data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a6351/a635129af8222d915123e4e8edec2fdbe22012e6" alt=""
Resources Menu
General Resources
Entrepreneur
and Business Resources
Investor Resources
Integral Methods
and Technology
Asset Management
Industry
Governance and
Investor Responsibility
Environment
Industry Sectors
and Issues
Links
Books
and Video
|
Private and Confidential
August 2007
The following sections are delivered through Astraea. The links below
will take you to those sections.
Perspective
Living
in a fantasy world ...
You may have heard of the downturn in financial markets recently.
Its quite serious in fact. Though at the moment what's happened
is only heightened volatility coupled with a modest correction in asset
prices which has merely eliminated the optimism of the past few months.
Unfortunately it will continue because the fantasy of creating something
from nothing must be unwound. The irresponsible expansion of credit
fuelled consumption has exceeded our ability to pay our debts. As
you can read in the section on Investment, it has been too easy for us
all to buy "stuff" with money we don't have. Our propensity for
greed fuelled by envy has become immoral. And this does not account
for the wasted investment in war (which has simply been a money pit),
corruption and, unfortunately, below standard infrastructure. This
is OK because it can all be blamed on human nature. But that means
us. And unless we bring back morality into our personal lives the
pain of correction will be exacerbated. Unwittingly our values reflect
the fantasy of Hollywood more than the reality of nature.
The mechanism that underlies the sub-prime crisis is a good illustration
of the fantasy that we have created. Fiduciaries (people that are
supposed to be responsible for other people's money) grouped together
many loans then repackaged them into another group of loans based on the
original group. The second group of derived loans were then sold
on and by collusion and misinformation the sum of the second group became
more valuable than the first group even after the costs of doing the work.
Its like dividing a cake and then putting the pieces back together and
having a bigger cake than that you started with, even though crumbs (sometimes
big crumbs) have been eaten in the process! This is the fantasy.
And we've created other fantasies, like children without parents or self
control in an unattended sweet shop. It is fantasy to advocate free trade
while you subsidise your producers. It is fantasy to expect full
employment while encouraging automation without education and training
to ensure that people can move up the skills ladder. It is fantasy
to believe that you can take more out of the earth than is put in.
This financial discomfort is only going to be short term. But it
is another severe warning which will touch more lives than a tsunami,
hurricane, flood or heat wave. We're living a bigger fantasy that
needs to be unwound before the quake occurs. That is the fantasy that
this biosphere can support 6 billion people (and more). Malthus
was right, but he did not count on fossil fuels, especially oil.
Petrol has fuelled an exponential growth in consumption during the past
century. A hundred years ago human consumption was more closely
equal to the energy input of the sun to our biosphere. In the past
100 years we've sucked energy, stored over millennia, out of the ground
and burned it to create cars, TVs, cities and ... people. We believe
it's all normal and OK. But it's not. And we've begun to feel
the tremors of a planet self-destructing. While the biosphere is
likely to survive, there is no way it will continue to tolerate the footprint
of humanity. And while we feel the pain of repossessions, reduced
consumption and uncertainty with a brief financial tremor, the lifestyle
change that is inevitable in our lifetimes is inconceivable.
Some enlightened intentional
communities have started to initiate transition to infrastructure
and dynamic which explore enlightened technology like alternative energy,
open systems and organic food. These are communities of leading
thinkers who have gathered together to experiment with redesigning society
in a world without oil. These initiatives are not insignificant
and are the laboratories of future living. They do not advocate
regression to the stone age. But they are innovating choices about
how to continue the rich, varied and stimulating lifestyle that we now
enjoy, without sucking the planet dry. We have built up a massive
ecological credit in the past century and the biosphere's banker has decided
that our credit rating needs to be reconsidered.
The impending restructuring of global economics is an opportunity to
embark upon system change. And that starts with us as individuals.
We are irresponsible if we look to leaders to show us the way. That
is an abdication of responsibility. We must each take a step in
the right direction. We must face the fear of change and realise
that we all know how to do the right thing the right way. We can
apply the standards that we have for our children and leaders to ourselves.
We are not powerless. We must face the fact that being unable to
do everything does not mean that we should do nothing. Once we take
a step in the right direction we soon realise that the reality of nature
is as wonderful as the fantasies created by financial credit and feudal
power structures.
Top
Investment, Finance & VC
(The investment section is dominated this month by notes on the credit
crunch precipitated by realisation that risk/return profiles in US housing
finance and global credit are out of line.)
Hello, moral
hazard. No, there is no free lunch.
The unwinding of imbalances in the world of money continued in August.
While we will make a number of observations in this month's review, the
story has not changed. And while the outlook is not easy to determine,
the principal driver is unchanged. Last month we highlighted the
new appreciation investors have adopted for risk. Previously it
was hardly considered, now it is high on the agenda. This month
the buzz word is uncertainty. Unfortunately that is a step
beyond risk.
The financial markets face uncertainty, rather than risk. My portfolio
theory professor at Wharton helped us understand the difference as risk
being a defined variation or defined probable outcomes, uncertainty, however,
is not even knowing what possible outcomes might be. With the increasing
sophistication of securities and their derivatives understanding the underlying
drivers of an asset has become more elusive. The interconnectedness
of assets and the gross negligence of due diligence in committing capital
over the past five years means that even the most sophisticated analysts
have difficulty identifying real data. With that proviso, let's
review some of the news and views ...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/350a6/350a63ce303a66874849527331ef254b11296d7c" alt=""
The general theme is that the markets are down, credit is tighter, liquidity
has been made available to banks and investors are hoping for a drop in
interest rates in mid-September. But don't imagine we've had a real
correction. Via Jim Stack's Investech,
comes this interesting view of how prior bear markets compare relative
to the most recent 9% correction. That's right, the drop these last
few weeks hardly registers. Global stock markets are down, but not
heavily. The S&P fell less than 10%, before rallying. The comparison
with Black Monday in 1987, when Wall Street fell 17% in a single day,
is very wide of the mark. Most market are still up on the year -
some marginally, like US, some substantially like Korea, Brazil, and Germany.
