Mark Carney’s Post

Why industries? IP and knowledge generates most value and almost no pollution. Most industrial jobs don't generate value and wages compatible with 21st century quality of life aspirations. We are not in the 19th, mid 20th century, modern economies are service and knowledge economies, the sooner European politicians realize this the sooner Europe can start growing. Subsidizing agriculture and industry is what has been dragging our growth, time to release the anchors for services and knowledge, and let them grow how they should.

Perhaps they can work with Ros Altmann and Sharon Bowles that have worked tirelessly on the significant misrepresentation of costs for investment companies that discourage investment into some of these areas. Some of these companies provide significant capital that had helped the UK be a leader in the low carbon economy, but is now in gridlock but could provide much needed private market capital for UK infrastructure Ben Conway David Appleton

This is good but there is/was a UK Infrastructure Bank. Its definition of Infrastructure is narrow and ineffective. My company does healthy living communities - essential to a better housing model rather than just housing. The very basis of such a model is to plan and deliver the Infrastructure on the site to create the effective community. We have sizeable foreign investment behind us but the lack of clarity and narrowness of the definition of Infrastructure is a significant inhibiting factor. Can we have the clarity and we will invest.

Dear Mark, if I may. This seems like a good idea.  But the key question must surely be: what is the expected return on invested capital associated with this proposal? If it is above the average 6 - 7% plus the additional spread associated with the risk required to attract capital to fund it, then, congratulations, this is the right policy, and no doubt investors will be lining up to provide capital. If it isn't, then how does the government propose to fund it? I recall what happened when Truss and Kwarteng proposed sizable unfunded spending plans to bond-markets not so long ago. I am also aware that funding long-term public infrastructure projects in the past has been problematic, leading to very long-term locked-in contracts with the private sector. This comes at a time when finances are under extreme pressure, not least from the urgent need to increase military spending in light of the escalating war in Ukraine and (potentially) elsewhere. No doubt the UK is in desperate need of investment and renewal. But if it cannot convince markets of the veracity of its plans, and does not deploy in a way that generates real, sustainable, growth, rather than the usual, short-term variety, then it will surely suffer the consequences.

This could be the role Canadian Pension Plans play in building the Canadian economy. #canada

Is it a Green Catslytic Fund or to crowd in for high value business. There seems to be confusion in what some of the actors in HM Treasury post said. The attempt to make it a growth vehicle is fine but why did the CEO of Green Finance Institute and head of the Task Force call it a Green Catalytic Fund. Can we have clarification as the two are not the same thing. If the Fund will use the BBB to equity risk it is something different than UKIB lending/investing in green infrastructure. Will the two run in parallel under one risk governance?

Mark Carney do you want be party with us Good morning, we have a 110% NATURAL product, where we GUARANTEE that the desert is the best land for any plantation. WHERE TO COK THIS PRODUCT, NO PESTICIDES OR PESTICIDES ARE REQUIRED. USING THIS PRODUCT THE SOIL BECOMES FERTILE AND THE PLANTATIONS GROW 10X FASTER THAN NORMAL. HELP US TO PRESENT THIS PRODUCT, TESTED AND CERTIFIED BY VARIOUS AGENCIES, PLEASE, TOGETHER WE CAN END HUNGRY IN THE WORLD AND CLOSE ALL PESTICIDE AND PESTICIDE COMPANIES ON THE PLANET. WE HAVE PROVEN RESULTS IN PLANTS AND FRUIT TREES AND IN ANIMALS THAT EAT THE PLANTS PRODUCED BY THIS PRODUCT AND IN PEOPLE WHO USE THIS PRODUCT. WE RECEIVED AN OFFER FROM AN INDIVIDUAL OF 20 BILLION DOLLARS, BUT HE WOULD NOT USE THE PRODUCT BUT RETAIN IT.

And perhaps the UK Sovereign wealth fund could work with public sector UK pension funds to create a new UK infrastructure investment fund; for example the LGPS (Local Government Pension scheme) has funds under management of £364 billion (March 2022). If the LGPS was to co-invest 5% of its assets: £18.2 billion into as equity + say a further £18.2 billion in matched funding from the private sector and or other sovereign entities then you have approximately £37 billion of equity capital; along with a debt facility such a vehicle could provide upwards of a £100 billion in capital financing for infrastructure. An interesting project to finance via tolls would be the trans pennine tunnel linking Manchester and Sheffield (in typical UK fashion this project has been talked about for over 30 years). I am aware its not 100% green but if was a combined rail and road tunnel, it just may work. Just an idea!

Let's hope that investment captures both natural- and grey- infrastructure - that really would be forward thinking

It would sure be nice if the government of Alberta understood the importance of developing a sustainable, environmental economy and not one based on fossil fuels. We are so far behind in the race to protect the planet that we are being lapped by the leading countries