Bloomberg and Galaxy Digital Launch Benchmark for Decentralized Finance (DeFi)

Expands Crypto Capabilities for Institutions
Bloomberg, along with Galaxy Digital, today announced the expansion of its crypto offering with the launch of the Bloomberg Galaxy DeFi Index (ticker: DEFI). Alongside the index launch, Galaxy Digital’s funds platform, Galaxy Fund Management, is now offering the Galaxy DeFi Index Fund, a passively managed fund tracking the performance of DEFI.

www.bloomberg.com

ブルームバーグとGalaxy DigitalはBloomberg Galaxy DeFi Index (ticker:DEFI)の立ち上げを拡大すると発表しました。

DeFiについて深い知見があるわけではないので、評価はできないですが、インデックスの内訳が

UNI Uniswap 40.0%
AAVE AAVE 18.0%
MKR Maker 12.7%
COMP Compound 10.0%
YFI Finance 5.4%
SNX Synthetix 5.0%
SUSHI SushiSwap 4.3%
ZXR 0x 2.8%
UMA UMA 1.8%

のようなので、まだまだ未成熟なのかなという印象を受けます。

DeFiがどれだけ既存金融分野に浸透していくかが見ものであります。

2021-08-20

ESG投資ブームはITバブルと同じ末路を辿る？

ESG must learn from the tech bubble — returns matter

Longstanding ESG fund managers — there are a few around — should compare experiences with managers of technology funds at the beginning of the dotcom boom over 20 years ago.
Everybody got the tech bug, until it ended in tears. Whether investing on environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria amounts to a bubble or not, ESG investors should keep sight of their financial objectives.
During the dotcom bubble the investment industry was transformed. Investment bank analysts ditched their suits for the jeans and T-shirts uniform of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, while claiming that the future was all about technology, media and telecoms companies.
Tech stocks soared and non-tech companies rebranded to get in on the action. It seemed that almost any listed company launching a website saw its share price rise. New money, fuelled by relatively low interest rates, chased start-ups without revenues, let alone the prospect of profits. Innovative methods to value companies far into the future were promoted, implying further upside to share prices.
Technology funds launched and index providers obliged with new benchmarks. The demand for tech investments vastly exceeded sustainable supply, while “old economy” stocks, which generated sales, profits, and dividends, were sold. It all seemed very credible and exciting. We know how it ended.
ESG investing has increased substantially in the past three years or so. It is an exciting time.
Estimates of its growth vary. Morningstar reports that a net $51.1bn flowed into US sustainable funds alone in 2020. In early April 2021, BlackRock, the investment group, achieved the largest ETF launch to date, raising $1.25bn for its new US Carbon Transition Readiness Fund.
Existing funds are rebranding as ESG-focused. Many companies are rushing to align with the trend. New sustainability benchmarks have been developed. Green bonds are being issued at a premium to their conventional equivalents from the same issuers.
Yet investors are still buying. Are we in a bubble of sustainability assets? Patrick Pouyanné, chief executive of Total, the French energy group, declared in February that renewable energy valuations were “just crazy today”, with oil companies buying in their rush to demonstrate they were also climate friendly. His comments were met with barely more than a collective shrug. The demand for sustainable assets has exceeded supply, driving up prices and reducing future returns.
In time, the supply of credible “sustainability investments” will increase and companies will adapt to investor and consumer demands. Some investors will pay too much and experience disappointing returns while others will do well. This is how markets work. The tech boom led to substantial gains to the consumer. For example, online retailing is now part of life; 20 years ago, it was innovation. Many investors lost substantial amounts of money but some innovative firms became the Big Tech giants of today.
The case for ESG is not made by short-term performance, however welcome it may be. ESG equity funds may have performed relatively well last year compared to conventional benchmarks, but many would have benefited from underweight positions in oil stocks and, perhaps unintentionally, from exposure to large companies with strong quality and growth characteristics. Likewise, it would be unfair to declare that ESG has failed because it had a bad quarter. What matters is the extent to which ESG funds meet their investment objectives and financial return expectations adjusted for their ESG criteria. If they do this, the case is made.
An investor might choose to invest in a higher-risk prospect which could succeed and, say, fight climate change, or fail with consequent loss. There will also be times when responsible investors will accept lower returns than otherwise apparently possible, partly because they will consider external costs to society or they will ethically exclude sectors that at times will perform well. But that is very different to relaxing investment discipline, either in the management of active funds or in asset allocation decisions.
The Business Roundtable, an organisation of large US companies, announced in 2019 that shareholder value would no longer be its members’ sole focus. Instead, with ESG enthusiasm soaring, they would attend to a range of stakeholders. That was not necessarily good news.
History provides many examples of managements focusing on something other than sustainable investment returns, such as the value of their stock options and executive pay, empire building, or political influence. These stories do not usually end well for investors; if shareholder returns are downplayed too far, investors are ill served. Unless a business is sustainable financially it will not be around to exercise responsibility. The prize is found in integrating financial and ESG objectives.
The case of Danone is instructive on the role shareholders can play. A company with a declared and deep commitment to social purpose was nevertheless under pressure to improve financial returns, including from an activist shareholder committed to ESG. The result was the removal in March of Emmanuel Faber, the joint chair and chief executive. Whether or not one agrees the Danone activists were being fair, the best ESG fund managers will be passionate believers in investing responsibly in a sustainable market economy, but sceptical of all they survey, including chief executives and companies bearing ESG gifts but not delivering financial returns.
History is not preordained to repeat itself, but ESG investors should pay attention to prospective financial returns as well as other potential gains to society. If they are not aligned, someone will be paying over the odds.
Stephen Beer is vice-chair of the Church Investors Group. This article represents his personal opinion

ESG must learn from the tech bubble — returns matter | Financial Times

ESGに懐疑的な見方をする記事です。

ESG投資について、ITバブルのように、実態と乖離した水準で株式投資が行われているのではないかといった点について指摘しています。

昨今のESGファンドの評価に関して、たまたま業績が良かった企業の株価上昇によって恩恵を受けているにもかかわらず、まるでESGファンド全体の業績が向上しているように見えています。

なので、今後一層、ESGファンドにおける投資ポリシーや投資目標などについて、投資家は詳細に状況を確認する必要があるとしています。

私はESG投資の考え自体は良いことであり、企業の社会的責任と言われるように影響力もそれなりにあることから、常に頭の片隅においておかねばならないと思います。

しかし、それは業績を上げ、株主に還元し、法人税をしっかり国に納めたうえでやるものと思います。

もちろん、児童労働や環境汚染を過度に引き起こす公害などは論外ですが。

何が言いたいかというと、ESG投資を一過性のもので終わらせるのではなく、ESG投資自体を持続可能なものにする必要があると考えます。

最近は多くの企業でカーボンニュートラルやTCFD賛同などいろいろと標榜していますが、本当にそれできるの？と思ってしまいます。

投資家もそれに飛びついて資金を供給するのではなく、エンゲージメントをして企業価値向上を目指し、企業も安易にESGだけを標榜すれば金が集まるみたいなムーブメントはよしてほしいなと思う次第です。

2021-08-20

CMEがCboeを買収との観測

CME in $16bn bid for Chicago exchange rival Cboe

CME Group has approached fellow Chicago exchange company Cboe Global Markets about an all-share deal to acquire the owner of the Vix volatility indices for nearly $16bn.
CME, the world’s largest futures exchange operator, has offered 0.75 of its own shares for every Cboe share, according to three people familiar with the matter. The price would value Cboe at about $150 per share, around 20 per cent above its current price of $123.
After the Financial Times first published news of the approach, CME issued a denial.
“CME Group denies all rumours that [it] is in conversations to acquire Cboe Global Markets. The company has not had any discussions with Cboe whatsoever,” it said.
CME told the FT prior to publication that it declined to comment on speculation. Cboe said that it “does not comment on market rumours or speculation”.
At the close of trade in New York on Wednesday, CME shares were 3.8 per cent lower at $197.58, while Cboe was down 1.2 per cent to $122.63.

www.ft.com

CMEがCboeを買収するという観測が出ました。

CMEは公式に明確に否定をしているが、今後、デリバティブマーケットの再編が進むかもしれないですね。

OSEならびにTOCOMはどんどんデリバティブマーケットから後塵を拝している印象だが、日本のデリバティブマーケットが活況を取り戻す日は来るのでしょうか？

個人的にはSGXとJPXは将来的に合併していくのではないかと思います。JPXではなくSGXが買う側として…。

現実問題としては金融庁からストップがかかるでしょうけど、観測は出るかもしれません。

残念ながら東京の国際金融センターとしての地位はガタ落ちであり、このままでは危ういと思っています。話はそれますが、国際金融センターとして日本はどうして中途半端な施策しか打てないのでしょうか？

日本の強みは工業でもITでもなく、インバウンドだと安倍政権がした以上、ケイマン諸島やラブアン島みたいなノリの金融特区を作り、人を集めるしか手立てがないと思っています。

このあたりは思いつきの浅はか思考なので、あしからず…。