Connect with us

Finance

​​What to expect for sustainable finance in 2024

Published

on

​​What to expect for sustainable finance in 2024
  • Geopolitical changes are predicted to have a big impact on the growth of green finance in 2024 but, while some markets may experience a setback, others are predicted to grow
  • In order to ramp up the volume of investments in green and other sustainable projects, transparency, scrutiny and accessibility remain paramount
  • New and improved regulatory frameworks can help prevent greenwashing, and make the market more attractive for investors

2023 wasn’t exactly a stellar year for some segments of the sustainable finance market. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, global sustainable finance issuance volumes reached $1.3tn last year, down from $1.55tn in 2022 and down on the $1.8tn peak seen in 2021.

While green bond issuance saw an 11 per cent increase year on year in 2023, according to ING’s Sustainable Finance Pulse, sustainability-linked bond issuance fell 24 per cent and sustainability-linked loan issuance fell 55 per cent. 

“It’s clear that the markets have seen two years of total volume decline and, at the start of the year, a lot of people were still quite positive that 2023 would bring growth — well, that didn’t happen and we’ve seen that reflected also in sustainability-linked products,” says Jacomijn Vels, global head of sustainable finance at ING.

ING attributes last year’s faltering demand for sustainable finance debt to investors reassessing the market, greenwashing concerns and the need for greater regulatory clarity. While demand for sustainable finance products remains strong, ING says investors and lenders will continue to seek out “higher quality” structures.

ING researchers forecast global ESG bond supply of €820bn this year, compared to an estimated €815bn for the end of last year, with 40 per cent of total issuance expected to be in euros. 

However, Vels says it is not easy to predict where the sustainable finance markets will go in 2024. “American elections are more likely to be a negative than a positive for sustainable financing. The nearer you get to the elections, the more corporate clients are going to think about what the anti-ESG sentiment might do to issuing debt. That’s the region I’m most uncertain about.”

Advertisement

In the US, Donald Trump has added his voice to Republicans condemning ESG investment, which is expected to be a major election issue in the run-up to the presidential race later this year. The FT reported last year that at least 49 “anti-ESG” bills were introduced across the US and investors such as BlackRock have been accused of not honouring their fiduciary duty by applying ESG to their investment decisions.

Nick Robins, professor in practice for sustainable finance at the London School of Economics, says the ESG backlash, which succeeded, in part, in steering firms away from investing their funds in sustainable projects for fear it would deliver fewer returns, has had an impact in some regions more than others. “Within the financial realm, green finance is no more a sort of pure technical matter, but a highly politicised topic within the market, especially in jurisdictions like the US,” he says.

Underpinning the ESG backlash is this debate as to whether investment managers and other institutional investors are permitted or even required to consider ESG issues when discharging their duties to their end clients or beneficiaries. Many critics believe ESG investing goes against managers’ main duty, which is to make money for investors. 

Robins says the US presidential elections bring a level of uncertainty in the direction the US will take with regards to regulation and whether local institutions still have the “courage” to continue making sustainability-linked investments.

Emerging economies a bright spot

However, there is positive growth momentum in other parts of the world. In the Asia-Pacific region, ING still expects to see healthy growth. Last year, the bank hired sustainable finance experts in Australia and South Korea with the view to growing its business in the area. “We’re seeing the traction start to come up in Apac,” says Vels, adding that Asia is a difficult region given the issues it faces in terms of the green transition. 

Advertisement

Many Asian economies are still heavily reliant on fossil fuels and are not expected to transition as quickly to net zero as other regions such as Europe where regulation and investment is more aligned with ‘greening’ the economy. 

This year, Robins foresees an increase in the volume of investments in so-called emerging economies. “2023 was the year in which sustainable finance and green finance really landed in India, and I believe that the trend will continue this year. Also in Brazil, which in many ways has been a real pioneer in these sectors of the market, we expect to see more growth in 2024.”

Transparency and accessibility

To meet the goals set out by the Paris Agreement, aimed at containing global warming to below a 1.5C rise since pre-industrial levels, companies across sectors need to scale up their efforts to decarbonise their business. Green finance plays an important role in the transition, but certain structures such as green loans haven’t always been as popular with investors compared to sustainability-linked loans. 

Historically, green loans haven’t proliferated because a lot of borrowers didn’t want to be restricted in the use that they make of the proceeds, says Arash Mojabi, ING’s UK lead for sustainable finance. “They didn’t yet have the kind of financing identified to make it worth doing a separate green loan.”

Greater transparency on the requirements attached to green bonds and loans, and sustainability-linked loans, is fundamental to driving greater investor demand in the market.

Advertisement

Ingrid Holmes, executive director at the Green Finance Institute, says the emergence of green taxonomies, as well as transition plans, is introducing a level of scrutiny around green claims from clients and from financial institutions, which will drive up quality, but also build a better understanding of what actually needs to be financed.

“Banks have done a good job integrating climate into their risk management systems, but their focus now needs to shift to how to better create green deals, because the finance system is only going to be as green as the economy is,” she says. 

Corporate investors may ask why they can’t just opt for a ‘plain vanilla’ loan, rather than having to undertake the effort needed for a sustainability-linked loan, which must be clearly tied to verifiable and robust key performance indicators.

However, Mojabi says that on the sustainability-linked side, clients have set 2030 targets, so it is about holding them accountable. “On the flip side, we’ve made a long-term commitment to be net zero by 2050, so our portfolios have to transition. We need to quickly understand who’s on that path with us, because the most disruptive thing would be to have to sell swathes of our portfolio to meet those targets.”

How is regulation impacting green finance?

In spite of the huge steps forward that have been made in green finance, the risk of greenwashing remains a concern for clients, financial institutions and regulators alike. Last year, the European parliament  approved voluntary standards for companies wanting to use the “European green bond label”. As Sustainable Views reported, the standards require issuers to disclose “considerable information” on use of proceeds with at least 85 per cent of these being allocated to activities covered by the EU sustainable finance taxonomy.

Advertisement

Last year’s release of the sustainability-linked loan principles also helped the market by providing direction on what you should do to make sure you have ambitious and relevant KPIs, says Vels of ING. “It also provides the guidance that you need to have them [KPIs] checked and validated externally for all borrowers. That has actually helped in structuring sustainable loans.” 

The introduction of regulations like the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive should allow banks to more transparently engage with their clients on KPIs, she adds. “This transparency hopefully will also bring us more intelligence in terms of what capex [capital expenditure] is necessary for our clients to fund the transition. In the end, regulation will help us grow the market and, hopefully, also our clients in knowing where to invest.”

But Vels says regulation should not just be about disclosure, but also provide tools to stimulate investment in the transition. “My fear is that the regulation on the disclosure side will grow and we won’t get the stimulus next to it,” she says.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Finance

Jim Justice Tied West Virginia Coal to Global Financial Capital

Published

on

Jim Justice Tied West Virginia Coal to Global Financial Capital

West Virginia governor James C. Justice II seeks to fill the Senate seat left open by Joe Manchin’s retirement. “Big Jim” Justice, like Manchin, is a coal executive and former Democrat. But in contrast to Manchin’s run-of-the-mill crony capitalism, Justice has pursued innovative business practices that pushed the mines of West Virginia deep into the grasp of global financial capital.

Justice did it, he says, to keep his mines open and his businesses out of bankruptcy. But Justice’s strategy has meant that a string of unrelated third parties — JPMorgan, a Russian steel oligarch, Credit Suisse — get a little bit richer every time a coal miner goes to work for Justice. And West Virginians — local governments, Justice’s miners, small businesses, and local banks — hold the bag. If this is the way to stay out of bankruptcy, Justice’s prescribed treatment is worse than the illness.

Advertisement

How did Big Jim make such a big mess, and why? To be fair, it is not all his fault. Jim Justice’s business fortune, like the fortune of West Virginia itself, is impossible to understand without reference to the ups and downs of global commodity markets. Dealing with these commodity cycles has been the central preoccupation of the coal business for several decades. If the unemployment rate is the most important economic indicator for the world’s industrial regions, the price of commodities is the most important economic indicator for its resource-extraction regions.

Justice is a creature of resource extraction. Justice’s money comes from two sources: coal and agriculture. He inherited his stake in both the coal and agriculture industries from his father. Both coal and farming are commodity businesses.

The price fluctuation of coal has several implications for those who want to make money mining it. Coal mines are not all created equal and can be broadly sorted into two classes. There are mines that are highly productive, typically meaning that they are highly mechanized with expensive “longwall” mining machinery imported from Germany. These mines usually continue to operate when coal prices drop because their labor inputs are low and their capital costs (interest payments) remain the same whether the price is high or low. High-productivity, mechanized mines are typically operated with union labor.

Then there are low-productivity mines — sometimes called “doghole” mines. Smaller and less mechanized dogholes tend to shut down when the price of coal drops. Doghole mines close because their marginal cost (that is, the cost that they have to spend to mine an additional ton of coal) is higher than that of the high-productivity mines. The existence of doghole mines ensures that the price of coal does not rise too high. Doghole mines don’t require large investments, which means that when the price of coal rises above normal, a whole host of them open up. Doghole mines are typically nonunion.

Throughout most of the twentieth century, many large, high-productivity mines were owned and operated by large industrial corporations that consumed coal, like US Steel, Ford, and others. When demand for their goods increased, they didn’t open new mines; rather, they turned to the market and purchased coal from the doghole mines. During the industrial downturn of the 1970s and 1980s, this system of major, company-owned mines began to break down. Changes in the geography of world industrial production led to the decline of domestic coal-consuming industries. US Steel and similar companies stopped investing in coal production and shed their coal assets.

Advertisement

A new class of coal companies stepped in to develop and operate the expensive, high-productivity mines. Pure-play coal companies like Massey and Peabody expanded rapidly into central Appalachia in the 1980s. Bluestone Industries, owned by Big Jim’s father, was part of this growth.

Unlike the older major producers, the new companies engaged in both high-productivity and doghole mining — a business strategy that mitigated against the fluctuations in the price of coal. Owners of high-productivity mines had never been able to see the full benefits of their investments because the doghole mines kept prices relatively low during coal booms. For a company like US Steel, this had not been a problem. US Steel was not looking to make money mining coal. It was looking to secure a reliable supply of coal. The new companies, including the Justice family’s Bluestone, had different incentives.

As the major industrials exited coal production and left the mining business to Massey, Peabody, Bluestone, and other coal-exclusive businesses, the problem of how to increase profit margins during upswings became acute. The answer was to innovate a new method of mining that combined the low capital intensity of the doghole mine with the low marginal cost of the high-productivity mine.

That method was mountaintop removal. Mountaintop removal is exactly what it sounds like: a process of removing a mountain top — “overburden,” in industry speak — so that coal can be mined with bulldozers and front loaders rather than expensive, specialized underground mining equipment. Mountaintop removal could not fully match the cost efficiency of a well-run, highly mechanized underground mining operation, but it certainly beat the older small-scale, low-productivity mines — sometimes called “doghole” mines — that it succeeded. And it beat high-intensity mines on capital cost: big trucks, bulldozers, front loaders, and dynamite are cheaper and more liquid than specialized underground mining equipment. Mountaintop removal is far more environmentally destructive than other methods of mining coal.

By the 2000s, the benefits of that companies like Massey, Peabody, and others derived from mountaintop removal and the diversification of mining interests had played out. They succeeded in taking control of the coal market away from the large industrials, but the inevitable question of question of how this new arrangement might fare in a volatile coal market was unanswered.

Advertisement

In 2009, the problem was a high price. Justice decided to sell out. He found a buyer in the Russian steelmaker Mechel, which, like many large Russian industrial concerns, maintained close ties to Vladimir Putin and, unlike most American industrials, was growing. The sale of Bluestone’s assets to Mechel went through in 2009, before the financial crisis hit the commodity markets. Bluestone’s coal assets received a high price: $425 million and preferred shares in Mechel.

Justice was riding high: he subsequently purchased the ailing luxury Greenbrier resort in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, a longtime haunt of the Washington elite. Justice relished the company that he could keep as the owner of a big fancy hotel with a large bank account.

But the party didn’t last long. By 2015, the financial crisis had hit the commodity markets. The coal market was sluggish, and global industrial demand (excluding China) recovered very slowly. Mechel, holding what was at that point a money-losing business, sold the properties back to the Justice family for $5 million paired with per-ton royalty payments on future coal sales.

Five million dollars was a low price, but it probably wasn’t low enough. The properties were saddled with delayed upkeep and unpaid invoices. When Big Jim resumed leadership of the Bluestone coal assets, the old problems of navigating a coal company through commodity cycles resumed. Justice did not want to pull money from any corner of his business empire in order to operate his coal business in a sluggish market. So he turned to the burgeoning world of shadow banking that had grown up in the era of low interest rates.

Justice has since defaulted on the royalty payments, landing him in court. A judge recently ordered the seizure of one of the Justice family helicopters that Big Jim’s son Jay regularly taxied around Beckley, West Virginia. (Justice’s Democratic opponent in this year’s Senate race has suggested that Justice’s ongoing legal entanglement with Mechel could compromise his ability to serve as a US Senator.)

Advertisement

To solve the financial problem created by the repurchase of its coal properties, Bluestone found a partner in Lex Greensill of Greensill Capital. In the Donald Trump era, Greensill Capital was a darling of the transatlantic banking world. Lex Greensill was himself deeply familiar with global commodity markets, having grown up on a sugarcane farm in Queensland, Australia (which also grew watermelons, he likes to add in a folksy flourish). He moved to London in the heady days before the financial crisis, where he worked for Morgan Stanley and Citigroup.

Founded in 2011, Greensill Capital was an “innovative” supply chain lender. Supply chain lending is a straightforward business. Sellers of goods like Bluestone make deliveries of their goods and then issue invoices to the purchaser, which are usually due sixty days from delivery. Supply-chain lending is a very useful tool for a business that has liabilities that recur regularly but have uneven payment. That business, say Foxconn, might need to take out a loan to expand its operation to produce a large shipment of iPhones. Foxconn would invoice Apple after the delivery and could expect to be paid at some point in the coming months, but it might already have interest payments due on the loan. Enter supply chain finance to smooth the cash flow problem. Foxconn could take a copy of their invoice to Greensill and get cash now.

The fees and interest rates that Greensill regularly charged on transactions like these were quite high. In the low-interest-rate environment of the late 2010s, Greensill was able to borrow money at low rates and return a much higher rate on this kind of supply chain financing. With this model, Greensill attracted enormous investments. The largest private investment fund in the world, SoftBank’s Vision Fund (funded by the Saudis), contributed $1.5 billion to the business, seeking the high returns that Greensill could generate. Greensill quickly started to roll out supply chain financing to companies like Bluestone.

Only some companies are well-suited for supply chain finance; Bluestone is not one of them. Unlike an Apple iPhone supplier, Bluestone does not go deeply into debt in order to finance coal shipments. Thanks to the changes brought about by mountaintop removal, coal mining is now an asset-light business. Expansion of mining operations ought not to impose major financial obligations. A partnership with Greensill was incorrect on the fundamentals.

Nevertheless, over the course of five years, Greensill lent Bluestone $850 million. As their relationship deepened, the loans morphed from clear-cut supply chain finance (wherein Bluestone simply got payment earlier than they might for coal that had been already shipped) into something else. As Bloomberg’s Matt Levine has reported, based on court documents, Bluestone started submitting and Greensill started accepting invoices for coal that had not been shipped. In fact, it had not even been mined, or even ordered from any coal customer whatsoever.

Advertisement

Justice’s strategy stood in stark contrast to all of his competitors in the coal business, which fell like dominoes to bankruptcy. Following a methane explosion that killed twenty-nine miners in 2010, Massey was acquired by Alpha Natural Resources. Alpha went bankrupt in 2015 along with the two largest coal companies in the nation, Peabody and Arch.

The short-term effect of Bluestone’s relationship with Greensill was to allow the Justices to continue operating without very much attention to their profit margin. Greensill treated Bluestone like a growth tech stock. To convince Greensill to continue lending, all Bluestone and the Justices had to do was invent future growth prospects.

For a coal company, the idea that one should run a deficit in the short term with the hope of future growth — the logic of tech company finance — is silly. It is silly not because betting on coal mining growth in the context of global warming is a bad bet. (It is a bleak, nihilistic bet, but it may win the day.) What makes the structure of the Greensill-Bluestone relationship incorrect, rather, is the idea that future profits in coal mining require running present-day losses. There is little reason to think that, should the market take an upswing, Bluestone would be particularly well-placed to take advantage of that upswing simply because it had continued operating when it perhaps should not have. And yet that was an implicit assumption of the relationship.

Despite its obvious flaws, that assumption would never be tested. As the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic wound through the financial system, Greensill faced increased scrutiny from lenders and insurers. Credit Suisse froze $10 billion in funds linked to the company in March of 2021. Greensill went belly-up soon after. The loans that had been made to Bluestone by Greensill were now picked up by others, including the Swiss bank UBS.

In the process of tying Bluestone to Greensill, the Justice family made a huge fiasco, not just for Bluestone Industries but for West Virginians.

Advertisement

Bluestone has a tendency to stiff those who send them an invoice or a time card. The debt to Greensill made the problem worse. Today, among the myriad parties seeking overdue payment from Bluestone is Wyoming County, West Virginia. Wyoming County is a coal county, population 20,527, where the median income is $20,607. In recent years, when it wasn’t using COVID money from the federal government, Wyoming County’s school board has been balancing its budget by selling its property after shuttering schools and offices. In part due to the inability of local governments to fund it appropriately, the local jail is a death trap, with suicides and murders (perpetrated by both inmates and correctional officers) at extraordinarily high levels. Bluestone owes hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes (largely tangible property tax, presumably levied on mining equipment) to Wyoming County.

Justice laments the fact that he regularly pays Russian taxes before he pays West Virginia taxes, but he defends his financial strategy: “If you’re really fair and you’ll step back from it, you’ll say ‘Well, when things were really tough, why didn’t they take bankruptcy like every coal company almost in the land that was in trouble that wrote off hundreds and hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars.’ And we didn’t do it.”

Bluestone has not yet declared bankruptcy. Beyond that, much is muddy: Why should Swiss bankers, Saudi princes, and Russian oligarchs get paid before Wyoming County teachers? Because Bluestone Industries just didn’t want to declare bankruptcy?

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Two big homebuilders missed Wall Street estimates on a key metric — here's why

Published

on

Two big homebuilders missed Wall Street estimates on a key metric — here's why

Housing demand has been hard to forecast even as mortgage rates have declined. Just take a look at homebuilders’ quarterly results so far this earnings season.

Two of America’s largest homebuilders, Lennar (LEN) and KB Home (KBH), reported third quarter net new home orders that have fallen short of Wall Street expectations.

Net new orders represent the number of new sales contracts that have been finalized and signed by buyers minus customer home order cancellations booked for the period. Investors and analysts pay close attention to this figure because its a leading indicator for homebuilders on housing activity.

