NEWS - Commodites, Agriculture, Green Investment - NEWS
Showing posts with label Green. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Green. Show all posts
11/18/2012
Richard Branson Invests in Russian Green Growth
31.10.2012 | Issue 5005
Roland Oliphant
British tycoon Richard Branson and Rusnano chief Anatoly Chubais have launched a $200 million investment fund to back green growth and energy-efficiency projects in Russia.
The VGF Emerging Market Growth I L.P. — an independent fund backed by Branson's Virgin Group, the Virgin Green Fund and Rusnano Capital, the investment arm of state-owned Rusnano — will invest in buyout and growth equity opportunities in mid-capitalization companies working in resource efficiency, consumer sustainability and renewable energy, the companies said Wednesday.
The fund is envisioned as an emerging markets sister to the Virgin's Green Fund, an investment vehicle focused on North America and Western Europe. It will have offices in London and Moscow, but besides Russia will also invest in Turkey and Central and Eastern Europe, the Virgin Green Group said in a statement.
In the energy-importing economies of Central and Eastern Europe and Turkey, the fund looks to the renewables energy sector, while in Russia the focus will be on "resource efficiency" opportunities across sectors including transportation, building materials, lighting, water, agriculture and energy efficiency, fund partner Brooks Preston said.
While there is no set green criteria for projects or companies attracting the fund's investments, Preston said that "helping customers save resources" should be a core part of the business of any company the fund invests in.
The full cycle of investments should be four to five years.
Speaking at the launch in Moscow, Branson said the fund would provide investors with "tremendous opportunities to generate strong returns and also do something good for the planet at the same time."
Chubais said Rusnano would contribute about a third of the fund's commitments.
"In other words, for each ruble that Rusnano invests, 2 rubles will be invested by its partners, including Richard Branson himself," Chubais told reporters.
Virgin first approached Rusnano in November last year, attracted by Chubais and his team's "good connections, experience and reliability," Preston said.
He said the fund has already identified several potential projects in Russia but declined to offer details because the deals have not yet been closed.
The Russian government has set a target of slashing the consumption of energy per unit of GDP by 40 percent by 2020.
Read more: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/special/environment/eng/richard-branson-invests-in-russian-green-growth.html#ixzz2Cayi7kmy
The Moscow Times
11/24/2010
CalPERS invests $500 million in new environmentally-conscious strategy
November 22nd, 2010
The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the largest public pension fund in the United States, recently put $500 million into a strategy that invests in environmentally-focused global public companies. The new internally-managed strategy will be modeled after HSBC’s Global Climate Change Benchmark Index (HSBC CCI). According to CalPERS, “companies must derive a material portion of their revenues from low-carbon energy production,” including alternative energies, water conservation and control, energy efficiency, and carbon trading, in order to be included in the portfolio.
“Until now, we’ve invested in external managers whose funds screen out the worst offending public companies,” commented CalPERS Board President Rob Feckner. “But this more robust, quantitative strategy will allow us on a large scale to support and become more directly involved in positive change by top performers that have improved share value and also done good for the environment.”
So although CalPERS has focused on restricting its investments in companies with negative environmental impacts in the past, their new environmental investment strategy takes a different approach. “Research shows that a positive inclusionary methodology for investing in common stock companies is more successful than a negative exclusionary approach that uses subjective rather than quantitative selection criteria,” stated George Diehr, Chair of the CalPERS Investment Committee.
CalPERS manages the retirement benefits for over 1.6 million California public employees and their families. The pension fund oversees $219 billion in assets under management.
The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the largest public pension fund in the United States, recently put $500 million into a strategy that invests in environmentally-focused global public companies. The new internally-managed strategy will be modeled after HSBC’s Global Climate Change Benchmark Index (HSBC CCI). According to CalPERS, “companies must derive a material portion of their revenues from low-carbon energy production,” including alternative energies, water conservation and control, energy efficiency, and carbon trading, in order to be included in the portfolio.
“Until now, we’ve invested in external managers whose funds screen out the worst offending public companies,” commented CalPERS Board President Rob Feckner. “But this more robust, quantitative strategy will allow us on a large scale to support and become more directly involved in positive change by top performers that have improved share value and also done good for the environment.”
So although CalPERS has focused on restricting its investments in companies with negative environmental impacts in the past, their new environmental investment strategy takes a different approach. “Research shows that a positive inclusionary methodology for investing in common stock companies is more successful than a negative exclusionary approach that uses subjective rather than quantitative selection criteria,” stated George Diehr, Chair of the CalPERS Investment Committee.
CalPERS manages the retirement benefits for over 1.6 million California public employees and their families. The pension fund oversees $219 billion in assets under management.
5/28/2010
Sparx Gains After Saying It Will Start Green Fund Next Month
By Tomoko Yamazaki
May 28 (Bloomberg) -- Sparx Group Co., Asia’s biggest hedge-fund manager, rose as much as 6.5 percent to 11,980 yen in Tokyo trading after saying it plans to start a Japan-focused green fund with backing from a Middle East sovereign investor on June 1.
May 28 (Bloomberg) -- Sparx Group Co., Asia’s biggest hedge-fund manager, rose as much as 6.5 percent to 11,980 yen in Tokyo trading after saying it plans to start a Japan-focused green fund with backing from a Middle East sovereign investor on June 1.
5/01/2009
Le pari mondial de la croissance verte
lemonde.fr, Antoine Reverchon, le 2 février 2009
Aide fiscale aux énergies renouvelables et à l’amélioration de l’efficacité énergétique des bâtiments, rénovation du réseau électrique, subventions à la recherche et au développement de produits et de services moins polluants dans l’industrie et les transports, normes environnementales plus sévères… L’une, l’autre ou plusieurs de ces mesures se retrouvent dans le plan de relance de 819 milliards de dollars (639 milliards d’euros) voté par la Chambre des représentants américaine le mercredi 28 janvier, et dans le plan de relance de 26 milliards d’euros adopté par le Parlement français le lendemain, dont les mesures devaient être détailléees le 2 février par le premier ministre, François Fillon.
Mais au-delà des effets attendus à court terme sur l’emploi et l’activité, ce ” verdissement ” des plans de relance, que l’on retrouve en Chine, en Allemagne, au Japon, pose les jalons du basculement d’un modèle économique basé sur le pétrole et responsable du réchauffement climatique, vers un modèle gérant au mieux les ressources de la planète.
Barack Obama s’est inspiré du programme ” Repower America ” élaboré par Al Gore, l’ancien vice président de Bill Clinton, qui prévoit de mettre en place en dix ans un modèle énergétique rendant les Etats-Unis indépendants du pétrole, et donc des pays producteurs. La double signification de power (pouvoir et énergie) prend ici tout son sens. Il s’agit de changer de système économique et de résoudre un problème de sécurité nationale. En France, 35 % des investissements prévus par le plan ” anticipent sur l’application du Grenelle de l’environnement “actuellement discuté au Sénat, a affirmé Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, l’ex-secrétaire d’Etat à l’environnement.
Mais le risque est alors de voir l’argent public s’engouffrer dans des secteurs ou des technologies non viables. Ceci simplement parce qu’ils bénéficient d’un meilleur lobbying ou d’un effet de mode, redoute l’économiste américain Robert Bell (City University of NewYork M. Bell a mis en évidence les gaspillages engendrés par certains choix technologiques à Washington. De même, ajoute-t-il, des incitations fiscales, couplées au comportement mimétique des marchés financiers, peuvent conduire les investisseurs à créer une nouvelle bulle financière sur la ” green tech”.
Pour que les pouvoirs publics, mais aussi les agents économiques – entreprises, investisseurs et consommateurs – ne s’égarent pas dans un maquis de promesses parées des vertus de l’écologie, les économistes estiment que les prix des biens et services consommés doivent intégrer le coût de leurs effets réels sur le climat, via un prix par tonne de CO2. Seul ce ” signal prix “, indique Cédric Philibert, économiste à l’Agence internationale de l’énergie, peut inciter les industriels à investir dans des technologies propres, les investisseurs à mesurer le risque de leurs choix, les ménages à adopter un mode de consommation plus durable.
L’économiste britannique Terry Barker(Cambridge) a même mis au point un modèle économique montrant que plus le prix du carbone est élevé, plus les investissements massifs que cette contrainte entraîne génèrent une croissance forte, explique son collègue Patrick Criqui (université de Grenoble) . Mais les économistes se divisent sur l’instrument le plus apte à émettre le signal prix : le marché, où entreprises et Etats échangent les tonnes de CO2 au-delà ou en deçà des quotas qu’ils sont autorisés à émettre ? Ou bien la fiscalité, qui taxerait les biens et les services au prorata de leur teneur en carbone ? Les risques de volatilité excessive du prix de la tonne de carbone sur un marché d’autant plus imparfait qu’il n’inclut pas les émissions de l’Inde ou de la Chine font préférer la solution de la taxe carbone à certains. Le directeur de la recherche de la NASA, James Hansen, ou l’économiste Jeffrey Sachs se sont prononcés en sa faveur en attendant l’arbitrage de M. Obama, arguant du fait qu’une taxe fournit aux acteurs économiques un signal clair et constant.
M. Hansen préconise d’en reverser le produit aux ménages afin de relancer la consommation. Jean-Charles Hourcade, directeur du Centre international de recherche sur l’environnement et le développement (Cired), propose que qu’elle soit compensée par une diminution des charges sociales, afin de protéger la compétitivité des entreprises… et de relancer l’emploi. Mais commele fait remarquer Benoît Leguet (mission Climat de la Caisse des dépôts et consignations), ” les tentatives d’instaurer une taxe carbone ont toutes échoué ” face à l’hostilité à l’impôt.
Il préconise donc le développement de marchés carbone sectoriels et régionaux, la probabilité d’un marché mondial étant suspendue à un accord international qui sera long à venir. Mais il faudrait pour cela que les quotas attribués soient payants, afin que le carbone ait un prix dès la première tonne émise. Ce n’est pas le choix qui a été fait par l’Union européenne lors de l’adoption du paquet Energie-Climat le 12 décembre 2008 : la plupart des quotas seront gratuits. Ce qui, ajouté à la réticence à adopter une taxe carbone, fait douter l’économiste Olivier Godard, de l’Ecole polytechnique, de la réelle volonté des politiques de s’engager en faveur d’une économie verte. Faute d’une incitation par le prix, ni les entreprises ni les ménages n’abandonneront facilement leur addiction aux énergies fossile.
4/16/2009
Green Joblessness
Spain shows the follow of eco-employment policies.
From today's Wall Street Journal Europe.
To little fanfare this month, BP closed a solar-cell factory in Madrid, laying off 480 workers. But wait, aren't "green-collar" jobs the wave of the future -- the kind of employment that will only grow and "can't be outsourced," as President Obama likes to say?
Spain happens to be the country that the President often cites as his role model for the Green Jobs Revolution. It's also the source of an important new study that explains how expensive these jobs are -- and why Spain's renewable-energy business is a bubble waiting to burst. The study, released last month by researchers at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, uses data from the Spanish government and European Union to demonstrate that each job created in Spain's renewables industry costs as much as 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy.
The study's authors calculate that jobs in Spain's solar, wind and hydroelectric power industries were subsidized to the tune of more than €570,000 apiece from 2000 to 2008 -- a total exceeding €28.6 billion. And that figure only includes the extra cost to energy consumers of being forced by the government to buy renewable energy at prices several times higher than market rates for conventional power. The authors didn't calculate direct subsidies, such as grants to build solar farms, because the government doesn't even know how much money it has handed out to the renewables industry. But the direct-subsidies tally is at least €1.1 billion.
Some commentators have reported that Spain has lost 2.2 jobs for each job created by solar, wind or hydroelectric power producers. But the study instead is talking about opportunity cost -- the jobs that weren't created because resources were used inefficiently, or what the French economist Frédéric Bastiat meant by "what is seen and what is not seen."
Yet these "lost" jobs have a real impact, particularly when employment rolls are shrinking elsewhere. They're also politically pernicious, in that it's easier to point to a new green-collar worker than to the two or three people who remain unemployed because other jobs were crowded out.
What hasn't been reported in much detail from the Juan Carlos study is the way Spanish renewable-energy policy created an enormous investment bubble that may already be bursting. In many ways, this is the most important element of the report.
Since 2004, Spain's Socialist government has essentially guaranteed a huge return on any investment in solar, wind or hydro. It's done so by requiring electricity distributors to buy all renewable energy produced in the country, at prices that at times have been 10 times higher than market rates. This is known as a "feed-in price," and it has cost Spanish energy customers an extra €28.6 billion this decade.
Initially, the government set a regulated price for solar power of 575% of market rates for small producers and "only" 300% for larger ones. The result was a series of inefficient solar farms small enough to get the higher subsidy but often owned by the same companies. And not just by power companies: "builders, real estate companies, hotel groups and even truck manufacturers" got in on the action.
In 2007 the government finally tweaked the subsidy schedule to level the playing field for larger solar producers. Yet within four months, regulators realized that the mandated prices were still so generous that 85% of all solar-powered generating capacity due by 2010 was already in place. To rein in the market, Madrid passed still another law that sharply reduced incentives to build new solar capacity.
Firms had one year to get in under the old system, and, boy, did they work overtime to make it: Government data indicate that 83% of Spain's solar capacity was installed in those 12 months. That jump came after solar capacity had already grown by 118% in 2005, 308% in 2006, and 458% in 2007. In all, solar-power capacity in Spain grew by more than 20,000% from 2004 to 2008, a rate surpassed perhaps only by Zimbabwe's inflation.
If that's not a bubble, we don't know what is. And while it will be a few months longer before the effects of the new, stricter solar regime can be measured, it's not hard to predict sluggishness -- if not an outright bust.
Madrid's chosen method of curtailing solar-power growth is to set a quota for new installations, one that equals about 15% of the growth seen in 2008. That means the jolly green job fairy will soon be leaving: Two-thirds of the roughly 50,000 jobs created in renewables have been in construction, manufacturing and installation -- exactly the kind of growth that couldn't be maintained, and which Madrid is explicitly trying to curb now. Trade unions say the new law has already led to 15,000 solar job losses in just a few months -- and that was before the 480 that BP cut.
Some people might be tempted to conclude from Spain's experience that renewable-energy policies must simply be drawn up more tightly to avoid this kind of boom and bust. They'd be wrong.
Spanish policy shows that green dreams like renewable energy are achievable only through massive transfers of money from productive sectors to those seeking to get rich quick thanks to government mandates. And that the few jobs created greatly depend on maintaining impossible levels of growth. Even in Mr. Obama's Washington, you can't print enough greenbacks to pay for these green jobs.
From today's Wall Street Journal Europe.
To little fanfare this month, BP closed a solar-cell factory in Madrid, laying off 480 workers. But wait, aren't "green-collar" jobs the wave of the future -- the kind of employment that will only grow and "can't be outsourced," as President Obama likes to say?
Spain happens to be the country that the President often cites as his role model for the Green Jobs Revolution. It's also the source of an important new study that explains how expensive these jobs are -- and why Spain's renewable-energy business is a bubble waiting to burst. The study, released last month by researchers at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, uses data from the Spanish government and European Union to demonstrate that each job created in Spain's renewables industry costs as much as 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy.
The study's authors calculate that jobs in Spain's solar, wind and hydroelectric power industries were subsidized to the tune of more than €570,000 apiece from 2000 to 2008 -- a total exceeding €28.6 billion. And that figure only includes the extra cost to energy consumers of being forced by the government to buy renewable energy at prices several times higher than market rates for conventional power. The authors didn't calculate direct subsidies, such as grants to build solar farms, because the government doesn't even know how much money it has handed out to the renewables industry. But the direct-subsidies tally is at least €1.1 billion.
Some commentators have reported that Spain has lost 2.2 jobs for each job created by solar, wind or hydroelectric power producers. But the study instead is talking about opportunity cost -- the jobs that weren't created because resources were used inefficiently, or what the French economist Frédéric Bastiat meant by "what is seen and what is not seen."
Yet these "lost" jobs have a real impact, particularly when employment rolls are shrinking elsewhere. They're also politically pernicious, in that it's easier to point to a new green-collar worker than to the two or three people who remain unemployed because other jobs were crowded out.
What hasn't been reported in much detail from the Juan Carlos study is the way Spanish renewable-energy policy created an enormous investment bubble that may already be bursting. In many ways, this is the most important element of the report.
Since 2004, Spain's Socialist government has essentially guaranteed a huge return on any investment in solar, wind or hydro. It's done so by requiring electricity distributors to buy all renewable energy produced in the country, at prices that at times have been 10 times higher than market rates. This is known as a "feed-in price," and it has cost Spanish energy customers an extra €28.6 billion this decade.
Initially, the government set a regulated price for solar power of 575% of market rates for small producers and "only" 300% for larger ones. The result was a series of inefficient solar farms small enough to get the higher subsidy but often owned by the same companies. And not just by power companies: "builders, real estate companies, hotel groups and even truck manufacturers" got in on the action.
In 2007 the government finally tweaked the subsidy schedule to level the playing field for larger solar producers. Yet within four months, regulators realized that the mandated prices were still so generous that 85% of all solar-powered generating capacity due by 2010 was already in place. To rein in the market, Madrid passed still another law that sharply reduced incentives to build new solar capacity.
Firms had one year to get in under the old system, and, boy, did they work overtime to make it: Government data indicate that 83% of Spain's solar capacity was installed in those 12 months. That jump came after solar capacity had already grown by 118% in 2005, 308% in 2006, and 458% in 2007. In all, solar-power capacity in Spain grew by more than 20,000% from 2004 to 2008, a rate surpassed perhaps only by Zimbabwe's inflation.
If that's not a bubble, we don't know what is. And while it will be a few months longer before the effects of the new, stricter solar regime can be measured, it's not hard to predict sluggishness -- if not an outright bust.
Madrid's chosen method of curtailing solar-power growth is to set a quota for new installations, one that equals about 15% of the growth seen in 2008. That means the jolly green job fairy will soon be leaving: Two-thirds of the roughly 50,000 jobs created in renewables have been in construction, manufacturing and installation -- exactly the kind of growth that couldn't be maintained, and which Madrid is explicitly trying to curb now. Trade unions say the new law has already led to 15,000 solar job losses in just a few months -- and that was before the 480 that BP cut.
Some people might be tempted to conclude from Spain's experience that renewable-energy policies must simply be drawn up more tightly to avoid this kind of boom and bust. They'd be wrong.
Spanish policy shows that green dreams like renewable energy are achievable only through massive transfers of money from productive sectors to those seeking to get rich quick thanks to government mandates. And that the few jobs created greatly depend on maintaining impossible levels of growth. Even in Mr. Obama's Washington, you can't print enough greenbacks to pay for these green jobs.
3/27/2009
Gabelli to Offer Green Fund
Reuters
Renamed SRI Green Fund Adds New Focus; Enhanced Strategy Starts March 17
RYE, N.Y.--(Business Wire)--
GAMCO Investors, Inc. (NYSE: GBL) today announced that the Board of Directors
(the "Board") of The Gabelli SRI Fund, Inc. (the "Fund"), approved a broadened
"green investing" focus for the Fund through the addition of sustainability
criteria. The Board also approved a name change to Gabelli SRI Green Fund, Inc.
The Fund started investing in June 2007 with an investment objective to seek
capital appreciation through a strategy of investing in companies that act in a
socially responsible manner. Going forward, the Fund will invest at least 80% of
its assets in companies that meet both socially responsible screens as well as
sustainability criteria encompassing green investing. The name change and
enhanced strategy will take effect March 17, 2009.
John M. Segrich, CFA, who heads the Gabelli Green research team, will join
Christopher C. Desmarais as co-portfolio manager for the Gabelli SRI Green Fund.
Mr. Segrich rejoined the Gabelli organization in 2008 and brings his years of
institutional research experience to the Fund.
Commenting on the strategy, Mr. Segrich said, "Green companies around the world
are addressing sustainability issues such as Climate Change, Energy Security and
Independence, Natural Resource Shortages, Organic Living, and Urbanization
through innovative products and services. Moreover, we believe these issues are
accompanied by a series of Economic, Social, and Political (ESP) changes that
have significant global impact and should not be ignored by companies,
investors, or individuals."
Mr. Segrich continued, "Already we have seen the emergence of hundreds of new
companies, as well as the repositioning of existing ones, in the following
subsectors: clean power generation, energy storage, recycling and waste, water,
energy efficiency, transportation solutions, smart grid and distribution,
carbon, forestry, agriculture, and medicine. It is the potential represented by
these trends that we will seek to tap for our investors."
Mr. Desmarais added, "By incorporating sustainability issues into our investment
process and investing in those companies that meet the enhanced criteria, we
believe that we can create value for clients in a socially responsible manner."
GAMCO has a 20+ year history of socially responsible investing, starting in
1987. GAMCO`s SRI roster now includes foundations, endowments, and family
offices. GAMCO also manages a socially responsible investment partnership that
was introduced in 2005.
Gabelli Funds, LLC, the investment adviser to the Fund, is a subsidiary of GAMCO
Investors, Inc., which manages through its subsidiaries more than $20 billion in
assets of mutual funds, closed end funds, partnerships and private advisory
accounts as of 12/31/08.
The Fund`s share price will fluctuate with changes in the market value of the
Fund`s portfolio securities. Stocks are subject to market, economic, and
business risks that cause their prices to fluctuate. When you sell Fund shares,
they may be worth less than what you paid for them. Consequently, you can lose
money by investing in the Fund.
Foreign securities are subject to currency, information, and political risks.
The Fund is subject to the risk that the portfolio securities` private market
values may never be realized by the market, or that the portfolio securities`
prices decline.
The Fund is also subject to the risk that the portfolio manager`s assessment of
the values of the securities the Fund holds may be incorrect, which may result
in a decline in the value of Fund shares. The Fund`s social guidelines as well
as its green investing criteria may cause it to pass up opportunities to buy
securities that may be attractive or cause it to sell securities for reasons at
times or under circumstances that might be unfavorable to the Fund.
Investors should consider carefully the investment objective, risks, charges and
expenses of the fund before investing. The prospectus contains more information
about this and other matters. The prospectus should be read carefully before
investing.
Renamed SRI Green Fund Adds New Focus; Enhanced Strategy Starts March 17
RYE, N.Y.--(Business Wire)--
GAMCO Investors, Inc. (NYSE: GBL) today announced that the Board of Directors
(the "Board") of The Gabelli SRI Fund, Inc. (the "Fund"), approved a broadened
"green investing" focus for the Fund through the addition of sustainability
criteria. The Board also approved a name change to Gabelli SRI Green Fund, Inc.
The Fund started investing in June 2007 with an investment objective to seek
capital appreciation through a strategy of investing in companies that act in a
socially responsible manner. Going forward, the Fund will invest at least 80% of
its assets in companies that meet both socially responsible screens as well as
sustainability criteria encompassing green investing. The name change and
enhanced strategy will take effect March 17, 2009.
John M. Segrich, CFA, who heads the Gabelli Green research team, will join
Christopher C. Desmarais as co-portfolio manager for the Gabelli SRI Green Fund.
Mr. Segrich rejoined the Gabelli organization in 2008 and brings his years of
institutional research experience to the Fund.
Commenting on the strategy, Mr. Segrich said, "Green companies around the world
are addressing sustainability issues such as Climate Change, Energy Security and
Independence, Natural Resource Shortages, Organic Living, and Urbanization
through innovative products and services. Moreover, we believe these issues are
accompanied by a series of Economic, Social, and Political (ESP) changes that
have significant global impact and should not be ignored by companies,
investors, or individuals."
Mr. Segrich continued, "Already we have seen the emergence of hundreds of new
companies, as well as the repositioning of existing ones, in the following
subsectors: clean power generation, energy storage, recycling and waste, water,
energy efficiency, transportation solutions, smart grid and distribution,
carbon, forestry, agriculture, and medicine. It is the potential represented by
these trends that we will seek to tap for our investors."
Mr. Desmarais added, "By incorporating sustainability issues into our investment
process and investing in those companies that meet the enhanced criteria, we
believe that we can create value for clients in a socially responsible manner."
GAMCO has a 20+ year history of socially responsible investing, starting in
1987. GAMCO`s SRI roster now includes foundations, endowments, and family
offices. GAMCO also manages a socially responsible investment partnership that
was introduced in 2005.
Gabelli Funds, LLC, the investment adviser to the Fund, is a subsidiary of GAMCO
Investors, Inc., which manages through its subsidiaries more than $20 billion in
assets of mutual funds, closed end funds, partnerships and private advisory
accounts as of 12/31/08.
The Fund`s share price will fluctuate with changes in the market value of the
Fund`s portfolio securities. Stocks are subject to market, economic, and
business risks that cause their prices to fluctuate. When you sell Fund shares,
they may be worth less than what you paid for them. Consequently, you can lose
money by investing in the Fund.
Foreign securities are subject to currency, information, and political risks.
The Fund is subject to the risk that the portfolio securities` private market
values may never be realized by the market, or that the portfolio securities`
prices decline.
The Fund is also subject to the risk that the portfolio manager`s assessment of
the values of the securities the Fund holds may be incorrect, which may result
in a decline in the value of Fund shares. The Fund`s social guidelines as well
as its green investing criteria may cause it to pass up opportunities to buy
securities that may be attractive or cause it to sell securities for reasons at
times or under circumstances that might be unfavorable to the Fund.
Investors should consider carefully the investment objective, risks, charges and
expenses of the fund before investing. The prospectus contains more information
about this and other matters. The prospectus should be read carefully before
investing.
3/12/2009
Green Energy: The Largest Speculative Bubble We’ve Ever Seen
by Louis Basenese, Senior Analyst, The Oxford Club
A few months ago I warned you about the bubble in U.S. Treasuries. And sure enough, it’s popping.
Treasuries have already plummeted 20% from their December peak. By my estimates, they’ve still got another 20% to go.
But regardless of how far price falls, it’ll be a pittance compared to the losses from the next bubble - one that could be $21-trillion large when the air comes rushing out…
In what, you ask?
Green energy… but first let me provide you with a brief historical and psychological perspective. Otherwise, I’m afraid you’ll be too quick to dismiss my prediction. And that could lead to disastrous results.
Speculative Bubbles Dot The Free-Market Landscape
Instances of speculative bubbles dot the free-market landscape…
The 17th century brought us the Tulip Mania bubble, which like every bubble, was fueled by the social contagion of boom thinking. Tulips were the most-coveted flowers on the planet, different from every other flower known to horticulturists. As such, the incredible demand sent prices through the roof. The madness reached its peak during the winter of 1636-37, when tulip bulbs were changing hands ten times in a day. Soon after, however, the market crashed in spectacular fashion.
In 1720, it was the South Sea Bubble, where massive over-speculation in Britain’s South Sea Company - which was granted a monopoly to trade in Spain’s South American colonies as part of a treaty during the War of Spanish Succession - caused financial ruin for many. (Incidentally, the bursting of this bubble led to a Bubble Act - talk about a useless and ineffective piece of legislation.)
Fast-forward a couple hundred years and we endured the Japanese asset price bubble of 1990 and, of course, the infamous dot-com bubble of 2000.
Lately, we’ve stepped it up even more. Three bubbles - the housing bubble, the commodity bubble and the U.S. Treasury bubble - have been crammed into a ridiculously short time span of less than eight years.
The Green Energy Super-Bubble
And unless our pattern of behavior suddenly changes, the ominous green energy super-bubble that’s forming will burst before the prior three have ample time to deflate.
We’ve ordained a bubble economy because favorable speculative conditions constantly exist. The ever-shrinking gap between bubbles serves as all the proof we need.
Cash is the fuel.
Legislation is the accelerant, providing extra incentives via tax credits or subsidies.
And popular culture is the explosive kicker.
Together, they comprise the primary ingredients for a first-rate asset bubble.
And right now, there’s only one industry that rests squarely at the intersection of public policy, investing and popular culture - alternative energy.
That’s right. I believe “going green” will lead to lots of red for unprepared investors. As much as $21 trillion, based on former venture capitalist, Eric Janszen’s estimates. And here’s why…
1. The legislation is in place. And more is on the way. Under the Bush administration we got the ridiculous ethanol mandates. And solar and wind credits were routinely extended. Now, President Obama is making the environment and green-collar jobs the cornerstones of his economic recovery plan.
2. Money is already pouring into the sector. More than $200 billion was invested in clean energy and clean technology markets in the last two years. And yet, record amounts of cash are still waiting to be deployed. According to Bloomberg, speculators are sitting on $8.85 trillion in cash, desperate for an outlet.
3. Tough credit conditions actually encourage more speculation. Wayne Woo, director of Good Energies, reports that green start-ups will now give up to 75% ownership (up from 50%) to get their projects off the ground. Getting a bigger piece of the potential profit pie, for the same perceived level of risk, is bound to encourage more speculation.
4. Green is the new black. Forget fashionable. Going green resembles a religious movement nowadays. This alone has people ignoring economics in the name of social responsibility.
Unmistakably, the ingredients are all there.
What Will Burst This Green Energy Bubble?
The only question left is, “What will burst this green energy bubble?” Plenty of scenarios exist…
Government spending could fail to create sustainable jobs, which would, in effect, cause green investment to grind to a halt. Or, the lack of focus toward one be-all, end-all alternative-energy solution, whether it be wind, solar, biofuel, or something else, could frustrate investors and force them to bail.
Likewise, too many so-called green innovations still reside in the laboratory. Many will never make it to market, which is another surefire way to hand investors 100% losses and sap enthusiasm and future investment.
In the end, the economics just don’t add up. Without tax breaks and government subsidies, not a single alternative energy will be able to compete. So no matter how popular or fashionable alternative energy becomes, if it remains economically stupid, it’s destined to fail.
No doubt, the run-up and profits will be historic. Just be forewarned that the green euphoria will ultimately be replaced with despair and massive losses.
It’s hard to gauge exactly when it will occur, however. I estimate we’ve got another two to three years before we hit the peak. That’s why, given the capital still rushing in, I don’t recommend avoiding the sector altogether
Just be smart and buy proven (not probable) green energy companies. You don’t want to own companies that are stuck in the lab with loads of potential. Instead, pick the ones with bona fide products and loads of sales. And religiously use trailing stops. It’s the only way to make sure you don’t bail too early… or worse, too late.
Good investing,
Lou Basenese
A few months ago I warned you about the bubble in U.S. Treasuries. And sure enough, it’s popping.
Treasuries have already plummeted 20% from their December peak. By my estimates, they’ve still got another 20% to go.
But regardless of how far price falls, it’ll be a pittance compared to the losses from the next bubble - one that could be $21-trillion large when the air comes rushing out…
In what, you ask?
Green energy… but first let me provide you with a brief historical and psychological perspective. Otherwise, I’m afraid you’ll be too quick to dismiss my prediction. And that could lead to disastrous results.
Speculative Bubbles Dot The Free-Market Landscape
Instances of speculative bubbles dot the free-market landscape…
The 17th century brought us the Tulip Mania bubble, which like every bubble, was fueled by the social contagion of boom thinking. Tulips were the most-coveted flowers on the planet, different from every other flower known to horticulturists. As such, the incredible demand sent prices through the roof. The madness reached its peak during the winter of 1636-37, when tulip bulbs were changing hands ten times in a day. Soon after, however, the market crashed in spectacular fashion.
In 1720, it was the South Sea Bubble, where massive over-speculation in Britain’s South Sea Company - which was granted a monopoly to trade in Spain’s South American colonies as part of a treaty during the War of Spanish Succession - caused financial ruin for many. (Incidentally, the bursting of this bubble led to a Bubble Act - talk about a useless and ineffective piece of legislation.)
Fast-forward a couple hundred years and we endured the Japanese asset price bubble of 1990 and, of course, the infamous dot-com bubble of 2000.
Lately, we’ve stepped it up even more. Three bubbles - the housing bubble, the commodity bubble and the U.S. Treasury bubble - have been crammed into a ridiculously short time span of less than eight years.
The Green Energy Super-Bubble
And unless our pattern of behavior suddenly changes, the ominous green energy super-bubble that’s forming will burst before the prior three have ample time to deflate.
We’ve ordained a bubble economy because favorable speculative conditions constantly exist. The ever-shrinking gap between bubbles serves as all the proof we need.
Cash is the fuel.
Legislation is the accelerant, providing extra incentives via tax credits or subsidies.
And popular culture is the explosive kicker.
Together, they comprise the primary ingredients for a first-rate asset bubble.
And right now, there’s only one industry that rests squarely at the intersection of public policy, investing and popular culture - alternative energy.
That’s right. I believe “going green” will lead to lots of red for unprepared investors. As much as $21 trillion, based on former venture capitalist, Eric Janszen’s estimates. And here’s why…
1. The legislation is in place. And more is on the way. Under the Bush administration we got the ridiculous ethanol mandates. And solar and wind credits were routinely extended. Now, President Obama is making the environment and green-collar jobs the cornerstones of his economic recovery plan.
2. Money is already pouring into the sector. More than $200 billion was invested in clean energy and clean technology markets in the last two years. And yet, record amounts of cash are still waiting to be deployed. According to Bloomberg, speculators are sitting on $8.85 trillion in cash, desperate for an outlet.
3. Tough credit conditions actually encourage more speculation. Wayne Woo, director of Good Energies, reports that green start-ups will now give up to 75% ownership (up from 50%) to get their projects off the ground. Getting a bigger piece of the potential profit pie, for the same perceived level of risk, is bound to encourage more speculation.
4. Green is the new black. Forget fashionable. Going green resembles a religious movement nowadays. This alone has people ignoring economics in the name of social responsibility.
Unmistakably, the ingredients are all there.
What Will Burst This Green Energy Bubble?
The only question left is, “What will burst this green energy bubble?” Plenty of scenarios exist…
Government spending could fail to create sustainable jobs, which would, in effect, cause green investment to grind to a halt. Or, the lack of focus toward one be-all, end-all alternative-energy solution, whether it be wind, solar, biofuel, or something else, could frustrate investors and force them to bail.
Likewise, too many so-called green innovations still reside in the laboratory. Many will never make it to market, which is another surefire way to hand investors 100% losses and sap enthusiasm and future investment.
In the end, the economics just don’t add up. Without tax breaks and government subsidies, not a single alternative energy will be able to compete. So no matter how popular or fashionable alternative energy becomes, if it remains economically stupid, it’s destined to fail.
No doubt, the run-up and profits will be historic. Just be forewarned that the green euphoria will ultimately be replaced with despair and massive losses.
It’s hard to gauge exactly when it will occur, however. I estimate we’ve got another two to three years before we hit the peak. That’s why, given the capital still rushing in, I don’t recommend avoiding the sector altogether
Just be smart and buy proven (not probable) green energy companies. You don’t want to own companies that are stuck in the lab with loads of potential. Instead, pick the ones with bona fide products and loads of sales. And religiously use trailing stops. It’s the only way to make sure you don’t bail too early… or worse, too late.
Good investing,
Lou Basenese
12/25/2008
Green Trading & Carbon Finance
Tuesday, September 16th: 9:45am - 10:45am
With soaring oil prices and global warming, energy conservation and environmental impact are becoming some of the largest areas of focus across Society and around the globe. This session brings together leaders in the field to examine trends and sustainability of breakthroughs in these areas, along with focusing on how traders and investors can profit.
Moderator:
Brad Gentry, Director of the Center for Business and the Environment at
the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Panel:
Paul Ezekiel, Global Head of Carbon Trading for Credit Suisse
Peter Fusaro, Chairman of Global Change Associates
Martin Whittaker, Director of Environmental Finance Strategy for Mission Point Capital
Benjamin Chesir, Senior Vice President, New Product Development, NYMEX
With soaring oil prices and global warming, energy conservation and environmental impact are becoming some of the largest areas of focus across Society and around the globe. This session brings together leaders in the field to examine trends and sustainability of breakthroughs in these areas, along with focusing on how traders and investors can profit.
Moderator:
Brad Gentry, Director of the Center for Business and the Environment at
the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Panel:
Paul Ezekiel, Global Head of Carbon Trading for Credit Suisse
Peter Fusaro, Chairman of Global Change Associates
Martin Whittaker, Director of Environmental Finance Strategy for Mission Point Capital
Benjamin Chesir, Senior Vice President, New Product Development, NYMEX
Green Investing Gold Rush
As wealthy investors pour money into green investments, small investors flock to green funds, despite high volatility
Published on: Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Written by: Helen Kaiao Chang
The “green rush” is on. From large to small investors, the financial community is mining for green investments, making them one of the fastest-growing areas of the market.
Billionaires and millionaires are pouring trillions of dollars into green companies, while smaller investors are putting money into a slew of new green mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, or ETFs.
Green companies are dedicated to find alternative energy solutions, reducing carbon footprints and cleaning up the environment. The breadth and depth of money going into these companies is creating more viable investment opportunities for the market.
“Green investing has definitely taken root,” said Michael Herbst, analyst covering green funds at Morningstar, a leading investment research firm. “You have some very, very experienced, savvy, bottom line-oriented investors taking a pretty hard look at some of these opportunities and determining that they are attractive over the long haul.”
Green mutual funds can be as volatile as they are popularBut as with any gold rush, the risks can be high and the market volatile. Financial advisors caution that anyone venturing into this market better be prepared to stomach volatility and stick it out for the long term in order to realize strong returns.
“Most of the publicly-traded companies in this space are small and their share prices can be highly volatile,” said Steve Schueth (pronounced “sheeth”), president of First Affirmative Financial Network, an FCC-registered group of 120 advisors, which manages $700 million in socially-screened funds. “The innate nature of these kinds of investments requires a longer-term, well-diversified investment strategy.”
Billionaires and millionaires have started staking out claims in the green rush. Texas oil magnate T. Boone Pickens is investing $10 billion to build the world’s biggest wind farm. Bill Gates dropped $84 million in an ethanol company. Sun Microsystems co-founder and billionaire Vinod Khosla invested in cellulosic research.
Multi-millionaires worldwide are also panning for green. According to the World Wealth Report 2008, released by Capgemini and Merrill Lynch financial advisors, wealthy individuals have upped their investment in green industries. Total investment in the clean technology sector rose by 41 percent from 2005 to US$117 billion in 2007, the report said.
Wealthy individuals are devoting a greater portion of their portfolios to green industries. Globally, individuals with more than $1 million in assets put 12 percent of their portfolio in alternative energy investments, while individuals with more than $30 million put slight more at 14 percent, said the World Wealth Report.
In the U.S., high net-worth clients parked $39.5 billion in socially and environmentally-screened investments with management advisors in 2007, more than double the $17.3 billion managed in 2005. This is according to the 2007 Report on Socially Responsible Investing Trends, released by the Social Investment Forum.
Wealthy individuals have also invested in green companies through venture capital firms. Venture capitalists worldwide invested a whopping $3.25 billion in green energy companies in the first six months of 2008, according to the Cleantech Group, market researchers which track green energy investments. This is about a 50 percent increase over last year, which raised $3.9 billion for the entire year.
But the market is still young and investors will need patience to see returns. Morningstar’s Herbst noted that venture capitalists investing in the green sector “may not expect profits for five to seven years. So it is that longer term view that might be necessary for recognizing some of these opportunities.”
Smaller investors have also joined in the green rush, despite volatility. Morningstar tracks 38 green funds and ETFs, valued at about $7.5 trillion as of August 25 this year. Among these, nearly two-thirds, or 22 funds and ETFs, were launched within the last two years, including seven this year alone.
Analyst Herbst said he attributes this growth to media attention on green issues, as well as market opportunity. “It’s not surprising for us to see a number of new product launches where there is perceived opportunities,” he said.
Yet, most of these green funds have had extremely volatile performance, many rising by some 50 percent annually in the last two years, only to sink as much as 30 percent this year to August 25. In contrast, the S&P 500 was down about 12 percent by the same date this year.
First Affirmative’s Schueth recommends that investors diversify and take a long-term view. He advises clients to not allot more than 7 percent of their total portfolio—or 10 percent if they have very deep pockets—to green funds. He also suggests that green stock investors plan to park their money for at least five years. “People with short-term perspectives are not really investing, just gaming,” he said.
Despite all the volatility, the green energy sector could be here to stay. “There are organizations that are dedicating pretty meaningful research resources to this area, and thus could have some staying power,” said Morningstar’s Herbst.
For more info about the green movement's impact on venture capital investment, see our article Clean Technology "Boom"? and the accompanying data chart.
Published on: Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Written by: Helen Kaiao Chang
The “green rush” is on. From large to small investors, the financial community is mining for green investments, making them one of the fastest-growing areas of the market.
Billionaires and millionaires are pouring trillions of dollars into green companies, while smaller investors are putting money into a slew of new green mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, or ETFs.
Green companies are dedicated to find alternative energy solutions, reducing carbon footprints and cleaning up the environment. The breadth and depth of money going into these companies is creating more viable investment opportunities for the market.
“Green investing has definitely taken root,” said Michael Herbst, analyst covering green funds at Morningstar, a leading investment research firm. “You have some very, very experienced, savvy, bottom line-oriented investors taking a pretty hard look at some of these opportunities and determining that they are attractive over the long haul.”
Green mutual funds can be as volatile as they are popularBut as with any gold rush, the risks can be high and the market volatile. Financial advisors caution that anyone venturing into this market better be prepared to stomach volatility and stick it out for the long term in order to realize strong returns.
“Most of the publicly-traded companies in this space are small and their share prices can be highly volatile,” said Steve Schueth (pronounced “sheeth”), president of First Affirmative Financial Network, an FCC-registered group of 120 advisors, which manages $700 million in socially-screened funds. “The innate nature of these kinds of investments requires a longer-term, well-diversified investment strategy.”
Billionaires and millionaires have started staking out claims in the green rush. Texas oil magnate T. Boone Pickens is investing $10 billion to build the world’s biggest wind farm. Bill Gates dropped $84 million in an ethanol company. Sun Microsystems co-founder and billionaire Vinod Khosla invested in cellulosic research.
Multi-millionaires worldwide are also panning for green. According to the World Wealth Report 2008, released by Capgemini and Merrill Lynch financial advisors, wealthy individuals have upped their investment in green industries. Total investment in the clean technology sector rose by 41 percent from 2005 to US$117 billion in 2007, the report said.
Wealthy individuals are devoting a greater portion of their portfolios to green industries. Globally, individuals with more than $1 million in assets put 12 percent of their portfolio in alternative energy investments, while individuals with more than $30 million put slight more at 14 percent, said the World Wealth Report.
In the U.S., high net-worth clients parked $39.5 billion in socially and environmentally-screened investments with management advisors in 2007, more than double the $17.3 billion managed in 2005. This is according to the 2007 Report on Socially Responsible Investing Trends, released by the Social Investment Forum.
Wealthy individuals have also invested in green companies through venture capital firms. Venture capitalists worldwide invested a whopping $3.25 billion in green energy companies in the first six months of 2008, according to the Cleantech Group, market researchers which track green energy investments. This is about a 50 percent increase over last year, which raised $3.9 billion for the entire year.
But the market is still young and investors will need patience to see returns. Morningstar’s Herbst noted that venture capitalists investing in the green sector “may not expect profits for five to seven years. So it is that longer term view that might be necessary for recognizing some of these opportunities.”
Smaller investors have also joined in the green rush, despite volatility. Morningstar tracks 38 green funds and ETFs, valued at about $7.5 trillion as of August 25 this year. Among these, nearly two-thirds, or 22 funds and ETFs, were launched within the last two years, including seven this year alone.
Analyst Herbst said he attributes this growth to media attention on green issues, as well as market opportunity. “It’s not surprising for us to see a number of new product launches where there is perceived opportunities,” he said.
Yet, most of these green funds have had extremely volatile performance, many rising by some 50 percent annually in the last two years, only to sink as much as 30 percent this year to August 25. In contrast, the S&P 500 was down about 12 percent by the same date this year.
First Affirmative’s Schueth recommends that investors diversify and take a long-term view. He advises clients to not allot more than 7 percent of their total portfolio—or 10 percent if they have very deep pockets—to green funds. He also suggests that green stock investors plan to park their money for at least five years. “People with short-term perspectives are not really investing, just gaming,” he said.
Despite all the volatility, the green energy sector could be here to stay. “There are organizations that are dedicating pretty meaningful research resources to this area, and thus could have some staying power,” said Morningstar’s Herbst.
For more info about the green movement's impact on venture capital investment, see our article Clean Technology "Boom"? and the accompanying data chart.
12/03/2007
Zurich-based Systematic Absolute Return AG to launch green FoHFs
Having researched environmental or ‘green’ investments for the past 12 months, SAR has completed its rigorous due diligence and has set a January 1st , 2008 launch date for a unique new environmental fund of hedge funds.
The SAR Environmental Fund is unleveraged and targets absolute returns above 15% net for investors, with limited correlation to general debt and equity markets.
SAR is a Zurich-based asset manager founded by Arne Schmidt and Michael Ahrndt in 2001. They currently manage two distinct funds of hedge funds. With regard to the positioning of the fund, Mr. Schmidt states, “This absolute return product differentiates itself in this burgeoning space through active hedging, a truly environmental character and the exclusion of venture capital investments from the universe.” The fund maintains global exposure and a diversified sector approach.
This space is already becoming a key investment theme and is set to offer superior growth rates and outperformance for decades to come. Climate change, population growth, water scarcity, increased pollution and expanding energy demand create an environment that will drive returns across short, medium and long-term investment horizons.
This innovative product is positioned to extract alpha from a variety of investment strategies such as renewable energy, clean technology, carbon finance, water, agricultural and timber projects as well as ecological microfinance.
Returns on a pro-forma basis were 26.75% in 2006 (launch Nov 06) and 24.54% YTD to October 07, with only one down month (24.91% annualised).
Mr. Schmidt will be conducting due diligence visits in North America during the first two weeks of December. If you wish to schedule a meeting or an interview with him or Mr. Ahrndt, please feel free to contact Andrew Perry at +41 43 268 8440, ir@sar-ag.ch
The SAR Environmental Fund is unleveraged and targets absolute returns above 15% net for investors, with limited correlation to general debt and equity markets.
SAR is a Zurich-based asset manager founded by Arne Schmidt and Michael Ahrndt in 2001. They currently manage two distinct funds of hedge funds. With regard to the positioning of the fund, Mr. Schmidt states, “This absolute return product differentiates itself in this burgeoning space through active hedging, a truly environmental character and the exclusion of venture capital investments from the universe.” The fund maintains global exposure and a diversified sector approach.
This space is already becoming a key investment theme and is set to offer superior growth rates and outperformance for decades to come. Climate change, population growth, water scarcity, increased pollution and expanding energy demand create an environment that will drive returns across short, medium and long-term investment horizons.
This innovative product is positioned to extract alpha from a variety of investment strategies such as renewable energy, clean technology, carbon finance, water, agricultural and timber projects as well as ecological microfinance.
Returns on a pro-forma basis were 26.75% in 2006 (launch Nov 06) and 24.54% YTD to October 07, with only one down month (24.91% annualised).
Mr. Schmidt will be conducting due diligence visits in North America during the first two weeks of December. If you wish to schedule a meeting or an interview with him or Mr. Ahrndt, please feel free to contact Andrew Perry at +41 43 268 8440, ir@sar-ag.ch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)