Sustainable financing may be the transition Turkey needs

Could the adoption of sustainable finance could mark a turning point for the country’s fragile banking sector? It has not been a season of stability for Turkey’s economy. Since 2016 when the country experienced a failed coup d’état, unending crises have made Turkey’s economy one of the most vulnerable in emerging markets. This, according to Dominik Rusinko, an Economist at KBC Group, is a result of “misguided, or outright wrong economic policies.”

Turkey’s apex bank has not been spared. In a span of two years, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has dismissed three governors. The changes have rattled financial markets with foreign investors increasingly becoming jittery at a time when Turkey is in desperate need for inflows. “The future path of the Turkish economy remains uncertain and bumpy particularly in the absence of a more orthodox economic policy,” observes Rusinko.

In recent years, Turkey has become a darling for investors due to a conscious drive towards sustainable development. As one of the countries most affected by climate change, desertification and natural disasters such as droughts, floods and landslides, the country has made a shift towards sustainability. In fact, despite being on the fringes of the European Union, Turkey has embraced the push for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

“Measures to incentivise a green recovery, and begin a green transformation, can keep Turkey at a competitive advantage as global markets decarbonise,” said Auguste Kouame, Turkey World Bank Country Director in April. He added that a more diversified and greener financial system would support a resilient, sustained recovery.

This is a challenge that Turkey’s banks are embracing wholeheartedly. It emanates from the understanding that banks have the potential to facilitate a green transition by mobilising capital for sustainable, green-led growth. For the industry, climate change and environmental issues have become an important source of risk and opportunity. “If you don’t take care of the environment, the environment will take care of itself,” said Ahmet Can Yakar, ICBC Turkey managing director, project finance department, during a sustainable finance webinar in April. In effect, sustainable finance is fast taking root in Turkey, a country that is attracting interest from ESG-focused domestic and international investors and issuers.

In fact, Turkey is determined to tap the $100trn global bond market after the government formed a bonds guarantee fund to encourage companies to issue bonds at lower costs. In Turkey, the total bond market is estimated at $3.1bn with green bonds accounting for only $836m.

 

Sustainable starting point
Taking a cue from the government and investors, commercial banks are acknowledging that sustainable finance will be the anchor for future growth. In effect many are abandoning financing of environment polluters like fossil fuels, mining and sections of manufacturing, for green projects in renewable energy, housing, water and sanitation, education, health, urban transport and mobility, street lighting, agriculture and consumer goods among others.

The transition is conspicuous. Over the past two years a number of banks have signed the UN’s responsible banking principles to implement sustainability. Additionally, several financial and non-financial companies have committed to issuing sustainability reports to raise investor awareness. Garanti BBVA, Turkey’s fifth largest bank, is among lenders on the forefront of sustainable financing.

The bank has vowed to stop financing ‘dirty’ projects like coal and mines. Over the next two decades, the bank that issued a $50m green bond in 2019 intends to cleanse its loan portfolio from these projects leading to zero exposure by 2040. This comes after the bank announced in February that it had reached $60.3bn in sustainable financing by the end of last year, ultimately achieving half of its objectives a year ahead of schedule. The bank has a target of $120.2bn of sustainable financing by 2025.

Another lender, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), has put green investments in Turkey top of its priorities. Since 2015 when it launched its green economy transition strategy, EBRD intends to increase investments in green projects to 40 percent by the end of next year, up from 30 percent in 2015, with annual commitments of $4.8bn.

Ultimately, the target is for 60 percent of the lender’s financing going towards green investments. “Projects that we finance must have measurable climate mitigation mechanisms,” said Idil Gürsel, EBRD Associate Director, municipal and environmental infrastructure. She added that projects must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20 percent or improve energy efficiency by at least 20 percent. In this light it seems that Turkey has unequivocally demonstrated that it is committed to sustainable development.

However, recent economic and financial woes continue to cast a dark cloud. With President Erdoğan’s unorthodox economic policies fuelling the uncertainties, banks and investors remain cagey.

Is the gig economy headed towards a day of reckoning?

When the UK-based food delivery platform Deliveroo announced its intention to float on the London Stock Exchange in March this year, it did so in anticipation of raising £8.8bn. Just days later the company lowered the price range of its IPO from £3.90–£4.60 to £3.90–£4.10, giving a new expected market value of £7.59bn. When trading began, however, Deliveroo’s situation went from bad to worse: its share price dropped as low as £2.73, cutting the value of the company to around £5.6bn.

How did it all go so wrong, and what does this disappointing start mean for other tech companies working in the food delivery space? Central is the fact that some of Britain’s biggest institutional investors declined to participate in the offering.

Legal & General Investment Management expressed concerns over unequal voting rights: Deliveroo has issued preference shares to its founder and chief executive, Will Shu, that give him over a 50 percent say. Fund managers at Aberdeen Standard Investments, Aviva Investors and M&G, meanwhile, all flagged issues around Deliveroo’s employment practices, citing a recent UK Supreme Court decision that went against ride sharing app Uber.

Deliveroo, like many gig economy firms operating in the UK, classes its drivers as self-employed, meaning that the firm is not required to provide employment rights such as minimum wage, sick pay and holiday pay. That was the situation with Uber too, until February, when the Supreme Court ruled that Uber drivers are workers, and therefore entitled to employment rights, regardless of their contracts. “The Uber case says that you don’t look at the contract, you look at the reality, and you ignore any contractual provision that has been put there specifically to get around employment status,” says employment lawyer Darren Newman.

The ruling has implications for other gig economy employers, whose profit margins would be threatened if they were required to class their drivers as workers and therefore be liable for higher rates of pay. Deliveroo is safe for the moment because of a clause in its contracts that allows drivers to subcontract their work, but Newman believes the company may encounter legal challenges down the road.

“There’s a place that the case law seems to be going, which is extending employment rights. Is it really sustainable to build your entire model on the assumption that these people don’t get the minimum wage? After Uber, that looks like a more dodgy proposition,” he explains. The Uber case only has implications for companies operating in the UK, of course, but there are similar regulatory conversations going on in other jurisdictions too. In the Netherlands, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal recently ruled that Deliveroo riders are employees, rather than self-employed.

In Spain, the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Spanish delivery app Glovo should treat its riders as employees too, following on from a similar ruling against Deliveroo in 2018. Glovo’s co-founder Sacha Michaud commented at the time that the ruling would probably mean having to scale back on the company’s plans to roll out in 400 smaller Spanish towns and cities. All that said, the company appears to be doing fine – it has just raised €450m in Spain’s largest ever startup funding round.

Some gig economy firms have opted to get ahead of the situation. Just Eat Takeaway.com, an Amsterdam-based company formed from the merger of UK meal delivery app Just Eat and Dutch rival Takeaway.com last year, announced that it would be switching to an employee-based model. The firm’s chief executive, Jitse Groen, pledged earlier this year to “go all out” against rival Deliveroo in London, Europe’s largest market for ecommerce services.

Jason Chen is co-founder and CEO of Taiwan-based food startup JustKitchen, which floated on the Toronto Stock Exchange earlier this year and hopes to expand into Hong Kong, Singapore, the Philippines and the US. Chen, whose business works with third-party firms to deliver food to customers from its ‘ghost kitchens,’ is positive about how tighter regulation – in developed nations at least – appears to be moving towards better rights for workers.

“As a ghost kitchen operator, we want a healthy delivery ecosystem. This means having a well-established labour force, an abundance of drivers/riders, and that they are taken care of to want to stay within this ecosystem,” he says.

Food for thought
Sarah Simon, investment analyst at Berenberg, is not worried about Deliveroo’s disappointing IPO. “I don’t think this reflects wider concerns. There were some well-publicised issues that some traditional UK investors had. And the broader market has been somewhat choppy. Food delivery names (except Deliveroo) have actually been quite strong since the IPO,” she says. In a note to clients issued in April, Simon called Deliveroo “a great service, with good structural growth,” initiating coverage with a Hold rating and a price target of £3.10.

Clearly, there are question marks over how regulation will impact the big players in this market. This uncertainty notwithstanding, Deliveroo’s IPO was one of the largest LSE debuts in recent years and Britain’s largest-ever tech listing by value. The global online food delivery market is expected to grow 11.5 percent to reach $154.34bn by 2023, according to market data provider Statista.

Not all investors are hungry for the sort of risk inherent in these food delivery platforms but those that are – and have the patience to wait for these firms to turn a profit in a competitive marketplace – could well find themselves with an investment that bears delicious fruit.

Placing a priority on workplace satisfaction

In the UK alone there are 1,343 established Fintechs, which is crowded for any type of industry. As a result, it can be easy for leaders to be distracted, focusing on product development or investor funding. Establishing a culture or building a stronger culture often becomes ‘something we can always do later.’ You know it’s important, but you’ll tackle it when you have a few hours to spare. At a time when you have customers to satisfy and investors or shareholders to keep happy, the idea of creating a common way of thinking and behaving in your business seems like a luxury you can’t afford.

And then this happens. As you grow, whether you are an established organisation or a start-up, the people you hired initially start to leave and you find it hard to attract replacements quickly enough. This leads to a compromise on quality. You try to expand into a new country, but the thought of getting people from different backgrounds to work together makes you break into a cold sweat. And then, at your next funding round or shareholder meeting, questions will be asked about culture and they will be unimpressed with a vague answer that ‘we all pull together and everyone loves working here.’

Or, you hit a plateau with your sales; your initial customers move away, saying you’re not the business you were when you first started, and new ones seem unsure if you’re the kind of outfit they want to buy from. Finally, you walk into the office one day and have the awful realisation that everyone’s the same. How are you going to create the most innovative products in the universe when your employees represent five percent of the population?

A great culture is what stops this happening. It isn’t something you can put off until a later date – to sometime in the mythical future when you have the head space or volume of people to warrant it. Because cultures, like weeds, have a habit of growing whether you plant them or not.

 

Attracting and retaining talent
However, preventing problems is only the starting point when it comes to what you gain from having a strong culture. Its main benefits lie in how it helps you to attract and retain talent, foster happiness and satisfaction in the workplace, increase your people’s engagement with their work, drive high performance, and attract investors.

If you go down this route you’ll discover the unassailable competitive advantage you have when your people are aligned with what you want to achieve and how you want to achieve it, which in turn gives you the best possible chance of leading a successful and sustainable business.

Having a clear and compelling brand relies on you having defined your company’s purpose

You’ll also find that your employees are willing to move heaven and earth to help you because they believe in your vision and share your dreams – to make the impossible possible. This is where your employer brand comes in, because it does the work of filtering out the inappropriate candidates before they even contact you. Having a clear and compelling brand relies on you having defined your company’s purpose, mission statement, and behaviours, so potential employees know what to expect from working with you. It also goes further than that: you need to articulate your employee value proposition.

This is the aspect of working for you that makes you different from other businesses – the special something that draws the right person in and sends the wrong person off to another organisation. At Grab Financial Group we were devoted to building and maintaining our employer brand, involving showcasing what the company had done, what it wanted to do, and the success it had achieved.

We produced lots of content and videos that gave potential candidates an insight into our culture, and were proud of the investment we made in this area because it paid dividends in the long run. Grab has now become one of the most dominant super apps in Asia, offering rides, food delivery and now, financial services.

At global fintech Paysend, our culture is the number one priority, alongside product and technology innovation, growth and even funding, because without the right talent there is no sustainable business growth. When a company has a strong focus on culture, it gives it a competitive advantage.

Universities will struggle in the post-pandemic fallout

From Zoom seminars to locked-down halls, the pandemic has had an enormous effect on everyday life in universities across the globe. But COVID-19 will also have a serious impact on the finances of the higher education system, including both short-term lockdown-related costs and financial losses on long-term investment.

Last year, a fall in international enrolment was thought to be the biggest threat to university finances. Take the UK, for example, where the total income of the universities sector is around £40bn a year, half of which comes from tuition fees; overseas students account for around £7bn of this tuition fee income. In July 2020, the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicted that a decrease in overseas students because of COVID-19 could be responsible for a loss of up to £4bn.

