Connect with us

Economics

The Fallacy Of Climate Financial Risk

The Fallacy Of Climate Financial Risk

Authored by John Cochrane via Project Syndicate,

The idea that climate change poses a threat to the financial system is absurd, not least because everyone already knows that global warming is happening..

Published

on

The Fallacy Of Climate Financial Risk

Authored by John Cochrane via Project Syndicate,

The idea that climate change poses a threat to the financial system is absurd, not least because everyone already knows that global warming is happening and that fossil fuels are being phased out. The new push for climate-related financial regulation is not really about risk; it is about a political agenda.

In the United States, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Department of the Treasury are gearing up to incorporate climate policy into US financial regulation, following even more audacious steps in Europe. The justification is that “climate risk” poses a danger to the financial system. But that statement is absurd. Financial regulation is being used to smuggle in climate policies that otherwise would be rejected as unpopular or ineffective.

“Climate” means the probability distribution of the weather – the range of potential weather conditions and events, together with their associated probabilities. “Risk” means the unexpected, not changes that everyone knows are underway. And “systemic financial risk” means the possibility that the entire financial system will melt down, as nearly happened in 2008. It does not mean that someone somewhere might lose money because some asset price falls, though central bankers are swiftly enlarging their purview in that direction.

In plain language, then, a “climate risk to the financial system” means a sudden, unexpected, large, and widespread change in the probability distribution of the weather, sufficient to cause losses that blow through equity and long-term debt cushions, provoking a system-wide run on short-term debt. This means the five- or at most ten-year horizon over which regulators can begin to assess the risks on financial institutions’ balance sheets. Loans for 2100 have not been made yet.

Such an event lies outside any climate science. Hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, and fires have never come close to causing systemic financial crises, and there is no scientifically validated possibility that their frequency and severity will change so drastically to alter this fact in the next ten years. Our modern, diversified, industrialized, service-oriented economy is not that affected by weather – even by headline-making events. Businesses and people are still moving from the cold Rust Belt to hot and hurricane-prone Texas and Florida.

If regulators are worried even-handedly about out-of-the-box risks that endanger the financial system, the list should include wars, pandemics, cyberattacks, sovereign-debt crises, political meltdowns, and even asteroid strikes. All but the latter are more likely than climate risk. And if we are worried about flood and fire costs, perhaps we should stop subsidizing building and rebuilding in flood and fire-prone areas.

Climate regulatory risk is slightly more plausible. Environmental regulators could turn out to be so incompetent that they damage the economy to the point of creating a systemic run. But that scenario seems far-fetched even to me. Again though, if the question is regulatory risk, then even-handed regulators should demand a wider recognition of all political and regulatory risks. Between the Biden administration’s novel interpretations of antitrust law, the previous administration’s trade policies, and the pervasive political desire to “break up big tech,” there is no shortage of regulatory danger.

To be sure, it is not impossible that some terrible climate-related event in the next ten years can provoke a systemic run, though nothing in current science or economics describes such an event. But if that is the fear, the only logical way to protect the financial system is by dramatically raising the amount of equity capital, which protects the financial system against any kind of risk. Risk measurement and technocratic regulation of climate investments, by definition, cannot protect against unknown unknowns or un-modeled “tipping points.”

What about “transition risks” and “stranded assets?” Won’t oil and coal companies lose value in the shift to low-carbon energy? Indeed they will. But everyone already knows that. Oil and gas companies will lose more value only if the transition comes faster than expected. And legacy fossil-fuel assets are not funded by short-term debt, as mortgages were in 2008, so losses by their stockholders and bondholders do not imperil the financial system. “Financial stability” does not mean that no investor ever loses money.

Moreover, fossil fuels have always been risky. Oil prices turned negative last year, with no broader financial consequences. Coal and its stockholders have already been hammered by climate regulation, with not a hint of financial crisis.  

More broadly, in the history of technological transitions, financial problems have never come from declining industries. The stock-market crash of 2000 was not caused by losses in the typewriter, film, telegraph, and slide-rule industries. It was the slightly-ahead-of-their-time tech companies that went bust. Similarly, the stock-market crash of 1929 was not caused by plummeting demand for horse-drawn carriages. It was the new radio, movie, automobile, and electric appliance industries that collapsed.

