Today the Government has announced that it intends to reform the Defamation Act and take other steps to stop abusive legal practices. In particular the use of expensive lawsuits to inhibit free speech – so-called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPS).
This is particularly relevant at the moment as it is alleged wealthy Russian oligarchs have used the high cost of litigation to stifle public criticism of their actions and past careers. Just by commencing a legal action on claimed defamations they can force the defending party to run up costs of thousands of pounds and the threat of pursuing it through the courts at even higher costs effectively bullies the defendants to concede defeat and withdraw. The current English legal system effectively allows the wealthy to defeat justice.
It is suggested that the “public interest” defence could be strengthened and a need to prove “actual malice” be introduced, although to my mind that would not solve the problem as it would just lead to more lengthy debate by lawyers. This would not be a simplification in essence.
SLAPPS are not new of course but may have become a growing industry for lawyers to feed on. For example, it was well known that fraudster Robert Maxwell used lawyers to intimidate reporters and suppress negative stories on his activities.
But the real problem is that such cases are always tried in the High Court. That means there is a complex pre-action protocol and discovery phase and when it gets into court, potentially several days of multiple QCs acting for both parties at enormous cost.
It not only makes defending against allegations of defamation exceedingly costly, particularly if the pursuing party uses delays, complications or repeated claims to increase the costs, but it also makes it prohibitive for someone to make a claim for defamation unless they are quite wealthy. The risk of losing a case when the other side have run up enormous legal costs puts off most people from pursuing such cases.
In summary libel cases are too expensive and can only be pursued or defended by the very wealthy even when the complaints might be quite trivial in nature. The whole system needs reform with minor cases being considered by more junior courts and a cap on costs being imposed early on.
The listing of shares in Evraz (EVR) have been suspended so all trading is barred. They were not suspended at the request of the company which is the more common circumstance but at the behest of the Financial Conduct Authority. The suggestion is that this was to protect investors pending clarification of the impact of the UK sanctions.
But the suspension of shares should in my view be an action of last resort. The suspension of shares is enormously damaging to investors because they are then locked in, and such suspensions can last a very long time. Investors may have borrowed cash to purchase the shares and then can’t get out.
Similar problems are affecting other Russia-linked firms such as Polymetal, Petropavlovsk and Raven Property as they are deleted from FTSE indexes and it is reported that brokers are refusing to trade their shares.
EVRAZ is a vertically integrated steel, mining and vanadium business with operations in Russia, the United States, Canada, the Czech Republic and Kazakhstan. EVRAZ is one of the top steel producers in the world based on crude steel production of 13.6 million tonnes in 2020. Picture above is of one of their steel mills from their annual report.
It is a UK registered company but Roman Abramovich owns 29% of the shares and allegedly has close links with Vladimir Putin, although he denies that. The BBC recently ran a programme which did a hatchet job on his reputation and alleged he acquired his wealth by fraud. Without going into the accuracy of those reports, it does seem to me that sanctions are being imposed on political grounds in an extra judicial process.
I think few people might question the imposition of sanctions on individuals who are linked to the Russian regime. But the problem is Evraz has a wide shareholder base. That includes many private shareholders. According to an Investors Chronicle article, they said AJ Bell had revealed that shares in Evraz and Polymetal were its two most bought shares over the past week. With both stocks plunging more than 80% year to date, this has led some to buy in as an opportunity to reap dividend payments potentially higher than the cost of the shares. However dividends have been suspended at Evraz.
The suspension of shares in Evraz might harm Abramovitch and his Russian friends but it will also damage the interests of other innocent people. This is not reasonable.
Evraz is clearly in a difficult financial position as the company will suffer from sanctions and all the non-executive directors have now resigned. Is that justification for halting trading in the shares? I am not convinced it is.
Companies can rightly, in my view, request suspension of their shares when past accounts are shown to be dubious – for example because of discovered frauds. This is to give time for the company to report what it knows and ensure all shareholders are aware of the issue before the listing is reinstated.
But simple doubts about the future prospects of the company should not be a sufficient justification for suspending a listing. I recall the example of Northern Rock where it got into financial difficulties and there was a run on the bank. It was running out of cash and there was a threat of nationalisation, but the shares were not suspended. It was only delisted when nationalisation took place.
It does seem to me that ShareSoc, which represents private shareholders, should take up this issue and request that the listing be reinstated as soon as possible. And the FCA should establish clear rules about when a listing should be suspended.
A suspended share listing can create enormous problems for investors. For example, if they have borrowed to buy the shares, or are trying to act as executor for an investor. Valuing the shares for probate is very difficult and there is no way to realise the value to pay IHT.
Mixing politics (the attack on all things Russian) with finance is a very bad idea.
For the avoidance of doubt, please note I have no interest in the shares of Evraz or any other Russian linked companies.
It’s nine months since I last commented on Abcam (ABC) but I still hold some of the shares so I watched the results webinar today. This covered the results for both the 12 and 18 month periods ending December 2021 as they moved the company’s year end – for no good reason that I could see.
The reported profit was up at 7.1m in the 12 month period which is a substantial improvement and revenue was up by 17% but the company preferred to talk about adjusted profits which were given as 60.4m “adjusted operating profit”. Adjustments comprise everything the company wants to ignore and even extends to “systems and process improvement costs” and “integration and reorganisation costs”.
In summary the results were not brilliant in essence for what is supposed to be a growth company in a hot sector (biotech).
I have commented negatively in the past about the slow and expensive implementation of a new ERP system and on this it is stated that “roll-out of the final states of the ERP renewal programme continued”. In other words, it’s still on-going.
The webinar comments from the CEO effectively said the company had been building for the future in the last couple of years. I hope that is the case. The strategy in many regards makes sense but a lot of costs are being incurred which have been capitalised. The share price has not moved far in the last three years but the company has been impacted by the Covid epidemic.
One question put by an analyst was for more explanation of the comment in the announcement that “The Board continues to review options to increase share liquidity and intends to consult with shareholders on these options in due course. Is this an indication of a placing particularly to attract more US shareholders? I suggest it might be. But the analyst did not get an answer to his question.
Another company that reported results this morning was Fonix Mobile (FNX). There was a good profile of this business published in Small Company Sharewatch last week. I can do no better than repeat some of the comments by Paul Scott of Stockopedia on the results:
“I’m impressed with these numbers. Fonix floated on AIM in Oct 2020, and amazingly for a fairly recent float, it has not collapsed after a profit warning, nor run out of money!
I remember having a video call with the CEO around the time it floated, and thinking what an impressive business this is – dominating a niche of payments/votes for reality and charity TV shows (e.g. X-Factor, Children In Need), Fonix has the infrastructure for taking those payments/votes, and the customers tend to be very sticky, coming back year after year – on the basis of if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
That results in a cash generative business, with high margins, which is able to pay out decent divis, with a yield of c.4%”.
It is a relatively small business but looked reasonable value to me although the costs of the AIM flotation were high and directors were selling as part of it but I did read the prospectus so did purchase a few shares. The interim results are excellent.
This is the kind of business I like – good return on capital, high recurring revenue and positive cash flow. The prospects look good.
But like any e-payment business its accounts can be difficult to follow and there is a regulatory risk for the business if the FCA decided to tighten its rules.
No doubt like many of my readers, I have been buying a few shares in alternative energy suppliers – those that own solar and wind farms or grid stabilisation/battery operations. The move to decarbonise the economy has been made even more urgent by the likely reduction in gas supplies from Russia.
I have been studying the accounts of The Renewables Infrastructure Group (TRIG) in which I own a few shares, and I have some concerns. This company is an investment company which owns wind and solar farms (one example is above). A wind farm is in essence a facility where a windmill is installed to generate electricity which is then sold on to the grid, i.e. a capital asset is purchased and installed which then generates revenue. This is rather like a manufacturing company so one might expect that the traditional accounting for such a business is used, i.e. the assets are capitalised on the balance sheet and then written off through the P&L statement over the life of the asset. Income is simply the sales of the electricity.
But this model is not used at TRIG. It actually owns 50 wind projects, 32 solar PV projects and one battery storage project. There are some minority interests but most of them are 100% owned. The ownership is structured via independent companies in which TRIG has equity investments.
Those investments are valued in the accounts on the directors estimates of future revenues and cash flows. This is actually what is said in the last Annual Report on page 62:
“For non-market traded investments (being all the investments in the current portfolio), the valuation is based on a discounted cash flow methodology and adjusted in accordance with the European Venture Capital Association’s valuation guidelines where appropriate to comply with IFRS 13 and IFRS 10, given the special nature of infrastructure investments.
The valuation for each investment in the portfolio is derived from the application of an appropriate discount rate to reflect the perceived risk to the investment’s future cash flows to give the present value of those cash flows. The Investment Manager exercises its judgement in assessing the expected future cash flows from each investment based on the project’s expected life and the financial model produced by each project entity. In determining the appropriate discount rate to apply to a given investment the Investment Manager takes into account the relative risks associated with the revenues which include fixed price per MWh income (lower risk) or merchant power sales income (higher risk). Where a project has both income types a theoretical split of future receipts has been applied, with a different (higher) discount rate used for an investment’s return deriving from the merchant income compared to the fixed price income, equivalent to using an appropriate blended rate for the investment”.
In summary, the profits that the company declares, and its net asset value, are based on the managers future estimates of cash flows.
The Annual Report also contains this statement in the Audit Committee Report:
“Valuation of Investments – key forecast assumptions
The Audit Committee considered in detail those assumptions that are subject to judgement that have a material impact on the valuation. The key assumptions are:
Power Price Assumptions. A significant proportion of the wind and solar projects’ income streams are contracted subsidy receipts and power income under long-term PPAs; some of which have fixed price mechanisms. However, over time the proportion of power income that is fixed reduces and the proportion where the Company has exposure to wholesale electricity prices increases. The Investment Manager considers the forecasts provided by a number of expert energy advisers and adopts a profile of assumed future power prices by jurisdiction. Further detail on the assumptions made in relation to power prices and other variables that may be expected to affect these are included in the Valuation section of the Strategic Report.
Macroeconomic Assumptions. Macroeconomic assumptions include inflation, foreign exchange, interest and tax rate assumptions. The Investment Manager’s assumptions in this area are set out and explained in the Valuation section of the Strategic Report.
Other Key Income and Cost Assumptions. Other key assumptions include operating costs, facility energy generation levels and facility remaining operating life assumptions.
The Audit Committee considers the remaining operating life assumptions in light of public information provided by the Company’s peer group and reports provided by the Operations Manager during the year considering the remaining operational lives for investments and considering any potential extension of those lives and the recognition of additional value resulting to be appropriate. The independent valuation carried out in June 2021 also supported the assumed operating lives.
The Investment Manager has discussed and agreed the valuation assumptions with the Audit Committee. In relation to the key judgements underpinning the valuation, the Investment Manager has provided sensitivities showing the impact of changing these assumptions and these have been reviewed by the Investment Manager and the Audit Committee to assist in forming an opinion on the fairness and balance of the annual report together with their conclusion on the overall valuation.
Valuation Discount Rates. The discount rates adopted to determine the valuation are selected and recommended by the Investment Manager. The discount rate is applied to the expected future cash flows for each investment’s financial forecasts derived adopting the assumptions explained above, amongst others, to arrive at a valuation (using a discounted cash flow methodology). The resulting valuation is sensitive to the discount rate selected. The Investment Manager is experienced and active in the area of valuing these investments and adopts discount rates reflecting its current extensive experience of the market. It is noted however that this requires subjective judgement and that there is a range of discount rates which could be applied. The discount rate assumptions and the sensitivity of the valuation of the investments to this discount rate are set out in the Valuation section of the Strategic Report.
The Audit Committee discussed with the Investment Manager the process adopted to arrive at the selected valuation discount rates (which includes comparison with other market transactions and an independent review of valuation discount rates by a third-party valuation expert both at December 2020 and at December 2021) and satisfied itself that the rates applied were appropriate. The Company uses a bifurcated discount rate approach (as more fully explained on page 62)”.
The key point arising from this is that the valuations (and hence reported profits of the company), are very dependent on the discount rates applied to future cash flows.
In summary we have a business where reported profits are based on estimates of future cash flows and the discount rates that are applied, not on actual historic profits or cash flows. To my mind this creates a great deal of uncertainty.
What would the accounts look like if all the investments the company has were consolidated? That’s not an easy question to answer because the information is not readily available, and neither am I an accountant. But perhaps TRIG could supply such an answer.
The issue of where a company chooses to locate itself came to mind on reading an FT article about the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). They have moved to Stratford in East London when they were previously at Canary Wharf. It seems that some staff are unhappy. Will the FCA really recruit high quality staff when based in Stratford? I doubt it.
This issue also arose when I spoke to DotDigital CEO Milan Patel after their results webinar last Friday. The discussion made it clear, as I thought, that all had not been well with their US business which is why forecasts had to be downgraded. DotDigital chose to set up their US headquarters in Manhattan, New York City and they are still there. To my mind that is the worst possible US location for a technology company. It would make recruitment difficult and expensive. It now seems they have staff mainly working from home.
I do get the impression that DotDigital have made the same mistakes as many British companies entering the USA, i.e. not understanding the culture, not spending enough on marketing, not talking in American rather than English, etc. But they are learning.
Does it matter where the office is located if everyone is working from home to avoid catching Covid? I think it does. Not meeting colleagues regularly, if not everyday, is very important for motivation and for management to understand their concerns. I speak from experience of both managing remote teams and working in the USA. OK we can hold Zoom meetings but those are not quite the same as they are more formal events. They do not provide the opportunity for casual conversations.
Another webinar I attended today was a results presentation by Bango (BGO). At least I got my question answered this time which was: “The big loss in the associate was of some concern. Please explain the reason for that and its prospects”. The brief answer given was that the joint venture was still in the development phase and revenues were starting to come through. But a lot more explanation would have been preferable.
The stock market seems to have stabilised as the news from the Ukraine does not get much worse and I perceive glimmers of a possible peace settlement on the horizon – along the lines of what I suggested in a previous blog post. But I don’t think the comments of my M.P. Bob Neill about the pursuit of war crimes by Russia were helpful. They might have made for good politics for UK listeners but are not likely to encourage peace to break out.
With oil/gas prices at record levels this week should I have piled into their producers as others have done? I think not as I hate commodity businesses. Earnings are volatile and unpredictable. But there certainly will be a big focus by Governments to ensure countries are less reliant on imports of oil and gas. I have therefore been investing in alternative energy suppliers (wind farms, grid stabilisation, etc).
There are also possibilities in the defence sector where there will be an increase in expenditure no doubt as people come to realise that peace does rely on strong defences.
In the Ukraine they did have a big nuclear weapons arsenal which they inherited from the USSR after its break-up. But they gave them up after assurances by major powers (including Russia) of their security. What a mistake that was!
I attended a meeting of investors on Sunday and the main subject discussed was the war in Ukraine. Most attendees clearly had a gloomy prognosis for the outcome mainly because of a belief that Vladimir Putin was a lunatic who desired to restore the USSR, i.e. he would not stop at Ukraine but would thereafter move into Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania et al. This view is very much reflected in the Western media with concerns that the war could very rapidly develop into a nuclear one.
President Zelensky is clearly a masterful politician. He came from nowhere to win the election for President when historically he was simply a comedian who pretended to be President. There are few more unusual biographies. He also became a master of social media and has won the hearts and minds not just of Ukrainians but of most of the western world – the British do of course love underdogs. Meanwhile Putin has failed in terms of public relations by not putting his case well and has even publicly suggested that Ukraine should not be considered an independent country.
I take a somewhat different view to the popular consensus although I would not want this to be seen as an apology for the acts of the Russian military. As in any war it is unfortunately the civilians who are suffering the most. A peaceful solution needs to be found because if the war is escalated, with more sanctions being imposed on Russia, then the economic damage will be severe and widespread on both Russia and many European countries.
I think when looking at political conflicts which lead to war then it is best to look at the conflict from the point of view of the enemy when pursuing a solution.
Ukraine has historically been closely linked to Russia after being dominated by Poland. To quote from Wikipedia by the Treaty of Perpetual Peace [surely a wonderful name for a peace treaty], signed in 1686, the eastern portion of Ukraine (east of the Dnieper River) came under Russian rule. As a result a large proportion of the population (about 30%) speak Russian, particularly in the Eastern region and the Crimea. In fact President Zelensky was brought up in a Russian speaking family. In other words there are strong cultural ties with Russia. Ukraine was also a founding member of the USSR until that was dissolved in 1991.
Russia is clearly concerned about the encroachment of NATO and the EU eastwards that could both militarily and economically threaten Russia. Only Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine are not in the EU but Zelensky has indicated his desire to join. There is also the problem of the insurgency in the Donbas region which was long-standing before the latest events plus the takeover of the Crimea by Russia which Ukraine wants back. The longer the war goes on, the more difficult it will be to reach an amicable solution as attitudes harden on both sides and people look for revenge. As has been pointed out, Russia might be able to achieve a complete occupation of Ukraine but that might be followed by many years of constant insurrections and guerrilla warfare against them.
Russia has now offered to cease fighting on the following conditions: Ukraine changes its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledges Crimea as Russian territory and recognises the rebel-held areas of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent territories.
This appears to be a reasonable basis for a settlement that would halt the damaging fighting and cease the escalation. If all military forces were withdrawn by Russia from the rest of Ukraine and Ukraine itself committed to the above (including no applications to join the EU and NATO), then a modus vivendi could be achieved.
Many people suggest that Putin might be removed as sanctions bite and his economy collapses or the war goes against Russia. But that seems very unlikely to me. Opposition to Putin in Russia is quite small and exaggerated by western media. Putin re-established Russia politically and economically after the collapse of the USSR so many people respect him for that. The war in Ukraine will not undermine the regime in Russia unless it broadens into a much wider conflict with bigger military losses which seems unlikely to me. NATO is not likely to get involved and quite rightly because to do so would simply damage western European countries even worse as Russia retaliated by halting exports of gas and oil. Sanctions on Russia will not halt the fighting alone and will take too long to have an impact – they can only encourage Putin to reach some kind of settlement.
A settlement that gives time for countries like Germany and Italy to wean themselves off Russian gas is a better solution. There are many worse options.
Here’s a good quotation from the book by Barton Biggs I mentioned in a previous blog post:
“ Disregard the ranting and raving of the self-proclaimed elite thinkers and alleged experts on wars, economies, politics, and, above all, the stock market” and “History doesn’t evolve in a slow and orderly way; often it leaps forward in disorderly, chaotic jumps. People with wealth should assume that somewhere in the near or far future there will be another time of cholera when the Four Horsemen will ride again and the barbarians expectedly will be at their gate”.
So far as Ukrainians are concerned, those circumstances have already arrived.
Last week was certainly one to forget with Friday particularly bad for most portfolios (the FTSE-100 was down 3.5% on Friday and tech stocks were again hit – Nasdaq was down 1.7% on the day). With the war in the Ukraine continuing the economic outlook looks bleak. We already had sharply rising inflation and sanctions against Russia are driving up the price of oil and gas which is never good for the economy. As anyone who has received a utility bill of late will realise, consumers and industry are going to be hit by sharply rising prices in the next few weeks which will affect many businesses.
There was already a downward trend in the market and I expect this will continue unless peace breaks out in the Ukraine which does not look likely until Russia has achieved its objectives which might take some weeks, if ever. Taking over a country where the population is totally opposed to you is never easy, particularly when outside assistance is being provided and sanctions are biting. Ukrainians are not apparently going to accept defeat.
One of my investments which was worst hit last week was DotDigital (DOTD) but not because of the war. The company provides an “omnichannel marketing automation platform” as they call it (email and sms messaging). The share price fell by 60% after an interim announcement on Wednesday that suggested the forecasts for the second half were not going to be met. In addition the CFO and Chairman are departing (the latter on health grounds).
This is a company I have held for some years first buying at around 8p in 2011 and selling some at around 200p in 2021 when enthusiasm for technology stocks drove the price up to unsustainable levels. The price now is 58p.
The company is profitable, has no debt and lots of cash on the balance sheet and has shown steady growth so there is much that is positive about the company. But clearly the expansion of US operations on which forecasts relied has gone seriously wrong. I attended the results webinar on Friday and submitted the following question:
“Clearly one of the reasons for reduced forecasts is the disappointing figures from the USA. Why after several years has DotDigital not established itself well there? Why has the management of that region not been changed as a result? There does not seem to be anyone on the board with experience in the USA. As you are looking for a new Chairman could you please ensure that a suitable person is appointed with some knowledge of operating in the USA”. The question was not answered but there was enough information disclosed to make it clear that all was not as it should be.
A question on margins got a response that margins will be lower in the second half because marketing spend will be going up. As regards the US management issues, it was indicated that a couple of management teams had been poached by competitors offering higher salaries. Lots of money from VCs and private equity was going into competitors. It was mentioned that “customer attrition had stabilised” which was a remarkably negative comment. With this kind of product (which I use myself) where there is high recurring revenue people are generally reluctant to change platforms. They should not be losing customers! But the figures suggest they are losing some customers and gaining very few new ones in the USA.
So it would seem that after some years of trying to make a success of the US market they are back at square one with a new management team. It looks like another example of a UK business entering the USA but falling flat on its face in terms of marketing approach.
I will try and find out more next week but I have not quite given up on the company completely as yet. These issues might be minor ones if they take appropriate steps.
I mentioned in a previous blog post a book entitled “Wealth, War and Wisdom” by Barton Biggs which covers how the turning points of World War II intersected with market performance. I have now read it and I am surprised that this book is not better known. It’s a very good analysis of how the wars of the 20th century impacted stock markets and the wealth of individuals. It probably should be essential reading for residents of the Ukraine at this moment in time, but it’s worth everyone reading it.
Does the stock market predict wars and their impacts is one question he tackles. The answer is yes and more accurately than political commentators it seems in many cases.
Here are some tips from the book that might be helpful:
Stock markets recover when the news stops getting worse, and before good news appears.
Equity markets have been a good protection against loss of wealth even in countries that suffered defeats, particularly in the long-term. The economic recovery of Japan and Germany after the Second World War soon offset their losses during the war.
Bonds are a losing investment in real terms whether you are on the winning or losing side. Inflation erodes their value because Governments print money to finance wars.
Buying gold only works if you bury it in the back garden, as otherwise it’s likely to be confiscated.
Property, particularly farms you live on, or small businesses you operate, are good investments even in the worst times.
The author actually covers the history and battles of World War II in some depth and it’s a refreshing and well researched analysis even for someone like me who is old enough to have read about a lot about the era in the 1960s and since. It provides some wonderful anecdotes and facts about how those wars created suffering for many millions of people.
The book was published in 2007. The author, Barton Biggs, was born in the USA and was an investment manager and strategist for Morgan Stanley. He made his name by forecasting the dotcom boom and bust which he called “the biggest bubble in the history of the world”. There is a fuller biography on Wikipedia.
Altogether a very original book which I highly recommend.
Warren Buffett has published the latest Berkshire Hathaway letter to shareholders (see https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2021ltr.pdf ). As usual it makes for an amusing and educational missive including his comment on the $3.3 billion the company paid in taxes. He says “I gave in the office” is an unassailable assertion when made by Berkshire shareholders.
The company improved its per share value by 29.6% in 2021 which was slightly ahead of the S&P 500 with dividends included. That’s a big improvement on the previous two years when Berkshire lagged the index.
What has been one of the key reasons for the success of the company over the last 55 years? I would suggest culture is one. A culture of honesty, integrity and rational behaviour if you read the latest and prior newsletters.
Meanwhile the Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors (CIIA) have published a report entitled “Cultivating a Healthy Culture” (see https://www.iia.org.uk/policy-and-research/research-reports/cultivating-a-healthy-culture/ ). It suggests based on research among its members that culture is important and that 66% believe that the UK Corporate Governance Code should be strengthened in regard to the responsibilities of company directors. The Financial Times reported this as one of the causes of several company collapses in recent years such as at BHS, Carillion, Greensill and Patisserie Valerie. But if you read the reporting on this issue there is discussion of Environmental, Social and Governance issues (ESG) and equality issues as if adding those to the Governance Code might assist.
Yes I suggest culture is important but the key question to ask when looking to invest in a company from my experience is simply this “Is the Management Competent and Trustworthy?” (that’s a quote from my book on investing). If you don’t trust the management walk on by. And if you are holding shares in a company and news comes out that undermines your confidence in the directors, then sell the shares. Don’t wait for them to reform.
Last week was certainly an exciting week for stock market investors. The FTSE 100 index fell sharply on Thursday but recovered to rise almost 4% on Friday. The US S&P 500 showed a similar pattern. This was no doubt from the initial reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine with an initial panic followed by a more considered response.
Sanctions against Russia might have some impacts particularly on oil/gas prices but Russia is not the only producer.
I thought it interesting to look at the Ukrainian and Russian stock markets. Yes Ukraine has more than one but all trading was suspended by their regulator on Thursday. Moscow’s stock market was hit by a big collapse with the RTS index falling by 38% on Thursday and the rouble plunged to a low against the dollar. But there was a significant recovery on Friday. The bounce back on Friday in the markets seems to be based on some relief than sanctions were not as extreme as feared.
But there is a call to exclude Russians from the Swift international payment network. I recall reading a note some years ago that explained how interbank settlements still took place during the Second World War between the combatants. It would seem unwise to block access to Swift which would be damaging not just to Russia particularly as there are alternative payment networks that are already in place or could soon be created.
There is a book that was recommended by Jonathan Davis at a Mello event last week entitled “Wealth, War and Wisdom” by Barton Biggs which covers how the turning points of World War II intersected with market performance. I have ordered a copy to read and may write a review of it later. In my experience big political events have a big short-term impact as investors hunker down and cease buying or selling until the picture is clearer. With no trading prices rapidly fall. But markets can soon recover as soon as the long-term picture is clearer. It is best not to take hurried decisions about your shareholdings in such circumstances.
As it stands the Ukrainian army is apparently putting up a better fight than was expected although the fog of war is clouding the picture with reporting of military activity being mainly anecdotal. I recall looking at the comparative armed forces numbers of Russia and Ukraine a week ago and the 190,000 Russian troops surrounding Ukraine did not seem enough to ensure a quick victory even if Russia had more heavy equipment to hand. Russia does not seem to have captured the main communication centres, the TV and Radio stations or the heads of Government which is the typical prerequisite for a coup d’état. Even if Russia manages to install a puppet government it could be a long-drawn out conflict and Ukraine is a big country. As Russia and the US learned in Afghanistan, it’s easier to get into a country than to get out. Establishing long-term regime change is very difficult when most of the population opposes you. That is particularly so when there are lots of weapons in the hands of the population which is apparently now so in the Ukraine with many volunteers willing to fight. They may be short of ammunition in due course so the question to ask is how they might get resupplied? We may simply end up with another proxy war with Russia and the West fighting a guerrilla war in Ukraine by supporting local militias with very negative impacts on the local civilian population.
The outlook is bleak unless there is some desire for a political settlement that meets the aspirations of both Russia and Ukraine which does not seem impossible to me.