The situation is exacerbated by Brexit, which will lose UK universities £62.5m per year in tuition fees, according to a February 2021 report by the Department for Education. While China is the largest single source of overseas students in the UK, the EU accounts for almost one in three of the UK’s international students, a figure expected to be halved by Brexit, though losses will be partly offset by an increase in fees.

International enrolment for the 2020–21 academic year in fact fell by 25 percent, a smaller downturn than initially expected. “Universities got very lucky in the summer as the second wave did not properly get going until students had essentially made their decisions where to study,” Elaine Drayton, a research economist at the IFS, told World Finance. Long-term losses from a decrease in international enrolment look likely to be less than £1bn.

“Now, with some of the uncertainties around student recruitment resolved, medium-term pension obligations look like the main risk to university finances,” Drayton says. The IFS predicts long-term losses in this area to exceed £5bn. A recent financial health check of the University Superannuation Scheme (USS), the UK’s largest pension fund, estimated that the funding shortfall has risen from £3.6bn to £18bn in just two years, sparking talk of benefit cuts, the latest development in a years-long clash over pensions in the sector. Enduring low interest rates were driving up deficits before the pandemic.

High-ranking institutions are more likely to have large numbers of international students and substantial pension obligations. London School of Economics – which the Times Higher Education (THE) ranks as one of the 30 best universities in the world – has the highest percentage of international students of any British university, at 68 percent pre-pandemic. LSE was anticipating acute financial problems from the 2021–22 academic year, leading its director and other management to take significant pay cuts in April 2020.

 

The covid conundrum
However, the pandemic will ultimately have a greater financial impact on smaller, newer and lower-ranking institutions, as high-ranking universities fill newly empty places with home students. According to the IFS, a university’s profitability before the crisis is a better indicator of risk of insolvency because of COVID-19 than the size of their pandemic-related losses.

The outlook is similar in the US, where wealthy private universities, such as Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins (ranked 12th in the world by the THE), are expected to lose hundreds of millions of dollars. But institutions with small endowments are more at risk, such as the 400-student Pine Manor College in Massachusetts, which, with just a $9.6m endowment, was taken over by Boston College in May 2020 after long-term financial instability was intensified by the pandemic.

Joe Biden’s $1.9tn American Rescue Plan has pledged $40bn to help support US higher education institutions through COVID-19, with a specific emphasis on those with an endowment under $1m. For context, the US’s richest institution, Harvard University, has a $40bn endowment, and the UK equivalent, the University of Cambridge, has an estimated £7bn endowment.

Last summer, the UK government announced a plan to support UK universities through the financial strain of the pandemic, including a £2.6bn advance in tuition fee payments and £100m of research funding. The IFS estimates that higher numbers of home students and diminished employment prospects could see the government’s long-term contribution to higher education increase by around £1.6bn for 2020’s cohort of students alone. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that, without sufficient government support, around a dozen universities could emerge from the pandemic with negative reserves.

Insolvency could lead to debt restructuring, takeovers and mergers, or closure, though there is currently no precedent for the liquidation of a publicly funded university. Most of the UK’s universities will survive the pandemic, but, with predicted long-term losses of around £10bn, they will be in a precarious position to cope with future shocks.

Solving the global housing crisis

It was revealed, in a survey carried out by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (LILP) in 2019, that 90 percent of the 200 cities around the globe that were polled were considered to be unaffordable to live in, based on average house price in relation to median income. The impact of COVID-19 has only worsened the housing crisis, and government stimulus packages designed to fend off economic disaster are unsustainable in the long term. The data from the LILP shows that although household debt might boost economic growth and employment in the short term, households are eventually forced to rein in spending to repay these loans.

This then results in debt damaging the economy in the long run, and therefore, affordable housing is ultimately beneficial for both homeowners and the economy.

The last half of 2020, and the first half of 2021, have both seen housing prices across the world dramatically increase; in America, prices rose by 11 percent during the period, the fastest pace in 15 years, while in New Zealand, house prices were up by 22 percent. As a result, many countries, including Italy and the US, implemented measures to protect mortgage holders against the risk of losing their homes. The reasoning behind this was because mortgages can go lower while wages are not rising, and many are becoming unemployed due to the pandemic.

The rise in house prices also coincides with the increased demand for more housing, as a result of a growing population and a shift in demographics. This demand for housing has been particularly present within city centres, where there are good transport links, and a surplus of public services.

Richard Florida, founder of the Creative Class Group, told World Finance that part of the reason for the housing crisis is because “housing has been financialised and turned into an investment vehicle, which has caused an oversupply of luxury housing and a lack of affordable housing.” Florida added to this that “home ownership has created challenges for our cities by restricting the supply of housing and creating a system that incentivises those that make an investment.”

The decline in home ownership as a result of unaffordable housing has led to the economic benefits of home ownership being questioned even further. In rich countries in particular, home ownership has previously been glorified as the ultimate goal. However, it now seems that it is a dysfunctional concept at times, and has led to gaping inequalities, as Florida talks about, as well as inflaming generational and geographical divides.

 

The foundation of the problem
Prior to the pandemic, lack of affordable housing was already a major issue. A growth in luxury tower blocks in cities across the world contributed to this, with this increase being partially aimed at the rise of foreign investors. This consequently contributed to a shortage in housing for the low and middle-income people in these cities. Vancouver has been viewed in recent decades as a place abroad for the wealthy Chinese to keep their assets. This has led to an increase in how upmarket certain areas of the city are, which has subsequently decreased how affordable the city is to locals.

Hong Kong is another unaffordable city, having retained the title as having the world’s least affordable housing market for an 11th consecutive year in 2020, with the average price for a home a staggering 20.8 times the annual household income (see Fig 1). Although there is a public housing scheme to try and combat this issue, it unfortunately offers little compensation to tackle this sizeable disparity, with a current waiting time of five and a half years.

Hong Kong’s home ownership scheme (HOS) does not improve on this, as the chance of being successful with this government initiative is only 1.63 percent. Tokyo is one of the few cities to have kept up with the increasing housing demand for all classes, but this can largely be explained by its deregulated housing policies, which mean that in this city there are no rent controls, and fewer restrictions on height and density. Japan has consistently been building nearly one million new homes and apartments each year for the last decade.

 

 

Shortage of houses
In the US, house prices have increased by nearly 40 percent since 2000, making the median home in 200 US cities $1m. Home ownership has become unattainable for the vast majority of the population. This difficulty is also highlighted through the National Low Income Housing coalition, who found that a renter working 40 hours a week and earning minimum wage cannot afford a two-bedroom apartment in the US. One of the reasons for the shortage of new houses is due to the exclusionary zoning laws, with some areas of the US having neighbourhood bans on new developments. There are also rules to establish minimum lot sizes, or requirements to include a certain number of parking spots per development.

Most recently, corporate relocations during the pandemic have contributed to dramatic surges in a demand for housing for particular reasons. At the end of 2020, Elon Musk announced that Tesla was moving to Texas, which consequently led to a boom in the Texas housing market. The rise in the cost of construction materials has also contributed to a shortage of new houses globally. The cost of home building materials has increased as a result of higher tariffs emerging from the ongoing trade war, with increased tariffs being placed on imported steel, aluminium and other building materials.

According to the Bureau of Labour, the cost of raw materials in the US has risen as high as 20.2 percent since the financial crisis. The lack of construction occurring during the pandemic has also contributed to this pre-existing issue, with output falling in April 2020 by 40 percent in the UK, and by 30 percent in the US. It will continue to take time before global residential construction reaches pre-COVID-19 volumes.

 

Tackling the housing crisis after COVID
Post-COVID, there is the hope that globally we can move forward on the critical housing targets of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Goal 11 is to ‘make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable,’ and new housing projects should bear this in mind when starting new construction projects, particularly in cities. In addition, more consideration for the wellbeing of citizens must be given over the desire to make a hefty profit.

More consideration for the wellbeing of citizens must be given over the desire to make a hefty profit

Some cities across the world have been working on affordable housing plans for the last couple of years to combat the housing crisis, and hopefully these new ways of solving the housing crisis can be learnt from, and put into effect on a global scale. In Australia, the state government of Sydney launched a partnership with the private sector and community housing groups in 2018 to develop and renovate 23,000 social housing units in different neighbourhoods.

In addition, Melbourne founded the Melbourne apartment project in 2018 to encourage home ownership, with 34 apartments built via this scheme. Six were sold at the market rate, which then enabled the other 28 to be subsidised through a deferred second mortgage model, in order to reduce the necessary deposit and repayments.

In India, they have found a cheaper construction material; glass fibre reinforced gypsum (GFRG) panels, which use a minimal amount of concrete and steel, and therefore the cost of the material is greatly reduced. This means that the houses made from this material in the future will be more affordable. In Austin, Texas, the company ICON has gone one step further to find more efficient and less costly ways to build houses, through developing 3D printing robotics that are capable of printing 2,000 square foot houses.

The global housing crisis is much bigger than just housing, due to the enduring issues of availability of transport and the nearby location of public services. The shortage of land must also be solved, due to limited land supply increasing demand and therefore also price. While it is important for a solution to be found to fix the current disparity between house prices and wages, it is also important to consider other solutions to unaffordable housing in cities. This includes repurposing vacant properties, and improving transport links to increase the amount of land around a city that people are happy to live in.

Amsterdam’s rise as Europe’s next financial centre

When Brexit came one step closer to becoming a reality in 2018, Tradeweb was left with few options other than expanding its European presence beyond London. The US company, which runs platforms for fixed income, derivatives and ETF trading, was on the lookout for a European hub that would offer a business environment similar to that of London. The Dutch capital was an obvious choice, says Enrico Bruni, Tradeweb’s head of Europe and Asia business: “Amsterdam is home to many financial firms, so it was a natural fit for us.”

In January 2019, Tradeweb became the first foreign platform to get approval from the Dutch regulator to operate trading facilities from Amsterdam, replicating its UK regulatory status. Currently, the company’s Amsterdam office serves the liquidity needs of its EU clients.

 

Fintech boom
Tradeweb is not alone in its post-Brexit trajectory. Following the Brexit referendum, many fintech companies, including MarketAxess, Klana, Azimo and CurrencyCloud, have increased their presence in the Dutch capital, either by expanding their offices or moving their European headquarters there. Many cite the friendly regulatory environment for fintech companies, still seen as pesky disruptors by incumbents in other jurisdictions, as a reason for their choice.

Amsterdam’s talent pool and reputation as a tech hub, with home-grown success stories such as payment service Adyen, help too. “Most people in the Netherlands are fluent in English, while the talent pool is remarkable with lots of technological expertise,” Bruni says. In 2020, the Netherlands topped the EF English Proficiency Index, a survey measuring English fluency globally. Around a tenth of the 200,000 people employed in the Dutch financial sector work for a fintech company, primarily in Amsterdam. “It’s only in the last five years that fintech has been growing in Amsterdam.

Before that, most fintech companies were focused on London as Europe’s fintech hub. But now there is less talent there, and following Brexit there is also a need for many companies to move somewhere else, ”says Suzanne Cox, Head of Foreign Investments at Amsterdam In Business, the foreign investment agency of the Amsterdam metropolitan area.

Many hope that Amsterdam will regain some of its 17th-century glory, when it was the world’s leading financial hub

For most firms moving from London, relocating is all about minimising damage rather than gaining an advantage; moving to a city where the infrastructure is already there is a no-brainer. “Amsterdam already had a very good financial ecosystem, so we didn’t need to build anything from scratch,” says Michiel Bakhuizen, a spokesperson for Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency, an organisation responsible for attracting foreign businesses to the country.

The city is conveniently located close to other European financial hubs and frequent flights are available from Schiphol Airport to all places that matter in European tech and finance. Amsterdam is also home to Amsterdam Internet Exchange, one of the world’s largest networks of digital traffic, while the Netherlands boasts Europe’s fastest average internet connection according to Opensignal, a mobile analytics company.

 

Gaining momentum
The Dutch capital is also making strides in other areas. This January, Amsterdam Euronext overtook London as Europe’s top share trading venue. Although temporary and largely symbolic, given London’s dominance of other markets, the shift has been hailed as “irreversible” by Stephane Boujnah, Euronext CEO, in an interview to AFP.

