December, 04 2012, 02:24pm EDT
Do You Know What Your Pension Fund is Doing in Africa?
New Report Looks at Private Equity Funds Betting Heavily on Agriculture
OAKLAND, Calif.
Following the 2007-2008 financial crisis and the collapse of the housing market, private equity funds have found a new lucrative soft commodity market to invest in--farmland. In a short period of time, obscured from public view, the flow of private capital into farmland and agriculture has grown dramatically worldwide.
In recent years, the private financial sector has already invested between $10 to $25 billion in farmland and agriculture with little to no oversight; given current investment trends, this amount might double or triple in the coming years. Although agricultural funds are portrayed as positive social investment to help alleviate hunger and the effects of climate change, evidence demonstrates that large land deals are often detrimental to food security, local livelihoods, and the environment--yet little is known about the specific firms and funds driving this investment.
Betting on World Agriculture: US Private Equity Managers Eye Agricultural Returns, a new report from the Oakland Institute (OI), focuses on the private investment vehicles that advertise and manage investment opportunities in farmlands and agriculture for investors including pension funds, university and foundation endowments, and high net worth individuals. Based on months of research, involving literature review, interviews with fund managers, and examination of public as well confidential internal documents, the report casts a light on this hidden trend by profiling private investment vehicles that are either based in the US or aggressively promoting farmland and agriculture in the US.
Asking pointed and value-based questions that go beyond the usual terrain of yields and risks, the new report sheds light on the complex world of funds and investment activity and the ethical obligations involved. By doing so, the report highlights how these funds are managed and the type of investments that are being made in various regions of the world in order to inform concerned citizens, investors, and policy makers about the domestic and international impacts of such investments.
"The large buying power of these groups warrants an investigation into the overall impact of this investment activity on economic development, food production, rights of local communities, and the environment," said Caroline Bergdolt, coauthor of the report. "In addition, for those already promoting social and environmental returns to raise funds and garner special incentives from governments, demonstrating a lasting, meaningful impact should be a must. Yet, a lack of information prevails," she continued.
Considered the next big thing and "[farmland] gold with a coupon,"[1] with some funds aiming to become the "Exxon Mobil"[2] equivalent of the agricultural sector, there is much cause for concern. Within this context, it is particularly troubling that information regarding agricultural and land investments is highly inaccessible, densely layered, and hidden from the public.
In fact, of the 23 intermediaries researched and profiled, including Global Environmental Fund, George Soros, Farm Lands of Africa, and the Westchester Group and Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association - College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF), only five responded to requests for direct contact after the Institute's repeated attempts.
"The fund managers are not forthcoming around details of investments and in general operate under a veil of secrecy. Some companies use reverse mergers with video game-sounding entities like 'Kryptic Entertainment' to create US-based public shells as well as onshore-offshore partnerships," said Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute and coauthor of the report. "At best, fund managers give lip service to the belief that they are contributing to a win-win situation where they can make enormous amounts of money while contributing to food production and poverty alleviation."
One CEO, Mark Keegan of Farm Lands of Africa, went so far as to say to OI researchers:
"I have absolutely no doubt that what we are doing here is 'good' because of the VERY pressing need for food and the poverty. I am unashamed of wanting to make money from it and super confident that the imperative of profit will succeed where aid-driven ventures have failed. Having said that, I am also aware that success will bring social upheaval. I never stop pointing this out to African governments so that they can plan whilst they have time to think about it."[3]
Mittal responded, "Planning for and responding to social upheaval isn't part of the investment strategy or commitment of private equity investing in agriculture. Just like the land deals themselves, it is extremely difficult for concerned citizens, students, teachers, and others to find out about agricultural funds. Public information is limited and fund managers maintain an aura of secrecy. There would be no need to delve into the details of the funds if they weren't having an adverse--and growing--impact on peoples' lives."
The new report looks specifically at intermediaries--venture capital firms, traditional private equity funds, large investment firms with specialized boutique firms or divisions, hedge funds that are evolving into more diverse investment firms, as well as billionaires, large agribusinesses and public pension funds with their own private investment structures--that advertise and manage investment opportunities.
The Oakland Institute has gained a reputation for taking on difficult areas in issues related to land investment after publishing a series of reports and briefs in the last three years. The OI's findings of further political destabilization, impoverishment, and environmental devastation as a result of these investments has led to this new study on private funds and their outsized consequences and lack of accountability.