The dogs which didn't bark are emerging market bond spreads, which remain
tight by historical standards, and shipping rates and commodities.
But the correction is healthy because it has refocussed attention
on the other side of investing, the down side. Now asset managers
are reconsidering things like risk, security and loan terms.
(We won't be seeing so many NINJAS!
As far back as 2001, advocates
for low-income home-owners had argued that mortgage providers were making
loans to borrowers without regard to their ability to repay. Many
could not even scrape together the money for a down payment and were being
approved with little or no documentation of their income or assets. In
the most extreme cases, mortgage brokers were handing out what came to
be known as "NINJA" loans, to people with no income, no job and no assets.
Often the loans were "no-doc", where the borrower did not have to provide
proof of how much they earned. Recent research suggests that in many if
not most of these, borrowers (or their brokers) lied about their income.
But now as interest rates have risen, so have repossessions. The US housing
market has collapsed, and the banks find themselves saddled with a lot
of bad debts. In December 2006, the first subprime lenders started
failing as more borrowers began falling behind on payments, often shortly
after they received the loans. And in February, HSBC,
the UK bank, set aside $1.76 billion because of problems in its American
subprime lending business.)data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09714/097149553df66f964e4d5d7a8d462e235b225323" alt=""
What is needed now is confidence and trust in the market, not
a bail out that perpetuates moral hazard. Let's see whether regulators
and central banks can give us the tough love that the market needs.
If the US Fed reduces rates on 18 September, we know that a bail out is
preferred.
The Fed lowered the discount rate, and the administration has initiated
reform of tax laws to help troubled borrowers refinance their loans.
Even so, Bernanke insisted it was not the job of the Fed "to protect lenders
or investors from the consequences of their financial decisions", and
President Bush said that it is not the government's job to bail out speculators.
While it is questionable whether or not a reduction in the Fed funds
rate would resolve any of the problems of over-borrowing, Bernanke has
said that "The Fed stands ready to take additional actions as needed to
provide liquidity and promote the orderly functioning of the markets."
This may be the rationale behind a lowering of rates, but would only serve
to fuel speculation instead of allowing the market to develop its own
discipline. A reduction in rates would induce a brief surge, but
like that in Iraq, it would be relatively impotent. The cycle induced
would be much shorter because the memory of the pain from July and August
is fresh and investors want to lower risk now, not increase returns.
As an aside, Bernanke may be in the hot seat, but many analysts are beginning
to review their evaluation of Greenspan's performance as Fed Chair.
Supporters of Greenspan may claim that his role was not to advise
investors, but the low level to which interest rates were dropped is increasingly
questioned because it encouraged a consumption boom born of mortgage equity
withdrawal underpinned by low cost debt. My concern now is that
similar strategies will be employed to lessen the consequences of fiscal
profligacy and economic imbalances.
The US policy outlook is uncertain. It is fine to lubricate financial
markets to allow an adjustment to take place gradually, but to bail out
the market perpetuates the illusion that downside is limited. The
moral hazard allows imbalances to build which reduces productive capacities
of society. Worse is the habit of bailing out the market from the
top, rather than the bottom. In other words banks, asset managers,
brokers, professionals, agencies and other fiduciaries are bailed out
while the least protected are allowed to suffer. And this suffering
is usually very personal and painful - people with little have that taken
away. Retired home-owners and young families have their houses repossessed.
Let's hope that this does not happen.
A
bail out of bigger players might be rationalised by the idea that "investors
were persuaded to buy complex packages of securities by prime brokers".
But this is a dangerous and self-serving excuse. All of the big
players (including individual investors) are sophisticated fiduciaries
who can tell the difference between transparency and an opaque opportunity.
They could have asked the right questions. Due diligence was
in fact minimal. There should be no bail out at the top of the
investment pyramid. Penalties should be imposed upon the brokers
and lenders who effectively took advantage of naive home owners or young
families - the sub-prime target market -
So far the pain has been concentrated in alternative assets and those
exposed to them, managers and intermediaries. The stock market declines
are not serious enough to indicate a large-scale macro event, and the
globalisation story remains largely intact. Too much capital went into
alternatives. Return expectations were too high, and strategies too similar.
The sub-prime meltdown, a medium-size problem, triggered industry-wide
deleveraging which ended up hurting everyone involved. But at the
end of the day the alternatives industry is not that important and other
sectors are more relevant. However, the vibration from a handful
of sub-prime lenders and blue-chip hedge funds disintegrating has changed
the perception of investors and lenders. It is a good opportunity
for the unwinding of the credit build-up of the last five years.
We can only hope that the decline in valuations is gradual. But I'm afraid
the correction this time may not be enough to galvanise a system change.
There remains great opacity about the state of leverage and interconnectedness,
such as the use of hedge fund positions (which are leveraged) being used
as collateral for further loans for investment. The kind of layered
leverage which Enron was so good at hiding, until it wasn't. Barry Ritholtz
asks whether it isn't a house of cards illustrated by the term CDOn -
a generic term for CDOs backed by other CDOs, ranging from CDO2 to CDO3
to CDO4 and so on! Similar opacity has been created by the degree
to which special purpose vehicles have been used to market products, or
to circumnavigate restrictions, either internal or regulatory. This
Enron risk is evident, however its extent is not, and there is a strong
incentive to keep it that way for those exposed to deteriorating market
values.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2aa83/2aa83326e032abb23b9f6cee755e36e17e38ff52" alt=""
Last month we noted the role rating agencies played in helping create
a distorted evaluation of risk/return profiles. This has become
clearer as we reflect on the evolution of rating policy and rising sophistication
of derivatives. What occurred was that regulators required pension funds
to restrict investment to A grade securities, but failed to adapt regulation
of ratings to the changing nature of securities in a market moving from
"book to hold" to "originate to distribute". Rating agencies, initially
reluctant to rate tranches of securitised sub-prime portfolios, became
involved in their creation and found them to be a large, attractive source
of revenue - they had strong incentives to be generous to their paymasters.