If one is worried about the financial risks associated with the energy transition, new astronomically-valued darlings such as Tesla are the danger. The biggest financial danger is a green bubble, fueled as previous booms by government subsidies and central-bank encouragement. Today’s high-fliers are vulnerable to changing political whims and new and better technologies. If regulatory credits dry up or if hydrogen fuel cells displace batteries, Tesla is in trouble. Yet our regulators wish only to encourage investors to pile on.

Climate financial regulation is an answer in search of a question. The point is to impose a specific set of policies that cannot pass via regular democratic lawmaking or regular environmental rulemaking, which requires at least a pretense of cost-benefit analysis.

These policies include defunding fossil fuels before replacements are in place, and subsidizing battery-powered electric cars, trains, windmills, and photovoltaics – but not nuclear, carbon capture, hydrogen, natural gas, geoengineering, or other promising technologies. But, because financial regulators are not allowed to decide where investment should go and what should be starved of funds, “climate risk to the financial system” is dreamed up and repeated until people believe it, in order to shoehorn these climate policies into financial regulators’ limited legal mandates.

Climate change and financial stability are pressing problems. They require coherent, intelligent, scientifically valid policy responses, and promptly. But climate financial regulation will not help the climate, will further politicize central banks, and will destroy their precious independence, while forcing financial companies to devise absurdly fictitious climate-risk assessments will ruin financial regulation. The next crisis will come from some other source. And our climate-obsessed regulators will once again fail utterly to anticipate it – just as a decade’s worth of stress testers never considered the possibility of a pandemic.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/21/2021 - 16:40

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Victor Davis Hanson: The Afghanistization Of America

Victor Davis Hanson: The Afghanistization Of America

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via AmGreatness.com,

The United States should be at its pinnacle of strength. It still produces more goods and services than any other nation—China included

Published

on

Victor Davis Hanson: The Afghanistization Of America

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via AmGreatness.com,

The United States should be at its pinnacle of strength. It still produces more goods and services than any other nation—China included, which has a population over four times as large. Its fuel and food industries are globally preeminent, as are its graduate science, computer, engineering, medical, and technology university programs. Its constitution is the oldest of current free nations. And the U.S. military is by far the best funded in the world. And yet something has gone terribly wrong within America, from the southern border to Afghanistan. 

The inexplicable in Afghanistan—surrendering Bagram Air Base in the middle of the night, abandoning tens of billions of dollars of military equipment to the Taliban, and forsaking both trapped Americans and loyalist Afghans—has now become the new Biden model of inattention and incompetence. 

Or to put it another way, when we seek to implant our culture abroad, do we instead come to emulate what we are trying to change?

COVID Chaos

Take COVID-19. Joe Biden in 2020 (along with Kamala Harris) trashed Trump’s impending Operation Warp Speed vaccinations. Then, after inauguration, Biden falsely claimed no one had been vaccinated until his ascension (in fact, 1million a day were being vaccinated before he assumed office). Then again, Biden claimed ad nauseam that he didn’t believe in mandates to force the new and largely experimental vaccinations on the public. Then, once more, he promised that they were so effective and so many Americans had received vaccines that by July 4 the country would return to a virtual pre-COVID normality. 

Then came the delta variant and his self-created disaster in Afghanistan. 

To divert his attention away from the Afghan morass, Biden weirdly focused on an equally confused new presidential COVID-19 mandate, seeking to subject federal employees, soldiers, and employees of larger firms to mandatory vaccinations—right as the contagious delta variant seemed to be slowly tapering off, given the millions who have either been vaxxed, have developed natural immunity, or both.

Consider other paradoxes. American citizens must be vaccinated, but not the forecasted 2 million noncitizens expected to cross the southern border illegally into the United States over the current fiscal year. Soldiers who bravely helped more than 100,000 Afghan refugees escape must be vaccinated, but not the unvetted foreign nationals from a premodern country?

Scientists now are convinced naturally acquired COVID-19 immunity from a previous infection likely provides longer and better protection than does any of the current vaccinations. 

Yet those who suffered COVID-19, and now have antibodies and other natural defenses, must likewise be vaccinated. That anomaly raises the obvious logical absurdities: will those with vaccinations—in reciprocal fashion—be forced to be exposed to the virus to obtain additional and superior natural immunity, given the Biden logic of the need for both acquired and vaccinated immunity? 

Tribal Lands 

We have Afghanistanized the border as well, turning the United States into a pre-state whose badlands borders are absolutely porous and fluid. There is no audit of newcomers, no vaccinations required, no COVID-19 tests—none of the requirements that millions of citizens must meet either entering the United States or working at their jobs. Our Bagram abandonment is matched by abruptly abandoning the border wall in mid-course. 

Yet where the barrier exists, there is some order; where Joe Biden abandoned the wall, there is a veritable stampede of illegal migration. 

October 7, 2019. Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Coups, Juntas and Such

Third-World countries suffer military coups when unelected top brass and caudillos often insidiously take control of the country’s governance in slow-motion fashion. The latest Bob Woodward “I heard,” “they say,” and “sources reveal” mythography now claims that General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, discussed separating an elected commander-in-chief from control of the military. Woodward and co-author Robert Costa also assert that Milley promised his Chinese Communist military counterpart that he would tip off the People’s Liberation Army of any planned U.S. aggressive action—an odd paranoia when Donald Trump, of the last five presidents, has proved the most reluctant to send U.S. troops into harm’s way. 

If that bizarre assertion is true, Milley himself might have essentially risked starting a war by eroding U.S. deterrence in apprising an enemy of perceived internal instability inside the executive branch, and the lack of a unified command. (So, Woodward wrote: “‘General Li, I want to assure you that the American government is stable, and everything is going to be okay,’ Milley said. ‘We are not going to attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you.’ Milley then added, ‘If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.’”)

More germanely, when Milley called in senior officers and laid down his own operational directives concerning nuclear weapons, he was clearly violating the law as established and strengthened in 1947, 1953, and 1986 that clearly states the Joint Chiefs are advisors to the president and are not in the chain of command and are to be bypassed, at least operationally, by the president.

The commander in chief sets policy. And if it requires the use of force, he directs the secretary of defense to relay presidential orders to the relevant theater commanders. Milley had no authority to discuss changing nuclear procedures, much less to convey a smear to an enemy that his commander in chief was non compos mentis.

Milley has been reduced to a caricature of a caricature right out of “Dr. Strangelove”—and is himself a danger to national security. After Milley’s summer 2020 virtue-signaling “apology” for alleged presidential photo-op misbehavior (found to be completely false by the interior department’s inspector general); after leaked news reports that Milley considered resignation (promises, promises) to signal his anger at Trump in summer 2020; after his dismissal of the 120 days of rioting, 28 deaths, 14,000 arrests, and $2 billion in damage as mere “penny packet protests”; after his “white rage” blathering before Congress; after the collapse of the U.S. military command in Kabul; and after his premature and hasty assessment of a U.S. drone strike that killed 10 innocent civilians as “righteous,” Woodward’s sensationalism may not sound as impossible as his usual fare. 

Milley should either deny the Woodward charges and demand a real apology or resign immediately. He has violated the law governing the chain of command, misused his office of chairman of the Joint Chiefs, politicized the military, proved inept in his military judgment and advice, and may well have committed a felony in revealing to a hostile military leader that the United States was, in his opinion, in a crisis mode. 

Yet, Milley did not act in isolation. Where did this low-bar Pentagon coup talk originate? And who are those responsible for creating a culture in which unelected current and retired military officers, sworn to uphold the constitutional order and the law of civilian control of the military, believe that they can arbitrarily declare an elected president either incompetent or criminal—and thus subject to their own renegade sort of freelancing justice?

As a footnote, remember that after little more than a week of the Trump presidency, Rosa Brooks, an Obama-era Pentagon appointee, published in Foreign Policy various ways to remove the newly inaugurated president. Among those mentioned was a military coup, in which top officers were to collude to obstruct a presidential order, on the basis of their own perceptions of a lack of presidential rectitude or competence. 

We note additionally that over a dozen high-ranking retired generals and admirals have serially violated the uniform code of military justice in demonizing publicly their commander in chief with the worst sort of smears and slanders. And they have done so with complete exemption and in mockery of the very code they have sworn to abide. 

Two retired army officers, colonels John Nagl and Paul Yingling, on the eve of the 2020 election, urged Milley to order U.S. army forces to remove Trump from office if in their opinion he obstructed the results of the election—superseding in effect a president’s elected powers as well as those constitutional checks and balances of the legislative and judicial branches upon him. 

