FT : Clock ticks for Drax to find a new financial model

Clock ticks for Drax to find a new financial model
Subsidies that make up fifth of energy company’s revenues run out in 2027

When Will Gardiner took charge of UK energy company Drax last January, he knew it had only “10 years of life” left in its current form.

Mr Gardiner, who was finance director before taking the top job, is now in a battle to extend the prospects of a company whose main asset, the UK’s biggest power plant, provides 5 per cent of the country’s electricity from Selby, North Yorkshire.

Four of the plant’s six generating units produce power by burning wood pellets, which the UK government counts as renewable, attracting subsidies that added up to 19 per cent of Drax’s £4.2bn revenues last year.

But in 2027 these subsidies will expire, so Mr Gardiner must find an alternative financial model.

Although biomass — electricity generated from organic material — is classified in the UK as a renewable energy source, it is strongly opposed by some environmentalists, who argue it can in some cases be more damaging than burning fossil fuels.

Last year, the UK’s Committee on Climate Change said “sustainably harvested” biomass — which does not contribute to deforestation for instance — can help decarbonise the economy but subsidies should be shifted away from biomass for electricity generation, unless plants are fitted with carbon capture and storage technology. This involves burying carbon emissions in depleted oil and gasfields and is still in the early stages of development.

Earlier this year, Drax became the first wood-burning plant in the world to capture carbon dioxide produced in energy generation but had to release it back into the atmosphere because it lacked storage capability.

It is part of a coalition of companies, including Norway’s Equinor and National Grid, that wants to create a large CCS scheme in the north-east of England, but the plans depend on government support.

At the same time, Mr Gardiner is on a drive to cut the cost of generating electricity from biomass from £75-£80 per megawatt hour to £50 by 2027. This he believes, would put Drax in a position to survive without subsidy.

This target still looks high compared to other renewables, such as offshore wind; some wind developers this year pledged to build schemes in UK waters for a guaranteed electricity price of £39.65/MWh. At the moment, the guaranteed price for one of the Drax biomass subsidy agreements is £114/MWh.

Mr Gardiner said Drax would compete to provide power at peak times, when market prices are around £58/MWh.

He is betting on large power stations finding a profitable place in the market to meet demand and help keep the system stable when renewables such as wind and solar are not producing.

“We think . . . the peaks will become higher and it’ll become more volatile, the power system, over time as there’s more intermittent renewables and there’s less traditional generation,” said Mr Gardiner.

He also believes Drax’s biomass generating units could qualify for the government-run process where energy companies compete to provide standby power during winter.

To cut costs, Drax also intends to change its biomass sourcing.

It currently produces 1.5m tonnes of wood pellets itself at plants in US Gulf states such as Louisiana. These are then shipped across the Atlantic.

It forecasts it will need to increase this to 5m tonnes by 2027. Plans are already under way to increase capacity at its current plants to 1.85m tonnes by next year but it will also have to find alternatives to sustainable wood pellets, which are in limited supply. Options include bagasse — sugar cane residue — but the company has not yet fixed on a solution.

Mr Gardiner acknowledges the pressure to change — and Drax shares have had a tough year, down 22 per cent year to date — but he says the group has already made progress. 

Its Yorkshire plant previously ran exclusively on coal but the first unit was converted to biomass in 2013.

Two units still produce electricity from coal but those could be switched to gas. Last year, it spent £700m buying “traditional” generating assets, including gas and hydro-powered plants, from ScottishPower.

But after the European Investment Bank last month said it would phase out lending for new gas-fired power plants by 2021, there has been speculation in the energy industry that gas projects could become “stranded assets”.

Mr Gardiner says he has not yet seen any evidence of other lenders following suit, but he acknowledges the company needs to be ready for that possibility. He says the gas units could ultimately be converted to run on hydrogen, which is talked up by some scientists as a cleaner alternative to gas.

He also insisted Drax would not push ahead with any conversion to gas unless it could secure favourable contracts to provide back-up power over winter.

“I’m not going to be in any hurry to take a contract I don’t like,” he said.

Mr Gardiner also pointed out that Drax had long outlived other large power plants built in northern England during the late 1960s and early 1970s, with the most recent example being Eggborough in North Yorkshire which closed only two years ago.

Analysts at JPMorgan said in a recent note that the company had “borne the brunt of UK decarbonisation policies in recent years”, referring to the phase-out of coal-fired power plants by 2025.

They estimate that its plan to increase its own biomass production would cost around £600m but said the strategy, plus recent acquisitions such as the ScottishPower plants, would put it on “a path to a more sustainable, predictable and profitable future”.

FT : Hedge funds key in exacerbating repo market turmoil, says BIS

Hedge funds key in exacerbating repo market turmoil, says BIS
Bank for International Settlements point to firms’ thirst for borrowed cash to fire up returns


Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.

Hedge funds exacerbated the recent turmoil in the repo market with their thirst for borrowing cash to juice up returns on their trades, according to the Bank for International Settlements.

Investors, bankers and policymakers were left stunned in September when the cost of borrowing cash overnight in exchange for high-quality collateral such as US government debt shot higher, eventually forcing action from the Federal Reserve to keep the market functioning smoothly.

In the aftermath, attention focused on the role played by banks, which had become reluctant to lend cash into the market despite the higher interest rates on offer.

While the BIS acknowledged in its quarterly assessment of the health of global markets, released on Sunday, that the pullback by banks was a significant factor in the shake-up, it also said that cash-hungry hedge funds had amplified the dislocation.

“High demand for secured (repo) funding from non-financial institutions, such as hedge funds heavily engaged in leveraging up relative value trades,” was a key factor behind the chaos, said Claudio Borio, head of the monetary and economic department at the BIS.

The findings from the BIS — often referred to as the central bank for central banks — highlight the growing clout of hedge funds in the repo market. Millennium Partners and Capula are among the large hedge funds active in the market, according to people familiar with the funds. Both declined to comment.

One increasingly popular hedge fund strategy involves buying US Treasuries while selling equivalent derivatives contracts, such as interest rate futures, and pocketing the difference in price between the two.

On its own this is not very profitable, given the close relationship in price between the two sides of the trade. But people active in the short-term borrowing markets say that to fire up returns, some hedge funds take the Treasury security they have just bought and use it to secure cash loans in the repo market. They then use this fresh cash to increase the size of the trade, repeating the process over and over and ratcheting up the potential returns.

The strategy was once popular among banks, but higher capital charges since the financial crisis have led to their displacement by hedge funds, which have more ability to take on risk.

As banks have pulled back from the market, hedge funds have also sought cash from new sources, such as non-bank dealers or through a platform run by the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation that gives them access to cash from money market funds and other lenders.

The growing significance of these new cash sources “can result in unfamiliar market dynamics”, said Mr Borio.

He added that September’s dislocation suggests that repo markets “may again find themselves in the eye of the storm should financial stress arise at some point”.

Despite the Fed’s efforts to calm the repo market, the cost of borrowing cash overnight on the last day of the year surged last week, raising concern for fresh volatility ahead.

>>> Stoxx 600 Pre-Market Indications

LVMH (MOH TH) +1.4%
Philips (PHI1 TH) +1.3%
Philips Raised to Overweight at Morgan Stanley; PT 50 euros
Lufthansa (LHA TH) +1%
Lufthansa Raised to Outperform at MainFirst; PT 19 euros
Symrise (SY1 TH) -1.4%
Symrise Cut to Neutral at Credit Suisse; PT 84 euros
Fresenius Medical (FME TH) -1.6%
Fresenius Medical Cut to Underweight at Morgan Stanley
AMS (DQW1 TH) -2.4%
Siemens Healthineers (SHL TH) -3.3%
Siemens Healthineers Cut to Hold at Commerzbank; PT 45 euros
Carl Zeiss Meditec (AFX TH) -4.1%

FT : CVC in talks to fund new global football tournaments

CVC in talks to fund new global football tournaments
Private equity group in discussions with Fifa and Real Madrid that could challenge biggest leagues

Buyout group CVC Capital Partners has held talks with Fifa and Real Madrid about funding the creation of ambitious new global football tournaments that will challenge the sport’s most popular leagues.

CVC is holding discussions with Fifa, international football’s governing body, about acquiring the commercial rights to the revamped Club World Cup, a tournament that will feature some of the biggest football teams on the planet.

Separately, CVC and other corporate groups have been approached by Spain’s Real Madrid, the world’s richest football club by revenues, about creating a new club league contest, according to people familiar with the talks.

The private equity group’s move signals how leading investors are increasingly pursuing deals in the world’s most popular sport while football’s leading power brokers seek new ways to profit from growing corporate interest in the game.

It comes after US-based Silver Lake last week reached a $500m deal to acquire around 10 per cent in City Football Group, the parent company of England’s Manchester City and affiliated clubs around the world.

CVC, one of the world’s largest private equity groups with $82.5bn of assets under management, has a long history of buying and selling sports franchises, including Formula One and MotoGP. It has recently done deals in rugby union, paying £225m last year for a 27 per cent stake in England’s Premiership Rugby competition.

In October, Fifa announced that the current eight-team Club World Club would be replaced by a 24-team contest featuring at least eight European teams and taking place every four years. China will host the first expanded tournament in mid-2021.

CVC is holding talks with Fifa over funding the competition, including by acquiring television rights to matches it would then sell to broadcasters around the world, according to several people with knowledge of the discussions.

But CVC executives were also recently approached by Florentino Pérez, Real Madrid’s president, about the club’s desire to create a rival annual competition featuring top clubs from around the world, according to several people with knowledge of the discussions. 

One person briefed on the talks said an option under consideration is creating two leagues of 20 teams each. Eight of those teams could include the founding clubs behind the World Football Club Association, a newly created body of which Mr Pérez was named president last month. 

Those founder members include Real Madrid, AC Milan in Italy, Auckland City in New Zealand, Boca Juniors and River Plate in Argentina, Club America in Mexico, Guangzhou Evergrande in China and Mazembe in DR Congo. 

According to official announcements at the time, the World Football Club Association was set up in November to lobby Fifa on its revamp of the Club World Cup.

Real Madrid declined to comment on detailed questions, but said Mr Pérez has never spoken to CVC’s head of media and sport.

People said that CVC’s discussions with Fifa over the Club World Cup have been more concrete and detailed than those with Mr Pérez, due to scepticism over whether the Real Madrid president’s efforts to form an entirely new global club league could gain support from the sport’s power brokers.

Fifa will announce a tender process for corporate groups to bid for the Club World Cup’s commercial rights as early as this week, said a person close to the process, as the governing body led by Gianni Infantino searches for funding for the new competition.

Leading private equity firms, Chinese conglomerates and international broadcasters have also approached Fifa over acquiring rights to the competition, according to people close to the talks.

Fifa is seeking new corporate partners after an international consortium including Japan’s SoftBank and London-based Centricus abandoned a deal that would have guaranteed $25bn for the club tournament. 

Those plans were attacked by Uefa, European football’s governing body, and the European Club Association, a trade body that represents more than 200 of the continent’s biggest clubs. They wanted to defend the prestige of the Champions League, Europe’s top club tournament, which has a €2bn pot of prize money shared among participating teams.

Talks about changing the format of the Champions League to feature more moneyspinning ties between top clubs are ongoing.

Fifa was permitted to pursue its own expanded global club competition after getting agreement from European bodies, but it has been forced to scrap parallel plans for a new national team contest.

Fifa declined to comment on CVC’s interest, but said that it had “met with football clubs from around the world in order to discuss how to make the new Club World Cup an outstanding success, in particular, from a sporting point of view.”

CVC declined to comment.

FT : ‘Salvator Mundi’ and the limits of certainty

‘Salvator Mundi’ and the limits of certainty
One response to fuzziness is to demand sharpness. But the world defies our attempts to confine it

Mona Lisa may be famously inscrutable, but “Salvator Mundi” has surely replaced her as Leonardo da Vinci’s most enigmatic work. It has been two years since it was reported that the long-lost painting had been sold to a Saudi prince as a gift to the Louvre Abu Dhabi, for an astonishing $450m — two and a half times the previous record for any painting sold at auction.

Since then the unveiling has been postponed without explanation, and the painting’s whereabouts are unknown: on a yacht, says one report; in secure storage in Switzerland, says another.

No doubt the mystery of its whereabouts will be resolved. The mystery of its provenance is deeper. In 2005, “Salvator Mundi” was bought for about $1,000 at an auction in New Orleans by two art dealers, Alexander Parish and Robert Simon. (Mr Parish later told Vulture that they had been willing to go as high as $10,000, but it proved unnecessary.)

On the surface, the painting was worth little: it was in very bad shape. But Messrs Parish and Simon thought it might be by a disciple of Leonardo; in which case it might easily be worth several hundred thousand dollars — a gamble worth taking. As a painting by Leonardo’s studio, with a touch or two by the master himself, it might have been worth $20m.

So what is it? Ben Lewis, author of The Last Leonardo, notes that the debate rages “over whether it belongs in the first division autograph Leonardo category or the second division Leonardo+Workshop category”. Apparently that is a $430m distinction. And the desire for clarity is not merely financial. When we gaze at a painting on a gallery wall, we like to know.

It is hard, too, to disentangle the time-scarred original work from its substantial restoration by Dianne Modestini — which, in turn, was influenced by the close inspection of known works by Leonardo.

Yet as the criminologist Federico Varese points out, it is curious that we insist on a binary distinction. We feel powerfully that the painting is either an autograph Leonardo, or it is not. As a matter of logic that may be true, but as a matter of practicality we do not know and we will never know. There is some evidence of Leonardo’s involvement, but the evidence is circumstantial. We are relying heavily on intuition — albeit the intuition of people with deep expertise. Regrettably but unsurprisingly, the experts differ.

This is partly a problem of knowledge: we cannot travel back in time to see who painted what. But it is also a problem of definition. Philosophers might recognise the “bald man paradox” here. Plucking out a single hair from a full head of hair does not produce a bald man. Keep going, however, and baldness will result. And yet it seems absurd to identify any particular hair as the crucial one that made the difference between baldness and non-baldness. Similarly with “Salvator Mundi”: how many brushstrokes from Leonardo does it take to distinguish a workshop piece from an autograph work?

So “Salvator Mundi” is the Schrödinger’s cat of paintings — perhaps one thing, perhaps another. We can’t know.

Schrödinger’s cat discomfited the Austrian physicist Ernst Schrödinger, for good reason. But to a statistician or a social scientist, this sort of irresolvable uncertainty is part of life.

I just tossed a coin. Did it come up heads or tails? One or the other, clearly. But even after the fact, if you haven’t seen the result it is not absurd to say that there is a 50 per cent chance of either outcome. And if I then put the coin back in my pocket without checking, 50-50 is the closest we will ever get to knowing.

We should be able to live with such fuzziness. When asking a question such as “who is the greatest ever Formula 1 driver?”, we know that we can have a fun argument — Lewis Hamilton, Michael Schumacher, Ayrton Senna, Juan Fangio? And we also know that the argument cannot be resolved.

But we forget this in other parts of life. Who would be the better UK prime minister, for example, Jeremy Corbyn or Boris Johnson? Which Democratic candidate would be most likely to defeat US president Donald Trump in the 2020 elections? Is it Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders or Pete Buttigieg? How serious a threat is climate change, and how drastic a change is required to deal with it?

The answers matter far more than the question of how much Leonardo contributed to “Salvator Mundi”, if he contributed at all. But we will never know for sure what the answers are.

One approach to all this fuzziness is to demand sharpness. I have often written admiringly about the work of Philip Tetlock, who has examined the problem of forecasting — a field dominated by vague prognostications — by asking forecasters to make verifiable predictions with deadlines.

But there are limits. The world defies our attempts to confine it with neat definitions.

It is not wrong to debate these vast questions of policy and politics. Indeed, it is vital that we do. But it is futile to expect a certain answer.