Although there is evidence that Moody's and S&P remain relatively
conservative when rating structured products, it is clear that even they
allowed their ratings scale for securitised products to become inflated.
Bloomberg Markets reported in July that: "Corporate bonds rated Baa, the
lowest Moody's investment grade rating, had an average 2.2% default rate
over five-year periods from 1983 to 2005, according to Moody's.
From 1993 to 2005, CDOs with the same Baa grade suffered five-year default
rates of 24%, Moody's found." In other words, long before the current
crisis, Moody's was aware that its Baa CDO securities were 10 times as
risky as its Baa corporate bonds. Given the different and shifting
meanings of Baa and other ratings as measures of risk and given the high
rate of financial innovation and the lack of transparency inherent in
multi-layered structured finance deals, it is not surprising that investors
underestimated risks so badly leading up to the recent crisis.
And it wasn't just rating agencies and the buyers of tranches that had
a distorted (or opaque) picture of the risk/return profile. There
was asymmetric information throughout the value chain. And the asymmetry
is less about information differential on either side of a transaction
(except between the sub-prime borrower and the mortgage broker), but more
about a difference between what both parties thought the deal was and
the reality of the risk/return profile. The originators did not know much
about the underlying mortgages, the buyers less. The rating agencies
knew little about the products they rated, investors even less.
Borrowers hardly understood what they were getting in to and lenders did
not know who they were lending to; mortgage brokers were getting paid
for closing deals not for building a well understood portfolio of loans.
My conjecture is that the problem of overvalation is spread among
many market participants and therefore will be felt across the global
economy, but only to a great extent by a few participants heavily weighted
in risky portfolios (most likely because they were (greedily) pursuing
super returns) and focussed in the US. If interest rates are not
brought down, the market will adjust and the majority of investors will
feel the consequences of their decisions, and, hopefully, market discipline
will increase. This will help stabilise economic dynamics in the
future. If on the other hand, interest rates are reduced, the worst
offenders will benefit the most, moral hazard will be exacerbated and
the market will not learn. The next shock, will be equally disruptive
and occur within a year (probably much less).
System change would be welcome.
While
the news has been dominated by financial markets' liquidity concerns,
another spectre raised its head in August - deteriorating infrastructure.
In America the collapse of a Minneapolis bridge caught people's attention
and while it is unlikely that infrastructure is going to start collapsing,
it is the case that the cost of maintenance and repair is high and rising
and the condition of infrastructure is well below its condition when installed
thus reducing its efficiency and raising its usage costs (eg time lost,
wear and tear on vehicles and passengers). The American Society of
Civil Engineers, grades the nation. Issuing its first report, in 1988,
it issued three Bs (for aviation, flood defences and drinking water) and
one D. All other systems were graded C. In sum, a slow pupil, but not
a hopeless one. By 2005 America was a drop-out, with no As or Bs, four
Cs and ten Ds. Worryingly, the second-best grade went to the nation's
bridges. It is not just America. Many will have felt the pressure
in air travel, or congested roads. In Ireland (a small player) some
analysts fear that corruption has raised the cost and lowered the quality
of massive infrastructure build out over the past decade or so.
(One story of a contractor complaining that motorway siding they had installed
did not work, then to be told that they had installed it upside down,
thereby resulting in an additional cost of some € 7 million, illustrates
the harm that comes from getting incompetent friends to do the work.)
These signs suggest that economic efficiencies will be dampened and if
a long term slowdown does ensue, we will be spending more on repairing
modern infrastructure than we should - which will exacerbate and extend
the pain of economic slowdown.
What have Americans gained from their nation's mountain of debt? A crumbling
infrastructure, a manufacturing base that has declined 60% since World
War II, a rise in the wealth gap, the lowest consumer-savings rate since
the Great Depression, 50 million Americans without health insurance, an
educational system in decline and a shrinking dollar that makes foreign
travel a luxury. As Hamid
Varzi notes, a return to fiscal responsibility would make America
far stronger, both domestically and internationally, than would a continuation
of current policies that falsely project strength through protectionist
threats and military aggression.
Central banks have added an additional € 0.5 - 1 trillion in short
term liquidity around the world. That is certainly in excess
of the exposure to the sub-prime sector. But what is that cash for?
Its to tide banks over until they can sort out their balance sheets, not
a gift. They will be paying interest on the money lent while they
try to restructure loans. Lending terms will be tougher again.
Goodbye to ninja loans. And how long will it last? The pressure
on the market must remain for one to two quarters and more rigorous terms
should remain indefinitely (though that's unlikely). We expect that
stock markets should continue to correct, and then will rise again at
a more modest pace. The US economy will remain under pressure, whereas
China will continue to underpin global prosperity.
While the focus in rightly on America, remember that all rich economies
have been playing a similar game and the global economy will suffer.
Where credit has been used to pay for consumption instead of investment
the pain will be greatest.
What investment strategy might be pursued? Well, the first priority
these days is to focus on the return OF capital rather than the return
ON capital. Having said that, gold has become popular and is
already hitting $ 700 an ounce, because it is seen as a low risk asset.
But it is a traders investment and not one that we would focus on.
Blue chips are also worth considering for their lower risk profile.
In general, the simple rules of fundamental valuation should be applied.
Paying too much now, will be costly later.
And three links which offer further fuel for thought:
BBC's Q&A
on world stock market falls
In mid-August investment guru Jeremy Grantham analysed
the private equity market. In this article he notes that it
is one thing to make money when debt is cheap, but another when capital
costs rise. While he focusses on private equity, and leveraged deals,
his observations are relevant for businesses in general and therefore
relevant generally to investors and analysts.
Bankers have always got flak from charging interest. This is inappropriate
because everyone values time and that is what interest accounts for.
While the subprime implosion rattles markets, new research from a case
study in South Africa shows that lending to the poor benefits them.
And is cost effective for the lender to take on extra risk. The
Economist's summary of the research is here.
Responsible Investing
A few anecdotal benchmarks on the SRI market are worth noting.
