Connect with us


Opinion: Teck withdrawal further proof of Canada’s odious investment climate – Calgary Herald



Teck Resources Ltd. CEO Don Lindsay

Rodrigo Garrido / Reuters

In a stunning decision on Sunday, Teck Resources withdrew its application to build the $20.6-billion Frontier oilsands mine in Alberta, just days before the Trudeau government’s cabinet was expected to decide whether the project could proceed, citing Canada’s “inability to reconcile resource development and climate change.”

The Teck withdrawal is more proof that Canada’s uncertain investment climate and energy policies have made it almost impossible to do business in this country, which has ramifications far beyond the energy sector and Western Canada.

Recent investment data underscores the deteriorating investment climate in Canada’s energy sector. Between 2016 and 2018, the United States enjoyed a more than 2½ times increase in investment in its upstream oil and gas sector (essentially, exploration and production) compared to Canada.

Uncertainty — political, economic or regulatory — adversely affects investment because firms and entrepreneurs must make long-term decisions about how best to allocate their scarce capital. Jurisdictions with predictable stable environments are much more attractive than jurisdictions characterized by uncertainty.

Consider that Teck spent almost 10 years securing the necessary approvals (with conditions) from provincial and federal regulators, and making changes to the project to appease a host of groups, including various Indigenous communities. This is a major commitment of time, resources and energy by the company, only to finally decide it could not proceed because of the uncertainties surrounding Canada’s environmental regulations.

This isn’t the first time that Canada’s uncertain policies have thwarted badly needed investment. The Trans Mountain expansion project was first approved in 2016 after a five-year process that included environmental assessments and Indigenous consultations. Yet uncertainty over this project ultimately caused Kinder Morgan, one of North America’s largest energy infrastructure companies, to abandon the project, which then forced the federal government to intervene and purchase the project (which only recently restarted construction due to ongoing political and regulatory impediments).

Moreover, in 2016 the federal government scuttled the previously approved $7.9-billion Northern Gateway pipeline and imposed new regulatory burdens on the Energy East pipeline, including consideration of “downstream emissions” (emissions generated by consumers), which helped prompt TC Energy to cancel the project. Put simply, the inability of firms to build pipelines — and other major energy infrastructure projects — even after receiving necessary and extensive regulatory approvals has and will continue to negatively affect investor confidence.

Indeed, a recent survey of energy executives found that when evaluating Alberta, Canada’s major energy-producing province, 73 per cent of respondents cited the high cost of regulatory compliance as a deterrent to investment in 2018 compared to only 32 per cent in 2013.

When announcing his company’s decision to abandon the Frontier mine project, Teck CEO and president Don Lindsay said it will be “difficult to attract future investment” in Canada’s energy sector given the tremendous uncertainty that exists around climate-change policies. And less future investment means fewer jobs and less prosperity for Canadians.

As tensions rise about Canada’s inability to attract energy investment, Ottawa must restore investor confidence quickly by mitigating the policy uncertainties that are chasing vital investment from our country.

Ashley Stedman and Elmira Aliakbari are analysts at the Fraser Institute.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Should you use your investments to pay for school or fund a business? – CNBC



Select’s editorial team works independently to review financial products and write articles we think our readers will find useful. We may receive a commission when you click on links for products from our affiliate partners.

Returning to higher education or starting a new business are two lifestyle changes that provide an opportunity to raise your future income potential, but they also require a large upfront investment of money. 

In fact, investors under 55 are likely to pay for their schooling or fund a new business venture by using their investments, a survey by Select and Dynata found. Over half of respondents aged 18 to 54 reported that they invest to fund a business, while over half of 18- to 34-year-olds and nearly half of 35- to 54-year-olds said that they invest to pay for school.

It seems that selling investments to fund these two expenses is quite typical, but is it a smart move? Answering the question really boils down to whether it makes more sense to cash in on your investment gains or borrow the money instead.

“You need to understand what your percentage of interest [would be] on your debt and ask yourself if you can do better in the market,” CFP Bryan Cannon, chief portfolio strategist and CEO at Cannon Advisors, tells Select.

Subscribe to the Select Newsletter!

Our best selections in your inbox. Shopping recommendations that help upgrade your life, delivered weekly. Sign-up here.

Should you use your investments to pay for school?

Joe Buhrmann, a CFP and senior financial planning consultant at Fidelity’s eMoney Advisor, suggests that if the student loan interest rate — especially if it’s a federal student loan — is low and attractive, it may make more sense to retain your investments and instead borrow the funds to pay for school. In this case, your rate of return in the market is likely going to be higher than the interest rate you’d pay on your student loans.

Cannon wants investors to keep in mind that the markets over the last 20 years, which experienced two significant -50% bear markets, have averaged gains of 8%+ per year (note that past performance does not guarantee future success). “As a general rule, especially in this low-interest-rate environment, it is not a good idea to cash in investments to pay for school or pay off school debt, especially for younger investors who have a 10-plus year time horizon until they need access to their [investment] funds,” he says.

Let’s use a hypothetical example to see how this could play out. Say you need $10,000 to pay for credits in your last year of grad school, and you are deciding whether to take out a student loan or to tap into your investments to finance this expense.

If you left that $10,000 in the stock market, with the average 8% annual return Cannon identifies, after 10 years that investment would grow to be worth $21,589 (assuming no additional contributions).

Meanwhile, the $10,000 federal student loan you would take out, on a 10-year standard repayment plan with an annual interest rate of 5.28% (the interest rate for federal graduate unsubsidized student loans, at the time this article was written), would end up costing a total of $12,893 after 10 years (assuming you paid the minimum each month).

In this case, taking out a student loan to pay for grad school makes more financial sense than withdrawing the money from the market — you’d rather lose $12,893 than $21,589.

Stuck with a high-interest private student loan and want to pay it off using your investments?

First consider refinancing your student loans through lenders like SoFi or Earnest to score a lower interest rate before turning to your investment earnings. Both offer low rates, no origination fees, flexible repayment terms and economic hardship protection. Once you refinance, the lower rate may mean it’s worth keeping your money in the stock market.

Should you use your investments to fund a business?

The situation, however, may look different when deciding whether or not to use your investments to launch a business.

Taking out an unsecured small business loan without a financial track record could leave you paying a much higher interest rate and it could exceed the return that you might anticipate on your investments, Buhrmann argues. In this case, you could be better off selling some of your investments to jumpstart your new venture. When we say this, we mean investments other than your retirement fund. While you can withdraw money from your 401(k) to start a business, you should first consider the implications that would have on your retirement if your business fails. Plus, you’ll have to pay income taxes and a 10% penalty if you withdraw money from a 401(k) or IRA before age 59½.

And if you’ve already taken out a small business loan and want to pay it off using your investments? “If you took out a loan while inflation was high and the loan had a locked rate, it would make a lot of sense at that point to pay the loan off using your invested capital,” Cannon adds.

The key, he says, is to determine if the annual interest rate you are paying on a loan exceeds the average return on your investments in a year.

Budding business owners take note

Remember that although a new business venture can potentially offer big rewards in the long run, it also comes with a great deal of inherent risk.

“If you sink all of your investments into starting a new business, you will have nothing to fall back on aside from acquiring debt,” Cannon says. “It is important to realize that, in most cases, income is not readily flowing back to a business owner during the first several years.”

If you’re wanting to start your own business, make sure you account for this by having reserves on hand to survive those first few years. “Low capital reserves are often the main reason why new businesses fail,” Cannon adds.

So, if you want to have a cushion in case things don’t go to plan, it can make sense to maintain a healthy emergency fund and not sell all of your investments.

At the end of the day it’s more than just the math

Weighing the potential return on your investments versus the interest rate you’d pay if you took out a loan is an effective way to know if you should use your investments to pay for school or fund a business. However, Buhrmann points out that at the end of the day there are no “right answers” and what works for someone else might not work for you.

“There are mathematical aspects and also behavioral aspects,” he says. “Math and finance might dictate that you should borrow the money to finance the endeavor, but if you’re going to lose sleep or it impacts your health by taking on debt, then by all means, ‘pay cash‘ for the expense and sell some of your investments.”

If you’re someone who is thinking about cashing in some of your investment earnings to fund a lifestyle change, consider speaking with a reputable fiduciary investment advisor who can act as a sounding board and provide guidance.

Catch up on Select’s in-depth coverage of personal financetech and toolswellness and more, and follow us on FacebookInstagram and Twitter to stay up to date.

Editorial Note: Opinions, analyses, reviews or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the Select editorial staff’s alone, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any third party.

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Modi's farm reform reversal to deter investment in India's agriculture – Financial Post



Article content

NEW DELHI — India’s repeal of agriculture laws aimed at deregulating produce markets will starve its vast farm sector of much-needed private investment and saddle the government with budget-sapping subsidies for years, economists said.

Late last year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government introduced three laws meant to open up agriculture markets to companies and attract private investment, triggering India’s longest-running protest by farmers who said the reforms would allow corporations to exploit them.


Article content

With an eye on a critical election in populous Uttar Pradesh state early next year, Modi agreed to rescind the laws in November, hoping to smooth relations with the powerful farm lobby which sustains nearly half the country’s 1.3 billion people and accounts for about 15% of the $2.7 trillion economy.

But by shelving the most ambitious overhaul in decades, Modi’s backtracking now seemingly rules out much-needed upgrades of the creaky post-harvest supply chain to cut wastage, spur crop diversification, and boost farmers’ incomes, economists said.

“This is not good for agriculture, this is not good for India,” said Gautam Chikermane, a senior economist and vice president at New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation.


Article content

“All incentives to shift towards a more efficient, market-linked system (in agriculture) have been smothered.”

The u-turn does allay farmers’ fears of losing the minimum price system for basic crops, which growers say guarantees India’s grain self-sufficiency.

“It appears the government realized that there’s merit in the farmers’ argument that opening up the sector would make them vulnerable to large companies, hammer commodities prices and hit farmers’ income,” said Devinder Sharma, a farm policy expert who has supported the growers’ movement.

But the grueling year-long standoff also means no political party will attempt any similar reforms for at least a quarter-century, Chikermane said.

And, in the absence of private investment, “inefficiencies in the system will continue to deliver wastage and food will continue to rot,” he warned.


Article content


India ranks 101 out of 116 countries on the Global Hunger Index, with malnutrition accounting for 68% of child deaths.

Yet it wastes around 67 million tonnes of food every year, worth about $12.25 billion – nearly five times that of most large economies – according to various studies.

Inadequate cold-chain storage, shortages of refrigerated trucks and insufficient food processing facilities are the main causes of waste.

The farm laws promised to allow private traders, retailers and food processors to buy directly from farmers, bypassing more than 7,000 government-regulated wholesale markets where middlemen’s commissions and market fees add to consumer costs.

Ending the rule that food must flow through the approved markets would have encouraged private participation in the supply chain, giving both Indian and global companies incentives to invest in the sector, traders and economists said.


Article content

“The agriculture laws would have removed the biggest impediment to large-scale purchases of farm goods by big corporations,” said Harish Galipelli, director at ILA Commodities India Pvt Ltd, which trades farm goods. “And that would have encouraged corporations to bring investment to revamp and modernize the whole food supply chain.”

Galipelli’s firm will now have to re-evaluate its plans.

“We have had plans to scale up our business,” said Galipelli. “We would have expanded had the laws stayed.”

Other firms specializing in warehousing, food processing and trading are also expected to review their expansion strategies, he said.


Poor post-harvest handling of produce also causes prices of perishables to yo-yo in India. Only three months ago, farmers dumped tomatoes on the road as prices crashed, but now consumers are paying a steep 100 rupees ($1.34) a kg.


Article content

The laws would have helped the $34 billion food processing sector grow exponentially, according to the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), an industry group.

Demand for fruits and vegetables would have gone up. And that would have cut surplus rice and wheat output, slicing bulging stocks of the staples worth billions of dollars in state warehouses, economists said.

“Crop diversification would also have helped rein in subsidy spending and narrow the fiscal deficit,” said Sandip Das, a New Delhi-based researcher and farm policy analyst.

Food Corporation of India (FCI), the state crop procurement agency, racked up a record 3.81 trillion rupees ($51.83 billion) in debt by last fiscal year, alarming policymakers and inflating the country’s food subsidy bill to a record 5.25 trillion rupees ($70.16 billion) in the year to March 2021.


Article content

However, while the federal government now has limited scope for change, local authorities “can opt for reforms provided they have the political will to do so,” said Bidisha Ganguly, an economist at CII.

Similarly, venture capital-funded startups have also expressed interest in India’s agriculture sector.

“Agritech, if it is allowed to take root, has the potential to enable a better handshake of farmers and consumers through their technological platforms,” Chikermane said. (1 = 74.83 rupees) (Reporting by Mayank Bhardwaj and Rajendra Jadhav; additional reporting by Aftab Ahmed; editing by Gavin Maguire and Kim Coghill)



Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Bukele steps up El Salvador’s bet on sliding bitcoin; buys another 150 coins



El Salvador President Nayib Bukele said the Central American country had acquired an additional 150 bitcoins after the digital currency’s value slumped again, enlarging his bet on the cryptocurrency despite criticism.

Bitcoin, the world’s biggest and best-known cryptocurrency, is down about 30% from the year’s high of $69,000 on Nov. 10. Bukele said last week that El Salvador had acquired 100 additional coins to take advantage of the currency weakening.

Late on Friday, Bukele announced the government had stepped into the market again.

“El Salvador just bought the dip! 150 coins at an average USD price of ~$48,670,” Bukele wrote on Twitter.

Until Nov. 26, El Salvador had 1,220 bitcoins.

In September El Salvador became the world’s first nation to adopt bitcoin as legal tender, a move that generated global media attention but also attracted criticism from the opposition and foreign financial institutions.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) said on Monday that El Salvador should not use bitcoin as legal tender, considering risks related to the cryptocurrency.


(Reporting by Nelson Renteria; Writing by Drazen Jorgic; Editing by Daniel Wallis)

Continue Reading