Green Is Dead: Long Live the Green

After a long hiatus, Smug is back. Not so much back (Smug never left), but making a more conscientious effort to reprioritize posting. And no time like the present as the market quietly falls into oblivion.

Some very quick personal updates:

• Smug Investments launched at just the wrong time, stalled, and de-launched temporarily. Funding is dry for hedge fund start ups, green or not, even with no leverage. Despite that, the model is still running and trading - we lost roughly 16% in 2008, which ain't so bad considering it's a.) all publicly traded, and b.) the S&P lost 40%. More on the Smug model to come in future posts.
• I've started working at a non-profit, Ceres, in their Investment division. I manage their Clean Tech Investment Programs, facilitating some of the largest institutions in the world to invest in clean tech and sustainable vehicles. Smug is not dead - Smug is Smugger. For more information on my non-profit work, see www.incr.com (the Investor Network on Climate Risk) or www.ceres.org.

On to bigger and better things.

So many of you (if there are any of you left) are in the unenviable position of losing money in the current market. Green is definitely not an exception - the NEX index lost nearly 60% last year, a measure of global green investments developed by Robert Wilder (WilderHill leased the index to make the PowerShares Global Clean Energy ETF - ticker PBD). No happy campers in that boat. The headlines are getting worse and worse, as well - things like "Green Is Stalling", "Green Is Dead", "Why Everything Sucks", and "Could Things Be Worse for Climate Change?". Oddly, the ominous seems to downplay the positive things coming out of the new Obama administration - longer subsidies for clean energies, infrastructure focused on green jobs, and allowing states to put mandates on car emissions.

So let's put this all in a bit of perspective: yes, it's bad. But it's not all bad. Especially if you move your world view beyond the walls of the US markets.

Green investments now are almost universally at or near their 52 week low. Hell, they are at or near their 3 year and 5 year lows. Some of them? All time lows. And finally, we have governmental support in the US for green. So ultimately, ask yourself this: where else would you put your money?

This is a question I've spend the last 4 months posing to some of the largest institutions in the world - CalPERS, CalSTRS, NYCERS, and others. Some of them are selling investments to make payroll. Others are making cuts. Many of them are literally pulling out and investing everything in Treasuries that are yielding between 0 and 1 percent - the equivalent of putting money in the mattress. But when posed the question, they have no answer. Except green.

Why?

Here are the driving forces:
1.) Policy - everyone is holding their breath for Obama to make his first real move. It's coming, and it's coming soon. Policy favors green for the next 4 years, and where the government incentivizes, the money is soon to follow.

2.) Growth potential - in public equity markets, green is at an all time low. Does anyone think, that even if it were to sink another 10 or 15%, that it won't come back? Does anyone honestly think that ALL of these companies will be bankrupt? That there is no future in wind, solar, or other renewables?

3.) Cash - the biggest players have either been sitting on the sidelines with cash for a while, or have pulled out of the market in the last few months anyway. Some of this cash will go to avoiding the need for more ridiculous bailout money. But much of it, as in the case of some of the big institutions (and institutional like investors a la Warren Buffet), there will come a point in the not so distant future where everything looks cheap and the bottom feels near. When the money starts pouring in, where do you think it will go?

I'll leave you with this parting portfolio snapshot of Smug Green Global for you to ponder, it's our last trade allocation:

CRATX	CRA Qualified Investment Retail	13.52%
CXA	California Municipal Bond ETF	11.96%
DBA	DB Agricuture ETF	11.40%
FXS	CurrencyShares Swedish Krona Trust ETF	10.87%
INY	SPDR New York Municipal Bond ETF	12.74%
JJG	iPath DJ AIG Grains ETF	11.19%
PAXHX	Pax World High Yield A	15.95%
UDN	PowerShares DB USD Index Bearish ETF	12.37%

Bonds and agriculture. Things have changed, but this portfolio saved me over 20% during October's drop (Smug was down -7.58%). If you've followed our metrics in the past posts, you'll know why these things are "green". If not, do some catching up.

And hopefully I have time to keep this up!

Smug Profile: Non Profit + Green Investing = Bliss

It has been a few weeks since posting, but it's been a busy period. My models have been down, but there's no cause for alarm, all's well in Smug land. In fact, I'm busy looking for open positions in green investment funds, which brings me in part to my self serving post of the day - a write up of Green Century Balanced Fund, a Green Century Capital Management mutual fund:

Ticker: GCBLX
Inception: March 18, 1992
Asset Type: Mutual Fund - Mixed
Markets: Domestic
Smug Category: Bond
Included in Smug Asset Pool?: Yes
Returns:

YTD	-5.85%
1 year	-3.73%
3 year annualized	1.90%
5 year annualized	5.36%

Min Investment: $2,500
Min Retirement Investment: $1,000
Minimum Additional: $50 automatic investment, $100 otherwise
Sales Load:
$2,500 to $24,999.99: 0.00% of offering price
$25,000 to $99,999.99: 0.00% of offering price
$100,000 or more: 0.00% of offering price

Management Fees: 0.65% for 2007 - based on AUM.
12b-1 Fees: None
Other fees: 0.73%
Total Annual Fee: 1.38% for 2007.

I'll be honest - this fund has not been my first choice historically, in large part because the fees are much higher than others at 1.38%. That said, there is good reason to be excited about this fund. 100% of net profits generated fund non profit research. Yes, 100%. It's almost comically non capitalist. That, to me, says in a nutshell what Green Century tries to accomplish. Not only do they have fairly selective screens on their investment choices, but the revenue goes into a pool and subdivided by the consortium of non profits that "own" Green Capital Management.

Then there's the investment choices themselves. Similar to Pax World's High Yield Fund, which was just dinged by the SEC for not following their own screens several years ago (tsk), Green Century Balanced is a combination of corporate debt, other bonds, and a modicum of growth investing thrown in to keep the returns nice and round. It should act as a nice, semi stable piece of moderate income with moderate growth, despite it's tough year this year (who hasn't had a tough year, really?).

As an eternal skeptic, my first question was, "what do these non profits do?" Again, I was surprised by the answer. GCBLX funds some of the biggest and brightest think tanks in the country, including the state "PIRG" groups (Public Interest Research Group). As if being a responsible investor by investing in Green Century is not enough, you'd also be inadvertently (or maybe "advertently?") supporting research in responsible business practice to boot! The nice long 10+ year track record of beating their benchmark doesn't hurt, either.

All in all, the fund is definitely worth looking at. And cross your fingers I get the job with them.

Where Local Makes Love to Sustainable: SRI Banking

Local and regional banks are getting a bad rap thanks in large part to the bevy of socially parasitic mortgage brokers that dealt out most of the subprime loans that are the weight around the neck of our national financial infrastructure right now. Of course, the subprime issues are more a symptom of corporate excess than the underlying cause, but that's neither here nor there. For now, suffice it to say that local banks are not all bad. In fact, many of them promote sustainable, socially responsible solutions to their regions.

So what are these banks, and how do you join the fray?

While the number of purely sustainable solutions are small, the concept is alive in a couple of banks worth looking at, even if from afar. And if you're not already in CRATX, the Community Reinvestment Act Fund (as detailed here), you should definitely consider it. But here are some truly excellent solutions to make more than just your stocks sustainable or responsible, but to extend the same thinking to your savings and cash.

Wainwright Bank & Trust

I just recently mentioned Wainwright's stock, WAIN, as a part of my last Seeking Alpha article, but their Green business loans and Equal Exchange CDs are worth getting excited about. For a minimum of $1,000 and a 3 year commitement, you can open an Equal Exchange CD in which the funds are loaned to Equal Exchange which invests in Fair Trade coffee farms and farming practices. Not only is this exciting from a sustainability standpoint, but the APY is a none too shabby 3.00%, costing only 70bps from average CD rates.

There is always a catch, of course - there are penalties for early withdrawal (situationally depending). If you already have an account at Wainwright, you can have CD interest depostited directly into your money market, checking or savings accounts, a nice little perk. The CD is FDIC insured and sustainable, what more could you want?

Well, if you're a homeowner interested in greening your house, Wainwright offers a Green Loan specifically designed to target green home improvements. Green loans offer rate reductions and no closing costs, all perks to make the investment in reducing your long term energy costs. If you're a non profit, Wainwright is one of the few institutions country wide with a division devoted entirely to communtiy and non profit development. With over $500M in community investment loans, Wainwright cements itself as one of the leaders in socially responsible and sustainable banking.

Not to mention the stock is currently paying a 3+% dividend yield. See more information at www.wainwrightbank.com.

ShoreBank

ShoreBank is the original socially responsible bank. With a 35 year history, a diverse management team, and a long standing commitment to community investing, ShoreBank is now the gold standard of SR banking, despite it's growing corporate entities. For the retail consumer, ShoreBank has a bevy of Developmental Deposit accounts (checking, savings, money market, time deposit, and IRA) that target community development projects with the funds. They offer market rate APYs, meaning you're not paying in yield to be responsible. So, all things being equal, there's no good reason not to be responsible.

Beyond just the typical deposit account, ShoreBank has excellent online high yield savings accounts that offer higher yielding rates and the same social developmental projects. Best of all, the high yield savings accounts have $1.00 minimums, online access, and no monthly fees.

The newest product on ShoreBank's ever increasing roster is the EcoDeposit through their ShoreBank Pacific branch. EcoDeposits are designed to invest in companies that reduce energy inefficiencies and waste in an effort to preserve the Pacific northwest forests. In many ways, ShoreBank has designed these programs to act almost as charitable contributions that pay you for your efforts.

For more details, check out www.sbk.com.

So be smug and save sustainably while you invest sustainably.

Smug Profile: Waste Not, Want Not

Smug's next stop on the profile bandwagon is an industry that definitely does not get its due accord - waste and recycling. Waste management, like water treatment, is an inevitable need of every civilization. In that way, when taken as a whole, waste should tend to act more like a commodity than equity. I'm still watching for the moment you can readily buy and sell futures contracts on recycled metals (especially in ETF fashion), but for now, we can at least take solace in Market Vectors' Environmental Services ETF:

Ticker: EVX
Inception: October 10, 2006
Asset Type: ETF
Markets: Global
Smug Category: Waste
Included in Smug Asset Pool?: Yes

Returns: YTD 2.30%

Expense Ratio: 0.55%
Total Market Cap: 42M
Annual Turnover: 3%
Current Yield: 1.03%

With a moderate expense ratio, EVX offers exposure to what Smug believes is one of the unaccounted for basic needs investments. Along with food, water, clothes, and a roof over our heads, it is inevitable that we will produce waste. The long term prospects are astounding as populations soar and growth in China and elsewhere abroad booms, the need for increasingly efficient and intelligent waste management is tantamount. Along with water, we consider waste a commodity and expect to move with lower correlations to the overall market as the track record increases.

All in all, consider it as exposure to a relatively obscure but well positioned sector. And be smug, invest sustainably.

Al Gore's Green Challenge: Ignore It and Start Small

Al Gore recently gave this speech challenging our country to use 100% renewable sources within the next 10 years.

Hooray?

While you would think that would make us green investors jump for joy, instead all I hear is a reverberating echo. As much as I love the challenge, and I love Mr. Gore's science, mission, and rhetoric even more, the problem is ideological. How do you take historically consumptive and self interested Americans, from Wall Street to Main Street, and get them to believe that green energy is necessary (or even possible)? Especially in a country that ridiculously fights the notion that global warming is even occurring!

Permit me one self righteous, proselytizing rant: not until green can line the pockets of the already wealthy while keeping the status quo will it ever be viable. That means paying government with special interest money to rival oil, gas, coal, and other pollutant energies. It also means venture capitalist cash flows, double and tripling profits of Wall Street financiers, and forcing (and I do mean forcing) the average joe to comply with green energy initiatives. If it's going to happen in 10 years, green will have some serious moving and shaking to do right now.


Green Energy Becomes Tradeable Commodity

Julian Murdoch of Hardassetsinvestor.com wrote a piece on the movement we could expect from a move to green. He points out one thing in particular that both caught my eye and gave me concern: "...wind, solar and geothermal power aren't tradable commodities..." This is both troubling and promising at the same time, and here's why.

When the CME figured out how to make weather derivatives a viable investment vehicle, who's to say we couldn't trade excess energy from solar flares (a fairly random occurance)? Or the excess energy from geothermal activity, or storm activity that generates stronger waves? The fact is, they will figure it out. It will be sketchy at first, incredibly difficult to understand, and basically akin to betting on football games, but they will figure out a way. The CME (and all of Wall Street for that matter) is easiest to describe as a giant Vegas, setting prices designed to have a market on either side. The brokers are the bookies, and you are the gambling addict. When viewed in that light, it's easy to understand how there's a market for just about anything you can bet on.

What troubles me about green energy as a commodity is it's inherently linked to natural occurences. A mine, once found, yields a certain amount of ore which can be manufactured and refined. This means there is a limited quantity for that commodity - when the mine runs out, the ore price rises. If green energy commodities, like wind and solar, come into being, you are dealing with sustainable, hypothetically infinite "mines". The market implications are totally unquantifiable at this point, and my gut instinct is to assume no Wall Street market maker is interested in a game that isn't rigged. To that extent, there may be pressure to force us, the consumer, to pay for the commodity in ways we don't pay for it now.

Call it my deeply ingrained cyncism, but I think there's danger in motivating green commodities too abruptly. I think Mr. Gore's challenge was primarily aimed at Congress, but I think what it lacks is the acknowledgement that Congress is elected by you and paid for by big business. I think the big change will come from you, the little guy.


Start Small, Not Big: Don't Wait For Big Brother

While Mr. Gore's challenge is inspirational, the serious change has to happen with you first. Wall Street will sit up and take notice when investors invest in green. If Wall Street sees money in it, expect profiteers to enter the market, prices to skyrocket, profits will be made, corruption will be abundant, and eventually the market will crash! But hopefully not before it's actually done some good.

Starting small can happen in many ways, all of which are in your control:

1.) Call your broker, call your 401(k) provider, call your retirement administrator and ask for green or socially responsible. Pressuring at the institutional level can easily help sway the tide from the inside.

2.) Self directed brokerage account? Set a percentage to be green and responsible, and rebalance once a year. Even if that percentage is just 5%, it makes a difference in the long run. Plus, it can't hurt to diversify.

3.) Do the little things around the house: recycle, don't use plastic bags, find a farmer's market, and maybe even if it's yellow let it mellow. Outside of urbana (and to large extent, suburbana), recycling still isn't the norm. You don't have to buy a hybrid or solar panels right away to make a difference. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the environmental cost of making a new hybrid is far greater than just buying a used car (used hybrids top all, though). At the risk of standing on a pedastal, imagine if everything you threw away you were forced to throw in your backyard (or in a corner in your apartment). Suddenly those 20 beer bottles and used milk containers would be much better off in the recycle bin!

Need some guidance to step one? Start here, then move on to this.

New Investment Management Paradigm

I have been approached by the gurus at Rainbox Portfolios to be one of their premier portfolio managers. It is definitely a tempting idea, and could be a new way to invest, but I'm just not clear how viable it really is, especially for smaller investors. Here's how it works:

I would operate and maintain what amounts to a live portfolio and research platform. For a monthly subscription fee, the client would have access to Smug research reports and live updates on portfolio changes. This might appeal to the DIYer who isn't entirely sure how to DIY. Every time Smug gets a trade signal from the green trading model, you get the trade signal too, in the form of an email indicating a price to buy (with a cushion), number of shares, and cost information. The only thing left for you, the client, to do is to place the trade as indicated.

This appeals to me on a few levels. Firstly, there is no bias for portfolio size. If you have a $10,000 portfolio or a $1,000,000 portfolio, your fee structure is exactly the same: the monthly subscription fee plus the cost to trade, which you can control. For instance, I prefer using optionsXpress for some of my accounts. The trading cost is $14.95 per trade regardless of size of the trade (though bigger accounts can get lower per trade costs) and there are no annual fees. I haven't found any hidden fees yet, either, in my time using them, so all in all, I'm satisfied.

Assuming your self directed accounts are in the $15/trade ballpark, which most of them are, here is a look at what portfolio size corresponds to what annual fee. As you would be making the trades yourself, I built in a cushion for "hassle" and "time to trade" as follows (all values are annual):

Assumptions:

Hassle Cost:	0.45%
Time Cost:	$28.00
Trading Cost:	$14.95
Annual Fee:	$0.00
Turnover %:	50%
Assets:	12
Growth Rate:	5.00%

Annual Fee Breakdown:

Subscription
Fee	$2,500	$5,000	$7,500	$10,000	$20,000	$30,000	$50,000	$100,000
$7.50	11.38%	5.69%	3.79%	2.84%	1.42%	0.95%	0.57%	0.28%
$10.00	12.53%	6.26%	4.18%	3.13%	1.57%	1.04%	0.63%	0.31%
$12.50	13.67%	6.84%	4.56%	3.42%	1.71%	1.14%	0.68%	0.34%
$15.00	14.82%	7.41%	4.94%	3.71%	1.85%	1.24%	0.74%	0.37%
$17.50	15.97%	7.98%	5.32%	3.99%	2.00%	1.33%	0.80%	0.40%
$20.00	17.12%	8.56%	5.71%	4.28%	2.14%	1.43%	0.86%	0.43%
$25.00	19.41%	9.71%	6.47%	4.85%	2.43%	1.62%	0.97%	0.49%

You can see why this becomes incredibly appealing to DIYers with $30K or more invested in the portfolio. If I were to set the subscription fees at what I consider my midpoint (Rainbox suggests a $20/month fee, but that seems steep to me), $15/month equivocates to an annualized 1.24% expense ratio. That's in the ballpark of most mutual funds, only you're not obligated to make any trade you don't like. If your portfolio is bigger, in the $50K - $100K range or beyond, the savings are exponential. At some point, the cost of a "professionally run" portfolio decreases to below ETF levels, and eventually to almost negligent non existent levels. It offers complete control with investment manager research and advice. My expense ratios are higher than Rainbox's in part because I added in the "hassle" and "time cost" of managing your own portfolio. The "time cost" assumes trades take about 7 minutes each and your time is worth roughly $20/hour. The "hassle cost" component assumes you get the trade email and wait to trade for 5 days, either due to laziness, busy-ness, vacation, or any reason at all. It makes the assumption that for every day you wait to trade, you lose about 0.15% in profit. That's a fairly big assumption, as you could actually avoid losses by waiting, but adding it as a component makes it a more realistic model of how the subscription service would work.

Want to know the kicker? If you paid no one and totally self directed, a $20K portfolio costs you roughly 0.99% annualized fees using the assumptions above. That's why online broker houses exist and seem so cheap - they are actually making fair sums of money off small accounts. An account of $10K with 50% turnover and 12 assets costs you about 1.98% per year - on the high end of just buying and holding a mutual fund! So here's a look at the same chart above, only the numbers reflect the excess cost of subscribing (as in, how much you are actually paying for a "management fee"):

"Management Fee" Breakdown:

Subscription
Fee	$2,500	$5,000	$7,500	$10,000	$20,000	$30,000	$50,000	$100,000
$7.50	3.44%	1.72%	1.15%	0.86%	0.43%	0.29%	0.17%	0.09%
$10.00	4.59%	2.30%	1.53%	1.15%	0.57%	0.38%	0.23%	0.11%
$12.50	5.74%	2.87%	1.91%	1.43%	0.72%	0.48%	0.29%	0.14%
$15.00	6.89%	3.44%	2.30%	1.72%	0.86%	0.57%	0.34%	0.17%
$17.50	8.03%	4.02%	2.68%	2.01%	1.00%	0.67%	0.40%	0.20%
$20.00	9.18%	4.59%	3.06%	2.30%	1.15%	0.77%	0.46%	0.23%
$25.00	11.48%	5.74%	3.83%	2.87%	1.43%	0.96%	0.57%	0.29%

At the mid price point of $15/month, the equivalent management fee is only 0.86% for a $20K portfolio. That's not too shabby, considering most management fees run between 0.50% and 1.00% for mutual funds, and up to 2.00% for hedge funds. The nice part is, as the portfolio size increases, your management fee decreases!

So how do I get paid? The subscription fees go to me, though there are expenses I would incur in utilizing the service. For one, I incur the credit card processing fees, plus a 25% commission fee to Rainbox. Here's how much I would make based on subscriber accounts:

Smug Income Breakdown:

Subscription	ACCOUNTS
Fee	1	5	10	25	50	75	100
$7.50	-$47.54	-$6.10	$23.21	$105.12	$239.64	$373.82	$507.93
$10.00	-$45.72	$3.01	$41.41	$150.63	$330.65	$510.34	$689.95
$12.50	-$43.90	$12.11	$59.61	$196.13	$421.66	$646.86	$871.98
$15.00	-$42.08	$21.21	$77.82	$241.64	$512.68	$783.38	$1,054.00
$17.50	-$40.26	$30.31	$96.02	$287.14	$603.69	$919.90	$1,236.03
$20.00	-$38.44	$39.41	$114.22	$332.65	$694.70	$1,056.42	$1,418.05
$25.00	-$34.80	$57.61	$150.63	$423.66	$876.73	$1,329.45	$1,782.10

The breakeven is pretty low at 5 accounts for all but the cheapest subscription price. In fact, if I charged only $0.99/month, I'd only need about 40 accounts to barely break even after costs.

It sounds excellent in theory to me as a way to a.) create income for Smug and tap into a wider audience, and b.) allow investors to make their own choices at a minimum of cost. A new paradigm, right?

Well, I'm not entirely sure. First of all, the likelihood of DIYer's paying for advice is low, and the likelihood that online readers would subscribe and have $30K+ to invest solely in Smug's models is even lower. Rainbox is in beta form right now and actively soliciting managers (like me) to not only give it some credibility, but to help launch it successfully. The question I have is: will it work? I've set up a poll to the right side, I'm wondering how much you, the interested green investor, would be willing to pay for a subscription service like this? Nothing? $1.00 per month? $20.00 per month?

Comments and criticism appreciated, I'm looking to make a decision whether or not to offer the service in the coming weeks. Look out for more green commentary in the next few days, and a profile of the environmental services ETF, EVX.

Dividends: The Green Investor's Atlantis

Big media attention distracts from the fact that green is still a niche investors' market. As more and more utility companies sign on to green initiatives, steady yielding dividends should get easier to come by. Until then, there are ways to piece together some nice income, albeit more unstable than traditional income vehicles.

I've put together, at the request of a Seeking Alpha commenter (thanks EnfantTerribles) a Sort Of Incredible Green Income Machine. Here's the list, with some suggested allocations as well:

Asset	100.00%	Yield		Portfolio Yield
PAXHX	17.50%	7.43%		1.30%
CRATX	15.00%	4.64%		0.70%
DSBFX	15.00%	4.47%		0.67%
CSIBX	10.00%	3.87%		0.39%
DUPFX	5.00%	3.13%		0.16%
LRY	15.50%	7.28%		1.13%
IDA	10.00%	4.07%		0.41%
WFMI	5.00%	3.46%		0.17%
WTR	3.00%	3.29%		0.10%
ORA	2.00%	0.43%		0.01%
LNN	2.00%	0.34%		0.01%

Total Yield:

5.03%

Agriculture	7.00%
Bond	62.50%
Diversity	0.00%
Eco Reserve	0.00%
Energy	12.00%
Low Carbon	0.00%
Real Estate	15.50%
Recycle	0.00%
Social	0.00%
Technology	0.00%
Total Green	0.00%
Water	3.00%

As you can see, the majority of the holding are bonds, which isn't ideal for diversification's sake. All the yields listed are based on Friday (7/18) closing prices and the last dividend paid. They are most definitely not guaranteed, but the Smug systems do their best to weed out inconsistent payers. There are some non bond holdings worth looking at, and some stock holdings as well yielding above 3%. The overall stock allocation, however, falls less than 50% at around 38% instead. That should give some cushion for growth amongst the bonds and hopefully continue to flirt with that 5% yield mark.

Because of the high concentration in yielding bond mutual funds, there isn't much in the way of inter-green diversity either. Real estate is an obvious place for steady yields, and our one traded "almost green-ish" real estate stock pick, Liberty Property Trust (LRY), makes for a nice yield especially now that real estate prices have tumbled despite ever consistent cash flows. If those cash flows dry up, though, better watch out. Also in the stockpile is IdaCorp (IDA), an Idaho based energy company generating most of it's energy from hydroelectric sources. Utility companies are usually recession-proof tools, so I wouldn't be surprised to see the price tumble a bit if serious recession concerns start to fade in the backdrop. That said, over the last 7 years the price has remained fairly consistently around the $30/share mark, possibly a good sign for forward stability as well.

I also included Whole Foods Market, Inc (WFMI), as they are a nice solid yielder, but as a "specialty" grocery store with food prices on the rise, it's a bit of a risky play. If you're looking for a really steady yield without as much volatility involved, stick with the mutual fund options. Domini, Pax World, and Communtiy Capital Management are old hands with solid business models. PAXHX clocks in as the cheapest overall bang for you buck - currently a 7% yield, a 1% expense ratio, and a measly $250 minimum!

All in all, it's wise to tread lightly looking for green dividends. I wouldn't be surprised if they start cropping up here and there in the not too distant future, especially with the first pure green REIT on the horizon (in SEC filing stage), but for now, be careful and don't expect great stability except from some of the tried and true stalwart bond funds.