Tag Archives: green
Agriculture Funds Ponder The 14 Billion Bushel Question
By: Jonathan Boyd 05 Aug 2013 Latest projections that the US will have its first ever 14 billion bushel harvest of corn in 2013 has helped drive prices on the Chicago Board of Trade exchange to their lowest since November 2010. The price fall comes as organisations such as the International Grains Council confirm that this year will see a sharp rebound in output of crops such as corn and wheat in the Northern Hemisphere, following a poor harvest in 2012. Globally, this recovery means that the world’s overall corn harvest should be high this year, ensuring a level of supply that is currently pushing down prices for forward delivery. One bushel of corn is 56lbs, or 25.4kg. According to the International Grains Council: – With record crops expected in the US, China, and Ukraine, world production is forecast to increase by 10% y/y in 2013/14 – As consumption is seen rising by 5% y/y, world stocks will be rebuilt in 2013/14, with inventories in the four main exporters forecast at a nine-year high – Global trade is forecast at a six-year high, with China a much larger buyer, but is unlikely to match the 2007/08 record as good crop prospects in some countries will cap overall import needs. Reviewing data from FE for products that invest in agriculture, some 281 funds are identified. Stripping out specialist products that invest in hogs, wheat, soybeans, sugar or other non-corn soft commodities, leaves some 219 funds. Reviewing these over a three-year period it is clear that corn has delivered some solid positive returns through products such as UBS CMCI Corn (up about 52%), ETFS Daily Leveraged Corn (50%), Source S&P GSCI Corn Total Return (43%), and ETFS Corn (40%). However, in the short term it is clear that the asset has lost pace: their respective 3-month returns are -15%, -33%, -17% and -17%. Leveraged corn has, in other words, done worst in the past few months, reflecting the downward price trend. Corn versus broader agriculture 1m 3m 6m 1yr 3yr 5yr 10yr UBS CMCI Corn USD in US -6.78 -15.47 -23.00 -28.35 52.60 ETFS Daily Leveraged Corn in EU -18.32 -33.46 -42.80 -58.87 45.90 -76.64 Source S&P GSCI Corn Total Return in US -8.71 -17.25 -23.87 -30.61 43.40 ETFS Corn USD in US -8.62 -17.09 -23.73 -30.35 40.14 -28.40 ETFS Leveraged Corn USD in US -17.20 -32.37 -46.86 -55.55 38.29 -74.93 Robeco SAM Sustainable Agribusiness Equities D EUR in EU 1.29 -1.29 2.36 8.10 28.31 CFS Wholesale Global Soft Commodity Share TR in AU 3.19 9.17 8.14 27.31 28.29 First State Global Agribusiness A GBP Acc in GB 0.75 -2.19 -2.69 10.18 28.25 KBI Inst Agri A EUR in EU -2.49 -8.63 -6.32 -1.70 28.17 34.11 Allianz Global Agricultural Trends AT USD in US 3.93 -0.75 -9.73 1.44 24.62 -3.29 Birla Sun Life Commodities Equities Global Agri Ret Gth in IN 0.23 2.41 -4.05 3.91 23.61 BlackRock Global Funds World Agriculture A2 USD in US 0.25 -1.32 -6.57 4.92 23.07 Skandia USD Allianz Global Agricultural Trends USD in US 2.48 -4.07 -11.39 -1.67 22.77 Source: FE Continue reading
Why Isn’t There More Collaboration Between Islamic Finance And SRI
By Usman Hayat, CFA Islamic finance and the forms of finance generally referred to as sustainable and responsible investing (SRI) are yet to actively collaborate with each other. One would think that to strengthen their position in a market dominated by conventional finance, Islamic finance and SRI would be sharing their successes and failures, coming together for joint ventures, and supporting each other on issues for which they have similar views. But such collaboration has not occurred. Building bridges between the two remains an opportunity that is waiting to be seized upon by the industry leaders from the two sides. Islamic finance and SRI share some obvious similarities in their objectives (do good; avoid harm), methods (e.g., exclusionary screening) and claims (such as emphasis on ethics). Both seem to trigger similar expectations among their proponents of being ethically different from conventional finance. They also face similar criticism of not being able to live to up to these expectations as shown by the “form versus substance” debate in Islamic finance and “greenwashing” debate in SRI. Although SRI is older and larger than Islamic finance, which is estimated between USD $1 to $2 trillion in terms of global assets, both are relatively small and growing segments. Why then are Islamic finance and SRI not actively collaborating? Some apparent reasons are different countries of concentration, differences in target markets, preoccupation with their own growth, perception and reputational concerns, cultural barriers, lack of initiative by industry leaders, and simply insufficient understanding of each other. But in the absence of survey data, it is difficult to get to the bottom of this lack of collaboration. Islamic finance is practiced by international financial institutions offering conventional finance, such as HSBC. It has also drawn increasing interest from other international organizations, such as the World Bank , which has organized an annual conference with the Islamic standard setter, Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI). Similarly, many conventional financial institutions are active in SRI. For instance, Goldman Sachs has participated in the first social impact bond in the United States, it has its 10,000 Women initiative , and its asset management arm is a signatory to UN Principles for Responsible Investment . If both Islamic finance and SRI can work with the leading and sometimes controversial faces of conventional finance, why can’t they work with each other? At times, we do observe financial products that meet some traditional Islamic and modern environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria . For instance, the Sustainable Resources Fund, which was launched in 2012, invests in a mix of agro-forestry, land, and sustainable agricultural sectors, and it is supposed to appeal to both Islamic and “green” investors. Similarly, there are increasing news reports about green sukuk — Islamic financial certificates that are also environmentally friendly — and just last year an Australian solar company tapped the huge Islamic finance market to fund projects in Indonesia . Other earlier examples include the Dow Jones Islamic Sustainability Index introduced in 2006. Nonetheless, such examples remain rare. The fields’ general lack of interaction can also be observed in professional education. For instance, the curricula for the Sustainable Investment Professional Certification Program (offered by the John Molson School of Business) and the Islamic Finance Qualification (offered by the Chartered Institute for Securities & Investment) have limited, if any, content about each other. The same trend is observed in industry reports, even in a country like the United Kingdom, which is home to both SRI and Islamic finance. For instance, a 2012 report on Islamic finance by TheCityUK does not talk about other forms of ethical finance, and the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association’s annual review does not talk about Islamic finance. Unsurprisingly, one sees the same trend of lack of interaction in industry conferences in Islamic finance and SRI. There are, of course, differences between Islamic finance and SRI. One significant difference is that the concerns about Islamic finance go beyond the purpose of financing and also cover its structure. This is because of Islamic prohibitions of riba and excessive gharar , which are generally interpreted to include lending money on interest and the trading of risk. Also, the exclusionary screening applied in Islamic finance goes beyond the usual suspects (such as alcohol, tobacco, and gambling) and covers conventional financial services because of prohibition of riba . However, the current form-oriented and legalistic compliance in Islamic finance that often has little effect on economic substance of transactions suggests that these prohibitions cannot explain the lack of collaboration with SRI. Recently, we had two experts, one on Islamic finance and one on impact investing, at CFA Institute Middle East Investment Conference . Speaking on Islamic finance in the global economy, Ibrahim Warde, professor at Tufts University, was clear that offering social value ought to be a part of Islamic finance . Talking about impact investing, Harry Hummels, professor at Maastricht University and a European liaison for Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN), said that it is intending and measuring a positive impact on society that defines impact investment , and by implication Islamic finance could be structured as impact investing. Listening to Warde and Hummels reinforced the idea that there is room for collaboration between Islamic finance and SRI, and at the core of expectations from them is the desire to see finance making a positive difference for society. In London this month, there are two significant events planned: one on impact investing and the other on Islamic finance. First is the GIIN Investor Forum on 10–11 Oct, to be held in partnership by the Global Impact Investing Network and the City of London Corporation (which also has an Islamic finance secretariat). Second is the World Islamic Economic Forum on 29–31 October , a mega Islamic finance event that will be hosted in a country without a Muslim majority for the first time. At this stage, the most likely scenario is that the two events will take place independently of each other with no planned interaction. Had Islamic finance and SRI actively collaborated, then these two events in London could have been a golden opportunity for further collaboration between and growth in both fields. With so much in common between Islamic finance and SRI, and so much to gain from active collaboration with each other, bringing the two sides together is an opportunity waiting to be taken up by the leaders from the two sides. Let’s see if this opportunity will indeed be realized, who those leaders will be, and most importantly what gains will be brought about by active collaboration. Continue reading
Stobart Biomass Announces Wales Waste Wood Deal
30 September 2013 Wood By Michael Holder Stobart Biomass has signed a 15-year feedstock contract for the 14.7MW Western Bioenergy Limited biomass facility in South Wales, which will see a ‘significant’ increase in the amount of waste wood processed at the plant. Around 150,000 tonnes of virgin and waste feedstock will be provided by Stobart under the contract, which will last for the lifetime of the facility and eventually see it accept around 55% grade A waste wood. According to Stobart, the contract initially requires a mix of 80% virgin wood and 20% grade A recycled wood, moving to 57% and 43% respectively following planned upgrades to the plant, which are due to begin in summer 2014. The biomass fuel company, a subsidiary of Stobart Group, will supply around 50% of the feedstock itself and manage and process the remainder, which will be supplied by an unnamed third party. At present, Western Bionergy gives the Forestry Commission as the largest single supplier to the plant. Furthermore, Stobart Group’s estates division has invested £800,000 to take a ‘small’ stake in the the Port Talbot plant, which has just been acquired by Green Investment Bank (GIB)’s fund, Greensphere Capital LLP. Andrew Tinkler, Stobart Group chief executive officer, said: “This is the first biomass supply contract with Greensphere under our Master Framework Agreement and represents another step in the development of our partnership in this growing market. We are pleased to have been able to make an investment in the project, which we expect to result in attractive returns for the Group.” Productive Operational since 2008, the £33 million Western Bioenergy Limited plant produces enough electricity to power 28,000 homes and was described as the first commercial-scale power station of its kind in Wales. Greensphere announced today (September 30) the plant upgrade is being part-financed by an £11 million investment provided by the Greensphere-managed UK Green and Sustainable Waste and Energy Investment Limited Partnership (UKGSWEI) fund. The GIB said the overall amount invested in the plant was commercially sensitive, but co-investment has also been provided by Signia Wealth Management as well as Stobart. Shaun Kingsbury, chief executive, UK Green Investment Bank, said: “This investment will secure the long-term future of an important Welsh renewable energy plant and will improve its efficiency and sustainability. “The Greensphere fund was set up, in part, to help support the UK’s waste wood biomass sector and its first acquisition of an operational asset is an important step.” The plant was purchased by Greensphere from a consortium of South Wales timber company Western Log Group and renewable energy investment firm Good Energies, operating as Western Bioenergy. Related links: Stobart Group Greensphere Capital LLP Divya Seshamani, managing partner, Greensphere Capital LLP, added: “We see the Port Talbot plant as a cornerstone of the waste-wood-to-energy platform we are building in this sector.” Greensphere was set up in 2012 with an initial fund of £30 million to invest in energy-from-waste projects, namely anaerobic digestion (AD) and waste wood biomass developments (see letsrecycle.com story). The Port Talbot biomass plant is the fund’s second investment. Continue reading