Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sourman

Hedge Funds Are Evil

Recommended Posts

Greedy hedge funds, is there nothing they won't do t make money?

Hedge funds are turning huge swathes of Africa into consortiums supplying cut flowers and biofuels to the west, completely undermining the global levels of food production. This is not going to be pretty as millions of people starve so the banksters and there multicorp chums can make more profits. This can only lead to civil unrest and worse. I am speechless!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greedy hedge funds, is there nothing they won't do t make money?

Hedge funds are turning huge swathes of Africa into consortiums supplying cut flowers and biofuels to the west, completely undermining the global levels of food production. This is not going to be pretty as millions of people starve so the banksters and there multicorp chums can make more profits. This can only lead to civil unrest and worse. I am speechless!

The EU does likewise by running protection rackets on food production allied with dumping aid which kills businesses.

Civil unrest is exactly what's required. Remember, this doesn't happen by accident. Certain African Governments demonstrate levels of inhumanity and corruption that make our lot look like saints. Africans have to get a grip of themselves to stop this sort of looting, as we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, that report sounds like complete testicles.

I don't want to suggest that hedge funds are the epitome of kindness - they're commercial companies taking real risks in search of profit. What's evil are the corrupt regimes in which only behaviour that undermines the common good is profitable. What's needed are strong governments who are willing to face up to the problems. If there's a perceived problem with hedge funds buying up lots of land and using it for purposes outside the national interest of the country in question - then the solution is simple: pass a law and impose a massive tax on any behaviour you don't like. QED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, that report sounds like complete testicles.

I don't want to suggest that hedge funds are the epitome of kindness - they're commercial companies taking real risks in search of profit. What's evil are the corrupt regimes in which only behaviour that undermines the common good is profitable. What's needed are strong governments who are willing to face up to the problems. If there's a perceived problem with hedge funds buying up lots of land and using it for purposes outside the national interest of the country in question - then the solution is simple: pass a law and impose a massive tax on any behaviour you don't like. QED.

Which is like saying that the police are responsible for all rapes.

If someone is doing something evil and you give them your money, you are then at least partially responsible for what they get up to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the BBC could spend a bit of time investigating the land ownership/distribution problems we have in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is like saying that the police are responsible for all rapes.

If someone is doing something evil and you give them your money, you are then at least partially responsible for what they get up to.

I'm not at all convinced, by the evidence presented, that the hedge funds are doing anything "evil" in the first place. I remain to be convinced that what they're doing is even detrimental to the common good - even though I do not feel they need be ethically bound to act in such a way.

It's not like saying that the police are responsible for all rapes. There's no analogy there - not even a tenuous one.

Further, I don't agree that I am responsible for others' behaviour when I pay them. If by 'give them your money' you mean entrust someone to manage your assets - then I am responsible for them to the extent that I should expect no sympathy if I suffer losses as the result of having made a poor choice. Unethical behaviour correlates with poor investments... there's every reason for hedge funds and their investors to want ethical behaviour in order to protect the long-term value of their assets and to minimise the risk of substantial losses should a government impose penalties in order to resolve social issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the BBC could spend a bit of time investigating the land ownership/distribution problems we have in the UK.

Now thats just being silly!

And even if they did, it would all be the fault of Thatcha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not at all convinced, by the evidence presented, that the hedge funds are doing anything "evil" in the first place. I remain to be convinced that what they're doing is even detrimental to the common good - even though I do not feel they need be ethically bound to act in such a way.

It's not like saying that the police are responsible for all rapes. There's no analogy there - not even a tenuous one.

You said pass a law to solve the problem and it's up[ to regulators to sort it. Which is the same as saying it's up to the police and parliament to end rapes. Completely removes the free will of people.

Further, I don't agree that I am responsible for others' behaviour when I pay them. If by 'give them your money' you mean entrust someone to manage your assets - then I am responsible for them to the extent that I should expect no sympathy if I suffer losses as the result of having made a poor choice.

If you invest in, say, an arms firm that is supply one side of a war - you are (partially) responsible for those who get killed.

if you invest in a company which has shit health and safety, you are responsible for any injuries which result. You can dodge this with the law but the morals are clear. If you pay for it, you make it happen and you therefore own anything that results (at least in part.)

Unethical behaviour correlates with poor investments... there's every reason for hedge funds and their investors to want ethical behaviour in order to protect the long-term value of their assets and to minimise the risk of substantial losses should a government impose penalties in order to resolve social issues.

Shame people are kinda hazy on what ethics are then, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that there is a demand for these products and I assume that these hedge funds plan to use the land more productively than the previous owners.

If you want to see how land can be mismanaged by locals then look no further than Zimbabwe.

However I am sure that there is also plenty of corruption along the way which needs to be addressed by the locals rather than bleeding heart western liberals - after all thirty years of Western aid has done nothing to solve the problem so I assume some capital will be more beneficial..

The bleeding heart western liberals I know love to have plenty of cut flowers in their homes and care not where they came from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hedge funds are turning huge swathes of Africa into consortiums supplying cut flowers and biofuels to the west, completely undermining the global levels of food production. This is not going to be pretty as millions of people starve so the banksters and there multicorp chums can make more profits. This can only lead to civil unrest and worse. I am speechless!

I now have the mental image of arch villains growing cut flowers - has Softy Walter from the Beano grown up to become Dr Evil...?

More seriously, there is clearly a finite amount of agricultural land available in the world, and so somehow we must divvy it up between food, fuel and cut flowers. Ideally i'd hope market economics should automatically solve the problem though - food prices are likely to be driven up so high it will become more profitable to grow food than flowers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greedy hedge funds, is there nothing they won't do t make money?

Hedge funds are turning huge swathes of Africa into consortiums supplying cut flowers and biofuels to the west, completely undermining the global levels of food production. This is not going to be pretty as millions of people starve so the banksters and there multicorp chums can make more profits. This can only lead to civil unrest and worse. I am speechless!

You seem to be complaining that investors are piling money into Africa to grow more things. The land in Africa is badly under-utilised when compared to western productivity levels.

I saw some documentary not long ago about an India chap who got a lease on 100,000 hectares of land in Ethiopia (on very advantageous terms it must be said). His plan was to grow cereals, he expected to increase world production by close to 10% with this one project.

What's wrong with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be complaining that investors are piling money into Africa to grow more things. The land in Africa is badly under-utilised when compared to western productivity levels.

I saw some documentary not long ago about an India chap who got a lease on 100,000 hectares of land in Ethiopia (on very advantageous terms it must be said). His plan was to grow cereals, he expected to increase world production by close to 10% with this one project.

What's wrong with this?

The forcing of thecurrent people off the land at despot point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greedy hedge funds, is there nothing they won't do t make money?

Hedge funds are turning huge swathes of Africa into consortiums supplying cut flowers and biofuels to the west, completely undermining the global levels of food production. This is not going to be pretty as millions of people starve so the banksters and there multicorp chums can make more profits. This can only lead to civil unrest and worse. I am speechless!

You need to think more before forming an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I now have the mental image of arch villains growing cut flowers - has Softy Walter from the Beano grown up to become Dr Evil...?

More seriously, there is clearly a finite amount of agricultural land available in the world, and so somehow we must divvy it up between food, fuel and cut flowers. Ideally i'd hope market economics should automatically solve the problem though - food prices are likely to be driven up so high it will become more profitable to grow food than flowers.

Whose market though? Is there a global market, or is income inequality making sure some markets can't compete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ASHkenazi Jew 'Hedge funder' Nathan Rothschild is evil and has his hooks in George Osbourne.

speaking of the devil...

More exploitation of Africa to make the richest of the rich even richer:

Rothschild and Hayward seek £1bn for fund

By Gordon Smith

Published: June 9 2011 09:56 | Last updated: June 9 2011 13:10

Nathaniel Rothschild, the City financier, and Tony Hayward, the former chief executive of BP, on Thursday announced their intention to raise up to £1bn from the listing of a new cash shell to target investments in the booming emerging market oil and gas sector.

The new fund, which will be known as Vallares, will seek to take stakes in companies with proven reserves primarily in Russia, the Middle East, Africa or Latin America.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e2565d94-926a-11e0-96e0-00144feab49a.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The forcing of thecurrent people off the land at despot point?

It's the old dilemma: a couple of villages without land titles sitting on 100,000 hectares of land they are not using vs. increasing global food production by x%.

Tricky on moral grounds but no contest on rational grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been banging on for two years about World's Elites buying up productive farmland around the World leaving it uncultivated or in non-food production. People like Bill Gates/Rothschild etc are part of this - creating artificial World food shortages and blaming it all on normal weather pattern extremes going on around the World

They then cream in the lolly from commodity bets (whilst millions starve to death) whilst giving the impression they are huge philanthropists (philistines?) to the poor.

Could even Bill Gates buy up enough land to make a significant movement in global food prices??

And even if so, would this really make more money from commodity betting than has been lost through paying for land that is then wasted or used in inefficient ways??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the old dilemma: a couple of villages without land titles sitting on 100,000 hectares of land they are not using vs. increasing global food production by x%.

Tricky on moral grounds but no contest on rational grounds.

Moral grounds ARE rational grounds.

Given how much money is going to be made, rather than sticking the local warlord at these poor sods, you could pay them or make them shareholders and get them to move that way.

Local despot is cheaper tho, so worthless unethical scumbags will use him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Local despot is cheaper tho, so worthless unethical scumbags will use him.

I'm being devil's advocate here, I'd rather the handful of local people were properly compensated but fact is: the land does belong to the local despot, not the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am on the verge of publishing my blog to the general public but can only do so once Interpol and Indonesian Anti Corruption Commission have made use of it first.

Bali TV and the the Jakarta Post will have first use of the story. I am about to show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes. Be prepared to be very angry indeed.

I used to post under a different name here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm being devil's advocate here, I'd rather the handful of local people were properly compensated but fact is: the land does belong to the local despot, not the people.

If it does, I suspect only because he or his ancestors took it by force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it does, I suspect only because he or his ancestors took it by force.

Exactly, as has happened in every country in the world throughout history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />Could even Bill Gates buy up enough land to make a significant movement in global food prices??<br /><br />And even if so, would this really make more money from commodity betting than has been lost through paying for land that is then wasted or used in inefficient ways??<br />

What planet do you live on - do mummy and daddy pay for all your food bills?

The people we are discussing are ruthless. If they make 1p more per acre by leaving it fallow they will do it and not care about knock-on effects starving millions to death.

The last City gambles a year ago on food basics like rice/wheat were said to have caused 30 million deaths by starvation in poor countries.

New zealand have banned foreign investors buying up their croplands

Read below and you will see the wolf packs homing in on making a killing on others misery. The mere fact that they have all homed in on this has forced farmland prices up by more than double which then forces up food prices. They are also creating a semi-monopoly as the investors now all become vi's in making sure food prices rocket into the stratesphere to get their chunk of profits out of it.

The practice is actually legalised extortion placed on a basic human need (like banks/their shareholders play with shelter)

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

https://secure.globeadvisor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/gam/20101124/BIG8FOODINVESTING1124ATL

Driven by rising prices for agricultural commodities, global investment funds are buying up millions of acres of farmland around the world in a modern-day land rush.

Under pressure to relax its restrictive ownership rules as investors seek to buy its cheap and productive land, Saskatchewan faces a question, Paul Waldie and Jessica Leeder report: Are such deals the source of needed capital, or the beginning of a new feudalism and the end of the family farm?

PAUL WALDIE and JESSICA LEEDER

Larry Spratt was combining with his father on their grain farm near Melfort, Sask., last November when a car pulled up along a nearby highway.

Out jumped Wally Johnston, a former Ontario farmer and now a vice-president at Bonnefield Financial, a Toronto-based investment firm. Mr. Johnston waved the Spratts over for a chat. "He said he was touring around Saskatchewan trying to meet farmers and we talked to him for a while," Mr. Spratt recalls.

Mr. Johnston explained that Bonnefield was looking to buy farmland for investors and then lease it back to farmers to operate. The Spratts had heard the pitch before. They knew several farmers who had signed up with other investment companies and land prices in the area had been soaring as a result. Some farms were going for as much as $1,200 an acre, more than double the price in other parts of the province.

Mr. Johnston lucked out. It just so happened the Spratts rented a piece of land that was coming up for sale. Mr. Spratt and his father wanted to keep farming the acreage but they couldn't afford to buy it. So he put Mr. Johnston in touch with the owner and they struck a deal. A few weeks later Mr. Spratt negotiated a rental arrangement with Bonnefield, a private firm that invests on behalf of wealthy Canadian investors. "It worked out well," Mr. Spratt says from his home on the 8,000-acre farm.

Similar deals are being struck around the world in what has become an unprecedented rush by global investment funds to buy farmland. By some estimates these funds have sunk as much as $20-billion (U.S.) into these acquisitions.

Last year alone they bought 111 million acres of farmland, a tenfold increase from previous years.

Saskatchewan has become one of the new frontiers in this global trend. The province has some of the most productive, and least expensive, farmland in the world. But restrictive ownership rules have largely kept out foreigners, pension funds and publicly traded companies. Pressure is mounting inside and outside Canada to change the rules and open up the province.

"There are people that are dying to invest large sums of money to acquire farmland in Canada that aren't Canadian citizens," says Jan Kaminski, founder of Bonnefield. "These people are absolutely open for business in Saskatchewan."

Mr. Kaminski and others say investors provide badly needed capital to farmers that helps them become more productive. But critics worry about the implications of so many outsider landowners.

"We believe that family farmers should be the food producers in this country," says Terry Boehm, president of the National Farmers Union Canada. "When you shift land ownership, you move into a new feudalism where those that work on the land become labourers. In the Prairie region and many parts of Canada, we have land resources that other countries can't imagine having. Who do people want producing their food and under what kind of methods do they want it done?"

It's easy to see what's driving the interest in farmland. Food security concerns - global agricultural productivity will have to increase 70 per cent by 2050 to feed the world, according to projections by the United Nations - and the 2008 surge in agricultural commodity prices are leading investors to look at agriculture as a promising new asset class. The returns haven't hurt either. According to a U.S. farmland index, investments in agricultural land have significantly outperformed the stock market, generating annualized returns of 13.9 per cent in the last decade.

Today, investment funds at places as diverse as the Mormon Church, Manulife Financial Corp. and the Dallas police department are pouring billions of dollars into farmland. In Canada, the CPP Investment Board is looking at investing in farmland and four companies are already snapping up thousands of acres in Saskatchewan - Bonnefield, Pike Management, AgCapital Partners and Assiniboia Capital. A subsidiary of Toronto-based Sprott Resource Corp., called One Earth Farms, is also working with first nations to manage up to one million acres of farmland in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba.

"I go to agriculture conferences around the world and I run into [investment funds with] trillions of dollars interested in agriculture," says Brad Farquhar, co-founder of Regina-based Assiniboia, which has bought more than 90,000 acres of Saskatchewan farmland in the last five years. "I think this is the future."

Not all of these investments have been welcomed. When South Korea's Daewoo Logistics tried to buy 4.7 million acres in Madagascar in 2008, representing about half the country's arable land, it caused an outcry and a newly elected government cancelled the acquisition. Other deals, particularly in Africa, have fallen through because of local opposition and weak ownership laws. Some critics have raised concerns about the amount of farmland being bought by state-owned funds. By some estimates, government funds from China, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, Japan, and Saudi Arabia control more than 18 million acres of cultivable land, mainly in Africa.

The crush of so many bandwagons at the farm gate is also giving some Canadian farmers pause. "You don't want to jump on the first one that comes your way," says Jeff Watson, who handles marketing for the family's 12,000 acres of grain land about an hour south of Regina. But after 10 or so pitches, Mr. Watson says a future partnership with investors has begun to seem inevitable.

For Saskatchewan, the buying binge represents a challenge to a decades-old system designed to keep out foreigners. Successive provincial governments worked have hard to keep the value of farmland low in order to keep it affordable for young farmers. As a result, the province's ownership rules have been among the toughest in the country And for years farmland was generally restricted to Saskatchewan residents. The government loosened the rules in 2003, opening the door to Canadians from other provinces and private Canadian companies. But foreigners are limited to owning just 10 acres, and publicly traded companies and pension funds are still generally blocked from buying farmland.

Those rules have succeeded in keeping Saskatchewan farmland prices remarkably low. The average price has held steady at around $500 an acre for years. By contrast, prices in Ontario and Manitoba, which have less restrictive ownership rules, have risen sharply and are now three to eight times higher. Prices across much of the United States and Europe are 10 times as high.

Many investment fund managers and some farmers say Saskatchewan's ownership restrictions are outdated, particularly the restrictions on Canadian pension funds. "It's a fantastic asset and it's Canadian, so why the hell can't they own farmland?" says Tom Eisenhauer, president of Bonnefield., which like other Canadian farmland funds must follow tight regulations on who can invest in its fund.

Saskatchewan officials are well aware of the growing interest in the province's farmland, and say restrictions might eventually be loosened. But they are in no hurry. "This isn't on our to-do list," Alanna Koch, the province's deputy minister of agriculture, told reporters at a recent conference on agriculture investing.

Many farmers say they would love more financing opportunities. Costs have climbed steadily in recent years, often nullifying increases in crop prices and adding more debt to farmers' bottom lines. "The possibilities of a bigger return on an acre today are probably higher than they've ever been, but the risks are higher than the rewards," says Robert Dueck, a 15-year farmer currently working 7,000 acres near Prince Albert.

Farmers who want to stay in business are going to have to figure out how to scale up - or consider selling the farm to corporations with enough capital to drive up productivity, says David Sparling, a professor of agri-food innovation and regulation at the University of Western Ontario's Richard Ivey School of Business. "We're going to need new business models to compete in global markets in the economies of scale we're seeing," he says.

Back in Melfort, Mr. Spratt knows he is on the front lines of the debate. The issue is a hot topic around town, with some folks furious about investment funds moving in and others worried about reports that an Alberta businessman recently bought 16,000 acres.

"Some people say they are coming in and they are going to take over everything and the family farm is going to die," Mr. Spratt says. "I don't see it that way. Times are tough and farmers need to raise capital."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />speaking of the devil...<br /><br />More exploitation of Africa to make the richest of the rich even richer:<br /><br /><br /><a href='http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e2565d94-926a-11e0-96e0-00144feab49a.html' class='bbc_url' title='' rel='nofollow'>http://www.ft.com/cm...144feab49a.html</a><br />

Note the symbollic reference back to the vampire homeland of the Ashkenazi Monguls - "take stakes in"

Fund name Vallares stems from "to hedge/fence in / enclose"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.