Amsterdam is also gaining ground in euro-denominated interest-rate swaps, a $135trn market, and in the first half of the year was trailing London as Europe’s top corporate listing venue, with the €3.2bn IPO of Polish parcel-locker firm InPost as the jewel in its crown. Many see the canal city as an emerging hub in niche but up-and-coming markets. In another blow to the City’s mojo, US-owned Intercontinental Exchange announced last February that it will move EU carbon trading from London to its Amsterdam-based ICE Index, the world’s biggest carbon trading exchange, due to the EU’s refusal to grant regulatory ‘equivalence’ to the UK’s financial rules.

Chicago-based Cboe Global Markets, one of the biggest exchange operators globally, will launch its equity derivatives trading hub in Amsterdam this September, while CME Group, a US-owned derivative exchange, has already shifted euro-denominated trading and clearing from London to Amsterdam.

Many banks are also increasing their foothold in the ‘Venice of the North.’ Natwest and RBS have moved some UK operations to Amsterdam, while non-European banks such as Australia’s CBA, US investment bank BlackRock and Japan’s Norinchukin and MUFG have picked Amsterdam as their EU base.

Despite these early successes, the Dutch are careful to shy away from triumphalism. “When we made an analysis from a company’s point of view back in 2016, we saw that Amsterdam was attractive for various financial services firms, but not all of them,” says Bakhuizen. With a cluster of trading platforms and payment companies already in the city, it was easy to attract more of the same. Beating other European financial hubs in some markets has proved more challenging. “We knew that Amsterdam wouldn’t be the place to be for investment banks, because the Netherlands has a banking bonus cap,” Bakhuizen explains, referring to a law capping bonuses to a maximum of 20 percent of salary.

A survey by the think tank New Financial found that of the 440 financial services firms that have moved jobs out of London, one out of three picked Dublin as their primary destination; Amsterdam attracted a tenth, although it’s catching up, while most investment banks opted for Frankfurt and Paris.

 

Smooth regulator
One advantage that makes Amsterdam stand out from its EU rivals is regulation. The dispute between the EU and the UK over equivalence has left many financial services firms in limbo. “The Dutch regulator, the Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM), has substantial experience in financial services and understands our space very well,” Tradeweb’s Bruni says. The AFM allows proprietary trading firms to trade directly with institutional investors without treating them as clients, a rare feature among EU regulators that cuts down red tape. “The Dutch regulator is strict, but also open-minded and much respected in Europe. So it’s not necessarily easier to get regulatory approval here, but if you do, you know that you will be taken seriously in Europe,” Cox from Amsterdam in Business says. Many fear that regulatory divergence between the EU and the UK will lead to fragmentation in European financial markets, with US and Asian markets picking up the spoils.

For Tradeweb, lack of equivalence means that EU-based banks cannot transact with their clients on its UK platforms, due to EU regulation. As a result, the company has seen trading activity shift to US venues, most markedly in euro swaps. “We believe that even though equivalence would simplify things and reduce fragmentation in the market, it is probably not as much of a priority as it once was. Instead, we could see fractious trading become more prevalent in the future,” Bruni says.

 

SPACs, the new battlefield
The Dutch capital is gaining momentum in an up-and-coming niche market: special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), which use money raised from investors to acquire promising start-ups and help them go public. Although the market has slowed down after an unprecedented boom in the US in 2020 and early 2021, it is gathering pace in Europe. In the first half of the year, Amsterdam’s Euronext exchange was the leading European venue for SPAC listings.

It is already the go-to listing platform for European SPACs supported by famous sponsors, a crucial element for SPACs relying on the reputation of their backers to attract investor interest. Big shot sponsors like Bernard Arnault, CEO of the world’s biggest luxury group, and Ian Osborne, a prominent tech investor, have chosen Euronext to list their SPACs.

Many European countries are considering regulatory reforms to attract SPACs. The UK Financial Conduct Authority may loosen current regulatory restrictions, such as the suspension of share trading once a proposed acquisition has been announced. However, the Dutch regulatory framework is perceived as being closer to the US one, with hardly any SPAC-specific restrictions in place. “They are competitive from a regulatory point of view. It’s fast, easy and flexible to list there. Plus, Euronext is an integrated market – it’s part of the EU’s Capital Markets Union with connections to other European markets, which is not the case with London,” says Daniele D’Alvia, CEO of SPACs Consultancy, a London-based consulting firm, and author of a forthcoming book on SPACs.

With finance entering a new era due to the rise of disrupting technologies such as the blockchain and AI, many hope that Amsterdam will regain some of its 17th-century glory, when it was the world’s leading financial hub, before a series of economic crises and wars allowed London to gain the upper hand; the Dutch capital is home to the world’s first official stock exchange, as well as the first public listed company (the Dutch East India Company).

However, the Dutch don’t rush to celebrate, nor do they overestimate the benefits of Brexit. “For us, it’s a pity that Brexit is happening. We have never been in favour of it. We think we can be stronger working with the UK, rather than competing with them,” Cox says. “A lot of companies move operations to Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Dublin, but never leave London completely,” Bakhuizen says. “They diversify their strategy to be close to the markets where they operate. It’s a global game now.”

NFTs: A new market for digital brushstrokes

In the art world, rarity confers value. There is, and can only ever be, one Mona Lisa. This maxim is even more important to a replicable form such as photography, where a single set of negatives could produce a countless number of prints – the fewer authorised prints produced, the more each print is worth. It is an archetypal example of scarcity value.

But ubiquity also bestows its own form of value, and nowhere is this more evident than on the internet. Views are a commodity that can be bought and sold. Sharing is paramount.

More people with a meme saved on their phone gives it more cultural – and, now, financial – power (see Fig 1). At the heart of this commodification is the latest craze in cryptocurrency: the NFT. NFT stands for non-fungible token, meaning each unit is not interchangeable. While cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin function through every token being completely interchangeable, NFTs are specifically unique. If you swap a five-pound note for another, your asset remains unchanged. If the Louvre swaps the Mona Lisa for another painting of equal value, their asset will be entirely different. This is why NFTs are innovating markets that require items to be unique and authentic, such as collectibles and art.

NFTs convert assets into tokens stored on a cryptocurrency blockchain that prove the authenticity of that digital item. A blockchain – a database of linked records, or blocks, which grows with new data – depends on cryptography, the technique used to protect the privacy of a message by encoding it into a form that is only understood by the intended recipient using public and private keys. The private key of the recipient acts like a digital signature. For NFTs, the creator’s public crypto key acts as a certificate of authenticity, and the buyer’s private crypto key as proof of ownership.

Any digital artwork that is sold as an NFT remains copyable. The difference in value is accounted for in terms of authenticity. Compare a poster of the Mona Lisa to Da Vinci’s painting: the former can be purchased for pennies while the latter is worth around $1bn, despite bearing an identical image. While, on the internet, anything and everything is in abundance, NFTs create scarcity.

 

A brief history
The term NFT can be traced back to Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, the whitepaper on blockchain and distributed ledgers published in 2008 under the name Satoshi Nakamoto.

It is widely argued that the first NFTs were ‘coloured coins,’ tokens made of small denominations of Bitcoin that were used in the early 2010s to represent assets such as company shares, property, and, in some cases, digital collectibles. However, they required all participants to agree on their worth.

In 2014, decentralised exchanges that allowed asset creation were built on top of the Bitcoin blockchain and network. Counterparty was the dominant platform in this area until 2017, when it was superseded by Ethereum, now the most actively used blockchain, whose cryptocurrency, Ether (ETH), is second only to Bitcoin. Ethereum developed an interface that tracks ownership and movement of individual tokens on the blockchain, a key innovation in the formation of a functioning NFT market.

One of the earliest markets that utilised the blockchain was trading card games, followed by other quirky NFT exchanges, including meme marketplaces and 2017’s Cryptokitties, a still thriving virtual game where cartoon cats are adopted, bred and traded, based on the premise of value in rarity. 2017 also saw the birth of Cryptopunks, 10,000 unique algorithm-generated cartoon characters that were given away on the Ethereum blockchain. The name is a reference to Cypherpunks, who experimented with precursors to Bitcoin in the 1990s – as the name suggests, the simple visuals reference the early days of the internet. Cryptopunks are still being traded today, and NFT antiques have also enjoyed an increase in value, with some being sold for over $1m in this year’s NFT boom. But it is the digital art market that has driven the phenomenal rise in NFTs’ value.

 

A breakthrough year
The first quarter of 2021 has been the NFT gold rush. The average sale price of an NFT in January 2020 was $30; in a year, that figure skyrocketed, to $195 in January 2021. By the middle of February, the average NFT cost $4,000. NFT history was made in March, when Everydays became the first purely digital work of art to be sold by a major auction house. The piece, by digital artist Beeple, AKA Mike Winkelmann, is a collage of works he created for a project in which he posted a new digital artwork every day. It sold as an NFT for $69m. As of April, there was a 60–70 percent drop in average price since February, from $4,000-plus to around $1,500. However, stability of prices is a good sign for longevity, as it suggests that the NFT market is far from a bubble about to burst.

The decrease could be attributed to fewer outlying sales, such as Beeple’s Everydays, which drive up the overall average. Trading volumes have continued to rise: in one week in February, the volume of NFT trades doubled, from 20,000 a week to 40,000 a week, and, according to data platform NonFungible.com, there were as many as 80,000 weekly NFT transactions in March. While speculators use the ‘hype cycle’ to predict the future value of the NFT market – which, at the end of Q1, was worth around $250m – its popularity is driving NFT art and alternative applications of cryptocurrency technology towards the mainstream.

 

The NFT footprint
Financially, NFTs are a step towards a decentralised economy, as they work through peer-to-peer transactions. ‘Smart contracts’ written into NFT code mean that the terms of the agreement between the buyer and seller are self-executing, eliminating the need for a third party. The structure of the blockchain makes transactions irreversible. Smart contracts have been innovative regarding artist fees in NFT art spaces, automating an artist commission every time the piece is sold. Experiments with smart contracts are revolutionising ideas of ownership: a project called Terra0 made a forest in Germany an autonomous economic unit, unmanaged by human beings.

This is a bold ecological statement, considering the damaging environmental impact of the blockchain. ‘Mining’ – auditing of the blockchain carried out by highly sophisticated computers through solving complex maths puzzles – requires an abundance of electricity. In fact, each NFT transaction on Ethereum consumes the equivalent daily energy used by two US households.

Developers are working towards building a less computationally intensive design. Some, such as Ethereum co-founder Charles Hoskinson’s platform Cardano, use a ‘proof of stake’ mechanism as a more energy-efficient alternative to the ‘proof of work’ system currently used by most major blockchains to validate transactions and mine new tokens. While Ethereum is currently transitioning from proof of work to a proof of stake mechanism, a first in the cryptocurrency sector, a similar move is currently untenable for Bitcoin.

Until Ethereum’s migration is successful, the most sustainable option for proof of work blockchains is to fuel their computers using renewable energy. The use of sidechains – a separate but attached addition to a parent blockchain – is also a less energy-intensive development.

 

The future of art
Where NFT art is concerned, investors and collectors will follow digital artists to platforms where they decide to sell – and many artists are opting for ‘green’ NFTs, using platforms such as Hic et Nunc, an infrastructure built on the proof of stake Tezos blockchain. Peer-to-peer platforms make it easier for artists to be in contact with collectors, but that comes with its own challenges. While the NFT is largely a financial innovation, it is now a combination of speculators, investors and collectors who are buying NFT art and other collectibles. “At first, the cryptocurrency hoarders were trying to diversify their portfolios, and most of them didn’t collect art,” Fanny Lakoubay, a crypto-art advisor and collector, told World Finance.

Now, though headlines focus on memes and astronomically high outlying sales, a serious digital fine art market is developing.

While, financially, the blockchain drives towards decentralisation, it remains to be seen whether this model works for the fine art industry, where third parties such as galleries and auction houses play an important role in curation, sales, and maintaining the fine line between an artist’s accessibility and exclusivity.

Though headlines focus on memes and astronomically high outlying sales, a serious digital fine art market is developing

Sales platforms for NFT art remain tech-dominated, though online galleries such as the Digital Art Museum and the Museum of Contemporary Digital Art are chronicling digital fine art as a cultural, not just financial, asset. In fact, artists are using NFT art itself to explain and explore blockchain technology, such as Primavera De Filippi’s sculpture Plantoid, a series of plant-like metal sculptures that each have an attached cryptocurrency wallet.

Viewers are invited to send cryptocurrency to the wallet of any sculpture they like; when a certain amount is reached, software automatically commissions another artist to create a new sculpture with its own digital wallet, and so on. De Filippi, who researches the legal implications of smart contracts at Harvard University, has not only integrated cryptocurrency into her piece, but used it to demonstrate how blockchains work. “It’s pushing the boundaries of what digital art can be,” Lakoubay says. “Not just a JPEG attached to a certificate of authenticity on the blockchain.”

Artificially intelligent

In their current form, it seems that machine learning algorithms excel at certain kinds of problems, but do less well at others. It is one thing to comb through countless strategies to produce a winning move in chess or Go; another, it seems, to nail the perfect movie recommendation (an early adopter of machine learning of course being Netflix).

In finance, machine learning has been used since the late 1980s by hedge funds. One popular machine learning approach is to look at investor sentiment, as measured by things like hashtags on Twitter. The limitations of such approaches are shown by the fact that the Eurekahedge AI Hedge Fund Index, which tracks the returns of 13 hedge funds using machine learning, has had an average annual return for the past five years of 5.5 percent, as compared to 12.5 percent for the S&P 500.

In healthcare, where data analytics is playing an increasingly important role, machine learning algorithms also tend to be frustrated by the noisy nature of the data, to the point where there are few rigorous studies that can prove superiority over expert-based methods.

The problem of bias in other areas such as recruitment is well documented. Amazon had to terminate one program because it consistently recommended hiring males, presumably because the other people to have been hired were also mostly male.

Superintelligence
In general, it seems that computers are highly efficient at finding patterns in anything from CVs to hospital visiting time data, but are less good at assessing whether they are relevant or meaningful. Machine learning algorithms therefore do well at analysing closed games with well-defined rules, such as chess, but must be used with care when it comes to complex

real-world problems. On the other hand, humans aren’t perfect either – so perhaps the solution is to combine the two.
According to the philosopher Nick Bostrom, who is head of Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute, such a merger of human and machine can lead to what he calls a ‘superintelligence’ that can outperform either humans or machines acting alone. The problem is how to correctly integrate humans and machines to work together in synergy.

A merger of human and machine can lead to a ‘superintelligence’ that can outperform either humans or machines acting alone

One example of such a project is the MSI Brain system of Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance, which their CEO, Shinichiro Funabiki, described for World Finance as “a fusion of human and artificial intelligence, combining customer relationship management with sales force automation. The agent is able to uncover the customer’s potential needs through analysis of massive amounts of data, with MSI Brain then suggesting what insurance products to propose and in what way.” The aim is to “create a sustainable system in which AI and people grow together.”

Such hybrid systems may even play a role in geopolitics. As former NORAD chief Terrance O’Shaughnessy wrote of the artificial intelligence program known as Strategic Homeland Integrated Ecosystem for Layered Defense (SHIELD), it “pools this data and fuses it into a common operational picture. Then, using the latest advances in machine learning and data analysis, it scans the data for patterns that are not visible to human eyes, helping decision-makers understand adversary potential courses of action before they are executed.” One question of course is how computers themselves will evolve, particularly if and when quantum computers see widespread application. Many of the companies that currently lead in big data, such as Google and Amazon, along with governments and state-led consortia, are investing billions in the development of such computers.

Quantum chimera
As political scientists James Der Derian and Alexander Wendt note, there is “a growing recognition – in some quarters an apprehension – as quantum artificial intelligence labs are set up by tech giants as well as by aspiring and existing superpowers that quantum consciousness will soon cease to be a merely human question. When consciousness becomes a chimera of the human and the artificial, not only new scientific but new philosophical and spiritual cosmologies of a quantum bent might well be needed if we are to be ‘at home in the universe’.” A trope often explored in sci-fi movies, such as The Terminator when Cyberdyne Systems created Skynet, may not now seem so far-fetched – computers may really start to think for themselves.

Or even host life. Bostrom is perhaps best-known for his simulation hypothesis, which states that since computers in the future could one day produce consciousness, “we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones.” The hypothesis is taken seriously by people including Elon Musk, who probably uses it to justify the Tesla share price. Personally, I hold out hope that we are not just apps on some future teenager’s phone. However, it seems likely that the boundary between humans and machines will continue to evolve in fascinating ways.

Big Oil faces big transition

In a period that has seen record lows and highs for gas, negative oil prices, more wells being abandoned than ever before, and drilling programmes slashed, the general consensus is that Big Oil is in trouble. Also, the industry faces pressure on all sides as the momentum turns against fossil fuels because of the looming threat of global warming. “If the world acts decisively, the scale of change will revolutionise the energy industry,” predicts international consultancy Wood Mackenzie in a landmark study released in April 2021 that foresees an “upending of oil and gas markets” as demand for oil shrinks and prices progressively collapse. As fossil fuels lose dominance in the energy mix, the oil giants are expected to lose their long-held power. “The steep fall in demand will prevent these key oil producers from managing the market and supporting prices in the way they do today,” Wood Mackenzie forecasts. “Only the lowest-cost producers such as the Middle East members of OPEC will remain core providers of oil.”

 

Preparing for a revolution
In this scenario Big Oil has 30 years – at the most – to prepare for this new era. That is the broad consensus of the latest reports into an industry that has kept the lights on for the best part of a century and powered nearly all of the world’s transportation. Demand for oil is expected to begin a long decline as soon as 2023, according to some forecasts. By 2030, the price per barrel could fall from today’s $60–70 on the Brent index to an average of $40 by 2030 and as low as $10 by 2050.

The vast refining industry is certain to suffer. “The scenario is grim for the downstream sector,” predicts Wood Mackenzie’s vice-president of refining and chemicals, Alan Gelder, who expects that all but the most efficient refineries will be shuttered. “The refining sector will have withered to a third of its current capacity,” he says. The challenge is how to slash fossil fuel-triggered emissions without running out of energy before renewables can take up the slack.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency in the US, the level of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in America, one of the world’s biggest users of energy per capita, fell by 1.7 percent between 2018 and 2019. And since 2005 they have plummeted by nearly 11.6 percent, largely because of increased use of ‘greener’ natural gas. “This is noteworthy progress and supports the larger point that natural gas is critically important in addressing the risks of climate change,” approved the EPA in early 2021.

 

Turning a blind eye
But is Big Oil ready for the revolution? Not according to Wood Mackenzie, which says “no oil company is prepared for the scale of change envisioned.” In the consultant’s scenario, “all companies face a decline with asset impairments and bankruptcy or restructuring on a scale far greater than that of 2020.”

Also, many countries have their heads in the sand, especially in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia, where entire nations rely on revenues from fossil fuels. According to a joint analysis by the OECD and International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2019 governments pumped over half a trillion dollars into subsidising the fossil-fuel industry. “The data show a 38 percent rise in direct and indirect support for the production of fossil fuels across 44 advanced and emerging economies,” the study noted. The findings provoked a scolding from OECD secretary-general Ángel Gurría, who criticised “an inefficient use of public money that serves to worsen greenhouse emissions and air pollution.”

However, some oil giants have seen the light. “After 112 years, we are pivoting from being an international oil company to an integrated energy company,” explained BP chief executive Bernard Looney in April. “We plan to be very different by 2030, reducing our oil and gas production by 40 percent and raising our low carbon investment 10-fold.”

Demand for oil is expected to begin a long decline as soon as 2023, according to some forecasts

Royal Dutch Shell has also recognised the dangers. In mid-April, chief executive Ben van Beurden took the unprecedented step of asking shareholders to approve a strategy that has set a target of net-zero emissions by 2050, in line with the Paris Accord. “We are asking our shareholders to vote for an energy transition strategy that is designed to bring our energy products, our services, and our investments in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement and the global drive to combat climate change.”

In concrete terms, Shell will embrace biofuels, electric charging stations, hydrogen and other renewable forms of power as well as the coming technology of carbon capture and storage (CCS). In the interim period though, Shell has no intention of axing its vast oil and gas operations which are fundamental to the current energy mix. “Ending our activities in oil and gas too early when they are vital to meeting today’s energy demands would not help our customers or our shareholders,” the chief executive warned in a 32-page explanation of the energy transition.

 

The switch to green
During the transition period to a mainly renewably powered future, low cost ‘green’ gas will become king as it steadily replaces coal and oil. According to the IEA, liquefied natural gas (LNG) will play an essential role in lowering global CO2 emissions. “In the generation of electricity, gas emits 50 percent less CO2 than coal,” points out US source RealClear Energy.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration has set America on an unstoppable course of clean energy, completely reversing the previous president’s policy of supporting Big Oil. Until Democrats took control of the White House, the trade body, American Petroleum Institute (API), was an unabashed supporter of Trump and fossil fuels in general, to the point of deriding renewables. The French giant Total, which has also set itself on a renewables course, resigned in disgust from the institute in January, while BP and Shell among others say the only reason they haven’t quit is because they believe they can reform it from within.

Lately though, the API may be acquiring religion. In March 2021, the institute issued a blueprint for the future that cited the importance of “tackling the climate challenge.” And president Mike Sommers, who spent much of 2020 praising president Trump’s anti-renewables policy, now sees Big Oil taking a lead in developing the technology necessary to achieve the great transition. “There’s nobody better equipped to drive further progress than the people who solve some of the world’s toughest energy problems every day,” he said.

 

Part of the solution
The API’s new tune could be put down to mounting evidence of climate change in the US. According to the US Drought Monitor, cited by Energy Bulletin, 2020 was the worst year for droughts in more than 20 years, with vast areas seeing little or no rain.

Big Oil could also play an important role in the transition. Blessed with much deeper pockets than most of the renewables companies, the industry has the financial firepower to change direction. Some of the oil giants are already leaders in the important but extremely costly technology of carbon capture that essentially traps the carbon dioxide that is produced by burning fossil fuels and isolates it from the atmosphere before, in some instances, reusing it. The US alone boasts 12 commercial-scale facilities that collectively handle about 25 million metric tonnes of CO2 a year.

In a highly volatile industry where abrupt fluctuations in fortunes mask long-term trends (see Fig 1), the tea leaves can be hard to read. In early April for instance, the price of a barrel of oil hit $66.09, up a promising 30 percent since the start of 2021. Yet most experts predict a steady retreat over the long-term. And herein lies an opportunity, according to the IEA’s executive director Dr. Fatih Birol. “Today’s low fossil fuel prices offer countries a golden opportunity to phase out consumption subsidies,” he said.

But will they take the opportunity? In its latest meeting, energy cartel OPEC shocked markets by tightening the taps to keep oil scarce and push up prices. As a result, in what may be one of the last flurries for oil, the Brent price approached $70 and some analysts forecast it could hit $100 or higher in 2022.

On one issue though, nobody is divided. Namely, demand for oil and especially gas will increase for a few years yet. “Fossil fuels are still seen as growing at least through the 2030s, even as renewables usage rises in popularity and affordability,” predicts Energy Bulletin published by America’s Post-Carbon Institute.

But the next 10–30 years will see the end of Big Oil as we know it, according to most forecasters. Citing an unlimited supply of sun, wind and water, they say that over the long term renewable energy will usher in an era of cheap electricity with the use of infinite and low-cost resources.

Backing up that claim, numerous research institutions such as America’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Bloomberg New Energy Finance and International Energy Agency are in no doubt that the capital costs of solar and wind will continue to decline well into the future. The writing really is on the wall.

