A CHEATER & A KIILLER
A Utah hunting guide is facing felony charges for 'illegally baiting' a bear for Donald Trump Jr.


LAS VEGAS, NV - JANUARY 21: Donald Trump Jr. speaks before an appearance by his father, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, during the Outdoor Channel and Sportsman Channel's 16th annual Outdoor Sportsman Awards at The Venetian Las Vegas during the 2016 National Shooting Sports Foundation's Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show on January 21, 2016 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The SHOT Show, the world's largest annual trade show for shooting, hunting and law enforcement professionals, runs through January 23 and features 1,600 exhibitors showing off their latest products and services to more than 62,000 attendees.

Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Sarah Al-Arshani
Sat, May 21, 2022, 

Donald Trump Jr. went on a guided hunt and killed a bear in Utah in 2018.

The hunting guide who took him is facing felony charges for illegally baiting the bear.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported that Wade Lemons used "a pile of grain, oil, and pastries" to bait the bear.

A hunting guide in Utah is facing felony charges after being accused of illegally baiting a bear for Donald Trump Jr. to hunt in May 2018, The Salt Lake Tribune reported on Saturday.

The outlet reported that Wade Lemon faces up to five years in state prison for the fatal shooting of the bear on May 18, 2018.

Trump Jr. is not named in the criminal complaint, but the Utah Department of Natural Resources confirmed to The Tribune that Trump Jr. was Lemon's "client."

Lemon is accused of using "a pile of grain, oil, and pastries" to bait the bear that Trump Jr. would shoot. The Tribune reported that prosecutors said there's no evidence to suggest that Trump Jr. knew the bear was illegally baited.

Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings said the hunting client was "a victim and now a possible witness in a fraudulent scheme," The Tribune reported.

Environmental activists focus on debt and equity

todayuknews

10 hours ago

At Lothian Pension Fund, caring about the climate involves an approach it calls “engage your equities, deny your debt”.

Lothian, one of Scotland’s largest public-sector pension funds with £8bn in assets under management, is not alone in seeking to engage with the companies in which it holds shares, on behalf of its investors and sponsors.

However, the idea of a dual approach — in which you deny new debt funding to companies with poor climate policies but do not sell shares in companies you can influence — is relatively novel. It liberates investors from the hotly debated but binary choice of: divest or engage?

Unlike divestment or engagement, denying companies the debt financing they need — in Lothian’s case by buying new bonds only if issuers’ strategies are aligned with the Paris climate agreement — has immediate consequences. “That has a genuine impact on the financial position of the corporate in question,” explains David Hickey, portfolio manager at Lothian, which holds about 60 per cent of its assets in equities and 20 per cent in debt.

On the equities side, the debate is still whether it is more effective to sell carbon-intensive stocks or retain them and push the companies — through discussions with management or shareholder resolutions — to work harder at emissions reduction.

Some investors have tried both. “Fossil fuel divestment has been a big topic of conversation over the years and we’ve done quite a bit of that,” says Brad Harrison, managing director at US wealth manager Tiedemann Advisors. “We’ve seen success with our third-party fund managers who are very active with the concept of shareholder engagement.”

Those backing engagement are now increasing in number. For example, investor group Climate Action 100+, which presses companies on carbon reduction, climate-related financial disclosures and governance, now represents 700 investors with more than $68tn in assets. Its members include Amundi, BlackRock, Fidelity International and Legal & General Investment Management.

They, and others, argue that divestment deprives investors of influence and transfers shares to owners who may care little about climate change. “By simply divesting from a company with a high carbon footprint, you’re decarbonising your portfolio but you’re not decarbonising the economy,” points out Fionna Ross, senior ESG analyst for US equities at asset manager Abrdn.

Added to this, fund managers also argue that mandatory divestment risks damaging the direct interests of their clients. This is among the reasons that the $319bn California State Teachers’ Retirement System (Calstrs) is pushing back against a California Senate bill that would prevent the pension fund from owning stakes in oil and gas producers.
Recommended

Those favouring engagement point to a range of tools that can be used to push companies in a more sustainable direction — from dialogue with corporate leaders to using shareholder votes to replace company managers or board members. In 2021, for example, activist fund Engine No. 1, which is focused on climate change, won three board seats at oil major ExxonMobil.

By contrast, the fossil fuel divestment movement argues that divestment is a more powerful strategy than engagement since it sends an important and highly public signal.

Divestment at scale stigmatises the fossil fuel sector and so makes it easier, politically, for legislators to introduce tough climate regulations, argues Richard Brooks, climate finance director at Canada-based campaign group Stand.earth. It is, he says, creating “the political space to pass climate policy, which is urgently needed”.

And the movement is achieving scale. In February, Stand.earth announced that investors committing to fossil fuel divestment represented $40tn of assets under management, up from $15tn a year earlier. The group tracks AUM, rather than amounts actually divested, since institutions’ divestment schedule is hard to follow. By citing AUM, the group is also speaking the language of the capital markets.

But, while arguments on how to coax business into curbing fossil fuel consumption and production continue, tangible results remain elusive. In fact, in 2021, energy-related carbon emissions reached historic highs, according to the International Energy Agency, bringing the world closer to the “point of no return” warned of by UN Secretary-General António Guterres in 2019.



How should investors clean up the world’s dirtiest companies?

Coming on May 31: The Moral Money Forum digs deeper into the arguments for divestment, engagement or new approaches that combine elements of both strategies

Those hoping for progress on political action to halt climate change have also been disappointed. The Climate Action Tracker project sees policy implementation advancing “at a snail’s pace” and describes national net zero targets for 2030 as “totally inadequate”.

Meanwhile, CA 100+ recently revealed that only 17 per cent of its “focus companies” — which include steel producers such as ArcelorMittal, cement producers such as Holcim and Cemex, oil and gas companies such as BP and Chevron and airlines such as Delta and American Airlines — had set medium-term targets consistent with keeping global warming to 1.5C.

Likewise, only 17 per cent had developed quantifiable strategies to reach their goals.

“I keep challenging people to show me an example where institutional investors engaging a fossil fuel company to reduce their emissions has actually led to a reduction,” says Brooks. “There isn’t yet an example of that.”

Catherine Howarth, chief executive of ShareAction, a responsible investment campaign group, believes that, for engagement to work, investors must stiffen their spines. “There’s still too little willingness among institutional investors to be challenging,” she says.

Howarth is among those who see debt denial as an effective strategy. “That could have a meaningful impact on the capital for these companies,” she argues.

There’s still too little willingness among institutional investors to be challenging

In 2019, for example, NatWest removed investment grade oil and gas debt from its portfolios as part of a policy of not funding the debt of companies not aligned with the bank’s net zero goals.

Debt is also a tool of influence when sustainability targets are built into financing facilities, says Jennifer Motles, chief sustainability officer at Philip Morris International.

She cites PMI’s issuance last year of a $2.5bn revolving credit facility that ties interest payments to targets for phasing cigarettes out of the business and penalises investors for missed milestones.

Fossil fuel companies, she suggests, could follow suit. “It’s the same idea as the decarbonisation of the value chain,” she says. “This the ‘decigarettisation’ of our company.”

Debt denial has yet to be widely adopted, though.

“There’s a little bit of it going on,” says Howarth. “But it’s not having either signalling power or much in the way of actual impact on the decision-making of finance directors of large high-carbon companies because it’s not happening at scale.”

Similarly, sustainability-linked bonds do not always include penalties or tough timeframes for companies to meet. “It’s a conceptual idea and has sounded nice but hasn’t really worked so far,” says Gillian de Candole, portfolio manager at Lothian.

However, de Candole and Hickey argue that, if designed with appropriate rigour, debt instruments could give investors powerful new sticks to wield. “We need sustainability-linked bonds with tie-ins to specific KPIs [key performance indicators] and penalties for missing them,” says Hickey. “If those are big enough to be meaningful for the company, that’s how we fund the transition.”

How debt cancellation could help poor countries prepare for climate change

A new report calls on rich countries to provide immediate relief.

A sandstorm in Somalia, where severe drought has plunged 6 million people into crisis levels of food insecurity. Sally Hayden / SOPA Images / LightRocket via Getty Images


Joseph Winters

GRIST

Newsletter Reporter
Published May 13, 2022

As the planet warms, compounding crises are pushing poor countries toward a humanitarian catastrophe. Global warming disproportionately threatens the developing world with rising sea levels, more intense storms, and scorching heat waves. At the same time, crippling debt is making it harder for many of these countries to prepare for and recover from these disasters.

A prime example is Eritrea, whose gross public debt is projected to exceed 160 percent of its GDP this year, causing the African Development Bank Group to label the country “in debt distress.” This debt may sap funds away from much-needed measures to adapt to temperature increases above the global average, extreme drought, and famine conditions like those that are currently wreaking havoc on the Horn of Africa.

Without urgent action, experts warn of a “doom loop” of deepening debt and deteriorating environmental conditions. A new report from the Climate and Community Project — a coalition of academics and policy experts working to advance climate justice — urges the United States and European countries to provide immediate relief through a program of “climate reparations,” including through large-scale debt cancellation and restructuring. Even though the least developed countries have only contributed about 8 percent of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1850, they are poised to bear the brunt of climate change’s devastating impacts.

According to the report, written by Georgetown University philosophy professor Olufemi Táíwò and the Climate and Community Project’s research director, Patrick Bigger, the developing world’s current debt crisis has its roots in colonialism and slavery. These practices funneled labor and resources away from the Global South — countries in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Oceania — and gave the Global North a head start on economic development that left the rest of the world behind. As a result, Global South countries have had little choice but to borrow money in order to meet basic needs. This money — which may be provided in the form of interest-bearing loans or bonds — comes from governments like the United States, multilateral lenders like the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, or private lenders, like a wealthy individual or company.

Borrowing money gives poor countries access to funds needed to avert an immediate disaster, such as famine, or to import enough oil to keep homes warm. But in the long term, these arrangements can straddle borrowers with a debt burden that shackles them to their creditors.

In coastal Liberia, rising sea levels have forced residents to leave Monrovia’s biggest slum.