The size of the assets under management is now estimated to top $ 1,000
billion and many listed companies are trading at multiples of 40 - 50
times earnings. There is no doubt that a boom in clean tech investing
has occurred since last autumn/fall when a raft of reports legitimising
climate change were released, like the Stern report and IPCC reports.
This has resulted in high valuations in both the private and public markets
and there is no doubt that expectations will not be met. It is also
fair to expect that a significant portion of the new capital will
have been wasted by encouraging businesses into gratuitous spending -
this is normal and always happens when money managers are falling over
themselves to invest (and some have little grounding in what they are
doing). With the current downturn in the market, it may be that
over the medium term (1-3 years) these investments may not perform too
badly relative to non-SRI portfolios, which would help preserve the reputation
of the sector. What is also happening though is that all mainstream
asset managers are incorporating some kind of SRI screening in all their
fund management procedures. This is simply a pragmatic and cost
effective way of reducing investment risk. It requires a more sophisticated
view of opportunities, because the analysis of non-financial dimensions
becomes more important than it has been. But investors should remember
that it is they who are driving this trend and they must remain diligent
in their selection of funds and managers.
According to a new
survey from EyeForProcurement, more than 50% of companies have policies
on greening their supply chain, and companies are nearly unanimous
in their belief that green supply chains will only continue growing.
The survey asked 188 procurement professionals, primarily in the United
States, Europe and Asia, about their companies' practices, policies and
plans for reducing the environmental impact of the materials used in their
work. The two most heavily represented sectors in the survey
were the transportation/logistics fields and the high-tech industry. The
retail and apparel sectors were minimally represented, which suggests
to the study's authors that going green is not a high priority for businesses
in that field. The vast majority of products that companies are sourcing
sustainably are packaging materials and the raw materials used in manufacturing,
with 29% and 24% of respondents purchasing those materials from sustainable
sources. Two-thirds of the professionals in the survey said
that they are practising green procurement to support their companies'
environmental or sustainability strategies, while 49% also said they're
responding to customers' interest in eco-friendly products and services.
Although companies are increasingly aware of the benefits and importance
of green procurement, most of them are only acquiring a small portion
of their materials in that way. Only 13% of respondents are sourcing half
or more of their products and services sustainably, while 55% said they
source less than 10% of green goods.
In most countries, companies have no legal responsibility to issue sustainability
reports that focus on the social, environmental, and governance ramifications
of their business activities. However, more and more companies are responding
to internal and external demands to create these reports with, for example,
almost half of the S&P 100 corporations writing sustainability reports
in 2006. A new study from GRI
and KPMG on sustainability reports notes that companies highlight new
business opportunities created by climate change and shy away from
risks associated with climate change. As you will see from
the summary information below, this is demonstrates a massive opportunity:
for some years now the opportunity to change business systems and culture
to moderate operational risk has been evident, but apparently ignored,
and the investment opportunities (other than "alternative energy") also
evidently attractive, have similarly been ignored. The GRI / KPMG
Global Sustainability Services study reviewed sustainability reports
from 50 companies that follow GRI's guidelines. The newly released research,
entitled Reporting
the Business Implications of Climate Change in Sustainability Reports
notes that 90% of surveyed reports include climate change, however, only
20% of the studies reports mention any risks to their businesses from
climate change. This lack of information on risks is in spite of evidence
from a number of sources, including the Stern Report on the Economics
of Climate Change, that say that climate change has serious ramifications
for the world's economy. The report concludes that carbon
emissions trading and credits are the most focused on as new businesses
opportunities created by climate change. Other opportunities from climate
change vary widely from sector to sector, and include hybrid cars to energy
efficient detergents.The risk that was mentioned in the reports most often
is the increase of energy costs, with about 20% of sustainability reports
mentioning rising energy bills. Very few companies mentioned the risk
of increased legal action, such as the risk of class-action lawsuits with
regard to climate change.
The World Business Council for Sustainable
Development officially launched its new Global Water Tool,
designed to help companies and organizations to map their water use and
assess risks relative to their global operations and supply chains. The
launch coincides with World Water Week in Stockholm. Companies around
the world are exposed to risk from water issues, and provision of clean
water is a rapidly growing industry. Nearly every firm is a consumer of
water at some point in its supply chain, and understanding usage of this
vital resource is becoming increasingly important. Around 10% of the world's
population currently lives under water
stress as defined by the United Nations, and the UN predicts that
by 2025, two-thirds of the earth's population will be living in areas
suffering from scarcity of water. Increased water use due to growing populations
and economic development, as well as droughts and changes caused by climate
change will likely worsen the situation. Under the old business adage
“what gets measured, gets managed”, WBCSD says the tool should help companies
better manage their water use. Better local management leads to better
global management. The tool is downloadable from www.wbcsd.org/web/watertool.htm
. The Global Water Tool allows companies to quickly and accurately
answer such key questions as: How many of our sites are in extremely water-scarce
areas? Which sites are at greatest risk? How will that look in the future?
How many of our employees live in countries that lack access to improved
water and sanitation? How many of our suppliers are in water-scarce
areas now? How many will be in 2025? It does not provide specific guidance
on local situations, which require more in-depth, systematic analysis.
The tool also enables companies to quickly and accurately: Compare their
water use (including staff presence, industrial use, and supply chain)
with validated water and sanitation availability information, both on
a country and watershed basis; Calculate water consumption and efficiency;
Establish relative water risks in their portfolio; Create key water
Global Reporting Initiative indicators, inventories, risk and performance
metrics; Enable effective communications between internal and external
stakeholders on water issues.
Standard and Poor's launched its Global Thematic Index Series, which
includes the S&P Global Clean Energy Index. Merrill Lynch expanded
its line of "green" indexes with a new product, the Energy Efficiency
Index, that tracks the growing movement to reduce energy costs and CO2
emissions. The EEI has a universe of 40 global companies found in four
sectors that should benefit from improved energy efficiency. Other
well-known indexes that follow clean energy include the WilderHill Clean
Energy Global Innovation Index, the NASDAQ Clean Edge U.S. Index, the
KLD Global Climate 100 Index and the Ardour Global Indices
If you are an SRI investor have a look at Natural
Investing. This investment advisor was launched by experienced
professionals and it seems that their work is driven by much of the empathetic
passion that drives GRI Equity. Worth a browse for private investors
and investment managers.
Venture Capital
Grant Thornton released a report on the ethics of the private equity
industry (focussed on the UK). Unfortunately their methodology
was flawed: they surveyed private equity pros and asked them if they feel
ethical! As you guessed, most private equity pros say that their
industry has “high” ethical standards. Oh dear. That doesn't
sound very ethical. As Dan Primack suggests, wouldn't it be great
to do a qualitative review of actual private equity transactions, which
would include interviews with equity sponsors, portfolio company management
and portfolio company employees. (Anyone want to sponsor us to do
such a survey?)
While risk perception has raised volatility and reduced market liquidity,
there is apparently still enough discretionary capital to raise a few
billion for restructuring private equity. Oaktree Capital
($3-5 billion), Goldman Sachs ($ 1 billion) and Lehman Brothers ($ 2 billion)
are already well on their way to closing funds totalling $ 6 - 8 billion
to buy bridge (not the road and rail kind) financing debt that has stalled
because of market concerns.
China has begun selling Yuan 600 billion ($79 billion) in bonds
to finance a state agency that will invest the country's foreign currency
reserves. The bond sale was the first tranche of a Yuan 1.55 trillion
($199 billion) basket of special treasury bonds, approved in June by China's
legislature. The interest rate is about 4.3%, matching the market
rate for long-term debt. The fund could end up managing between
$200 billion and $400 billion. China is setting up the agency, tentatively
called the State Investment Co., to make more profitable use of its $1.2
trillion in reserves, of which and estimated 70% are in U.S. Treasury
securities and other US$ assets; the remainder is thought to be in euros
and a small amount in yen.The growth in China's reserves has been driven
by its surging exports, which bring in a flood of foreign currency. That's
forcing the central bank to drain billions a month from the economy by
selling bonds to reduce pressure for prices to rise. The reserves are
growing by about $20 billion a month. Chinese officials say the
investment agency is modelled in part on Singapore's state-owned Temasek
Holdings, which invests in banks, real estate, shipping, energy and other
industries in Singapore, India, China, South Korea and elsewhere. The
investment vehicle has already made one investment, valued at $3 billion,
in the U.S. private equity investor Blackstone Group. That investment
has not panned out, as Blackstone shares have plummeted 34% since an initial
public offering in June.
US venture
capital performance continued to show positive returns across
most investment horizons ending 1Q 2007. The NVCA puts average five-year
returns for all VC at 2.7%, with far stronger performance for one-year
(18.1%), three-year (9.6%), 10-year (21%) and 20-year (16.4%). Only the
five-year underperformed the Nasdaq or S&P 500, and that can be chalked
up to venture getting hit particularly hard by the Internet bubble burst.
But after hearing the conjecture that the majority of VC funds have underperformed
for nearly a decade, Dan Primack of Thompson did some analysis and notes
the following:
"Through the end of Q1 07, funds raised between 2001 and 2007 have
a median IRR of -2.6%. Moreover, the super quartile benchmark was at just
4.1%, which means that the vast majority of VC funds raised since 2001
have underperformed a typical savings account. The data beginning in vintage
year 2003 is even worse (which is probably to be expected with the J-curve).
The median for these funds is -5.7%, with the upper quartile benchmark
at -0.2%. That’s right, more than 75% of VC funds raised since 2003 were
underwater through the end of Q3. VCs were paying relatively low valuations
for companies between 2003 and 2005 (or at least should have been), and
the IPO and M&A windows have been steadily improving. If most funds
are losing money in that environment, then what happens when some of today’s
inflated valuations – particularly in clean-tech and later-stage deals
– come home to roost?"
Venture capitalists invested $7.1 billion in 977 deals in the
second quarter of 2007 - the highest level of deals reported in a quarter
since Q3 2001 - according to the MoneyTree Report by PricewaterhouseCoopers
and the National Venture Capital Association based on data by Thomson
Financial. The quarterly strength in the number of deals was driven by
companies in the Seed and Early stages of development, which increased
by 31% from the prior quarter. Venture
Investment Q2 '07 - MoneyTree
Reklaim Technologies Inc. has secured
$7 million of a $10 million Series B round led by Goldman Sachs, according
to a regulatory filing. The US company is developing a climate-neutral
solution to recover materials and trapped energy from discarded
products such as tires, computers and automobile plastics.
HerbalScience Nutraceuticals
LLC, a Singapore-based developer of a botanical extraction technology,
has raised an undisclosed amount of convertible preferred funding, from
Aisling Capital and Weston Presidio. VentureWire reports that the deal
was $28 million for a 25% stake. BMO Capital Markets served as placement
agent.
Propel Biofuels Inc., a
developer of biodiesel pumps for existing service stations, has
raised $4.75 million in its first institutional funding round, according
to VentureWire. Backers include @Ventures and Nth Power.
Solexant Corp., a US developer
of low-cost photovoltaic cells, has raised $4.3 million in Series
A funding, according to a regulatory filing. Backers include Trident Capital,
Firelake Capital and X/Seed Capital.
HelioVolt Corp., a Texas-based
developer of thin-film photovoltaics, has raised $77 million in
Series B funding. The round was co-led by Paladin Capital Group and Masdar
Clean Tech Fund, an affiliate of the Abu Dhabi government. Series A backer
New Enterprise Associates also participated, alongside Solucar Energias,
Morgan Stanley Principal Investments, Sunton United Energy and Yellowstone
Capital.
SunEthanol, an US developer
of cellulosic ethanol production technology, has raised an undisclosed
amount of VC funding from VeraSun Energy Corp, Battery Ventures, Long
River Ventures and AST Capital.
Venture Vehicles Inc.,
a Los Angeles-based maker of "green-friendly" automobiles, has
raised $6 million in Series A funding, according to a regulatory filing.
Backers include NGEN Partners and DVC Technologies NV.
ArcLight Capital has agreed
to acquire interests in 18 geothermal, wind and solar renewable power
generation projects from Caithness
Energy LLC. The projects have an installed capacity of 824 megawatts.
No financial terms were disclosed.
Laureate Education Inc. has
completed its $3.82 billion take-private acquisition by a consortium that
included Laureate chairman and CEO Douglas Becker, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts
& Co., Citi Private Equity; S.A.C. Capital Management, SPG Partners,
Bregal Investments, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, Sterling Capital,
Makena Capital, Torreal SA, Brenthurst Funds and Vulcan Capital. Laureate
stockholders received $62 per share. Laureate is a Baltimore-based provider
of on-campus and on-line higher education.
Top
Interest Rates and Currencies
The hope of August has been that the US Fed will lower interest
rates in mid-September. I do not think this should happen, but
there might be more emotional pressure on the Fed Chair and the OMC than
we realise. A reduction in the rate would give support to the stock
market but not help improve fundamentals. In fact it would contribute
to moral hazard (as discussed above in Investment).
A rate cut will not make a difference in the credibility of the ratings,
nor will it transform bad debts into good ones. I don't think
that interest rates should come down. They are where they need to
be. And the problem in the financial markets has been over-leverage.
The lesson needs to be learnt and both lenders and creditors should be
allowed to learn.
Interest rates are not high and consumption remains strong in America.
The US economy grew at an annual rate of 4% in the second quarter,
a better performance than first thought. Revised figures from the Commerce
Department showed the economy fared better than its initial forecast of
a rate of 3.4%. The rise, eclipsing the 0.6% growth seen between
January and March, was due mainly to strong business investment.
US retail sales, which account for more than two-thirds of the US economy,
rebounded more than expected in July. Overall sales at US retailers
rose 0.3% in July, compared with June's 0.7% drop, and better than the
expected 0.2% rise. The core retail sales figure, which excludes
building materials, cars and petrol rose to 0.6% in July from 0.4% in
June. It has not yet become apparent that consumers have changed habits.
What has happened in the last few weeks is a massive injection of cash.
An estimated $ 0.5 - 1 trillion more than normal has been lent by central
banks, mainly in Europe and Japan. And the US Fed reduced the discount
rate (the rate at which it lends to banks overnight). This injection
of liquidity would normally contribute to inflation, which continues to
be undesirable. While core US consumer prices, which exclude food
and energy costs, rose by 0.1% in July, compared with market expectations
of a 0.2% expansion, and the Commerce Department said the annual level
of consumer price inflation was 1.9%, below where it stood earlier this
year and within the Fed's unofficial 1% to 2% comfort zone, as discussed
below, the annual rate will keep rising because of high inflation in the
first half of the year.
Inflation is not under control in the US. Read the following
extract from the US Bureau of Labour Statistics
July CPI report (available
in full here):
During the first seven months of 2007, the CPI-U rose at a 4.5% seasonally
adjusted annual rate (SAAR). This compares with an increase of 2.5% for
all of 2006. The index for energy, which rose 2.9% in 2006, advanced at
a 21.3% SAAR in the first seven months of 2007 despite registering declines
in each of the last two months. Petroleum-based energy costs increased
at a 36.9% annual rate and charges for energy services rose at a 3.8%
annual rate. The food index has increased at a 5.7% SAAR thus far this
year, following a 2.1% rise for all of 2006. Excluding food and energy,
the CPI-U advanced at a 2.3% SAAR in the first seven months, following
a 2.6% rise for all of 2006. The food and beverages index rose 0.3% in
July. The index for food at home, which increased 0.6% in June, rose 0.1%
in July. Another sharp increase in the index for dairy products was nearly
offset by declines in the indexes for fruits and vegetables, for meats,
poultry, fish, and eggs, and for nonalcoholic beverages. The index
for dairy products increased 2.7%, following a 3.2% increase in June.
Milk prices rose 6.4% and have risen 16.9% since the beginning of the
year.
Moving on to exchange rates, the dollar has not deteriorated despite
market volatility. But in order to continue borrowing at reasonable
interest rates America, which borrows a $2.5 billion daily from abroad
to service its burgeoning debt, needs to retain credibility with its overseas
creditors, especially Asian nations running huge trade surpluses. A cessation
of foreign lending would force the Fed to raise interest rates to attract
money, accelerating the economic rebalancing in the US. The U.S.
debt situation is such that the Chinese would not even need to "dump dollars"
to precipitate a meltdown but could simply refuse to extend further credit:
They could cease purchasing additional Treasury Bonds and Treasury Bills,
without selling any excess inventory. China has the far stronger hand,
because a run on the dollar would merely reduce China's gigantic cash
surplus while increasing America's debt burden to astronomical levels.
Last
month we shared some data on foreign exchange holdings and global investment
patters which indicate that a reallocation from US dollars to other
currencies is occurring and underpinned not just by the $5 trillion or
so held by central banks, but also by the $ 20 trillion of so in US real
money management accounts. The recent moderation of equity markets
has reinforced this rationale. Investors, including those in the
US, are likely to be reconsidering their risk profile of US markets
and others that are exposed to housing downturns and rising capital costs.
At the same time they will be looking for good returns. Both of
these criteria can be satisfied by investing in emerging markets, and
the wealthiest have access to these markets both in listed markets and
also in direct investment (PE and VC) markets. I expect that this
reallocation will accelerate and a portion of capital divested in recent
weeks may be reinvested in emerging markets.
China's inflation rate jumped to 5.6% in July, year-on-year, up
from 4.4% in June and its highest level for more than ten years. Rising
food prices were to blame and the central bank expressed concern.
China raised interest rates for the fourth time this year. This
is part of an ongoing policy to keep inflation moderate, manage exchange
rates and provide some rein on the booming stock market. Capital
controls were also eased by allowing investment by mainland nationals
in the Hong Kong market. This may take some of the pressure of Shanghai
and Shenzhen and even provide a boost to Hong Kong.
Japan's economy grew by only 0.1% in the second quarter, below
market expectations of 0.2%. Japan's weak 2Q economic growth was led by
modest exports. The yen has appreciated making goods more expensive
abroad. The government's latest economic figures came as the Bank of Japan
announced a second cash injection of 600 billion yen (US$5 billion) into
money markets, its second intervention in two trading days.The Bank of
Japan had been expected to raise interest rates from 0.5% to 0.75% this
month, but the weak data and volatile markets changed this and rates were
kept at 0.5%.
A brief quote
from Greg Weldon (whose technical analysis is available via weldononline.com)
regarding the depreciating economics of the world's second largest economy,
Japan, is worth noting.
Deflation is taking hold again in Japan ... ... while wealth disinflation
is becoming more acute in the US stock market. It is not coincidence that
both ... Japanese and US bank shares, brokerage shares, and consumer-retail
sector funds are leading the global markets lower. This is a major macro-message
being sent to investors around the world. A move in USD-JPY below 118
might just cause the next shoe to drop. Expect it.
The rate of economic growth in the Euro area slowed to 0.3% in
the second quarter compared with the previous quarter. This is half
the QoQ increases seen for at least the previous 4 quarters, raising some
doubts about whether the European Central Bank would soon raise interest
rates, although they are still modest.
In the UK, a supermarket price war helped the UK's rate of inflation
to fall to 1.9% in July, well below analysts' forecasts. The Consumer
Price Index dropped sharply from June's level of 2.4%, raising hopes that
further rises in interest rates will not be needed. It is the first time
UK inflation has fallen below the government's target of 2% since March
2006. The Retail Price Index, a measure often used in wage bargaining,
fell to 3.8% in July from 4.4% the previous month. The impact of
the price war demonstrates the power and influence of the major chains
and raises the issue of market control. (We have certainly seen
the effect in our local town (in Ireland) as the inception of two main
stream supermarkets in the past year or so has put three town square convenience
stores out of business.)
Top
Trade and FDI
A growing concern I now have is that the US policy will cause the
problems in that economy to spread beyond the limit of the current
imbalances It appears that they are doing this by trying to restrict
trade with China (and others) through media and legal tactics. The
problem of safety issues in Chinese goods, from food to toys, obviously
needs attention but it has been blown in to a media attack on China that
is imbalanced and will have the consequence of reducing the needed flow
of lower cost goods from China, thereby reducing consumer choice, increasing
inflation and probably reducing consumption too. The other tactic
is to litigate through the WTO against IP pirates in China. For
similar reasons this will not open China's market to the likes of Microsoft
because people in China simply can not afford the full cost of their products.
It will also reduce the market share of these brands in China, which will
be replaced by lower cost alternatives, in the case of software by open-source
versions. And of course there are the complaints about the value
of the Yuan. But here again as we have noted before, it is not certain
that the currency is so far from equity, it is also destabilising when
currencies change too fast. And of course more expensive Yuan, means
more expensive imports in the US, which means inflation. If global
trade is stifled because the US effectively stops trading with China,
then there will a much more severe and unpredictable meltdown of the global
financial system.
The US has made a formal request to the World Trade Organization for
it to crack down on copyright piracy and counterfeiting in China.
It says that China's failure to enforce copyright laws is costing software,
music and book publishers billions of dollars in lost sales. The US also
argues that China makes it hard for legitimate firms to operate.
The two countries have been in talks for four months, since the US first
launched its challenge. The US now wants the WTO's Dispute Settlement
Body to intervene.
But more revealing is that the US Congress is considering legislation
that will implement tariffs on Chinese goods if China does not revalue
its currency. There is a high level of rhetoric from both US political
parties and presidential candidates, but it is unlikely that the US will
actually be able to get such legislation passed into law. Even if such
legislation passed Congress (a possibility) it would be vetoed by President
Bush. That means that any real change would not be possible until some
time in the middle of 2009, by which time the situation will be unpredictably
different. And remember that the Yuan has already dropped almost
10% in the last two years since the Chinese started their policy of a
crawling peg. The bi-partisan economic illiterates in Congress
are effectively advocating lost American jobs and increasing inflationary
pressure. Protectionism has a very high cost.
In another protectionist initiative, the Bush administration is pressing
the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to examine the behaviour
of sovereign wealth funds, which control up to $2.5 trillion in investments,
and develop possible codes of conduct for them. Among the proposed rules
would be an obligation to disclose investment methods and to avoid interfering
in a host country’s politics. Efforts this year by China and Singapore
to buy stakes in Barclays Bank in Britain, and by Qatar to take over Sainsbury’s
supermarket chain in Britain, have caused little stir in Britain. Neither
Dubai’s bid for Barney’s, the American retailer, nor China’s purchase
of nearly a 10% stake in Blackstone this year has produced an outcry in
the United States, although there has been some repercussion in China
over the recent losses in the Blackstone investment. But in Germany, where
there is concern about Russia’s buying up pipelines and energy infrastructure
and squeezing Europe for political gain, Chancellor Angela Merkel has
warned that purchases by foreign governments or government-controlled
companies pose a risk. Probably the most political turbulence caused
by a sovereign wealth fund occurred when Temasek Holdings, the state-owned
investment branch of Singapore, purchased a stake in the company owned
by the prime minister of Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra. The deal fed antigovernment
demonstrations that led to his ouster in a coup in 2006. The worry is
that beyond the possibility of foreign funds pushing up prices on bonds,
stocks and real estate, they might exercise inappropriate control politically
or in the private sphere.
Another twist has occurred in the tale of WTO degeneration. The
failure of Doha has been largely because of the unwillingness of rich
countries to stop subsidising their industries, particularly commodity
industries like cotton. Now the US has found itself in an escalating
dispute over internet gambling, which should be open according to WTO
agreement, but which the US has prohibited using a virtually unused clause
in the treaty. At the end of July Antigua and others which had significant
revenues from on-line gambling businesses, launched formal arbitration
proceedings to recover lost revenue. Unless the US compensates these
jurisdictions, or changes its laws, the message that the WTO is a tool
of US convenience will again be reiterated.
Meanwhile CARE, one of the world’s biggest charities, is walking away
from some $45 million a year in federal financing, because American food
aid is not only plagued with inefficiencies, but also may hurt some of
the very poor people it aims to help. CARE’s decision is focused
on the practice of selling tons of often heavily subsidized American farm
products in African countries that in some cases, it says, compete with
the crops of struggling local farmers. The charity says it will phase
out its use of the practice by 2009. But it has already deeply divided
the world of food aid and has spurred growing criticism of the practice
as Congress considers a new farm bill. Under the system, the United States
government buys the goods from American agribusinesses, ships them overseas,
mostly on American-flagged carriers, and then donates them to the aid
groups as an indirect form of financing. The groups sell the products
on the market in poor countries and use the money to finance their antipoverty
programs. It amounts to about $180 million a year.
The death
of the WTO's Doha talks is a primer by the BBC on the WTO and the
outlook for global trade. Most will be familiar with the situation,
and this is a convenient summary.
In a direct attack against India's right to protect public health, Novartis
had challenged an Indian-law that allows the country to refuse a patent
for an existing medicine when it is not truly innovative. However,
the verdict
by an Indian court against the Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis
is an important victory for global public health, according to international
aid agency Oxfam and the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility,
an institutional investor organization. The decision will protect India's
special role as the world's leading provider of affordable medicines to
people who depend on inexpensive medicines as their only means of treatment.
With this ruling, Novartis and the pharmaceutical industry have been given
a clear message to respect developing countries' legal right to use the
World Trade Organization TRIPS (trade-related intellectual property) safeguards
in order to strike a fair balance between protecting public health and
intellectual property, noted Oxfam and ICCR. India, sometimes
known as the 'pharmacy of the developing world' due to its massive generic
drug production industry, supplies most of the world's affordable generics
to developing countries where patented medicines are priced out of most
people's reach. More than two-thirds of the generic medicines produced
in India are exported to developing countries at a fraction of the cost
of patented brand medicines. Multilateral and bilateral aid programs,
such as the US AIDS treatment program (PEPFAR), UNICEF and Doctors without
Borders, rely heavily on Indian generics.
Top
Activities and Media
August provided a break in the normal routine for us. While our
children escaped to visit grandparents with Mum, Dad stayed home to feed
the chickens and relive a bachelor lifestyle. What a treat to be
woken by the sun instead of the sons! It allowed time to review
our web presence and IT, testing the new Fedora distribution (excellent)
and preparing the website for a blog. I also set up a bit-torrent
client which has been a boon for downloads. The weather was boring
with low temperatures and regular showers, but vegetables in the garden
continued growing - harvesting tomatoes and French beans started.
I love this season when much of our food is fresh from the garden and
it just tastes good. As the month drew to an end we had a couple
of birthday parties just before returning to the school routine.
Here are a couple of media links. Goodsearch
is a search engine which contributes a portion or revenue to a (US) charity
of your choice. Why not check it out? This book
review of A Billion Bootstraps: Microcredit, Barefoot Banking and
the Business Solution for Ending Poverty is a useful smmary in itself.
And if you are pursuing or considering micro-finance it might be worth
buying the book.
The 11th Hour was released.
It is a more visually striking story of our inconvenient truth. To
judge from all the gas-guzzlers still fouling the air and the plastic
bottles clogging the dumps, it appears that the news that we are killing
ourselves and the world with our greed and garbage hasn’t sunk in.
This movie is an unnerving, surprisingly affecting documentary about our
environmental calamity and is worth viewing. It may not change your life,
but it may inspire you to recycle that old slogan-button your folks pinned
on their jeans back in the day: If you’re not part of the solution,
you’re part of the problem.
We got to see Sicko - definitely Michael Moore-ish. Whether you
like him or not, its a stimulating story.
Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom and Trinity College bioethicist
James Hughes teamed in 2004 to found a forum for a diversity of "voices
arguing for a responsible, constructive approach to emerging human enhancement
technologies. We believe that technological progress can be a catalyst
for positive human development so long as we ensure that technologies
are safe and equitably distributed." The Institute
for Ethics and Emerging Technologies covers special research areas
like Securing the Future, Envisioning the Future, Rights of the Person,
and Longer, Better Lives. Essays, white papers, newsletters, discussion
forums, and links to projects and events explore a variety of future-oriented
issues where technology and society meet, such as the Singularity, human
longevity,climate change, and terrorism.
And a quick heads up (given the concern by many about what's happening
in teh world of finance) ... The World
Investment Prospects to 2011: Foreign Direct Investment and the Challenge
of Political Risk is to be released on September
5.
Please forward this publication to associates, family and friends, print
it, and share it.
This is a publication of: Astraea, Ireland + 353 59 9155037 Subscribe
and Unsubscribe
Top
This report has been prepared for information purposes and is not an
offer, or an invitation or solicitation to make an offer to buy or sell
any securities. This report has not been made with regard to the specific
investment objectives, financial situation or the particular needs of
any specific persons who may receive this report. It does not purport
to be a complete description of the securities, markets or developments
or any other material referred to herein. The information on which this
report is based, has been obtained from publicly available sources and
private sources which may have vested interests in the material referred
to herein. Although GRI Equity and the distributors have no specific reasons
for believing such information to be false, neither GRI Equity nor the
distributors have independently verified such information and no representation
or warranty is given that it is up-to-date, accurate and complete. GRI
Equity, associates of GRI Equity, the distributors, and/or their affiliates
and/or their directors, officers and employees may from time to time have
a position in the securities mentioned in this report and may buy or sell
securities described or recommended in this report. GRI Equity, associates
of GRI Equity, the distributors, and/or their affiliates may provide investment
banking services, or other services, for any company and/or affiliates
or subsidiaries of such company whose securities are described or recommended
in this report. Neither GRI Equity nor the distributors nor any of their
affiliates and/or directors, officers and employees shall in any way be
responsible or liable for any losses or damages whatsoever which any person
may suffer or incur as a result of acting or otherwise relying upon anything
stated or inferred in or omitted from this report.
Top of page.
Home
About
Resources
Investors
Businesses
Members
Admin |