Author: itsupport

Digital Banking Awards 2020

Posted on by itsupport

The banking industry grappled with unheard-of disruption in 2020: from responding to COVID-19 to the stampede for ESG investment, there was a voracious appetite for new answers to financial risk. But the journey – particularly for some – has been especially tough. As is, in some cases, the pressure bearing down from regulators and government: get the service offer right first time or risk punishing fines and media humiliation. Equally, the opportunities and reward for a relevant product that captures the consumer’s confidence are still there. Innovate or die is a tired axiom but behind the fatigue of the words lie huge prizes.

 

Fintech scrutiny is rising
Where does the present adversity leave us as we look back upon what has been, for some, an anxious year? Millions are on furlough and the survival of many businesses hangs in the balance. Despite out-of-this-world technology, the pitfalls of the banking market still expose the inexperienced to bleak realities. New entrants want growth and customer trust. They also need to put capital to good use. This double pressure is new ground for some banking fintechs. Out-of-this-world tech may not be enough for all. Then there is the issue of the economy, wherever your banking clients are in the world. A report from McKinsey & Company recently documented the changing face of opportunity and how switched on organisations are in managing it. “Citizens everywhere are demanding more of companies and reminding them, with due respect to Milton Friedman, that the business of business is now more than just business.”

 

Importance of Gen Z
In terms of banking, this will put more consumers in control of their financial journey and financial wellbeing. But which banking businesses, specifically, stand to gain? For example, both digital and non-digital banking players are desperate to build long-term relationships with Generation Z. How many of these banks know how to talk to Gen Z, let alone employ and keep them?

Gen Z grew up in an era of soaring asset prices where families struggled to keep up. A savings culture is deeply instilled for many Gen Z’ers. A lack of work and all-round options due to the pandemic is hitting this generation hard. But it’s also a generation that’s digitally native, adept at creating value out of little. Barring the essentials, an internet connection is all many need to flourish. Stock options and fancy add-ons are not so interesting, but old-style stability is.

In the background lies the remainder of a dark winter and a global health crisis still gathering pace. Many banks and financial players have come through multiple lockdowns and massive financial uncertainty with better earnings than expected. But the true economic fall-out of COVID-19 is still incalculable. One thing is certain: there are more global jolts to come.

The World Finance Digital Banking Awards 2020 arrive at an alarming time, for just about everyone. But bringing what is ‘good’ – things such as sustainability – to the fore will help. In fact, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) predicts it may be the opportunity of the century, declaring that more than 50 percent of European fund assets will be ESG-denominated by 2025.

Environmental, social and governance funds (ESG) have moved well away from their narrow ‘do-good’ straitjacket. But financial players who underestimate the meaning of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ investment do so at their peril because these values now travel well beyond, for example, decarbonisation or arms sales.

‘Good’ might address racism, both covert and overt. The massive take-up of Black Lives Matter proves this. Or transgender and LGBT issues. Even what you eat – meat or vegan burgers, for example. And be aware, this list is lengthening. Just how these issues are measured is fraught with risk and complexity. Ratings systems are in their infancy (and set to spawn their own sub-industry). But the central tenet is fairness.

 

Old order upended
In other words, the deployment of capital, digital or otherwise, is being shaped by agendas that stretch well beyond the narrow confines of price-to-earnings values, cash flow and liquidity-solvency metrics. Even traditional asset allocation models. While those values still matter, credibility, empathy and transparency are now also part of the mix – and a growing one. The new social-financial contract is also being driven by regulation. PwC says the emergence of a new sustainable finance policy in Europe will see “a significant impact not only on products but on financial agents – MiFID firms, insurance brokers – and fiduciary investors – insurance companies, pension funds – at the same time.”

So a massive wall of ESG money is on the march – and digital banking players will want to attract as much of it as they can. The opportunities are staggering, as is the potential for out performance. While the new landscape enlarges and consolidates, unsustainable industries may rapidly wither as non-compliant sectors of the economy are rammed by legislation, fines and taxation. Institutional investors, you can be sure, will not want to risk being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

Digitally redefined
The digital banking concerns of 2019 were increasingly focused on biometric and AI-based issues, not to mention big data – trends that World Finance has trenchantly covered for some time. But all of these issues have now been supercharged by COVID-19.

For financial digital players, this has meant an opportunity to use AI to evaluate a business’ ability to withstand a pandemic – or even supply relief to other businesses. Some of this new thinking has been powered by social distancing. But much of the creativity has simply been down to the need for capital redistribution and compliance in an easy-to-access digital format. In Africa this has been going on for years in the form of micro and mobile payments; M-Pesa is a good example.

Where things have become more advanced is in the possibility of fintech in healthcare or in lending for larger sums, like mortgages. “Examples of these innovative partnerships already exist, like the ones Walmart has with PayPal and Green Dot [world’s largest pre-paid debit card company],” said a recent Deloitte report, Beyond COVID-19, New Opportunities for Fintech Companies. “There are myriad opportunities,” the report added, “for fintech to collaborate with partners in other areas – for example with the big technology firms – especially on a global scale.”

 

Stability 2.0
But no amount of financial innovation thrives without a stable domestic environment. If economic governance is robust then business, even in the grip of a worldwide pandemic, has more opportunity to succeed and grow.

Smartphone technology, meanwhile, is helping many people take charge of their lives, widening opportunity with access to capital at reasonable cost, throwing off tiresome legacy limits that once held so many back. Wherever we live, innovation and competition is repurposing almost every banking service there is. The World Finance Digital Banking Awards 2020 celebrates this progress in all its diversity, those at the epicentre of this digital banking turmoil. Their response to unprecedented challenges is impressive and innovative and deserves to be celebrated.

 

World Finance Digital Banking Awards 2020

Best Mobile Banking Apps

Andorra
MoraBanc App – MoraBanc

Armenia
Ameria Mobile Banking – Ameriabank

Botswana
SC Mobile – Standard Chartered

Brazil
CAIXA Tem app – CAIXA Tem

Brunei
Baiduri b.Digital Personal – Baiduri Bank

Bulgaria
m-Postbank – Postbank

Chile
BBVA Chile – BBVA Chile

China
Ping An Pocket Bank app – Ping An Bank

Costa Rica
Banca Movil BAC Credomatic – BAC Credomatic

Dominican Republic
Banreservas – Banreservas

El Salvador
Banca Movil BAC Credomatic – BAC Credomatic

Germany
DKB-Banking – Deutsche Kreditbank

Ghana
SC Mobile – Standard Chartered

Greece
NBG Mobile Banking – National Bank of Greece

Guatemala
Banca Movil BAC Credomatic – BAC Credomatic

Honduras
Banca Movil BAC Credomatic – BAC Credomatic

Hong Kong
DBS digibank app – DBS Bank

Indonesia
OCTO Mobile – PT Bank CIMB Niaga

Ivory Coast
SC Mobile – Standard Chartered

Kenya
PesaPap – Family Bank

Mexico
BBVA Mexico – BBVA Mexico

Myanmar
KBZPay – KBZ

Nicaragua
Banca Movil BAC Credomatic – BAC Credomatic

Nigeria
OneBank – Sterling Bank

Pakistan
HBL Mobile – HBL

Panama
Banca Movil BAC Credomatic – BAC Credomatic

Portugal
ActivoBank – ActivoBank

Qatar
QIB Mobile – Qatar Islamic Bank

Spain
EVO Banco Movil – EVO Banco

Sri Lanka
People’s Wave – People’s Bank

Switzerland
UBS Welcome – UBS

Tanzania
SC Mobile – Standard Chartered

Turkey
Garanti BBVA Mobile – Garanti BBVA

UAE
Mashreq Neo – Mashreq Bank

Uganda
SC Mobile – Standard Chartered

UK
Lloyds Bank: by your side – Lloyds Banking Group

USA
Bank of America Mobile Banking – Bank of America

Zambia
Atlas Mara Zambia Mobile Banking – Atlas Mara

Zimbabwe
SC Mobile – Standard Chartered

 

Best Consumer Digital Banks

Andorra
MoraBanc

Armenia
Ameriabank

Botswana
Standard Chartered

Brazil
Caixa Tem

Bulgaria
Postbank

Chile
BBVA Chile

China
Ping An Bank

Costa Rica
BAC Credomatic

Dominican Republic
Banreservas

El Salvador
BAC Credomatic

Germany
Deutsche Kreditbank

Ghana
Standard Chartered

Greece
National Bank of Greece

Guatemala
BAC Credomatic

Honduras
BAC Credomatic

Hong Kong
DBS Bank

Indonesia
PT Bank CIMB Niaga

Ivory Coast
Standard Chartered

Kenya
Family Bank

Mexico
BBVA Mexico

Myanmar
KBZ

Nicaragua
BAC Credomatic

Nigeria
Sterling Bank

Pakistan
HBL

Panama
BAC Credomatic

Portugal
ActivoBank

Qatar
Qatar Islamic Bank

Spain
EVO Banco

Sri Lanka
People’s Bank

Switzerland
UBS

Tanzania
Standard Chartered

Turkey
Garanti BBVA

UAE
Mashreq Bank

Uganda
Standard Chartered

UK
Lloyds Banking Group

USA
Bank of America

Zambia
Atlas Mara

Zimbabwe
Standard Chartered

 

Best Use of Social Media

Pakistan
HBL

Investment Management Awards 2020

Posted on by itsupport

In many ways the last 12 months have been an inspirational experience. The world has collectively banded together to fight an invisible, destructive force. Vaccine development has exceeded even the best predictions, and while collective lockdowns have not been popular, they have been immensely effective at slowing the virus. The world has experienced a mobilisation of resources towards a common enemy in an effort that has only ever been seen during wartime. Frankly, the scale of work can only be matched by the scope of the tragedy COVID-19 has inflicted on so many families.

It is not controversial to say that the year 2020 is one that will never be forgotten. We have reshaped how we live our lives, in some ways permanently, and been provided a moment of reflection. What is truly important? What world do I want for my children? What can I do to create a better future? These are the questions that investors are asking both themselves and the people in charge of their portfolios. Technological development and innovation are inevitable, and have only accelerated due to COVID-19, but what will be more impactful are the changes to the fundamental motivations of investors.

This year the World Finance Investment Management Awards are spotlighting the firms that are answering these questions and exceeding clients’ new expectations. These firms are not only keeping their customers informed and safe by using digital channels of communication, but they are taking into consideration that the core reason many of their customers come to them is changing. These businesses know that their clients care about their future, both financially and existentially, and are rising to meet the challenge.

 

Bounce back
Back in 2014, the future of the wealth management sector looked very promising. According to PricewaterhouseCooper’s Asset Management 2020: A Brave New World report, the sector was set for a record-breaking year. Global investable assets were expected to increase to reach more than $100trn by 2020, with a compound annual interest rate of six percent. Sophisticated new tools and analytics were expected to revolutionise how the industry operates, and companies in the asset management space would transform into a proactive force for good.

It’s surprising how much of the prediction holds true. In August 2020, Boston-based research firm Cerulli Associates placed the total value of assets under management as $102.7trn in 2020, admittedly almost $1.7trn down from the previous year. PwC’s 2014 report also accurately predicted the value of technology in the modern asset management environment. Thanks to the use of technologies such as data mining and customer engagement systems, service delivery has become almost an entirely online process.

For firms that heeded this warning, the COVID-19 pandemic may not have been the catastrophic blow many expected. As the world locked down, people with assets under management were suddenly not only unsure of what investments made sense, but they were also prevented from going into a branch or office to receive some personal guidance. Digital systems obviously avoid this problem, but the firms who were not already fully digitally attuned were suddenly caught out.

 

Asia first
The COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented, making historic comparisons difficult, but Asia paints a clear picture for the rest of the world when it comes to navigating into a COVID-normal environment. As the first continent in and first continent out, what happens in the region will be of significant interest to managers in the US and Europe. A recent McKinsey & Company report titled: Asia wealth management post-COVID-19: Adapting and thriving in an uncertain world, reveals how quickly markets can recover from the devastating COVID blow. According to McKinsey & Company, investor wealth in Asian equity markets declined by approximately 10 to 15 percent between February and April 2020. China was, unsurprisingly, the biggest contributor to this fall both in terms of investors’ portfolios and economic activity. However, by June 2020, investments began to return to an upwards direction, indicating a positive sign for the sector at large.

The report flags several areas of concern. The first is retaining investors’ trust in financial institutions. Many will have memories of the 2008 global financial crisis and the doubts that were cast on the solvency of so many organisations. With COVID-19 acting as a catalyst for immense disruption, even greater than what was seen in 2008, wealth managers will need to do a lot to reassure their clients and keep them from panicking. In a medium-term scenario, identifying new growth opportunities will be the next priority as investors look to make sense of a new reality. Finally, after the industry has found its feet, competition will resume. The lingering question is what a COVID-normal world will look like. From a business sense, the shift to a digital-first model seems to be permanent. The industry was already heading towards digital communication and analytics as the primary form of interaction, but the current environment has all but guaranteed this will be the main form of engagement from now on. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way we look at risks. It’s clear that the world faces a number of existential threats to our safety, both physical and financial, that have the potential to shut down business overnight. This changed environment will alter the risks that people, investors and the broader market are willing to tolerate. It’s easy to see investors shifting to a more conservative portfolio, or one driven by their values.

 

Trusted partners
Looking forward to 2021, asset managers are now identifying what new initiatives they can undertake to reassure their clients. A study undertaken by the Australian Securities Exchange shows that Australian investors have reacted to the disaster with some degree of sophistication. People around the retirement age have adjusted their expectations, while younger investors have accepted a willingness for short-term risk in exchange for potential long-term gains. In the first three months of the pandemic, more than half of investors made changes to their portfolio, and almost one out of 10 changed their entire portfolio.

Importantly, the value of an investment manager is still considered very high. The Australian Securities Exchange reports that the vast majority of investors were contacted by their adviser in the first three months of the pandemic, and the vast majority also found their adviser either ‘somewhat helpful,’ ‘very helpful’ or ‘extremely helpful.’ These results show that investors still place a high priority on the expertise of a trusted and reliable advisor. This will be important for advisors to keep in mind as they gradually continue towards a COVID-normal portfolio for their clients.

The skills that asset managers need to succeed in the future has dramatically changed. Not only do they need to be digitally literate while still providing personalised service, they need to look to the bigger picture and understand the shifting trends of the modern investor. The winners of the World Finance Investment Management Awards for 2020 are the companies most able to shift their thinking and embrace the new reality we find ourselves in.

 

World Finance Investment Management Awards 2020

Antigua & Barbuda
Global Bank of Commerce

Argentina
Puente

Bahrain
GFH Financial Group

Belgium
Ing

Brazil
Itau Asset Management

Bulgaria
Compass-Invest

Chile
BCI Asset Management

Colombia
SURA Investment Management

Croatia
ZB invest

Denmark
Danske Capital

Egypt
EFG Hermes

El Salvador
AFP Confia

Finland
LocalTapiola

Greece
Eurobank Asset Management

Ireland
Setanta investment Management

Japan
Nomura Asset Management

Kuwait
NBK Asset Management

Malaysia
AmInvest

Mexico
SURA

Netherlands
APG Asset Management

Nigeria
Investment One

Philippines
BDO Unibank

Saudi Arabia
Alistithmar Capital

Singapore
UOB Asset Management

Sweden
AXA Investment Management

Thailand
UOB Asset Management

Turkey
Ak Asset Management

UAE
AIX Investment Group

Uruguay
Puente

Vietnam
MB Securities

Wealth Management Awards 2020

Posted on by itsupport

For around the last 200 years, the wealth management industry has operated under the same basic process. Develop a personal relationship with a client, and then create a bespoke financial strategy for them using the best products and services available. It’s a tried and true model, but since the year 2000, the industry has been changing. As the clientele becomes younger, more digital-first solutions are being prioritised as investment tools. As the old money managers gradually retire, younger employees are reshaping the big firms.

While these changes have been brewing for two decades now, the issue suddenly came to a head in 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic has put immense pressure on global wealth markets, requiring them to meet new standards in digital service while offering the same exceptional customisation clients have come to expect. Very suddenly, any firms that were lagging behind were caught unprepared for our new COVID-normal reality.

After almost a year of absolute disruption, a path forward is beginning to emerge. The future of wealth management will retain the personalised service high-net worth individuals have come to expect, with the modern communication and analytics afforded by the latest technology. Customers’ needs are becoming more specific, and only the most reactive, in-touch firms will be able to find success. The 2020 World Finance Wealth Management Awards recognises the firms that are pursuing these new ways of doing business and defining the future of the industry.

 

Crisis averted
The clearest predictions for the future can often come from the past. Boston Consulting Group’s Global Wealth 2020: The Future of Wealth Management—A CEO Agenda took its 20th anniversary to look over the last two decades to help predict where the industry is going.

Notably, the industry is very well adept at managing a crisis, having endured several since the new millennium. Between the dotcom crash and September 11 attacks causing dramatic uncertainty and a slump in global equity, the sector recovered all lost ground by 2003 and was hitting new records in 2005. Once again, the sector experienced a shock in 2008 as the global financial crisis wiped away over $10trn from private wealth in under a year. Following government bailouts and new central bank policies, private wealth had fully recovered by 2010. The last decade has been filled with strife from the lingering European debt crisis and the tumultuous trade relationship between China and the US, but taking a long-term perspective paints a relatively rosy picture. The arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to put markets through their greatest test yet. Like other troubled periods in the last decade, global wealth is almost certain to contract in the short term, especially given the dramatic increase in newly unemployed people. Depending on the speed of a global recovery, and how effective various health measures are, Boston Consulting Group estimates global wealth levels will recover sometime between 2021 and 2024. In all scenarios the group projected wealth managers can anticipate a hit in the short term, but whether the sector will experience long-term damage is in the hands of health officials.

But no matter how the world progresses after COVID-19, the wealth management sector will undergo a complete personal, as well as financial, transformation. Boston Consulting Group expects wealth management to bring together client needs, interactions and services in new, innovative ways better suited for digital systems. This represents a more tailored and detailed approach in terms of information, alongside the personal service that wealth managers have been traditionally good at.

 

Shifting priorities
How the sector manages the recovery will potentially affect their success for decades to come. Capgemini’s recently released World Wealth Report 2020 paints a clear illustration of the world’s changing wealth as compared to the previous year. In 2019, high net worth individuals’ wealth and population grew by almost 9 percent globally. Geographically, North America and Europe surpassed the Asia-Pacific region for the first time since 2012. However, all of these results predate the COVID-19 pandemic. With trillions of dollars erased from global books, investment priorities have shifted.

Anirban Bose, Capgemini’s Financial Services CEO and Group Executive Board Member, said wealth managers are currently in uncharted waters. “This unpredictable period may also present opportunities for firms to reassess and reinvent their business and operating models to be more agile and resilient. Analytics and automation, as well as emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, can enable firms to enhance revenues through better client experiences while reducing costs by streamlining processes.”

Success will depend on how wealth managers change their products and services in a post-pandemic world. COVID-19 has given people a chance to reflect on what is most important in their lives, and high net worth individuals are no exception. Responding to this, Capgemini reports that high net worth investors expect to allocate 41 percent of their portfolio to sustainable investment products. The interest is not just ethical, with 39 percent of investors expecting to receive high returns from sustainable investment products and 33 percent viewing the category as less speculative. These value-driven decisions are only expected to become more common. Firms are responding to this, with 80 percent now offering sustainable investment options, but their financial results will be highly scrutinised.

 

Technology transformation
Alongside changing preferences, changing expectations subsequently follow. Given that part of the benefit of morally driven investments is seeing a positive change in the world, reporting and statistics are becoming a greater priority. Capgemini illustrates this very clearly in its recent report. Before COVID, more than 60 percent of high net worth individuals surveyed reported a lack of satisfaction when trying to access information about new wealth management offerings or market information. This was particularly true for clients aged between 50 and 59.

Another point of contention is in regards to the role of big tech. Only 26 percent of wealth managers rate big tech as a potential disruptor to their industry, while 74 percent of clients reported a willingness to at least consider a big tech alternative to their current arrangements. This is a startling gap between expectation and reality, illustrating that traditional wealth managers could soon be under threat from a sector they don’t have any insight into.

The challenge will be marrying the new expectations of digital interaction with the personalised services that go hand in hand with wealth management. The advantage of personal wealth management is the human touch that accompanies it. The do-it-yourself nature of digital systems comes close to undermining this distinct quality. The firms that will be successful in the future are the ones that can creatively bring these two concepts together in an innovative and desirable way.

In this increasingly competitive environment, an appetite for bold moves and disruptive practices is required to make headway on new products and services. As people begin to reassess their lives and portfolios for a new COVID-normal world, wealth management should expect a shake-up. The winners of the World Finance Wealth Management Awards 2020 are the businesses that are embracing the future and developing new products that exceed the expectations of both their old and new clients.

 

World Finance Wealth Management Awards 2020

Best Wealth Management Companies

Argentina
Wells Fargo Advisors

Armenia
Unibank Privé

Australia
Escala Partners

Austria
Schoellerbank

Bahamas
Scotia Wealth Management

Belgium
BNP Paribas Fortis

Bermuda
Butterfield Bank

Brazil
BTG Pactual

Canada
Northwood Family Office

Chile
BTG Pactual

China
China Merchants Bank

Denmark
Nordea

Finland
Taaleri Wealth Management

France
BNP Paribas Banque Privée

Germany
UBS

Ghana
The Royal Bank

Greece
Hellenic Asset Management

Hong Kong
BNP Paribas Wealth Management

Hungary
Hold Asset management

India
IIFL Private Wealth Management

Indonesia
Bank of Singapore

Italy
BNL BNP Paribas

Kuwait
NBK Capital

Lithuania
INVL

Luxembourg
BGL BNP Paribas

Malaysia
RHB

Mauritius
Bank One

Netherlands
ABN AMRO MeesPierson

Nigeria
FBN Quest Merchant Bank

Norway
Nordea

Oman
Bank Muscat

Philippines
Bank of the Philippine Islands

Poland
CITI Handlowy

Portugal
Santander Totta

Qatar
Qatar National Bank

Saudi Arabia
SABB

Singapore
Bank of Singapore

South Africa
Old Mutual

Spain
Santander

Sweden
Carnegie

Switzerland
BNP Paribas Wealth Management

Taiwan
Cathay United Bank

Thailand
Kiatnakin Phatra Securities

UAE
First Abu Dhabi Bank

US
Merrill Lynch Wealth Management

Vietnam
Prestige Wealth Management

 

Best Multi-Client Family Office, Liechtenstein
Kaiser Partner

Best Real Estate Investment Company
SFO Group

Most Innovative Wealth Manager, Europe
XSpot Wealth

Oil & Gas Awards 2020

Posted on by itsupport

In 2020 the world underwent countless changes, many of which we still don’t fully understand. Industries are still trying to figure out exactly what this means for the world, but perhaps none more so than the oil and gas sector. Between the collapse of global travel, the overnight shutdown of many manufacturing industries and drastic changes to how energy is consumed in the home, energy demand has fallen to a level that should have taken decades to reach.

While the industry has a track record of recovering from crises, this time is different. A 2020 McKinsey & Company report titled ‘Oil and gas after COVID-19: The day of reckoning or a new age of opportunity?’ warns that financial and structural problems have broadly left the industry in particularly poor health. Between the development of shale extraction, excesses of supply and all-too-eager financial markets, the sector was ill-equipped for a sudden shock. Combined with mounting social pressure and the gradual development of renewable alternatives, the oil and gas sector now has a challenging path ahead of it.

Despite the glum outlook, current difficulties have only accelerated a transformation that most had already accepted as inevitable. Oil and gas will undoubtedly continue to be a multi-trillion-dollar market for decades, although current factors will lead to more intense competition and a technological arms race among relatively flat demand.

COVID-19 may have made a transformation more urgent, but it presents a wealth of opportunities for companies that can accept the new normal and embrace the future. This year’s World Finance Oil and Gas Awards highlights the companies and organisations that are best equipped to thrive in this new business landscape while meeting the highest international standards.

 

Negative gains
It is no big secret that the oil and gas sector has been extremely competitive for some time now. In terms of shareholder returns, the overall industry has underperformed against the S&P 500 over the previous 15 years, according to McKinsey & Company’s 2020 report. It is a challenge for industries like these to weather a shock at the best of times, let alone an event on the scale of COVID-19. The pandemic impacted every element of the economy, although not many fared worse than oil and gas. Throughout 2020, both commodities have endured their own tribulations. In January 2020, West Texas Intermediate crude oil was hovering around $60 per barrel before experiencing an unprecedented fall in price.

As the global transport industry shut down practically overnight, prices fell to around $20 per barrel in March. However, at the end of the month, failure between Russia and Saudi Arabia, alongside OPEC, to negotiate a deal to limit production and stabilise the market destroyed any hope of an organised recovery. Instead, in April, WTI crude staged a spectacular fall to negative $37 per barrel as storage costs weighed on investors. While temporary, with prices currently back to a more reasonable $40 per barrel, investors appear to be remaining cautious.

It’s the latest chapter in a wild ride for the oil industry, with 2020 representing the third price collapse for the commodity in 12 years. As a sector closely tied to the health of the wider economy, how the world emerges into a post-COVID-19 environment will have a dramatic effect on the future of oil.

 

Turning up the heat
Gas has not fared much better. In its Gas 2020 report, the International Energy Agency described the year as a ‘meltdown’ for the gas industry. A mild winter in Europe saw a three percent year-over-year fall in demand across the continent. While a fall in prices prompted a shift from thermal energy generation to gas-fired generation, an increase in wind generation offset any gains that were made. In March, when global lockdowns truly began to set in, industrial generation substantially fell.

The news was not all grim. Switching from coal to gas in many US states led to an increase in gas-fired generation, a welcome sign for those in the industry. Between an increase in both gas-fired generation and personal electricity usage due to lockdown restrictions, the losses experienced in the US were somewhat mitigated.

Asia paints an unclear picture. While the region’s consumption appeared somewhat resilient during lockdown restrictions, much of the success was attributed to growing imports and countries increasing their stored reserves. Japan, the world’s largest liquified natural gas importer, experienced a five percent decrease in imports over levels seen during the first five months of 2019. Gas imports increased in most of Asia’s emerging markets, despite decreased demand throughout the region, suggesting the true cost of COVID-19 will be fully felt in 2021. Subsequently, most producers cut their production targets.

The International Energy Agency suggests that overall demand could fall four percent year-over-year for 2020, referring to the fall as the largest recorded annual decrease since the natural gas market developed at scale, and it could be twice as large as the fall seen during the last global financial crisis. While the industrial sector is responsible for the lion’s share of falls, every consumption category has experienced a drop.

 

Peak predictions
With 2021 looming, two questions remain: What needs to change in the oil and gas sector to make it sustainable, and how quickly do these changes need to happen? The answer to the first question is, unequivocally, do more with less. It’s a strategy the industry was already planning to undertake. In May, Mr John Browne, former BP chief executive, told the Financial Times that the COVID-19 pandemic has made the upwards trajectory of demand for oil that the industry has coasted on for over a century unlikely to continue. Instead, new behaviours created by the pandemic will permanently alter how energy is consumed. The second is a little less clear. While a peak of oil consumption has been expected for some time, many now expect it to occur sometime in the early 2030s. Between the increasing adoption of electric cars and governments taking a harsher view on emissions, change is guaranteed, although it is now approaching faster than many expected. Any hope of a ‘COVID recovery’ to pre-pandemic levels, at least in terms of oil consumption, seems increasingly unlikely.

Despite facing many of the same challenges, gas is expected to continue to grow. According to the International Energy Agency, gas is still expected to experience a compound annual growth rate of 1.5 percent per year between 2019 and 2025, revised down from a pre-COVID-19 prediction of 1.8 percent per year. With demand expected to rebound, the fast-growing Asian market is expected to be responsible for much of the ongoing demand.

As more countries move towards net-zero emission targets, oil and gas producers are beginning to move towards securing their futures. The year-over-year increases in consumption that have been the norm for the last century are destined to end. This year the World Finance Oil and Gas Awards look to celebrate the companies that are well aware of the challenges that exist and are prepared for what is coming. If the hyper-competitive environment that is predicted comes to pass, the following businesses are the ones that are guaranteeing their success into the future.

 

World Finance Oil & Gas Awards 2020

Best Fully Integrated Company
Africa: Sonangol
Asia: PETRONAS
Middle East: Aramco
Eastern Europe: Gazprom
Western Europe: Eni
Latin America: Petrobras
North America: Chevron

Best Independent Company
Africa: Seplat
Asia: Pharos Energy
Middle East: Genel Energy
Eastern Europe: Irkutsk Oil Company
Western Europe: Premier Oil
Latin America: Vista Oil & Gas
North America: PDC Energy

Best Exploration & Production Company
Africa: Oando Energy Resources
Asia: PTTEP
Middle East: ADNOC
Eastern Europe: OMV Petrom
Western Europe: Wintershall Dea
Latin America: PetroRio
North America: Occidental Petroleum

Best Downstream Company
Africa: Waltersmith Petroman Oil
Asia: Rongsheng Petro Chemical
Middle East: ADNOC
Eastern Europe: LUKOIL
Western Europe: OMV
Latin America: Grupo Dislub Equador
North America: Marathon Petroleum

Best Upstream Service & Solutions Company
Africa: Century Group
Asia: Bumi Armada Berhad
Middle East: Al Mansoori
Eastern Europe: TMC Oilfield Services & Equipment
Western Europe: Baker Hughes
Latin America: Grupo CEMZA
North America: Locus Bio-Energy Solutions

Best Drilling Contractor
Africa: ODENL
Asia: Borr Drilling
Middle East: Foresight Offshore Drilling
Eastern Europe: PNG Drilling
Western Europe: Odfjell Drilling
Latin America: Dolphin Drilling
North America: Weatherford International

Best EPC Service & Solutions Company
Africa: Oilserv Limited
Asia: Daewoo E&C
Middle East: Saipem
Eastern Europe: McDermott International
Western Europe: Wood Group
Latin America: AESA
North America: KBR

Most Sustainable Company
Africa: Axxela
Asia: PTT
Middle East: SNOC
Eastern Europe: MOL Group
Western Europe: Total
Latin America: Grupo Dislub Ecuador
North America: Petroteq Energy

Best Oil & Gas Law Firm
Africa: Olaniwun Ajayi
Asia: Ashurst
Middle East: Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett
Eastern Europe: ALRUD
Western Europe: White & Case
Latin America: Tanoira Cassagne Abogados
North America: Babst Calland

Best Investment Company
Africa: African Development Bank
Asia: Mizuho
Middle East: Mubadala Investment Company
Eastern Europe: Gazprom Neft
Western Europe: Blue Water Energy
Latin America: Aventti Strategic Partners
North America: US Energy Development Corporation

Excellence in LNG
Africa: Nigeria LNG
Asia: PETRONAS
Middle East: Qatargas
Eastern Europe: NOVATEK
Western Europe: Gasum
Latin America: Peru LNG
North America: Sempra LNG

Davos: setting the world to rights

Posted on by itsupport

In January 2020, World Finance explored what might be on the World Economic Forum (WEF) Annual Meeting agenda in January 2021. But back then, few investors and policymakers envisaged a global COVID-19 pandemic and the dramatic turn of events that would result: a severe economic slump as major economies imposed lockdowns and travel restrictions. This would require an epic and unprecedented monetary and fiscal stimulus.

The WEF announced in December that the Annual Meeting 2021 would now take place from May 13 to 16 in Singapore and return to Davos in 2022, “as long as all conditions are in place to guarantee the health and safety of participants and the host community.”

Whatever issues the WEF plans to cover later this year, the current economic situation seems to be changing on an almost daily basis. “In all the major economies there was a massive slump in activity following the outbreak of COVID-19, though massive monetary and fiscal easing created a V-shaped recovery going into the third quarter of 2020,” says Neil MacKinnon, Global Macro Strategist, VTB Capital. “Equity markets also had a V-shaped recovery, making it one of the fastest bear and bull markets in financial history. ‘Phase 2’ of the COVID-19 pandemic also threatened a double-dip recession, but news that there might be a 90 percent effective vaccine from Pfizer in early November, hot on the heels of Joe Biden winning the US Presidential Election, took global equity markets to new highs.” Perhaps to stay on top of events, the WEF decided that the Annual Meeting will be preceded by what it terms “Davos Dialogues” during the week of January 25, a series of high-level digital events during which key global leaders will share their views on the state of the world in 2021. The week will be dedicated to helping leaders choose innovative and bold solutions to stem the pandemic and drive a robust recovery over the next year. However, the agenda will not shy away from the ‘Great Reset Initiative’ promised by the WEF last year and the January Dialogues will each focus on one of its five domains. Before digging down into the mechanics and potential impact of the Great Reset, let’s look at a few of the other issues we mentioned in January 2020 that are still relevant.

 

Trading tensions
The trade war between China and the US is still simmering. Tariffs remain in place on billions of dollars’ worth of goods, forcing businesses in both countries to explore new markets, make cutbacks or simply shut up shop. In spite of these tensions, at the start of 2020, the US economy had posted a record economic expansion and the S&P500 index was in an upward trend, making new highs as ‘phase one’ of the US-China trade deal had been agreed. The deal requires China to increase purchases of US products and services by at least $200bn over 2020 and 2021. In December 2020, the then US President-elect Joe Biden told The New York Times that he will not immediately end the phase one agreement or roll back punitive tariffs on Chinese goods imposed by President Donald Trump, adding that the United States needed to regain leverage to use in negotiations with China. After a summer of souring relations between the two states during the pandemic, the good news is that China’s purchases have increased in recent months as its economy recovers.

The pandemic has acted as an accelerator of new technologies that will restructure our economies

The leaders of the African Union have continued to discuss ways to ensure that the continent’s less developed economies are not negatively affected by a more liberal approach to trade. Although delayed by the pandemic, implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is set to begin in January 2021, with an initial focus on easing trade restrictions for SMEs, which account for 90 percent of jobs created on the continent. However, there are more challenges than ever, particularly thanks to the pandemic – “an unprecedented health and economic crisis,” noted the International Monetary Fund (IMF), “that threatens to throw the region off its stride, reversing the development progress of recent years and slow the region’s growth prospects in the years to come.”

 

The fourth industrial revolution
The WEF’s fourth January Dialogue, ‘Harnessing the technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution’, will explore “what organisations need to do in order to accelerate the uptake of technology and how can they avoid the issues that arise from a lack of governance.” There will no doubt be some reference to what the Harvard Business Review calls the “benign regulatory environment” that is partly to blame for Silicon Valley’s historic concentration of wealth and power – an era the publication believes is drawing to a close. In July, research by Accountable Tech found that 85 percent of respondents felt Big Tech has too much power. Meanwhile, people on both sides of the Atlantic want tech companies to pay their taxes fairly and in full.

 

The ‘Great Reset’
All of this and much more besides will potentially be overshadowed at the Annual Meeting by what the WEF concluded after its risk analysis at the 2020 event (see Fig 1). It found that the five biggest risks to humanity and the planet in terms of likelihood and severity are climate related. Climate discussions are set to continue at the 2021 event, particularly as many have been calling for a green economic recovery from the pandemic. The Great Reset campaign is calling for governments to end fossil fuel subsidies and funnel the money into low-carbon sectors instead. More broadly, the campaign is making recommendations to ensure that the recovery spurs the progress of sustainable development.

“In January the IMF thought global GDP would expand 3.3 percent in 2020,” MacKinnon told World Finance, “but this was mainly led by projected growth of 6.0 percent in China and 4.4 percent GDP growth for emerging market economies generally. GDP was expected to remain anaemic at 1.3 percent for the Eurozone and in Japan at just 0.7 percent.” The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which was becoming evident by the end of January, ripped up the IMF’s projections.

A greener future
Ironically, the step change created by the pandemic has perhaps provided a unique chance to reframe the future by building a fairer, more prosperous society founded on greener, more resilient, and productive economies. “This chapter presents an opportunity for governments and businesses to accelerate many of the shifts underway before the pandemic, while building a sustainable recovery,” says Steve Varley, Global Vice Chair – Sustainability, EY. “A recent study by EY and the European Climate Foundation found 1,000 ‘shovel-ready’ green projects that, with investment, could create almost three million jobs across the European Union alone.”

Others see tax policy at the epicentre of much of the change caused by COVID-19. With climate being high on government agendas, including the EU’s Green Deal and US President-elect Joe Biden’s green policies, “there will be a host of new tax concessions and incentives for businesses to better integrate green thinking,” says Kate Barton, Global Vice Chair – Tax, EY. Varley elaborates on this point: “Businesses have the power to drive prosperity and create value for a wide variety of stakeholders – from our shareholders, to our employees, to the communities in which we operate.” He believes we now have the opportunity to create green jobs at scale, that help communities grow and prosper in a sustainable way. We also have the responsibility to help carefully manage the transition from a high-carbon to a low-carbon world, in a way that mitigates any potential societal risks like unemployment or energy poverty due to increased energy costs.

Neil MacKinnon says: “climate change is already impacting macroeconomic stability and growth prospects and there is a need for guidance on international carbon price floors and border carbon adjustments.” This requires the need for climate assessment risks and stress testing for financial institutions, and corporate disclosure of climate-related financial risks. Climate change is also affecting how macro policymakers adapt monetary and fiscal strategies. In the UK, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak is promoting the use of UK ‘green’ government bonds and the Bank of England Governor, Andrew Bailey, said recently that his objective is to build a UK financial system resilient to the risks from climate change and supportive of a transition to a carbon net-zero economy.

 

The weight of responsibility
In the Eurozone, European Central Bank (ECB) President Christine Lagarde has said incorporating climate change risk into monetary policy is “mission critical”. The ECB is likely to incorporate ‘green bond’ purchases into its asset purchase programmes (the ECB currently holds 20 percent of the eligible green corporate bonds) and this could eventually help pave the way to fiscal union, a capital markets union, debt mutualisation, and a deepening of the green financial market. Ironically, the pandemic has acted as an accelerator of new technologies that will restructure our economies. As Isabel Schnabel of the ECB’s Executive Board recently put it, the pandemic is helping build “a deeper and greener financial market that reduces the cost of transitioning towards a low-carbon economy.”

What the situation will be in May when the WEF Annual Meeting takes place is anyone’s guess. But one thing that won’t change is the urgency for restricting carbon emissions. In late 2020, the UN reported that 2020 is on track to be one of the three hottest on record, completing a run of six years that were all hotter than any year ever measured before and that the world could hit the climate change milestone (exceeding 1.5°C above pre-industrial era levels) by 2024.

The Digital World Economic Forum events during January 2021

    • Monday 25: Designing cohesive, sustainable and resilient economic systems.
    • Tuesday 26: Driving responsible industry transformation and growth.
    • Wednesday 27: Enhancing stewardship of our global commons.
    • Thursday 28: Harnessing the technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
    • Friday 29: Advancing global and regional co-operation.

The shadow of a hard Brexit

Posted on by itsupport

The quest for national sovereignty – or a sovereignty recognised by a majority of Brexiteers – is almost at an end for Boris Johnson’s government. By the time World Finance goes to press, the picture will be clearer and several decades of mutual trading cooperation and easy travel will cease between the UK and the EU. New trading frictions will commence. Even with an agreement ratified by the end of 2020, the vast amount of red tape won’t be hugely reduced – the government’s harder Brexit line and quitting the customs union and single market has seen to that.

As early winter unfurled with much of the City of London emptied of life, Johnson did little to reduce the risk of an accidental no-deal. Though the influence of core Brexiteers was cut thanks to November’s ejection of chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, bringing much relief across Whitehall, there was little softening of the line from UK chief negotiator David Frost. In late November, Chancellor Rishi Sunak went on the offensive, claiming COVID-19 was a bigger threat to the economy than a no-deal scenario. Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey disagreed, however, and the London School of Economics supports his contradictory views.

Since quitting the EU on January 31, 2020, the consequences of a hard position – which is what the UK has now largely chosen – have become more stark. The UK exports more than £25bn worth of financial services a year. Did the government do enough to protect it? “Very early on, we called for regulatory equivalence for financial services to be at the heart of a post-Brexit trade deal,” London mayor Sadiq Khan said as negotiations neared the last furlough. “But the government has instead placed its red lines around symbolic, but relatively niche ground.” The niche ground Khan referred to in barely coded words is fisheries. Fish is a subject that pulls in public – and therefore voting – interest as opposed to the City of London, even if the City employs more than 500,000 and the fishing industry 24,000. The nautical roots run deep.

Across the channel, European leaders have been overwhelmed by COVID-19, putting pressure on Michel Barnier, forced into isolation in late November, to keep dialogue on track despite the threat of on-off suspensions (both Barnier and David Frost contracted the virus earlier in the year). If Barnier pulls off an agreement it still must chunter through a number of committees before a plenary vote. It has to be translated, be legally tight and approval must come from both the European Parliament and the EU Council.

 

Higher downside pound risk
Speaking to World Finance, Western Union International Bank currency strategist George Vessey said markets had broadly priced in a deal, and that compromise was more likely to come from the UK than Brussels. “In terms of traders holding short or long positions on the pound,” said Vessey, “it’s pretty much flat. If you compare that to the majority of the last four years, around 80 percent of the time traders have held a bearish position on the pound, expecting it to devalue.”

So while there is anticipation for a deal, with that comes more downside risk for sterling. “If we get a deal, then the pound should start to appreciate, but the upside potential to appreciate is definitely less so than the downside risk, should we end up in a no-deal scenario. That is the concern – that markets are anticipating a deal exposes more downside risk to the pound if it doesn’t come to fruition.” The many overlapping EU and UK rules – one example of the possible chaos may see EU banks re-route derivative trades via New York if working equivalence isn’t agreed – is just one of the City anxieties. The scale of derivatives trading is huge. The Paris-based European Securities and Markets Authority, an EU agency, has been working on a solution, but detail has been scant.

 

Does a post-Brexit European banking crisis loom?

The number of non-performing loans as a result of COVID-19 could hit levels well beyond those of the 2008 financial crisis thinks Andrea Enria, chairman of the supervisory board of the European Central Bank. “The European Central Bank,” Enria warned in the FT, “estimates that in a severe but plausible scenario, non-performing loans with euro area banks could reach €1.4tn, well above the levels of the 2008 financial and 2011 EU sovereign debt crises.”

 

Journey to the edge
Meanwhile, many British registered financial operators will lose their right to sell funds or give debt or insurance advice right across the EU, even if Barnier pulls off an agreement. But ex-EU trade spokesman Peter Guilford was confident that emotions, in the end, will be overcome. “The EU Commission’s job is to broker deals between forces bigger than itself, within Europe and outside,” he said in the FT. “It has nerves of steel, the hide of an ox and no fear of cliff edges.”

Stakes in previous trade negotiations – the so-called Uruguay Round, spanning 123 countries – he points out, “were higher than those of Brexit: more countries were involved, there were more sticking points and a less united EU, not to mention entrenched opposition from European and US farmers to a deal at all.” Practically, for British consumers, some food shortages may occur as around 40 percent of the UK’s food and agricultural products are currently EU-sourced. Grocer Sainsbury’s has already flagged up concerns about the supply of dairy and fish products unless EU controls for larger traders are waived. Fresh food supplies are certainly at higher risk. Inevitably, some supermarket prices will rise.

For Boris Johnson now comes the hardest part – piloting a responsible path out of the pandemic while reviving his government

Another issue surrounding potential shortages is the current supply to the UK shores. The UK’s biggest container terminal, Felixstowe, has been ranked the worst-performing container port when benchmarked against key competitors, including Hamburg and Rotterdam. The so-called ‘Port of Britain’ – it absorbs more than 35 percent of all the UK’s container goods – is subject to constant congestion, according to new data from IHS Markit. Felixstowe Ports is owned by Hutchison Ports, which blames Brexit stockpiling and COVID-19 related pressures for current delays, including around 11,000 containers of PPE. Some shipping companies have redirected ships away from Felixstowe due to worries about unloading capacity or berthing slots.

There are also complaints about the port’s vehicle booking system from trucking companies struggling to get loading slots, a problem that may be exacerbated without a trade agreement. Most Brexit voters gave Ireland little thought in the June 2016 referendum. But Northern Ireland is leaving the EU – sort of. While goods and people can move freely between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland – a priority for peace – a customs border in the Irish Sea means goods coming from Britain are subject to EU customs rules. That means a customs declaration and detailed checks, in some cases. This remains in place for six years. Many Northern Ireland unionists deeply resent the so-called ‘sea border,’ seeing it as a move that undermines their existing membership with the UK. The threat to override parts of the UK-EU withdrawal agreement via the recent Internal Market Bill, breaching international law, has ratcheted up tensions.

Across the Atlantic, the Biden administration will be intent on putting pressure on Johnson to ensure that the Good Friday Agreement is linked to future trade negotiations. Johnson’s – at times slavish – relationship with Donald Trump has gone down badly with Biden and we should expect Biden to bypass Johnson in favour of Angela Merkel, at least initially. If there is no deal and a lack of commitment to the Withdrawal Agreement then a US-UK trade deal gets much trickier.

 

The regional and local reality
Whatever happens, the outlook for much of the UK does not look promising. The lack of access to EU funds for poorer parts of the UK may mean some inter-EU relations are reduced to the level of ‘town twinning.’ Europe remains vital to much of the north east of England with strong trading links to Oslo, Gothenburg and Rotterdam, as just one example of this. The north east, with its strong manufacturing centres including the car industry, is vulnerable to higher tariffs and trade costs, as is the West Midlands. The UK’s Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) warned that failure to secure a good deal could cost the UK auto sector £55.4bn by 2025. And a default WTO tariff would pile on almost £3,000 to the price of a new electric vehicle, SMMT president Dr George Gillespie predicted.

No deal or thin deal, Britain is the only country that joined the EU and left. For Johnson now comes the hardest part – piloting a responsible path out of the pandemic while reviving his government. That means reaching out to the many he has sidelined or dismissed and addressing, with sincerity, the UK’s deep regional inequalities.

Confidential Cabinet Office notes reported by the media in late November point to a higher chance of UK “systemic economic crisis” – quitting the EU, COVID-19, a bad flu season, the threat of mass unemployment and higher risk of public disorder as many people’s finances deteriorate post-Christmas. It’s a hard winter ahead.

Is America back?

Posted on by itsupport

Stock markets barely turned a hair on the change-of-president news in early November 2020. There was no dive or Armageddon, no rush for the exits in anticipation of a Democratic Biden administration determined to punish climate-heating polluters and other stock market villains. But the market’s positivity was less an endorsement for the president-elect and more an exhalation of relief that the US had narrowly avoided a contested result: a constitutional crisis with Donald Trump firing grandstanding tweets, or even refusing to quit the White House. Above all, markets love certainty.

Market sentiment was also buoyed by COVID-19 vaccine hope shortly after, popping energy back into retail, travel and banking stocks. “We are still months away from any vaccine being widely available,” asset manager giant BlackRock noted in mid-November. “But the game changer is that we now know we are building a bridge to somewhere, providing more clarity for governments and companies about getting to the post-COVID-19 stage.”

But markets also have the certainty of the world’s most powerful democracy bitterly divided. In November 2020, Donald Trump pulled in the second highest number of votes in US election history, albeit less than his opponent. After four wild years, Trump’s centrifugal force is extraordinary. Chief investment officer Thomas Beckett of Punter Southall Wealth told World Finance that despite Biden’s victory, “it was a disappointing night for the Democrats and far below most expectations.

It is going to be challenging for the Biden administration to achieve anything structurally significant with the Senate in the grips (just) of the Republicans.” The disappointment for the Democrats is considerable. Biden won, yes, but without a clear majority in Congress, depriving him of a solid political base.

 

Hot influencers in a swing state
Biden’s capacity to govern may change with the Georgia run-off elections. Who wins in Georgia will determine which party controls the US Senate. Currently (as of December 2020) the Republicans have a 50–48 majority in the Senate. If Democrats take both seats in this once solid Republican state – now a swing state – Vice President-elect Kamala Harris gets the tiebreaker vote. So the stakes are enormous. Georgia has massive racial divisions and inequality. The capital, Atlanta, is the cradle of the state’s civil rights movement. Georgia hasn’t voted Democrat since Bill Clinton’s election nearly 30 years ago. Georgia, though, is increasingly polarised from rapidly changing demographics – mainly young and diverse, which favours the Democrats; think ‘hot’ influencers, Twitch and politically tinged live streams.

The 2020 election demonstrated that the economy must benefit the working class more in future if the ideological chasm between Democrats and the Republicans stands a chance of narrowing

Pollster and strategist Frank Luntz told CNBC it’s the most important Senate election in modern times – and could go either way. “Whether they roll back Trump’s tax cuts or introduce a green new deal – if the Democrats can win both of those seats back then they will be in control of the Senate and the President will have an agenda that won’t be able to be challenged by Congress.”

If Republicans win just one seat they control the majority and therefore the Biden agenda. So the Georgia run-off will determine the nuts-and-bolts of Senate decision-making and the committees spanning banking, finance, taxation and judiciary. The consensus is that the Republicans will hang onto the Senate. “US voters have this admirable ability to not give politicians too much power,” Chris Beauchamp, chief market analyst at IG, told World Finance. “The perception among many swing voters may be that while we’ve given Biden a chance, we don’t want to give him the keys for everything.”

 


Joe Biden: the 46th President of the USA core Biden quality – the capacity to work with opponents – has never grabbed headlines.

Biden is more the steady journeyman in search of a better outcome, though at some personal cost.

The twin tramlines of tragedy and success have closely tracked his life.

He became a US senator in 1972, defeating strongly liked rival J Caleb Boggs despite a campaign bereft of funding and, often, hope.But he clinched it by 3,162 votes – the closest Senate election of 1972 – thanks to an ability to connect with voters.

But this achievement was over-shadowed by the tragedy, almost immediately afterwards, of his wife Neilia and their one-year-old daughter, dying in a horrific car accident.

He’s held down torturously difficult positions on racial equality, notably the Senate school busing programme, in the 1970s.

The close relationship with ex-President Obama, a man he often calls his brother, has cemented support from African-Americans as well as blue-collar white voters.

While a big supporter of public healthcare and mental health programmes, Biden’s also faced allegations of misconduct, overcoming accusations of assault by ex-Senate employee Tara Reade.

In 2015 his son Beau, attorney general of Delaware, died of brain cancer, forcing Biden out of the race against Trump.

He now needs every ounce of his low-key bipartisan stamina and judgement to steer America back from four years of comparative isolationism to the familiar ground of multilateral agreements, compromise and the ability to work together – the essence of what the US Founding Fathers intended.

But he will also have to navigate a party with a diverse range of views. Many Democrats are going to be disappointed and the splits will be uncontainable.

 

Blue-chip help with gridlock?
If there is probable Senate gridlock then the chances of meaningful future US economic stimulus to support the economy – many states were coming to terms with more COVID-19 shutdowns back in November 2020, putting the brakes on a recovery – may fall. VTB Capital global macro strategist, Neil Mackinnon, told World Finance, “At best, it may be $1trn which would be mainly fresh income support and replacing unemployment programmes. It’s highly unlikely we’re going to get a $2.5trn package.” That $2.5trn figure had even been endorsed by Trump, going along with the Democrats, “though that had likely been driven by the opinion polls at the time” adds Mackinnon. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell doesn’t believe Americans need a multi-trillion dollar aid package.

But Biden is determined to get collaboration from corporate America to tackle the pandemic crisis. Biden, remember, has been here before: in 2009 Barack Obama charged the President-elect with the oversight of a near $800bn stimulus package to drag the US out of the global financial crash. Little change is expected at the Federal Reserve. Fed chief Jerome Powell sees his tenure end in early 2022. Powell, a Republican, has paid attention to job growth, earning him brownie points from Democrats keen to see issues like wealth inequality – particularly racial wealth imbalances – raised. The inequality point is complex but vital: the 2020 election demonstrated that the economy must benefit the working class more in future if the ideological chasm between Democrats and the Republicans stands a chance of narrowing.

Elsewhere, hopes for sterner financial regulation, urged by Democrat senator Elizabeth Warren, could see Biden ultimately replace Powell, but the Fed boss himself has endured a fractious relationship with Trump. He remains a continuity figure. Currency moves are notoriously difficult to anticipate but a weaker dollar appears likely, helping US exports and lifting Asian currencies. While trade negotiations, particularly with China, will take a more conventional tilt, Biden leads a divided government, which impacts on the greenback because of policy uncertainty.

But with the money taps open from the Federal Reserve plus more government aid money to tackle COVID-19, inflation may climb if enough spending gets underway from both businesses and consumers. In ‘normal’ times this would reasonably see the Fed hike rates. The Fed has switched its inflation target from two percent to an average of two percent. It’s a small but important nuance, allowing it to delay hiking rates for longer. Many dollar-denominated investors may be deterred and look elsewhere for a home for their money.

 

Outlook for stocks
A normalising of geopolitical relations will likely favour biopharma companies, as Biden is keen to expand the Affordable Care Act. Chinese stocks – think e-commerce and payment names like Meituan and Tencent – may also gain thanks to a more stable trading US outlook. Some blue-chip European stocks have taken a beating from Trump tariffs, particularly on the automotive and engineering front. But Biden has pledged to rejoin the Paris Agreement, which the US pulled out of in 2017. So, spending on infrastructure for EVs, wind and battery science is good news for this sector.

Much depends on COVID-19. Biden has assembled a task force led by three respected and qualified co-chairs: David Kessler, Vivek Murthy and Marcella Nunez-Smith. Other members of this taskforce are specialists in their own right, says Russell Shor, senior market specialist at FXCM, “and bring a high level of competence to the table,” he told World Finance.
“That, to a large degree, has lifted the uncertainty of the COVID-19 spread and the insecurities accompanying lockdown,” Shor continues. “More testing is required, but two major uncertainties [Biden win and Pfizer’s and BioNTech announcement of a 90 percent potential vaccine] have diminished and this is good for markets.” The hope for the US must be for calmer waters ahead. There is a lot for Biden to get through during his four-year term and it would certainly be easier if it could start with the Trump sideshow being shown the exit door quietly.

Turning claims into money without the related risk and expense

Posted on by itsupport

Debenhams, Jaeger, Laura Ashley and TopShop are just a few of the high street names having gone – or being on the brink of going – into administration in the UK following a trading year obliterated by COVID-19. The who’s who of doomed retailers makes for stark reading. And similar stories can be found in many economies around the world. There is no denying that while the pandemic has hit many sectors hard, high street retailers have suffered significantly with the prospect of survival, let alone growth looking bleak.

For all businesses weathering the storm of the pandemic, minimising costs and realising value is more important than ever. If ever there was a time for lateral thinking and alternative solutions, it is now. To put the wider landscape firmly in the picture, the latest Business Impact of Coronavirus Survey (BICS) conducted by the ONS found that 64 percent of the UK’s six million businesses are currently at risk of insolvency, with 43 percent of companies running on fewer than six months of cash reserves. It will come as no surprise that industries such as retail and hospitality are at particular risk.

The survey also revealed that 14 percent of all UK businesses have already halted trading as a result of local lockdown restrictions. It is in this vein that the Business Secretary, Alok Sharma, has, under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, further extended the easing of insolvency rules until March 2021. This legislation governs whether company directors can keep trading if there is no reasonable prospect that the company can avoid insolvency. If there is no such prospect, the Insolvency Act 1986 requires them to cease trading. These rules were originally relaxed in March 2020 to help troubled firms deal with the financial shock of the pandemic and plot a course through the crisis.

 

The commodity of time
Businesses can take advantage of the breathing space this relaxation affords to try to avoid insolvency, which inevitably leads to redundancies and knock-on effects for suppliers and business partners. Thinking of new solutions and exploring alternative steps can buy precious time. One such alternative that has proven successful is to look at unrealised assets within the company that are not typical to their ordinary course of business. This can include a range of options, including one many firms will not have thought of – the pursuit of legal claims against third parties.

The prospect for businesses having to litigate is often unattractive and is usually a distraction from their core operations. Litigation consumes internal resources – management time as well as cash. Disputes can take years to resolve and even then, there are no guarantees of success. But the reality is that any commercial dealing comes with the risk of disputes and when they do arise, they need to be dealt with. Businesses struggling in the current economic climate may still have good claims – some may even be directly related to the pandemic – with commercial partners being found to have wronged a company. It could be an unpaid debt, a breach of contract, a breach of a statutory duty or a claim for negligence against advisors. There may also be historical claims that the company has not previously had the time or resources to pursue.

The key is a mindset shift towards viewing litigation as an asset rather than a drain on resources (some disputes can be worth tens if not hundreds of millions). Identifying, bringing and prevailing on these disputes can change the game completely, and the growing sophistication of the litigation funding market has provided support to companies when it comes to ensuring that value is realised from claims. Before the pandemic, the UK insolvency litigation market had grown by 50 percent over the previous four years to be worth approximately £1.5bn per year, largely assisted by an uptake in third-party funding. One study has estimated that the total value of claims funded through litigation funding is worth around £720m per year, accounting for roughly half of all insolvency claims.

Funders can provide funding for all of the legal costs incurred in bringing a claim on a non-recourse basis, as well as covering the adverse costs risk, should the claim not succeed. Funding can also be provided to meet liquidators’ fees, disbursements and other costs. A successful claim not only helps improve the financial position for the business but for its creditors and investors too. In the current and ongoing climate, that is an important factor to weigh up. HMRC is often on the creditors list, so the wider public interest is a factor as well. But litigation funding in insolvency cases is not the answer to all problems. Not every claim will be suitable for funding and it is incumbent upon professional funders not to support meritless claims – the truth is, experienced funders will not entertain them, which makes their decision-making process a good yardstick for what can be pursued.

While governments have sought to insulate businesses from the risk of insolvency in 2020 and 2021, there is no magic wand. The stark reality remains that many businesses, particularly those in more vulnerable sectors such as retail and hospitality, will take time to recover and until then, will remain in a precarious position. An important part of each business’ steps to improve its solvency should include consideration of the genuine claims it may have against third parties – and how securing funding for those claims may be in its best interests.

Citizenship by Investment programmes prove popular

Posted on by itsupport

COVID-19 has impacted and shaped the world we currently find ourselves in. 2020 has been unsettling – a year of uncertainty and immobility. With the weight of government decisions and imposed restrictions felt across the globe, it has forced many US citizens to think about their options. Are we safe? Is the economy secure? What does our future look like? Dual citizenship and Citizenship by Investment programmes have long been in place as a viable option for those wanting to diversify their options. The industry has seen a sharp increase in applications from US citizens this year with companies like CS Global Partners helping people gain back some of their freedom.

Micha Emmett, CEO of global legal advisory firm CS Global Partners, has not been surprised by the recent increase, “The coronavirus has hit us all hard. Whether it is through personal loss of loved ones, loss of income or the general loss of freedoms we took for granted. The way various governments have handled the pandemic has differed across the globe and the impact of these decisions have been felt hard by its citizens. Economies have suffered and the full financial impact on individuals is yet to be felt. It makes sense that people have started to think about their Plan B. What are the options? How can I ensure that my family, and my business, are able to thrive?”

As citizenship experts, CS Global Partners are on the pulse of global trends and are constantly monitoring spikes in applications – both from where these applications are coming and to where they are applying. In light of it being an election year and the undeniable controversy and uncertainty that has arisen from it, it is only natural that, combined with coronavirus uncertainty, it has pushed many Americans to look into dual citizenship.

“From US citizens in particular, we have seen an increase in applications to Citizenship by Investment programmes in the Caribbean which, given its proximity to America, makes sense. However, proximity is not the only reason. St.Kitts and Nevis, for example, is proving a very popular choice. The oldest and most established programme, since its inception over three decades ago, it has stood the test of time. Its economy is stable (managing to keep locals financially afloat during their lockdown), their government works well with its people and the lifestyle is a relative safe haven,” explains Emmett.

As a result of the impact of the pandemic on households in St.Kitts and Nevis, Prime Minister Timothy Harris noted that their established Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP) – which provides low-income households with $500 per month – had supported close to 1000 individuals who had lost income as a result of COVID-19. In fact, PAP is funded by the St.Kitts and Nevis Citizenship by Investment programme donations which highlights the real impact and difference these investor contributions make to the country.

“The PAP beneficiaries count peaked at about 5,800 as more households lost their breadwinners and applied to the Ministry of Sustainable Development to become enrolled as a recipient of the PAP programme. Up to September 2020, my Government has paid out $23 million for the year so far in Poverty Alleviation stipends to assist the poor and vulnerable in our midst,” explained Prime Minister Harris.

Now with the peak of the pandemic having passed in St.Kitts and Nevis, they have been able to open their borders and, with health and safety protocols in place, been able to return to a relatively normal way of life. Which, in comparison with many countries across the world, puts them at an economic advantage.

US citizens wanting to expand their options can rest assured that they are legally allowed to obtain a second citizenship. It is now considered a sought-after benefit, especially in this currently immobile world, to have easy travel access for business. For some US citizens, who have chosen to live abroad and hold dual nationality, they have also chosen to renounce their US citizenship for tax purposes which is an option available to those who want to emigrate from their homeland.

“Obtaining visas this year has been near impossible. Those with dual citizenship have definitely had an advantage. Citizenship in St.Kitts and Nevis, allows you visa-free access to 160 countries across the globe. You cannot over-emphasise the value that ease of travel has in this current time, with borders continually opening and closing to non-citizens. The pandemic is unlikely to be fully eradicated for some time and so the stability that dual citizenship can offer is really an investment in your, and your family’s, future,” says Paul Singh, Director at CS Global Partners.

Citizenship by Investment programmes are a relatively easy way to gain this much needed dual citizenship. By making a donation to specific programmes in the country you are applying to, or by investing in real estate, you are able to secure your citizenship via a quick and easy process. It only takes around 60 days for the St.Kitts and Nevis Programme and, once you become a citizen you are able to pass that down to your children and grandchildren, securing the safety of your future generations.

“The pandemic has changed the world. It has changed how we work, how we live and how we travel. Dual citizenship is now more coveted than ever and, with many reputable Citizenship by Investment programmes in place, it is an accessible option for many,” concludes Singh.

The St Kitts and Nevis citizenship programme is currently offering a limited-time offer for families of up to four until January 15th, 2021. Applicants need only make an investment of US$150,000 instead of the usual US$195,000.

To learn more about St. Kitts and Nevis’s Limited-Time Offer

Click here

For more information, please contact us: pr@csglobalpartners.com, www.csglobalpartners.com

 

How businesses can reduce their cost-to-serve to survive the recession

Posted on by itsupport

Already, the UK has seen thousands of job losses, with more expected while some businesses are even closing stores to cut costs. During a recession, the mentality of many businesses and organisations shifts to survival.

However, although their minds might be on the immediate, their actions should still have the future in mind. Within their supply chains, businesses should always be looking at ways they adapt to meet shifting customer expectations. At the same time, organisations must create the necessary agility to address demand and supply variability, while all the time trying to cut costs. It can be a hard balance to strike. Yet, for many, there is huge room for improvement within their supply chain which can help to reduce their cost-to-serve, creating a more efficient, profitable and, most importantly, customer centric business model in the process.

 

Tough times
The Great Shutdown sent the world into a historic recession – countries from all over have witnessed double digit economic contractions. This means that businesses across the globe will now be looking to cut costs and become leaner to survive the economic turbulence.

This necessity to cut costs is vital as, during a recession, consumers are often more careful with their money. Uncertainty over job security, which is part-and-parcel of a recession, only amplifies this frugality. For businesses, this means they have to do more with less in order to operate at a profit and keep the doors open.

In this instance, businesses often look towards their labour force to cut the wage bill and towards their physical warehouses, stores and offices to reduce overheads. While this may be a quick way to reduce costs, it does result in losing valuable resources. By addressing inefficiencies within the supply chain, this doesn’t have to be the case.

 

A happy customer for less
When it comes to cutting costs, the supply chain is often overlooked for one reason: there is an assumption that it is a fixed cost and that increased sales naturally drive economies of scale. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Businesses looking to become leaner should address their cost-to-serve, defined as the analysis and quantification of all supply chain activities and costs necessary to fulfil customer demand.

This analysis will help businesses to highlight which customers and products are the most and least profitable within their supply chain. With this information, they can make decisions around whether it is worth continuing to provide that product or serve that specific customer and/or what needs to be done to make it more profitable. Often, businesses have the opportunity to make better use of their existing capacity by making smarter decisions. Understanding and deciding which product sells better or for a higher price in which market can ensure maximum profitability. For example, an unbranded product is likely to sell better in the UK than in France. With this knowledge, businesses can optimise their supply chain to ensure their products are going to the places where both demand and profit are highest.

In terms of cutting costs, one area within the supply chain which can lead to a high cost-to-serve and lower profit margins is transportation. Businesses looking to minimise this can evaluate their delivery routes to make them as efficient as possible. This can be optimised from the first to the last mile of the supply chain, accounting for both the raw materials needed to produce the product and delivery of the product itself. This also has the added bonus of enabling businesses to become more sustainable. As well as maximising profit, improving transportation efficiency will create a more carbon-neutral supply chain, helping businesses reach their goal of becoming net zero between 2030-2050.

There are, of course, other ways in which businesses can reduce their cost-to-serve, which is why it’s such an efficient way to cut costs. The manufacturing process is another area of focus. There is often huge scope for automation in this area, which can significantly reduce the cost of production and lead to greater productivity. However, businesses must be able to identify these pain points if they are to address them. Technologies that apply AI and machine learning could help them do exactly this.

 

A helping hand from technology
Optimising the cost-to-serve is achieved by analysing and assessing all the supply chain activities in the network. From this point, fixed and variable costs can be allocated according to each of these activities, allowing businesses to address the areas which can be improved. While many companies have the ability to do this at an aggregate level, eg, a product category, few have a truly granular view of the costs associated with individual SKUs or customers.

Understanding detailed cost-to-serve, by customer and by product, is a pre-requisite for any organisation looking to manage its profitability. Reducing organisational costs and improving delivery efficiency as well as ‘right sizing’ the service offering for a particular product, customer or channel is an imperative. Organisations can model routes to market and service strategies based on this segmentation, and understand the impact on their individual cost-to-serve

The ultimate goal is to increase company profitability by making unprofitable customers profitable or helping profitable customers become even more profitable. But, without accurate cost-to-serve data for current customers and products, this is a near-impossible task.

For this to be a reality, organisations need an end-to-end view of their supply chain. Using digital twin technology businesses can digitally replicate their supply chain, analysing and optimising its efficiency in the process.

 

Finding a solution
Running this analysis, businesses will be able to quickly identify which products and customers are less profitable than others and the reasons for this. With this information on hand, they can more readily address the problem, whether it is an inefficient delivery process or excessive manufacturing costs.

Using the same technology, businesses can then work towards a solution, which will help them become more efficient. The digital twin allows them to test-drive alternative strategies, before committing to them in the real world. This way, they can continue to try different options, at no cost, until they find the most efficient solution.

To achieve maximum efficiency, businesses can then look to forecasting technology, which will help them to predict oscillations in demand, even during the heightened disruptions caused by COVID-19. With recessions often causing a downturn in demand, it’s important that businesses are not creating excess supply, which will cost them money without a return on their investment. Forecasting technology will help them avoid this pitfall.

In today’s never normal world, whether it is recessions, pandemics or geopolitical tensions such as trade wars, businesses that want to stand the test of time must be prepared for all eventualities. While it may represent an initial cost, implementing technology which can consistently optimise your cost-to-serve will ensure that, no matter the economic climate, your business has the best chance of maximising its profit. That should be the benchmark of any successful business.

Securitisation – the antidote for non-performing loans

Posted on by itsupport

Without doubt, the collateral fallout from COVID-19 will herald in a new era for the global non-performing loan (NPL) market, as not only will there be the inevitable surge in NPL volumes precipitated by COVID-19’s impact on the economy, but these new volumes will be accretive to the current NPL stock that is residing in the banks as a hangover from the global financial crisis (GFC).

Indeed, as the banks commence the unenviable task of picking through their loan book and identifying those NPLs that they must offload, they will also be cognisant of how they do this in a highly efficient manner that maximises returns. In terms of process, although the prime candidate for this will be the hugely successful competitive auction processes that have become an intrinsic part of the NPL market, in practice we are likely to witness securitisation step up to the plate and assume a critical role in alleviating the pain of the banks.

Conceptually, the application of securitisation technology is the perfect medicine for the cleansing of bank balance sheets. In essence, these structures involve a bank selling a portfolio of NPLs to a special purpose vehicle that funds such an acquisition by issuing debt securities into the capital markets. The vehicle will in turn appoint a servicing entity that will manage the underlying loans on a daily basis with a fee structure that incentivises them to maximise recoveries.

The use of securitisation makes a lot of sense. This technology has the capacity to enable a significant volume of NPLs to be removed from the banks in one fell swoop. Given the only limitation in sizing a transaction is the magnitude of the universe of investors that can competitively price and absorb an issuance, then we could be talking about pretty hefty deals. The opportunity afforded by securitisation, of offloading NPLs in either one large deal or a series of large transactions, is infinitely more appealing than the alternate scenario of a protracted period of auction processes, that we have witnessed to date.

Securitisation technology also counteracts one of the major stumbling blocks that has traditionally made banks reticent about off-loading NPLs: the pricing. Although NPL securitisation cannot guarantee decent pricing, it does possess a number of features that load the dice in favour of the banks when it comes to trying to achieve the best possible return.

Given the bounty of benefits, it is hard to see why securitisation cannot play an instrumental role in mopping up the balance sheets of banks. Indeed this is not a new concept and there is precedent for this in the United States, in the late 1980s, when securitisation technology played a key role in enabling the Resolution Trust Corporation to liquidate assets once owned by the savings and loans associations.

Similarly, had securitisation not been perceived as one of the main assailants of the GFC, then without doubt it would have been the perfect candidate to clean up NPLs in the wake of the GFC.

Ten years on, it can now be said that securitisation is a very different beast. Through the actions of investors, regulators and market participants, securitisation structures have now been finessed and structural shortcomings fixed. Furthermore, the recent Securitisation Regulation has encouraged and incentivised securitisation structures to be simple, transparent and standardised.

In summation, given the hugely positive attributes of an NPL securitisation when coupled with the fact that this technology is now ‘fit for purpose’, then the requisite fertile conditions currently exist for these structures to be deployed at scale to offload NPLs. Indeed, the fact that the governments of Italy and Greece in recent years turned to securitisation for “GACS” (“Garanzia Cartolarizzazione Sofferenze”) and “HAPS” (“Hellenic Asset Protection Scheme”) respectively, could in itself be construed as a massive endorsement of the role that this technology can play.

Ultimately, since these structures efficiently enable incredible volumes of NPLs to be distilled from the banks, which in turn enables banks to eradicate their NPL issue on a more timely basis, then securitisation should truly be considered the NPL antidote. Banks choose not to embrace this at their peril.

What would a Biden term mean for oil?

Posted on by itsupport

Joe Biden has emerged with a commanding lead in the US polls and his presidency could have far reaching consequences, not just for the oil and gas industry, but for the energy sector as a whole. Not to be understated, Biden’s proposals for the sector are set to bring about the most significant changes to the US offshore industry in its history.

If the election were held today, polls suggest Biden would beat the incumbent Republican president Donald Trump in key battleground states. On energy policy, the two candidates appear worlds apart. Trump, who proclaimed an era of American “energy dominance” in 2016 has since taken the US out of the Paris Climate accord. On the domestic front, he has been equally aggressive in deregulating the environment and energy sector, pursing the rollback of hundreds of rules in areas such as fracking and methane. Fifteen states are also now suing the Trump administration for opening Alaska’s Coastal Plain up to oil and gas leasing in 2017, which they regard as a violation of environmental laws. The difficulty for Alaska is that nearly 85 percent of the state budget is dependent on oil revenues.

In contrast, Biden has earmarked $2tn in green energy spending for his first term. The investments dovetail with his economic plan to create jobs in manufacturing “green energy” products and focus on climate policy to drag the economy out of its pandemic-era recession. Some have suggested this will mark the beginning of an ‘offensive’ on the fossil fuels industry. In normal times, a move like this would be viewed as self-destructive during an American election, with so many states dependent on the oil industry for jobs. Yet, these are not normal times and it is made possible by a number of factors. The devastating pandemic has delivered a costly blow to the economy, the oil and gas industry, and the viability of new projects. A Green New Deal could be appealing as a stimulus package at a time when clean-energy costs are falling drastically and technological progress is advancing very quickly.

It puts the energy sector at the centre of the election. Critics argue that Biden’s plans lack clarity, as he is all too aware of the political gambles involved with climate change including the possible local industry losses and threat to jobs. Upstream producers have also spent billions on exploration and development projects, the value of these ventures could be eradicated, and litigation is likely. Despite these concerns, Biden and the Democrats have been quick to point out these climate policies can be a source of job creation, during a period when the US is looking to recover from the impact of COVID-19.

Pledges from the Biden campaign include a target of net-zero emissions by 2050 and to “decarbonise” the US electricity sector by 2035. This would involve installing a vast network of charging points for new cars and electrifying the US’s transportation sector. Crucially, deploying utility-scale battery storage across the US would enables power system operators and utilities to store energy for later use. This would be a key component to maximise the benefits of the installation of thousands of wind turbines, millions of solar panels, and the plans to double offshore wind capacity by 2030.

While worries in the oil and gas industry are growing and the climate debate becomes increasingly polarized from the two candidates, Biden’s plans include a policy that may alleviate some industry concerns. This involves the extremely expensive process of carbon capture and storage which is currently attracting huge amounts of climate-related investment. These machines serve a single and simple purpose: to remove carbon dioxide from the air through direct air capture. Biden’s camp has committed to research in the technology, not only as a mitigation tool for climate change, but because carbon capture may prove a useful campaigning tool. It would guarantee the oil and gas industry’s role in the US and help Biden avoid more tricky questions on fracking, from regions where Trump may easily collect votes. As things stand, Biden’s plans do not include any bans on industries like fracking, but he need not worry if they frighten off investors.

It may not come down to voters. Even if energy policy is overlooked, investors have a watchful eye on the White House and will be aware of the changing tides. Individual states have also been driving their own agendas for some time. California, for example, is the US leader in solar power, with 18% of its electricity generated from solar in 2019. Whatever the outcome of this election, greater consensus driven by corporates, investors, campaigners, and the wider population may result in stronger action, even when the policy prescriptions are still heavily debated.

This US election offers two extremely contrasting views on the future of energy, and the eyes of the world will be certainly watching.

 

Are Presidential campaigns worth the vast expense?

Posted on by itsupport

Campaigning to be elected president of the US is an expensive undertaking. During the 2012 presidential race, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent a combined sum of nearly $1.12bn, according to the Centre for Responsive Politics.

Although US elections have almost always been a costly affair, the costs have only spiralled over time. Between Abraham Lincoln’s 1860 campaign and Donald Trump’s in 2016, the amount spent to be elected president increased more than 250-fold, even when the numbers are adjusted for inflation.

There’s an obvious reason why candidates feel driven to outspend their opponents. Throughout history, the majority of winning presidential candidates have been those who spent the most on the campaign trail. Throwing money at the election, therefore, seems like the logical conclusion. As Mark Hanna, a US Senator, once said, “There are two things that are important in politics. One is money and I can’t remember what the other one is.”

But just because there is a correlation between campaign spending and winning the election, that doesn’t mean that money is the deciding factor. In fact, there is an ongoing debate among political scientists over whether campaign spending meaningfully affects election outcomes at all.

 

Money well spent
In September, it was reported that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden was vastly outspending Trump on the campaign trail. According to campaign officials, as they enter the final stretch of the race, Biden has $141m more left in the bank than his rival. If money determined the election result, then this suggests Biden could be on the path to victory.

But while being the bigger spender increases a presidential candidate’s chance of winning, it’s no guarantee of success. There are plenty of examples of electoral candidates who have spent big and failed to win the vote.

In some cases, a higher amount may be spent to compensate for other problems. As Brian Libgober, political scientist and Assistant Professor at the University of California at San Diego, explains, sometimes the candidates with the most cash are self-funded. The fact that they have to rely on their own money in lieu of donations can reflect their own weaknesses as candidates. “Often, these are particularly wealthy self-financed candidates who can raise funds without necessarily having the qualities that make a candidate electorally strong, for example relationships with key constituencies, experience running for office, charisma, a compelling policy platform and so forth,” he said.

Michael Bloomberg, who ran for president in 2020, is one such example. Despite pouring almost $1bn of his own money into his three-month long campaign, Bloomberg was forced to end his presidential bid after securing just one endorsement from the 15 up for grabs on a critical night in the Democratic primaries. His poor performance on the debate stage was a key reason why.

Another high-profile example that proves money doesn’t guarantee electoral success is President Donald Trump’s 2016 victory. The $398m he spent on campaigning was almost half the amount forked out by his opponent Hilary Clinton. As Libgober points out, clearly Trump would not have won “if campaign spending was decisive in presidential elections.”

Of course, Trump benefitted from a number of advantages his rival didn’t have: TV stardom and an anti-institution persona, with none of the baggage that accompanies a political career (or being married to a former president). But there are a number of other reasons why Trump succeeded despite being at a disadvantage financially.

‘Earned media’, or free press, is one. Trump had a huge advantage in the daily news cycle thanks to his controversial remarks. A study by The New York Times found that, overall, Trump enjoyed nearly $2bn worth of free media coverage during the campaign.

Others suggest that Trump’s campaign spending was more effective than Clinton’s. He invested more heavily in social media, whereas Clinton relied on more traditional advertising, like expensive TV ads. Also, a study by the Wesleyan Media Project found that most of Trump’s TV ads attacked Clinton’s policies, whereas most of Clinton’s went after his personality, which may have weakened her case to voters.

Libgober, however, doubts these factors would have made much of an impact. “I tend to view these claims with scepticism,” he said. “In a media environment already super-saturated with information and where partisan loyalties are strongly activated, we should not expect campaign spending to make a huge difference.”

Advertising is the cornerstone of any election campaign, usually making up the bulk of the budget. President Obama spent more than 70 percent of his campaign expenses on advertising. But, despite the huge sums put towards it, the effectiveness of political advertising is far from clear-cut.

 

Getting noticed
The most obvious benefit of a media campaign is name recognition. Unsurprisingly, many studies have found that people prefer candidates they recognise over those they aren’t familiar with. It goes without saying an enormous presidential campaigns tends to result in widespread recognition of the candidate.

Achieving this recognition is particularly important for newcomers. Unlike the incumbent, these challengers aren’t yet household names. Therefore it’s worth raising large funds in order to level the playing field. In this scenario, money can have a significant impact on the race, since it can determine which candidates fall down at the first hurdle.

Spending money early on in the race has also been shown to make a difference. A 2016 study found that early spending impacted who would win the primaries partly because it boosted the profiles of lesser-known candidates.

Raising public awareness is one thing. Actually persuading people to vote for a candidate is another. This is where the effects of advertising become less clear.

Some experiments have found political advertising to have only a negligible impact. One large field experiment measured the effect of TV advertising during Rick Perry’s 2006 campaign to be elected Governor of Texas. The results were surprising. Although Perry gained a 5 percent lead in the polls in the markets where the ads were played, this lasted only a week.

Potentially, that’s because a lot of voters had already made up their minds about Perry. Over the years, political partisanship in the US has increased. According to the Pew Research Centre, the overall share of US citizens who consistently stick with their political views more than doubled between 1994 and 2014 from 10 percent to 21 percent. The prevalence of “ideological silos” makes it less likely that voters will change their mind because of an advertising campaign.

“Persuading through advertisement is harder, particularly if the customer has strong brand loyalty or already knows the product. By analogy, campaign spending is least likely to help during elections where there is already substantial media coverage and hardened public perceptions. Since the US presidential election is the most extensively covered election where party attachments are the strongest, it is exactly the kind of election where we should expect campaign spending to matter least,” said Libgober.

If advertising’s ability to persuade is so fraught, then it may be that large portions of campaigning budgets are being misspent. Indeed, some suggest that elections are a case study in diminishing returns. The closer the race becomes, the more donors are prepared to spend and the less impact their money has.

 

Reading the dollar signs
Money may not dictate who wins the election. But it can tell us something about who is most likely to win.

Sometimes the number of donations indicates which candidate the wider population believes is strongest. “In elections at all levels, strong candidates typically attract more funding than weak candidates, so it is almost inevitable that there appears to be a relationship between campaign spending and winning,” said Libgober. “So maybe it isn’t that the candidate that spends the most typically wins because they spend the most, but rather that the candidate with the greatest electoral strengths tends to win and also spends the most.”

We can also get a sense of the probable winner by looking at how many small-donors have contributed to their campaign. Small-donors are very likely to vote, so the number that a campaign attracts is a useful gauge for a candidate’s popularity with voters. According to the Centre for Responsive Politics, Trump has raised almost $100m more than Biden from such voters.

So following the money can give us an indication of which way voters are leaning. As for whether the amount spent in the campaign will actually affect the election result, Libgober is doubtful.

“Of course, in a razor-thin election such as 2000 or 2016, even small differences can prove pivotal. At this point the polling does not suggest a razor-thin election outcome [for Trump versus Biden], although that could change. I suspect that the performance of the economy and the stock market, the direction of the pandemic, and issues around ballot access are more likely to matter than anything the campaigns do themselves,” said Libgober.

All things considered, campaign spending appears to be most effective when a candidate needs to improve their name recognition. After this, the impact of all that advertising spending becomes much harder to evaluate.

This raises questions that have a bearing not just on campaign officials, but for wider society as well. For example, if the effect that advertising spending can have on political outcomes is limited, then this may cast doubt on the influence of digital advertising behemoths like Facebook, which has come under such intense scrutiny for their relatively unregulated approach to hosting political ads.

Even so, there’s no denying that money can distort the political process. It’s important therefore that the public knows where campaign finances are coming from. Ever since Citizens United – a 2010 case in which the Supreme Court decided that campaigns could receive unlimited amounts from companies and individuals – many have been concerned about the level of influence that rich individuals and corporations can have on the election’s outcome. Alarmingly, ‘dark money’ – undisclosed donations – has been on the rise. While the effectiveness of a lot of campaign spending is unclear, more regulation and transparency around where these funds come from would surely benefit the political process.

Top 5 countries to be world’s next manufacturing hubs

Posted on by itsupport

There’s a reason China has been named “the world’s factory”. According to data published by the United Nations Statistics Division, China accounted for almost 30 percent of global manufacturing output in 2018. China earned this status in a relatively short space of time. According to The Economist, in 1990, China produced less than 3 percent of global manufacturing output. It first overtook the US, previously the world’s manufacturing superpower, in 2010.

But the US-China trade war has prompted many companies to re-examine global supply chains. A recent study by the McKinsey Global Institute estimates that companies could shift a quarter of their global product sourcing to new countries in the next five years. Climate risks, cyber attacks and the ongoing pandemic are only accelerating this trend. In this uncertain trade environment, a growing number of countries are hopeful that they could replace China as the world’s next major manufacturing hub.

 

1 – Vietnam
So far, Vietnam has been one of the main beneficiaries of the US-China trade war, absorbing much of the manufacturing capacity that China lost. As well as cheap labour and stable politics, the country boasts increasingly liberalised trade and investment policies that make it an attractive place for businesses looking to diversify out of China. Some of the biggest names in tech have relocated some of their operations to Vietnam since tensions between the two powers soured. In early May 2020, Apple announced it would produce roughly 30 percent of its AirPods for the second quarter in Vietnam instead of China.

 

2 – Mexico
A lesser-known beneficiary of the trade war is Mexico. In a report, the investment bank Nomura pointed out that Mexico could become a top destination for US companies, with the country having set up six new factories in a range of sectors between April 2018 and August 2019. In addition, Taiwan-based manufacturers Foxconn and Pegatron, known as contractors for Apple, are among a number of companies currently considering shifting their operations to Mexico. Mexico’s proximity to the US poses a major advantage as US companies embrace “near-shoring”. The Trump administration is exploring financial incentives to encourage firms to move production facilities from Asia to the US, Latin America and the Caribbean.

 

3 – India
In recent years, India has significantly stepped up efforts to attract manufacturing investments into the country. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “Made in India” initiative is designed to help the country replace China as a global manufacturing hub. A cornerstone of this plan involves encouraging the world’s biggest smartphone brands to make their products in India. In June of this year, the country launched a $6.6bn incentive programme to boost electronics manufacturing production in the country. So far however, the country has seen only modest gains from the trade war. Analysts blame India’s stringent regulatory environment; on the Organisation for Economic Development’s FDI Regulatory Restrictiveness Index, India ranks 62nd out of 70 countries.

 

4 – Malaysia
Between 2018 and 2019, the Malaysian island of Penang saw a surge in foreign investment. Much of this came from the US, which spent $5.9bn in Malaysia in the first nine months of 2019, up from $889m the year before, according to the Malaysian Investment Development Authority. US chip maker Micron Technology announced it would spend RM1.5bn ($364.5m) over five years on a new drive assembly and test facility. However, the loss of trade from China has hit Malaysia hard. Many tech firms in Penang rely on China for as much as 60 percent of their components and materials.

 

5 – Singapore
Singapore’s manufacturing prowess has somewhat depleted in recent years. While manufacturing contributes about 30 percent of the GDP of Taiwan and South Korea, it makes up just 19 percent of Singapore’s. However, the trade war and the coronavirus pandemic could change this. As a trade hub with liberal trade and investment policies and a history of stable economic growth, Singapore is well-positioned to boost its manufacturing capabilities and capitalise on this opportunity. However, like Malaysia, Singapore is also struggling with the knock-on effects of decreased demand from China. The export-dependent country has seen its manufacturing output slump as a result of the trade war – a sign that the country could benefit from greater independence from China.

How culture can help explain economic development

Posted on by itsupport

In the middle of the eighteenth century, Europe experienced explosive economic growth. GDP per capita in the Netherlands – one of the richest parts of Europe at the time – was 42 percent higher than in the Yangzi delta, then the economic powerhouse of China. By 1770, that figure had reached 90 percent. In just a few decades, Europe wealth had rapidly surpassed that of all other regions.

The Great Divergence, as it is called, helped spawn the discipline of economics as we know it today. Adam Smith’s landmark 1776 text The Wealth of Nations sought to identify the major contributors to a nation’s wealth and sparked a long line of economic inquiry analysing how culture dictates which countries become wealthy and which do not. Many of these analyses concluded that European culture alone was conducive to economic growth; the German political economist Max Weber argued that the Protestant work ethic was responsible for Europe’s high economic output.

In the twentieth century, cultural explanations for wealth inequality between nations began to lose their popularity with economists. There were two main reasons for this. One was the rise of the ‘Asian tiger economies’, which refuted the idea that only Western, Christian cultures could enjoy great economic success. The other was the growing prevalence of data, which gave rise to more quantitative theories for the explanations of markets as well as economic explanations of sociology.

“In the 1960s to the 1970s, mainstream economists began to argue that economics could provide explanations for many phenomena in social sciences,” said Paola Sapeinza, the Professor of Consumer Finance at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. “The paradigm became that economics affects culture, not the other way around. For example, basic economics was used to explain family decisions, such as the participation of women in the workforce and fertility choices, ignoring cultural influence.”

Now, the dial has swung back once again. Today’s economists are turning to culture to answer questions about people’s financial behaviours and what shapes them.

 

A different perspective
Towards the end of the twentieth century, economists began to see the pitfalls of imposing economic policies without paying heed to culture. The Washington Consensus, for example – a set of neoliberal policies presented to the International Monetary Fund in 1989 – is broadly seen as having failed to achieve its goal of bringing prosperity to Latin America. In the thirty years after the Washington Consensus was implemented, Latin America grew less than 1 percent per year per capita terms, compared to 2.6 percent annual growth between 1960 and 1981.

This shows that, while a certain kind of institutional reform may succeed in one country, it won’t necessarily succeed in another, and culture may be the reason why. “One example is Italy,” said Thierry Verdier, Professor of Economics at Paris School of Economics, “where you had reforms that worked in the north but not in the south. Why? People have begun to think that it’s down to very long-term factors such as the development of cities in the north of Italy and the building up of social capital there that happened over a long period of time. It didn’t exist in the south because of other historical developments.”

There are many scenarios where economics alone cannot account for the behaviour of a certain group. For example, immigrants and their children often exhibit different behaviour despite being in the same economic environment as other citizens.

“Immigrant children of a certain origin systematically outperform US-born students in the country, even if they attend the same school. These differences hold after taking into account the income and the education of the parent,” said Sapienza. “If the explanation for these differences in behaviour were economic conditions or the quality of the institution, we would not observe these differences.”

By identifying the cultural beliefs that proliferate in more productive and innovative countries, we could advance our understanding of the conditions needed for economic success. “We understand that if we invest more in physical capital or in finance or in technology the economy probably will grow more. But that doesn’t necessarily explain the variety of growth across the world,” said Verdier. “To explain that, we need to go to deeper causes which relate to how a country developed.”

 

The traits of successful countries
Economists have linked some cultural beliefs to higher levels of economic development. One of these, inevitably, is a population’s willingness to engage in markets, whether through investment or employment. “The decision to work has economic consequences for the individual and the family but more generally for the development of the nations,” said Sapienza, “as productivity is positively affected by the share of labour participation in the economy.”

To assess this willingness to participate in markets, economists will sometimes look at the prevalence of social trust in a given community. Many studies have associated increased social trust with higher rates of trade, innovation and development in a country’s financial sector. Countries that record low levels of trust between strangers, meanwhile, tend to be less economically developed. Of course, institutions have a role to play here as well. If a country’s economic institutions are less transparent and less reliable, it follows that people would be less likely to trust them with their capital.

Studies have also revealed a correlation between the strength of family ties in a country and that nation’s economic development. Stronger family ties usually means more family businesses. As family businesses are often less competitive and less efficient than other firms, their prevalence can have a negative impact on the economy.

A look into the past could explain why some of these traits develop in the first place. A 2019 paper by Benjamin Enke, Assistant Professor at Harvard University’s Department of Economics, proposes that pre-industrial groups with a higher occurrence of pathogens in their environment were more likely to forge close-knit family ties, because shunning outsiders was vital for reducing the risk of infection. Even as a culture evolves, deep-rooted factors like this may continue to play a role.

However, it can be hard to determine whether the level of economic development in a country is mainly down to culture or policy. In the case of the Soviet Union, low productivity wasn’t the result of a cultural trait but rather the collectivist regime that had been imposed on the population. Clearly, the economic environment itself has serious implications for a population’s financial preferences and social mobility. The same is true of a country’s physical environment. For example, a study published in the Journal of Human Development has found that landlocked countries are generally at a greater economic disadvantage.

 

Culture clash
Studying culture’s impact on economics is not without its complications. As the economic historian David Landes points out, one problem with discussing the pitfalls of a certain culture is that it could lead to xenophobic interpretations.

Another issue is that culture itself is difficult to define. The vagueness and breadth of the concept makes it hard to draw clear conclusion about its influence on economics. “It’s not necessarily only based on objective measures,” said Verdier. “There’s a degree to which it is very much subjective and how we measure subjectivity is an issue for economists.”

Attempts have been made to create a more precise definition for use by economists. In 2006, Sapienza and her co-authors Luigi Zingales and Luigi Guiso described culture as the “customary beliefs and values that ethnic, religious, and social groups transmit fairly unchanged from generation to generation”.

What’s more, over time, better techniques and more data have been made it easier to qualitatively measure cultural traits. The World Values Survey and the General Social Survey were introduced in the 1980s to evaluate people’s values and beliefs and how these change over time.

“Once you have that information,” said Verdier, “you can relate it to information which is much less subjective, such as growth rates or poverty rates or the fact that particular countries implement regulations on labour markets this way and some do it in another way. So economists take the subjective information from these surveys and relate it to the more objective economic indicators that are more systematically collected in a very well-defined manner from the start.”

 

The implications for policy
When taking culture into account, it’s important to consider the way it interacts with other factors that impact economics. Verdier believes that the complex interplay between culture and institutions is crucial for understanding why and how countries develop in different ways.

“There’s one aspect that is often debated among economists,” he told World Finance, “which is whether or not the interactions between institutions and culture are complementary. Certain types of formal rules are complementary to the development of the maintenance of particular beliefs. Say, for instance, that you have a discriminatory market institution like slavery. That certainly interacts in a complementary way with the beliefs of racism. And so that’s a case where the racist culture you have is complimentary to the types of institutions in the country and they reinforce each other.”

But the opposite can also be true. “You may have a situation where, on the contrary, institutions and culture tend to mitigate each other in terms of their effects,” said Verdier. “For instance, a country’s population could have a strong belief in the value of work and, at the same time, welfare programmes that are maybe too generous or just distributed without any conditions. And that could generate a notion that you have rights and those rights actually depreciate the value of work, which in turn creates, of course, inefficiency in terms of the social welfare system.”

Understanding how culture and institutions reinforce or counterbalance one another can have real-world applications for the way we implement policy. Before reforming an institution, it’s important to know whether an existing cultural belief or value could potentially undermine it. “In that sense,” said Verdier, “having some knowledge coming from sociologists to economists that do this kind of work from a quantitative perspective, may provide some insight on whether or not you have a framework in place of institutional reforms to make them more effective.”

For decades, economists turned their nose up at cultural explanations for economic outcomes. The economist Robert Solow said that attempts to meld the two subjects ended up in “a blaze of amateur sociology”. But no market is created in a vacuum. Today, economists are increasingly willing to recognise that the wealth of a given nation cannot be explained without acknowledging the complex interplay between many different factors, from its institutions to its cultural beliefs to its environment and its pre-modern history. “As wonderful as a tool economics is, it does not explain all behaviours. Incorporating culture among the explanations has made economics a much more powerful tool,” said Sapienza.