Download A23 Anonymous_Redacted

I have a keen interest in climate change believing an outcome would
ultimately also need a financial solution. Perhaps for different reasons than
most, I have spent much time learning the intricacies of Quantitative Finance.
My question is more an idea, than a question…
The problem with emission trading schemes is the lack of liquidity that they
trade in, and also the complexity in measuring and issuing carbon credit
certificates. An emission scheme may only work optimally in a well growing
global economy, which today is having its difficulties.
I suppose the following idea may accelerate 3-fold, what physics Nobel prize
Laureate Professor Chu said at the Press Club last year, emphasizing the
need to head in the direction of alternative energy industries/investments.
Our global economy needs to grow, and perhaps lateral way to perpetuate a
united direction internationally, needs the right type of financial and policy
engineering today.
As an aspiring physicist, my idea in this area may appear naive.
The sure winner in any market cycle, are always the brokers, and perhaps
every well regulated government, should carefully tap into this resource, as an
perpetual income stream.
Brokerage is a financial product/service, a product/service that does not
attract a GST/VAT.
As an simple example, suppose it is $10 to maneuver a financial
asset/instrument (buy or short) of $100-$1000…?value, but now we introduce
a 10% GST, to be applied across all brokerage stocks/instruments, plus a
further 25% climate levy when the financial market action is at odds with
climate incentives.
Such an investor/trader who has the opportunity and privilege, to play in the
markets, if their investment was against climate incentives, a max $13.50
brokerage, would hold their position. A small fee of $3.50 would be the
difference. Brokerage charges from different brokers, even today, like for like
may vary more than this in % amount. The climate levy would hence apply
when one shorts a renewable energy instrument but not when they short a
polluting stock/instrument.
It is standard practice for traders/investors to make a tax claim on their losses
experienced in the financial markets for the risks they themselves expose
themselves too, including all brokerage fees. Like any enterprise they can off
set their GST contribution, however they will not be able to claim back the
Climate Levy.
Further the combined stock indexes at the exchanges can (by software
implementation alone at the exchanges) be further split, into climate incentive
companies and polluting companies. And again brokerage GST applied and
(a climate levy for movement up/down against polluting type market actions).
Such action better assists investors to trade/invest their financial investment
with climate incentives directly/collectively.
This would provide a very lucrative income stream to all well regulated
governments, to address serious priority issues, budget deficits and support
productive research into our universities to preserve high quality research
skills and offer viable solutions into the far future and evolving generations.
People, who enter retirement when there is downward confidence in the
global market, unfortunately do not reap the optimum benefits of their
Superannuation.
The total asset value of Superannuation of any country, like Australia is a very
heavy untapped resource we may leverage to this end. If the above is
considered and a strong government incentive is to gear the people’s
underestimated leverage (superannuation) into renewable energy investment,
investment choice and financial markets would be reshaped into a clear future
in support of Professor Chu’s additional insightful/intelligent reasons. If such a
clear direction was made today, as we are looking for ways to focus growth on
our economy, we in turn, upon our retirement will reap the benefits outcome
with superannuation in renewable energy, where we also address aspects of
our ageing population concerns. The ordinary person will feel security that
their superannuation is driving up renewable energy industries, with the right
governmental policies.
By addressing the climate challenge this way, we are solving many problems
and empowering our governments with an opportunity to more comfortably
deliver on their election promises.
Any government that leads the way would forever be on the right side of
history!
United regulated world governments with the world’s combined
Superannuation support could successfully seek to drive the world’s
renewable energy stock market index upwards, growing in a clear direction, a
stronger economy, while accelerating the overall benefits when shorting the
environmentally polluting stocks/instruments. Some companies would need to
re-think their strategies if they are to survive. Climate change is automatically
implemented, asymptotically at a faster rate than possibly currently
strategized? International policy on brokerage fees could be to forward the
GST/VAT and Levy charges to the country governments in where the
customers/investors/traders initiated the order in, for a fairer distribution
equilibrium of such funds.
Like jury obligation, we can seek competent non-biased professional thinkers
from the broad community on a rotating basis, as a panel committee, to make
decisions for which companies are climate offenders, and once their strategic
operations have changed to have their category changed on the world
brokerage exchanges to more favorably appeal to traders/investors.
The planet, the environment, the climate, animal and plant life, people and
future generations are far too important than keeping brokerage charges free
of any service tax or climate levies. Especially as, most of these charges can
be reclaimed, through the tax system.
This approach could also be applied to business enterprises, that wish to
operate on the exchanges for access to cheaper riskless capital from the
broader community, that profit out of unhealthy/immoral products, such as
tobacco, fast foods etc, that ultimately place a large burden on our medical
system.
I am available to expand on such a model, when required, to also seek and
offer solutions/strategies to take into account for consideration of apposing
interests who in the interim carry a burden, when such an implementation may
get proposed.
Thank you so much for your time.