We know that these were all partisan and not principled concerns about an alleged non compos mentis president, because none of these same outspoken “Seven Days in May” generals have similarly violated the military code by negatively commenting publicly on the current dangerous cognitive decline of Joe Biden and the real national security dangers of his impairment, as evidenced by the disastrous skedaddle from Afghanistan and often inability to speak coherently or remember key names and places.

In short, is our new freelancing and partisan military also in the process of becoming Afghanized—too many of its leadership electively appealing to pseudo-higher principles to contextualize violating the Constitution of the United States and, sadly, too many trying to reflect the general woke landscape of the corporate board to which so many have retired? Like tribal warlords, our top brass simply do as they please, and then message to us “so what are you going to do about it?”

Achin, Afghanistan, 2011. John Moore/Getty Images

The Constitution as Construct

How paradoxical that the United States has sent teams of constitutional specialists to Iraq and Afghanistan to help tribal societies to draft legal, ordered, and sustainable Western consensual government charters that are not subject to the whims of particular tribes and parties. Yet America itself is descending in the exact opposite direction. 

Suddenly in 2021 America, if ancient consensual rules, customs, and constitutional mandates do not facilitate and advance the progressive project, then by all means they must end—by a mere one vote in the Senate. It is as if the centuries of our history, the Constitution, and the logic of the founders were analogous to a shouting match among a squabbling Taliban tribal council of elders.

Junk the 233-year-old Electoral College and the constitutional directive to the states to assume primary responsibilities in establishing voting procedures in national elections. End the 180-year-old Senate filibuster. Do away with the now bothersome 150-year nine-justice Supreme Court. And scrap the 60-year-old tradition of a 50-state union.  

Impeachment was intended by the founders as a rare reset of the executive branch in extremis. Now it is to be a pro formaattack on the president in his first term by the opposite party as soon as it gains control of the House—without a special counsel, without witnesses and cross-examinations, without any specific high crimes and misdemeanors or bribery and treason charges. And why not from now on impeach a president twice within a year—or try him in the Senate when he is out of office as a private citizen? 

When private citizen Joe Biden is retired from the presidency, will his political enemies dig up his sketchy IRS records alleging that he never paid income taxes on the “big guy’s” “10 percent” of the income from the Hunter Biden money machine?

American Tribes

 We may think virtue-signaling pride flags, gender studies, and George Floyd murals in Kabul remind the world of our postmodern sophistication. Yet, in truth, we are becoming far more like Afghanistan in the current tribalization of America—where tribal, racial, and ethnic loyalties are now essential to an American’s primary identity and loyalty—than we were ever able to make Afghanistan like us.

When we read leftist heartthrob Ibram X. Kendi’s endorsement of overt racial discrimination or academic and media obsessions with a supposed near-satanic “whiteness,” or the current fixations on skin color and first loyalties to those who share superficial racial affinities, then we are not much different from the Afghan tribalists. We in America apparently have decided the warring badlands of the Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, and Uzbeks have their advantages over a racially blind, consensual republic. They are the model to us, not us of the now-discredited melting pot to them.

How sad in our blinkered arrogance that we go across the globe to the tribal Third World to teach the impoverished a supposedly preferrable culture and politics, while at home we are doing our best to become a Third-World country of incompetency, constitutional erosion, a fractious and politicized military elite, and racially and ethnically obsessed warring tribes. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/20/2021 - 23:40

Read More

Continue Reading

Economics

Best Dividend Stocks In 2021? 4 To Watch This Week

Dividend stocks to know amidst debates over debt limit and choppy markets.
The post Best Dividend Stocks In 2021? 4 To Watch This Week appeared first on Stock Market News, Quotes, Charts and Financial Information | StockMarket.com.

Published

on

4 Dividend Stocks Worth Checking Out In A Down Market

As we begin another trading week, dividend stocks are once again at the forefront for investors. For the most part, this could be thanks to various factors, international and domestic, that are weighing on the stock market today. To begin, the market appears to be reacting to significant declines in overseas equities. The likes of which are closely linked to the possible default of a major Chinese real estate company, Evergrande. If anything, this would echo the aftermath of a recent slew of disappointing international economic data influencing the overall recovery trade now.

