%
Divide yield end
5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0%
Free csh f low yield h 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
4.0% 2.0% 0%
-2.0-% -4.0-% -6.0-%
E E2010
04853
E E2011
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Company Exposure: Differentiating between E&P companies globally

Companies with strong reserve growth tend to have strong organic production growth and therefore the highest t th hi h t returns A number of E&P companies offer very high production growth outlooks
1100 1000 900
Prod duction (rebased to 100, 2003) d
Ultra Petroleum Anadarko Apache Chesapeake Quicksilver Range Resources
These production growth outlooks are backed by solid reserve growth and reserve backing
700
Oil an gas reserves (rebased to 100 2003) nd 0,
Ultra Petroleum
600
500 400 300 200 100 0
2 2003
Anadarko
Apache Chesapeake Quicksilver Range Resources
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

2 2003
2 2004
2 2005
2 2006
2 2007
2 2008
2 2009
2 2010
2 2011
2 2004
2 2005
2 2006
2 2007
2 2008
2 2009
2 2010
2 2011
04853
2 2012
2 2012
Oilfield Service companies have de-rated

They are discounting a slowdown in investment going forward
Strong investment from OPEC and non-OPEC producers should lead to increasing revenues for the t h l th technology l d leaders i th oilfield services sector in the ilfi ld i t
US Oilfield Services EV/DACF

26 22
US Oilfield Services Price/Book

7.5 6.5
5.5 18 4.5 3.5 2.5 10 1.5 0.5 05 2010E 2010E 2011E 2011E 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009
14
Baker Hughes Smith International
Halliburton Weatherford
Schlumberger Average
Baker Hughes Smith International
Halliburton Weatherford
Schlumberger Average
04853
An investment opportunity in the energy sector

We see an average of nearly 40% upside to target prices
We believe our universe of c.150 modelled companies have an average upside potential of nearly 40% The Top 20 upsides may average around 140%, with the bottom 20 may average around -40%
Source: Investec Asset Management, June 2010

04853
GSF
Appendix
Investec GSF Global Energy Fund performance

Percentage growth, Total return $ gross
120 100 80 Percentage gro owth 60 40 5 year cumulative performance of Investec GSF Global Energy Fund versus MSCI World Energy Index & S&P 500 Investec GSF Global Energy A Inc (MF) MSCI World/Energy TR (IN:IN) S&P 500 TR (IN)
31.6%
20 0 -20 -40 Jul-05
16.8% -0.9%
Jan-06
Jul-06
Jan-07
Jul-07
Jan-08
Jul-08
Jan-09
Jul-09
Jan-10
Jul-10
5 years from 31/07/05 to 31/07/10 Past performance figures shown are not indicative of future performance. Source: Lipper to 31 07 10 NAV based (inclusive of all annual management fees but excluding any initial charge) gross 31.07.10, charge), income reinvested, in US dollars. Performance would be lower had any initial charge been included and will vary between different share classes dependant upon their applicable charges.
04853

Cumulative performance vs Indices vs.
YTD $ Investec GSF Global Energy Fund A Inc MSCI World/Energy TR Relative R l ti performance f Fund v MSCI World Energy 2.6 % -6.5 -9.1
1 year % 7.4 3.7
3 years % -11.4 -19.8
5 years % 31.6 16.8
10 years % 330.0 115.6
3.7
8.3
14.9
214.4
Past performance figures shown are not indicative of future performance. Source: Lipper to 31 07 10 NAV based (inclusive of all annual management fees but excluding any initial charge) gross income 31.07.10, charge), reinvested, in US dollars. Performance would be lower had any initial charge been included and will vary between different share classes dependant upon their applicable charges.
04853
Investec GSF Global Energy Fund performance

Performance
$ Investec GSF Global Energy A Inc MSCI World/Energy TR Equity Natural Resource sector average* % Chg -6.9 9.5 8.3 Returns in USD 1 month Q 4 1 year % Chg 7.4 3.7 6.7 Q 2 3 years % Chg -4.0 -7.1 -8.5 Q 1 Annualised 5 years % Chg 5.6 3.1 4.8 Q 1 10 years % Chg 15.7 8.0 11.2 Q 1
Calendar year performance

$ Investec GSF Global Energy A Inc MSCI World/Energy TR Equity Natural Resource sector average*
YTD % Chg -6.5 -9.1 -8.8
2009 % Chg 48.4 27.0 51.0
2008 % Chg -45.0 -37.7 -50.0
2007 % Chg 37.6 30.4 41.0
2006 % Chg 10.1 18.4 22.6
2005 % Chg 62.3 29.4 42.5
Past performance figures shown are not indicative of future performance. Source: Lipper to 31.07.10, NAV based (inclusive of all annual management fees but excluding any initial charge), gross income reinvested, reinvested in US dollars. Performance would have been lower had any initial charge been included and will vary between different dollars share classes dependant upon their applicable charges. * Unweighted average of the offshore funds in Lipper Global Equity Sector Natural Resource.
04853
Biographies
Mark Lacey
Portfolio Manager and Sector Specialist Energy Specialist, 2 years with the firm 14 years experience
Jonathan Waghorn
Portfolio Manager and Sector Specialist Energy Specialist, 2 years with the firm 14 years experience
Mark joined Investec Asset Management in February 2008 as a portfolio manager and energy specialist in the global commodities and resources team. Mark was previously employed at Goldman Sachs where he was an Executive Director and joint head of the highly ranked energy research team. In 2007, Mark was the number one rated oil and gas analyst in the leading investment survey Thompson Extel Extel. Prior to Goldman Sachs Mark spent three years at JP Morgan as a European Sachs, oil and gas analyst. Mark was also a commodities portfolio manager at Credit Suisse Asset Management for six years. Mark graduated from Nottingham Trent University with a BA Honours degree in Business Studies.
Jonathan joined Investec Asset Management in February 2008 as a portfolio manager and energy specialist in the global commodities and resources team. Previously, Jonathan spent eight years at Goldman Sachs where he was an Executive Director and joint head of the highly ranked energy research team. Jonathan was rated a 5 star analyst by Starmine for his stock-picking and earnings estimates in the oil and gas sector Prior to working at Goldman Sachs Jonathan spent two years sector. working for Wood Mackenzie as a UK oil and gas analyst, which involved detailed economic modelling of oil and gas facilities and companies. Jonathan began his career as a drilling engineer for Shell International in the Netherlands, where he spent three years. Jonathan graduated from Bristol University in 1994 with an Honours degree in Physics and in 1995 was awarded an MSc in Semiconductor Physics from Bristol University.
04853
Important information
This document is not for general public distribution. If you are a private investor and receive it as part of a general circulation, please contact us at + 852 2861 6888. The value of this investment and any income generated from it will be affected by changes in interest rates general market conditions investment, it, rates, and other political, social and economic developments, as well as by specific matters relating to the assets in which it invests. Investors are not certain to make profits; losses may be made. All the information contained in this document is believed to be reliable but may be inaccurate or incomplete. A full explanation of the characteristics of the investment is given in the prospectus Any opinions stated are honestly held but are not guaranteed and should not prospectus. be relied upon. Past performance figures shown are not indicative of future performance. Investment involves risks. Investors should read the Prospectus for details, including the risk factors. This is not a buy or sell recommendation for any particular stock The portfolio may change significantly over a short period of time stock. time. THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY. IT IS NOT AN INVITATION TO MAKE AN INVESTMENT NOR DOES IT CONSTITUTE AN OFFER FOR SALE. THE FULL DOCUMENTATION THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BEFORE MAKING AN INVESTMENT, INCLUDING THE PROSPECTUS AND SIMPLIFIED PROSPECTUS OR OFFERING MEMORANDUM, WHICH SET OU U OUT FUND S C C RISKS, IS AVAILABLE FROM INVESTEC ASSET MANAGEMENT. SPECIFIC S S, S O S C SS G This document should not be distributed to private customers who are resident in countries where the Fund is not registered for sale or in any other circumstances where its distribution is not authorised or is unlawful. Please visit www.investecassetmanagement.com/registrations to check registrations by country. THIS INVESTMENT IS NOT FOR SALE TO US PERSONS. PERSONS Telephone calls may be recorded to confirm your instructions This document has not been reviewed by the SFC. Issuer: Investec Asset Management Asia Limited.
04853
Contact details
KK Cheung Director, Regional Business Development Tel: +852 2861 6881 Email: kk.cheung@investecmail.com Noel Mak Manager, Business Development Tel: +852 2861 6887 Email: noel.mak@investecmail.com Sandy Chan Senior Manager, Business Development Tel: + 852 2861 6885 Email: sandy.chan@investecmail.com
Investec Asset Management Asia Limited Suites 2604-06, Tower 2 The Gateway, Harbour City Tsimshatsui, Kowloon Hong Kong www.investecfunds.com.hk
Telephone calls may be recorded for training and quality assurance purposes. Issued by Investec Asset Management, August 2010
04853

Investec GSF Global Energy Fund Presentation Aug10 (HK)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Investec GSF Global Energy Fund Presentation Aug10 (HK)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

GSF

Investec Global Energy Fund

The co-portfolio managers

Global Commodities and Resources

An experienced team with diverse backgrounds p g

Global Commodities and Resources

GSF Global Dynamic Resources Fund $114m

GSF Enhanced Global Energy Fund * $55m

GSY B Global Commodities & Resources Fund* Fund $287m

GSY B Global Energy Long Short Fund* Fund $56m

SA Commodity Fund * $78.5m#

Commitment to commodities and resources fund management business

Resource equity 2 Commodity Indicator

Qualitative issues Q lit ti i

Selection and weighting of best commodity and equity ideas

High q g quality idea g y generation translated into various portfolios p

Stage 1: Commodity analysis

Stage 1. Commodity analysis

Backgrounds in fundamental co ac g ou ds u da e a commodity research od y esea c

Stage 2: Commodity indicator

Stage 2. The Commodity Indicator

Stage 3: Resource equity analysis

Stage 3. Resource Equity analysis

Data as of mid 2009 and is meant for illustrative purposes only

Stage 3: Resource equity analysis

Stage 3. Resource Equity analysis

Stage 4: Qualitative issues

Stage 4. Qualitative factors

Stage 5: Portfolio Construction

Portfolio structure and construction limitations

Portfolio attributes Top ten holdings and benchmark positioning

Portfolio attributes Current portfolio over/under-weights

Investment style analysis

The macro outlook for energy

Key energy sector themes for 2010 and beyond

Gas markets: more potential upside in gas than in oil

Gas price ($ / mcf ) $

Current spot price

Gas i G price versus gas economics i

Oil price versus oil economics i il i

Source: Bloomberg, March 2010

Oil price ($ / 61)

Gas markets: US gas prices are very depressed

Source: Bloomberg, July 2010

Sources: Tudor Pickering Holt & Co, April 2010

Gas demand: industrial demand recovery is critical

Source: Simmons, March 2010

Gas markets: the cheapest energy source

Source: Bloomberg, July 2010

Gas demand: Gas should benefit from coal displacement

Source: Credit Suisse, April 2010

Gas demand: future demand from power generation

Capacity added by fuel type

Source: EIA, Simmons

Source: Platts, Simmons

Gas supply: capex and drilling have reacted quickly

E&P Year-over-Year Change in Organic Capex (%)

Source: Bloomberg, July 2010

US shale gas production is an increasing source of supply

Source: Credit Suisse, June 2010

Basic cost analysis provides an indication of fundamental support

E&P company total cash cost per Mmbtu

$6.00 $5.00 $5 00 $4.00