 Zoom Dosso / AFP via Getty Images

The report’s top priority is for wealthy governments and multilateral organizations to cancel poor countries’ publicly held debt — a proposal that Táíwò and Bigger say is relatively simple and politically possible. According to their analysis, 19 of the world’s 20 most climate-vulnerable countries owe most of their debt to public or multilateral lenders that can easily choose to write off debts. Doing so could quickly free up fiscal space for the developing world to invest in climate adaptation and fossil fuel-free development — especially as many countries’ capacity to make those kinds of investments has been strained during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, low- and middle-income countries’ public and private long-term debt swelled 12 percent to a record $860 billion, and some climate-vulnerable countries such as Jamaica and Cabo Verde saw their long-term debt-to-GDP ratio balloon to as much as 96 percent.

There have been efforts from the G20 — an intergovernmental forum of 19 wealthy countries and the European Union — to suspend some of this debt, but the Climate and Community Project report calls them “catastrophically insufficient,” arguing that they have not gone far enough and have sometimes included austerity stipulations — for example, requiring that countries cut public sector wages.

A better policy, Táíwò and Bigger argue, should include the immediate cancellation of all publicly held debt with no strings attached, giving debtor countries the agency to choose how they might allocate their newly available resources.

As a good example, the report points to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, an effort that began in 1996. The International Monetary Fund and a group of wealthy creditor countries eventually wrote off more than $70 billion of debt for 37 countries in the developing world, reducing their required debt repayments by 1.5 percent of GDP between 2001 and 2015. An independent analysis for the World Bank found that the write-offs allowed 28 of the participating countries — including Burkina Faso, Niger, and Ghana — to increase “poverty-reducing expenditures” from 6.4 percent of GDP in 1999 to 8.1 percent in 2004.

According to Bigger, this is a sign that debt cancellation works. “Every dollar spent servicing debt is a dollar not spent on other public policy priorities,” he said.

Canceling publicly held debt wouldn’t solve the entire problem, though, since private lenders hold a large and growing fraction of the developing world’s debt claims. As of 2020, private creditor-owed debt stood at an eye-watering $2.2 trillion, compared to just $792 billion owed to multilateral development banks like the World Bank. Because private lenders are often loath to participate in debt cancellation programs, many privately held debts would need to be acquired by sovereign and multilateral lenders in order to be written off.

A man collects water in the parched Afghan village of Bala Murghab. 

Hoshang Hashimi / AFP via Getty Images

Bigger also noted that debt cancellation is less politically visible today than it was in the late 1990s, when a number of high-profile activist campaigns were centered around the Global South’s simmering debt crisis.

Some of today’s largest debt relief programs are spearheaded by big environmental nonprofits and involve conservation stipulations. The Nature Conservancy’s Blue Bonds for Conservation program, for example, helped negotiate a sovereign debt restructuring for Belize in 2020 that reduced the country’s total debt burden by $250 million and allowed it to repay its remaining debt at a lower interest rate — as long as the savings would be used to protect 30 percent of its ocean territory. A similar but larger effort was negotiated in 2016 for the Seychelles.

Lee Buchheit, a lawyer who has represented several countries in sovereign debt restructurings, including Belize, said this model allows countries to contribute to the “global conservation project” despite being in financial straits. While these programs are meant to ensure the savings are put to good use, some say that so-called “debt-for-nature” swaps can undermine a country’s agency to make their own choices about what they need.

“If an organization really takes seriously the idea that environmental decline is interwoven with global inequities … they might not want to put all their efforts in the basket of restructuring and look instead toward reparations,” said Jennifer Silver, an associate professor of geography at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada.

In addition to debt cancellation, Táíwò and Bigger call for a rapid increase in climate finance from the Global North. Currently, rich countries have pledged to provide the developing world with $100 billion for climate projects annually, but they really only give about $80 billion. The Climate and Community Project report argues that the number should be closer to $1 trillion a year. It also calls for fines extracted from the fossil fuel industry in courtrooms around the world to be deposited in a trust fund that can be used by vulnerable communities in the Global South.

According to Bigger, these actions should be viewed not only as an opportunity for rich countries to redress previous harms, but to ensure that the developing world can pursue low-carbon and climate-resilient development, girding itself for a climate crisis it had little role in causing. “We need to think about the ramifications of how we decarbonize and what we owe to the rest of the world,” he said.

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M GREEWASHING

UPDATE 2-BNY Mellon unit pays $1.5 mln over ESG fund misstatements -U.S. SEC

Mon, May 23, 2022
By Katanga Johnson

WASHINGTON, May 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Monday said BNY Mellon Investment Adviser had paid $1.5 million to resolve charges it misstated environmental, social and governance (ESG)investment policies for some mutual funds it managed.

The SEC said that from July 2018 to September 2021, BNY Mellon Investment Adviser represented or implied in various statements that all investments in the funds had undergone an ESG quality review, even though that was not always the case.

"Registered investment advisers and funds are increasingly offering and evaluating investments that employ ESG strategies or incorporate certain ESG criteria, in part to meet investor demand for such strategies and investments," said Sanjay Wadhwa, Deputy Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement and head of its Climate and ESG Task Force.

"Here, we allege that BNY Mellon Investment Adviser did not always perform the ESG quality review that it disclosed using as part of its investment selection process for certain mutual funds it advised."

The firm did not admit or deny the SEC's findings, the SEC said, but agreed to a cease-and-desist order, a censure, and to pay the penalty, the agency said.

"BNY Mellon Investment Adviser is pleased to resolve this matter concerning certain statements it made about the ESG review process for six U.S. mutual funds," a spokesperson said in a statement, adding that the firm takes seriously its regulatory and compliance responsibilities.

BNY Mellon Investment Adviser also "promptly undertook remedial acts and cooperated with Commission staff in its investigation," the SEC said. (Reporting by Michelle Price and Katanga Johnson; Editing by Mark Porter and David Gregorio)

Renewables Remain ‘Cheap’ Despite Supply Chain Chaos

Editor OilPrice.com
Sun, May 22, 2022

With the energy transition in full swing, new energy research provider BloombergNEF estimates that the global transition will require ~$173 trillion in energy supply and infrastructure investment over the next three decades, with renewable energy expected to provide 85% of our energy needs by 2050.

BNEF projects that by 2030, consumption of lithium and nickel by the battery sector will be at least 5x current levels. Meanwhile, demand for cobalt, used in many battery types, will jump by about 70%. Diverse EV and battery commodities such as copper, manganese, iron, phosphorus, and graphite--all of which are needed in clean energy technologies and are required to expand electricity grids--will see sharp spikes in demand.

Unfortunately, rising prices of the commodities needed for renewable energy as well as massive supply chain disruptions have been increasing the costs of setting up new green power projects, which could slow down the pace of the transition.

This trend is problematic for the simple reason that falling costs have been the major driving force for the clean energy boom.

Over the past decade, the price of solar electricity dropped 89%, while the price of onshore wind fell by 70%.

Meanwhile, rapidly falling EV battery prices have played a big role in helping electric vehicles go mainstream. As per Bloomberg, over the past decade, EV battery prices have fallen from almost $1,200 per kilowatt-hour to just $137/kWh in 2020. For an EV with a 50 kWh battery pack, that adds up to savings of more than $43,000 in real terms.

But here’s the kicker: today’s stratospheric gas and coal prices have helped renewables retain their crown as the cheapest option for new power generation across the globe--despite rising equipment and materials costs.

Related: World Sees First Global Energy Shock: World Energy Council


According to Spanish developer Acciona Energia via Energy Intelligence, ‘‘the appetite for renewables remains strong as they are "massively" more competitive than fossil fuels.’’

Cheaper than oil and gas

In its lowest Energy Cost Report, Energy Intelligence’s senior reporter Philippe Roos has analyzed the the cost of generating electricity, also known as levelized cost of energy (LCOE), of conventional and renewable forms of electricity generation in five regions: the U.S., Western Europe, Japan, the Mideast and developing Asia. The data, which also include break-even prices for oil, gas and coal in the Mideast and developing Asia, is based on Energy Intelligence’s proprietary LCOE model.

The EI study reveals that renewables have probably overtaken gas permanently on cost-effectiveness, with the race for lowest cost remaining mostly between solar photovoltaic (PV) and onshore wind. This trend rings true even in Japan, where the scarcity of real estate handicaps land-intensive renewables, onshore wind beats coal and PV displaces gas.


Legend:

CCGT: combined-cycle gas turbines

OCGT: open-cycle gas-turbine

CSP: concentrated solar power

According to the LCOE report, “wind and PV generation costs remain lower than fossil fuel alternatives, especially with current high gas and coal prices”, and with supply chain issues troubling both sectors equally, renewable technologies are still the cheapest.

And even if gas prices fall, it will at this point only partly bring fossil fuels closer to par with renewables. That scenario, however, doesn’t look likely at this time.

But current indications are that high fossil fuel prices are here for the long-haul: TotalEnergies (NYSE:TTE) CEO Patrick Pouyanne recently said that the company might change its long-term gas price assumption in Europe from around $5/MMBtu to around $10/MMBtu.

By Alex Kimani for Oilprice.com

How a French bank set the gold standard for climate action

Tim McDonnell - 
Quartz

The headquarters of La Banque Postale resemble a towering greenhouse in a quiet residential neighborhood of Paris, about a mile west of the Eiffel Tower. These days, the building’s glass facade is wrapped in a billboard, featuring three chic young women and the message: “When you’re 16 years old, the environment isn’t optional.”


© Provided by QuartzThe headquarters of La Banque Postale in Paris resembles a greenhouse, with a billboard advertising the bank's climate policy.

LBP is one of the youngest banks in France, created 16 years ago as a subsidiary of the government-owned postal service. With $900 billion in assets, it’s also smaller than multinational competitors like BNP Paribas and Crédit Agricole. And in October 2021, it became the world’s first bank to set a hard deadline—2030—by which it will end all financing for oil and gas. While most major banks in the US and Europe have adopted a long-term goal to decarbonize their lending portfolios, few have been willing to get specific on when and under what conditions they will stop serving fossil fuel clients (if at all).

La Banque Postale’s policy, according to a major report by environmental groups in March, “sets a new bar that every major bank must meet in this crucial decade for the climate.” In an interview over coffee and croissants, chairman Philippe Heim said the bank’s ambitions are driven by a conviction that credible climate action can be a source of profit, as well as a powerful tool for marketing.

“The point for us was to say, ‘How can we distinguish ourselves in a very competitive landscape? How can we be seen as consistent and truly committed?'” Heim said. “We want to be synchronized with our clients, especially with young people. We want to demonstrate it’s possible that we can change the way we do banking, and we want to be a laboratory in positive impact finance, which for us is an element of economic performance.”

Green banking opportunities outweigh the loss of fossil fuels

While some small banks in the US have already cleared their books of fossil fuels, most of those had hardly any investment in the sector to begin with. LBP, however, has been among the top 60 global lenders to fossil fuels since 2016, providing $423 million in that time. (The world’s top fossil lenders, like JP Morgan, have lent hundreds of billions.) After the oil and gas exit deadline was adopted, LBP immediately halted new lending to companies with plans to expand oil and gas production, in line with what the International Energy Agency says is necessary to achieve the Paris Agreement climate targets. That means no new loans for Total, the French oil major, which is pursuing controversial new oil projects in East Africa and elsewhere.

By 2030, any oil and gas companies doing business with LBP in 2030 need to be well on their way to a new business model. At that point, the bank will sever ties with any oil or gas company that lacks an approved plan for ending its fossil fuel operations by 2040. The bank estimates that about $28 million of its existing oil and gas business (including loans, investments, financial services, and other offerings) fits that description, and will thus need to be phased out. (The remainder is mostly linked to two electric utilities that have decarbonization plans approved by the Science-Based Targets Initiative, and a pipeline services company.)

“Clearly, this is a loss of opportunity,” Heim said. “But there are so many opportunities to finance clean energy projects that the consequence would be completely digestible for us.”

LBP’s next climate test

One arm of LBP that is not covered by its oil and gas exit target is the asset management division, which still manages shares in fossil fuel companies like Total. (The division will produce its own climate strategy later this year, Heim said.) The bank will reveal more about what it considers a legitimate transition plan for oil and gas companies on May 25, when Total holds its annual shareholder meeting. That meeting will include a “say on climate” vote, in which investors give a non-binding thumbs-up or thumbs-down to the company’s climate plan. Last year, LBP voted against Total’s plan, but the oil major has since agreed to publish a more detailed strategy.

While that may be a step in the right direction, the company’s continued push for new pipelines leaves much to be desired, said Guillaume Pottier, a corporate engagement strategist at the French research nonprofit Reclaim Finance. “If [LBP] doesn’t vote against Total’s plan, they’re not taking climate seriously—that’s the litmus test.” (LBP “will vote [at Total] according to its policy,” a company spokesperson said, which requires “alignment on a pathway that is compatible with the Paris Agreement.”)
Bankers need to take the long view

For a bank’s climate policy to make scientific sense, Heim said, it needs to look beyond the typical loan-book horizon of a few years. But that view is still rare among bankers; on May 22, HSBC suspended one executive after he said in an interview with the Financial Times that “climate change is not a financial risk that we need to worry about” because it’s too far in the future.

The important timeline, Heim said, is the lifespan of fossil fuel projects, which is measured in decades. “If you want to meet the climate objectives of 2050, you have to act now,” he said. “If we wait until 2030 to change anything, it will be too late to have an impact in 2050.”

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Brazil regulator probes whether activist's funds engaged in insider trading -documents


Mon, May 23, 2022
By Tatiana Bautzer

SAO PAULO, May 23 (Reuters) - Brazilian regulators are probing potential insider trading violations by activist investor Nelson Tanure related to his acquisition of medical labs company Alliar, according to documents seen by Reuters.

Tanure, who in the past has waged takeover battles in the oil and telecom industries, last November proposed buying a controlling interest in Centro de Imagem Diagnosticos SA , as Alliar is formally known. The deal was finally announced on April 14.

Brazil securities regulator CVM is now probing how funds controlled by Tanure were trading Alliar shares with knowledge of non-public information derived from the funds' talks to buy the company, which would constitute insider trading, the documents show.


Tanure representatives said earlier this month that the fund that now controls Alliar, Fundo de Saude, and the investor's lawyers have not been notified of any insider trading probe.

Trades during the talks, which lasted from November until mid-April, are being probed by the CVM. Its records are under seal, but the probe was active as of mid-May, according to one of the documents.

Tanure has been successful in recent years buying companies such as oil producer PetroRio SA and homebuilder Gafisa SA but he has also been fined by the CVM in the past over abuse of controlling power.

Alliar's shares surged by 22.5% on Nov. 18 after a Brazilian newspaper reported that Tanure would buy the company at 20.50 reais per share.

Between Nov. 18 and Nov. 30, four investment vehicles controlled by Tanure, which already held a 29% stake in the company, sold 1.5 million common shares in Alliar for 25.465 million reais, according to the documents, reaping an average price 39% above its Nov. 17 closing price, or 7 million reais more than what the shares would have fetched before the news.

On Dec. 22, the company announced that shareholders could opt to sell their shares to Tanure's vehicles only within two years. As the deal could take longer to close, markets were doubtful about the need for a tender offer to minority shareholders, and shares fell.

In the CVM's analysis of the trading of Alliar shares, the regulator alleged that the funds knew about the plan to allow investors to sell their shares within two years through a derivatives contract, since they were a party in the talks, and knew that when the disclosure of the contract's existence became public, shares would fall.

In the document, CVM manager Marco Antonio Papera Monteiro said the funds' conduct suggested evidence of "potential crimes."

Asked to comment on the allegations in the document, Tanure representatives repeated that they were not aware of any probe. The CVM declined to comment.

On April 14, the company announced most shareholders had opted to sell immediately and that Tanure's vehicles had built a 63.3% stake. It also said Tanure would launch an offer for all outstanding shares.

In a statement earlier this month, Tanure representatives said the deal closure was successful and that the transaction was "transparent."

Alliar is the latest holding of Tanure, who since the 1990s has acquired stakes in newspapers, shipyards, Brazilian telecom company Oi SA, an oil company and a homebuilder.

In an earlier run-in with the CVM, the regulator fined him 130 million reais ($26.7 million) in 2019 for "abuse of controlling power" at shipyard Verolme. CVM said part of Verolme's cash was diverted to other companies controlled by Tanure.

In the case of Verolme, the fine was ultimately reduced by 85% to 16.2 million reais after an appeal to Conselho de Recursos do Sistema Financeiro Nacional. Unlike other market violators, Tanure was not restricted by regulators from working in listed companies. He is currently a board member at Alliar. ($1 = 4.8639 reais) (Reporting by Tatiana Bautzer in Sao Paulo Editing by Christian Plumb and Matthew Lewis)

FOCUS-For EV maker Rivian, delivery headache hits as market shuts down coffers

Mon, May 23, 2022
By Tina Bellon

May 23 (Reuters) - When Jeff Wells placed a reservation for a Rivian R1T pickup in early 2019, he was one of the first in line for a truck from the Amazon.com Inc-backed electric vehicle startup that at the time promised to tap in to a niche not served by other automakers.

But Wells, an accountant from Southern California, has become increasingly frustrated as he sees others, who placed their order years after him, receive trucks while he keeps waiting.

"It's just annoying and it feels like there's no order to how they're doing things," he said of Rivian.

Wells is one of dozens of reservation holders who in recent weeks have complained about unreliable delivery timelines and delays in online groups and forums.

The complaints mounted after Rivian Automotive Inc in late April said it was changing the production sequence of vehicles, prioritizing those with specific interior and exterior color and wheel options.

"Building in few build combinations reduces complexity with our suppliers and in the plant and allows us to build a greater number of vehicles," Rivian told customers in an email.

That meant many early reservation-holders sticking with their original color preferences had their orders delayed.

Rivian in a statement to Reuters said delivery dates are not just based on the timing of a preorder, and that it was exploring new ways for customers to expedite deliveries.

Rivian's delivery headaches have not drawn the same attention as the California company's slashed production plans or its messy communication of vehicle price increases, which it first announced across the board, but later scrapped for existing reservation holders following backlash.

But delivery woes could prove just as damaging.

While all automakers are struggling with global supply-chain snarls, including a semiconductor shortage and rising raw- materials costs, startups like Rivian have less room to get things right. Large investors, including Ford Motor Co and Tiger Global Management, have offloaded Rivian stock after the post-IPO lockup period expired.

Graphic on Rivian's stock performance: https://tmsnrt.rs/3yIJVqA

Rivian's supporters have largely remained loyal despite the company's chaotic pricing changes. Preorders have increased to 90,000 vehicles even after the price hikes, which now apply only to new reservations.

But delivery delays could prove costly as other automakers launch their own electric pickup trucks, including Ford Motor Co's F-150 Lightning.

Rivian on May 11 said it was working on overhauling its order system to separate reservations from the configuration process, in an apparent attempt to tackle customer criticism over supply shortages in its order system.

Rivian in the statement said the change allowed for pricing and timing transparency.

'THE WORLD HAS CHANGED'

Rivian's struggles to overhaul its ordering system also reflect wider industry challenges. Inflation and supply-chain snarls have shredded financial forecasts and increased pressure on EV upstarts to reduce costs at a time when investors are closing their check books.

"The markets have closed to every company, good and bad. You have to hunker down and set your priorities, and do whatever it takes to get to the other side," said Daniel Ninivaggi, chief executive at EV startup Lordstown Motors Corp, which this month sold its plant to Taiwanese contract manufacturer Foxconn as cash reserves plummeted.

Rivian said it consistently monitored the capital markets and had been planning for an increasingly difficult environment by "optimizing its product roadmap and operating expenses."

At $16 billion, Rivian boasts significantly more cash than Lordstown and other small EV startups, such as Canoo Inc , which this month issued a going-concern warning.

But Rivian burned around $1.2 million per vehicle it delivered in the first quarter and is estimated to spend a total of $7 billion in cash this year, according to Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas.

"I definitely wouldn't put Rivian into the same basket as these other companies, but I think they have a high burden, and they need to show they can deliver," said Vitaly Golomb, a partner at investment bank Drake Star, who leads its EV and mobility practice and is also a Rivian investor and reservation holder.

While Rivian has told investors it had enough cash on hand to open its second U.S. plant for $5 billion in 2025, patience may be wearing thin.

"Since your IPO, the world has changed dramatically, investors just don't want to fund negative EBITDA growth companies in this environment," Jonas said on the company's most recent earnings call with investors, cutting off Rivian Chief Financial Officer Claire McDonough.

Chief Executive RJ Scaringe and McDonough said the company would bring costs under control by simplifying its vehicle lineup and minimizing expenses.

PRICING JOURNEY

Scaringe also said Rivian, like some automakers, believed the worst of the semiconductor shortage was behind it. However, other automakers have said the shortage could last into 2023.

Rivian has not said when it expects to manufacture vehicles at a profit margin. The price increases, which boost the sticker of its basic-level pickup from $67,500 to $79,500, are supposed to improve the economics and offset higher raw-materials costs. They apply to orders placed after March 1.

But industry competitors say making a profit even at that price will be challenging.

Peter Rawlinson, CEO of luxury EV maker Lucid Group Inc and a former engineering executive at Tesla Inc , estimated Rivian spends around $22,000 on its entry-level battery pack, and around $20,000 on drive trains supplied by Robert Bosch GmbH - requiring a vehicle sticker price of $95,000 to return a profit.

"The only way they could ever make that business model work is if they lose money on every truck they sell," he told Reuters in March.

Rivian said it was confident about its "pricing journey." It also said it is working on a lower-cost in-house motor and new battery designs.

For Rivian reservation holder Wells, profit margins matter less. He just wants to get his hands on a truck as soon as possible. While he said he prefers Rivian's R1T, Wells last year also placed a reservation for the F-150 Lightning made by Ford.

"At this point, if Ford comes through first, I think I'll go with them," Wells said.

(Reporting by Tina Bellon in Austin, Texas Additional reporting by Joseph White in Detroit Editing by Ben Klayman and Matthew Lewis)

India's top crypto app CoinSwitch calls for regulatory 'peace, certainty'

Sun, May 22, 2022
By Aditya Kalra

DAVOS, Switzerland, May 22 (Reuters) - India must establish rules on cryptocurrencies to resolve regulatory uncertainty, protect investors and boost its crypto sector, CoinSwitch CEO Ashish Singhal said on Sunday.

Although India's central bank has backed a ban on cryptocurrencies over risks to financial stability, a federal government move to tax income from them has been interpreted by the industry as a sign of acceptance by New Delhi.

"Users don't know what will happen with their holdings - is government going to ban, not ban, how is it going to be regulated?," Singhal, a former Amazon engineer who co-founded CoinSwitch, told Reuters at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

CoinSwitch, which is valued at $1.9 billion, says it is the largest crypto company in India with more than 18 million users. The firm, based in India's main tech hub of Bengaluru, is backed by Andreessen Horowitz, Tiger Global and Coinbase Ventures.

"Regulations will bring peace ... more certainty," he added.

Blockchain and cryptocurrency companies have a large presence at this year's Davos meeting, which coincides with a period of crypto prices plummeting around the world.

India's central bank has voiced "serious concerns" around private cryptocurrencies, but Prime Minister Narendra Modi in December said such emerging technologies should be used to empower democracy, not undermine it.

Exchanges often struggle in India to partner with banks to allow transfer of funds and in April, CoinSwitch and some others disabled rupee deposits through a widely-used state-backed network, alarming investors.

'CLARITY'

While moves on taxation and certain advertising regulation had brought some relief, a lot more needed to be done, Singhal said, adding that India should develop a set of laws.

These should include norms for identity verification and transferring crypto assets, while for exchanges, India should put in place a mechanism for them to track transactions and report them to any authority if need be.

While no official data is available on the size of India's crypto market, CoinSwitch estimates the number of investors at up to 20 million, with total holdings of about $6 billion.

Regulatory uncertainty has been widely felt. In April, Coinbase, the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the United States, launched in India, but within days paused use of a state-backed inter-bank fund transfer service.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong later said in May the move was triggered due to "informal pressure" from India's central bank.

CoinSwitch too has paused so-called UPI transfers to hold talks with banking partners and make them comfortable, Singhal said in the interview. He added CoinSwitch was is in talks with regulators to try and restart the transfer service.

"We are pushing for regulations. With the right regulation, we can get the clarity," he said. (Reporting by Aditya Kalra in Davos; Editing by Alexander Smith)

Siemens Energy Picks a Good Moment to Take Wind Turbines Private

May 23, 2022

Lengthy-suffering shareholders in Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power

will probably be spared the choice of whether or not to stop or wait patiently for the renewable-energy revolution.

Shares in Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power rose 6.2% Monday after its majority shareholder,

on Saturday confirmed longstanding expectations that it wished to take the wind-turbine enterprise personal. It stated it could pay €18.05 a share, equal to $19.25, for the excellent 32.9% of its subsidiary. Price and income synergies are anticipated ultimately, however the main purpose it gave for the buyout was to speed up the persevering with turnaround.

Siemens Gamesa’s excessive mixture of near-term challenges and brilliant long-term prospects makes it trickier than normal for buyers to gauge whether or not the value is true. The valuation is a 27.7% premium to the corporate’s undisturbed share worth on Might 17, when Bloomberg reported deal talks, and exceeds the six-month quantity weighted common worth.

Nevertheless it has been a really powerful six months. The deal values Siemens Gamesa at about 1.2 occasions ahead gross sales, barely lower than the 1.4 occasions stock-market a number of of sector peer Vestas.

Siemens Gamesa shares peaked in January 2021 round €39 earlier than being hit by a collection of revenue warnings and broader investor skepticism towards green-energy investments. Wind-turbine makers, like many manufacturing industries, have felt margin stress from rising uncooked materials prices and bottlenecks in provide chains and logistics. Siemens Gamesa has had particular troubles, too: Its onshore division has underperformed and is scuffling with expensive delays within the launch of its new 5.X turbine.

Trying additional forward, there are causes for optimism. Siemens Power just lately changed key Gamesa executives with its personal individuals, who deliver turnaround expertise. Siemens Gamesa additionally has a large turbine service enterprise that continues to ship sturdy outcomes.

Most promising of all, it was lengthy the market chief in offshore wind generators, though onshore chief Vestas edged it out final yr. Offshore is a large potential market because it opens up entry to sturdy wind sources in lots of nations centered on decarbonizing energy manufacturing.

Siemens Power might afford to pay extra. Full acceptance of the present provide would price it €4 billion, funded with as much as €2.6 billion in new debt and fairness in addition to €1.4 billion from its money balances. It will possibly preserve its investment-grade credit standing with a ratio of web debt to earnings earlier than curiosity, taxes, depreciation and amortization of as much as 1.5 occasions, says its chief monetary officer.

---

The corporate had €1.7 billion in web money final quarter and analysts predict Ebitda of €1.5 billion this yr, in line with FactSet, so there may be room for a wholesome improve within the provide.

Nevertheless, simply because Siemens Power can increase its provide doesn’t imply it can. There may be an inevitable battle of curiosity between its roles as majority shareholder and bidder. Siemens Gamesa shares closed at €17.79 Monday, barely beneath the bid worth, so arbitragers don’t look like banking on a bump.

Some minority shareholders in Siemens Gamesa might consider its future prospects justify the next provide, however in a minority buyout which may not imply an excessive amount of.

Write to Rochelle Toplensky at rochelle.toplensky@wsj.com

Siemens Gamesa turnaround will take years, main owner says after $4.3 billion bid

Isla Binnie and Christoph Steitz
Sun, May 22, 2022,

 A model of a wind turbine with the Siemens Gamesa logo is displayed outside the annual general shareholders meeting in Zamudio

By Isla Binnie and Christoph Steitz

MADRID/FRANKFURT (Reuters) -Siemens Energy warned on Monday that a turnaround at Siemens Gamesa will take several years, adding that a 4.05 billion-euro ($4.3 billion) bid to buy out minorities of the struggling wind turbine unit was the only way to fix the issues.

"It's nothing which will go fast," Siemens Energy Chief Executive Christian Bruch told journalists on Monday, less than two days after unveiling the offer. He added this meant "multiple years of really turning" Siemens Gamesa around.

Siemens Energy has faced pressure from shareholders to raise its stake in Siemens Gamesa from the 67% it inherited after a spinoff from Siemens AG.

Shares of Spanish-listed Siemens Gamesa rose 6.2% to about 17.79 euros at 1518 GMT, just below the 18.05 euro-per-share offer price. Siemens Energy fell 0.8%.

Siemens Gamesa, whose shares had fallen 20% since the start of the year until the offer was made, had issued three profit warnings in less than a year, dogged by product delays and operational problems.

Most European turbine makers have also racked up losses in a fiercely competitive market as metals and logistics prices surged due to COVID-19, import duties and Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

"There are not yet clear signs of a near-term recovery in the current setup," Bruch said, adding that Siemens Gamesa's financial performance was "really creating the need for action."

FULL CONTROL

Bruch said owning all of Siemens Gamesa would remove an arms-length relationship and give Siemens Energy more control over the asset as well as lead to cost savings and procurement efficiencies.

Asked about the onshore turbine business which has caused particular headaches, Bruch said there were no plans to sell it.

While Siemens Energy will be able to delist Siemens Gamesa once it owns 75%, Bruch said a full integration of the division, which was created from the merger of Siemens AG's wind business and Spain's Gamesa, was the clear goal.

The relatively low additional stake Siemens Energy needs for a delisting, however, is expected to provide at least a certain hurdle against potential attacks from hedge funds that could decide to buy in to Siemens Gamesa to push for a higher price, industry sources said.

Under a tentative timeline, the bid, which Credit Suisse analysts said was "disappointing," would launch in mid-September before an extraordinary general meeting rubber-stamps it in November, Siemens Energy said.

The funding of the deal is fully underwritten by Bank of America and JP Morgan. Perella Weinberg Partners is advising Siemens Energy on the transaction.

When asked why the offer was below the 20 euros Siemens paid for Iberdrola's stake in Siemens Gamesa in 2020, Bruch said that since then the situation at the division had deteriorated and that the offer was attractive.

($1 = 0.9431 euros)

BREAKINGVIEWS-Siemens Gamesa’s minorities can hold out for more

(Reporting by Isla Binnie in Madrid and Christoph Steitz in FrankfurtEditing by Edmund Blair, Emelia Sithole-Matarise and Matthew Lewis)