At the same time, investors could also be treading lightly ahead of the Federal Reserve’s September meeting. The monetary policy meeting would be the launching point for additional debate regarding the Fed’s tapering and overall economic outlook. Now, how would dividend stocks fit into all of this? Simply put, dividend stocks would be a more defensive play in the stock market now. Given the numerous factors contributing to overall volatility across the board, some consistent income in the form of dividends would be appealing.

Accordingly, companies such as Consolidated Edison (NYSE: ED) and Archer-Daniels-Midland (NYSE: ADM) would come into play. This is mostly because of their long history of dividend growth and a constant demand for their services regardless of the current economic cycle. Among the top dividend stocks now are also industry giants that boast massive operations spanning the globe. With all that said, here are four dividend stocks to note now.

Top Dividend Stocks To Buy [Or Sell] This Week

Apple Inc.

First up, we have Apple, a multinational technology company that manufactures and sells its premium line of tech products. On top of that, it also offers a wide variety of services like its Apple TV+ video-on-demand streaming service and Apple Music. Furthermore, the company is one of the world’s most valuable brands and boasts a high level of brand loyalty among its users. AAPL stock currently trades at $142.94 as of Monday’s close. Its last dividend was declared in July at  $0.22 per share.

best tech stocks (AAPL stock)

The company has just recently announced its latest lineup of iPhone models. In fact, its iPhone 13 sales have just begun and millions have already placed orders for them. The company’s lineup this year also packs the latest features like a new A15 processor and 120 Hz display screen on its Pro model.

The company’s deals are also more aggressive this year and have partnered with carriers like T-Mobile (NASDAQ: TMUS) to offer huge incentives for users to trade in their old devices and sign up for a top-shelf cellular plan. Given this exciting piece of news surrounding the company, will you consider adding AAPL stock to your watchlist right now?

[Read More] 4 Semiconductor Stocks To Watch Right Now

The 3M Company

3M is a dividend company that has businesses in consumer goods, health care, worker safety, and industrials. Its products improve lives and help solve the world’s toughest challenges. The company’s portfolio of products includes abrasives and adhesives that are used for construction and are engineered to fit its customers’ needs.

3M Stock (MMM Stock)

Its array of high-performance materials are used to meet the demands of real-world manufacturing. MMM stock currently trades $180.53 at the end of Monday’s trading session. On August 13, 2021, the company declared a dividend on the company’s common stock of $1.48 per share for the third quarter.

Last week, the company announced that it’s Industrial Adhesives and Tapes Division is evolving its Bonding Process Centers in the U.S., Germany, and China to facilitate the growing trend towards automation in manufacturing. 3M will provide a starting point from which it will design and plan automated bonding solutions. The company will also have sessions to highlight how the company’s growing capabilities can be applied to increase more positive business outcomes for manufacturing and assembly businesses. For these reasons, will you consider MMM stock a buy today?

[Read More] Best Artificial Intelligence Stocks To Buy Right Now? 5 To Watch

AbbVie Inc.

Following that, we have AbbVie, a company that develops and commercializes advanced therapies. It has over 48,000 employees globally that strive to help patients by providing them next-generation treatments and therapies. It focuses on several key therapeutic areas like immunology, oncology, neuroscience, and eye care among others. ABBV stock trades at $106.40 a share as of Monday’s close and has enjoyed gains of over 18% in the past year.

best dividend stocks (ABBV stock)

Today, the company announced that it has submitted an application to the FDA seeking approval for Risankizumab-rzaa, an interleukin-23 inhibitor for the treatment of patients 16 years and older with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease. The company submitted its safety and efficacy data from three Phase 3 studies to the FDA for this approval.

While there have been advancements in care, many people with Crohn’s disease do not achieve lasting remission,” said Tom Hudson, senior vice president of research and development, chief scientific officer, AbbVie. “This submission is an important step forward in our commitment to providing an additional treatment option for those who struggle with this debilitating and often unpredictable disease.” With that being said, will you consider adding ABBV stock to your portfolio?

[Read More] What Stocks To Buy Today? 5 Tech Stocks To Watch

Microsoft Corporation

Another name to consider among dividend stocks in the stock market today would be the Microsoft Corporation. Sure, while Microsoft is not often first on most dividend stock lists, the company is not stingy when it comes to increasing its payouts. Namely, Microsoft has and continues to steadily grow its dividends for about 11 years. Thanks to its latest dividend hike, MSFT stock could be in focus among dividend investors now. As it stands, the company’s shares currently trade at $294.30 as of Monday’s closing bell after gaining 37% year-to-date.

best tech stocks (msft stock)

In terms of its dividend, Microsoft announced that it would be boosting its dividend by a whopping 11% last week. While this adds up to a $0.06 per share quarterly payout, investors would be buying into the tech giants’ offerings as well. With pandemic conditions persisting worldwide, demand for Microsoft’s offerings could follow suit.

Even now, the company appears to be kicking into high gear across the board. Together with its dividend hike, Microsoft also plans to initiate a $60 billion share repurchase program, its largest to date. After considering all of this, would MSFT stock be worth investing in?

The post Best Dividend Stocks In 2021? 4 To Watch This Week appeared first on Stock Market News, Quotes, Charts and Financial Information | StockMarket.com.

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Canadian government grants your business might qualify for

  With the changes in the economy, many business owners are struggling to get a foothold on what they need to do to ensure their business is stable now and into the future. As a business coach, I’ve seen some tremendous transformations when businesses…

Published

on

By

 

With the changes in the economy, many business owners are struggling to get a foothold on what they need to do to ensure their business is stable now and into the future.

As a business coach, I’ve seen some tremendous transformations when businesses have had the opportunity to hire outside help to guide them towards increased profitability and less stress.

To support businesses, our team has come up with 24 grants that your business might qualify for in helping you take it to the next level.

FEDERAL GRANTS

Canada Job GrantThe Canada Job Grant (CJG) is a federal government funding program designed to reduce the costs of providing third-party skills training to new and existing employees. Launched in 2014, the Canada Job Grant allocates upwards of $194 million annually to support the upskilling of new and existing employees so they can learn new skills and become more valuable to their organizations.

Canada Small Business Financing ProgramThis is part of the Canada Small Business Financing Act and was created to help support business growth through business loans with competitive interest rates. Up to $1-million is available for business expansion activities, including the acquisition of a building, leasehold improvements, purchasing new or used equipment, and software components.

Strategic Innovation FundThe SIF is a federal government program uniquely targeted at Canada’s industrial and technology sectors. It offers financial contributions (both repayable and non-repayable) valued at up to 50 per cent of project costs, with the purpose of promoting investment into the types of activities that drive sustained productivity and economic benefits.

BRITISH COLUMBIA BUSINESS GRANTS

Canada-B.C. Job GrantThe B.C. Employer Training Grant program (ETG) supports skills training to address provincial labour market shortages. Reimbursement amounts vary between 60 and 100 per cent, depending on the training stream. Employers are eligible to receive up to $300,000 per fiscal year (April 1 to March 31).

Foundational Training Stream (government of Canada through the Canada-B.C. workforce development agreement): This stream supports unemployed and low-skilled British Columbians to gain essential, transferable and certified skills, in order to obtain good-paying jobs and increase job security. Under the Foundational Training Stream, employers may receive 100 per cent of eligible training costs, up to a maximum of $10,000 per participant per fiscal year.

Workforce Training stream (government of Canada through the Canada-B.C. workforce development agreement): This stream supports training relevant to the immediate needs of the business and the participant’s job. Under the Workforce Training Stream, employers may receive 60 per cent of eligible training costs, up to a maximum of $5,000 per participant per fiscal year.

Technical Training StreamThis stream supports employers to train current or new employees in technical skills in response to technological advancements. Under the Technical Training Stream, employers may receive 80 per cent of eligible training costs, up to a maximum of $10,000 per participant per fiscal year.

BUSINESS GRANTS NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA

 Competitive consulting grantThe Competitiveness Consulting Rebate program provides a rebate to small and medium-sized businesses engaged in manufacturing, innovative technologies, resource processing, transportation, distribution and their first-line suppliers for external business consulting projects. Projects must focus on increased productivity, new or incremental revenues, profitability and/or job creation.

COVID-19 Recovery ProgramThis program is designed to help businesses reduce the barrier to accessing professional expertise and recover the costs of third-party consulting projects. These types of projects must focus on ways to sustain businesses during the current economic downturn. The Small Business Recovery Consulting Rebate will reimburse small and medium sized businesses (operators) for contracted consulting services.

Northern Industries Innovation FundThe NIIF program provides incremental funding to support innovation projects that increase the competitiveness of local businesses in traditional industries across northern B.C. The program is also intended to support economic diversification and/or viability of businesses to mitigate the economic impact of the pine beetle epidemic. NIIF supports applied research and development, new or improved products and services, and testing of innovative equipment or technologies to support capital investment decisions

Marketing InitiativesThe Marketing Initiatives program provides funding to support new marketing campaigns or projects that position a community or region to take advantage of opportunities that support economic vitality and diversification. These marketing projects must be new initiatives that stand alone from existing marketing activities.

GRANTS FOR WAGE SUBSIDIES

Industrial Research Assistance Program Youth Employment ProgramThis federal program helps your business create business or technology jobs for highly-skilled youth. It will pay a part of wage-related costs so you can hire young talent to work on innovation-related projects.

Venture for Canada partner opportunitiesFrom short-term support to full-time hires, this program offers a wide of programs at various costs commitment levels. It provides students and recent grads with the entrepreneurial skills today’s Canadian startups and SMEs need.

Career Ready Program – TECHNATIONFor employers within the technology sector (or related projects).

Innovate B.C. – Tech Co-op GrantsGet up to $20,000 per year in funding to hire co-op students through the Tech Co-op Grant, which is available for technology-based companies looking to grow or a non-tech company, organization or non-profit hiring for a tech role.

New Ventures B.C. – Innovator Skills Initiative GrantGet up to $10,000 per year in funding to hire students through WIL programs (not including co-op), such as internships and work placements. Eligible employers are tech companies or tech-focused non-profits hiring for a business or tech role, or a business or non-profit hiring for a tech role.

Mitacs AccelerateMitacs Accelerate pairs businesses with masters and PhD interns to overcome innovation challenges. Interns complete research and develop tools, models, technology, or solutions to support the host business’ challenges.

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH

IRAP accelerated review process (ARP): The Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) offers Canadian small business grants for any company committed to internal research and development. One such program is called IRAP Accelerated Review Process (ARP), which covers as much as $50,000 towards a wide array of different projects so long as they are aimed at solving an internal technical challenge.

GRANTS FOR INDIGENOUS ENTREPRENEURS

Economic development fundParticipating First Nations can access this economic development fund that supports environmentally sound and sustainable economic development activities throughout the Great Bear Rainforest and Haida Gwaii.

Aboriginal Entrepreneurship ProgramThe Aboriginal Entrepreneurship Program (AEP) seeks to increase the number of viable businesses in Canada owned and controlled by Indigenous people. The AEP funds a broad range of entrepreneurial pursuits and aims to build capacity, reduce barriers and increase access to capital, by forging partnerships that will increase economic opportunities for First Nations, Inuit and Métis people.

Money for Indigenous Tourism Businesses in Northern Canada: If you’re working on a project to enhance tourism experiences in your region or helping the community attract more visitors, you could get a maximum $100,000 non-repayable contribution for up to 50 per cent of your project’s costs or a maximum $500,000 repayable contribution for up to 75 per cent of the costs. If you’re also a non-profit, the contribution is most likely non-repayable.

More advice for your business community

OTHER GRANTS

Canada-Alberta Job Grant (CAJG): The Canada-Alberta Job Grant (CAJG) is an Alberta government funding program that offers training grants to employers. Through the program, companies may receive non-repayable funding from the government to purchase third-party business training programs, including training for in-demand skillsets. Training is expected to improve the employability and value employees can provide; including new hires in these training sessions can also maximize your funding potential.

The Canada-Ontario Job Grant (COJG): The COJG is an Ontario government funding program that offers training grants to employers. Through the program, companies may receive non-repayable funding from the government to purchase third-party business training programs, including training for in-demand skillsets. Training is expected to improve the employability and value employees can provide; including new hires in these training sessions can also maximize your funding potential.

By Dave Fuller

Dave Fuller, MBA, is an award-winning business coach and a partner with Pivotleader Inc. Did we miss something? Email dave@pivotleader.com. 

Courtesy of Troy Media.

 

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending