In the end, the unavoidable conclusion is that the ESG movement has the potential to do substantial harm to both the financial system and society as a whole, stated the report, written, according to a spokeswoman, by Peterson and a small group of lawyers in the AGs office.

Two university law professors, asked by the Examiner to review the report, said it appeared to be political theater and represented an innovative use of time by a state office whose main responsibility is to represent the state in legal matters.

One of the professors, James Tierney, who teaches investment law at the University of Nebraska College of Law, said theres a robust debate about how society should encourage certain investments, but theres something anti-democratic about saying that only financial return should be considered.

Its very light on the law and its very heavy on, whoa international conspiracy, Tierney said.

Theres nothing in this report to give me any reason to think that ESG is anything different than CRT (critical race theory), a boogie man, he said, or an imaginary threat.

Another NU professor, Anthony Schutz, said the report seemed to be an innovative use of the Attorney Generals Office, though it possibly could be related to its consumer protection role.

Overall, Schutz said it was far from a comprehensive and deep analysis of the issues associated with investor activism.

Peterson, in an email response to questions, said he decided to compile the report because he felt there was inadequate information about the origins of ESG, its long-term objective, (and) who is setting the criteria of ESG.

The best way to inform state policymakers and enforcers was to issue a report, said Peterson, who will leave office in January after declining to seek a third term in office.

He noted that in July, the worlds largest money manager, BlackRock, gave a briefing about ESG to the Nebraska Investment Council, which oversees state pension investments. It was described as an educational presentation at the time.

BlackRock has been the prime target of a Republican campaign to pull investments from a growing number of firms that consider things such as climate change and a companys dedication to diversity in making investment decisions.

States such as West Virginia, Louisiana and Arkansas have pulled millions of dollars of investments from BlackRock, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan, in part because they are reducing their investments in coal and oil.

Florida, at the direction of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, has blocked consideration of ESG in that state. Recently, Florida pledged to pull as much as $2 billion in long-term securities and short-term funds from BlackRock, according to the Financial Times.

BlackRock has defended its work, saying that climate risk is investment risk and that it is prudent to consider the dangers, and opportunities, presented by rising global temperatures and emerging technologies.

But a group of Red State attorneys general, including Peterson, and an organization of GOP state treasurers, headed by Nebraska Treasurer John Murante, have condemned ESG for advancing a woke left and left-wing agenda instead of primarily investor returns.

Peterson, in a press release in August, said it appeared that anyone purchasing a BlackRock fund is forced to support ESG whether they like it or not.

This weeks report from the Attorney Generals Office stated that while individual investors can invest their money as they please, those who decide how to invest other peoples money, as in a state pension fund, cannot pursue a non-financial goal.

The report warned that ESG investing violates a duty by investment and trust officers to seek financial returns above other objectives. Investing via ESG, it stated, also risked an antitrust violation and placed investment power in a small group of elites running global financial firms.

Overall, Petersons report argued that investment firms were not well suited to decide climate and social issues, and contended that should be left to the public or its elected officials.

But interest and support in ESG investing is spreading.

According to Deloitte, by 2024 half of all professionally managed assets globally will have investments in companies that take ESG issues into account, according to a September report in the Examiner.

That same story cited a 2021 survey on responsible investing by Nuveen, an asset manager. It found that 75% of employees strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that employers that have ESG and responsible investing options care about their retirement outcomes.

Tierney, the NU law professor, said the AGs report ignored another duty of investment and trust managers: the prudent investment rule. That duty, according to a Nebraska Supreme Court ruling, doesnt require investing only for the highest return possible.

Tierney said his cynical view is that the report was inspired by interest groups and corporate heads who are seeing investments flowing away from their firms to companies that embrace ESG.

They get mad when they see their stock price go down because some fund manager thinks the investment is dirty, Tierney said.

More here:
Nebraska AG's report warns against 'threat' in environmental, social and governance investing - Nebraska Examiner

Short selling giant Jim Chanos is still pretty bearish on a number of stocks including Coinbase and Tesla, he said on Thursday.

In a Twitter Spaces conversation, Chanos was asked about the FTX fiasco and whether he thinks institutional investors should have done more to scrutinize founder Sam Bankman-Fried.

Chanos said that the due diligence (or lack thereof) was common behavior in Silicon Valley and the crypto industry for the past few years.

Look at the texts that were released in conjunction with people wanting to invest in Elons Twitter deal, he said. You know, Ill send you a couple billion dollars in effect, no due diligence necessary.

This is the ultimate FOMO [fear of missing out] type market and people are investing in personalities not businesses, he said, adding that that is a scary development in the investment space.

Chanos said he remains short on Coinbase COIN, -6.00%, but not because of the FTX blowup and the dive of crypto prices.

This isnt about crypto prices. Thats not why we why we shorted the stock and thats not why we remain short. I mean, crypto prices will obviously fluctuate. Its really the business model that I dont think people appreciate here, he said.

Aside from Coinbase being its prime short in the crypto space, Chanos said that there arent many other options other than shorting cryptocurrencies themselves.

Theres the miners, theres a Coinbase and then youve got like the odd one-offs like MicroStrategy MSTR, +0.34%, which is which is basically you know a giant closed end fund of Bitcoin trading at a huge premium. But thats really kind of it. I mean unless you go and short the currencies themselves, there arent a lot of choices. So let Coinbase is our prime short in that area, he said.

Chanos is still short on Tesla TSLA, +3.23%, because despite how Chief Executive Elon Musk wants the company to innovate, he says Tesla is still a car company at the end of the day, and will increasingly face car company issues.

He said that the luxury car market is becoming a tougher place to maintain margins, something that could present a struggle for Tesla.

The luxury car market globally is about 4 million units a year and the estimate for next year is that theyre going to sell 2 million. So theyre going to be 50% of the luxury car market globally next year if they hit their numbers and the problem will be for them of course, its decelerating sales, he said.

See the rest here:
Short selling giant Jim Chanos is still short on Coinbase, Tesla and the FOMO-investment market - MarketWatch

The funding will support 24 research projects at seven institutions in Alabama.

The funding will support 24 research projects at seven institutions in Alabama.The Breast Cancer Research Foundation of Alabama today announced a total investment of $1,275,000 in Alabama-based breast cancer research in 2022. Grants fund 24 research projects at seven institutions across the state, including the ONeal Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Auburn University, CerFlux, the Mitchell Cancer Institute at the University of South Alabama, Tuskegee University, the University of Alabama, and HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology. This years grant awards increase the BCRFAs lifetime investment total to nearly $14 million since 1996.

With this years historic investment in research, the BCRFA is proud to continue our legacy of driving breast cancer breakthroughs across Alabama, said Beth Davis, BCRFA president and CEO. From advances in early detection to treatment options, BCRFA-funded research is giving hope to the countless individuals touched by breast cancer and ultimately saving lives.

BCRFA dollars function as seed funding for early-stage studies, allowing researchers to generate the additional data needed to attract major national funding. Many BCRFA-funded projects have later received multimillion-dollar national grants from the National Institutes of Health and others.

The Breast Cancer Research Foundation of Alabama has made remarkable investments in cancer research in our state, in particular by funding investigators and projects with significant potential to improve cancer outcomes, said Barry P. Sleckman, M.D., Ph.D., director of the ONeal Comprehensive Cancer Center. The BCRFA has been an incredible partner, and we are grateful for their support.

The 2022 grantees include:

Alexei F. Kisselev, M.D., Highly Active Liposomal Formulation of Proteasome Inhibitor Carfilzomib for the Treatment of TNBC

Robert D. Arnold, Ph.D., (Auburn University) and Yuping Bao, Ph.D., (University of Alabama): Carrier-Free Quercetin Nanoparticles for Overcoming Breast Cancer Drug Resistance

Karim Budhwani, Ph.D., and Chelsea Crawford, Ph.D., Getting the Right Treatment to the Right Patient by Matching Regimens to Patient Biopsy Before Treatment

Sara Cooper, Ph.D., Inherited Breast Cancer Risk Screening and Education Historically Black Colleges and Universities Expansion

Deepa Bedi, M.D., Ph.D., Cancer Genomic Study to Characterize Genetic and Epigenetic Diversity of Immune Landscape in Triple Negative Breast Cancer in Women of African Ethnicity

Rita Aneja, M.D., Evaluating Associations of Rurality and Neighborhood Disadvantage with Racial Disparities in Breast Cancer Mortality Among Women in the State of Alabama

Smita Bhatia, M.D., Predicting the Risk of Heart Failure in Breast Cancer Survivors

James Bibb, Ph.D., and Tika Benveniste, Ph.D.: Cellular and Molecular Basis of the Neurological Effects of Chemotherapy

Anindya Dutta, Ph.D., FAM129B/NIBAN2 as a Biomarker for Therapy with NRF2 Inhibitors

Blake Eason Hildreth, III, Ph.D., Targeting CSF1R/PU.1 Signaling and PU.1 Superenhancer Regulation in Tumor Progression Across Breast Cancer Subtypes

Katia Khoury, M.D., Phase II Single Arm Trial of Low Dose Capecitabine in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer

Jianmei Leavenworth, M.D., Ph.D., Hijacking Axonogenesis to Promote Breast Cancer by a Subset of Regulatory T Cells

Catherine Parker, M.D., Research Support for Breast Surgical Fellowship

Amr Rafat: Elucidating the Effects of Hypoxia on Ribosome Biogenesis in Breast Cancer

Bin Ren, M.D., Ph.D., and Lizhong Wang, M.D., Ph.D., Unique Arteriolar Niche in Expansion of Breast Cancer Stem Cells for Metastasis

Rajeev Samant, Ph.D., Identification of HIF-1a Interactors in the Nucleolus of Breast Cancer Cells

Lalita Shevde, Ph.D., A Novel Clinically Actionable Approach to Disable Resurgence and Metastasis of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Keshav Singh, Ph.D., Intercellular Mitochondrial Trafficking as a Novel Mechanism in Breast Cancer Progression and Metastasis

Jia Xu, Ph.D., Developing Novel AKT Degrader to Selectively Inhibit the Growth of PI3K/AKT/PTEN Pathway Mutant Breast Cancer

Eddy Yang, M.D., and Zhuo Zhang, M.D., Ph.D., RNF2 Ablation Stimulates Durable NK-CD4+ T Cell-Dependent Anti-Tumor Immunity

Chao Zhang, M.D., Ph.D., Chronic Stress-Regulated Tumor-Neuroimmune Network in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Debanjan Chakroborty, Ph.D., WNK1, A Novel Regulator of Metastatic Breast Cancer

Luis del Pozo-Yauner, M.D., Ph.D., Contribution of PERK+ Polyploid Giant Cancer Cells in the Ethnic Disparity of Triple Negative Breast Cancer

Seema Singh, Ph.D., Influence of Stress on Immune Landscape and Spatial Heterogeneity of Breast Cancer

Go here to read the rest:
Breast Cancer Research Foundation of Alabama announces $1.275 million investment in Alabama-based breast cancer research - University of Alabama at...

In this article, we will take a look at 15 good stocks to buy. If you want to see more good stocks to buy, go directly to 5 Good Stocks to Invest in Right Now.

A good stock to buy is a stock of a strong company that can grow earnings in the future.

Although a good stock to buy might decline in the near term, there would be a good chance that the good stock to buy would be higher in the long term given the company's normalized earnings potential and its competitive advantages. Ideally a good stock to buy would trade for a fair or attractive valuation.

Many good stocks to buy have historically been leading blue chips that have increased their earnings per share over time. Many of the same stocks make it to the Dividend Aristocrats list where the company has increased its annual dividend for 25 years or more. Many good stocks to buy also return capital back to shareholders through share repurchases. Good stocks to buy are generally less volatile than the general market although there can be exceptions.

Given that the Federal Reserve has increased interest rates significantly this year, the broader market has declined substantially with the S&P 500 down 15% year to date and the Dow Jones Industrial Average down 6% year to date. Many stocks, including good stocks to buy, have also declined substantially as well. As a result, some blue chips with competitive advantages trade for fairly attractive valuations if the economy can grow as expected.

Recently, stocks have increased due to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell's comments that the Federal Reserve might increase interest rates at a slower pace.

Nevertheless, Powell also said the central bank will still raise rates until it defeats inflation. He added, "Despite some promising developments, we have a long way to go in restoring price stability."

If economic data fails to meet expectations, the good stocks to buy could decline even further. Given the uncertainty, it could be a good idea for long term investors to own a well diversified portfolio of stocks across many different sectors.

Story continues

Trump International Hotel & Tower, New York City

benjamin-suter-Issa_lRkr0o-unsplash

Methodology

For our list of 15 Good Stocks to Invest in Right Now, we picked 15 companies with the right mix of scale, competitive advantages, and earnings growth potential.

We then ranked them based on the number of hedge funds in our database that owned shares of the same stocks at the end of Q3 2022.

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 40

International Business Machines Corporation (NYSE:IBM) is a leading tech company that provides infrastructure, software and consulting services for clients as they pursue a digital transformation for their businesses. In terms of the future, International Business Machines Corporation (NYSE:IBM) has a goal to eventually build quantum-centric supercomputers that are substantially faster than today's computers for some applications. In Q3, International Business Machines Corporation (NYSE:IBM) reported adjusted EPS of $1.81 on revenue of $14.1 billion versus the consensus of $1.77 on revenue of $13.51 billion. International Business Machines Corporation (NYSE:IBM) ranks #15 on our list of good stocks to buy.

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 53

Honeywell International Inc. (NYSE:HON) is a leading specialty industrial machinery conglomerate whose shares have trended higher in the long term given the strength of the company's businesses. Although the S&P 500 is down 15% year to date, Honeywell International Inc. (NYSE:HON) stock is up 5.1% in 2022. On December 1, Julian Mitchell of Barclays raised his price target to $229 from $212 and kept an 'Overweight' rating on Honeywell International Inc. (NYSE:HON).

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 53

Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE:LMT) is a leading defense contractor that makes the F-22 and F-35. Given the growth in military spending over the years, demand for the latest and greatest defense airplanes has never been higher. With a stock price of over $483 per share, Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE:LMT) stock price is near an all time high as well. If Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE:LMT) can maintain its technological leadership, the company has more growth in the future.

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 53

McDonald's Corporation (NYSE:MCD) has rallied from around $100 per share in 2015 to $273.4 on December 1, 2021 given the growth in the company's earnings per share. Although the stock isn't cheap with a forward P/E ratio of 26.14, bulls think the company's same store sales will continue to increase despite the weakening macro environment. Out of the 920 hedge funds in our database, 53 owned shares of McDonald's Corporation (NYSE:MCD) at the end of Q3 2022, ranking the company #12 on our list of good stocks to buy.

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 53

Based on its past history over the last 10 years, General Electric Company (NYSE:GE) hasn't been a good investment given the struggles at GE Capital and the pandemic affecting aerospace companies. Nevertheless, it seems that General Electric Company (NYSE:GE) has a chance to be a solid stock for the future given the company is more of a leading industrial. Although there could still be downside if there is a recession or if aerospace slows further, General Electric Company (NYSE:GE) has long term potential given its normalized earnings power.

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 68

Leading retailer Walmart Inc. (NYSE:WMT) ranks among the potential good stocks to buy given its substantial scale and earnings power. Despite the inflation headwind, analysts think Walmart Inc. (NYSE:WMT) will earn $6.04 per share in 2023 and $6.59 per share in 2024. Walmart Inc. (NYSE:WMT) shares also have a dividend yield of around 1.46%.

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 69

Given the inflation headwind, shares ofThe Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) stock have fallen 8.4% year to date. Nevertheless,The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) has many leading consumer product brands that could rebound if the Federal Reserve wins its battle against inflation. In terms of Wall Street, analysts think The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) will overcome its headwinds with expected EPS of $5.81 for 2023, $6.23 for 2024 and $6.73 for 2025.

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 75

Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE:LLY) is a pharmaceutical giant whose shares have surged over 36% year to date to near an all time high. Analysts expect substantial earnings growth in Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE:LLY)'s future with Wall Street expecting EPS of $7.80 in 2022, $9.17 in 2023, and $12.20 in 2024. 75 hedge funds in our database owned shares of Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE:LLY), ranking the company #8 on our list of 15 Good Stocks to Invest in Right Now.

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 85

Healthcare conglomerate Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) ranks among the potential good stocks to buy given its substantial normalized earnings power and its forward P/E ratio of 17.24. Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) has a strong history of increasing its dividend and returning capital back to shareholders. Furthermore, Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) is held by many smart money funds with 85 hedge funds in our database holding shares at the end of Q3 2022.

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 110

Megabank JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) ranks #6 on our list of 15 Good Stocks to Invest in Right Now given 110 hedge funds in our database held shares at the end of Q3 2022. Although the company's earnings might not meet expectations next year if there is a recession, analysts believe JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) will grow its EPS in the long term given its growing market share and its earnings power.

Vltava Fund commented onJPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) in a Q3 2022 investor letter,

We regard JPM to be the strongest and best- managed bank in the world. It is a leader in investment banking, commercial banking, credit cards, and asset management. Its size (the largest bank in the USA, with nearly USD 4,000 billion in assets) and diversification give it a strong competitive advantage that is compounded by its cost advantages and the high costs to clients associated with switching banks. JPMs management prides itself on running the only large bank to avoid major instability over the long term. JP Morgans quality and strength first became fully evident in 2008 under the leadership of its CEO Jamie Dimon. Not only did JP Morgan help to stabilize the market by taking over the failing Bear Stearns in the spring of that year, but throughout the Great Financial Crisis it was the only big US bank that did not require government assistance and it was highly profitable even in the difficult year of 2008. A well-functioning and efficient bank can be a very good long-term investment, because the interest compounding effect works well here. JPMs return on equity (ROE) is well into the double digits and this puts it in a good position to continue producing better long-term returns than does the market. JPM has been very profitable even during years when interest rates were close to zero. The current and perhaps not temporary return to somewhat more normal, higher interest rates should have a significantly positive impact on the banks interest income and overall profitability.

Click to continue reading and see 5 Good Stocks to Invest in Right Now.

Suggested articles:

Disclosure: None. 15 Good Stocks to Invest in Right Now isoriginally published on Insider Monkey.

See original here:
15 Good Stocks to Invest in Right Now - Yahoo Finance

The first years of the 2020s have forced the United States to contend with a litany of major issues, including the COVID-19 pandemic, digital disruptions, climate change, racial and gender divides, and the continuing need for more middle-class jobs. But they have also ushered in a period of bold, urgent responses. Across the federal government, agencies are launching larger-scale, more in-depth initiatives for accelerating innovation, optimizing supply chains, mitigating climate change, and addressing demographic and geographic inequities.

An important part of this response is the surge of programs using place-based, challenge-oriented designs to generate experiments with the potential to fix the nations largest problems, as displayed first by the Economic Development Administrations (EDA) $1 billion Build Back Better Regional Challenge (BBBRC).

These experiments see federal agency leaders mobilizing regional networks, building collaborative financing approaches, and aligning it all with the nations most urgent priorities. They are also piloting a new era of national problem-solving across geographies and in service of economic inclusion.

Specifically, the BBBRC provides five-year grants ranging from $25 million to $65 million across 21 competitively selected regions. These investments will support the local development of nationally critical technology clusters, and attempt to do so in ways that deliver economic opportunity to traditionally underserved people and communities.

In that context, it is well worth the effort to study the initial blueprint of early programs like the BBBRC, with an eye toward extracting guidance for the $77 billion in new place-based programmatic investments in the coming years. In a Brookings report published earlier this month, we distilled six key policy design features that inform this new era of place-based economic policymaking:

The BBBRC represents the early stages of a major federal investment agenda to create better, more accessible jobs in the nations regional economies. In addition to the EDAs efforts, there are tens of billions of dollars in other new place-based programs inside the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act. As federal leaders design those programs and regional and state leaders seek their funding, we hope this initial analysis proves useful in undertaking such critical work.

This report was prepared by Brookings Metro using federal funds under award ED22HDQ3070081 from the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Development Administration or the U.S. Department of Commerce.

View post:
Six keys to unlocking a new era of place-based federal investment - Brookings Institution

Since the 2013 announcement of Chinas Belt and Road Initiative, worries of Chinese economic imperialism through funding development projects have continued to inform Western opinions of China-Africa relations. In 2020, Zambia became the first post-COVID African state to default on its Eurobonds, eliciting renewed concern about Chinese debt-trap diplomacy. The fact that Chinese firms comprise one-eighth of the continents industrial output is enough to question the equality of the China-Africa relationship. Yet, despite China holding US$153 billion in African loans, the idea that China actively designs loans for national benefit assumes a perfectly calculated conspiracy to induce debt that simply does not exist in Chinese investment in Africa. Closer examination of the Zambian debt crisis, one of the more extreme examples of debt to China, reveals how a lack of development drives African loans, with chronic mismanagement by both China and Zambia creating todays crisis.

That is not to say that Chinas aid to Africa occurs out of benevolence. Chinas historical incentives for engaging with Africa cannot be ignored. After a period of isolation due to the Korean War, China sought economic and political connections with Africa, importing raw materials in exchange for greater ownership of their production. In Zambia, the copper mining industry represents 80 percent of economic production, but the collapse in copper prices in the 1970s led to the sale of Zambia Consolidated Copper Mine (ZCCM) to foreign companies like the China Nonferrous Mining Company (CNMC). The acquisition of 85 percent of the Luanshya and Chambishi mines, along with the Chinese Jinchuan Mining Groups 51 percent majority share in Zambias only nickel mine, further deepened Chinas profit control over Zambias economy. Furthermore, Chinas 2006 creation of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) formalized Chinese development of Africa by pledging further aid. The implications of this organization are insidious. The Brookings Institute notes that FOCACs recent 2035 Vision conference shares the same goals of international investment and development as the China 2035 Vision conference, in addition to the same timeline of achieving modernization by 2035. Considering the promise of US$60 billion by 2035, FOCACs existence clearly reveals how China sees global development as the key to domestic growth. Chinese ownership of the mining industry and the process of providing loans clearly illuminates Chinas structural dominance in this relationship.

Western critics blame Chinese abuse of their power for Zambias economic woes. Indeed, Chinese labor standards have come under fire for creating poor conditions for African workers. As of 2010, Zambian wages cost China just 0.093 percent of gross income and health regulations have been criticized for threatening workers with longer hours and greater exposure to acid noxious fumes and dust than what is allowed by Zambian law. The root of these problems appears to be Chinas ignorance of international standards of practice, but Chinas unchallenged power clearly underlies the neglect of labor rights. A concerning corollary of this control appeared in the 2006 Chambishi riots, where Zambian workers protested a 2005 mining explosion that killed 46 workers in a CNMC mine. Instead of recognizing Zambian demands for improved safety measures and healthcare, Chinese managers shot six protestors. The failure to provide potable water, higher wages, and protective equipment against silicosis stings particularly strongly considering Chinas willingness to spend US$350 million on the new Chambishi Copper Smelter with computerized technology (HRW). Chinas ignorance of cultural differences and unjust treatment of local workers reveals how China profits off of Zambian suffering.

Yet, this convenient narrative of Chinese neocolonialism falls apart upon analysis of the debt crisis seemingly driving Zambian dependence on China and labor problems. Zambia has the highest number of Chinese lenders of all African states, and China owns 69 percent of the construction industry. However, Chinese debt only represents 17.6 percent of total external debt payments, showing that Zambian responses to foreign investment in general need reform. African leaders are also complicit in the accumulation of Chinese development loans through electoral incentives. As Ching Kwan Lee explains, politicians frequently receive kickbacks and votes for agreeing to development deals, with President Edgar Lungu raising borrowing from China during a copper price collapse. More fundamentally, Zambian citizens do seek to benefit from development, with officials stating that we want to borrow for infrastructure and the people desiring improved road, energy, and digital infrastructure. The historical lack of African development, fueled by European colonialism, led to Zambias lack of economic diversity and poor infrastructure, creating the desire to compensate with hyper-development. A 2012 Zambian report found that the public has totally unrealistic expectations that all roads should ultimately be paved, and Lungus Link Zambia 8000 plan for paved roads led the government to take a US$287 billion loan from Chinese Eximbank. With US$863 billion of road development planned in 2020, the Zambian publics sense of entitlement to modern infrastructure and the governments willingness to indulge them clearly contribute to the countrys debt crisis. In their quest for infrastructure, the Zambian government violated existing regulations on foreign direct investment, with increasingly centralized decision-making leading to the President and the Minister of Finance directly signing contracts without the parliaments approval. Yet the fact that no other countries agreed to finance these projects suggests that the global neglect of African development leaves countries like Zambia with few options in the fight for better infrastructure.

Despite the massive number of Chinese lenders supporting the road debt crisis, Zambias energy industry lacks this predatory investment. Only the Chinese Sinohydro emerged as the contractor for the Kafue Gorge Project and 76 percent of energy contracts, and only four new power plants have been implemented since 1977. This single company deal suggests that China does not actually hope to gain Zambian assets through debt in the energy sector. More broadly, these differences in behavior show that claims of Chinese economic imperialism cannot be generalized. In fact, Chinas economic support has, at times, benefitted Zambia. China-Africa Cotton, Chinas cotton firm, has created contracts with more than 100,000 farmers in Malawi and Zambia, funding training trips to transfer knowledge to Zambian cotton managers. During the 2008 recession, around 100,000 Zambians lost their jobs when Western mining companies reduced and even closed production, but CNMC stayed and even gave US$10 million to Zambias Non-ferrous Company-Africa, thus preserving the industry. More broadly, studies have found that Chinese investment in Africa increases business density and fosters entrepreneurship in 38 countries including Zambia. More recently, Chinese telecommunications company Huawei has provided Wi-Fi and digital interconnectivity in 40 African countries, loaning US$280 million to build 808 telecommunication towers. Given that 60 percent of the African public views Chinas investments favorably, Chinas investment clearly provides more than just economic exploitation.

Regardless of the harms or benefits of certain Chinese investments, what is clear is that China cannot possibly and does not perfectly craft each deal with Zambia to their benefit. Loan proposals must be accepted by Chinas export credit insurance agency Sinosure, industry associations, and the Ministry of Commerce, resulting in significant pressure from this bureaucratic machine on African governments to accept without reservations. This rapid acceptance leads to poorly planned projects that quickly fail, thus wasting Chinese capital and hurting their image in African nations. The consequences of these failures led to China canceling US$158 million in Zambian debt in 2006, eventually resulting in a US$392 million write-off. While the Chinese approval process contributes to these write-offs, the issue of Zambian trust that China will continue to write off debt, in addition to their unrealistic development goals, is ultimately responsible for the decades of debt accumulation and write-offs.

Zambia, with the second-most Chinese lenders and the greatest amount of write-offs, remains an outlier in the grand scheme of China-African relations. Yet, the underlying causes of the debt crisis reveal the complexity of mistakes by both the Zambian and Chinese governments in regulating development. China certainly cares about the optics of its economic power in Zambia. A Chinese manager of a mining company justified their continued presence during the 2008 economic crisis by wondering, if we cut production what will the Zambian people think of us?, suggesting that China aims to maintain a narrative of aiding countries neglected by the West. But, contrary to Western complaints, Chinas job creation and infrastructure development is clearly valuable to Zambias government and people. What, then, is the path forward in preventing further debt accumulation and improving China-Zambia relations?

The dual problems of centralized decision-making and poor regulation of Chinese investment can be addressed by strengthening the Zambian parliaments ability to enforce regulations. While corruption may be difficult to root out, the national government can develop strategic commissions similar to the African Unions Partnerships Coordination and Interactive Platform (AU-PCIP), which oversees partnerships with other countries. Greater scrutiny of Chinese investment plans will enable Zambia and its African neighbors to avoid extravagant and exploitative interactions, pushing back on FOCAC and domestic pressures. Given Chinas economic and political incentives for continuing to invest in Zambia, Zambian reassessment of priorities is unlikely to lead to a sudden dearth of development. And while total economic independence seems unlikely in the near future, Zambia can at least work towards greater equality in loan agreements with China to slowly regain control of its mining industries and escape the cycle of debt.

Indeed, progress has already been made. In 2020, the G-20s Common Framework created a mechanism for African countries deep in debt to receive IMF loans in exchange for promises of debt restructuring. Zambia, led by new president Hakainde Hichilema, accepted a US$1.4 billion loan in the hopes of restructuring the economy through cuts to fuel and electricity subsidies worth about US$800 million a year. These economic reforms, in conjunction with improved transparency to creditors about the extent of Zambias debt, have reduced inflation from 24.4 percent to 9.4 percent and committed new investors like Canadas First Quantum Minerals to expand copper production. Yet, with South Africa being the only African member in the G-20 and just Zambia and two other countries using the Common Framework, historical distrust of richer nations and a lack of representation in deciding the terms of restructuring casts doubt on the future of debt restructuring in Africa. Zambias path to economic redemption, in which domestic and international reforms proceed in sync, may become the exception rather than the new norm for African countries seeking economic relief from the burden of debt and the persistent threat of economic neocolonialism from both East and West.

Go here to read the rest:
Chinese Investment in Africa: A Reexamination of the Zambian Debt Crisis - Harvard International Review

Though higher education has historically been a reliable economic engine for individuals and the economy, college insiders have long failed to convey the industrys value to students, parents, employers and policy makers who question the investment, Kathleen Ives and Deborah Seymour argue in their new book, Using ROI for Strategic Planning of Online Education. Online learning has potential to provide access and optimal course pacing and content to students with time, geographic or medical constraints. But many continue to view it with a critical eye.

At the same time, the shift from emergency remote teaching in the early pandemic has morphed into innovation and investment in online teaching and learning. Many have since discovered an interest in understanding online learnings return on investment.

Inside Higher Ed recently asked Ives and Seymour about why analyzing return on investment is uncomfortable for many in higher education, the gap between students and college leaders understanding of return on investment, and how ed-tech companies are bringing the notion of return on investment into focus for college leaders. What follows is an edited and condensed version of this email conversation.

Q: Kathleen, you argue that implementing a return-on-investment analysis in online higher education will entail making significant cultural, policy and processes changes. What are some of these changes that need to happen, and how will we recognize progress?

Ives: Historically, colleges have seen themselves as mission-driven, which means that measuring return on investment can be culturally uncomfortable. Colleges may fear that a business perspective could undermine their values and turn them into degree mills. At the same time, colleges are facing increased competition from both inside and outside of academe. Reversing this only-mission-driven mind-set will require a cultural shift in which students are treated as customers. Satisfying the customer is critical to survival, or they will go elsewhere.

As higher education costs and student debt mount, policy makers and others are questioning higher educations role in producing a workforce needed to sustain the economy. At the same time, college enrollments are declining, state governments are offering less support and employers are skeptical that college graduates possess appropriate skill sets. Policy makers could help colleges protect students, promote access and improve both institutional and student return on investment, without introducing regulations that curb innovation, according to the presidents interviewed in our book.

Colleges are navigating complex technological environments with limited resources. They typically have neither the operational infrastructure nor the embedded skill sets to institutionalize return on investment. By reviewing and adapting return-on-investment methodologies to inform decision-making, online college leaders can evaluate initiatives and work toward achieving their financial and social goals.

Online colleges will see progress when they adopt a return-on-investment mind-set. Such a mind-set may be new for many, and some may not be used to digesting or even requesting such analysis. But this books contributors argue that they should be brought along on the journey. To make return on investment a cornerstone of initiatives going forward, they need trainings on best practices and terminology. A return-on-investment mind-set will increase engagement in the decision-making process and make it easier for all to see its impact.

Q: A chapter in your book by Laurie Hillstock suggests that students and college leaders may have different perspectives on return on investment for online learning. Students consider a range of complex factorsincluding cost, type of degree, faculty-to-student ratios, connections with classmates, job placement and starting salaries. Meanwhile, many college leaders view online course delivery primarily as a means for increasing access to higher education. What steps can leaders take today to help bridge this gap?

A: As a start, leaders can acknowledge that learners differ in many ways. One universal method may not close the gap. Capturing and acting on students direct feedback will help. To do this, colleges need to be intentional about building trust and helping students feel heard. Formative assessments that, for example, request feedback may be more effective than online surveys.

Some students may feel more comfortable sharing with faculty, staff, peer mentors or other students than with college leaders. In such cases, be transparent with those with whom students feel most comfortable connecting. Then look for ways to work with and through them to capture authentic student feedback.

Remember, dont just collect student feedback. Be intentional about acting on the feedback. Share updates with students as well. Building authentic relationships takes time but is necessary for student success.

Q: Deborah, you note that innovative investors and entrepreneurial venturessuch as ed-tech companies, online program managers, venture capital firms and pathway programsseek to stake a claim in the online higher education ecosystem. How have these institutions and companies brought the notion of return on investment into focus for college leaders and students?

Seymour: More and more, employers are hiring candidates for their technical skill sets rather than for their ability to communicate. Boot-camp training programs at Apple, Microsoft, Google and others, as well as pathway programs, focus on the competencies and skills employers say are necessary to fill existing technical skills gaps. Many students learn to code to get a job instead of pursuing a two- or four-year degree.

As a result, many colleges have been forced to look at their strategy and balance sheets differently. Whats the return on investment for an individual who chooses a degree over technical skills training? That question can no longer be ignored.

Q: The collection of articles in your book makes a strong case that leaders should pay more attention to return-on-investment analysis in online education. But one of the articles by David Schejbal argues that higher education institutions would be well served to resist the urge to fit online education into a narrow return-on-investment box to justify its worth. Does a holistic, online higher ed return-on-investment spreadsheet exist that can measure nonfinancial benefits such as an educated populace, research, individual enrichment and community improvement?

A: To our knowledge, no actual spreadsheet exists. But David Schejbal explains why college access is important beyond employment rates and the economy. When more people are educated beyond the secondary level, citizens are more active in public life, crime rates are lower and life expectancy increases.

When a college wishes to offer an online program, return-on-investment planning includes market research to determine concrete, monetary benefits to both the student and the institution. But colleges will also want to align their online programs with their social missions. (This is alluded to in the chapter by Leah Matthews on online education and accreditation.) That means social factors in a campus-based program in, say, nursing, must be included in online nursing programs, as well.

Q: What did you learn about return on investment for online learning from putting together this book that you did not fully understand before you started?

Seymour: When a face-to-face course is originally developed, many colleges do not consider the cost of converting it to an online course that is compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act. In some cases, these conversion costs are higher than the original cost of development. Also, these costs are often not included in the course design nor the prices that online program managers charge when developing courses for colleges. That means the risk of noncompliance is passed along to the institution. Hidden costs like these on an institutions balance sheet can produce significant opportunity costs.

Online programs face many external challenges, including doubt about their worth. College leaders may have more success by first addressing their institutions internal challenges. To do this, they should engage strategy and planning experts to ensure that oversights do not threaten program continuity.

Ives: Return on investment in online higher education has moved beyond the singular metric of student earning potential. It is not solely or even necessarily a performance measure gauging investment efficiency as typically measured by corporations, investors and entrepreneurs. Also, what works for one colleges mission and vision may not work for another institution.

Many methodologies are available to assess return on investment, and many institutional leaders are serious about measuring value as compared to cost, specifically with regard to students and institutional mission. Many are pursuing nuanced return-on-investment analyses, depending on their definitions of success.

Many of the presidents told us the pandemic fast-forwarded some plans to optimize their return-on-investment initiatives. As Keith Miller, president of Greenville Technical College, put it, ROI may even increase because we have learned so much.

See the rest here:
Analyzing the return on investment for online education - Inside Higher Ed

WASHINGTON, D.C. (December 1, 2022) Northmarqs multi-year objective to bring an investment sales team to every one of its debt & equity offices, took a step closer to completion with the addition of a team of industry-recognized professionals in its Washington, D.C. office.

Christopher Doerr, William Harvey, and Shack Stanwick will be based out of Northmarqs Washington, D.C. office and focus on the origination of investment sales and capital raises. They will concentrate on opportunities in the Mid-Atlantic region, including Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and into the Northeast. Our team is excited to join Northmarq. Their investment sales platform is experiencing rapid growth and tremendous momentum, and were thrilled to be a part of it, said Doerr. We look forward to working alongside our local bankers to provide seamless debt execution to our investment sales business. We truly want to be a full-service advisor to our clients. Our team has big plans to grow in the Mid-Atlantic and into the Northeast across all asset classes.

Chris, Will and Shack are a dynamic team with years of experience, have a strong reputation in the region, and are aligned with Northmarqs values and culture, making them an ideal addition to our growing multifamily platform, explained Trevor Koskovich, president investment sales. As they integrate with our regional debt and equity teams, I am eager to see our coverage expand in this region as we serve our clients commercial real estate needs.

Prior to joining Northmarq, Doerr served as managing director at Walker Dunlop, where he oversaw investment sales activity in the Mid-Atlantic. He also served as a senior managing director for five years at Cushman & Wakefield, working with owners of institutional real estate providing disposition services for multifamily properties in the Mid-Atlantic, as well as joint venture structuring, recapitalization, and equity placement. He has been responsible for more than $5 billion worth of transactions.

Harvey previously served as a vice president at Walker & Dunlop, where he handled investment sales activity in the Mid-Atlantic. Before this, he was an associate at Cassidy Turley (d/b/a Cushman & Wakefield) where he assisted in the disposition and equity placement process. Harveys prior experience also includes serving in the Finance department at FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority). He has completed sales of commercial real estate assets totaling more than $3 billion (nearly 20,000 units) within the past five years.

Stanwick joins Northmarq after his employment as associate director for Walker & Dunlops multifamily investment sales team where he focused on representing multifamily owners, developers, and operators. Before this, he worked for three years at CBRE.

See the rest here:
Northmarq's Washington, D.C. office adds top-tier investment sales team with eyes on expanded regional coverage - NorthMarq

By Irina Slav - Dec 01, 2022, 2:06 AM CST

Investment in the upstream oil and gas industry in Russia could decline by $15 billion this year as a result of Western sanctions, Rystad Energy has calculated, saying the total for the year could end up around $35 billion.

The analytical firm noted that Russian upstream investments stood at $45 billion last year, increasing from $40 billion in 2020. Before Russias invasion of Ukraine, upstream investments in the country were expected to rise to $50 billion in 2022, but sanctions have begun to bite and investment is set to decline substantially amid the exodus of Western oil companies from the country.

According to Rystad, investments would remain lower than normal until at least 2025 but this would likely affect smaller oil companies, while Gazprom and Rosneft will be able to continue spending as they were spending until this year, the company said.

The situation appears to be particularly worrying for the LNG industry, where several large-scale projects have been delayed because of sanction-related problems with technology and funding.

The war in Ukraine has cost the Russian oil and gas sector dearly, with project investments taking a significant hit. Covid-related disruptions in 2020 dragged down spending but this year looks set to be the start of a multi-year slump that will make the Covid years pale in comparison, said Swapnil Babele, a senior analyst with Rystad.

The worst affected projects will be Greenfield ones, the analytical firm also said, with investment in new field development set to decline by 40 percent this year from last, to $8 billion from $13.7 billion.

Next year Rystad does not expect any significant new oil and gas projects to receive approval amid the lingering effects of Western sanctions. In 2024, however, there will be a boost in production as Gazprom begins extraction from one new field and Rosneft launches production at one of the fields comprising the giant Vostok Oil project.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Back to homepage

Read this article:
Russian Upstream Oil And Gas Investment Set To Plunge By $15 Billion - OilPrice.com

Redwood Materials a lithium battery recycling company based in Carson City received more than $105 million in tax abatements following a unanimous decision Thursday by the Governors Office of Economic Development (GOED) Board of Directors.

The abatements came after Redwood Materials announced a $1.1 billion capital investment, the second-largest in GOEDs history behind Tesla, which Redwood Materials CEO J.B. Straubel co-founded along with Elon Musk. Redwood plans to build a campus in Storey County at the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center.

While the state is issuing a $105 million abatement, we are projecting the return on investment will be $5.6 billion for Nevada, Gov. Steve Sisolak said at Thursdays meeting.

As one of the few lithium battery recycling companies in the United States, Redwood Materials helps solve supply-chain problems for local manufacturers such as Panasonic and Tesla. It also allows the country to be less reliant on fossil fuels and less dependent on China, which has 80 percent of the global market share for lithium production.

With the tax abatements, Redwood Materials will be required to add 150 jobs in the first two years at an average weighted hourly wage of $32. By 2027, the company is expected to grow to a 450-employee workforce.

Over the next 20 years, Redwood Materials is also expected to generate $180 million in net new tax revenues for the state.

Aside from the investment to the workforce, Straubel said he is already investing in programs with UNR and UNLV to train an upcoming workforce in the lithium battery recycling industry. Straubel also said he is investing in elementary schools by offering tours to the recycling center and educating students at a young age.

During Thursdays meeting, officials thanked Straubel for keeping his company in Nevada, noting the critical need to move away from fossil fuels and expressing gratitude for making Nevada an epicenter of production for new green energy.

Read the original:
Lithium recycler making near-record investment gets $105 million in Nevada tax abatements The Nevada Independent - The Nevada Independent