Connect with us

Economic

The EU’s trading partners claim that the world’s first carbon tax is a protectionist tax

Avatar

Published

on

The EU’s trading partners have criticized the bloc’s plans to introduce the world’s first border carbon tax, saying they are protectionist and put export industries at risk.

The United States and South Africa are among countries that have said the Carbon Limits Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), the world’s first major import tax on greenhouse gas emissions, would unfairly punish their manufacturers. Several developing countries have already started negotiating with Brussels for waivers, though the plans were only agreed this week and are due to be finalized this weekend.

“We are particularly concerned about things like border adjustment taxes, regulatory requirements that are being imposed unilaterally,” Ibrahim Patil, South Africa’s trade minister, told the Financial Times. “If it’s going to be something super important between the North and the South, you’re going to run into a lot of political resistance.”

“There are a lot of concerns coming from us about how this affects us and our trade relationship,” US Trade Representative Catherine Tay said at a conference in Washington this week.

Advertisement

The European Union views CBAM as central to its efforts to reach net zero emissions by 2050, arguing that it would simultaneously encourage countries outside the bloc to decarbonize their industrial sectors.

“CBAM is just a way to threaten third countries that they must also modernize their ambitions when it comes to climate,” said Mohamed Chahim, a Dutch socialist politician who led negotiations on the law for the European Parliament.

a temporary agreement On Tuesday, CBAM was reached with final details, including exact dates for its phase-out, which is due to be negotiated by EU lawmakers this weekend.

The tax will be required from importers Buy certificates to cover its emissions based on calculations linked to the EU carbon price. The sectors that will be affected by the tariff are iron and steel, cement, aluminum, fertilizers, hydrogen and electricity generation. A trial period is scheduled to begin in October 2023.

The EU plans to expand the scheme to other sectors, including cars and organic chemicals, if it is deemed successful.

Advertisement

Before Russia Ukraine invasionThese countries are expected to be the hardest hit by CBAM. Russian exports would have accounted for the largest proportion of imports from sectors affected by CBAM based on its imports from the EU between 2015 and 2019, according to Analytics by the Adelphi think tank in Berlin.

The almost complete cessation of imports from Russia due to the EU sanctions regime and the destruction of Ukrainian industry has shifted the burden to other countries.

China makes up about a tenth of the imports affected by CBAM, according to Adelphi, with Turkey and India being hit the hardest. China has repeatedly attacked the tariff since it was first proposed in July 2021.

In a thinly veiled reference to the measure, China’s interim chargé d’affaires in Brussels Wang Hongjian said in September that the EU should avoid “protectionism” when it comes to climate law. “Green cooperation cannot be promoted in a vacuum,” he added.

Developing countries with less economic heft and no emissions-measuring systems were more likely to suffer from the imposition of the tax, said Faten Akkad, senior adviser on climate diplomacy at the African Climate Foundation.

Advertisement

“The countries most likely to mitigate CBAM risks are those that already have an adequate carbon account in place,” she added. The result may be “deindustrialization” in African countries that export to the EU.

“A lot of these sectors risk losing business unless we put money into sustaining them and it’s very difficult to rebuild.”

while. Brazil’s steelmakers worry that CBAM will endanger domestic producers. Rather than ship their goods to Europe and face the tax, exporters may target less protected steel markets, such as South America.

“Our biggest concern is not exports to [Europe]But instead more materials are being diverted to the region, leaving the local industry “at risk,” said Marco Polo de Melo Lopez, CEO of the Aco Brasil Institute.

Anger over the measure was exacerbated by the European Union’s insistence that CBAM would encourage others to decarbonise, while not providing funds earmarked for helping poor countries invest in clean technologies.

Advertisement

CBAM proceeds are intended to enter the EU’s internal budget with a loose commitment to providing climate finance to countries outside the bloc, according to those familiar with the draft text.

A number of countries have already approached the European Commission to request more flexibility in applying the tariffs, according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions.

It would be “helpful,” said Baran Bozoglu, president of the Climate Change Research and Policy Association, a nonprofit think tank in Ankara. [for the EU] To provide various incentives, support and technologies so that the Turkish economy is not negatively affected.

He added that exporters would have to pay to account for and validate their carbon emissions in order to report to the EU. Having to cover this cost in addition to paying for CBAM, he said, was “a huge injustice”.

Additional reporting by Andy Pounds in Brussels and David Pilling in London

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Economic

We need to pay more attention to skewed economic signals

Avatar

Published

on

By

The writer is chair of Queen’s College, Cambridge and advisor to Allianz and Gramercy

Inflation was the dominant economic and financial issue of 2022 for most countries around the world, especially for advanced economies that have a consequential impact on the global economy and markets.

The effects have been seen in declining living standards, increasing inequality, increasing borrowing costs, stock and bond market losses, and occasional financial mishaps (fortunately small and so far contained).

In this new year, recession, both actual and feared, has joined inflation in the driving seat of the global economy and is likely to replace it. It’s a development that makes the global economy and investment portfolios subject to a wide range of possible outcomes — something that a growing number of bond investors seem to be aware of more than their equity counterparts.

Advertisement

International Monetary Fund iYou will likely review soon Her economic growth forecasts again, predicting that “a third of the world will be hit by recession this year”. What is particularly notable to me about these worsening global prospects is not only that the world’s three major economic regions – China, the European Union and the United States – are slowing down together, but also that this is happening for different reasons.

In China, a chaotic exit from the wrong Covid-19 policy is undermining demand and causing more supply disruptions. Such headwinds to domestic and global economic well-being will continue as long as China fails to improve the coverage and effectiveness of its vaccination efforts. The strength and sustainability of the subsequent recovery will also require that the country more vigorously renew a growth model that can no longer rely on greater globalization.

The European Union continues to deal with energy supply disruptions as the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues. Strengthening inventory management and reorientation of energy supplies is well advanced in many countries. However, it is not yet sufficient to lift immediate constraints on growth, let alone resolve long-term structural headwinds.

The United States has the least problematic view. The headwinds to growth are due to the Fed’s struggle to contain inflation after mischaracterizing rate increases as fleeting and then initially being too timid to adjust monetary policy.

The Fed’s shift to an aggressive front-load of interest rate hikes came too late to prevent the spread of inflation in the services sector and wages. As such, inflation is likely to remain stubborn at around 4 percent, be less sensitive to interest rate policies and expose the economy to greater risk for accidents from additional policy errors that undermine growth.

Advertisement

The uncertainties facing each of these three economic areas suggest that analysts should be more careful in reassuring us that recessionary pressures will be “short and shallow”. They need to be open, if only to avoid repeating the mistake of prematurely dismissing inflation as transient.

This is especially important because these diverse drivers of recessionary risk make financial fragility more threatening and policy shifts more difficult, including potentially Japan. Get out of interest rate control Policy. The range of possible outcomes is extraordinarily large.

On the one hand, a better policy response, including improving the supply response and protecting the most vulnerable populations, can counteract the global economic slowdown and, in the case of the United States, avert a recession.

On the other hand, additional policy errors and market turmoil can lead to self-reinforcing vicious cycles with rising inflation and rising interest rates, weakening credit and compressed earnings, and stressing market performance.

Judging by market prices, more bond investors are better understanding this, including by refusing to follow the Fed’s interest rate guidance this year. Instead of a sustainable path to higher rates for 2023, they believe recessionary pressures will lead to cuts later this year. If true, government bonds would provide the yield and potential for badly missed portfolio risk mitigation in 2022.

Advertisement

However, parts of the stock market is still weakly bearish pricing. Reconciling these different scenarios is more important than investors. Without better alignment within markets and with policy signals, the positive economic and financial outcomes we all desire will be no less likely. They will also be challenged by the risk of more unpleasant outcomes at a time of less economic and human resilience.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Economic

Macro hedge funds end 2022 higher, investors say, while many others take big losses By Reuters

Avatar

Published

on

By


© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: Traders work on the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York City, US, January 5, 2023. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

By Svea Herbst Baylis

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Some hedge funds betting on macroeconomic trends have boasted of double and even triple-digit gains for 2022, while other high-profile companies that have long been on technology stocks have suffered heavy losses in volatile markets, investors said.

Rokos Capital, run by Chris Rokos and one of a handful of so-called global macro companies, gained 51% last year. Fund investors this week, who asked not to be identified, said Brevan Howard Asset Management, the company where Rokos once worked, posted a gain of 20.14% and Caxton Associates returned 16.73%.

Haider Capital Management’s Haider Jupiter Fund rose 193%, an investor said.

Advertisement

Data from hedge fund research showed that many macro managers have avoided crumbling stock markets that have been rocked by rapid interest rate increases and geopolitical turmoil, including the war in Ukraine, to rank among the best performers in the hedge fund industry. The company’s macro index rose 14.2% while the general index of hedge funds fell 4.25%, its first loss since 2018.

Equity hedge funds, where the bulk of the industry’s roughly $3.7 trillion in assets are invested, fared worse with a loss of 10.4%, according to HFR data. And while that beat the broader stock market’s loss of 19.4%, some high-profile funds posted even bigger losses.

Tiger Global Management lost 56% while Whale Rock Capital Management ended the year with a 43% loss and Maverick Capital lost 23%. Coatue Management ended 2022 with a loss of 19%.

But not all companies that bet on technology stocks suffered. John Thaler JAT Capital finished the year with a 3.7% gain after fees after a 33% increase in 2021 and a 46% gain in 2020.

Sculptor Capital Management (NYSE::), where founder Dan Och is fighting the company’s current CEO in court over his salary increase, posted a 13% drop.

Advertisement

David Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital, which bet that Elon Musk would be forced to buy Twitter, ended the year up 37% while Rick Sandler’s Eminence Capital rose 7%.

A number of so-called multi-manager companies where teams of portfolio managers bet on a variety of sectors also boast positive returns and have been able to deliver on their promise that hedge funds can deliver better returns in distressed markets.

Balyasny’s Atlas Fund (NYSE: Enhanced) gained 9.7%, while Point72 Asset Management gained 10%. Millennium Management gained 12% while Carlson Capital ended the year with a 7% gain.

Representatives for the companies either did not respond to requests for comment or declined to comment.

Source link

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Economic

German automakers point to easing supply chain problems

Avatar

Published

on

By

Sales at BMW and Mercedes-Benz jumped in the final months of 2022 as the German premium auto brands indicated supply chain problems plaguing the industry were abating.

Automakers around the world have experienced parts shortages since the pandemic, especially semiconductors, leaving many of them with large fleets of incomplete vehicles that can’t be delivered to customers.

BMW and Mercedes each said their full-year vehicle deliveries fell last year by 4.8 percent and 1 percent, respectively, due to Suppliers Bottlenecks as well as lockdowns in China and the war in Ukraine.

But supply pressures eased in the last quarter of the year, as BMW recorded a 10.6 percent jump in sales, with 651,798 vehicles delivered, and Mercedes fulfilling 540,800 orders, up 17 percent from the same period in 2022.

Advertisement

BMW He said the main effects of supply chain bottlenecks and continued lockdowns were felt in the first six months of the year, adding that “sales were steadily picking up in the second half.”

Mercedes boss Ula Kallenius told the Financial Times last week that the list of problems in the auto supply chain was declining, but added that long waits for cars would continue into 2023.

“One chip is enough to be vital [ . . .] Missing, and then you can’t finish the car, even if you have everything else.

Both brands recorded strong sales growth electric car. Mercedes, which last week announced a plan to build 10,000 charging docks, said EV shipments grew 124 percent to 117,800 last year compared with its predecessor.

Similarly, BMW reported strong growth in electric vehicle sales, with deliveries of fully electric vehicles doubling last year to 215,755.

Advertisement

Analysts at Bank of America said that sales of electric vehicles, including hybrid cars, reached a historic peak last November, with 1.1 million units sold. They attributed this largely to the upcoming phase-out of customer subsidies in Germany.

Participate in Mercedes BMW and BMW prices held steady Tuesday morning as investors priced in an image of an improving showing.

Rolls-Royce, a subsidiary of BMW, announced Monday that sales have hit a 119-year record, driven by strong demand in the United States, its largest market.

The luxury brand has been largely unaffected by the semiconductor pressure, mainly because it makes relatively few compounds and therefore needs fewer chips.

Source link

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending