Tuesday, 17 November 2009

The Iraq Opportunity

In this article, we talk to Zaab Sethna, Head of The Baghdad Office of Northern Gulf Partners, discussing the state and stability of Iraq, the future of its economy, and sectors ranging from oil & gas, renewable energy, commodities, utilities, telecommunications, real-estate and infrastructure. We also look at the investment opportunities Iraq offers, together with many of the key issues on rebuilding the nation.

---------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, November 2009

Spanning from the north-west end of the Zagros Mountains, to the eastern Syrian and northern Arabian deserts, Iraq has been home to continuous civilisations from the 6th millennium BC, starting with the Sumerian people (the oldest known civilisation) through to the empires of the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hellenistic and Parthian peoples, and more recently, becoming a major part of Roman, Mongol, Ottoman and British empires. It is known, historically, that these civilisations, in Iraq, produced the earliest writing, literature, sciences, mathematics, laws, and philosophies of the world

In stark contrast to the desert landscapes of Western Asia and the Middle East, Iraq has two major rivers (The Tigris and the Euphrates) which flow through the country, providing land which is highly capable (agriculturally) and viable to build successful human settlement (a geography which later revealed incredible natural resources, particularly oil). In European History it was these rivers which led to Iraq being referred to by its Greek eponym ‘Mesopotamia’ (meaning land between two rivers). Iraq’s location is also strategically important from a trade perspective, sharing borders with Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia together with 35miles of clear coastline on the Persian Gulf.

The twentieth century has, though, been a tremendously volatile time for Iraq. Following World War I, Iraq passed from the Ottoman to the British Empire who, in 1932, established the Kingdom of Iraq. In the revolution of 1958, the king was deposed, and the Republic of Iraq declared. By 1979, after two coup’s, Saddam Hussein took power of Iraq, and ruled for the remainder of the century, during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980’s, the Invasion of Kuwait and Gulf War of 1990-91, and the period of sanctions of the 1990’s.

It was the Iran-Iraq war which first laid a rift in Iraqi finances (which are based predominantly on the Oil sector) leaving losses of at least USD 100 billion. After hostilities ended, a combination of low oil prices, repayment of war debts, and reconstruction costs resulted in a financial crisis which many cite as the reason (at least in the short term) for the invasion of Kuwait.

After this invasion, the U.N. Security Council adopted “Resolution 661” which imposed severe economic sanctions on Iraq, placing an embargo on all trade excluding medicine, food and humanitarian items. The effects of these sanctions, and government policies inevitably led to hyperinflation, poverty, and malnutrition. Iraq’s historically generous state welfare disappeared overnight, and the, “large and well-educated middle class that had grown from the years of plenty to form the bedrock of Iraqi society was impoverished”. By 2003, Iraq was, for all intents and purposes, a country suffering from a “profound macroeconomic shock”.

Saddam was eventually removed from power in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and following one of the most controversial wars of modern times, Iraq is beginning, again, to show signs of improvement (described by the US Department of Defence as ‘significant and fragile gains’). With coalition troops withdrawing, Iraqi forces are starting to take responsibility for their own security, supported by an increasingly effective Iraqi parliament, who are slowly trying to build capacity in areas such as constitutional rights, threat deterrence, energy, economic development, education and other areas.

So what, then, is the future for Iraq?

In this exclusive interview, we speak to Zaab Sethna, Head of the Baghdad Office of Northern Gulf Partners (one of the leading asset managers in Iraq). We discuss the state and stability of Iraq, the future of its economy, and sectors ranging from oil & gas, renewable energy, commodities, utilities, telecommunications, real-estate and infrastructure. We also look at the investment opportunities Iraq offers, together with many of the key issues on rebuilding the nation.

Mr. Sethna has been working closely with Iraq’s leading political parties, business families and entrepreneurs for over ten years. He worked for the worked for the Government of Iraq on financial, trade, and energy policies and since then, has represented a number of international companies involved in Iraqi oil and gas, banking, insurance, aviation, and construction projects among others. He began his career with the United Nations in Brazil and also worked at the Sawyer/Miller Group in New York and the Rendon Group in Washington, DC and London. He is a graduate of Georgetown University and has an MIA from Columbia University.

Q: What is the current situation in Iraq?

[Zaab Sethna] The situation in Iraq is significantly improved by any measurement. Statistically violence has decreased by around 90% in the last two to three years by every metric: number of incidents, number of civilian casualties, number of security force casualties, damage to infrastructure, etc. In fact more people have been killed by violence in Mexico in the last 18 months than in Iraq. Of course there have been some terrible incidents recently and we cannot say that all the terrorists have been defeated but generally speaking the trends are very positive. More important even than the statistics is the mood of optimism you feel in Iraq now. People are certainly much more confident, and of course this kind of confidence is viral (in the sense that as people see optimism and confidence around them they themselves feel it and in turn pass it on). Quality of life indicators are also significantly improved in the last few years. GNP per capita has increased from $1800 under the US-appointed government of Ayad Allawi in 2004 to over $4000 today. Unemployment, inflation and other economic figures are also similarly improved. Corruption has been another factor in Iraq but we see this as declining as well from the high point during the US occupation and the immediate post-occupation period. The Iraqi government has instituted strong anti-corruption measures including Inspectors General in every Ministry as well as a national anti-corruption agency and there is also a parliamentary anti-corruption committee. As a firm we have a strong policy of zero tolerance for any kind of corruption but I am pleased to say we have never encountered any corruption or ever been asked for a bribe in Iraq.

Politically the situation is stabilising and what we see is that almost every group or faction in Iraq, with the exception of Al Qaeda and the Ba’athists, has now agreed to take part in the new system. The parliamentary and constitutional system is almost five years old and is ingrained. There will be free elections next year and we expect to experience a unique event in the Arab world, a peaceful transfer of power from one elected government to another.

Q: Why invest in Iraq?

[Zaab Sethna] Iraq today is an opportunity to pay rock-bottom prices for one of the world's richest countries and one of the world's best economic growth stories. The IMF forecasts Iraq's GDP growth this year at over 4% this year and close to 6% next year which is still higher than almost all others. Although it is currently impoverished, Iraq has the potential to be a very rich country in the medium term. It has water and oil but more important it has excellent human resources. Iraqis are smart, energetic and resourceful. They have an ancient history of urban civilization and commerce. The Iraq opportunity is far more compelling than the GCC and Iraq also has the most liberal economy in the Gulf region. It is easy for companies to register branches or subsidiaries and they are free to compete in any sector (with a few exceptions such as owning real estate or natural resources). There are no restrictions on repatriating capital or revenue, a simple 5% import duty and 15% income tax, a stable and free floating currency, and easy, 'one stop shopping' access through the National Investment Commission. It is a country of about 30 million people, intelligent and capable, enthusiastic about democracy, strong allies of the US and Europe, and ready to rejoin the modern world.

The Central Bank of Iraq has been doing a creditable job of keeping the dinar stable while lowering inflation. Their primary tool is interest rates which were over 20% in 2007 but have slowly been brought down and currently stand at 8.5%. Inflation has been brought under control and is 2.8%. At the same time unemployment is down from 60% to around 18%.

One of the greatest achievements of the US in Iraq has been the successful effort to reduce Iraq's debts. In 2003 Iraq was facing an absolutely massive and crushing debt burden of over $150 billion that had been accrued by the Ba’athists starting in the 1980's. The Bush administration appointed James Baker as the special envoy on Iraqi debt and he went around the world convincing Iraq's creditors to accept a large haircut. Iraq managed to reduce its debt burden with both Paris Club and London Club creditors by 80% which is the highest ever achieved by only a few other indebted countries. In fact only the Arab states have refused to reduce Iraq's debt and Kuwait continues to receive 5% of all Iraq's gross revenues under UN resolutions enforcing reparations for Saddam's invasion almost 20 years ago. It was only by reducing the debt burden that Iraq became economically viable again and also has slowly managed to rebuild its creditworthiness and rejoin the international capital markets. In fact next year Iraq plans a $5 billion bond issue which will be a major milestone. Reducing the debt burden and restoring Iraq to the world financial system might actually turn out to be the single best achievement of the Bush administration in Iraq and it was always mystifying to me why they didn't take any credit for it.

Q: What is the energy and commodities opportunity?

[Zaab Sethna] Iraq is the last place in the world where there are huge hydrocarbon reserves that are relatively easy to develop. The scale of its energy resources is simply astounding- probably the world's greatest reserves, bigger even than Saudi Arabia, at least 80 producible fields including nine 'super-giants' with over 5 billion barrels each, with close to the lowest extraction costs in the world. Iraq is the only producer on the planet that has the capability to quadruple its oil production in the next decade and increase gas production by an even higher factor. Certainly as Iraqi oil comes on stream it will raise issues with OPEC since Iraq has been without an OPEC production quota for the last 11 years. The other countries in the cartel will start to clamour for Iraq to be given a new quota while Iraqi will argue that it has produced far less than its previous quota for many years so should be allowed to make up for this lost time. Nevertheless Iraqi oil will probably have little effect on oil prices as world demand is forecast to grow by a larger margin than Iraqi production expands.

For now there are still few opportunities for investors in the upstream oil sector. Iraq has recently signed service agreements with some of the largest oil companies in the world but we know that international oil companies want production sharing agreements not service contracts. It will be some time before Iraq is ready to sign PSA's. These are still controversial in the country and there is a strong nationalistic feeling among the people when it comes to oil. Nevertheless there are excellent opportunities connected with the energy sector. Oilfield services for example will be a growth sector in Iraq for the foreseeable future as is logistics and equipment supply and maintenance. The government has also liberalised downstream and there are interesting possibilities in everything from refining to service stations. Iraq is also suffering an electricity shortage and this is a priority area for the government. They are encouraging private sector involvement in the power generation and distribution business and in fact the first private power plant in Iraq is already operational and meeting all its financial targets.

Iraq needs to rebuild its infrastructure across the board. From housing to transport to energy, there will be massive construction opportunities as well as huge demand for construction materials. Lafarge has two cement plants in Iraq already and they estimate that demand for cement will grow by over 10% annually for the next several years. If you look at statistics like cement demand per capita you see that Iraq is still very low. Lower even than Egypt let alone the Gulf states so it gives you an idea of the growth potential.

Renewable energy is not a big factor in Iraq. The country does have several hydro power stations along its rivers but they meet only about 5% of total electricity demand. One of the main problems is that Turkey has built large dams upstream and significantly restricted the water flow on the Tigris and Euphrates. That, together with low rainfall in the last few years, has reduced Iraq's hydro capacity and in fact is threatening Iraq's farmers with water shortages. However, there are some interesting uses of micro hydro generators in remote villages of the mountains of northern Iraq that are far from the national grid.

There is also an interesting use of solar power in Iraq. In Baghdad and other cities the lack of electricity meant that street lights were out for most of the night. Not only did the blackout make it easier for terrorists and criminals to plant bombs and move about but the almost total darkness had a very deleterious effect on civilian morale. The Iraqi government decided to install solar powered street lamps, even though they are 7-8 times more expensive then conventional street lighting. Now the lights are on all night and this has served to reduce crime but much more important has given people another shot of confidence.

Of course because of Saddam's weapons programs and the continuing regional fear that another Iraqi regime could revive these programs in the future, I would not imagine that nuclear power will be a factor in Iraq in the foreseeable future.

Q: What is the reconstruction, real-estate and physical infrastructure opportunity?

[Zaab Sethna] Iraq has a huge lack of housing. At least 1.5 million housing units need to be built immediately just to meet current demand. The problem here is finance. There are still no mortgage schemes available to Iraqi citizens so until the government works out a system there will not be large scale housing construction. But real estate will be a huge investment area; my guess is especially for GCC developers. In the last month two Abu Dhabi state-owned developers have finalised multi-billion dollar projects in Iraq and more will certainly follow. Baghdad is a city of 5 million people that is almost completely low-rise, hardly any building rises higher than ten stories. This is a country of almost 30 million that has no modern commercial office space, almost no international standard hotels, only one shopping mall, rudimentary public transit, and so forth. Not to mention the very large pilgrimage traffic to the Shia shrines in Najaf and Karbala. I heard the Minister of Tourism say recently that 500 hotels need to be built in Najaf and Karbala to meet demand from religious tourists which is expected to grow six-fold in the next five years. Financing remains the problem with almost no source of finance within the country and few international lenders willing to take Iraq risk. Some developments in Iraq have actually been financed with 100% cash but this is obviously not a long term solution. The Iraqi government will need to be creative and proactive in coming up with financing options that make sense to lenders and developers. I was pleased to see that the National Investment Commission has hired one of the biggest international accounting firms to provide advice on financing options for the Iraqi housing market.

Q: What is the opportunity in telecommunications and technology?

[Zaab Sethna] Iraq is the fastest growing, most competitive and most lucrative telecom market in the MENA region. There are currently three GSM carriers in Iraq but penetration is still in the range of 60-70% so there is definitely room for growth. Also the service is extremely poor and certainly an operator that was able to offer better service would capture large market share. There is a fourth GSM licence which is held by the state-owned telecom ITPC but they do not have the capital or technical know-how to build and operate a network. They are looking for international operators as JV partners to build a fourth network. There is currently no broadband service in the country but fibre links with neighbouring countries are being established and some private companies are already operating in this sphere. This is an excellent opportunity and the first companies to move into this market will do very well. There is no question that a lack of fibre backbone infrastructure is holding back economic development and I expect a boom of sorts to be set off once the national backbone is completed in the next 12 months. Because of the sanctions of the 1990s Iraq was kept out of global IT and telecom developments but now it is in a position to leapfrog straight to state of the art technologies. It is perfectly positioned geographically to become the regional fibre hub connecting Europe to the Gulf and Asia and that is what will eventually happen.

Q: What is the Agriculture & Water opportunity?

[Zaab Sethna] It is hard to believe that until the 1960s Iraq was a large agricultural exporter. Wheat, rice, barley, tobacco, lentils, fruit and vegetables were all exported from the centre of the so-called 'Fertile Crescent'. Now after two generations of a heavily oil-dependent economy overlaid with socialist planning and then the corruption of the UN Oil For Food programme, Iraq does not export a single agricultural commodity not even the dates for which it is famous. Iraq has become a major food importer. We have seen a number of interesting agribusiness plans in Iraq for things such as dairy plants, poultry farms and even cattle herds. Bottled water is another growth area. Imagine that Iraq currently imports bottled water and other beverages from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE- the Biblical 'Land of Two Rivers' forced to bring water from 'The Empty Quarter'.

The revival of agriculture is a priority for the government but as yet they have not taken necessary steps to help farmers. It will require coordinated government action and foreign investment to revive Iraqi agriculture but of course the potential is there. I would not be surprised to see UAE companies investing heavily in Iraqi agriculture as a measure to insure food security in their country. It is possible you could see some kind of production sharing agreements for agriculture between foreign investors and Iraq.

Q: What are the consumer and business services opportunities?

[Zaab Sethna] All services are currently at a low level of development in Iraq. The banking system is primitive, medical care is substandard; there are virtually no distribution or logistics networks. Iraqi consumers have not even begun to scratch the surface of the possibilities that are available in other countries.

We see services as an excellent way to invest in Iraq and take advantage of the future growth. For example we have financed Iraq's best and most modern construction equipment rental company. This is a good way to benefit from the coming infrastructure, construction and oilfield development boom, the same with financial services. Iraq needs modern technologically advanced commercial banks and insurance companies and asset managers. We are involved in all of these areas.

Q: What is the state of banking and investment infrastructure in Iraq? and what is your view on the currency?

[Zaab Sethna] The banking sector is dominated by state-owned banks which are reminiscent of the Soviet Union for their levels of efficiency and customer service. It can take weeks to clear a cheque, there are no ATM's, and most damaging is that the banks do not really lend. For businessmen and entrepreneurs there is essentially no source of financing in the country. A dynamic well-capitalised bank based on technology and customer service will be able to capture significant market share.

The Iraqi dinar has been remarkably stable and is one of the success stories of the last few years. The Central Bank keeps a sort of unofficial peg against the dollar although the dinar is a free floating currency. As the oil sector develops and petrodollars start to flow into Iraq we can imagine that the currency will appreciate.

Q: How do you invest?

[Zaab Sethna] We invest in both public markets and private equity. We have a fund called “Iraq Investment Partners I” that invests in the Iraq Stock Exchange The ISX has no restrictions on foreign ownership and since they moved to electronic trading in the last few months volumes have increased hugely. The ISX was one of the best performers in the world last year which is very impressive since almost every market was significantly down in 2008. Since Jan 08 Iraq is up about 16% while emerging markets equities are down about 22%. It is still a small market with total market cap of around $2.5 billion and extremely low liquidity. But it is an easy way for investors to get long Iraq.

However the more important aspect of our business is direct investments in Iraqi companies that are not listed, including some that we are building ourselves as new ventures. I mentioned the equipment rentals company that we have built and our efforts in financial services. We are also involved in oilfield services, telecoms and construction materials.

Q: How do you manage and measure risk?

[Zaab Sethna] Iraq is a country that is undergoing two transitions at the same time- from centrally planned economy to free market and from war and occupation to post-conflict. Add to that a decade of the strictest sanctions regime ever established by the international community and that certainly makes for a risky environment. Besides the obvious security risks there is still a certain amount of political uncertainty as well as the longer term question of the Kurds' future in Iraq. There are also the standard risks associated with transition and frontier economies- corruption, stifling bureaucracy, weak institutions.

We employ a combination of factors to mitigate risk. We use Iraqi security firms for physical security, we use enhanced due diligence when looking at investments, we use local and international insurance--there is a lot available--for our assets. Most important of all is our local knowledge and presence. Nothing substitutes for local knowledge in emerging markets investing and this is an area where our firm certainly has a competitive advantage. With our office in Baghdad and longstanding links with Iraqis in many different walks of life we have a feel for the place that only comes from years of involvement.

Q: What kind of returns can investors expect from Iraqi markets?

[Zaab Sethna] The biggest mistake potential investors make is to approach Iraq as some kind of Klondike where there are untold riches available with little effort. There has definitely been a gold rush mentality associated with Iraq, especially in the first few years of the US occupation and its successor government when official corruption was rife. We look at Iraq from the standpoint of a long term relationship not a get rich quick scheme. We like projects with a 12-18 month capital payback period and then an IRR in the 30% range. If you have the patience, courage and perseverance to stick it out in Iraq then yes there will be outsized returns, but it will not come easy.


---------------------------------------------------

Regardless of any political rhetoric, we can see, through the commentary of those engaged on the ground in Iraq such as Northern Gulf Partners, the situation is improving.

An important measure of the state of a country is human development, and rights. The Commission for Human Rights, in 2002 condemned President Saddam Hussein's government for its “systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law” demanding that Iraq immediately put an end to its “summary and arbitrary executions... the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances”. During Saddam’s rule, full political participation was restricted to only members of the Arab Ba’ath party (just 8% of the population), citizens were not allowed to assemble unless in support of the government, and the movements of citizens was heavily taxed and monitored. Many hundreds of thousands of people were brutally tortured or killed as ‘punishment’ for violating these arbitrary restrictions, and tactics including forced disappearances, the destruction of food sources, and the widespread use of chemical and biological weapons against non-combatants.

The situation in this regard now is vastly improved, but the facts do remain that we are dealing here with a country which is just emerging from a very serious conflict (which brings ancillary risks), and a country which is still paralysed by a macro-economic shock which has forced its citizens back to subsistence.

From other conflict situations worldwide, we have also seen that economics is not only one of the key drivers for war, but for peace. As countries become economically unviable, for whatever reason it may be (climate change, politics), you see an inevitable propensity for the population to drift into conflict as competition emerges for scarce resources such as food, water and energy, and we revert to anthropological safety behaviours such as grouping (leading to gangs, terrorist groups, extremists). For rogue leaders, economics also gives leverage to control a population, reducing their mobility to a stage where they are fundamentally captive (as you see in North Korea now). A study released by Oxfam in 2009 also supports this view, finding that, "Seventy per cent of Afghans surveyed see poverty and unemployment as the major cause of the conflict in their country"

We have seen first hand in many African nations the power of economic growth to bring peace and opportunity, simply looking at the changes in Nigeria, Zimbabwe and Botswana (for example) shows that as populations become more economically empowered, with the right political infrastructure, economies can grow rapidly, and the sense of conflict decreases as populations, regardless of their political or religious beliefs, begin to fight towards a common economic goal, in which they all participate.

Rebuilding Iraq thus becomes not only an obligation of the international community to the people of Iraq, but a uniquely exciting and humbling opportunity for investors engaged in this reconstruction.

We are fundamentally faced with blank-slate economy, with huge resources (predominantly in the form of oil and potential agriculture) and an educated population who are hungry for change and have waited long enough to get it.

For investors, whether participating in individual sectors (such as energy, telecommunications, real-estate, or infrastructure), participating through exchanges and funds on broader positions, or joint venturing with international agencies engaged in the reconstruction of schools, hospitals and the like, the fundamentals remain attractive. We have a country which will experience (mid to long term) strong, resource backed growth, generating significant national, commercial, and consumer wealth.

When we combine this potential growth with a highly mobile and interconnected global economy, we can see that perhaps the world needs Iraq, as much as Iraq needs the world; and that partnership is the fundamental basis for this opportunity.

Click to read full article...

Tuesday, 3 November 2009

The Future of the US Dollar

In this article, we talk to Marc Chandler, Global Head of Currency Strategy at Brown Brothers Harriman and discuss the future of the US Dollar, its role as a global reserve currency, its future, relationship to interest rates and inflation, and the state of the US economy.

---------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, November 2009

The foreign exchange market is the largest, and most liquid financial environment in the world, with governments, corporations, institutions, investors, central banks, and many other participants contributing to global turnover (as measured by the Bank for International Settlements) in excess of US$3.2 trillion per day. This daily turnover consists of around US$1 trillion in spot transactions, US$362bn in outright forwards, US$1.7 trillion in swaps, and the balance in other transactions.

In neo-classical economic theory, the concept of a 'perfect competition' was put forward to describe a market with infinite buyers and sellers, no barriers to entry or exit, costless transactions, participants maximising profits, perfect information and homogenous products. The foreign exchange market is the closest we have to an environment of 'perfect competition' where ample liquidity creates an environment of 'near infinite' buyers and sellers, combined with (in the main) extremely low transaction costs, few barriers to participation in the market, and highly homogenous products. The currency markets are, though, exposed to participants who may not all be trading with the same motive, some with the ability to manipulate prices (such as central banks), and a great deal of volatility from factors ranging from macro economics, to politics, social issues, and even meteorological conditions.

At the heart of this highly dispersed global market is US Dollar, a currency which (through the advent of capitalism, international trade and investment, globalisation, and US strength internationally in economics and military terms) has retained a ‘monopoly’ position as a reserve currency, and as the most widely adopted currency of international trade and capital flow (accounting, in 2007, for 86.3% of average daily market turnover).

Since the financial crisis of 2007-8, a great deal of discussion has occurred about the nature of US Dollar’s dominance in the market, and whether shifts in economic power could see it losing reserve status and relative monopoly.

In this exclusive interview, we speak to Marc Chandler, Global Head of Currency Strategy for Brown Brothers Harriman (the oldest and largest partnership bank in America, with over 4,000 employees worldwide). Marc is also Associate Professor of Global Affairs at NYU Stern, a prolific writer, speaker, and considered by many to be one of the world's leading experts on currency. Marc is also the author of the well-respected book Making Sense of the Dollar, Exposing Dangerous Myths About Trade and Foreign Exchange (Bloomberg Press, 2009). In this interview, we speak to Marc about the future of the US Dollar, its relationship to other currencies, valuation, reserve status, and the factors affecting its trade.

Q: What is your view on US Dollar's continued role as a reserve currency?

[Marc Chandler] I think that the dollar’s role as a reserve currency will continue. It has always been relatively stable, apart from some volatility at the time of the UMU and Maastricht treaty. In general, for the last two decades or so, dollar’s share of global reserves has remained around 65-66% with the Euro (and before that the basket of European currencies) making up around 25%. This figure [for Euro] has increased now to the extent that there has been a noticeable shift in reserve allocation, but in the main, reserves are shifting from Japanese yen to British pound.

I think part of the challenge is that there is no clear alternative. Before the Euro, for example, most pundits thought it [the Euro] would be the replacement. I have articles on my desk right now claiming “dollar abandoned” and others saying “oil to be denominated in other currencies”. These are not recent articles, but pieces from February 1995!

If you look at the history, in certain parts of the dollar cycle, particularly in the down part, investors exaggerate structural problems and minimise cyclical. I would suggest that most dollar problems are cyclical, and when the fed reserve raises interest rates, and the business cycle re-enters an upswing, there will be many reasons to buy dollar.


Q: What are your views on Dollar's valuation relative to other currencies?

[Marc Chandler] I think medium to long term, we are constructive on dollar. We see short-term downward risk stemming mainly from low US interest rates and liquidity.

The problem is people don’t agree on the future or the past. Many suspected that the dollar rally in 2008-2009 was due to it’s role as a ‘safe haven’; I don’t see it that way, and would suggest that one of the most successful Fed Reserve programmes was the currency swap lines, where they made available, around USD 580 billion to the rest of the world. This program has been wound back through lack of use to around USD 40 billion, and by the rest of the world, I mean EU banks, hedge funds, and investors from Mexico, Brazil and the like. Their borrowing of dollars to buy assets created a huge carry trade which financed the bubble. This resulted in a huge margin call as foreign investors scrambled to secure dollars, and this was at the moment when US bank balance sheets imploded. The major weight on dollar now comes from the fact that interest rates are low, and the system is awash with dollars.

It is interesting to note that several EU countries issue dollar denominated bonds. Imagine if the US issued a Japanese yen denominated bond. This would be considered a sign of weakness by the market, but when Italy and its counterparts issue dollar bonds, no comment is made. This shows, again, the role of ample dollar liquidity, and its role as a financing currency.

Economically, I believe that most of the bad news is now known. Last year there was, in fact, a shortage of dollars. Many thought there was a surplus, but there was really a shortage, and the Fed Reserve flooded the market.

I can illustrate the current situation in the form of a story. Two boys were being chased by a Tiger. One boy stops to put on running shoes, and the other boy says, “What are you doing?” The first boy responds, “I don’t have to outrun the Tiger, I just have to outrun you”.

When you look at many of the financial centres such as The City of London, Wall St, and their counterparts, they think of things in Economic terms. There is, however, a reason why the likes of Alfred Smith, and Karl Marx studied politics and not economics. The role of the dollar rests on many other things, not just economics. Look at thins like human capital, for example. Many say the US has stopped inventing, but in 2008 there was one company which applied for more patents than all the others put together, this company was IBM. Seventeen of the top twenty universities in the world are in the USA, one third of all students who leave their countries to study in another come to the USA. There are only a handful of countries who spend relatively more on R&D than the USA, and these include Norway (telecommunications based) and Japan. The GDP in USA is around USD 45,000 per capita, some have higher GDP’s but almost all have a smaller population than the greater NY area. When you look at all the factors including military power, transparency, innovation, and so forth, you can see that even with the problems we have, the institutional capacity, culture and these factors suggest to me that we are very capable.

Anther interesting point on this is fertility rate which, in the US, is above 2.1 (versus around 1.6 for most of Europe and Japan). By the end of 2010, for example, Japan will have 5 million less workers, and this complicates their problems.

I try to look at the political economy, the role of the dollar based on economic AND non-economic variables. Abraham Maslow (a famous psychologist) once commented, “if all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail”. Investors currently have a hammer, and that hammer is economics.

Q: What is the role of deficits in Dollar's valuation? And what other key indicators (economically) carry the greatest influence?

[Marc Chandler] There are many people who believe that our [US] current account deficit is a major driver and a major imbalance for dollar. I, however, think there is a fetish about balances. If we agree, for example, that a key macro-economic variable is fertility, or population rates, how can you have a balanced economy when some are producing rates of 2.1(USA), and some like Japan, around 1.6 and falling. On the eve of the First World War, the absolute value of deficits in major countries was almost twice today, and capital flows are now far greater.

A lot of the problems stem also from measuring using nineteenth century models. Almost half the US trade deficit can, for example, be accounted for by movements within the same company. If General Motors, for example, export parts between state X and Detroit, this is counted in the trade deficit. In a survey of current business released by the BEA, it puts forward that if they have an alternative ‘ownership’ based framework for measurement, this will reduce the trade deficit figure by over 30%.

You also have to look at how US countries service foreign demand. For countries like Germany, this is done using pure exports (which, in the case of Germany, accounts for around 40% of GDP). In the US, we export over 1 Trillion dollars a year, but the real way we service foreign market is by building and selling locally. These affiliates of multinationals will sell more than 4 Trillion dollars of goods and services this year. This phenomenon complicates trade a lot, by finding the role of inter-firm trade and production. If we sell a good in the USA, sell widgets to China, or make and sell a good in China, is that not tantamount to the same thing? It turns out that for every ipod sold by Apple, it makes the US trade deficit go up by USD 150. Is the US poorer because the world loves ipods? No, we accrue the high-value elements like intellectual property, profit, and so forth, and outsource the lower-value parts of the chain.

I can find you may times where the deficit has widened, and dollar strengthened, and vice versa, this is not a reliable means of forecasting currency.

For Japan, pre-crisis into 2007, it was amongst the weakest of currencies in terms of the trade weighted average. Look also at the Swiss Franc, they have a major surplus and are now intervening in the foreign exchange markets. There are a lot of factors influencing values.

When most people focus on trade, they miss a significant development, namely the huge and immense mobility of capital. The daily turnover of the foreign exchange market is around USD 3.2 Trillion, meaning that in a few weeks of trade, enough capital is circulated to pay for all of global trade in a year. Capital is the driver, NOT trade.

Q: What are your views on inflation and interest rates for the USA?

[Marc Chandler] In the near term, in 2009 and for most of 2010, inflation is not a major problem. That said, the key is not inflation. To use an analogy, when you squeeze toothpaste out of a tube, it’s quite hard to get it back in. By the same token, by the time you see inflation, it’s too late. The key is inflation expectations.

The first rate hike may come in August 2010, which will follow from around 3% growth over the next few quarters led by inventory, government and residential spending. These factors, including consumption, lift economies, and after a few quarters of growth, the fed will raise interest rates, maybe by 0.25%. Interest rates will, though, have to be raised for a while for monetary policy to become tight again. Right now, rate setting is akin to the moment when titanic hit an ice-berg. In ten months, the ship will be further away in safety, and they can adjust rates slightly, but I suspect they will still be low.

Q: To what extent is the dollar valuation politicised?

[Marc Chandler] For me, this is the key to the ‘strong dollar policy’ which Trichet keeps mentioning at the European Central Bank. Previous to the ‘strong dollar is in US interests’ speech, and before 1995, the US had several treasury secretaries who used dollar as a weapon against countries like Germany and Japan. A ‘strong dollar policy’ means the US is foreswearing against this kind of activity, and we will not purposely seek dollar devaluations to achieve policy objectives, but if the dollar falls because of monetary policy? So be it.

I think in some ways, the US has tried to depoliticise the dollar. The political economy is important, though, and the competition between nations is like playing chess on many levels. I can’t separate politics from economics, as this would be doing both disciplines a disservice.

Dollar has also taken on symbolic value, representing “Anglo-America” and capitalism, and this symbology also gives it value and imparts more than just ‘means of transaction’.

An example of the politics of dollar can be seen where recently China proposed its feelings that there should be an alternative international monetary regime. This was purely a political move as it would be impractical, any time soon, to do this. What they did was play a classic sports strategy where, “the best defence is to go on offence”. After many years of haranguing by the US to revalue their currency, they went on the offensive. This strategy worked in their favour as pundits picked up this proposal and ran with it, and the US has backed away from China-bashing, instead letting other forms like the IMF take charge.

Q: What are your views on commodities being non-dollar denominated?

[Marc Chandler] I don’t think this will happen for a long time, certainly not in my lifetime. Ronald McKinnon (Stanford) and many others have argued there is a natural monopoly for dollar. Imagine you are OPEC and you are looking at many different countries to sell oil. Having a single currency, rather than bringing instability, brings economies of scale and efficiency.

These changes do not, though, happen by agreement. Take, for example, the language of ‘Esperanto’. This was a made-up language, with no country, which intellectuals said the whole world should adopt. It is not an alternative to English, but English has become a language of speaking for the world. It is the same principle. There is inertia, but a lack of alternatives.

Even if you priced oil, for example, in Euros, SDR’s or even a basket which includes Gold. OPEC would still accumulate surpluses, as would China. This is not a pricing problem, it is about principles such as savings, investment, and consumption.

Another good example is the QWERTY keyboard. To replace this, you have to bring out something which is more a little better. Whatever replaces the dollar has to be a whole lot better which is currently beyond our imaginations.

Q: With emerging markets playing an increasingly important role, do you think there are any currencies traders should watch more carefully, and why?

[Marc Chandler] With the advent of Euro, we lost many currencies and currently the GCC are even talking about adopting a common currency. BRIC is a great marketing term, but for me, it lacks substance. China and India are at odds on many things, for example. What we find is that China is in the early stage of becoming the centre of the emerging markets, buying commodities, investing cash, and so forth. This seems like a new form of imperialism, akin to what the British and the French did historically.

In some African states, for example, they have Gold and Zinc, on the way, we will build a road, or deepen a port, but the aim is to buy the resources and leave. In many ways we will see China competing with emerging markets, rather than existing with them, due in part to a cheap currency pegged to the dollar. The Economist says, for example, that by the end of 2010, there will be over one million Chinese farmers in Africa. If the US takes a project, they may bring US citizens over for management roles, but China has a lot of unemployment problems, so they bring the workers too. What’s been happening is that the market thinks that emerging economies are dead, but some funds I speak to think that Poland and Brazil are safer than US treasuries!.

We have had a love affair and have mistaken cyclical and liquidity factors for nirvana. Some countries have made progress, like Brazil, but it could be that BRIC should be renamed CRIB as most, leaving aside China, are small and in the early stages of development.

Looking at other countries, though, markets like Indonesia are very interesting, and I think the gulf is too. It is a cycle; as currencies become more traded, spreads narrow and eventually investors feel safe to pile in. We look at frontier economies such as Vietnam, Kenya and even some of the Baltics (if they survive) in this way. Just as interesting are the currencies which may not exist in ten years such as those in Eastern and Central Europe.

There are also moves to create a single unified currency in Latin America and East Asia.

Q: Currencies are often used by ‘black box’ traders (e.g. quant funds), and by those developing trading models using technical analysis. How effective do you think statistical modelling is of currency movements? And do you think the number of market participants using quantitative trading systems influences prices? (eg. Everyone trades at same points, large volumes, etc)

[Marc Chandler] It has certainly been an interesting development to see the increased accessibility to the foreign exchange market. It does, though, raise a general question in the back of our minds about how markets work. In practice, many see it as a bunch of profit making people who work to create a clearing price, but that’s not how it works in practice. Think of a list of players including corporations, unit trusts (mutual funds), central banks and the like. These major players do not see currencies as an asset class, but as a risk that needs to be managed. Many equity funds do not hedge currency risk, they see it only as a transaction vehicle and central banks do not have any profit motive. Only some participants in the market are true profit seekers. These include inter-bank dealers, proprietary desks, and hedge funds. Some people say it is a zero-sum market, but in practice its more complicated as some participants look to lock in certainty and reduce risk, and some are there to make profit. I think black-box high frequency traders and other technical traders are a factor in the market, but they may not differentiate from other speculators. The real battle in the market is between the profit seekers, and the not-profit-seekers.

On the Wider Economy

Q: What do you think the true picture is of the state of the US and Global Economy? And what are the key factors you think will influence our ‘post crisis’ economy?

[Marc Chandler] Imagine a person who got hit by a car, who was wrapped up in a full body cast. Slowly they are coming off, but the patient is still bruised, there’s a lot of pain, but as more time transpires following the accident, the patient get stronger.

What worries me is that while policy makers were (necessarily) quick to respond, many key market participants have not sufficiently changed their behaviours. We, as major industrialised nations, have survived this crisis, but I am not sure whether, for example, Germany would be prepared to give up on its “40% exports” strategy (a behaviour). The US household net-worth fell by 14 Trillion dollars, it has recovered 2 trillion dollars and Q2/09 and a further again in Q3, but with rising unemployment there is still a lot of stress.

Many people in the US and Western Europe have cited that our children may have lower living standards as a result of this crisis. My view is that it many not be as bad. Instead of retiring at 60, we now work till 65, and our children may work till 70. In the US, we have a car for every licensed driver. Is this really necessary? If my son doesn’t have a car, but uses shared vehicles like “zipcar” is this really a change in living standards? We, in the US, go through 150 gallons of water a day per person. The WHO says you need less than 20, so if my son has to buy appliances that are water saving, is the standard of living less? But the net effect is that he is consuming less automobiles and water.

People talk of an age of austerity, but in the USA and in other countries, we look at the fact that people are not starving but the opposite. Maybe it’s my own milieu from being in New York, but I see the fact that people are not embracing progress and change, they see old is good and new is bad. Over time, people have to embrace progress, and not see it as a threat. Progress may be daunting, with job losses, and loss of standing, but we have to help each other through it. It is only through progress that we will overcome these problems.

---------------------------------------------------

We can see, therefore, that the foreign exchange market is a more dynamic and complex system than many realise.

It may be useful for us to understand the market, more in terms of game theory, than in terms of any single discipline such as economics, mathematics, philosophy, sociology or otherwise. If we consider the global market as our game ‘theatre’, we can see a range of actors (including central banks, investors, institutions and corporations). Each actor has a different motive (profit seeking, stabilisation, risk management, transaction) and each may have different characteristics and behaviours. By looking at the market in this way, we can see the interplay of disciplines to help us understand the true dynamic, as each actor can be influenced by issues ranging from politics (for example, government policies), psychology (for example, flights to safety, market sentiment), economics (for example, macro data) and more. This kind of model not only provides a more realistic picture of the market, but helps understand the nuances and complexities which result in its behaviour and volatility, something which a ‘single discipline’ view could never provide.

This actor and theatre based model is becoming increasingly common in science, particularly biology, where similar models are used to more accurately simulate (for example) cells, viruses, and body systems.

For US Dollar, we can see that every economic crisis we have faced, historically, has created pressure on its status in the market. Marc explains, though, that the monopoly has not only created efficiencies in the market, but is borne of a deeper sentiment towards dollar as a symbolic currency representing capitalism and its many tenets. US economic and military strength, as well as its international reach will certainly help US Dollar maintain this commanding position in the future, as many international bodies (such as governments and corporations) are tied into the currency due to volume of reserves held. For many countries (such as Zimbabwe) for example, the US Dollar has been part of the mechanism which is delivering economic stability, and aiding them in entering an environment of global participation.

We must, though, always remain aware of the capability for the world to generate high-impact, hard-to-predict, and rare events beyond the realm of normal expectations (as characterised by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book, Black Swan). Many functions of life which held monopolies were, eventually, displaced by innovations which made the function considerably easier or better. In context, look at the impact of email on ‘the letter’ or the impact of mobile telephony on ‘fixed line’.

In the currency markets, there is nothing to say that within our lifetimes, there could be an innovation which displaces the US Dollar as a dominant force, but it would be impossible, until we see it, to understand the shape or nature of this innovation and until then, we must understand and appreciate, that the complexity and interdependence of global trade and financial environments means that the US Dollar will retain a necessary and efficient monopolistic status in the market.

As Barry Eichengreen once said, “More than Coca-Cola, the dollar is surely the United States' signature export.”

Click to read full article...

Monday, 12 October 2009

A Journey into Bioethics

In this article, we have an enlightening talk to a world expert on Bioethics, Professor John Harris (Lord Alliance Professor of Bioethics at The University of Manchester). Professor Harris discusses the philosophy, practicality and laws surrounding bioethics, covering areas including genetics, human engineering, stem cell therapies, assisted suicide, the economics of healthcare, medical research, and human computer interfaces.

---------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, October 2009

It has become appallingly obvious” said Albert Einstein, “…that our technology has exceeded our humanity.

This quote is often used to illustrate the rather unique point we are in civilisation’s journey where real philosophical questions are raised about the advances we make. At the core of these questions exists humanity; specifically our relationship as a society, and as individuals with technology, its effects and products.

Bioethics concerns the philosophical questions raised by the fields of medical science, and biology. The debates raised bring together areas as diverse as ethics, religion, law, economics and politics. While such issues have been debated in the context of medicine since ancient times, it is only since the mid twentieth century that ‘modern bioethics’ has had a renaissance, as organ transplantation and palliative care (such as the use of respirators, dialysis, and so forth) began to raise questions about how and when care should be given, or withdrawn. These questions took bioethics from being an esoteric scholarly debate, to including thinkers from diverse fields, and the public consciousness.

During the twentieth century, the pace of change has meant that we now have access to technologies which can fundamentally alter the ‘nature’ of humanity, and allow us to control, modify and treat ourselves in increasingly novel ways. The field of bioethics now concerns itself with a vast swathe of inquiry, including (but not limited to) Abortion, Artificial Insemination, Assisted Suicide, Brain-Computer Interface, Cloning, Consent, Euthanasia, Genetic Therapy & Engineering, Healthcare, Life extension and support, Nano-medicine, Organ Donation, Population control, Stem cell research and Transplant trade.

These are all incredibly important and emotive issues which will shape the future of how our society relates to biology and medicine, shape the direction of medical and biological science, and even impact the nature of investment in these industries.

In this exclusive interview, we speak to a world expert in bioethics, Professor John Harris, Lord Alliance Professor of Bioethics at The University of Manchester. We talk to Professor Harris about the key debates, controversies and questions in bioethics.

To put his expertise in perspective, “On March 30th 2004 John Harris was appointed as the new joint Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Medical Ethics the highest impact journal in medical and applied ethics. John Harris was elected a Fellow of the United Kingdom Academy of Medical Sciences (FMedSci) in 2001, the first philosopher to have been elected to Fellowship of this new National Academy which was established to serve “the medical sciences in the same way as the Royal Society serves the natural sciences and the British Academy serves the humanities”. He has been a member of The United Kingdom Human Genetics Commission since its foundation in 1999 and formerly served on the United Kingdom Government Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing from its foundation in 1996 until its closure. He is also a member of the Ethics Committee of the British Medical Association. He was one of the Founder Directors of the International Association of Bioethics and is a founder member of the Board of the Journal Bioethics and Associate Editor (Genetics) of the Journal of Medical Ethics , and a member of the Editorial Board of the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics and many other journals. John Harris is the author or editor of fifteen books and over two hundred papers. He has published in most of the leading philosophical journals in his field including, The Journal of Medical Ethics, Bioethics, The Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, The Hastings Centre Report and Philosophy & Public Affairs. He has also published in many of the leading science journals including Nature, Nature Reviews, Genetics, Science, Annals of the New York Academy of Science and The British Medical Journal. He currently holds research grants from the European Commission valued at around 1.5 million Euros.

Q: What is the relationship bioethics and society?

[John Harris] Bioethics is the study of all of the ethical issues that arise in the biosphere, so everything from medicine to stem cells, genetic modification of crops and so forth. I rather like to say that if morality is the science of the good, ethics is the study of that science, and bioethics is the study of that science as it relates to biosphere.

Q: What is the relationship between bioethics and the medical research, biotech and pharmaceutical industries?

[John Harris] Well, no industry and indeed no activity at all whether commercial or not should act unethically, or immorally and so the relationship of bioethics, or ethics, to anything it studies is the relationship of authority. One way of putting it is like this…. There’s a story told of a mother who said to her daughter, go and see what your little brother is doing, and tell him to stop. Many people think the role of bioethics is to go and see what the scientists or doctors are doing and tell them to stop because they are acting, by hypothesis, unethically. However I often find when I go and see what the scientists are doing, they are doing wonderful things and I’m very inclined to say “great guys, keep going!

Looking at some of the key debates in bioethics

Stem Cell Research:

Q: There has been a great deal of at least “journalistic” controversy surrounding this field. What are your views on the role of stem cells in medicine and your thoughts on perhaps the personhood and sentience debate which gets applied?


[John Harris] This again is a complicated question. Stem Cells, as you know, are cells that have yet to specialise. So, in principle, they can make any type of tissue. So a stem cell can turn itself into cardiovascular tissue (heart tissue), or it can turn itself into hair follicles, or skin cells or whatever, so the great advantage is believed to be, and this is proving true, that they are a wonderful therapeutic agent. They make possible what is now being called “regenerative medicine” so that you can make any cell type of whatever sort in principle (you cannot always do it in practice) but in principle you can regenerate it, and repair damage, or indeed enhance function. So, for example, if stem cells prove safe for use in the brain, you might use them to repair brain damage, but you might use them to increase or enhance brain function. So that’s the promise of stem cells, but where it gets ethically messy is where the stem cells come from, and because stem cells are cells that haven’t yet specialised, most cells in the early embryo are just such cells, so embryos are a source of stem cells, but you can also get stem cells from adults, and you can also re-programme adult cells like skin cells to become stem cells, however insofar as embryos have up to now in science been the main source of stem cells, those who think the embryo is sacred, and that you mustn’t create it in order to destroy it, or you mustn’t use it instrumentally to save the lives of existing people, exist to stem cells, and that’s where all the issues like sentience and personhood come in because then the question is, if your deriving your stem cells from the embryo and if the embryo is, as the catholic church, as the last pope but one’s chief bioethics advisor said, “l'embrione è uno di noi” (the embryo is one of us) and if the embryo is one of us, and has the same rights that you and I do, then of course you can’t just kill it to save the lives of others. Sentience is just the capacity to feel, so sentience enters morality because we generally think its not very nice to cause others pain in other words for a creature that can feel, to cause it to feel things which are unpleasant, such as pain or whatever, is not a nice thing to do. So sentience arises when a creature is sentient and we always have reason not to cause sentient creatures pain or suffering.

On Genetics and Human Engineering:

Q: What are your views on the role of genetic engineering in the future of our species as a whole?

[John Harris]
There are many roles for genetic manipulation. Engineering is a sort of interesting word, but I would rather talk of manipulation. One is of course that there are many genetic diseases and if you can change the genes that cause those genetic diseases so that they either no longer cause them or you can delete them so that a disease process is arrested or reverse, that’s one thing, that’s a therapeutic use. Evolution, of the Darwinian sort occurs when random changes in the genes, mutations as they are called, prove advantageous in survival terms and they become in built into the species because the individuals with that genetic mutation, do better, survive better, than the individuals without. And it is through that process that we have managed to evolve from our ape ancestors somewhere between five and seven millions years ago in Africa, and in turn our ape ancestors managed to evolve from simpler creatures right back to single celled organisms. So, the role of genetic changes in the future evolution of our species is crucial, and if we are to evolve further, that will be based on genetic changes. They will either happen randomly and slowly as a result of Darwinian ‘biological’ evolution or more likely, as I believe and I argued in my book ‘Enhancing Evolution’ (Princeton University Press 2007) through deliberate genetic changes made by humans in order to improve our species, to make us more resilient, more resistant to disease, and hopefully longer lived and healthier generally.

Q: Looking at the role of genetics in information technology. What do you see as the ethical implications of genetic information, will we see genetic discrimination (e.g. Insurance, jobs market) and do you think we will see “engineered versus not engineered”?

[John Harris] Starting with genetic discrimination. “Discrimination” just means “choosing”, it just means that a person who is capable of discrimination is capable of seeing the difference between X and Y. We use it to mean unjust or unfair discrimination where someone is the victim of an adverse choice where somebody else is selected over them for a job or, indeed, to stay alive. Now all discrimination of the latter sort, where it is unfair, and results in people being treated adversely for no good reason as compared to their fellows or, indeed, being not allowed to survive, is always wrong, and genetic discrimination is just one type of that sort of discrimination, one of the ways in which we humans can, if not stopped by law and morality, adversely discriminate against our fellows. Racial discrimination and gender discrimination are two examples of genetic discrimination because although race is not a matter of genes, skin colour is, and of course gender is a matter of genes, and so gender discrimination and, indeed, discrimination on the basis of skin colour are examples of genetic adverse discrimination and, of course, we don’t want any of this - it is unjustified and unreasonable. The more we can find out about peoples genes, and the more people systematically differ according to genetic differences, the more opportunity we have for genetic discrimination, and the more we should be vigilant to not permit it.

Looking at, for example, the genetic predisposition to disease to permit insurance companies to raise the premiums for people with particular genetic constitutions is a form of genetic discrimination. I believe it to be unjust, I am pleased to say the Human Genetics Commission (on which I serve) has resolutely resisted allowing insurance companies to use genetic test results as a basis for setting premiums or, indeed, granting insurance or not granting insurance. However, insurance companies still use another way of getting at genetic information namely ‘family histories’. They know that if your dad and mum died of the same thing, and its genetic, it’s very likely you will die of it too. So if they are allowed to ask you what your mum died of, its another way of effectively doing a genetic test, and I would stop that as well – but that’s my personal opinion, not the view of the Human Genetics Commission.

Q: In terms of the fact that we’re now seeing research into the human computer interface, cybernetics etc, what do you think are the ethical and moral implications this raises?

[John Harris]
I don’t think there are any general implications. I believe that it is right to use technology and science and the innovation that it generates, whether the technology is mechanical, chemical or biological to improve ourselves, to make life better. We talk of “human enhancement”. For me an enhancement is necessarily good because if it wasn’t, it would not be called an ‘enhancement’ it would be a ‘disadvantage’ or ‘injury’ which would be unethical. As long as its good for you, its not only a reasonable thing to do, but may be morally required. One of the most fundamental moral principles is ‘do good’ or if you cant do good ‘don’t do any harm’ or if you cant avoid harm, ‘do the least harm possible’. If you believe that, and I think we all do, then you should use enhancement technologies, if they’re safe to improve human individuals and human kind. One of the ways of doing that is to use computers and if we can interface with computers in a way that enables our brain function to be better that would obviously be useful. For example, I am getting older now, and my memory isn’t what it was, and I do use my computer and my Blackberry to aid my memory. I don’t remember telephone numbers but they are in my Blackberry, I don’t remember addresses, they are in my computer, I don’t remember lots of facts, and the computer supplies those for me. This seems, to me, to be harmless and the more efficiently we can do this, perhaps by having implants that did it automatically for us, seems to be to pose no problem.

Q: The world is under huge population strain, looking at the fact that we are potentially on the cusp of a Malthusian catastrophe, with the world under immense population strain, is it time for an ethical debate on prolonging human life?

[John Harris] I think its time for action to reduce birth rate. Why worry about prolonging life when actually the problem of population increase is the birth rate, and China’s one child policy in the cities is a strategy for coping with that and it seems to me that the right thing to do is decrease the number of people being born and aim not only for a stable world population, but a declining one. That is both the moral way to deal with this, and the most efficient. We shouldn’t be in the business of curtailing people’s lives, or stopping people living long lives if we can help them to. What we should do is reduce the replacements.

If you ask me what the best mechanism is for reducing the population, it is women’s education. Experience has shown that women’s education is the biggest factor in reducing family size and since women’s education is a good thing for other reasons, that is the way we should be going!

On Assisted Suicide and Abortion:

Q: what do you find are the key debates needed on assisted suicide and abortion from the perspective of the individual making the choice and the society supporting the choice?


[John Harris] Abortion and assisted suicide (voluntary euthanasia) are two very different things. Let’s deal with assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia first. I have written extensively on this and to do justice to these complex ideas would require much supporting argument, but let me try to encapsulate it in this idea. I believe that there is only one thing bad about dying, and that’s doing it when you don’t want to. So if you think about it, what we all want is not to die when we want to go on living, not to die when we don’t want to die, but dying when we do want to, is not a problem. So I think our moral efforts, and political efforts, should be devoted to minimising the amount of people that die when they don’t want to and the corollary of that is that we should allow people to die when they do want to and of course if we’re worried about population, the more people that die when they do want to the better.

Abortion is quite different because in voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide, by hypothesis, the individual whose life it is, is making a decision about their own life, as to whether they live or die. If you believe in freedom, you will help people to implement their own autonomous choices about their life. However, of course, in the case of abortion or in the case of non-voluntary euthanasia, we are talking about ending the lives of individuals who cannot want to die. Those are very different. To take a view about the ethics of abortion, you have to take a view on the moral status of the embryo. If you think, as I said earlier, that the embryo is ‘one of us’ and has the same rights as you and I do, then of course it would be unethical to kill it without asking its permission first. On the other hand, most people think that it is inconceivable that the embryo has the same moral status, or indeed any moral status comparable to an adult person because it certainly the early embryo cannot think or feel, has no central nervous system etc and so cannot have rights or interests. The ethics of abortion turn on what you think of the moral status of embryo. But let me put to you this one suggestion. I think it is impossible to treat the embryo as if it were of full moral status; I’ll give you one illustration of that. Human sexual reproduction, the way most people reproduce, has a very high failure rate, around 80%. This means that you and I are sitting having this agreeable conversation, over the dead bodies of between three and five of our siblings that were conceived by our mother, but didn’t last very long. In order for this live birth that resulted in you, and resulted in me, to occur, some of our other siblings (between three and five) had to be conceived and die early, because that’s the way reproduction works. For every live birth between three and five embryos die; so everybody is sitting here, over the dead bodies of their siblings, and if they’re pleased to be alive, by hypothesis, they are pleased that those siblings didn’t survive!

On The Economics of Medical Care:

Q: Do you think access to healthcare is a human right? And, indeed, is it a responsibility of governments to provide universal healthcare for their citizens?


[John Harris] I think access to healthcare is very important. I tend not to use the language of rights if I can avoid it, except to add rhetorical force to what I say. The better way to look at it is not as a human right because you then have the problem that if a particular society doesn’t have the resources to deliver healthcare, are they denying human rights to their people? Well, not if they can’t generate the resources. For some African countries, for example, the available money for healthcare per capita, is something like ten dollars and you can’t deliver a comprehensive healthcare system on that sort of funding. What is an entitlement, and what is very important is firstly that we should care for other people if we can (including care for their health). This is one of our basic moral duties, partly the duty of beneficence (the duty to do good and not harm), and partly the rule of rescue (that if someone is in need of healthcare, they are in need of rescue) and a good person will try to rescue someone if he or she can. So rather than think of it in terms of rights, we have very strong moral reasons to provide healthcare to the best standard we can. That standard will vary from society to society.

Q: There has been some controversial debate on the ethics of providing care for certain specific conditions in the face of scarce resources, what are your views on the debate of “Who should be treated when not all can be treated?”

[John Harris] My firm belief is in equality, that each of us is as valuable as anyone else, and that value is not diminished by our health state, and is still less diminished by some bizarre view of our responsibility for our adverse health. So somebody in my view does not lose their entitlement to equal concern, respect and protection, just because they have one sort of disease rather than another, or even if they were partly responsible for the fact that they have a particular disease, illness or injury. I think the decent person, the moral person, will help another regardless and I hope that our societies will reflect that. So, for me, it doesn’t matter what illness people have, and that’s true for most doctors too. The duty is to help the individual, not to enquire as to their moral character as they see it.

Q: Looking at pharmaceutical and medical research industries. Do you think that intellectual property has affected treatment? Do you think the role of investment into medical science and research has introduced ethical bias?

[John Harris] This is, again, a complex issue. You have to ask whether patents facilitate or inhibit science. This is a complex and factual question, not theoretical. There is a lot of good reason to believe that patents have an adverse affect on scientific freedom, and hence have an adverse affect on the ability of science to deliver the innovation and the pipeline of products, of whatever sort, that flows from innovation. What a patent does firstly is lead to secrecy in science as people don’t publish their results until patents are granted. Once they have a patent, this restricts others ability to utilise these products. Patent holders always claim that unless they can protect their intellectual investment, they have no motive to carry out the research that leads to it, and they will also not be able to make enough money to prove the principle that leads to the product whether a drug or otherwise and therefore not only will medicine suffer, but people will suffer. I am sceptical of that, but that’s a factual question. I think there is good reason to believe that it’s worth trying different systems of reward for science. The patent system is just one system of reward, but not the only one.

I think bioethics is pretty much neutral in the direction of research, but patents are not. If you are a “for profit” industry, you need to investigate things that will generate profits and that means that, of course, you are not interested in what are sometimes called ‘orphan diseases’ (diseases that affect very few people) and you are not often interested in diseases that affect only poor people, or people in poor countries. The current system of reward is not a very good way of making sure that all humans get an equal chance of benefiting from the products of science, and that is really what we want to do.

My hope is that we will move rapidly, to different systems of reward; where scientists will have more of an incentive to produce products which are not [necessarily] highly profitable, but are highly beneficial.


Q: We have seen, in some extreme cases, markets developing in human-organs (whether by the sellers volition, or otherwise). What are your views on the apparent commoditisation and internationalisation of organ transplants, and do you think there is any way to effectively regulate the markets of organ donation and transplanting?

[John Harris] I see nothing, in principle, wrong with the commoditisation of the body. I’m not getting paid for this interview, but I often give interviews for money, and that is part of the commoditisation of the body, I am selling my brain power or my power to talk. Most of us sell parts of our bodies in that way. Very few people could be gainfully employed if they weren’t selling their labour (which is a bodily product) and so forth. In terms of organ transplants, I think we need to distinguish between organs from the dead (the prime source of organs to transplantation) and organs from the living. In my view, there is no point in paying for organs from the dead, because we ought to have them for free. The dead don’t exist to be paid. We don’t want to reduce the supply by having to pay for it, thus increasing the costs of organ transplantation. They should be freely available, no dead person needs their organs, I promise you that! And no dead person has ever complained of their organs being taken. It is for those two reasons we should always have organs freely available from the dead. From the living, it’s a different question. The living have to consent. Live organ donations are more successful therapeutically than organs from the dead (cadavers) and many transplantations now take place from the living. In many countries, it is forbidden to sell live organs. I think that is ridiculous and wasteful. Its sometimes defended in terms of altruism, insofar as it should be a ‘gift’ relationship but that’s nonsense.

A neighbour of mine gave one of her organs freely to a stranger without pay (she didn’t want to be paid for it). Nonetheless, she suffered some financial hardship as she was off work and it was painful and so forth, and she was not adequately compensated (in my view) for that. I see no reason why she shouldn’t have been paid because everybody else was paid in the donation she gave. The transplant surgeon was paid, the nurses were paid, the transplant team were paid, the ambulance driver was paid, and the recipient of the organ was paid handsomely in kind! The only poor person who was required to be altruistic was the donor. That’s not altruism, that’s enforced altruism on the person who risks most, and is most generous. That’s not fair. I see, therefore, nothing in principle wrong in paying for live donor organs.

Can this be regulated? Of course it can. I will give you a simple recipe for its effective ethical management. Any organ market for live donor organs has to be confined to a self-governing entity, like a nation state or possibly like the European Union. There is one purchaser, purchasing organs on behalf of the community (like the NHS might) and distributing according to need. No direct sales, no buying from the poor and selling to the rich. Anybody who would sell their organ into the market benefits three ways. They get paid for the organ, they reduce the chances of anyone they care about (including themselves) needing an organ transplant and failing to get one. They benefit financially directly, they benefit because they contribute to a system which could wipe out shortage of donor organs, and they are paid because they have done something wonderful, and it is always great to do something wonderful. A market that was developed along those lines, I have written about this for almost ten years, I believe could be ethically managed and safe. The organs could be screened and checked, and it would ensure safety of recipients and so forth.

---------------------------------------------------

As we look at the complex interplay of issues surrounding bioethics, we see an underlying common thread, that of morality.

Gerard Hughes, a former Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Heythrop College (University of London) describes (in Great Thinkers on Great Questions, by Roy Varghese) “Morality has to do with what enables human beings to flourish. How humans can flourish will, as Aristotle pointed out, and as has often been repeated since then, depend on the kind of beings that humans are. What it takes for a human being to flourish will depend on our common human nature and on the particular qualities which each person possesses as an individual, and on the environment, physical and social, in which that person lives. If something like that picture is correct, it will follow that morality will require us to treat different people in different ways, both because of their individual differences, and because of the different settings in which we encounter them. There will be no one single recipe for enabling a person to achieve their optimum development. Morality should reflect the complexity of human beings and their various physical and social environments, even when it can correctly be said that these environments are far from ideal for humans to have to live in.

He continues… “Moral principles cannot sensibly be formulated independently of our knowledge of biology, psychology, economics and the human sciences generally. To the extent that our knowledge in these areas is incomplete or grossly inadequate, so will our grasp of moral truth be uncertain…. Two kinds of difficulty exist. The difficulty in knowing whether a human life is a worthwhile human life or not; and the difficulty of knowing by what precise steps a worthwhile human life can be fostered.

The challenge here is to create parameters around which principles can be set. This is a challenge which is frequently undertaken in the field of human rights. James Griffin, The Whites Professor of Moral Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Oxford, describes in his 2008 book (entitled ‘On Human Rights’), “…In a statement issued through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, [it was] claimed that ‘the opportunity to decide the number and spacing of their children is a basic human right’ of parents. Does China’s one-child policy then really infringe a human right? Would a five- or a ten-child policy do so too?” This clearly raises the debate about parameters for the individual, and principles for a society in the face of a population crisis. He goes on to argue on the topics of abortion and selling organs, “If the government were to prohibit us from selling our body parts, as many governments are thinking of doing, would our human rights not be infringed? This proposed right is not dissimilar to a widely accepted human right – a right to the security of person. But one’s person’s being secure is considerably different from one’s body’s being in all respects under one’s own determination. How are we to tell whether we have such a strong right? We do not know. The term ‘human right’ is nearly criterionless”.

To further illustrate this difficulty on setting criterion (parameters), let us refer to a famous paper by American Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson entitled, “A Defence of Abortion”. In this paper Judith describes, “Most opposition to abortion relies on the premises that the foetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception. The premiss is argued for, but, as I think, not well. Take, for example, the most common argument. We are asked to notice that the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to choose a point in this development and say ‘before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person’ is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the nature of things no good reason can be given. It is concluded that the foetus is, or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak tree, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are.

Her thoughts on abortion were, by many, considered controversial, but they do highlight the convergence of science, philosophy and religion which had previously existed as separate disciplines. Our advances are making us question the very nature of humanity itself, its place in the ‘grander scheme of things’ and its obligations to itself as a society, to itself as individuals, and to itself as a metaphysical entity.

As technology increases its pace, these debates will only get more profound as it is conceivable, to take example from computing; that by the year 2020, we will have access to computers with the power of the human mind, and by 2050, to computers with the power of all human minds (Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near). This raises philosophical debate about the nature of consciousness, and of life itself.

Needless to say, humanity must adapt to advancements, and be judged on the outcome of their behaviour. John F. Kennedy described this well, albeit in a different context, in a famous speech given in 1962, “…We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theatre of war. ...Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, "Because it is there." Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.

Click to read full article...

Wednesday, 30 September 2009

African Agriculture – Humanitarian Challenge, Economic Opportunity

In this article, we talk to Susan Payne, CEO of Emergent Asset Management and discuss Agriculture, a keystone industry for Sub-Saharan Africa, a region which is home to almost a billion people and presents one of the greatest humanitarian challenges and economic opportunities of modern civilisation. In this exclusive interview, we discuss the future of Agriculture in the region, climate change, hunger, investment opportunities, macro-economics and more.

---------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, September 2009

Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), home to over eight hundred million people (around 10% of the world’s population) represents one of the greatest development challenges facing our world. The region is a vast swathe of continent, encompassing many countries including Angola, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia, Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Senegal.

Global agencies agree that this region presents one of the greatest development challenges which our civilisation faces, with political, economic, social and environmental crises, exacerbated by domestic and international conflict, corruption, health and other issues. Current statistics from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation show, for example, that 210million people are already chronically malnourished across the region (30% of its total population), resulting in at least three million hunger related deaths annually.

In the past decade, international aid and support have brought a degree of change to SSA, meaning the probability of an African country experiencing growth acceleration increased to 46% in the last decade, up from 21% in the previous decade; the probability of growth deceleration decreased to 12%, down from 36%. Looking at a specific measure, in 2000–2006 the average GDP per capita growth in SSA was 2.0%, up from –0.7% in 1990–1999 with overall GDP being US$744 billion, which was equivalent of 28% of China’s GDP, 69% of Brazil’s, 74% of Russia’s, and 80% of India’s. (Source – World Bank)

With almost 44% of the population aged between 10 and 14, and estimates putting the total population of the region at 1.5 billion by 2050, it is clear that not only are these significant challenges to meet, but significant areas of economic opportunity.Critical to the economic and social wellbeing of the region is Agriculture, with around 65% of SSA’s total population relying on subsistence farming. The keystone nature of this industry is highlighted in the United Nations Development Programme’s “Millennium Goals” where the first key target is to, by 2015, “Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger”. Most international agencies concur that agricultural development is the focus to achieve this result.

Sub Saharan Africa has, though, potential to become a global-agriculture powerhouse, but still remains a net food importer (with, in 2005, a negative balance of $4.6billion) and struggles to meet the basic needs of feeding its population. While challenging environmental conditions have certainly contributed to these reduced crop yields (less than 30% yields versus equivalent land in Asia), foreign aid into the sector has significantly declined (cut by almost 75% in the past decade) which has prevented farmers gaining access to the infrastructure and technology to exploit land, improve crop yields (taking lessons from the Asian green revolution) and build an economy.

Historically and recently, many of the world’s great social challenges have been supported by private enterprise, whether through philanthropic foundations, or commercial ventures. Africa’s issues are no exception to this, with a mix of organisations ranging from governments, to NGO’s, and private enterprise entering the market to bring about the rapid changes the country needs to survive and prosper.

Susan Payne is the Chief Executive of Emergent Asset Management who are a multi award winning UK investment management firm. She is ranked as one of the top 100 most influential women in European Finance, and has over twenty years experience on buy and sell side of emerging markets. “The Emergent African Land Fund”, in their own words, “offers investors the opportunity to participate in the growing Sub-Saharan agricultural sector. It applies modern management disciplines and introduces improved farmland techniques to increase crop yields and investment returns. Initially, the investment focus has been in South Africa and Mozambique, though the portfolio is swiftly being expanded within Africa to include (but not limited to) countries such as Botswana, Zambia, Angola, Swaziland and the DRC. Emergent has partnered with Grainvest, a firm of professional agricultural traders and one of the top five participants on the South African Securities Exchange, involved in agriculture locally, including farming, manufacturing, and transport and trading. Together with Grainvest, Emergent has formed the operating company "EmVest Agricultural Corporation", which has brought together a highly-experienced farm management team to manage the Fund's investments. The Fund qualifies as a Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) in keeping with the co-managers’ investment philosophy, endeavouring to make a positive contribution to the well-being of the local communities in which it invests.”.

In this exclusive interview, we talk to Susan about the Emergent African Land Fund, the impact of agriculture now, and in the future, why African Agriculture represents such an opportunity for investors, and the impact of climate change, politics, technology and economics on the region.

Q: Why invest in Agriculture? And what are the key drivers for your investment and return model?

[Susan Payne] Regarding why agriculture: There are various alarming statistics in food security. Globally, we have neglected this topic [agriculture] for decades. We have, worldwide, over a billion undernourished people. Food prices have risen over the past few years, with our own research showing these should accelerate up from 2010. The world’s demographics are also alarming: The world’s population has quadrupled in the twentieth century, doubling between 1960 and 2007. For the first time in history, we have seen the global urban population exceed the rural one, and, over the past forty years, agricultural-land has increased by only 10%. Two words, food security, are central to our model.

Q: Why Africa? And what is the role of Agriculture, as a sector in Africa’s social development?


[Susan Payne] Africa is an enormous continent, larger than the US, China and Europe combined. It represents 20% of the global land mass, and only 10% of the world’s population. It offers an un-crowded space of opportunities including minerals, natural resources, water and agriculture.

Africa has many drivers. It is the fastest growing continent globally, and the African population between now and 2050 will grow faster than anywhere else in the world including in India, China and Latin America, other countries with compelling demographics. When you look at the numbers, over half the sub-Saharan African population is under 18 years old, versus Latin America, where over half the population is under 25 years old and Asia, where it is under 35 years old. In short, these EM populations are young, expansive and dynamic, not like the stable, more risk-averse populations of the world’s developed economies.

Finally, over 70% of the labour force in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is involved in agriculture. This means the sector forms a lynch-pin of society. Our focus at this time is SSA as the region is highly productive and fertile. The SSA zone makes up 6.5% of world GDP, but has enormous upside. To give you a comparison, let’s look at Latin America versus sub-Saharan Africa. In Argentina, 50% of the GDP is derived from agriculture, while in South Africa that number is only 6%. With the introduction of better technology into SSA, as we are now doing, there will be a dramatic increase in productivity and GDP growth. In other words, there is strong upside potential.

Historically, Africa has been viewed by many countries as a ‘burden,’ whereas the BRIC’s see it as an enormous opportunity. To put this in context, Europe has twice as much trade with Africa as does even China, so Europe must wake up to the fact that Africa is an important and relevant opportunity, not a burden. China is, though, already making inroads on the continent, building roads, dams, commercial real estate and generally financing expansion from Angola to Ethiopia. This level of Chinese interest has, invariably, lowered western leverage. How Africa is now perceived is interesting, and Obama is the proponent Africa has had for a very long time.

Q: What are the key challenges EAML faces on the ground? And what are the development strategies EAML employs?

[Susan Payne] In any investment, but particularly in emerging markets, the investor must be well rewarded for the risks taken. The returns in Africa are very strong, and we are experienced on the ground with our various local relationships. The risks, though, to the strategy are, in no specific order:

Climate change is a J-curve, not linear. Rates of change globally are occurring at a faster pace than the global population expects, and will impact food production. To mitigate the fund’s risks, we have diversified across ten to twenty commodities and across several countries with different longitudes and latitudes. We have focused on the various micro-climates available on the highlands, and our farms are always located beside large water reservoirs, lakes or rivers.

The risk of commodity price fluctuations is also a threat, which we mitigate through hedging and price modelling. We employ production protection (insurances) against natural disasters. Political risk is another, and we work closely with local governments, who are very supportive of our work as we address their own concerns of providing local employment, training and socially responsible projects, and increasing food production through the introduction of cutting-edge technology.

Technology is an important part of our strategy, key to maximising production. Green tech is revolutionising farming in tilling, water, electricity and other areas.
We are also importing technologies from around the world and, unlike Europe in particular, these countries are open to employing technology which can bring about great increases in productivity.

Finally, once we have checked and been satisfied that the potential risks to our projects have been addressed, we can begin to optimise our assets, and build capacity quickly.


Q: What are the infrastructure capabilities in African banking in terms of trading of agricultural commodities and hedging? And how does Africa’s financial system engage with the sector?

[Susan Payne] Africa is turning a corner, and it is important to consider the bigger picture. From about 2000, Africa has come into an economic renaissance: Between 2000 and 2008, we saw a marked improvement in macro-economic stability, with inflation falling and interest rates hitting single digits even in areas like Nigeria. We have seen robust GDP growth, 17% in Angola and 5.5% in Ghana and Nigeria in 2008 for example, combined with increases in FDI (Foreign Direct Investment), which was up25% year on year between 2000 and 2005. In many countries, we have also seen a return to democratic rule, with the liberalisation of sectors such as telecommunications, and a range of financial reforms. These changes span from countries such as Nigeria to Egypt, Mauritius to Mozambique. There has definitely been a sea-change, first in South Africa, and now in other countries we are seeing investment in job creation, infrastructure, and concerted attempts to achieve an open and transparent environment. Ghana had its first democratic election, for example, in 1992, South Africa in 1994 (Mandela’s era), and thereafter there has been a whole series of political changes on the continent.

In Africa today, we see sounder monetary policies than a decade ago, strong GDP growth, and twenty four stock markets posting good returns, excepting 2008. They are not big (apart from South Africa and Nigeria), and many are quite illiquid, but they are growing. A study completed over the last year on regulation by the World Bank highlighted Burkina Faso, Botswana and Senegal as three of the top ten best regulated countries in the world.

Q: What impact has climate change had on African agriculture?

[Susan Payne] Climate change is a key consideration in the agri space for obvious reasons. We have a number of “Big Picture” themes for our investments, and climate change is a cornerstone to these.

I discussed climate change earlier, but, in short, natural disasters are rising globally, thereby increasing risks, and climate change is impacting weather patterns, habitats and ecosystems in every environment. We are seeing retreating glaciers, hotter temperatures, and rising sea levels globally.

Water, for example, is a major issue. The concentration of water levels around the world is very interesting, and sub Saharan Africa, for example, has a full four times higher the water concentration level than South America. It is only half of Canada’s but is still well saturated compared to most of the globe, with concentration levels similar to Eastern Europe, yet with land that is one seventh the price.

Obama’s Global Change Research Programme which, three months ago, released a paper highlighting the impact of climate change in America, noted shorter winters, increased flooding and declining forestation. The key finding of the report was that, “climate change will intensify and challenge society’s ability to adapt”. This is a fact, and we are, for example, very alert to global changes. If you look at global warming and temperature change, increased desertification is one outcome. China, for example, loses 1 million hectares every year desertification, an area the size of Greece and Nepal combined. The effects will be greater in the Northern than the Southern hemisphere, with expected temperature rises in Africa being lower than its counterparts north of the equator.

---------------------------------------------------

We can see, therefore, that what is needed is a co-ordinated approach, covering all facets of human economic and social development, ranging from healthcare to education, telecommunications to infrastructure and energy to government.

For Sub Saharan Africa, the challenge is acute. This is a region which should be a global economic powerhouse, but is currently facing economic and social crises of huge proportions, with some arguing that many countries in the region are on the brink of a Malthusian catastrophe. At the heart of all these approaches is Agriculture which is not only the only solution to a hunger crisis, but provides the keystone in generating social, economic and even political stability for these regions, and the impetus to grow and develop. “Africa…” said Mafa Chipeta of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, “needs to be offended at the idea of a grown-up continent being fed by others that have no obligation to do so.

The solutions are, though, faced with challenges, one of the largest being Climate Change. On September 30th 2009, the International Food Policy Research Institute released an important report, entitled, “Climate Change, Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation”. The report discusses how, “The unimpeded growth of greenhouse gas emissions is raising the earth’s temperature. The consequences include melting glaciers, more precipitation, more and more extreme weather events, and shifting seasons. The accelerating pace of climate change, combined with global population and income growth, threatens food security everywhere. Agriculture is extremely vulnerable to climate change. Higher temperatures eventually reduce yields of desirable crops while encouraging weed and pest proliferation. Changes in precipitation patterns increase the likelihood of short-run crop failures and long-run production declines. Although there will be gains in some crops in some regions of the world, the overall impacts of climate change on agriculture are expected to be negative, threatening global food security. Populations in the developing world, which are already vulnerable and food insecure, are likely to be the most seriously affected. In 2005, nearly half of the economically active population in developing countries—2.5 billion people—relied on agriculture for its livelihood. Today, 75 percent of the world’s poor live in rural areas.” The IFPRI conduced extensive research with a climactic model to simulate various scenarios of climate change from mild to extreme, and in the results of the analysis suggest that, "agriculture and human well-being will be negatively affected by climate change" with specific findings including:

• In developing countries, climate change will cause yield declines for the most important crops.

• Climate change will result in additional price increases for the most important agricultural crops–rice, wheat, maize, and soybeans. Higher feed prices will result in higher meat prices. As a result, climate change will reduce the growth in meat consumption slightly and cause a more substantial fall in cereals consumption.

• Calorie availability in 2050 will not only be lower than in the no–climate-change scenario—it will actually decline relative to 2000 levels throughout the developing world.

• By 2050, the decline in calorie availability will increase child malnutrition by 20 percent (almost 25million more malnourished children) relative to a world with no climate change.

• Climate change will eliminate much of the improvement in child malnourishment levels that would occur with no climate change.

• Aggressive agricultural productivity investments of US$7.1–7.3 billion are needed to raise calorie consumption enough to offset the negative impacts of climate change on the health and well-being of children.

These are startling and real statistics which arguably are the effect of mankind as a cause.

We are seeing a pivotal point in our civilisations story. We have emerged through hundreds of years of conflict, colonisation and development to a point where we, as a race, are globally connected and (arguably) enlightened.

Business…” said Jeffrey Sachs, “often does a good job supporting communities: the arts, universities, and scientific enterprises... But that philosophy has rarely reached poor countries. Even businesses that are enlightened in their home bases see Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia as places to exploit natural resources or use cheap labour.

This attitude has been symptomatic of the past half-century, but is an attitude which must shift. Economic and Social injustice have been a part of our world since records began, but this is the first time in our story that we are technologically, economically and intellectually able to create change. The shift in view comes at a huge ‘cost’ to our incumbent attitudes, but as we have seen through history, it is these very shifts which bring about benefits to all of humanity economically and socially.

You cannot hope to build a better world without improving the individuals. To that end each of us must work for his own improvement and at the same time share a general responsibility for all humanity, our particular duty being to aid those to whom we think we can be most useful.” - Marie Curie

Click to read full article...

Sunday, 23 August 2009

The Future of Space Exploration

In this article, we speak to Dr. Buzz Aldrin, Apollo 11 Astronaut, who secured his place in history when, on July 20th 1969, he became one of the first two humans to set foot on the Moon. We talk to Dr. Aldrin about the relationship between humanity and space, the future of space exploration, its economics, and the commercial opportunities it presents.

---------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, September 2009

Humanity has an innate spirit of adventure, which, over many thousands of years, has given our civilisation some of its greatest triumphs, conflicts, and evolutionary leaps. These leaps have (in the main) come from crossing frontiers, learning more about our place in ‘the grander scheme of things’ and thus bringing a paradoxical sense of humility and power. The former from understanding that we exist in a system larger and more complex than we could possibly comprehend of which we are a part, not the cause, and the latter from our sense of empowerment at being able to engage ourselves in adventures which cross frontiers of knowledge, reach and understanding.

Space has, throughout history, been regarded as the greatest of these frontiers, representing a right of passage for civilisation outside its safe-harbour (Earth) and regarded, by many space advocates, as an essential step in ensuring our race continues. "I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years” said Stephen Hawking, “…unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars."

While Prof. Hawking’s view is based on his feeling that humanity has now got the tools to, whether by accident or design, destroy itself (specifically nuclear and genetic technology and artificial intelligence) there are many other reasons why Space exploration presents a necessary and inevitable step for our species’ ‘story’.

Dr. Buzz Aldrin is a man who requires little introduction. Following a distinguished career in the US Air Force, he joined NASA. After flying in the Gemini missions, he progressed to the Apollo programme, where, as the lunar module pilot of the Apollo 11 mission, on July 20th 1969, he and Neil Armstrong took their profoundly important steps, becoming the first two beings to observe Earth from another celestial body.

Since his retirement from NASA in 1971, Dr. Aldrin has been a major Space advocate, and in this exclusive interview, we talk to him about the relationship between humanity and Space, the future of space exploration, politics, economics, opportunities, innovation, and the spirit of adventure.
Q: What is the economic role and significance of space exploration in our civilisation’s future?

[Buzz Aldrin] I think the aerospace industries of the U.S. and all nations will gain from considering the return from, for example, satellite reconnaissance, and many other areas that I’ll touch on.

Reconnaissance and defence in particular though, are important not just for offensive operations, but to maintain peace. The more one knows about potential adversaries, their resources, and their abilities to damage the economics of other nations, for example, is the real return from reconnaissance activities. A missile launched upwards as high as possible, instead of “at a target”, which then detonates a nuclear device, could cripple most all of the low earth orbit satellites. This would be detrimental to all nations, especially those who rely so heavily on space assets. Defending against these kinds of attacks is hugely dependent on the health of the aerospace industries. As far as the United States are concerned, we have a history of being defensive of liberty and freedom throughout the world, and I want to stress that we have a lot of assets up there so we, in particular, need to stress the importance of these issues, with encouragement and co-operation of international organisations rather than just those who are critical of the weaponisation of space. At the opposite end of the defence spectrum, we have the issues concerning the survival of economies and major assets on the surface of the earth. This may depend on our ability to detect and defend against impacts from outer space which could be very damaging to entire civilisations, and major portions of the earth. In space, to advance to a point where we have planetary defence is a significant and important option for us.

The resources of the earth are not limitless. We are finding, through scouting, resources and minerals that are located on spotty locations around our planet. These did not all come from the core of the earth, but from the impact of objects with the earth. Those objects also impacted the Moon, and many of them have not yet done so. These objects are, of course, asteroids. The easiest transport of these asteroid resources is not, though, from the Moon or Mars, but using the asteroids themselves, and once space transport has matured, the time to deliver resources is no longer a function. For example, the speed of oil tankers is no longer a function once the supply line is set up.

As an observation, maybe as my observation for the short term for the United States, building up the capacity to visit beyond the Moon with significant capability including human visits, assures potential economic leadership in asteroid resources. At the Moon, excavating or inspecting around the surface and craters for minerals is, indeed, a hugely difficult task, but breakthroughs may come. Also, when we consider some who view oxygen (from surface dust, water or ice) as being an abundant resource on the Moon, they often don’t consider the paradox of using oxygen fuel from earth to go to the Moon, to get oxygen fuel and use oxygen fuel to get back. This may not, therefore, bear a good economic return. People have also mentioned helium three from the Moon. I’m a little sceptical because, as yet, we do not have a reactor that can use helium three. My view is that there may be other isotopes on the Moon like Boron 11 which are not radioactive, and are more plentiful. These could be processed sooner, and in a less costly manner than helium three (which does not generate neutron free reactions).

Looking at space tourism, my view is that we are a long way off. We may have people in orbit, but much beyond swinging by the Moon (an extension of earth orbit) I am not sure where the economic return comes from tourism in space.

The inspiration of youth for education in the science, technology and maths disciplines is also a critical role for space. A nation like the U.S. which has reached the peak of manufacturing and trade in comparison with other areas of the world, ought to hold onto what it has as far as the inspiration of the education system goes. I am concerned that we, in the U.S., are not doing this well, as we should be using space to inspire and motivate people into science, engineering and maths. This is obviously an economic return from space.

Philosophically, there is also the role of space in the ‘total survival’ of humanity. Sooner or later an intelligent species must realise its obligation, not just to future generations, but to all the lives that been lived productively in the past. All the knowledge, progress and dedication of these many billions of lives served could be wiped out. Many would judge that an even greater loss, than the loss of future generations.

Q: Will space teach us anything about our home environment on earth? And what is the role of private enterprise versus governments in the future of space exploration?


[Buzz Aldrin]There have been a few emails exchanged which talk about the results of a catastrophic loss of environmental control on earth. There are many influential individuals who are quite extreme about this, I am not among them. For the satisfaction, though, of those who are concerned about the extremes of conditions that could be brought about here on earth, it seems that the immediate expenditures are not shared between those producing the adverse affects, and those spending to mitigate them. People want just those who can afford it, rather than those who produce it (e.g. Asia which produces a lot of the environmental degradation) to spend the money. I suspect, personally, a lot of this field is political.

There may certainly be opportunities to learn from other planets about the evolving nature of natural influences which can teach us a good bit about nature here on earth, and how these influences could be detrimental in the long term to our environment. I mentioned before about mining and minerals, but I’m talking more about phenomenon such as climate change, and dust storms (such as those which exist on Mars) which would have to be coped with. The extremes of temperature, the scarcity of water, we will have to learn about how to deal with all these things on the Moon and other places. As we learn how to deal with these severe environmental conditions, in vacuum environments or limited atmospheres, and in very different gravity, we can inevitably learn how to understand and cope with changing conditions here on earth.

Looking at the role of private enterprise, I think we are beginning to see the areas where commercial profit making endeavours can stem; for example commercially designed space-craft and rockets which could deliver U.S. and other astronauts to the space station, in return for compensation. This provides an economic benefit which alleviates governments from getting involved in endeavours which are not directly involved in exploration. Commercial organisations are also able to get involved in refuelling, by taking fuel into space, and selling it to someone who wants to use it in low earth orbit, for lunar missions, or other purposes. This can be done by many nations who cannot afford big rockets and the total exploration package. This is something which I know is being looked at very seriously, and something which I firmly endorse as it makes the most out of in-situ resource utilisation (ISRU) at the Moon, other objects, and the surface of Mars. This type of commercialisation will be very important for the sustainability of these missions, and opens up viable economic routes to ship resources and the means of processing them to the Moon, Mars and other bodies to sustain settlers there for whatever reason they have arrived.

Q: Historically, much of the progress in space exploration has come from the conflict and competition between nations. What is the role of competition in the current space exploration landscape?

[Buzz Aldrin] The key downside to competition is duplication at the operating end which is wasteful yet inevitable as there is always more than one way of doing something. Competition at the development end, though, in creating capabilities and then sharing internationally through co-operation allows us to get the most out of competition, without suffering the waste of duplicating. In this sense, we must compete at the supply end of developing rockets and space craft, but co-operate in the utilisation of them.

Looking at the participation of emerging nations, I’d much rather see early efforts at co-operation and collaboration which can then be carried on at the operating end of achieving specific goals, whether exploration or development. This ensures that the ‘best’ are selected, through means of competition, but we get the economic benefits as a group. I can see we’re starting to accomplish this for peaceful and commercial reasons, as the “end result” (operating end) competition is lessened when not in an aggressive or offensive capacity.

There is also an important lesson of resource destruction in low earth orbit by debris such as collision with objects which are no longer utilised. This cries out of a re-evaluation of what is allowed under international law to penetrate space. Perhaps the solution would be to register and inspect any object going up or down, to make sure it has an end of mission disposal which removes the asset from potential collision in the crowded space of derelict things. This can do nothing but enhance understanding and awareness of peaceful activities. Certainly every nation with assets has the right to defend those assets against deliberate attack by rogue nations, and the peaceful space faring nations can band together to discourage such rogue nations capabilities and aggressive actions. We need, in my opinion, to also urgently re-evaluate the Outer Space Treaty.

Q: What are your views of the American space programme?

[Buzz Aldrin] This has been my very challenge, realising the delay, wastefulness, and lack of productivity for the U.S to revisit the Moon. We’ve done it, we understand what’s there pretty well, and we can continue to investigate robotically much cheaper, exerting the leadership we developed forty years ago, and in the last five years, as evidence, to assist other nations in their efforts to put their humans on the Moon for whatever inspirational or motivational reasons they may have to demonstrate to their people, and the international community, the progressive nature of their achievements.

During this process, there will inevitably be the discovery of some now unknown economic benefit which can be responded to.

For my part, I propose a two phase, two decade plan. Where at the end of the first decade (around the 50th anniversary of the lunar landing) we re-evaluate the overall plan of, “clearing a pathway to settling on Mars, via the Moon of Mars as a stepping stone”. We re-evaluate at the end of one decade, and either ratchet up resources to complete that mission, have an off-ramp for asteroid or lunar development, or cancel the whole thing. Politically, if a wise pathway is charted to develop and settle on another planet, the historical significance of this is significant enough where it would not be apt to be negated by whoever is president at the Phase 2 time. I have, clearly, considered the politics involved.

Q: Does space exploration pose any threat from religious extremists who may not agree with it?

[Buzz Aldrin] I don’t think so at all. Twenty years ago or more, I was having a conversation with the (then) NASA administrator, Jim Fletcher. He was a Mormon, my wife was a Mormon (though not quite as orthodox) and he said to my wife, “Are you going to convert Buzz to the Mormon religion?” I answered, “No, I’m too busy planning space exploration in search of the celestial kingdom”.

Q: Do we currently have the technology to make space exploration and exploitation viable? And what are the critical areas of innovation for space?

[Buzz Aldrin] Of course I couldn’t blindly say we can tweak what we have and merely optimise flight paths, sequences and so forth. Clearly everybody is aware of the greatest impediment, which is the cost of access to space. Specifically this relates to propulsion into orbit, requiring high thrusts to offset drag of atmosphere and gravity. Once you are in orbit you can accelerate slowly, but there is also a clear need to reduce the time of travel with greater efficiencies and different propellants. Higher velocity changes need more energy, and if we can make this energy cheap, we will be able to make the high velocity changes to depart and arrive. This would be a major breakthrough, and would certainly make space more viable.

Communications systems are pretty good, and I don’t think we can improve on things too much. There are, though, improvements in encryption and also I was recently made aware of devices which can communicate using gravity waves, communicating not around the spherical earth, but through the centre. I know this sounds far fetched, but it is something which is being investigated as we speak at a number of U.S. sites (many of which are discouraged that China is ahead of the U.S. in this field of research).

Radiation protection is probably our primary concern for life support. With sufficient exercise we can deal with bone and calcium loss, and muscle degradation caused by reduced gravity and even these can be dealt with using rotating spacecraft (one around the other or internal centrifugal forces). If you have enough acceleration with thrust, you can just use that, but our current technologies will not allow that (though this presents another advantage of being able to thrust at a sizeable fraction of gravity).

Q: How can humanity share in the experience of space exploration? And what role does education play in stimulating the “spirit of adventure”?

[Buzz Aldrin] The ‘low end sharing of space’ must be addressed through marketing means. Essentially this could involve lottery-like investments for the low probability but high return of understanding and experiencing space. As long as this does not conflict with gambling and internet restrictions, and if it’s a non-transferable experience, the amount of investment can grow and grow to the user’s satisfaction to reduce the low probability of return. I personally don’t think that marketing activities like this have received their optimum consideration yet. It has always been desirable to market opportunities at the full value of one transaction (i.e. I’ve got a seat to sell, I’ll sell it when I have a passenger) rather than making a limited number of ‘seats’ available to thousands and figuring out the distribution mechanism whether by merit (competition) or zero merit (opportunity for all).

I think we need to also publicise the availability of partial experiences and their potential to increase knowledge. The simulators of shuttle launches in Florida, for example, are getting better and better. There’s also the centrifuge an Philadelphia which has a good simulation of Virgin Galactic’s sub-orbital flights, and aircraft which fly for brief times at lunar, Martian, or zero gravity. There are also neutral buoyancy underwater experiences which could be further developed. Experiences like these could certainly also be considered educational to enhance the appreciation for the taxpayer “investments” in space exploration to help them understand why some of their money is going in that direction.

There are, though, certain prohibitions on governments spending taxpayer’s money to advertise their [government’s] activities. We need to enlighten judgement on doing that, opening more debate on vested and political interests and influences.

Q: Has your spaceflight experience changed your view on humanity and our place in the universe?

[Buzz Aldrin] Without sounding trite, but during missions, we were busy with the items of the moment, and not too much into philosophising. In my personal life evolution, though, I don’t believe that these experiences have provided more direct involvement in my life than a background. I don’t believe the time of the experiences [e.g. walking on the Moon] and shortly thereafter had a major impact on my life, but what did have impact was dealing with my personal change in outlook as a result of dealing with, and recovering from, depression and alcoholism, which introduced the satisfying concept of a higher power in my life, totally eclipsing anything I had previously experienced including taking communion on the Moon. It caused me to take consideration, or reconsideration, of the forces, intellect, and powers of creation that have set this magnificent universe in motion including all aspects physical and spiritual.

We live in a totally ‘fogged’ atmosphere where you cannot see the enormity of the stars above us, and occasional meteorites, and other evidences. An individual without the intellect, wisdom or appreciation for these things will have a very restricted and narrow concept of the human intellect’s place in this universe, unlike those who have given considerably more thought, including astronomers, astrophysicists, nuclear and particle physicists and some philosophers. Often these individuals (such as Einstein) have been challenged because of their intellect and position, reflected only after publication of their wisdom. These individuals have had a significant impact on me as I value their intellect. I like Stephen Hawking, for example. I don’t have to understand string-theory and all the observations, but he has a reputation around the world for not being a dreamer, but a concrete philosopher of enormous capability. I can entrust his thoughts and opinions without having to say “I believe everything he says” I can simply grant a credit of comprehension, and go along with his views.

This can, though, get dangerous, when some high-brow scientist from an international organisation starts discussing how “before the end of the century, oceans will rise 10ft”. I’m not sure I see credentials in these predictions based on past evidence. I (personally) feel I am treading on very dangerous ground as in order to get my ideas and concepts and vision for space exploration heard, I have to deal with science advisors at the very highest levels who may not quite agree with my personal thoughts on these issues, and others such as climate change.

I also feel quite free to use the hoax and UFO people’s craze and desires to further publicise my points of view and to expand knowledge on these subjects. The ‘monolith on phobos’, for example, will get great attention in coming years. The Canadians, and others, who have observed shadows of this topographic structure are pretty scientific in their analysis of it. But in terms of these crazes stimulating adventure, when Canadian scientists detailed their proposed robotic study of phobos and were asked, “where are you going to land?” their response, “we’ll go for the monolith”.

---------------------------------------------------

Buzz Aldrin has, here, given us a pragmatic and realistic view of our society’s relationship with space. Our scientific advances, particularly over the last century, have enabled us to move “space” from being a philosophical concept into a potential new frontier for humanity.

While some critics such as the late Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize winning physicist) have argued that human space travel (to distinguish it from robotic missions) has, “never achieved any major scientific breakthroughs” we can see from our discussion that the underlying rationale behind space exploration is different. We are not dealing with a single experiment, or a single mission, which would lead to a ‘eureka’ moment. We are participating, as a civilisation, in understanding a great unknown which presents many opportunities to inspire, enrich, and develop humanity.

A great paradigm for our relationship with space can be found looking back in history at our relationship with the oceans. These vast unknown expanses, over thousands of years have been charted and explored, by iterations of human civilisation including the Greeks, Egyptians, and Polynesians on to the Vikings, Portuguese, and individuals such as (famously) Christopher Columbus. These explorers challenged our understanding of the oceans, (remember, many thought the horizon was the edge of the world) our place on earth, and brought about a new era of inspiration for the seas. These voyages created a wealth of new scientific knowledge, together with economic exchange for trade and resources, a great cultural exchange, and a theatre for defensive and offensive operations. This relationship between humans and the ocean, even though it stretches over thousands of years, is still in its infancy, as we continually discover new species, and new ways of using the ocean to further our world (particularly with regards energy and trade).

This paradigm is appropriate and poignant for space exploration. We are at the same early stage of our relationship with space, as civilisation was in AD400-1400 with its relationship with the oceans. Our faculties now will allow us to more rapidly extend our reach of understanding, exploration, and commercialisation, but we cannot expect this to happen in an instant. It will take generations to fully appreciate the benefits space will bring to society, and through all those generations, we cannot lose sight of the importance of the spirit of adventure to drive this exploration forward.

At a time when the world is beset with problems from war, to overpopulation, climate change and economic uncertainty, many would question the validity and relevance of space exploration in our story, but throughout history, civilisation has achieved great things, in spite of all manner of catastrophe. Our current introverted, risk-averse, attitudes cannot save or progress humanity, but merely allow us to coast perilously avoiding the great leaps in evolution we require to flourish.

We are, therefore, at a unique and profound stage in our story, where the sight of stars can not only make us dream, but can represent a new and exciting environment for our civilisation to create knowledge, inspiration and economic return. What a terrible shame it would be if, rather than leaping into the unknown, we took refuge in our seemingly safe-harbour.

Man” said Rene Dubos, “…could escape danger only by renouncing adventure, by abandoning that which has given to the human condition its unique character and genius among the rest of living things


Click to read full article...

Thursday, 16 July 2009

Global Conflict: Causes and Solutions for Peace.

In this article, we speak to Kristiina Rintakoski, Executive Director of the Crisis Management Initiative (launched by Nobel Prize winner President Martti Ahtisaari) about global conflict, its relationship with economic inequality, climate change and energy. We talk about the dynamics of conflict and crisis situations, and how organisations like CMI are building peace internationally.

---------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, July 2009

Perhaps more than at any time in our history, our world is engaged in conflict. From the UK and USA engaged at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, through to insurgencies in Algeria, Burma and Columbia, civil wars in African nations, and conflict between people in China, Iran and Israel, we see that we are in a fragile landscape.

Over the past century, a number of facets of humanities development have contributed to this, including:

Economics: From early colonialism to modern capitalism, our western economic growth has often been at the detriment of other nations where, for example, we have aggressively acquired assets, created trade routes, or leveraged economic scale to source products, assets, and services artificially cheaply. These processes, while creating great wealth and development in Europe and the USA, have exacerbated poverty and economic inequality in many nations, creating a great deal of tension and potential for conflict.

Agriculture and Energy: Our world is hugely dependent on agriculture and energy. Both of these asset classes are in huge demand, with their protection and development becoming serious debate. Population and economic growth also puts huge strains on these assets, as our world comes close to consuming greater than is sustainable.

Technology: While technology has been a huge enabler for global development, it has also made our injustices and inequalities more visible to external and internal participants in any situation.

Climate Change: This is now becoming a real and significant issue with millions worldwide becoming displaced by climatic effects.

Religion, Governance, and Politics: These issues, and their allied topics of human rights, justice, and so forth have historically caused many of the world’s most significant conflicts, and continue to do so as often these issues are the most fundamental in the structure of a society.

So how, then, will humanity move forward to create solutions for conflict?

CMI (The Crisis Management Initiative) was founded in 2000 by its Chairman, President Martti Ahtisaari (Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2008, and President of Finland 1994-2000). The organisation focuses on issues critical to creating sustainable peace and security, and making strategic contributions to the capacity of local, regional and international actors operating in war-torn and conflict-ridden societies through preventive diplomacy, peace-mediation and state building.

In a privileged interview we spoke to Mrs. Kristiina Rintakoski, executive director of the Crisis Management Initiative, about global conflict, its relationship with economic inequality, climate change and energy. We talk about the dynamics of conflict and crisis situations, and how organisations like CMI are building peace internationally

On Conflict and Peace:

Q: What are the key causes the conflicts we see globally?

[Kristiina Rintakoski] All conflicts are different with their particular history and reasons. I think that inequality within societies and between regions has become a key cause for conflict, exacerbated by rapid information dissemination, as people are (now) more aware of inequalities. Economic, social and environmental trends come together, for example, looking at resource competition and climate change (the latter intensifying the lack of resources, leading to political conflict). State fragility continues to be a key source for internal conflicts, instability and human suffering.


Q: How do you go about reconciling sides who have seemingly irreconcilable differences?

[Kristiina Rintakoski] Our strategy is to try and find elements which can create a common ground, a common agenda, which can then build confidence for sides to work together. Often, a common-agenda comes from issues outside the source of the conflict, such as economic and social well-being, but these areas are ones where all sides have an interest (though, often, it is these areas which have caused the conflict). Another strategy, which we inherited from our Chairman, President Martti Ahtisaari, is to work towards finding practical solutions to political disputes grounded in everyday realities in conflict situations. These strategies can lessen tension between parties to concentrate on solution oriented thinking.

Q: What does it take to create peace? And what is the role of conflict resolution in your overall strategy?

[Kristiina Rintakoski] The fundamental starting point is to acknowledge that outside actors can rarely create peace, local ownership in resolving the conflicts is vital. In one respect, this has become part of our practice of peace building, but fundamentally the role of the people within conflicted societies is critical. You cannot import peace, it is created within society.

There are also a number of key issues that a sustainable peace process has to address. Physical security is often the first priority, creating space for societal developments and processes to take place. Creating rule of law, good governance, and democratic political system take time and patience. Sometimes what comes too late, and does not receive adequate attention is economic recovery, guaranteeing the livelihoods of individuals in a society. Concepts like democracy and human rights will always remain fairly abstract if you cannot feed your family. It is therefore important to ensure that job creation, and protecting livelihoods occurs early on in the process.

Q: How do you work alongside governments, supra-nationals (e.g. UN), and military forces?

[Kristiina Rintakoski] Something which is particular to CMI is that we are not a lobbying organisation, we are, indeed, looking at co-operation with, and working alongside government, military and civilian actors in any situation. It is important to note that these organisations are funding our activities, but not in the sense of “sub-contracting”. Where we can add value to a situation such as peace mediation and state building, we may get funding from governments to carry out specific missions. We also work with policy development and support, for example we are working with the European institutions in creating a mediation capacity for the EU, and similarly we are working with the African union on preventative diplomacy and mediation. We encourage transparency and sharing of information, but it is important to note that there are many places where non-government actors (such as ourselves) do not face the same limitations as government actors do, and thus we can be more flexible. We aim to complement these organisations, acknowledging our relatively small size, but our excellent international network. Together, we create a collective capacity for peace-building.

On Threats:

Q: Are we now at risk of more complex threats? Such as cyberterrorism, financial terrororism, etc?

[Kristiina Rintakoski] We are now living with a great deal of uncertainty, which will increase. It is difficult to look at the relative nature of ‘traditional’ versus ‘novel’ threats, but Cyber-terrorism and Financial-terrorism are certainly part of the picture. What is important to look at is the causes of conflict, the issues of state fragility, injustice and inequality impact EU and Global security, and link strongly with issues like terrorism (giving rise to it not only in conflict areas, but in our society). As a society, though, we have to be prepared for threats we cannot conceive, we must build resilience not just in developed countries, but particularly in conflict areas. We, as nations, must also consider, for example, how climate change and financial crisis affects them [conflicted and developing nations].

On Technology:

Q: How important is technology within your overall strategy? And are there any innovations which you think are going to dramatically affect crisis and conflict management?

[Kristiina Rintakoski] I think technology is under-utilised in peace building and state building, but it is important to keep it in context as a tool. To get the best out of technology, you must have the processes to support it, and often that is the problem, you introduce technology without process, and that doesn’t get anyone very far. Technology should be an enabler to support local and national administration, who may have limited resources. In these contexts, technology builds their capacity to provide services and provide administration, and also increases transparency and accountability within these processes.

Looking at the potential for dramatic changes. From the side of responders, technology is bringing a greater level of interoperability between agencies, but it is a long way from being seamless. Looking at the regions of conflict and development, connectivity plays a big role. In Africa, for example, connectivity is being brought in predominantly from mobile technologies, and this will have a dramatic influence in finding solutions for these countries. Technology is one of the biggest gaps dividing western societies and developing countries, improving this will help provide solutions also in education and state administration.

On The Media:

Q: How do you perceive the media in context of global crisis and conflict?

[Kristiina Rintakoski] It is not black and white, the media can play a hugely positive role, but can also be very harmful. One of the main positives is increased knowledge and visibility of situations, specifically the transmission of human rights violations and other internal issues. This makes it difficult to turn a blind eye or deny knowledge and means that we (as society) have to react if governments are not protecting their citizens; it brings a sense of responsibility. We see this too where, for example, when peace workers are kidnapped, the media pressure can help make things happen. The reporting must, though, be factual and appropriate. There must be a good dialogue between practitioners and the media. For example, looking at our negotiations between the Indonesian government and the Aceh people, “nothing was agreed before everything was agreed”. We limited media comment by parties, protecting our negotiation environment, and preventing any false victories in the process. This is a good example of how sometimes you have to maintain privacy in a situation.

Q: Do you think broader coverage of conflict and crisis is harming resolution expectations?

[Kristiina Rintakoski] You never know how long these processes will take. Our negotiations in Indonesia were relatively short, but often it can take a long time. The media often diverts attention when parties need to be focussed on the actual process. It can often create expectations and momentum which forces parties to break from processes to deal with situations back home defending positions and solving situations, this can be immensely harmful to the process.

On The Wider World:

Q: How are issues like climate change, energy, and growing populations affecting crises and conflict?

[Kristiina Rintakoski] These are huge areas of interest for us, looking at how these issues affect political conflict. Climate change is, in many areas, impacting food availability and the kinds of patterns you would expect to see in society such as land ownership, pastoralism, and so forth. These issues are significant, and it is important that there is increased efforts to understand the connection of conflict and climate trends. This is not only affecting developing countries, but has the ability to intensify global conflict.

Energy issues influence thinking particularly in industrialized countries and is a fundamental issue of national interest. Nations might make compromises to have access to energy, and it can also impact the willingness of nations to intervene, and influence specific policies as part of conflict resolution

---------------------------------------------------

What is clear is that there needs to be more understanding of the complexities of conflict, and its specific issues, before we can come close to achieving peace. President Ahtisaari describes, “…the international community has demonstrated its incapacity in resolving conflicts and building sustainable peace in many countries and regions of the world. Meanwhile, new conflicts requiring international intervention may flare up. There has never been such an acute need for the international community to work together to develop innovative solutions and practical responses to these crises. This calls for coordination amongst international actors and a need to find common means and common language and for multi-faceted and multi-disciplinary approaches to problems. No political crisis or conflict can be solved without also seeking to create economic opportunities and employment as means to promote sustainable security.

These economic opportunities and practical solutions must, though, deal with the overwhelming network of issues which interact to create, exacerbate and spread conflicts. Looking at some of the more pertinent factors:

Economic Equality: These issues are of critical importance as economic growth and sustainability are often key drivers to the success of a nation in generating peace and stability. To put it in context, and to give a measure of the level of inequality, of the world’s 6.7billion population (which is growing at a tremendous pace) around 22% live below the poverty line (earning less than $1.25 per day), with 85% living in low to middle income countries (earning under $3,705 GNI per capita). NOTE: The World Bank calculated the GNI of the USA and UK in 2008 were $47,580 and $45,390 respectively.

The recent financial crisis has caused great concern about economic solutions, as funding support to conflicted regions gets cut, and protectionist trade barriers are erected. As President Ahtisaari explains, “The current global financial crisis has increased the risk of major geopolitical instability. Many of the regions and countries most affected by the withdrawal of capital from emerging markets and the collapse of international trade are already fragile, with many only just emerging from years of conflict. Growing inequality between countries and within society exacerbates existing cleavages. The loss of welfare and employment opportunities leads to a loss of hope and faith in the future amongst the vulnerable. This in turn fosters the rise of fundamentalism and violence, and creates breeding-grounds for crime, terrorism and war. We risk losing a generation to this financial crisis. And with globalization and increased interdependence amongst countries, violence in one region will have an impact in another part of the world.

For more detail on this, please refer to our interview in December 2008 with Professor Wim Naudé, (Senior Research Fellow and Project Director of the United Nations University World Institute for Developing Economics Research) who talked about the Economics of Developing Nations in the World Financial Crisis Click To View

Agricultural Sustainability & Climate Change: We currently have almost a billion people in the world hungry, with over five million people dying every year from hunger. Lack of agricultural development is certainly a factor, but climate change is also reducing the viability of land, making it impossible to cultivate high yields of crop without significant investments in irrigation. With booming populations, and increasing demands on agriculture, this has to be addressed. Climate change is also likely to displace many millions of people, predominantly in underdeveloped areas, also leading to a great degree of conflict as already stressed regions struggle to cope with the influx (including the western world).

Example: The Economist (May, 2009) "Rich food importers are acquiring vast tracts of poor countries' farmland. Is this beneficial foreign investment or neocolonialism?" - Click to view

Energy and Resource Security: We are becoming globally more dependent on energy, and we cannot underestimate the fact that ‘western’ societies are becoming dependent on their developing and conflict-heavy neighbours to provide them with oil and natural-resources. This dependency and underlying relationship will have huge impacts over how conflicts are resolved as intervening nations place energy and resource on their agenda.

Example: The Economist (July, 2009) "Foreign oil firms in Iraq" - Click to view

Justice and Human Rights: The level of injustice (in all its forms) and continuing human rights abuses occurring worldwide serve to exacerbate the stress of conflict and bring parties and populations further away from peace.

One of the most interesting factors though, is Technology. This generation, more than any before, are able to communicate globally, instantly, relatively seamlessly. This means that not only are those in conflict regions able to communicate their plight to the world, but it means that we, as a global audience of citizens and organisations can no longer turn a blind eye to what is happening. As the Dalai Lama was quoted as saying, “A wider of more altruistic attitude is very relevant in today's world. If we look at the situation from various angles, such as the complexity and inter-connectedness of the nature of modern existence, then we will gradually notice a change in our outlook, so that when we say 'others' and when we think of others, we will no longer dismiss them as something that is irrelevant to us. We will no longer feel indifferent.” We see this play out ourselves as tens of thousands of individuals, often with no direct link to a conflict will march in cities on behalf of those who are persecuted thousands of miles away.

Along with empowering us (as an audience) to understand conflict, technology has also provided a critical link of support in peace building, Mrs. Rintakoski described, in our interview, “…outside actors can rarely create peace, local ownership of the situation must occur”. We are seeing now that populations themselves, using collaborative and communications technologies are becoming empowered enough to create the momentum required to effectively participate in the conflict resolution and peace building process. The momentum of populations is often the impetus needed, as Dwight Eisenhower observed in the 19th Century, “I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.

Organisations like CMI, who realise that humanity is key, are working hard around the world, taking an innovative approach to brokering peace. They are not trying to cure irreconcilable differences in opinions, they are not trying to undermine the struggles of different sides, but they are finding a common ground which all parties are (in general) interested in, i.e. the well being and conditions of their citizens. It is this process of working towards common goals, which can help broker peace, allowing parties to move forward with a new sense of purpose. We have seen this approach succeed even in our recent history. The troubles in South Africa involved issues which would have been seemingly impossible to reconcile, the cure involved collaboration between parties in hugely sheltered discussions, to work together for a common goal. Nelson Mandela himself observed, “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.

John F. Kennedy is quoted as saying, “Peace is a daily, a weekly, a monthly process, gradually changing opinions, slowly eroding old barriers, quietly building new structures.” The facts remain peace (for most cases we see) will take not just months, but in many cases, years and generations, as sustainable economies and governance is developed combined with education and a generation who follow with a new shared momentum.

If we are to teach real peace in this world,” said Mahatma Gandhi…and if we are to carry on a real war against war, we shall have to begin with the children.

Click to read full article...

Thursday, 2 July 2009

Investing and Trading Illiquid Assets

In this article, we speak to Jeremy Smith, Chief Strategy Officer at SecondMarket, where over 3,000 participants manage over $1 trillion, participating in the world’s largest centralized, independent marketplace and auction platform for illiquid assets from auction rate securities to private company shares, CDO’s, mortgage and asset backed securities.

---------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, July 2009

Professor Eugene Fama, in his 1960’s Ph.D. thesis at the University of Chicago Booth Business School hypothesised that, “financial markets are ‘informationally efficient’, or that prices on traded assets (e.g., stocks, bonds, or property) already reflect all known information, and rapidly change to reflect new information”. This ‘efficient market hypothesis’ is now widely disregarded, as in the past quarter-century, our advances in technology allow us to observe that markets are not truly efficient as described by Fama, but are efficient to a greater or lesser degree based on many factors in the market.

Contemporary market thinking focuses a lot of attention on the fields of “behavioural finance” and “behavioural economics” which take inspiration and insight from fields including philosophy, psychology, statistics and neo-classical economics. Hersh Shefrin, in his 2002 paper, “Beyond Greed and Fear: Understanding behavioural finance and the psychology of investing” identified three main themes in understanding behavioural markets

Heuristics: People often make decisions based on approximate rules of thumb, not strictly rational analysis. (Cognitive Biases)

Framing: The way a problem or decision is presented to the decision maker will affect their action. (Information Biases)

Market inefficiencies: There are explanations for observed market outcomes that are contrary to rational expectations and market efficiency. These include mis-pricings, non-rational decision making, and return anomalies.

More recently, these theories have been extended to create the Adaptive Market Hypothesis, which. “Reconciles theories that imply that the markets are efficient with behavioural alternatives, by applying the principles of evolution - competition, adaptation, and natural selection - to financial interactions” (Andrew Lo).

Keeping these theories in the back of our mind, let us turn attention to the concept of Liquidity in a market.

A liquid asset has some or more of the following features. It can be sold rapidly, with minimal loss of value, any time within market hours. The essential characteristic of a liquid market is that there are ready and willing buyers and sellers at all times. Another elegant definition of liquidity is the probability that the next trade is executed at a price equal to the last one. A market may be considered deeply liquid if there are ready and willing buyers and sellers in large quantities. This is related to a market depth, where sometimes orders cannot strongly influence prices.

An illiquid asset is an asset which is not readily saleable due to uncertainty about its value or lacking a market in which it is regularly traded. The mortgage related assets which resulted in the sub-prime mortgage crisis are examples of illiquid assets as their value is not readily determinable despite being secured by real property. Another example is an asset such as large block of stock, the sale of which affects the market value.

The latter case, of illiquid assets, has come to the forefront of market commentary as “uncertainty” (the keyword in the definition) has turned many massively liquid markets suddenly the other way (including inter-bank lending, commercial paper, and more). In many cases, the assets considered are still investment grade, and present opportunities for buyer and seller, but the problems caused by heuristics, framing and inefficiencies in these less liquid markets prevent the structured trading necessary to create efficient operations.

SecondMarket (in their own words) are, “the largest centralized marketplace and auction platform for illiquid assets, such as auction-rate securities, bankruptcy claims, collateralized debt obligations, limited partnership interests, private company securities, residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities, restricted securities and block trades in public companies and whole loans. SecondMarket's online auction platform has 3,000 participants, including global financial institutions, hedge funds, private equity firms, mutual funds, corporations and other institutional and accredited investors that collectively manage over $1 trillion in assets available for investment.

Using an innovative approach, they are aiming to create an efficient market for the trade of these ‘illiquid’ assets, and in a privileged interview, Jeremy Smith (the firms Chief Strategy Officer) talks to us about how they create liquidity and opportunity in these markets.

Q: In your own words, what is second-market and why does it exist?

[Jeremy Smith]: “In the simplest terms, we are an independent marketplace for illiquid assets including, but not limited to, auction rate securities to CDO’s, mortgage backed securities and private company stocks. The key word is “independent”, we are not owned by major buyers or sellers of any of the assets we market, we do not take principal positions to buy or sell assets, we simply provide a market for them to meet. This is an important feature, as in some of the ‘toxic-asset’ markets, one of the biggest problems is that you have market-makers and the market-place acting as the same entity, so for auction rate securities and CDO’s, the banks that connected you with the buyer would buy the asset from you at a discount, and sell to the other party. This provides near instant liquidity, but the problem is for the seller who gets an artificially lowered price. The second problem is more systemic. What happens when the market-makers who are the marketplace go out of business or pull back on their balance sheets? When that happens, the marketplace disappears too. This is a structural flaw where the market-makers and marketplace are the same. If you think of NYSE, CBOE and so forth, you see that you have a marketplace (e.g. NYSE) and a market-maker (e.g. Goldman Sachs), the fact they are different entities keeps the market, to a greater degree, stable.”

Q: How does SecondMarket sit alongside exchanges? And what is the significance of your ‘ecosystem’ approach?

[Jeremy Smith] “The biggest difference, other than legal and regulatory influences, is the types of assets which they, and we, are able and willing to handle. Exchanges are highly automated, with a ‘point, click, execute’ attitude. With these [illiquid assets] you cannot use an automated system; it has to be hybrid to define the necessary efficiency and power. You have to be a market specialist. Of our 125 employees, for example, over 50 are specialists in the specific asset classes they handle, dealing with the unique transaction characteristics for each, and giving “high touch” hand holding, to create liquidity.

Our ecosystem is designed to look at the systemic issues, the transparency if you will. It is a two pronged approach, and is the only way to realistically bring liquidity to these markets. We have an internal transparency team who aggregate and standardise public information and make it available, for free, to buyers and sellers. Not all information is public (e.g. CDO’s) but also, in order to find buyers, you have to provide analytical valuation firepower. Our ecosystem provides all this information, the analytics, research, and valuation systems, to participants on both sides.”

Q: Illiquid assets and instruments have been notoriously hard to price, how does SecondMarket aid in the efficient pricing of these assets and instruments?

[Jeremy Smith] “Transparency is key. The more information you give, the more then bid and ask come together. We provide pricing transparency to buyer and seller showing where similar transactions have happened (or are happening in the case of auctions), bringing pricing into focus.

Another part is education. If we can educate buyers into pricing out there in the market, and why their thinking may not be correct, it also helps us bring liquidity and a narrower bid/ask spread. Improvements in settlement times for established asset classes, for example, restricted securities, which used to take four to six weeks to settle, now take just seven to twelve days, so by definition, we have increased liquidity.

It is, though, important to note that there are controls in these markets, ensuring that sellers, in particular, can control the level of information they give to the market and who can see it. This is essential for certain asset classes”.

Q: Are you seeing any global trends in countries with higher volumes of illiquid assets? And looking at SecondMarket’s site, you have a lot of activity in China, Dubai, Korea etc, how does Asia factor in to your model?


[Jeremy Smith] “I would say, clearly, we see a lot of activity in the USA, closely followed by western Europe. Asia, though, presents an area of great potential, the sheer size of investments held over there gives a medium-term opportunity. Right now, there is not a lot of movement (for economic and cultural reasons) but our efforts there are to penetrate the markets, and ensure we are there when the opportunity develops.”

Turning to sellers of illiquid assets?

Q: Who are the key participants and what are the key advantages to them in participating on SecondMarket?

[Jeremy Smith] “There are marked differences between asset classes. When it comes to auction rate securities and bankruptcy, the bulk of sellers are corporations with bad receivables in a company that went bankrupt (e.g. if company X owed company Y $10,000,000 and went bust, then company Y could sell the debt it is owed). As far as private companies are concerned, usually what you see are employees and early angel investors looking to sell their stakes. Hedge funds and High Net Worth Individuals participate in equity and in other toxic assets where we also have financial institutions and global/regional banks and insurers in the market.

As we discussed above, they have the ability to get better pricing and faster liquidity, and it is because of having these things in a centralised marketplace to aggregate at any time, that the level of participation improves, as does pricing, settlement speed and so forth. “

Turning to the buyers of illiquid assets?

Q: Who are the key participants?

[Jeremy Smith] “As far as buyers are concerned, each asset class is, again, different. The buyers of private company stock may be a venture capitalist, auction rate securities may be a hedge fund, and bankruptcies may be distressed debt buyers. To give you a general sense, around 65% of our buyer base is hedge fund, with the balance split fairly evenly between venture capitalists, pensions and endowments, family offices, global financial institutions, and asset managers.”

Q: Why buy illiquid assets?

[Jeremy Smith] “There are two primary reasons, one being somewhat self serving. Firstly, one unique factor across the majority of investors, is that they are looking for a unique investment opportunity. This [SecondMarket] gives investors access to markets which may have either not been available before, or may have only been available in a small way. Secondly, they [investors] know that they always have a market in which to resell the asset. They may not, previously, have participated because if they invested, they couldn’t easily get out, so they stayed out. Now they can resell these ‘illiquid’ assets, they are more inclined to participate as their risk is somewhat reduced.

Our philosophy is that there should be no such thing as an illiquid asset, there should be “more liquid versus less liquid”, but never illiquid. What we are talking about here is not conducive to environments such as NASDAQ or LSE where billions in liquidity can be created in seconds, but we still aim to provide an adequate level of liquidity.

The complexity and lack of “instant” liquidity also gives these asset classes a higher yield.

It is also important to note that for the asset classes traded, it may not necessarily be the asset which is distressed. In many cases, it is the SELLER of the asset who is distressed, or needs liquidity, the underlying asset itself is fine, but the seller’s own condition creates an opportunity to buy at discount.”


Looking at a few specific markets:

CDO’s and Mortgage Backed Securities

Q: There has been a great deal of negativity directed at these asset classes, how are you seeing investor attitudes here?

[Jeremy Smith] “Seller’s attitudes have been more negative than buyers, simply because they have become upset at carrying assets they don’t want, and can’t get rid of. This is in contrast to the buyers, who see an opportunity and are very excited.

For us as a marketplace, we are seeing a great deal of interest in these assets as buyers, attracted by the high yields (from purchase discount) are also feeling more comfortable trading, as they can resell their assets when they choose, eliminating some elements of risk which had prevented them participating.”


LP Interests & Private Companies:

Q: Interestingly, you also have a market for the ‘vehicles’ used by the VC industry for their investments, along with private company interests directly. Could you tell us more about how these markets work, and what the investor and seller interest and attitude has been like?

[Jeremy Smith] “Most markets are bilateral, insofar as you have a buyer a seller, and that’s it. With LP interests, and private companies, it is a three sided market. You don’t just have a buyer or seller, you have the company (or general partner ‘fund’). So the dynamic really changes because of this characteristic. What we see in terms of attitudes is that private companies and general partners have been reluctant to see these markets form, so we have spent over two years developing our unique ‘private company model’ because of these concerns. The key, we found, was control.

For private companies, for example, we create a micromarket. Typically these companies say, “I’m a private company, private for a reason. I don’t want my shares trading hands between buyers and sellers without me knowing”. The problem is, it already happens. So the choice is, do you want to take control? Or leave the ad-hoc method in place.

In the latter case (ad-hoc) it is useful to note that if employees want to sell shares, they can. Most companies do retain first refusal but in practice (especially at the moment) they don’t want to use capital to buy their own shares back, and would rather invest in market or R&D. The employee therefore calls their accountant, broker, or lawyer who will then sell. Information invariably leaks to the market, and false signals are sent

With our market structure, the company takes control. If you are, for example, linkedin or twitter, you create your own micromarket, you decide who your buyers are (e.g. existing investors? A select group? The whole market), you decide the rules for existing shareholders (how much of their holding can they sell? Do they have a physical value limit? How often can they trade?)

We also, through this model, answer the information problem. By giving control, and privacy, private companies are paradoxically more inclined to release information, as only approved individuals can see it. This creates liquidity and informed bids and in an environment where IPO’s are increasingly difficult, we are seeing many firms opting down our route.

When you have this kind of systemic control, you also get better price stability, which helps fundraising as investors can be more confident in price, transparency, and know they have a market to resell to if required.”

Looking at the future:

Q: How do you see the future for SecondMarket? What ‘markets’ are you bringing on-stream? And what are the key technological innovations you think will have the greatest impact on your business?

[Jeremy Smith] “We currently have around eight markets for illiquid asset classes, with another fifty on our watch-list which we are assessing. In the next twelve months, the marketplaces we have identified in particular include s363 asset sales (a US Bankruptcy asset), private REIT’s, and asset backed securities (including credit card and auto loan securities).

Technology is certainly important to our business, with the regular introduction of add-ons to help analysis and efficiency, but the real crux is the combination of technological and human. Our innovation is predominantly on improving the process and structure of the markets, increasing speed, efficiency, and hence liquidity.”

---------------------------------------------------

What we see here is a business model which innovates to tackle the tenets of behavioural finance to create efficiency and opportunity.

By increasing transparency, information, and analysis, SecondMarket have been able to reduce cognitive (heuristic), and framing (information) biases in the market (creating greater participation, and pricing accuracy) and by creating an ecosystem of many thousands of participants, with a great deal of control, they have been able to not only reduce overall risk for participants (almost acting as a pseudo-central counterparty clearing house like LCH.Clearnet) but compensate for the yield, pricing, and rationality anomalies which illiquid markets typically see.

Taking illiquid markets to the extreme, we see companies like “Commercial Intelligence”, who specialise in the recovery of debts from or guaranteed by governments, parastatals or companies in Africa and Asia, here utilising the lack of transparency and liquidity, together with the high perceived level of market-risk, to create high yields and opportunity from highly-illiquid assets.

The more our world becomes interconnected, and the pace of commerce increases, the more we will see that markets ‘behave’ rather than exist, meaning that innovation must take place to ensure continued liquidity and transparency. The lessons of the economic crisis of 08/09 have taught us the importance of these factors, and of the need for continued liquidity, This does signal a change of attitudes in the market, which Geoffrey Moore summarises well describing how “….we were thinking about scale instead of liquidity, ... The correct move now is to redirect the race toward liquidity.

For more information on SecondMarket, visit them online at: www.secondmarket.com

Click to read full article...