With a preface by Dan Apfel, executive director of Responsible Endowments Coalition, this report is clearly responding to a call from citizens who want to know more about where their money is, and what it is doing.
According to the Institute, "We believe that more often than not, when given a choice, and armed with better information, people prefer that their funds are invested elsewhere and not in short-sighted endeavors that have long-term and devastating effects."
Read the Frequently Asked Questions about this research
___
[1] Chris Erickson, managing director at HighQuest Partners, an agribusiness consulting firm. Reuters, March 13, 2012.
[2] Joseph Carvin, Hedge Fund Manager, Altima.
[3] Mark Keegan, Director, CEO Farm Lands of Guinea, in email correspondence with OI.
The Oakland Institute is a policy think tank whose mission is to increase public participation and promote fair debate on critical social, economic and environmental issues in both national and international forums.
LATEST NEWS
Warren Bill Would Stop Companies From Placing Shareholder Paydays Over Worker Rights
"Following the most lucrative election in history for special interests," said the senator, "my bill will empower workers to hold corporations to responsible decisions that benefit more than just shareholders."
Dec 11, 2024
Aiming to confront "a root cause of many of America's fundamental economic problems," U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday unveiled a bill to require corporations to balance growth with fair treatment of their employees and consumers.
The Massachusetts Democrat introduced the Accountable Capitalism Act, explaining that for much of U.S. history, corporations reinvested more than half of their profits back into their companies, working in the interest of employees, customers, business partners, and shareholders.
In the 1980s, said Warren corporations began placing the latter group above all, adopting "the belief that their only legitimate and legal purpose was 'maximizing shareholder value.'"
That view was further cemented in 1997 when the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group that represents chief executives across the country, declared that the "principal objective of a business enterprise is to generate economic returns to its owners."
Now, Warren said in a policy document, "around 93% of American-held corporate shares are owned by just 10% of our nation's richest households, while more than 40% of American households hold no shares at all."
"This means that corporate America's commitment to 'maximizing shareholder return' is a commitment to making the rich even richer, while leaving workers and families behind," said Warren in a statement.
The Accountable Capitalism Act would require:
- Corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to obtain a federal charter as a "United States corporation," obligating executives to consider the interests of all stakeholders, not just investors;
- Corporate political spending to be approved by at least 75% of a company's shareholders and 75% of its board of directors; and
- At least 40% of a company's board of directors to be selected by employees.
The bill would also prohibit directors of U.S. corporations from selling company shares within five years of receiving them or within three years of a company stock buyback.
Warren noted that as companies have increasingly poured their profits into stock buybacks to benefit shareholders, worker productivity has steadily increased while real wages have gone up only slightly. The share of national income that goes to workers has also significantly dropped.
"Workers are a major reason corporate profits are surging, but their salaries have barely moved while corporations' shareholders make out like bandits," said Warren told The Guardian. "We need to stand up for working people and hold giant companies responsible for decisions that hurt workers and consumers while lining shareholders' pockets."
The senator highlighted that big business interests invested heavily in November's U.S. presidential election.
"Following the most lucrative election in history for special interests," she said, "my bill will empower workers to hold corporations to responsible decisions that benefit more than just shareholders."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Crushing Blow to the Labor Agenda' as Manchin, Sinema Block Biden NLRB Nominee
"These two senators effectively handed Trump control of the board when his term begins," noted one observer.
Dec 11, 2024
In a move likely fraught with major implications for worker rights during the impending second administration of Republican President-elect Donald Trump, Democratic-turned-Independent U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema on Wednesday blocked Democrat Lauren McFerran's bid for a second term on the National Labor Relations Board.
With every Republican senator except Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas voting against President Joe Biden's nomination of McFerran for a new five-year term, the fate of the woman who has led the agency since 2021 was up to Manchin and Sinema—who, as More Perfect Union founder and executive director Faiz Shakir put it on social media, "consistently spoiled the story of 'what could have been'" by years of fighting to thwart their own former party's agenda.
Sinema struck first, her "no" vote on McFerran grinding the confirmation tally to a 49-49 tie. Manchin, who showed up later, cast the decisive vote, negating speculation that Vice President Kamala Harris, the Senate president who lost the presidential contest to Trump last month, would break the stalemate.
"It is deeply disappointing, a direct attack on working people, and incredibly troubling that this highly qualified nominee—with a proven track record of protecting worker rights—did not have the votes," lamented Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
Chris Jackson, a former Democratic Lawrence County, Tennessee commissioner and longtime labor advocate, called Manchin and Sinema's votes "a crushing blow to the labor agenda."
"By casting decisive NO votes against President Biden's NLRB nominee, they've guaranteed Democrats will lose control of the national labor board until at least 2026," Jackson said. "Their votes effectively hand Donald Trump the keys to the board the moment he takes office again. This is a betrayal of working families—and a gift to corporate interests, which is par for the course for these two."
Trump's first term saw relentless attacks on workers' rights. Critics fear a second Trump administration—whose officials and agenda are steeped in the anti-worker Project 2025—will roll back gains achieved under Biden and work to weaken the right to organize, water down workplace health and safety rules, and strip overtime pay, to name but a handful of GOP wish-list items.
The latest votes by Manchin and Sinema—who are both leaving Congress after this term—sparked widespread outrage among workers' rights defenders on social media, with one account on X, formerly known as Twitter, posting: "Manchin is geriatric and Sinema has a long fruitful career ahead of her in a consulting firm that advocates child slave labor, but at least they kicked the working class in the teeth one last time. Nothing to do now but hope there's a hell."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Defeat of Megamerger, Sanders Thanks Khan for Taking On 'Corporate Greed'
"The proposed Kroger-Albertsons merger would have led to higher prices at the grocery store and harmed workers," said the Vermont senator.
Dec 11, 2024
Praise for Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan continued to pour in on Wednesday after a pair of judges blocked the merger of grocery chains Kroger and Albertsons following challenges by the FTC and state attorneys general.
"The proposed Kroger-Albertsons merger would have led to higher prices at the grocery store and harmed workers," said U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders. "Let me thank FTC Chair Lina Khan for successfully fighting this merger and standing up to corporate greed."
Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) also welcomed the rulings and sent "a big thank you to Lina Khan and her team at the FTC."
Their comments on Wednesday followed similar applause from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal as well as groups including the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP) and Groundwork Collaborative.
Khan addressed the win during a Tuesday stream with political commentator Hasan Piker, noting that "this is the first time that the FTC has ever sought to block a merger not just because it's gonna be bad for consumers, but also because it's gonna be bad for workers."
Khan, an appointee of outgoing Democratic President Joe Biden, has won praise from progressives for taking on not only grocery giants and other companies trying to build monopolies but also Big Pharma and Big Tech.
Sanders recently called her "the best FTC chair in modern history" and AELP earlier this year published a document detailing how, under Khan's leadership, the agency "has entered a new era of more effective, modern, and democratic enforcement to better protect consumers, workers, and independent businesses."
Examples included in the AELP roundup include Khan's "crackdown on deceptive 'junk fees,'" a ban on noncompete clauses that's being challenged in court, a historic lawsuit against Amazon.com, and a "click-to-cancel" rule that requires sellers to "make it as easy for consumers to cancel their enrollment as it was to sign up."
However, the new era of the FTC is set to soon come to an end. Since President-elect Donald Trump's victory last month, speculation has been building that he would replace Khan with someone who would do the bidding of big business. Amid celebrations of the rulings against the Kroger-Albertsons merger on Tuesday, the Republican announced Andrew Ferguson as his pick for chair.
As Common Dreamsreported earlier Wednesday, Basel Musharbash, principal attorney at Antimonopoly Counsel, said that elevating Ferguson, who already sits on the FTC, to chair, "is an affront to the antitrust laws and a gift to the oligarchs and monopolies bleeding this country dry."
Although the agency is expected to be friendlier to mergers under the next Trump administration, Albertsons responded to the Tuesday rulings by bailing on the $24.6 billion deal and suing Kroger for billions of dollars on Wednesday, rather than appealing or moving to in-house FTC hearings.
That move could reflect industry fears of U.S. courts that are willing to block major mergers, as The American Prospect executive editor David Dayen pointed out after the federal court decision on Tuesday.
"The important thing here is not that Biden's enforcers blocked a merger... it's that courts are increasingly comfortable with merger enforcement," he said. "States can sue under the Sherman Act, and they will. The real change to track is in the judiciary. Wall Street, take note."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular