adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Investment

OPINION: The Alaska Investment Program isn't a 'mistake' – Anchorage Daily News

Published

 on


“There you go again.” Ronald Reagan’s quip to Jimmy Carter sprung to mind as I read the ADN’s misguided editorial declaring the Alaska Permanent Fund Corp.’s Alaska Investment Program to be a “mistake.”

Set up to little fanfare in 2018, the in-state investment program has been subject to increasingly negative media coverage in recent months. The controversy seemed to start in December, when Dermot Cole wrote a series of blog posts criticizing APFC for not releasing details about individual investments made by the program’s external fund managers. It grew when Frank Murkowski used these pages to question whether the program, which represents less than 0.25% of the Permanent Fund’s holdings, puts APFC “in peril.” Even the unprecedented release of information about the program last month did little to satisfy its detractors; armed with details, they became armchair investors.

ADN had a chance to lay out the facts, provide context and help readers better understand the issues at stake. Instead, we were treated to a muddled 3,500-word article and an editorial that poured fuel on the proverbial fire. As a result, calls to prematurely end the program have spread unchecked through coffee shops, online comment sections, the halls of the Capitol building, and similar spaces known for their occupants’ less-than-faithful relationships with the truth.

300x250x1

For those interested in understanding the Alaska Investment Program, it is worth revisiting its origin. In 2018, APFC launched the program to comply with the spirit and the letter of a state law that directs the fund to prefer a state-based investment to a non-state investment if both offer a similar risk-adjusted rate of return. Prior to the program, APFC staff said they lacked the time and resources to consider in-state opportunities, particularly alternative assets like venture capital, private equity, and infrastructure.

To correct for this, APFC allocated $200 million to the program through its existing private equity and special opportunities asset class. It divided the money equally between two funds run by private external managers: the Na’-Nuk Investment Fund, run by Anchorage-based McKinley Management, which focuses on venture capital and private equity, and the Alaska Future Fund, run by Charlotte-based Barings, which focuses on infrastructure and private debt. Like all private equity funds, the external managers retain control over investment decisions and day-to-day operations, while APFC staff maintain oversight.

The fact that the program is similar to APFC’s other private investments has not stopped critics from attacking it as an aberration. They have advanced three arguments. First, they contend the program is sacrificing returns. Second, framing it as an economic development scheme, they say such goals are better left to public agencies, such as AIDEA. And third, they characterize APFC’s confidentiality protections as suspect, if not nefarious, and thus claim the program is vulnerable to undisclosed conflicts of interest, if not outright corruption.

The claim that APFC is sacrificing potential investment returns is easily disproved by a glance at its guidelines for the program. As APFC states clearly in multiple documents, “the in-state program is a part of APFC’s existing Private Equity and Special Opportunities asset allocation and is evaluated using the same financial return objectives as all other investments in this asset class.”

To be specific, APFC targets an internal rate of return of 15%-25% for investments in its private equity allocation. To ensure individual funds are judged fairly, APFC benchmarks returns to the Cambridge PE Index, an industry standard, based on the year each fund was raised, its “vintage.” The Na’-Nuk Fund was raised in 2020, while the Alaska Future Fund was raised in 2019, meaning they should be evaluated against funds in the same vintages, not the arbitrary 29% five-year average cited by ADN and others, which reflects funds raised seven to ten years ago that are either partially or fully liquidated.

Critics have also framed the program as an economic development scheme similar to AIDEA and thus unnecessarily redundant. Frankly, this is a category error. The Alaska Investment Program is designed to realize capital gains on private equity and credit assets. Its managers must meet or exceed performance benchmarks regardless of any single deal’s economic benefits. Such work is categorically different from the work of public agencies like AIDEA, which focuses on promoting development by issuing loans or providing export assistance.

Lastly, much has been made of APFC’s confidentiality policy, which obligates it to protect records that contain proprietary or confidential information relating to private companies. There are good reasons for such a policy. By operating privately, companies are able to compete in the marketplace with less fear of losing their competitive advantages or tipping off rivals to opportunities. This is true for both external managers like McKinley and Barings, who compete with other private equity firms for deals, as well as the companies they have invested in through their respective funds.

Where investors see a shield, critics see barriers to public scrutiny. While they are right to ask what protections APFC maintains, they should also recognize the ones that already exist. These include existing statutes and regulations, the delegation of investment decisions to external managers, and the commitment of APFC Trustees, staff, and external managers to the Prudent Investor Rule, which imposes a fiduciary obligation on all parties to act only in the best interests of the Permanent Fund. While that’s not to say conflicts of interests are impossible, it does reveal ADN’s claim that Alaska is “too small to guard well against conflicts of interest” to be patently false.

A final word must be said about the risks of abandoning APFC’s confidentiality policy, as some have urged. Doing so would violate APFC’s existing agreements with external fund managers, who as a rule require strict privacy agreements before they accept outside money. If implemented, APFC would find itself locked out of the best-performing asset class that has powered overall fund returns to their highest levels in decades. I can think of nothing more damaging to the fund.

Ultimately, APFC’s Alaska Investment Program will succeed or fail on the strength of returns that won’t be available for another six to eight years. If anything in all this can be called a “mistake,” it is ADN prematurely declaring the program to be one.

Taylor Drew Holshouser is managing director of the Alaska Ocean Cluster, an oceans and seafood-focused startup accelerator, and a research fellow at the Wilson Center’s Polar Institute, where he supports the Arctic Infrastructure Inventory (AII) sponsored by Guggenheim Partners. He is also a former member of the Arctic Economic Council’s Infrastructure and Investments Working Group.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

BWXT announces $80M investment for plant in Cambridge – CityNews Kitchener

Published

 on

By


BWX Technologies (BWXT) in Cambridge is investing $80-million to expand their nuclear manufacturing plant in Cambridge.

Minister of Energy, Todd Smith, was in the city on Friday to join the company in the announcement.

The investment will create over 200 new skilled and unionized jobs. This is part of the province’s plan to expand affordable and clean nuclear energy to power the economy.

300x250x1

“With shovels in the ground today on new nuclear generation, including the first small modular reactor in the G7, I’m so pleased to see global nuclear manufacturers like BWXT expanding their operations in Cambridge and hiring more Ontario workers,” Smith said. “The benefits of Ontario’s nuclear industry reaches far beyond the stations at Darlington, Pickering and Bruce, and this $80 million investment shows how all communities can help meet Ontario’s growing demand for clean energy, while also securing local investments and creating even more good-paying jobs.”

The added jobs will support BWXT’s existing operations across the province as well as help the sector’s ongoing operations of existing nuclear stations at Darlington, Bruce and Pickering.

“Our expansion comes at a time when we’re supporting our customers in the successful execution of some of the largest clean nuclear energy projects in the world,” John MacQuarrie, President of Commercial Operations at BWXT, said.

“At the same time, the global nuclear industry is increasingly being called upon to mitigate the impacts of climate change and increase energy security and independence. By investing significantly in our Cambridge manufacturing facility, BWXT is further positioning our business to serve our customers to produce more safe, clean and reliable electricity in Canada and abroad.”

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

AI investments will help chip sector to recover: Analyst – Yahoo Finance

Published

 on

By


The semiconductor sector is undergoing a correction as interest rate cut expectations dwindle, prompting concerns about the impact on these high-growth, technology-driven stocks. Wedbush Enterprise Hardware Analyst Matt Bryson joins Yahoo Finance to discuss the dynamics shaping the chip industry.

Bryson acknowledges that the rise of generative AI has been a significant driving force behind the recent success of chip stocks. While he believes that AI is shifting “the way technology works,” he notes it will take time. Due to this, Bryson highlights that “significant investment” will continue to occur in the chip market, fueled by the growth of generative AI applications.

However, Bryson cautions that as interest rates remain elevated, it could “weigh on consumer spending.” Nevertheless, he expresses confidence that the AI revolution “changing the landscape for tech” will likely insulate the sector from the effect of high interest rates, as investors are unwilling to miss out on the “next technology” breakthrough.

300x250x1

For more expert insight and the latest market action, click here to watch this full episode of Yahoo Finance.

This post was written by Angel Smith

Video Transcript

BRAD SMITH: As rate cut bets shift, so have moves in one sector, in particular. Shares of AMD and Intel, both down over 15% in the last 30 days. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index, also known as Sox, dropping over 10% from recent highs, despite a higher rate environment.

Our next guest is still bullish on the sector. Matt Bryson, Wedbush Enterprise Hardware analyst, joins us now. Matt, thanks so much for taking the time here. Walk us through your thesis here, especially, given some of the pullback that we’ve seen recently.

MATT BRYSON: So I think what we’ve seen over the last year or so is that the growth of generative AI has fueled the chip stocks. And the expectation that AI is going to shift everything in the way that technology works.

And I think that at the end of the day, that that thesis will prove out. I think the question is really timing. But the investments that we’ve seen that have lifted NVIDIA, that have lifted AMD, that have lifted the chip stock and sector, in general, the large cloud service providers, building out data centers. I don’t think anything has changed there in the near term.

So when I speak to OEMs, who are making AI servers, when I speak to cloud service providers, there is still significant investment going on in that space. That investment is slated to continue certainly into 2025. And I think, as long as there is this substantial investment, that we will see chip names report strong numbers and guide for strong growth.

SEANA SMITH: Matt, when it comes to the fact that we are in this macroeconomic environment right now, likelihood that rates will be higher for longer here, at least, when you take a look at the expectations, especially following some of the commentary that we got from Fed officials this week, what does that signal more broadly for the AI trade, meaning, is there a reason to be a bit more cautious in this higher for longer rate environment, at least, in the near term?

MATT BRYSON: Yeah. I think certainly from a market perspective, high interest rates weight on the market. Eventually, they weigh on consumer spending. Certainly, for a lot of the chip names, they’re high multiple stocks.

When you think about where there can be more of a reaction or a negative reaction to high interest rates, certainly, it has some impact on those names. But in terms of, again, AI changing the fundamental landscape for tech, I don’t think that high interest rates or low interest rates will change that.

So when you think about Microsoft, Amazon, all of those large data center operators looking at AI, potentially, changing the landscape forever and wanting to make a bet on AI to make sure that they don’t miss that change, I don’t think whether interest rates are low or high are going to really affect their investment.

I think they’re going to go ahead and invest because no one wants to be the guy that missed the next technology wave.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

If pension funds can't see the case for investing in Canada, why should you? – The Globe and Mail

Published

 on

By


It’s time to ask a rude question: Is Canada still worth investing in?

Before you rush to deliver an appropriately patriotic response, think about the issue for a moment.

A good place to begin is with the federal government’s announcement this week that it is forming a task force under former Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz. The task force’s job will be to find ways to encourage Canadian pension funds to invest more of their assets in Canada.

300x250x1

Wooing pension funds has become a high-priority matter for Ottawa because, at the moment, these big institutional investors don’t invest all that much in Canada. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, for instance, had a mere 14 per cent of its massive $570-billion portfolio in Canadian assets at the end of its last fiscal year.

Other major Canadian pension plans have similar allocations, especially if you look beyond their holdings of government bonds and consider only their investments in stocks, infrastructure and real assets. When it comes to such risky assets, these big, sophisticated players often see more potential for good returns outside of Canada than at home.

This leads to a simple question: If the CPPIB and other sophisticated investors aren’t overwhelmed by Canada’s investment appeal, why should you and I be?

It’s not as if Canadian stocks have a record of outstanding success. Over the past decade, they have lagged far behind the juicy returns of the U.S.-based S&P 500.

To be fair, other countries have also fallen short of Wall Street’s glorious run. Still, Canadian stocks have only a middling record over the past 10 years even when measured against other non-U.S. peers. They have trailed French and Japanese stocks and achieved much the same results as their Australian counterparts. There is no obvious Canadian edge.

There are also no obvious reasons to think this middle-of-the-pack record will suddenly improve.

A generation of mismanagement by both major Canadian political parties has spawned a housing crisis and kneecapped productivity growth. It has driven household debt burdens to scary levels.

Policy makers appear unwilling to take bold action on many long-standing problems. Interprovincial trade barriers remain scandalously high, supply-managed agriculture continues to coddle inefficient small producers, and tax policy still pushes people to invest in homes rather than in productive enterprises.

From an investor’s perspective, the situation is not that appetizing. A handful of big banks, a cluster of energy producers and a pair of railways dominate Canada’s stock market. They are solid businesses, yes, but they are also mature industries, with less than thrilling growth prospects.

What is largely missing from the Canadian stock scene are big companies with the potential to expand and innovate around the globe. Shopify Inc. SHOP-T and Brookfield Corp. BN-T qualify. After that, the pickings get scarce, especially in areas such as health care, technology and retailing.

So why hold Canadian stocks at all? Four rationales come to mind:

  • Canadian stocks have lower political risk than U.S. stocks, especially in the run-up to this year’s U.S. presidential election. They also are far away from the front lines of any potential European or Asian conflict.
  • They are cheaper than U.S. stocks on many metrics, including price-to-earnings ratios, price-to-book ratios and dividend yields. Scored in terms of these standard market metrics, they are valued more or less in line with European and Japanese stocks, according to Citigroup calculations.
  • Canadian dividends carry some tax advantages and holding reliable Canadian dividend payers means you don’t have to worry about exchange-rate fluctuations.
  • Despite what you may think, Canada’s fiscal situation actually looks relatively benign. Many countries have seen an explosion of debt since the pandemic hit, but our projected deficits are nowhere near as worrisome as those in the United States, China, Italy or Britain, according to International Monetary Fund figures.

How compelling you find these rationales will depend upon your personal circumstances. Based strictly on the numbers, Canadian stocks look like ho-hum investments – they’re reasonable enough places to put your money, but they fail to stand out compared with what is available globally.

Canadians, though, have always displayed a striking fondness for homebrew. Canadian stocks make up only a smidgen of the global market – about 3 per cent, to be precise – but Canadians typically pour more than half of their total stock market investments into Canadian stocks, according to the International Monetary Fund. This home market bias is hard to justify on any rational basis.

What is more reasonable? Vanguard Canada crunched the historical data in a report last year and concluded that Canadian investors could achieve the best balance between risk and reward by devoting only about 30 per cent of their equity holdings to Canadian stocks.

This seems to be more or less in line with what many Canadian pension funds currently do. They have about half their portfolio in equities, so devoting 30 per cent of that half to domestic stocks works out to holding about 15 per cent of their total portfolio in Canadian equities.

That modest allocation to Canadian stocks is a useful model for Canadian investors of all sizes. And if Ottawa doesn’t like it? Perhaps it could do more to make Canada an attractive investment destination.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending