adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Investment

AIMCo CEO rejects fossil fuel divestment as investment strategy – CBC.ca

Published

 on


The CEO of Alberta Investment Management Corp. (AIMCo) says divesting from fossil fuels is the opposite of what pension funds should be doing if they want to help solve the climate crisis.

Evan Siddall — head of what is one of Canada’s largest institutional investors, with $168.3 billion of assets under management as of the end of last year — said in an interview that AIMCo wants to be a leader in financing the transition to a low-carbon economy, but it won’t do that by divesting from fossil fuels as some global pension funds have done.

Instead, Siddall said AIMCo will be exploring opportunities to invest in oil and gas companies and other heavy industrial emitters.

300x250x1

“We don’t believe in [divestment] at all, as a strategy,” Siddall said.

“The energy sector is the sector that’s investing in this area [emissions reduction] the most, and that has the most to lose. So we think that deserves our support and that’s where we will invest. And we think that’s where the returns are, too.”

No denying importance of sector, says Siddall

Siddall made the comments Wednesday at a ribbon-cutting event in Calgary to mark the opening of AIMCo’s new office in that city. Up until now, AIMCo — which is responsible for the investments of pension, endowment and government funds in Alberta and is headquartered in Edmonton — has had secondary offices in Toronto, London, U.K., and Luxembourg.

Siddall — who has been AIMCo’s chief executive for just over a year, and was formerly CEO of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation — is also considering opening offices in Asia and possibly New York as the corporation seeks to become more globally focused over the next couple of years.

But he said there is no denying the importance of the Canadian energy sector currently and moving forward as global efforts to decarbonize economies and hold the trajectory of climate change below the dangerous tipping point of 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming accelerate.

AIMCo says divesting from fossil fuels is the opposite of what pension funds should be doing if they want to help solve the climate crisis. (Matthew Brown/The Associated Press)

“We [AIMCo] have been absent from the Calgary oil and gas and energy hub, which has probably left us less informed than we could be,” Siddall said.

While environmental groups have argued that one of the best ways to make progress on climate change is to urge banks, pension funds and investors to cut funding to the fossil fuel industry, Siddall said that’s misguided.

He said if Canada is to meet its Paris Climate Agreement pledges it will need not only to invest in renewable, zero-emission energy, but also to help heavy emitters lower their greenhouse gas footprints, or go from “grey to green.”

“And that means investment in oil and gas companies. It actually means supporting them,” Siddall said.

AIMCo already has $3.2 billion invested in no carbon or low-carbon assets through its infrastructure and renewable resources portfolio. The corporation also completed its inaugural “green bond” issuance last year through its AIMCo Realty division.

But Siddall said in the year ahead, AIMCo will explore opportunities for its clients to profit from the transition to a low-carbon economy by providing capital to heavy emitters working on their own net-zero plans.

“The initial sectors we’re looking at are the energy sector, the power and utilities sector, industrial emitters in general,” he said.

“We see the potential for strong financial returns. We’re a long-term investor, so unlike public markets that tend to operate quarter to quarter with much shorter-term horizons, we can look to a transition into 2030 and see the path to earning a return on decarbonization.”

In recent months, the Canadian oil and gas sector has rolled out a flurry of announcements of proposed projects — from hydrogen plants to renewable diesel facilities to carbon capture and storage — aimed at lowering the industry’s emissions profile.

‘You’re funding the bad stuff’

The largest of these is the massive project proposed by oilsands consortium Pathways Alliance that aims to capture CO2 emissions from oilsands facilities and transport it to a storage facility near Cold Lake, Alta, delivering an estimated 10 million tonnes of emissions reductions per year.

On Tuesday, Lindsay Patrick, head of ESG and strategic initiatives for RBC Capital Markets, said in an interview in Calgary that there’s growing recognition within the financial sector that tools such as green bonds could be used not only to support the scale up of green technology but also to help clean up more conventional industries.

“The new idea is to support companies that aren’t 100 per cent green but that have specific projects that are aligned with a 1.5 degree scenario,” Patrick said.

However, Greenpeace senior energy strategist Keith Stewart said Tuesday that financing companies because of specific climate-friendly projects they may have doesn’t make up for the fact that the Canadian oil and gas sector is still planning to increase the overall volume of fossil fuels they produce in the long-term.

“When you’re providing this kind of blanket finance to these companies, you’re funding the bad stuff along with the better stuff,” Stewart said.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

Taxes should not wag the tail of the investment dog, but that’s what Trudeau wants

Published

 on

Kim Moody: Ottawa is encouraging people to crystallize their gains and pay tax. That’s a hell of a fiscal plan

The Canadian federal budget has been out for a week, which is plenty of time to absorb just how terrible it is.

300x250x1

The problems start with weak fiscal policy, excessive spending and growing public-debt charges estimated to be $54.1 billion for the upcoming year. That is more than $1 billion per week that Canadians are paying for things that have no societal benefit.

Next, the budget clearly illustrates this government’s continued weak taxation policies, two of which it apparently believes  are good for entrepreneurs. But the proposed $2-million Canadian Entrepreneurs Incentive (CEI) and $10-million capital gains exemption for transfers to an employee ownership trust (EOT) are both laughable.

Why? Well, for the CEI, virtually every entrepreneurial industry (except technology) is not eligible. If you happen to be in an industry that qualifies, the $2-million exemption comes with a long, stringent list of criteria (which will be very difficult for most entrepreneurs to qualify for) and it is phased in over a 10-year period of $200,000 per year.

For transfers to EOTs, an entrepreneur must give up complete legal and factual control to be eligible for the $10-million exemption, even though the EOT will likely pay the entrepreneur out of future profits. The commercial risk associated with such a transfer is likely too great for most entrepreneurs to accept.

Capital gains tax hike

But the budget’s highlight proposal was the capital gains inclusion rate increase to 66.7 per cent from 50 per cent for dispositions effective after June 24, 2024. The proposal includes a 50 per cent inclusion rate on the first $250,000 of annual capital gains for individuals, but not for corporations and trusts. Oh, those evil corporations and trusts.

There is a lot wrong with this proposed policy. The first is that by not putting individuals, corporations and trusts on the same taxation footing for capital gains taxation, the foundational principle of integration (the idea that the corporate and individual tax systems should be indifferent to whether an investment is held in a corporation or directly by the taxpayer) is completely thrown out the window. This is wrong.

Some economists have come out in strong favour of the proposal, mainly because of equity arguments (a buck is a buck), but such arguments ignore the real world of investing where investors look at overall risk, liquidity and the time value of money.

If capital gains are taxed at a rate approaching wage taxation rates, why would entrepreneurs and investors want to risk their capital when such investments might be illiquid for a long period of time and be highly risky?

They will seek greener pastures for their investment dollars and they already are. I’ve been fielding a tremendous number of questions from investors over the past week and I’d invite those academics and economists who support the increased inclusion rate to come live in my shoes for a day to see how the theoretical world of equity and behaviour collide. It’s not good and it certainly does nothing to help Canada’s obvious productivity challenges.

Of course, there has been the usual chatter encouraging such people to leave (“don’t let the door hit you on the way out,” some say) from those who don’t understand basic economics and taxation policy, but these cheerleaders should be careful what they wish for. The loss of successful Canadians and their investment dollars affects all of us in a very negative way.

The government messaging around this tax proposal has many people upset, including me. Specifically, it is the following paragraph in the budget documents that many supporters are parroting that is upsetting:

“Next year, 28.5 million Canadians are not expected to have any capital gains income, and 3 million are expected to earn capital gains below the $250,000 annual threshold. Only 0.13 per cent of Canadians with an average income of $1.4 million are expected to pay more personal income tax on their capital gains in any given year. As a result of this, for 99.87 per cent of Canadians, personal income taxes on capital gains will not increase.” (This is supposedly about 40,000 taxpayers.)

Bluntly, this is garbage. It outright ignores several facts.

For one thing, there are hundreds of thousands of private corporations owned and controlled by Canadian resident individuals. Those corporations will be subject to the increased capital gains inclusion rate with no $250,000 annual phase-in. Because of the way passive income is taxed in these Canadian-controlled private corporations, the increased tax load on realized capital gains will be felt by individual shareholders on the dividend distribution required to recover certain refundable corporate taxes.

Furthermore, public corporations that have capital gains will pay tax at a higher inclusion rate and this results in higher corporate tax, which means decreased amounts are available to be paid out as dividends to individual shareholders (including those held by individuals’ pensions).

The budget documents simply measured the number of corporations that reported capital gains in recent years and said it is 12.6 per cent of all corporations. That measurement is shallow and not the whole story, as described above.

Tax hit for cottages

There are also millions of Canadians who hold a second real estate property, either a cottage-type and/or rental property. Those properties will eventually be sold, with the probability that the gain will exceed the $250,000 threshold.

Upon death, an individual will often have their largest capital gains realized as a result of deemed dispositions that occur immediately prior to death. This will have the distinct possibility of capital gains that exceed $250,000.

And people who become non-residents of Canada — and that is increasing rapidly — have deemed dispositions of their assets (with some exceptions). They will face the distinct possibility that such gains will be more than $250,000.

The politics around the capital gains inclusion rate increase are pretty obvious. The government is planning for Canadian taxpayers to crystallize their inherent gains prior to the implementation date, especially corporations that will not have a $250,000 annual lower inclusion rate. For the current year, the government is projecting a $4.9-billion tax take. But next year, it dramatically drops to an estimated $1.3 billion.

This is a ridiculous way to shield the government’s tremendous spending and try to make them look like they are holding the line on their out-of-control deficits. The government is encouraging people to crystallize their gains and pay tax. That’s a hell of a fiscal plan.

There’s an old saying that tax should not wag the tail of the investment dog, but that is exactly what the government is encouraging Canadians to do in the name of raising short-term taxation revenues. It is simply wrong.

I hope the government has some second sober thoughts about the capital gains proposal, but I’m not holding my breath.

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

Everton search for investment to complete 777 deal – BBC.com

Published

 on

By


Getty Images
  • 2 hours ago

Everton are searching for third-party investment in order to push through a protracted takeover by 777 Partners.

The Miami-based firm agreed a deal to buy the Toffees from majority owner Farhad Moshiri in September, but are yet to gain approval from the Premier League.

On Monday, Bloomberg reported the club’s main financial adviser Deloitte has been seeking fresh funding from sports-focused investors and lenders to get 777’s deal over the line.

300x250x1

BBC Sport has been told this is “standard practice contingency planning” and the process may identify other potential lenders to 777.

Sources close to British-Iranian businessman Moshiri have told BBC Sport they remain “working on completing the deal with 777”.

It is understood there are no other parties waiting in the wings to takeover should the takeover fall through and the focus is fully on 777.

The Americans have so far loaned £180m to Everton for day-to-day operational costs, which will be turned into equity once the deal is completed, but repaying money owed to MSP Sports Capital, whose deal collapsed in August, remains a stumbling block.

777 says it can stump up the £158m that is owed to MSP Sports Capital and once that is settled, it is felt the deal should be completed soon after.

Related Topics

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

Warren Buffett Predicts 'Bad Ending' for Bitcoin — Is It a Doomed Investment? – Yahoo Finance

Published

 on

By


NanoStockk / Getty Images

Currently sitting in sixth on Forbes’ Real-Time Billionaires List, Berkshire Hathaway co-founder, chairman and CEO Warren Buffett is a first-rate example of an investor who stuck to his core financial beliefs early in life to become not only a success but a once-in-a-lifetime inspiration to those who followed in his footsteps.

One of the most trusted investors for decades, the 93-year-old Buffett isn’t shy to pontificate on his investment philosophy, which is centered around value investing, buying stocks at less than their intrinsic value and holding them for the long term.

Read Next: Warren Buffett: 6 Best Pieces of Money Advice for the Middle Class
Find Out: 5 Genius Things All Wealthy People Do With Their Money

300x250x1

He’s also quite vocal on investments he deems worthless. And one of those is Bitcoin.

Sponsored: Protect Your Wealth With A Gold IRA. Take advantage of the timeless appeal of gold in a Gold IRA recommended by Sean Hannity.

Buffett’s Take on Bitcoin

Over the past decade, it’s been clear that the crypto craze isn’t something Buffett wants any part of. He described Bitcoin as “probably rat poison squared” back in 2018.

“In terms of cryptocurrencies, generally, I can say with almost certainty that they will come to a bad ending,” Buffett said in 2018. And his stance hasn’t wavered since. According to Benzinga, Buffett believes that cryptocurrencies aren’t a viable or valuable investment.

“Now if you told me you own all of the Bitcoin in the world and you offered it to me for $25, I wouldn’t take it because what would I do with it? I’d have to sell it back to you one way or another. It isn’t going to do anything,” Buffett said at the Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder meeting in 2022.

Although the Oracle of Omaha has his misgivings about the unpredictable investment, does that mean crypto is doomed as an investment? Not necessarily.

For You: 10 Valuable Stocks That Could Be the Next Apple or Amazon

Is Buffett Wrong About Bitcoin?

Bitcoin bulls argue that while it’s not government-issued, cryptocurrency is as fungible, divisible, secure and portable as fiat currency and gold. Because they occupy a digital space, cryptocurrencies are decentralized, scarce and durable. They can last as long as they can be stored.

Crypto boosters continue to predict massive growth in the coin’s value. Earlier this year, SkyBridge Capital founder and former White House director of communications Anthony Scaramucci told reporters that Bitcoin could exceed $170,000 by mid-2025, and Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood predicts Bitcoin will hit $1.48 million by 2030, according to Fortune.

“They really don’t understand the concept and the whole history of money,” Scaramucci said of crypto critics like Buffett on a recent episode of Jason Raznick’s “The Raz Report.” Because we place a value on “traditional” currency, it is essentially worthless compared with the transparent and trustworthy digital Bitcoin, Scaramucci said.

Currently trading around the $66,000 mark, Bitcoin is up nearly 50% in 2024. This means it’s massively outperforming most indexes this year, including the S&P 500, which is up about 6% in 2024.

Although Berkshire Hathaway has invested heavily in Bitcoin-related Brazilian fintech company Nu Holdings, which has its own cryptocurrency called Nucoin, it’s possible Buffett will never come around fully to crypto, despite its recent surge in value. It’s contrary to the reliable investment strategy that has served him very well for decades.

“The urge to participate in something where it looks like easy money is a human instinct which has been unleashed,” Buffett said. “People love the idea of getting rich quick, and I don’t blame them … It’s so human, and once unleashed you can’t put it back in the bottle.”

More From GOBankingRates

This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: Warren Buffett Predicts ‘Bad Ending’ for Bitcoin — Is It a Doomed Investment?

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending