In the recent G-20 summit of 2011, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has called for a new Bretton Woods system to curb volatile capital flows and lessen international reliance on the dollar. For those readers who aren’t familiar with what Bretton Woods system was, here is a quick look.
On July 1944, forty four allied nations and one neutral nation met for three weeks at a conference held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to reach an agreement on governing monetary policy among nations. The result was Bretton Woods agreement which gave rise to a system popularly known as the Bretton Woods system. It was the result of some 2.5 years of planning for post war monetary reconstruction by the Treasuries of the UK and US. The discussion was dominated by the plans submitted by Harry Dexter White of the U S Treasury and John Maynard Keynes of Britain. The agreement that emerged from the discussion was much closer to White's plan than to that of Keynes, reflecting the greater bargaining power the U S had achieved by the end of World War II. The institutions IMF and IBRD (today’s World Bank) were founded following the agreement.
There were four points that particularly standout from the Bretton Woods agreement:
1. Firstly the negotiators generally agreed that there were fundamental disadvantages of unrestricted flexibility of exchange rates clearly exhibited in the interwar period. The negotiators were unwilling to return to fixed rates model and also wished to retain the rights of revising the values of currencies depending on the circumstances. This gave birth to 'pegged rate' currency regime, also known as the par value system. The governments were required to declare a par value of their currency and were intervening in the currency markets to limit exchange rate fluctuation within one percent above or below parity and also retained the right to alter the par value in case of a ‘fundamental disequilibrium’ in their balance of payments, the notion of which was not spelled out in detail.
2. The governments were effectively willing to retain the advantages of Gold standards by removing the ineffectiveness of the prevalent Gold standard system. International liquidity were to consist primarily of national stocks of gold or currencies convertible into gold (Dollar). Each member nation was assigned a quota in IMF which was a pool of national currencies and gold. Members were obligated to pay 25 percent in Gold or convertible currency and 75 percent in its own currency. Each member was then reserved to borrow the foreign currency in determined by its quota size.
3. The members were forbidden to engage in any discriminatory currency practices with only two exceptions. First, convertibility obligations were extended to current international transactions only. Second, convertibility obligations could be deferred if a member so chose during a postwar 'transitional period.' IMF was responsible to oversee the legal code governing currency convertibility.
4. Finally, negotiators agreed that there was a need for an institutional forum for international cooperation on monetary matters. To avoid currency troubles that were accelerated during the interwar years was greatly attributed to the absence of any inter-governmental consultation. The IMF thus formed had member nations which had the right to vote. However US by retaining one third of all IMF quotas became the effective veto over future decision-making.
The Bretton Woods System that was hence formed defined a monetary system with unchanged gold exchange standard supplemented only by a central pool of gold, convertible currencies (Dollar) and national currencies. At the centre was the formation of IMF which performed the functions of regulating, financing and consulting.
Wiggin, Addison., 2006. Bretton Woods Agreement. The Daily Reckoning Australia & Port Phillip Publishing Pty LTD, Australia [online]. http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/bretton-woods-agreement/2006/11/29/ [accessed 10 Feb 2011].
Are the retail investors embracing more diversity than ever before?
The analysis of retail investor trends done by IMA, UK for the year 2009 reveals some interesting facts.
Investors in UK are diversifying their portfolio more than ever before to include asset classes like bonds, properties and commodities rather than just equities alone(Fig-1).
Even within the equities asset, investors are diversifying to include equities from different geographical locations (Fig-2). It's seen that the proportion of equity investments for Asia has been increasing while that for UK and Europe has been reducing. Investors are now more willing to invest outside of UK and Europe. In a period of ten years the investments for Asia has increased by whopping three folds.
In line with the trend, the fund management companies are coming up with new breed of multi-asset, multi-location portfolio investments. For instance HSBC, which brands itself as world’s local bank valuing diversity, has come up with a series of World selection portfolio with investments spread across 15 asset classes in 11 different countries. The company is also offering choices in the investment styles. Based on the risk appetite, the investors can choose to invest from any one of Cautious, Balanced or Dynamic portfolios.
The fund management style for these investments is also different and is diversified as well. Instead of traditional single fund manager managing the portfolio, the multi-asset portfolio is managed by a team of investment professionals who are located in different countries. The World selection portfolio fund of HSBC is managed by a multi-manager team with 40 investment professionals based in 11 different countries.
Why multi-asset portfolios?
It follows from the rule that risks can be reduced by putting eggs across many baskets instead of putting all of them in just one basket. The multi-asset portfolios reduce the risk by spreading investments across different Asset baskets, Geographical baskets and Investment style baskets. The multi-asset portfolios are hence perceived as risk-averse investments which can also produce better returns than the cash-only or bond-only investments. The diversified portfolio very well suits the moods of the investors who have been hit by the recent financial crisis. Risk averse investors can see these investments as as a very safe bet.
Would the investor's trend towards diversification continue?
It's not very likely that the investor's trend towards diversification would continue at the same pace. In an ailing market, the multi-asset portfolios have distinct advantages of being less risky and producing better returns. However in a bull market the diversified portfolios would not be able to produce better returns than the equities-only funds.
As the economy recovers and starts performing well, the investors' confidence will be increased and even the most risk-averse investors would be willing to take some risks. There would be a shift in the investors' sentiments towards investing in riskier investments like focused equity funds which are capable of producing better returns than diversified funds. The trend towards asset diversification may as well reverse if the stock market performs fairly well in the coming days.
There was certainly an element of surprise in the market when the Indian GDP numbers for the September 2009 quarter were released. India had clocked a record GDP growth of 7.9 percent as against the market expectations of 6.3 percent. The Indian bellwether indexes Sensex and Nifty reached new highs for the year after the announcement of GDP numbers.
India is witnessing a rapid economic growth, and so with it are the growing energy needs of the country. Power demand in the country touched an all-time high of 99,027 MW recently, a year-on-year growth of over 16%. This is in sharp contrast to the situation in US where the overall power consumption is expected to decline by over 1.4%. According to forecasts from Mckinsey and company[2008], India’s demand for power is set to soar to as much as 315,000 MW by 2017 at an average GDP growth rate of 8% per year, which is more than double the demand for power from now. To meet these humongous energy demands the nation has to scale up rapidly its power generating sources.
Currently the power needs of India are primarily met by Thermal power stations followed by Hydro, Renewable (mainly Wind) and Nuclear power stations. Thermal power stations account for nearly 60% of India’s total power generation and these power stations are predominantly Coal based.
India has got domestic reserves of Coal but unfortunately around 80% of coal available in India is characterized by high ash content of 35-45%. Burning of this inferior quality coal results in higher Carbon emissions and lesser efficiency. It also releases hazardous substances like Nitrogen Oxide, Sulphur Oxide, particulate matters, bottom ash and Fly ash. Causes of several diseases like Asthma, Tuberculosis, Black lung, kidney diseases and many more have been attributed to these emissions. Coal mining which is done to extract coal to feed into thermal plants is also hazardous. A Coal mine fire detected in Jharia of Jharkhand state for which illegal coal mining has been blamed, has now risked life of more than 80,000 people and the govt is looking for evacuation and rehabilitation measures. The environmental problems caused by burning and mining of coal are unrelenting.
The operations of Thermal power stations aren't going good either. The plants are now facing newer problems due to insufficient domestic coal supply.India is experiencing shortages in the production of domestic coal and has now started to import coal. Recently around 23 Thermal power stations including the Super thermal power stations like NTPC faced critical coal stock levels and had to cut down their production levels. The power cuts were imminent. As per a study India Inc has supposedly lost Rs.43,205 crore in 2008-09 due to power outages. There are also growing fears now that at the current rate of coal consumption the coal reserves of India may get exhausted by 2040 and India may have to to depend entirely on coal imports.
Relying on imports for domestic energy production?? This is a serious energy security concern for India and is in stark contrast to India's energy independence plans. To recall on the eve of the 59th Independence Day, the President of India had emphasized that energy independence should be India’s first and highest priority, and the nation must be determined to achieve this within 25 years. The President had called for ‘‘an economy which will function well with total freedom from oil, gas or coal imports’’. To achieve energy independence, India has to reduce its reliance on energy sources based on imported fuels and look for indigenous sources of power generation.
If not for the reasons of environmental pollution and global warming, at least for the costs of operating, shortages of coal supply and for achieving energy independence, India has to move aggressively towards non coal based power generation sources. The alternatives available for non coal source are not only much efficient but also much greener. The important ones among the alternatives are Solar Energy, Nuclear Energy, Wind Energy, Natural gas and Biomass. The Carbon emissions from these sources are significantly low compared to Coal based thermal power stations. To satisfy the humongous power demands of the nation and hence for the economic development of India, Going Green seems to be the only way to go.
In the run up for Copenhagen Climate Conference to be scheduled from 7-Dec-09, India has become the center stage for the key negotiations between developed and developing nations for its stance on reducing Carbon emissions. India has expressed concerns over sacrificing its ‘development and objectives of eradicating poverty’ at the expense of ‘costs for reducing greenhouse emissions'. The main obstacle India sees is its spending costs on reducing Carbon emissions that would have a significant negative impact on it’s objectives of development and poverty eradication.
In this article I have made an attempt to analyze the concerns of India by evaluating the costs of reducing Carbon emissions and the costs of not reducing Carbon emissions, and base my conclusions on the differential costs between the two. To reiterate I am considering the following costs:
1. Costs incurred for Not reducing Carbon emissions - CN
2. Costs incurred for Reducing Carbon emissions till 350 ppm - CR
Comparing the above two costs
If CN > CR Then reducing Carbon emissions would have a negative impact on India’s Objectives of development and eradicating poverty
Else If CN < CR Then reducing Carbon emissions will have a positive impact on India’s objectives and India should aim to reduce Carbon emissions.
1.Costs incurred for not reducing Carbon emissions - CN
According to a study released by the group Economics of Climate Adaptation - ECA [Swiss Re, Mckinsey & Company, ClimateWorks, the European Commission, Rockefeller Foundation and Standard Chartered Bank make up the ECA working group] under climate change scenarios, the climate related disasters can result in 19% loss of India’s GDP by 2030. Accordingly the Costs for not reducing Carbon emissions till 2030 i.e, CN is 19%. However there is a potential for this loss to be increased as the long term effects of climate related disasters are serious on the economy.
To examine how much loss a natural disaster may cause, let’s take a case study of the floods that recently hit North Karnataka in October 2009, and examine the losses incurred as a result of the disaster. This would give us an idea of the approximate losses that would incur if a natural disaster of similar severity happens due to the climate changes resulting from not reducing Carbon emissions, which could have been avoided otherwise.
Following are some of the significant losses caused by the floods:
194 people died
10 million homeless. This means that the Govt had created 10 million poverty people at an instant by letting the disaster happen.
Losses totaled to 18,000 crore, according to the State government estimates
State govt sought 9,000 crore flood relief from the Central govt.
State demanded for the release of 1.5 lakh metric tonne food grains under BPL rates for the affected people
25 lakh hectares of crop area affected. This amount of land would not be productive for a few months which is a Loss. The investments in terms of labor, resources, subsidy provided by the govt on fertilizers from citizen's taxes are totally wasted, A very big loss again.
Supply chain disruption. Industries, Businesses, Prices, Markets in other areas which were reliant on the flood hit area are affected. The standstill region wouldn't be able to supply any goods or services which it was supposed to, to other businesses.
Inflation figures during this period - Vegetable prices up 50%, potatoes up 81%, sugar up 44% and rice up 19%. Food prices were more broadly up by 16% compared to the previous year. Although floods weren’t the only reason, they were significant in contributing for rising Inflation.This is a serious impact. Higher inflation would reduce the buying power of people and would create more poverty
The state's machinery and resources were dedicated for flood relief works which would have otherwise been dedicated for other productive works
Chances of spreading of epidemics are very high. More spending on health.
Affects both the physical and mental health of the people in the flood affected region. The implications of this are very serious.
Job losses
The list runs
All the above effects which would be caused because of ignoring the climate change disasters have eventually resulted in hampering development and creating more poverty which would have been avoided otherwise.
2. Costs incurred with spending on Reducing Carbon emissions - CR
1. Spending on newer energy resources
India should start spending (investing) in newer energy resources which are more energy efficient so as to reduce it’s over dependence on burning of fossil fuels like coal which is less energy efficient and results in more Carbon emission.
2. Spending on building more energy efficient products
This would apply to a wide range of products from almost every sector.India needs to build Energy efficient engines, Energy efficient commercial and residential buildings, Energy efficient transportation of all forms, Machines and Technologies that enable energy efficiency.
3. There would be costs incurred due to reduced economic development taking into consideration the reduced economic development taking into consideration the factors such as unemployment, Industries spending on equipments, technologies for reducing Carbon emissions, policies, administrative and legislative costs and more
So what would be the likely total cost for accomplishing all the above stated spending at reducing Carbon emission?
Unfortunately as of now [5-Dec-09] I have not been able to find any data released by Indian govt about the costs estimates for reducing its Carbon emissions. I urge the Govt of India to release its estimates for costs associated with reducing Carbon emission at a particular target.Had this been released our work would have been easier. But that shouldn’t stop us from continuing further as the cost estimates on reducing Carbon emissions are available from many other sources. Various academic and research groups like Economics for Equity and Environment network (E3), groups from European universities have tried to estimate the costs for attaining emission reduction till 350ppm. One group starts from the (realistic) assumption of high unemployment, and finds that long-run employment and economic growth would be increased by a program of public investment in green technology and emissions reduction that leads to 350 ppm. The other three groups adopt the common assumption that short-run unemployment can be ignored in long-run models. They generally find that the needed emissions reductions will cost an average of 1 to 3 percent of world economic output, for some years to come. Studies from other groups such as Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have arrived at more optimistic estimates where the savings from fuels would be more compared to the spending. They assume high oil prices at 140$ per barrel (Greenpeace).
Now considering Mckinsey’s estimates (Non conservative and pessimistic compared to the estimates of Greenpeace and UCS), it would cost 2.3% of India’s GDP to halve the Carbon emission growth by 2030. Hence the Costs for Reducing the Carbon Emission - CR would be 2.3% of India’s GDP.
Comparison of the Costs between reducing and not reducing Carbon emissions
As already deduced before, the value of CN is 19% of GDP and the value of CR is 2.3% GDP. The Difference Costs of CN and CR = 19 - 2.3 = 16.7 % of GDP
India would actually save 16.7 % of GDP subjected to the reasons presented above if it aims at reducing Carbon emissions. These savings can eventually be used for economic development and reducing poverty. The earlier reasons from Indian govt that reducing Carbon emissions would reduce economic development and increase poverty would hence be strongly suspected.
According to the 2006 military data released by Central Intelligence Agency [CIA, US], India’s military expenditures cost 2.5 % GDP annually. These military expenditures are effectively the safety needs of the country to protect the citizens from deaths and losses. If the climate changes are allowed by not reducing the Carbon emissions, the resulting climate change disasters would eventually lead to more deaths and homeless people. This is indeed a basic safety and physiological need for the country. The costs for mitigating this is spending on reduction of Carbon emission [ CR ] which is 2.3 % of GDP. Comparing the Annual 2.5 % GDP costs on military expenditures with 2.3 % GDP costs till 2030 for the safety needs of similar importance, the spending on Carbon emissions looks very meager. Again India need not bear all the costs [ 2.3% of GDP ] for reducing Carbon emissions alone. India can actually make a case for contributions from other developed nations. India has now started pressing the developed nations for contributing 0.5 % of GDP to fund its costs.
Based on the reasons discussed in the article, I conclude that India should target for reducing Carbon emissions so as to pursue with its objectives of economic development and eradication of poverty.India should focus on building newer energy sources and energy efficient products towards its pursuit for greener world. I hope to see a positive move from India towards this end in the Copenhagen Climate Conference.
Global warming Skepticism
With the leaking of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, UK; the skeptics of Global warming who denounce the possibilities of climate change have found new reasons to support their claims. What if the skeptics were right? Should India be not bothered at all about reducing carbon emissions? Watch out in the next post.