Lira depreciation leaves Turkish banks vulnerable

When Naci Ağbal, head of the Turkish central bank, hiked interest rates on March 18, markets responded with kindness. The value of the Turkish lira shot up by four percent. Within just four months in office, Ağbal managed to put out the fires surrounding the fragile Turkish economy. During his tenure, the lira rallied 24 percent from its lowest point this year. It was an unexpected triumph, but it did little to satisfy his boss, the President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

True to form, Erdoğan dismissed Ağbal with a terse announcement on the evening of March 19. According to the Turkish press, the decision found Ağbal working late in his office on a Friday evening that would be his last at the helm of the bank.

 

Another one bites the dust
For those closely following Turkish affairs, the decision was anything but surprising. “After the appointment of Ağbal as central bank governor, we put out a comment that even though he had a sterling reputation, one shouldn’t get overoptimistic about what could occur under him because, at the end of the day, his supervisor remained President Erdoğan,” says Dennis Shen, an analyst at Scope Ratings, a credit rating agency. Erdoğan’s preference for low interest rates has befuddled economists in and out of Turkey, and Ağbal’s decision to increase the rate allegedly played a role in his premature departure. However, the Turkish President’s motives, Shen says, are more political rather than economic in nature: “In his view, low interest rates support economic growth, and he’s down in the polls, so he’s liable to lose the election in 2023 or before. He feels that he needs higher growth through low rates to improve his likelihood of staying in power.”

Ağbal’s successor, Şahap Kavcıoğlu, is a former lawmaker for the ruling AKP party. Although he has pledged to keep monetary policy tight, he has previously embraced the unorthodox view of President Erdoğan that high interest rates cause inflation. But his economic beliefs do not matter as much as his willingness to go along with his boss, says Shen: “If he does not cut interest rates at the rate the president wants, he’s liable to be dismissed. Erdoğan appears to be getting impatient with his central bank governors faster these days.” The result, according to Ibrahim Turhan, former chairman of Istanbul Stock Exchange (currently part of Borsa Istanbul, the country’s main exchange), is that global markets are losing patience with Turkey’s institutions. “Central Bank independence is a very valuable political asset, which diminishes the cost of monetary policy. The groundless obsession of the government with the central bank and interest rates has had a high cost to the Turkish economy.”

 

 

Let the debt pile on
At first glance, Turkey’s fundamentals look bright. The country’s public debt stood close to 40 percent in 2020 (see Fig 1), a relatively low rate among G20 economies that allowed debt to grow precipitously during the pandemic, while growth hit 1.8 percent, a rare success story among OECD countries. Exports have also rebounded in 2021, despite disrupted global supply chains and paused tourism.

However, the vultures flying over the Turkish economy set their sights on a very different target: the country’s fragile banking sector. Although Turkish banks are well capitalised, they rely on short-term loans from the global syndicated loan market to stay afloat. So far, they have been able to kick the can down the road due to an idiosyncrasy of the Turkish financial system: unusually high dollar deposits, held by corporations and ordinary citizens who convert their savings into dollars to hedge against lira volatility. Turkey’s diaspora in Europe also chips in, lured by high interest rates. Whenever interest rates go up, as in Ağbal’s parting – and fateful – shot, the system gains time, says Edward Al-Hussainy, senior interest rate and currency analyst at Columbia Threadneedle Investments. More capital comes from overseas, reducing domestic credit growth and operating as a stabilising force that helps the lira stay strong.

However, government intervention may have broken this idiosyncratic but well-functioning system. Complying with Erdoğan’s desire to keep interest rates low, the central bank has dipped into the dollar reserves of commercial banks through forced ‘swap’ loans to support the lira. Between local elections held in 2019 and late 2020, the central bank and state-run banks are estimated to have spent reserves of around $128bn to prop up the currency. The controversial measure has caused a political earthquake, with the opposition turning the number into a symbol of the government’s financial mismanagement.

The policy has yet to bear fruit, with the lira edging towards a year low against the dollar in May. High inflation causes a vicious circle of growing demand for foreign currency that makes ‘de-dollarisation’ difficult without higher interest rates, according to Enver Erkan, Chief Economist at Tera Investment, an Istanbul-based private investment company. Inflation surpassed the 17 percent threshold in April, with a long-term target set at five percent by the central bank. Although Turkish banks do not face a liquidity crisis for the time being, Erkan says, an increase in Turkey’s credit default swap (CDS), which measures the level of sovereign default risk, may worsen their borrowing costs in the syndicate market. Lira depreciation is also making Turkish banks more vulnerable to the whims of the global markets, as their external debt liabilities up to mid-2022 are estimated at a staggering $89bn.

Some worry that trouble is just around the corner. “It’s a very fragile setup. At some point, someone will call the bluff and say the central bank is bankrupt and that the dollar deposits in the commercial banking system have been lent out and only exist on paper,” says Al-Hussainy. The end result, according to Al-Hussainy, will either be a bank run when local depositors find out that their dollars have been lent to the central bank, or an attack against the lira in the global markets that will lead to a currency crisis and possibly capital controls. “Both of those outcomes are pretty bad. It’s a system holding together, but only with duct tape and promises.”

For some analysts, capital controls are already there. “When foreign institutions are selling the lira, regulations are put into place to try to slow the selling down. That’s a form of capital controls,” says Shen. But many worry that the Turkish central bank is running out of options. “The central bank has borrowed more than the deposit base in the banking system. So functionally, the central bank of Turkey is bankrupt. The net asset position is negative in dollars,” says Al-Hussainy, adding: “You can print Turkish lira, but you cannot print dollars to solve that problem. The only way to solve that problem is by reducing the current account deficit. And the way you do that is by raising interest rates.”

 

Halkbank in the middle of the storm
Ironically, Turkey’s economic future may be decided on the other side of the Atlantic. The country’s relationship with the US has been strained recently over a series of issues, from Turkey’s military involvement in Syria and Libya to its purchase of Russian S-400 missiles – an anathema to its NATO allies – and the recognition of the Armenian genocide by President Biden last April.

Just as worrying is the forthcoming trial of Halkbank, a state-run Turkish bank currently investigated in the US over breaching sanctions against Iran. Although the bank has denied any wrongdoing, the trial, expected to begin later this year, casts a big shadow over the country’s fragile financial sector. Some think that a heavy penalty on the bank may be the final nail in the coffin of the Turkish economy, particularly if the government is forced to bail it out. However, the US authorities may be careful to avoid a crisis that may get out of control, says Al-Hussainy: “The US Treasury will be aware of the risk. The intent is not to isolate Halkbank from the rest of the global financial system and cause systemic financial crisis in Turkey.”

 

Crypto no more
As in other countries facing a combination of spiralling inflation, currency depreciation and capital controls, many Turks are turning to digital currencies. Last year, Turkey was the leading Middle Eastern market in terms of transaction volume in cryptocurrencies, according to a report by Chainalysis, a blockchain analysis company. Two of the country’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges collapsed this spring, leaving investors in limbo. The trend has worried the country’s regulators, who banned the use of cryptocurrencies as a means of payment last April, citing concerns over volatility and fraud. Although the share of deposits converted to digital currencies remains small, many believe that the real reason for the crackdown is that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, despite their own volatility, are used as a hedge against lira depreciation and rising inflation.

Two of the country’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges collapsed this spring, leaving investors in limbo

The government hopes that a bumper tourist season, rising exports and the rebound of the global economy will help Turkey weather the storm through a stronger lira. But for sceptics, such hopes may be at odds with reality. “Locals lose confidence in a currency, either because of the expectation that a currency will depreciate or because they think that the official value of the currency is artificial,” says Shen, adding: “In Turkey, we are not completely at that stage yet, because Erdoğan’s own reforms post-2003 included championing a flexible exchange rate.

But the lira is becoming less flexible, and the locals are beginning to lose confidence in the value of the currency because of government interference.” Some think that the roots of Turkey’s economic woes may lie in politics, rather than economics. “Compared to peer countries and given the country’s track record, Turkish assets are extremely undervalued and underweighted in investor portfolios. The main problem of the Turkish economy is governance,” says Turhan. “Should Turkey fix this problem, economic challenges could be easily settled.”

Using technology to tackle climate change

Global energy-related CO2 emissions are heading for their second-largest annual increase ever, according to the latest report released by the International Energy Agency (IEA), marking the need for leaders across the globe to do their part in reducing their country’s carbon footprint.

In response to the IEA’s report, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has announced radical new climate change commitments, to set the UK on course to reduce carbon emissions 78 percent by 2035. For this to be successful, existing infrastructure will have to be updated and will need to be able to withstand extreme conditions, due to the impact of climate change. Commercial real estate represents a major portion of the infrastructure industry in the UK. Studies have shown that 20 percent of emissions originate from buildings and nearly half of those come from heating, ventilation, as well as air conditioning (HVAC) systems.

The adoption of proven technology innovations would be a key factor in addressing this issue. Frank Sullivan, chief business development officer at BrainBox AI, a company specialising in building automation, said that by employing artificial intelligence-driven solutions, buildings, including their HVAC systems, can autonomously learn how to efficiently reduce system operation costs, and more importantly, lower emissions significantly. “The existential threat of climate change is not going to just fade into the background any time soon, no matter what else is going on in the world. Legislation can only do so much, clear and decisive action is needed now, and a helping hand from leading digital solutions can provide a needed assist,” Sullivan said. As the world struggles to emerge from the pandemic, there is a global imperative to build back stronger.

In the UK, the US and many other countries, significant infrastructure investment programmes are already being announced and emerging trends are accelerating fast, as a result of COVID-19. Derrick Sanyahumbi, CEO of business development organisation British Expertise International (BEI), said that climate change creates significant challenges to shift towards renewable and green energy in place of CO2, to decommission the legacy infrastructure that needs to be replaced so that we can build back greener and cleaner.

Turning challenges into opportunities
While these are challenges the industry has faced for many years, now there are emerging opportunities that should not be overlooked, and both are key as the UK establishes itself as an independent trading nation post-Brexit.

“In terms of enduring challenges, it remains a constant focus to navigate the complex world of UK and International Governments and their agencies, to find and build consortia, to build and maintain effective partnerships and to establish and secure funding, and compete successfully through the maze of procurement and the different requirements they set out,” Sanyahumbi said.

“In terms of emerging challenges, we see a broadening of the term ‘infrastructure’ – with issues like digital and technology connectivity and cybersecurity rising rapidly in importance. We also see a growing focus on a real understanding and practical application of diversity and inclusion as well as safeguarding, and of course, the biggest challenge – and opportunity – lies in the global climate change agenda and the work towards carbon net zero,” Sanyahumbi added.

Further, he revealed that one of the biggest challenges that the UK is facing is that relatively few UK SMEs use exports as a means of growth. “It has been proven that companies that export are more resilient and productive so the challenge we face at BEI is to support companies of all sizes in their pursuit of overseas business development. However, more needs to be done to help countries develop robust business cases and so attract much of the available finance, especially in the ‘green’ space,” he said.

Likewise, Miriam Tuerk, co-founder and CEO of Clear Blue Technologies, a Canadian solar energy equipment supplier, said that predictive technology can be utilised to improve infrastructure resiliency. “Having an advanced warning about the weather and energy generation forecasting allows for reliable high-quality energy delivery from an off-grid system. This forecasting, paired with predictive data analytics based on vast amounts of operating data, will help in anticipating future problems for the maintenance and management of the systems, or even resolve them before they become an issue,” she said.

Also, Tuerk highlighted that as the world continues to change, the infrastructure industry must change along with it and it is going to be up to investors to show the industry that these solutions are viable alternatives by investing in them, to best operate in a world that is attempting to both mitigate and manage the severe effects of climate change.

Who wants to be a trillionaire?

It wasn’t so long ago that a billionaire was considered to be unimaginably rich. But as new industries emerge in the digital age, billionaires have become almost two a penny and bets are being made on when we will see the first trillionaire. The individual will probably be male, American and somebody already among the top 10 wealthiest people in the world. And, according to venture capital billionaire Chamath Palihapitiya, he may emerge from a highly virtuous industry. “The world’s richest person should be somebody that’s fixing or fighting climate change,” he told CNBC in an interview.

Working from the latest Forbes list of the world’s billionaires, as of May 2021 the front runners look like being Amazon founder Jeff Bezos with $177bn, Tesla and SpaceX’s Elon Musk with $151bn and French fashion king Bernard Arnault and family with $150bn. Not far behind are Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates with $124bn, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg on $97bn and Chinese business magnate and philanthropist Jack Ma, co-founder of the Alibaba group, on over $51bn, who leads an Asian charge of the super-rich.

Constantly increasing in size
The wealth of these modern-day Midases fluctuates on a daily basis according to share market movements, but it steadily increases in the medium and long term. For instance, in just one trading day during April 2021, the net worth of Musk shot up by $7.8bn when Tesla’s stock rose by 4.7 percent. On the other hand the wealth of the Arnault family slumped by $87m when the shares fell by just 0.145 percent. However, the net worth of these individuals has soared over the years.

For instance, the wealth of the Arnault family has more than quadrupled since 2012, quite enough for parent company LVMH to buy Tiffany & Co for $15.8bn in January 2021. There is no obvious reason why the wealth of today’s behemoth billionaires should not continue to increase at comparable rates. Barring some kind of natural catastrophe that wipes out entire economies, Bezos could get to the trillion mark first, according to a study by American researcher Comparisun, while Zuckerberg could make it by the age of 51. Incidentally, the valuation of Amazon the public company is already approaching the $2trn mark. “Of the 25 individuals we analysed,” reports Comparisun, “only 11 realistically have a chance of becoming a trillionaire during their lifetime, based on their recent rate of wealth growth.” Adding weight to the research, this study was conducted before an astonishing post-pandemic rebound in the share markets, notably in the US, that has already created more billionaires and turbo-boosted the net worth of those at the top of the rich list.

In the first quarter of 2021 the big technology stocks, for instance, bounced back with a vengeance and are expected to keep on growing, according to most analysts, as they capitalise on pandemic-induced behavioural shifts. According to data interpreted by finance markets analyst Finbold, the market value of the top 500 US public companies soared by $1.99trn in the first quarter of 2021, rising from $33.38trn to $35.38trn. More importantly, since 2015 the value of these companies has grown by 88.47 percent, up from $18.77trn. Inevitably the wealth of the major shareholders, the super-rich, has increased simultaneously.

The new generation
Also, a whole new generation of billionaires is emerging, like Whitney Wolfe Herd, the 31-year-old co-founder of online dating group Bumble. In February 2021 Herd became the world’s youngest self-made female billionaire, with $1.3bn.

Globally, no fewer than 87 women became billionaires for the first time, bringing the total number of female billionaires to 328 spread across a wide range of industries. They are led by 67-year-old Françoise Bettencourt Meyers and her family, 33 percent owner of L’Oréal, whose net worth increased by $24.7bn to $73.6bn, largely because of the rebound in the stock. Collectively, the world’s female billionaires added more than $570bn to their wealth, bringing their combined net worth to $1.53trn.

Another huge beneficiary of the pandemic was 71-year-old Alice Walton of Walmart fame, who increased her net worth by $7.4bn, bringing it to nearly $62bn. The boost happened mainly because the retailing giant’s stock rose more than five percent as the stores posted a 69 percent increase in online sales in yet another demonstration of the power of the digital economy. Overall, e-commerce gathered momentum during the pandemic. Amazon, for example, hired an extra 175,000 staff to cope with demand for online sales while revenues shot to record highs.

The next crop of super wealthy is expected to come from the many industries that rely critically on artificial intelligence, big data and other next-generation tools. According to US investment site RealWealth, the winners will include biotechnology, online healthcare, online education and meeting platforms. Bezos and Musk, however, are both investing heavily in commercial rocketry.

There are still plenty of old-economy billionaires like India’s Mukesh Ambani, who has built up a net worth of more than $84bn through Reliance Industries, which is involved in petrochemicals and retail while having a foot in the telecoms door with a 4G phone service called Jio. But the evidence would seem to show that the path to trillionaire-hood lies in the digital economy.

Combatting fraud with online security

Online banking is seen by many as the new and preferred way to bank and a potential replacement for physical banking structures around the globe. Not only is it sought after by technology-driven customers, but it is also an effective solution for banks to overcome present and future technological challenges. Moving to digital implies a significant cut in infrastructure and operational costs, allowing banks to reduce costs in payment processes, maximise resources and offer customer support 24/7.

Recently, HSBC UK has launched Kinetic, a banking app for small businesses to help them stay on top of their finances, enabling business owners to apply for an account in the app. Once approved, customers can order a debit card and manage their business payments through the app. The future of banking as a whole is online and digital, and the new players across financial services are almost universally establishing themselves as digital businesses.

However, while digitisation is enabling speedy, seamless and transparent transactions, with the deployment of new technologies new fraud risks emerge (see Fig 1).

Trade association UK Finance revealed that in 2020 Authorised Push Payment (APP) fraud losses amounted to £479m, up five percent compared to 2019. Banks and other financial providers returned £206.9m of the losses from APP fraud to victims, over three quarters more than the sum returned in 2019. As a result, UK Finance called for new legislation to make online platforms responsible for taking down fraudulent content and protect consumers from scams. A spokesperson from Barclays revealed that the British bank invested millions of pounds into multi-layered security systems to ensure that its online banking and app are secure. Also, as part of the bank’s work to protect customers, Barclays offers its clients information and tools to spot and stop fraud and scams, including TV advertising, its dedicated ‘Digisafe’ website and its ‘Digital Eagle’ online safety virtual sessions.

Mark Jenkinson, founder and COO of the UK-based digital financial services company Chetwood Financial, said that every interaction the company has with customers and applicants is digital, from applying for products to servicing them once opened and getting ad-hoc support. As such, Chetwood uses a wide range of tools to verify identities, guard against impersonation, and secure access to services.

 

Safety first approach
Barney Reynolds, Partner and Global Head of the Financial Services Industry Group at Shearman & Sterling, pointed out that while banks’ systems need to be audited for key checks, such as customer and seller identification and double-checking surprising transactions, customers also need to be careful of new purchasing techniques as technologies evolve. Reynolds suggested that the safest thing is to tell the public they should only rely on institutions that are listed on the FCA’s register.

Further, he revealed that the quicker the access through online apps, the more effort that banks need to put in to make their transactions safer. “Banks will have to find alternatives to make safety checks faster by using artificial intelligence to maintain market competitiveness. The most important thing is to find a balance: this will occur naturally as practices develop to catch up with consumers’ expectations. The most difficult period is the transition until those practices have developed,” he added.

Likewise, Carl Strempel, CFO and co-founder of Imburse, a cloud-based ‘payments as a service’ platform, said that online banking and new technologies will be highly beneficial additions to the existing regulatory banking systems in the long run, especially if there are effective fraud prevention approaches available, including multi-factor authentication, geo-location, and data collection. “Banks are still the quickest, easiest way to pay and get paid. Enhancing datasets gives banks the possibility to track customer behaviour with their consent and analyse this data to both prevent online fraud and better understand customers’ needs,” Strempel added.

 

Unique opportunity presented
By automating manual processes and using advanced analytics, banks can not only ensure scalability and optimise operations but also achieve significant cost savings while preventing cyber fraud too, according to Amit Dua, president of banking technology company SunTec. Also, Dua said that in offering services beyond traditional banking products and creating ecosystem partnerships, banks may drive the adoption of subscription-based models, which can prove hugely cost-effective. “We believe banks have a unique opportunity to become customer experience orchestrators and technology can aid in creating ecosystems that provide value-based engagement and hyper-personalised services. This will not only help empower customers but also meet their short and long-term needs – which will, in turn, enable banks to build and retain their loyalty in a cost-effective, secure way,” he concluded.

The ESG moral compass

The global pandemic saw a lot of winners and losers in the world of business, but one industry that certainly benefitted from the effects of a global shutdown was home food delivery. A string of lockdowns lasting over a year made many of us connoisseurs of our local takeaways and, by proxy, the likes of Deliveroo and its nearest UK rival, Just Eat. When the former announced its initial public offering (IPO) on the UK stock market in March 2021, the company arguably could not have wished for better conditions.

After a year of almost constant lockdowns and with little or no access to the experience of eating out that so many of us missed, people turned to Deliveroo in their droves, causing the biggest upsurge in takeaway demand the industry had ever seen. At first glance, one would expect such perfect timing to result in a hugely successful IPO, with customers themselves being offered the option to buy shares in the company in advance of the general public, along with the usual investment giants. But the opposite was true.

Large UK pension funds such as Aviva and Legal & General shunned Deliveroo, in part because of the other reasons it grabs headlines – its treatment of the ubiquitous gig-economy riders that make up much of its workforce and its alleged lack of ethical working practices. Indeed, it is no coincidence that in the same month that the company sought to make its first public offering, a walkout was planned by hundreds of riders in London and beyond. Supported by the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain, the walkout cited the unfairness of workers’ terms and conditions and highlighted that, although the app brought convenience, ease and variety to its customers’ lives, the individuals working for the company were having a much tougher time.

 


PROFILE: TeslaElon Musk’s infamous battery car company Tesla makes a very small number of cars compared to enormous producers such as Ford, but investment in Tesla is a reflection not of the volume of vehicles it produces, but of confidence in the technology within those vehicles and the long-term potential that investors are seeking.

Of course, having had the electronic vehicle market mostly to itself in recent years, Tesla has had little competition and much greater potential for growth, but similarly to oil companies pivoting their offerings to renewables, traditional vehicle manufacturers like Ford are themselves pressing ahead with alternatives to gas-run cars.

Along with a reduction in reliance on fossil fuel will come a need for vehicles to also change the way they are fuelled. As a result, Tesla is a comparatively small electric car company but with a valuation greater than a lot of its older competitors in the industry.

A separate debate is whether the electricity grids available now and in the near future have enough power to charge a nation of electric cars, and there are concerns about whether EVs simply shift the emissions problem from the petrol pump to the power station, but the fact remains that investors seem to see that as less important than the more urgent need to invest away from non-renewable energy.

 

‘Moral’ investing
Deliveroo would appear to be a bellwether for a wider change taking place in the world of investing. Many major investment companies recognise this need for a different attitude, both for sustainability reasons as well as for profit. The term ESG stands for environmental, social and (corporate) governance, referring to the three main factors considered when assessing a company’s potential for sustainable investment in the long term and with it, its likelihood of turning a profit. Ethical investing is gaining in popularity, and ESG funds are now offered by numerous major pension funds and investment companies such as BlackRock, Hargreaves Lansdown and Aviva, offering the ability to invest while avoiding ethically ‘questionable’ areas such as big oil or arms trading, which are decreasing in popularity with everyday investors.

Investing in the stock market has never been simpler or more accessible to everyday investors

“Last year, I wrote that climate risk is investment risk,” says Larry Fink, CEO of Blackrock in his annual letter to CEOs. “In the past year, people have seen the mounting physical toll of climate change in fires, droughts, flooding and hurricanes. They have begun to see the direct financial impact as energy companies take billions in climate-related write-downs on stranded assets and regulators focus on climate risk in the global financial system. They are also increasingly focused on the significant economic opportunity that the transition will create, as well as how to execute it in a just and fair manner. No issue ranks higher than climate change on our clients’ lists of priorities. They ask us about it nearly every day.”

CEO of Blackrock, Larry Fink
CEO of Blackrock, Larry Fink

Sustainability pays
Not only are investors increasingly turning away from the old model of exploiting natural resources and the workers who produce them, but there is also significant money to be made by doing so, instead investing in more progressive industries and business models. Some funds aim to help investors take an ‘avoid’ strategy, which seeks to remove from a portfolio certain companies or industries that are associated with a higher ESG risk profile. This can work to broadly eliminate entire sectors or be tailored to the individual investor’s views and values; avoiding tobacco, weapons, or fossil fuels, for example. An alternative option is to use an ‘advance’ strategy: rather than working by process of elimination, this strategy instead seeks to specifically pursue or prioritise companies or sectors that are viewed as sustainable, progressive, and having a positive ESG profile, such as ‘green’ energy. BlackRock’s ESG strategy, like many of its peers, allows investors a range of options that fall within this spectrum.

There are very few large energy companies today that do not have a renewable offering

Given the increased demand for ethical investing, then, it is not surprising to see big players making a push to promote these sorts of funds (see Fig 1). Investing in the stock market has never been simpler or more accessible to everyday investors, and with the like of apps such as Mint coupled with a generation of people generally more morally ‘woke’ and financially literate than their parents before them, the public’s finger is on the pulse. More and more ESG-focused products are coming to market, and in some cases the uptake for these is greater than with traditional exchange traded funds or index tracker funds.

In the same year that veganism became a multibillion-dollar mainstream market and emissions from tourist travel plummeted, perhaps an increased emotional need to feel at ease with spending decisions has translated into the world of investing once and for all. The results are speaking for themselves: “Over the course of 2020, we have seen how purposeful companies, with better environmental, social, and governance profiles, have outperformed their peers,” Fink explains. “During 2020, 81 percent of a globally representative selection of sustainable indexes outperformed their parent benchmarks,” he added. If more people are newly investing in ESG trackers over conventional ones, and if those trackers of companies scoring highly on ESG then outperform the market overall, no wonder their popularity has exploded.

 

Relentless spending
Another effect of coronavirus has been to provide the chance to slow down and consider how – and with whom – we spend our money. Concurrent with the closing of shops and the slowing of industry was an opportunity to take stock and reflect on the relentless spending culture we live in, and the attendant environmental and social concerns that this raises. Who can forget the good news stories about the natural world beginning to recover so quickly, and the sharp reduction in carbon emissions recorded last year while millions of people stayed at home experiencing a day-to-day life very different from normal?

 


PROFILE: EquinorEquinor, the biggest oil company in Norway, was known as Statoil until 2018 when it underwent a multimillion-dollar rebranding project, reflecting its plan to diversify its offering and change as a company.

Reuters reported at the time that the company was determined to develop its investments in renewable energy, and today it declares its target to be net zero by 2050, while pushing ahead with its investment in Dogger Bank, which it says will be the world’s biggest wind farm, currently being built off the coast of the UK.

There are very few large energy companies today that do not have a renewable offering, and realistically there will be very few new oil companies in the coming years. It is for those existing ones to pivot their offering because the science shows that sooner or later, we will run out of oil and have no choice but to pursue alternative options.

It is for the new companies that are founded to have a different approach, not only to resources, but also to the way those resources are pursued.

 

 

 

In recovering from coronavirus and in securing an environmentally sustainable and profitable future, companies will need to adapt or suffer the consequences, whether that be for their social and human rights practices, environmental reasons, or simple reputation. The worldwide management consulting firm McKinsey & Company said in 2020 that “we can already start seeing how the pandemic may influence the pace and nature of climate action, and how climate action could accelerate the recovery by creating jobs, driving capital formation, and increasing economic resiliency.” Consider the following examples:

In word and deed
Deliveroo has been heavily impacted by the exodus of investors pre-IPO who said they were not interested at all, and several large UK pension funds said this was specifically due to its working practices and the likelihood of future litigation around the business that will impact its profitability long term. There are various court cases in different jurisdictions that are concerning for investors.

The problem with these is that they do not just impact the business in the short term with the result of bad PR and direct strike action affecting profits and business-as-usual. If there are court cases that are unresolved, that is a risk to the business long term, because if the decision in the court is that food delivery companies must start treating staff in a different way and paying them as salaried or pensioned workers, they are likely to be less profitable as a result.

Another issue is that of valuation. Deliveroo was originally priced at £3.90 a share and is trading much lower than that at the time of writing at around £2.53, so the company has seen a loss in share value since coming to market. If the same had been true of a different company with no ESG concerns, those same large investors may initially consider the pre-IPO valuation too high, but then choose to invest later as the result of an unforeseen price drop.

It is for the new companies that are founded to have a different approach not only to resources but also to the way those resources are pursued

This will not be the case for Deliveroo or other companies that give investors cause for concern; if a company’s value drops 30 percent because of a non-ESG issue, investors may well change their minds and then invest. But if an investment company says no due to ESG concerns, no fall in value will make that less true. Deliveroo’s shares could plummet to a bargain price but while the ESG concerns are the same, a large investor that has explicitly stated those concerns would have it reflect very badly on them if they subsequently invested anyway.

Environmentally, there are legitimate concerns about the volume of food and plastic waste that has been generated from a year of extra takeaways, not to mention the emissions from thousands of delivery workers transporting the orders. Deliveroo has acted on this aspect to some extent, publicising a carbon neutral project for its Australian operation at no cost to its customers, but only for two years, beyond which it has made no further commitment.

 


PROFILE: AirbnbAirbnb is a business that built a name for itself by democratising the world of travel accommodation.

From 2008, when it was founded, travellers were suddenly given options other than hotel rooms or hostels, and the direct platform was slick, easy to use, and apparently transparent.Not only that, it was cheap – customers liked Airbnb because they could access interesting homes and spaces without having to pay for hotel staff or overheads.

Soon enough however, private individuals with enough money behind them began to capitalise on the platform’s model and the app was slowly filled with properties bought solely for the purpose of being Airbnb rentals.

People were using it as a method of wealth creation and running it as a business, which, although not against the rules of the website by any means, is arguably not in the spirit of why Airbnb started.

Furthermore, Airbnb has been repeatedly criticised for having a model that dodges the sort of regulations governing hotels.

It is very easy to set up as a property investment business on the platform, with the result that local private residents have been priced out of their own neighbourhoods due to cheap apartments and homes being bought up, renovated, marketed solely as Airbnb properties, and never lived in as regular homes.

This results in a gentrification effect and the character of the area begins to fade.

Movements in Amsterdam, Barcelona, London and New York have sprung up in response to this and some cities have begun to regulate more stringently, meaning the company’s reputation has fallen out of favour. But the Airbnb platform remains as popular as ever with travellers seeking unique experiences in exciting locations, and its stock market success reflects this.

After an IPO in 2020 of $68 per share, Airbnb’s stock soared as high as $165, and at the time of writing is worth around $134.

 

Full circle
It goes without saying that investment companies need to preserve their own longevity over the decades to come. It is in everyone’s interest to pursue sustainable, ethical investing, for if the world’s investments do not pivot in line with the global need for sustainability and future-proofing industry, the fiduciaries themselves will not be immune to the consequences.

Just because household name investment companies and pension funds have ESG guidelines however, certainly does not mean they are not continuing to invest in oil companies, arms manufacturers, aerospace and other unsustainable markets while the getting is still good. In a recent report, Greenpeace highlighted that asset managers and banks globally continue to invest in fossil fuel production. “Since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015, the world’s largest 60 banks alone have provided $3.8trn to the fossil fuel industry,” says Daniel Jones of Greenpeace UK.

Individual financial institutions might be voluntarily dialling down investments in such areas long-term, but Jones’ view is that until the institutions themselves are held to the same emissions standards as other industries, meaningful change will be stymied in favour of greenwashing as they are allowed to continue self-regulating. Blackrock projects that the sort of companies that adhere to ESG requirements will outperform peers over time because they are doing business the ‘right way,’ and if they continue this in the long term, they will be better underlying investments.

As for what power individual consumers and businesses have over the future, there are various schools of thought. One is classic purchase power, and there are numerous grassroots movements and larger online campaigns for consuming ethically or locally and making conscientious decisions about where one’s money goes, not to mention growing wealth sustainably. Surely a significant change will come even sooner if larger numbers of people holding pensions in investment firms drive an ethos that places sustainability and ethical business practices at the top of the agenda. BlackRock’s CEO certainly seems to think so.

A Greenpeace ‘greenwashing’ protest at the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium
A Greenpeace ‘greenwashing’ protest at the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium

A turning tide
Perhaps we need to ask what exactly is turning the tide, if indeed it is turning at all. Deliveroo is not the only business to have been hit with a raft of accusations of shady working practices, poor treatment of workers, and taking advantage of the very individuals whose technical skills, networks, ingenuity, and plain old hard work helped them build big capital in the first place. Large energy companies may well shout about investing in renewables, but until we experience a global shift away from their reliance on fossil fuels, accusations of greenwashing would appear to be justified.

Companies now report on modern slavery, the gender pay gap, ethnicity of their workforce, and future-proofing their organisations; ESG is a wide-ranging term and there is a lot of data being collected and reported on. Depleting natural resources and exploiting the work of many to channel wealth upwards will not be tolerated by the public for much longer. It seems that increasingly, investment companies are scrutinising not only the bottom line when it comes to assessing the value and potential of a business, but also the way in which that bottom line is reached. In order to achieve stock market success, businesses of the future would do well to pay attention to the trend.

The power of branding

In May, Oatly made its market debut – and it didn’t disappoint. The now-iconic brand raised more than $1.43bn in the space of a day at its much talked-about IPO, reaching a valuation of more than $13bn thanks to an elevated share price of $22. Less than a decade ago, that would have been unimaginable. In 2013, net sales had totalled just 223,119 SEK ($27,000). Oatly was a niche milk replacement for the lactose intolerant, floating in the alternative aisles, limited by its Swedish print and largely unknown to the US market.

Roll on a few years, though, and the company recorded a turnover of $206m in 2019, reporting year-on-year sales growth of 88 percent, according to its sustainability report. So what changed? While an ever-growing trend towards dairy and meat alternatives has clearly played its part, many believe it’s Oatly’s incisive marketing strategy that has been the biggest catalyst. “For two decades, they were a pretty nondescript brand that resembled a Dutch multinational, far from the Oatly that we know today,” wrote Kim Ferguson, founder of the Brand Blog. “Everything changed when they hired Toni Petersson as their new CEO in 2012, who then hired John Schoolcraft to be Oatly’s new creative director.”

The pair put the emphasis on brand identity and changed tact by marketing Oatly as an eco-friendly alternative to dairy, commissioning a report to back up the claims. “What I soon realised was that although the brand was invisible, everything inside the pack was fantastic,” Schoolcraft said in an interview with the Challenger Project in 2016. “I then started working in stealth, so working with Toni on how we might turn this into what we called a lifestyle brand – not necessarily like a Red Bull or Nike, but a brand that would fit very naturally into people’s lives.”

The team set about redesigning the logo and packaging, devising a distinctive tone of voice (one that “flexes on the nonsensical,” in the words of Oatly’s creative and strategic director, Michael Lee, in an article for Marketing Week) and pushing the product in the US. That included approaching New York coffee shops to supply the drink as a dairy alternative.

It worked. Oatly is now sold in 25 countries across the world and is known for its bold, straight-talking approach, with advertising campaigns such as the controversial, UK-centric campaign, ‘Like milk but made for humans,’ creating buzz around a brand whose loyal following grows by the day. That’s living proof of the power of a solid marketing strategy – and it’s far from being the only incidence of a company transformed in part by its branding.

In this special report World Finance looks into five of the most prolific and memorable examples of companies whose financials have mushroomed on the back of a successful branding campaign – from Volkswagen’s iconic Beetle ads to Nike’s transcendent three-word slogan.

 

Nike: Just do it
Few brands are quite so iconic as Nike, whose ‘Just Do It’ slogan has been at the heart of the company since its 1988 campaign. The campaign, developed by ad agency Wieden + Kennedy, featured professional and amateur athletes sharing their achievements on a series of TV spots – including an 80-year-old marathoner runner who explained how he ran 17 miles every morning.

The brand drew again and again on the slogan so that it continues to resonate today

The words struck a chord with consumers across the globe, leading to others sharing their stories about how they ‘just did it’ – whether quitting a job, taking up exercise or making another major life change. It saw sales explode from $877m that year to more than $9.2bn worldwide a decade later, propelling the company to its current status as the world’s largest supplier of athletic apparel and footwear.
Importantly, it wasn’t just a one-off tagline. The brand drew again and again on the slogan so that it continues to resonate today, appealing to both athletes and mainstream consumers wanting to live out their dreams, and featuring across the company’s social media channels.

And for Davide Grasso, former VP of global brand marketing at Nike, it’s not just about catchy words. “We actually don’t believe in slogans,” he told Creative Review. “Instead, what we’ve found to be most effective is inviting people to join us in what we believe in and what we stand for. And what we stand for is to serve and honour athletes. I think that’s why ‘Just Do It’ has had such an impact over the last 20 years and continues to. It’s genuine and speaks to our core mission.”

It comes at a cost, though – Nike spent $3.59bn on advertising in 2020 alone. That compares to $2.56bn spent on marketing by closest rival Adidas – which has notoriously upped its ad spend to compete with Nike, getting the likes of Kanye West, Pharrell Williams and Beyonce on board in 2019 – and $1.05bn for Puma. But it’s clearly paid off; the company has a current market capitalisation of $215.6bn, with global revenues of $37.4bn in 2020, compared to $24.2bn for Adidas, and around $6.3bn for Puma. If there’s one company that can show the enduring power of successful branding, this is surely it.

 

 

Coca-cola: Share a coke
The world’s most distinctive fizzy drinks brand has long known how to market itself – from the 1931 Christmas ads that created Santa Claus as we know him today (a white-bearded grandad in a bright-red suit) to its sponsorship of the Fifa World Cup and associated ad campaigns.

But it’s the Share a Coke campaign that seems to have sparked the most traction. What began in Australia in 2011 with a series of bottles using the country’s 150 most popular names quickly spread to the rest of the world, spurring on a series of creative inventions in 70 countries – from nicknames on bottles in China to interactive signs greeting citizens on billboards in Israel.

Social was at the heart of the campaign right from the start, as sharing is a very social behaviour

It was in the US that it was the most successful, however, with 250 of the most popular names among teens and millennials printed on to the bottles in 2014 and a social media campaign that sparked conversation across the world. “To propel Coke sales, we needed to ignite the nation’s teens to share a Coke,” said Luis Mendoza, Connections Associate Director at Starcom Mediavest Group (which led the US campaign) in a report. “Social was at the heart of the campaign right from the start, as sharing is a very social behaviour. To make the Share a Coke movement really take off, we invented show-stopping ways for teens to participate.”

Experiences included interactive, human-sized Coke bottles displayed at bus shelters that people could take a picture of to share on social media, and a digital outdoor display in Times Square featuring the names of those who opted in via text.

Influencers got involved, and user-generated content took off; a video by a couple announcing they were becoming parents using ‘Mom’ and ‘Dad’ Coke cans went viral with four million YouTube views, 50 million impressions and media mentions in the likes of The Huffington Post, BuzzFeed and beyond. All of this caused brand engagement to soar, with 100,000 new followers on Coca-Cola’s Instagram page and an increase of 870 percent in traffic on its Facebook page. Sales rose too, with revenue and volume up 11 percent in the US compared to the previous year, and market share up 1.6 percent.

The US wasn’t the only market to record notable growth. In Australia, young adult consumption rose seven percent on the back of the campaign, and in the UK, retail sales climbed 2.9 percent year-on-year after it was introduced in 2013 – compared to 1.1 percent growth by rival Pepsi.

The campaign was so successful it was revived several years after; in 2016, ‘Share a Coke and a Song’ saw popular lyrics printed on bottles in the US, and in 2017, surnames were added to bottles – further building on the sense of personalisation, friendship and happiness that have long been at the core of the brand.

 

Dove: Real Beauty
When it was created in 2004, few could have predicted the power that Dove’s campaign for Real Beauty would have over the following two decades. This now eponymous campaign rose from a survey carried out by Unilever that revealed only two percent of women asked considered themselves ‘beautiful.’ Sixty-eight percent put that down to the fact media and advertising set “an unrealistic and unachievable standard of beauty” – so Dove, in partnership with Ogilvy & Mather, set about creating a campaign that would shine a light on ‘real’ women and turn the traditional standard of beauty on its head.

It began with a series of billboards in Canada, the US and the UK, where passers-by could vote from one of two tick-boxes next to images of real women with percentages on display (think ‘grey’ or ‘gorgeous’). It led 1.5 million visitors to the campaign website, raising Dove’s profile in the space of just a few weeks. A series of billboards showing ‘real’ women in their underwear followed, and in 2006 the brand brought out ‘Evolution’, a video ad showing a natural woman transformed by make-up and digital enhancements that quickly went viral.

Real Beauty has shown the power a brand can have in bringing about positive change

Roll on to 2013 and ‘Real Beauty Sketches’ stole the show, with a video showing a forensic artist sketching women based on how they described themselves versus how somebody else described them. It had more than 50 million views within 12 days of its release, and has now been watched by more than 180 million people.

At the heart of the campaign was Dove’s long-standing focus on natural beauty – and it resonated with women across the world, building trust in a brand with a campaign that became an entire social movement. “We believe that conversation leads to brand love, and brand love leads to brand loyalty,” Jennifer Bremner, brand director of skin cleansing at Unilever, told HuffPost in 2014. “That’s obviously a positive for us not just in the power of the brand, but also ultimately in sales.”

It paid off; sales soared from $2.5bn to $4bn between 2004 and 2014. In 2020, Dove was valued at $5bn – up from just $200m in the early 1990s, and it’s now the most popular soap brand in the US, the Simmons National Consumer Survey (NHCS) found.

Marketing specialist Mark Ritson puts that success in part down to Dove’s 60:40 focus on long-term brand-building and short-term product marketing. “On the one hand there was the focus on the Dove masterbrand; on the other, on simply their products within the category,” he said in a video for Marketing Week. “In 2008, Dove started to think that spending so much money on longer-term, brand-building activity was probably not the best for ROI, but when they pulled back, sales began to flatten. Nielsen analysts later confirmed that for every $1 they were spending on that masterbrand campaign it was delivering more than $4 in incremental revenue.” Dove re-invested in the ‘masterbrand,’ and it paid off; brand equity grew 267 percent from 2009 to 2019 – compared to 157 percent for Lancome, 59 percent for L’Oreal and 40 percent for Nivea.

The company hasn’t relented since. This year saw a revival of the campaign with the release of ‘Reverse Selfie,’ an ad showing a young girl digitally enhancing herself in reverse, as a sequel to the 2006 ‘Evolution’ video. It hasn’t been without its criticisms along the way, but Real Beauty has shown the power a brand can have in bringing about positive change – and the financial rewards to be reaped for those prepared to take the risk.

 

Budweiser: Whassup
From those three, ribbiting ‘Bud’, ‘Weis’ and ‘Er’ frogs to crabs, aliens and a Dalmatian training a horse, Budweiser is no stranger to successful ad campaigns – but it was the 1999, multi-award-winning ‘Whassup’ campaign that really shot the brand into the stratosphere. Featuring a group of African-Americans shouting ‘Whassup’ down the phone to each other, mouths wide open, tongues lolling, it played on popular culture and brought the phrase into the vernacular in a way that’s still used today. “Watching the game, having a Bud” became a catchphrase never to be forgotten.

At the time, Anheuser-Busch, the brewery producing Budweiser, already had more than double the market share of any competitor, and Budweiser was the country’s most popular alcoholic drink. But the company wanted to get a younger, 20-something demographic on board and build brand loyalty among the easily influenced – so DDB Worldwide carried out research to find out what might create ‘talk value’ (generate buzz) for their next Super Bowl ad.

In our lifetimes, we’ll never see so much value created from a single idea

They decided upon a short film made by Charles Stone III, entitled ‘True’, where Stone and his Philadelphia friends greet each other with the slang phrase ‘Whassup.’ Stone was made director, developing a series of TV spots in partnership with DDB that caught on in a way not even Bob Scarpelli, former chairman and chief creative officer at DDB, had predicted.

In the following months, talk shows, newspapers and DJs picked up on the phrase, with references in The Simpsons, Scary Movie, the Grammy Awards and beyond. “Four friends, ‘watching the game, having a Bud’ cut across all cultural barriers to become one of the most popular and memorable campaigns ever,” Scarpelli later told The Drum. “It was one of the first campaigns to go viral. ‘Whassup’ became a global phenomenon, popular even in countries where Bud isn’t sold.”

A series of other spots followed, including a 2001 parody on the original where a group of middle-class, preppy types replace ‘Whassup’ with ‘What are you doing?’; and ‘Language Tape,’ where viewers are directed to the website to download ‘Whassup’ in 36 different languages.

It was a success; Anheuser-Busch’s worldwide sales grew by 2.4 million barrels to hit 99.2 million in 2000, and by September 2001 the campaign was estimated to have generated $20m in free media, according to DDB. That’s without even counting the impact of internet publicity. ‘Certainly, the advertising is part of the success,’ Benj Steinman, publisher of Beer Marketer’s Insights, told the New York Times. ‘It’s a phenomenon.’

Above all, though, it was about brand loyalty. “In our lifetimes, we’ll never see so much value created from a single idea,” August Busch IV, former CEO of Anheuser-Busch, reportedly once said. “It makes Budweiser a brand for every culture, every demographic and every community. It makes Budweiser a younger, hipper, more contemporary brand.’

And while ‘Whassup’ might have taken a backseat after 2001, the phenomenon is far from over; last year, the company revived its original ad with a lockdown version, replacing the ‘watching the game, having a Bud’ audio with ‘in quarantine, having a Bud.’ A new version was also made in the US, featuring famous basketball players who ‘Whassup’ each other on FaceTime – showing the transcendental power of a strong idea.

 

Volkswagen: Think small
If there’s one campaign that changed the future of advertising for good, it was Volkswagen’s ‘Think Small,’ produced in 1959 at a time when cool cars meant big cars. Bill Bernbach, owner of ad agency DDB, was approached by Carl Hahn, then head of Volkswagen, to promote the Beetle (originally commissioned by Hitler) in the US.

At the time, most ads were based on facts and USPs – a style developed under advertising executive Rosser Reeves, according to writer Mark Hamilton. “Reeves believed the only purpose of an ad campaign was to see the sales line moving in an upward direction, regardless of how that was accomplished,” Hamilton wrote in an article for Medium. “He warned against creativity in advertising, calling it ‘the most dangerous word in all of advertising’.”

But Bernbach – spearheading the ‘creative revolution’ – believed in concept advertising. Products were flooding the market in the post-war era of consumerism, and brands needed to stand out. Unlike rival David Ogilvy, Bernbach put the emphasis on drawing interest from the consumer with one novel, dare-to-be-different idea.

The car was small and strange-looking, so they embraced it with humour

He paired art directors with copywriters to synthesise the disciplines in a way they hadn’t been before – and tasked creatives Helmut Krone and Julian Koenig in coming up with an ad to promote the Beetle. The pair put the idea of plain honesty at the heart; the car was small and strange-looking, so they embraced it with humour, putting the emphasis on functionality over luxury and coupling a tiny, black-and-white image of the car with fine print at the bottom explaining its advantages.

It was an immediate success, according to Hamilton. “People talked about it around the water cooler,” he wrote. “Teenagers ripped it out of magazines and pinned it to their walls. It became, temporarily, more than just another ad. Suddenly there was an ad that appealed to people’s intelligence in a way that the style-based campaigns of the past had not.”

A series of similar print ads followed, all using humorous headlines playing on its smallness and appeal to counter-culture; ‘Live below your means,’ read one. ‘And if you run out of gas, it’s easy to push,’ read another; ‘It’s ugly but it gets you there,’ said a third. It worked; in 1960, more than 300,000 Beetles were sold in the US, up from just 35,000 in the mid-1950s. By 1968, sales in the country had hit 423,000 a year, and by 1972, 15 million Beetles across the world had been reeled off the production line – breaking the record set by Ford’s iconic Model T, and making it the biggest-selling car in the world at the time.

All of that was achieved on a modest budget, according to Bob Kuperman, former chief executive of DDB. “All of a sudden, when you did something in an impactful, imaginative way, you could take Volkswagen’s budget, which may have been $28m, and go against General Motors’ budget, which may have been $300m, and have the same effect,” he said in a video for Ad Age.

That realisation has outlasted the Beetle itself – and the fundamental principal is still at the heart of campaigns today. “100 years from now, the idea is still going to be more important than all the technology in the world,” Bernbach reportedly once said. A quick look at the most successful brands of today suggests he wasn’t wrong.