Connect with us

Investment

CI ETF Investment Management announces risk rating changes – Canada NewsWire

Published

on


/NOT FOR DISSEMINATION TO U.S. NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA./

TORONTO, June 18, 2020 /CNW/ – CI ETF Investment Management Inc. (“CI ETF”) today announced the following risk rating changes:

ETF Name

Ticker

Previous
Risk Rating

New
Risk Rating

CI ONE Global Equity ETF

ONEQ

Low to
Medium

Medium

CI WisdomTree Canada Quality Dividend
Growth Index ETF (Non-Hedged Units)

DGRC

Low to
Medium

Medium

CI WisdomTree Europe Hedged Equity Index
ETF (Non-Hedged Units)

EHE.B

Medium

Medium to
High

CI WisdomTree U.S. MidCap Dividend Index
ETF (Hedged Units)

UMI

Medium

Medium to
High

CI WisdomTree U.S. MidCap Dividend Index
ETF (Non-Hedged Units)

UMI.B

Low to
Medium

Medium

CI WisdomTree U.S. Quality Dividend Growth
Variably Hedged Index ETF (Variably Hedged Units)

DQD

Low to
Medium

Medium

The changes will be effective immediately and are based on the risk classification methodology mandated by the Canadian Securities Administrators to determine the risk level of investment funds. CI ETF reviews the risk rating for each of the ETFs it manages at least on an annual basis, as well as when an ETF undergoes a material change. These changes are the result of an annual review and are not the result of any changes to the investment objectives, strategies or management of the ETFs.

For more information about the CI ETFs, please visit the CI First Asset website.

About CI ETF
CI ETF Investment Management Inc. is a sponsor and manager of the CI ETFs, and an affiliate of CI Investments Inc. CI ETF is a subsidiary of CI Financial Corp. (TSX: CIX), an independent Canadian company offering global asset management and wealth management advisory services. CI Financial held approximately $172.0 billion in fee-earning assets as of May 31, 2020.

Commissions, management fees and expenses may be associated with an investment in ETFs. Please read the prospectus before investing. ETFs are not guaranteed, their values change frequently and past performance may not be repeated. Individuals should seek the advice of professionals, as appropriate, prior to investing. You will usually pay brokerage fees to your dealer if you purchase or sell units of an ETF on the TSX. If the units are purchased or sold on the TSX, investors may pay more than the current net asset value when buying units of the ETF and may receive less than the current net asset value when selling them.

© 2020 CI ETF Investment Management Inc. All rights reserved.

CI ETF Investment Management Inc. is licensed by WisdomTree Investments, Inc. to use certain WisdomTree indexes (the “WisdomTree Indexes”) and WisdomTree marks.

“WisdomTree®” and “Variably Hedged®” are registered trademarks of WisdomTree Investments, Inc. and WisdomTree Investments, Inc. has patent applications pending on the methodology and operation of its indexes. The CI ETFs referring to such indexes (the “WT Licensee Products”) are not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by WisdomTree Investments, Inc. or its affiliates (“WisdomTree”). WisdomTree makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, and shall have no liability regarding the advisability, legality (including the accuracy or adequacy of descriptions and disclosures relating to the WT Licensee Products) or suitability of investing in or purchasing securities or other financial instruments or products generally, or of the WT Licensee Products in particular (including, without limitation, the failure of the WT Licensee Products to achieve their investment objectives) or regarding use of such indexes or any data included therein.

SOURCE CI ETF Investment Management Inc.

For further information: CI ETF Investment Management at 416-642-1289 or 1-877-642-1289

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

VW's SEAT boosts investment, urges Spain to help with electric shift – Financial Post

Published

on


BARCELONA — Volkswagen’s Spanish brand SEAT plans to invest 5 billion euros ($5.6 billion) from 2020-2025 and is committed to making electric cars in Spain with the right government support, it said on Wednesday.

Carmakers are ramping up production of electric vehicles to try to meet tough European emissions regulations, but the hefty costs involved have come just as demand for cars has been hammered by the coronavirus crisis.

SEAT’s planned investments in research and development, equipment and electric cars is higher than the 3.3 billion euros for 2016-2020.

The carmaker is willing to make electric models at its main Martorell plan, outside Barcelona, starting in 2025, but this will depend on a step up in renewable energy and charging infrastructure in Spain, among other factors, SEAT’s interim chairman Carsten Isensee told a news conference.

Isensee said the Spanish government’s recent plan to support the automobile sector was a step in the right direction, but there was also a need to stimulate demand for electric cars.

SEAT reported a 48 million euro loss in the first quarter of 2020 due to the health crisis and Isensee warned the second quarter would be worse.

“We are confident we will recover,” he added, noting production at SEAT’s main plant was currently almost the same as before the pandemic.

SEAT has had a turbulent start to the year after record sales in 2019, when it delivered 574,078 vehicles – 10.9% more than in 2018 and the third year in a row of double-digit growth.

Luca de Meo stepped down as chairman in January to later become Renault’s chief executive.

SEAT also closed its Barcelona factory for around six weeks due to the pandemic and temporarily laid off thousands of workers.

The brand launched its first fully electric vehicle last year and plans to have six electric and plug-in hybrid models by 2021.

($1 = 0.8872 euros) (Reporting by Joan Faus, Editing by Inti Landauro and Mark Potter)

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

Big Oil's Investment Risk Is Spiking – OilPrice.com

Published

on



Big Oil’s Investment Risk Is Spiking | OilPrice.com

David Messler

Mr. Messler is an oilfield veteran, recently retired from a major service company. During his thirty-eight year career he worked on six-continents in field and…

More Info

Trending Discussions

    Premium Content

    Offshore

    The major integrated oil companies: Shell,(NYSE:RDS.A, RDS.B); ExxonMobil, (NYSE:XOM); BP, (NYSE:BP); Chevron, (NYSE:CVX), and a few others, so named for their vertical stewardship of the hydrocarbon molecule from initial extraction to final refining, have come under increasingly accurate fire from climate change advocates. In the past organizations like Greenpeace and a host of other conservation organizations, have used direct measures to interdict oil company operations. Measures that were flashy, as they drew a lot of attention from the global press, but over the long haul did little to achieve their goals of stopping oil and gas exploration. 

    Source

    The companies themselves have had considerable success in pushing back these operations through the courts. As an example a Scottish court has fined Greenpeace £80K for its boarding of a Transocean rig, enroute to a BP North Sea location, in 2019. A boarding the court held to be in direct violation of an earlier edict prohibiting this type of activity.

    “She said its breaches of the injunction were so serious she would be justified in jailing John Sauven, Greenpeace UK’s executive director, for up to two years or imposing a suspended sentence. He orchestrated the action from the start, knowing he was breaching a court order.”

    Source

    Now these activist organizations are increasingly turning to courts around the world, and with particular focus on U.S. courts, to further their aims. Filings in U.S. courts avail the claimants of the extensive body of American environmental law, and consumer protection legislation. A recent article in Reuters noted that this strategy held out new concerns for the big oils as activists became increasingly shrewd in their approach.

    “Cases now are being fought on arguments such as consumer protections and human rights. This shift has been especially pronounced in the United States, where more than a dozen cases filed by states, cities and other parties are challenging the fossil fuel industry for its role in causing climate change and not informing the public of its harms.”

    Source

    Related: Apple’s “Holy Grail Of Data” Leaves Oil Traders Disappointed

    State and Local governments are also jumping into the fray as costs mount to comply with air and water quality federal mandates. Using tactics that had proved so successful twenty years ago with cigarette manufacturers, the State of Minnesota and the District of Columbia filed suit against ExxonMobil last month. Among the allegations are that the company had misled the public on the adverse environmental impact of its products, and accusing it specifically of engaging in deceptive practices and false advertising. Reuters in an interview with Kate Konapka, Deputy Attorney General for Washington, D.C., noted-

    “As awareness of climate change grew in the general public to the extent that their disinformation campaigns were no longer acceptable, there was a pivot to greenwashing,” 

    Source

    It remains to be seen how this approach will play out for the companies affected as it is early innings and the companies have had some success in pushing back. ExxonMobil in December of last year prevailed in a 4-year court battle with the State of New York, where it had been alleged that the company had failed to disclose what it knew about the effect its products were having on climate change.

    The big funds are decarbonizing their portfolios

    Pressure on the big oil companies also comes from the investment community, as major funds have begun limiting carbon based investing, or engaging in outright divestiture in legacy oil companies. As an example Norway’s $1 trillion dollar national wealth fund, rocked the energy world in 2019 by declaring it would no longer invest in companies primarily in the hydrocarbon energy business. They were followed in early 2020 by Blackrock’s similar decision to decarbonize its lending portfolio. In his annual letter to corporate executives, Larry Fink, CEO of Blackrock, put forth a sustainability rallying cry- “Climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects. Awareness is rapidly changing, and I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.”

    A capital intensive business from the outset, hydrocarbon energy development has always depended on outside capital fund expansion. Those days could be coming to an end if this practice becomes widespread.

    The big oil companies are taking note

    Net Zero 2050 has become a catchphrase in recent times, as big oil companies led by BP have pledged to reduce their net emissions to zero by mid-century. Other major international and national oil companies such as Shell, Total, (NYSE:TOT), Equinor, (EQNR), Eni, (NYSE:E) and others have followed suit with similar pledges. This marks a shift in policy from these organizations from their past stance of not being able to control what became of their products after they were produced and sold. A recent article in Reuters noted this shift-

    “Many oil and gas chiefs remain reluctant to commit to reduce emissions from the use of the oil they extract, arguing that they cannot control whether the cars Ford builds or planes Boeing designs run on oil. Commitments like BP’s move beyond that debate over responsibility for so-called Scope 3 emissions, which are indirect emissions in a company’s value chain including from use of products sold, by signaling a fundamental shift in corporate strategy toward new and cleaner energy businesses”

    Source

    In the case of BP what this means is likely to be a fundamental shift in the products that make up the company’s value chain. A shift that is noteworthy to investors as it signals a fairly abrupt about-face on major investments to achieve the goal of net zero carbon by 2050.

    As a sign that they are intent on taking affirmative steps toward this goal major impairments have been announced in recent months by BP and Shell. In the case of BP specific aspects of its up to $17.5 bn impairment charge to be reported on second quarter earnings haven’t been disclosed as yet, but perhaps their announcement last week of the sale of their petrochemicals business is instructive in that area. BP’s CEO, Bernard Looney noted in a press release-

    “This is another significant step as we steadily work to reinvent bp. Strategically the overlap with the rest of bp is limited and it would take considerable capital for us to grow these businesses. As we work to build a more focused, more integrated bp, we have other opportunities that are more aligned with our future direction. Today’s agreement is another deliberate step in building a bp that can compete and succeed through the energy transition.”

    For its part Shell has been a little more specific with its comparable $22 bn asset write-down for Q2. Approximately $9 bn of that charge will be allocated to the company’s Western Australia LNG business, including their marquee Prelude Floating LNG ship. A bitter pill for a project that only came on line in 2018.

    Source Next to the Prelude FLNG vessel a full-sized LNG tanker appears miniaturized.

    In summary, while fighting these court cases one-by one on their merits companies like Shell and BP seem only to be resigned to, but rather are embracing these decarbonization initiatives. Investors may have cause to worry over the short haul as companies go about the task of “Reinventing” themselves. 

    Stranded Assets

    This brings us to one of the most troubling aspects of these companies for investors. The prospects of key assets carried on the books for billions being written-down (their market value reduced due to circumstances) is jolting. For example both Shell and BP have said that natural gas, a lower carbon intensive energy play than crude oil, will be a central element in their long-term energy mix. Whether that will prove a success remains to be seen as one of the key final forms natural gas often takes is as Liquefied Natural Gas, or LNG. Overbuilding in this space is causing project delays as companies deal with pandemic reduced demand. The unusual step of LNG exporters or importers cancelling LNG cargoes has been on the rise in 2020. This has led to a number of major LNG project cancellations or deferrals have been announced globally, as producers attempt to rein in oversupply.

    Related: The Death Of The $2 Trillion Auto Industry Will Come Sooner Than Expected

    Another example of a shift away from a previously orderly Final Investment Decision- FID, approval process for its GoM projects, Shell announced in April it would defer a decision on its massive Whale prospect. Previously anticipated by the EOY 2020, Shell slashed pre-FID spending and deferred the FID to 2021. With billions already sunk in seismic, leasing, and drilling and appraisal costs, a thumbs down on Whale development would be the very definition of a stranded asset. In that case, hundreds of millions of barrels worth as much as $20 bn in today’s market, would be left untapped.

    What other forms these stranded assets may take, remains to be seen as the companies involved fine tune their product mix strategies going forward.

    Your takeaway

    The “Investability” of these oil giants is being increasingly called into question as they face battles on so many fronts around the world. Be it in U.S. or European courts, they are going to be confronted with thousands of climate change lawsuits with the advantage moving in the claimants direction. A single adverse decision could run into the billions. In spite of there being a clear need for hydrocarbon forms of energy well into the latter part of this century, increasingly the companies that produce it are being forced to alter their business practices to meet non-market, stakeholder demands.

    Whether this will create or destroy value in these companies long term is yet to be determined. In some senses however, the market may have already spoken devaluing shares of Shell and BP by about 50% over the last six months.

    Investors considering initiating new positions in these companies might take pause, as a single adverse court ruling could have long term consequences for the stock’s valuation. As we have noted in this article the environmental adversaries of the legacy oil companies have become increasingly cagey in their plans of attack.

    By David Messler for Oilprice.com 

    More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

    Download The Free Oilprice App Today


    Back to homepage

    <!–

    Trending Discussions

      –>

      Related posts

      Let’s block ads! (Why?)



      Source link

      Continue Reading

      Investment

      Alberta government proposes new agency to attract foreign investment

      Published

      on

      The Alberta government will create a new provincial corporation tasked with attracting foreign investment if a bill introduced Tuesday becomes law.

      The Invest Alberta Corporation would have a budget of $18 million over the next three years to fulfil a mandate of pulling foreign dollars into Alberta as part of an effort to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and economic downturn.

      Bill 33, the Alberta Investment Attraction Act, would allow for the creation of the corporation, which would be governed by a board that would have up to seven members. The bill was introduced in the legislature on Tuesday by Tanya Fir, the minister of economic development, trade and tourism.

      “There will be fierce competition as economies begin to re-open to attract this investment,” Fir said. “We know many other jurisdictions across the world, across Canada, already have these arms-length agencies in place that focus on investment attraction.”

      Fir said other jurisdictions — such as British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec — already have organizations set up to do similar work, and that Alberta needs its own to compete.

      “We need to be able to aggressively, proactively, eyeball-to-eyeball be communicating that message to investors around the world,” she said.

      One such Invest Alberta office would be set up in Houston, Texas, where Dave Rodney will be Alberta’s agent general. Rodney, a former UCP MLA, stepped down from his Calgary-Lougheed riding in 2017 to allow Jason Kenney, now premier, to run for the seat. Fir announced Rodney’s appointment Tuesday.

      Rodney will be paid a bi-weekly salary of $9,635. Though his three-year assignment will start immediately, he won’t relocate to Houston until the Canada-U.S. border reopens. In the role, he’s expected to work on creating closer business relationships and to pursue new investment opportunities to benefit Alberta’s energy sector.

      Alberta already has existing international offices, and Fir said that, with the exception of the Ottawa and Washington, D.C., offices which are focused on advocacy, will begin reporting to Invest Alberta.

      “That will allow for a more strategic and co-ordinated approach as we focus on investment attraction,” she said.

      Fir also said the new corporation won’t duplicate efforts of existing agencies that promote specific industries, such as Alberta Innovates or the Canadian Energy Centre. She said her ministry will look for ways the different groups can collaborate.

      If the legislation passes, cabinet will appoint up to seven board members, one of whom will be a member of executive council. The board will in turn select a CEO.

      Source:- CBC.ca

      Source link

      Continue Reading

      Trending