Investing in the Clean Trillion: Closing the Clean Energy Investment Gap

In 2010 world governments agreed to limit the increase in global temperature to two degrees Celsius (2 °C) above pre-industrial levels to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. To have an 80 percent chance of maintaining this 2 °C limit, the IEA estimates an additional $36 trillion in clean energy investment is needed through 2050 -- or an average of$1 trillion more per year compared to a "business as usual" scenario over the next 36 years.This report provides 10 recommendations for investors, companies and policymakers to increase annual global investment in clean energy to at least $1 trillion by 2030 -- roughly a four-fold jump from current investment levels

Piracy comeback with the new decade

In this paper,a set of variables expected to determine piracy trends for the upcoming yearsis considered. Using the OLS estimators’approach, the extent to which market saturation for streaming services on demand (SVoD) rebounds in the thrivingmarket forpiracy websitesis evaluated. After a careful analysis, the study reveals an adequate level of acceptability, that indeed, one can expect revenue’s surplus from SVoD providers to be extracted by illegal suppliers

Capital markets, CDFIs, and organizational credit risk

Can Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) get unlimited amounts of low cost, unsecured, short- and long-term funding from the capital markets based on their organizational credit risk? Can they get pricing, flexibility, and procedural parity with for-profit corporations of equivalent credit risk? One of the key objectives of this book is to explain the reasons why the answer to the two questions above remains “no.” The other two key objectives are to show the inner workings of what has been done to date to overcome the obstacles so that we don’t have to retrace the same steps and recommend additional disciplines that position CDFIs to take advantage of the mechanisms of the capital markets once the markets stabilize

Still living with mortality: The longevity risk transfer market after one decade

This paper updates Living with Mortality published in 2006. It describes how the longevity risk transfer market has developed over the intervening period, and, in particular, how insurance-based solutions – buy-outs, buy-ins and longevity insurance – have triumphed over capital markets solutions that were expected to dominate at the time. Some capital markets solutions – longevity-spread bonds, longevity swaps, q-forwards, and tail-risk protection – have come to market, but the volume of business has been disappointingly low. The reason for this is that when market participants compare the index-based solutions of the capital markets with the customized solutions of insurance companies in terms of basis risk, credit risk, regulatory capital, collateral, and liquidity, the former perform on balance less favourably despite a lower potential cost.We discuss the importance of stochastic mortality models for forecasting future longevity and examine some applications of these models, e.g., determining the longevity risk premiumand estimating regulatory capital relief. The longevity risk transfer market is now beginning to recognize that there is insufficient capacity in the insurance and reinsurance industries to deal fully with demand and new solutions for attracting capital markets investors are now being examined – such as longevity-linked securities and reinsurance sidecars

Solutions for Impact Investors: From Strategy to Implementation

In writing this monograph, our main goal is to provide impact investors with tools to tighten the link between their investment decisions and impact creation. Our intent is threefold: to attract more capital to impact investing; to assist impact investors as they move from organizational change to executing and refining their impact investment decision-making process; and to narrow the gap within foundations between program professionals and investment professionals thereby contributing to a mutual understanding and implementation of a portfolio approach to impact investing.Additionally, we intend to help break down the barriers making it difficult to identify opportunities in impact investing. To this end, we provide examples throughout the monograph and at www.rockpa.org/impactinvesting of impact investment opportunities in most major asset classes.While we understand the important role that impact investors can play in providing financial capital, we also want to acknowledge the wide range of non-financial resources needed to address the world's problems. Our intent with this monograph is not to provide a comprehensive list of investments across asset classes nor any type of investment advice with regard to the selected profiles. We strongly encourage the reader to conduct their own assessment and evaluation for risk and suitability before considering any investment

Information creates relative bargaining power in vendor negotiations

Purpose: This paper aims to examine how libraries can create relative bargaining power and presents a methodology for analyzing collections and preparing for negotiations. Design/methodology/approach: A brief literature review of the current state of collection budgets and electronic resource prices is presented prior to proposing a methodology based on business analysis frameworks and techniques. Findings: Electronic resource subscription prices are increasing at a rate significantly higher than inflation, while collection budgets grow slowly, remain stagnant or decrease. Academic libraries have the ability to counteract this trend by creating relative bargaining power through organizational efforts that take advantage of size and concentration (e.g. consortia), vertical integration through practices such as library publishing and open access and through individual efforts using information. This paper proposes metrics and methodologies that librarians can use to analyze their collections, set negotiation priorities and prepare for individual resource negotiations to create relative bargaining power. Practical implications: The proposed methodology enables librarians and buyers of information resources to harness the information available about their electronic resource collections to better position themselves when entering negotiations with vendors. Originality/value: This paper presents metrics, some not commonly used (i.e. average annual price increase/decrease), that aid in understanding price sensitivity. Pareto analysis has been traditionally used to analyze usage, but this paper suggests using it in relation to costs and budgets for setting negotiation priorities

Netflix Inc. : equity valuation

The aim of this dissertation is estimating the fair value of one unit of Netflix’s common stock, at the end of the year 2018. Two valuation methodologies are utilized, the first being the Discounted Cash-Flow (DCF) approach and the second being the relative valuation methodology, being the multiples used the P/E, EV/EBITDA and EV/Sales. The valuation output is then compared to the equity research report of Morgan Stanley on Netflix. The valuation output is that Netflix is overvalued in the market, being the fair value of one unit of common stock estimated to be $239,35 at the end of 2018, while the stock is trading at$328,53 on the 15th of May 2018. Hence, the recommendation produced in this dissertation is a sell recommendation. This recommendation is only a function of the DCF approach, since the relative valuation outputs were not consistent across the different multiples used nor with the value computed through the DCF approach. Morgan Stanley estimates the value of one unit of common stock at the end of 2018 to be $275, which is a higher valuation than the one estimated in this dissertation and also yields an opposite recommendation, as Netflix’s stock was trading at$227,58 at the time of valuation. This difference is mainly explained by different assumptions regarding the evolution of Netflix’s FCFFs, as the WACC in both valuations differs only 12 basis points and the perpetual growth rate differs only 17 basis points.Esta dissertação pretende estimar o justo-valor de uma ação da Netflix no final de 2018. Para tal, dois métodos de avaliação são utilizados, sendo o primeiro o método de Discounted Cash-Flow (DCF) e o segundo o método de relative valuation, sendo os múltiplos utilizados o P/E, EV/EBITDA e o EV/Sales. O resultado obtido nesta avaliação é posteriormente comparado com o equity research report produzido pela Morgan Stanley sobre a Netflix. A avaliação realizada estima que as ações da Netflix estão sobreavaliadas no mercado. O justo-valor de uma ação é estimado ser $239,35 no final de 2018, no entanto, as mesmas estão a ser transacionadas no mercado a 15 de Maio de 2018 por$328,53. Assim, a recomendação produzida é de que os investidores devem vender as ações em questão. Esta recomendação é feita apenas em função do método DCF, dado que os resultados obtidos através da relative valuation são inconsistentes entre os diferentes múltiplos usados e inconsistentes com o resultado obtido através do método DCF. A Morgan Stanley estima o justo-valor de uma ação da Netflix no final de 2018 em $275. Este valor é superior ao estimado nesta dissertação e resulta numa recomendação oposta, dado que, à data da avaliação realizada pela Morgan Stanley, as ações da Netflix transacionavam a$227,58. A diferença entre as avaliações é essencialmente explicada por diferentes pressupostos relativos à evolução dos FCFFs, visto que o WACC e a taxa de crescimento em perpetuidade diferem apenas 12 e 17 pontos base entre as avaliações, respetivamente