The history of the modern world is filled with many examples of global policies that started out in earnest only to reach a point in time, much later on, where the sunk costs far outweighed the originally intended for benefits.

Take the UNO for example, 78 years and about half a trillion dollars in costs later, would you say it still stays true to its original mission statement? Or has it reduced itself to an expensive debating club with a fancy New York address?

Again, while not a global policy, think about the long-term ramifications in China after its One-Child Policy. The policy, enforced in 1979 and estimated to have prevented 400 million births, was ended in 2016. It was too little, too late. China’s demographics had imploded by then.

It’s not all gloom-and-doom though, some global policies, like Nuclear Non-Proliferation have turned out to be sleeper hits, after initially having met with a lot of scepticism.

In the current era, global policy frameworks around Climate Change cannot afford missteps.

There is very little room for error since the stakes are very high, running into multiple trillions.

Risks abound though. Due to policy U-turns by key actors. Due to a lack of consensus. Or, simply due to differences around the preferred choice of pathways or approaches by the various actors towards Net Zero.

These risks cannot be wished away and are also often idiosyncratic in nature and so the measures to mitigate them could lie well outside the traditional playbook for implementing policy actions.

Take the US elections of 2024 for example. It appears that Trump has zeroed in on his bugbear for Election 2024 ─ and its Climate Change!

Think about the ‘stall’ that a rollback of the Biden regime’s climate laws, tax breaks, subsidies and policies could create for the Net Zero movement?

Other factors may also emerge. Due to a lack of cohesion around approaches.

The energy watchdog, International Energy Agency (IEA), has made it clear that energy producers must allocate half of their annual investments towards renewables: a point that doesn’t appear to sit well with some large energy producers who instead prefer to invest in Carbon Capture Projects.

You only need to look at recent reports of South Korean EV battery manufacturers scaling down their investments in the US to realize how a lack of policy clarity around Climate Change befuddles the private sector around their capex decisions.

All this is indicative that policy clarity and cohesiveness among all the actors (both within the global public and private sector) is the need of the hour.

This is precisely what makes COP28 UAE significant since it marks the conclusion of the first ever Global Stocktake, which aims to take stock of global action against climate change and pave the way for further actions in the future.

Both the private sector and the investor community (wary about getting wrong-footed) will watch the events unfolding at COP28 UAE closely.

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles

For a long, long time, commodity investors had touted the ‘tangibility’ of that asset class as its most important virtue.

Jim Rogers once said:

“The price of a commodity will never go to zero. When you invest in commodities futures, you’re not buying a piece of paper that says you own an intangible piece of company that can go bankrupt.”

Well, as the events of 20 April 2020 showed, a commodity could go to zero (and even tip into a negative price zone) if there is no longer any “utility” for it.

Jim Rogers also once said: Commodities tend to zig when the equity markets zag. (I could never figure out that one either. DM me if you have).

Apart from their “tangibility” one of the other points that The Commodity Fan Club (TCFC) makes is around their limited supply.

This argument takes the form that, unlike Currencies or Stocks, commodities do not face the threat of devaluation ─ like currencies due to Quantitative Easing for example ─ simply because they cannot be ‘printed’. This theory started to gain ground especially in the aftermath of the Russia-Ukraine War as nations scrambled to make ‘Food Security’ and ‘Energy Security’ their top priorities; and export bans were enforced on everything ranging from Non-basmati rice (India) to Nickel (Indonesia).

Well, nothing could be further than the truth.

Supply shocks do move up prices temporarily, but the high prices eventually attract new entrants into production, creating a supply glut which eventually drives prices down again. (Wheat prices which had spiked up to $12.94 per bushel last year are now averaging closer to their prices in 2021)

There is another point which TCFC rarely factor in: the role of technology in decimating a commodity.

Anyone from TCFC who underestimates the impact of technology on a commodity’s very ability to exist only needs to make a trip to Surat, in India, where 90% of the world’s rough diamonds are cut and polished, to understand this better.

Surat is grappling with a major slump in demand for diamond over the last few years!

Reason? ─ The emergence of lab-grown diamonds!

Mind you, these aren’t ‘fake diamonds’ (which are usually Cubic Zirconia), these are as real as a diamond could get. Made in a lab. At a fraction of the cost of a natural diamond!

And while on diamond, who would have imagined that a material stronger than diamond could exist?

Yet, in 2004, Messrs. Andre Geim and Kostya Novoselov, announced the discovery of ‘a material that is stronger and stiffer than diamond, yet can be stretched by a quarter of its length, like rubber’.

They called it Graphene. And Graphene (being the tough guy that he is) is probably going to crowd out Kevlar soon.

Just goes on to show that commodities aren’t that docile an asset class as they are made out to be.

So, what’s next?

Lab-made Gold? (most definitely not, but that’s a story for a different day

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles

Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal reported that WeWork is expected to file for bankruptcy next week.

Surely that news must have created pangs of pain in the venture capital industry.

WeWork was after all a $47 billion colossus at its peak, in early 2019, before the pandemic sand-bagged the firm. This post is neither about WeWork’s peak valuation (the WSJ report described it as ‘astronomical’) nor its widely anticipated Chapter 11. This isn’t also about what-could-have-been if it weren’t for the pandemic. Or its founder’s various transgressions.

This post is about the problem WeWork was trying to solve. There would be very little disagreement over that. Co-working spaces remains as elegant a solution as ever. And WeWork ─ present in 777 locations in 39 countries across the world ─ checked the right boxes on scale and adoption as well.

So, yeah, that is the context here: what kind of problem do you pick to solve when capital is cheap?

Co-working WeWork? Bed and Breakfast @ Airbnb?

Or….

A dog walking app @ Wag! Group Co. or 10-minute grocery delivery apps?

There is a sub-context here, a parallel: the profligate spending of the private sector over the last half-a-decade on some inane ideas must serve as a stark reminder to the public sector ─ especially since we are now in an era where capital is no longer cheap ─ that capital must be rationed out only to ‘problems’ that need solving.

Else, any excess of ‘Revenues’ over ‘Government Expenditures’ is best directed to paying down ‘External Debt’ (A quick look at IMF’s Fiscal Monitor shows some remarkable stories ─ Oman, for example, has moved from a deficit of 15.67% in FY 2020 to a surplus of 6.25% in 2023!)

So, what would be public sector equivalent of spends into 10-minute grocery delivery apps?

Unfunded tax-cuts. Populist, vote-bank driven schemes. Unsustainable Subsidies.

2024 will witness general elections in India, Indonesia, Mexico and the US.

Fiscal prudence will be tested.

By

Avinash Menon, CFA

Founder and CEO,

52 Seconds Capital Limited

Other New Articles