Lennar, the nation’s second-largest homebuilder, said last month that its net new orders for the quarterly period ending Aug. 31 rose 4.7% from the prior year to 20,587. That fell short of analysts’ forecasts of 20,827 orders, per Bloomberg data.

Homebuilder KB Home also reported in September that net orders for the period ending Aug. 31 were a disappointment. The builder said orders fell 0.4% from the prior year to 3,085, lower than analysts’ estimates of 3,345 orders.

Advertisement

Part of the reason for the misses is that it’s been hard to determine how much recent mortgage rate movements would affect buyer demand. Mortgage rates have stayed stuck between 6% and 7% this year. And in June, rates were toggling just above or below 7%.

Read more: When will mortgage rates go down? A look at 2024 and 2025.

“Maybe shame on us for not modeling it more clearly, but June and July were clearly challenging months,” John Lovallo, senior equity research analyst at UBS, told Yahoo Finance in an interview.

From a buyer’s perspective, “there was uncertainty about where rates were going. There was uncertainty about where the economy and the Fed were going, and there was growing uncertainty about the election,” Lovallo added.

Two of America’s largest homebuilders Lennar (LEN) and KB Home (KBH) reported third quarter earnings that fell short of expectations for home orders, a revealing sign to what others could report.(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

The uncertainty doesn’t appear to be going away despite the Federal Reserve’s jumbo interest rate cut in September. Mortgage rates had already been on the decline as investors had bet on a rate reduction ahead.

It’s unclear how much they’ll fall. Data from Freddie Mac shows the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate jumped by 20 basis points to 6.32% last week. This marks the biggest week-over-week increase since April.

Advertisement

Read more: Is this a good time to buy a house?

Goldman Sachs revised its year-end forecasts in early October for 30-year conforming mortgage rates, lowering them to 6% for this year and 6.05% for 2025, down from the previous estimates of 6.5% and 6.1%.

The firm’s strategists said in the note that there’s “limited room” for major declines. They think “the decline in mortgage rates has largely run its course.”

Lovallo warned that it’s highly likely that the other homebuilders will report misses on Q3 net orders due to rate volatility this summer. More builders are gearing up to report quarterly earnings in the next few weeks with PulteGroup (PHM) and NVR (NVR) reporting on Oct. 22 and DR Horton (DHI) on Oct. 29.

Advertisement

Dani Romero is a reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on X @daniromerotv.

Click here for the latest stock market news and in-depth analysis, including events that move stocks

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

South African former finance minister Tito Mboweni dies at 65

Published

on

South African former finance minister Tito Mboweni dies at 65

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) – South Africa’s former finance and labour minister and first Black central bank governor Tito Mboweni has died aged 65 following a brief illness, the presidency said late on Saturday.

Mboweni was an anti-apartheid activist as a student who later became democratic South Africa’s first labour minister from 1994 to 1999 under former President Nelson Mandela.

He then served as governor of the South African Reserve Bank for a decade from 1999, and later as finance minister from 2018 to 2021 under President Cyril Ramaphosa.

“His role in shaping our democratic future particularly during the dying days of apartheid, cannot be overstated,” said his party, the African National Congress, describing him as a trusted voice in the economic debates that framed the transition to democracy.

Mboweni helped establish the post-apartheid labour legislation that lay the foundation for collective bargaining and labour courts to uphold worker rights, the ANC said.

Advertisement

As central bank governor he oversaw the introduction of inflation targeting to help the bank achieve price stability.

He was a close ally of Ramaphosa and served on the ANC’s National Executive Committee, which handles party decisions.

“Given his sense of vitality and energetic and affable engagement with fellow South Africans, Dr Mboweni’s passing at 65 comes as a shock,” said Ramaphosa in a statement.

“We have lost a leader and compatriot who has served our nation as an activist, economic policy innovator and champion of labour rights.”

(Reporting by Nellie Peyton; Editing by Emelia Sithole-Matarise)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending