©Bloomberg Commodities have always been cyclical, but already this year we have seen two distinct mini-cycles — down in January, recovering in February and March. Of course, fundamentals do not change that quickly, but sentiment certainly can. In particular, Chinese sentiment has turned around sharply — from the lowest point in the history of Macquarie’s China steel and copper surveys in January into positive territory. More On this topic IN The Commodities note So how should we view what has happened recently? Have fundamentals improved? Yes, from an extremely low base in December and January there has undoubtedly been a demand recovery. We would term what has happened as a “sub-trend to trend” move. For example global steel demand looks to have improved from around minus 6 per cent year on year to perhaps minus 2 per cent. At the same a time, a degree of confidence has returned helped by further loosening of the monetary policy from central banks. With it commodity order books have improved, helped also by a seasonal pick-up in demand. However, outlook for 2016 is not great and we would be cautious on hopes of further upside in prices as demand is not aggressive enough. Across the main metals and bulk commodities we cover, the majority will see negative year-on-year supply growth this year. Given global mining capital expenditure peaked in 2012 and adding the typical lag in the delivery of big projects, we always felt 2016 would be the year where a lack of new mines would be acutely felt. While this is helpful in bringing markets back towards balance with demand expected to be sub-trend, inventories high and many markets starting from an oversupplied situation, large stockpiles remain for most commodities. As of yet, there are few raw material constraints that have the potential to become inflationary in the near future with zinc the notable exception. The part the oil price has played in aiding the recent recovery should not be underestimated. Indeed, the correlation between oil and copper over the past six months has been strong. Oil does two things for other commodities; it drives down costs and also attracts (or dissuades) commodity investment. While it is too early to say that the oil rally has broken the wider deflationary cycle in mining, particularly as we believe the rally itself is not backed by fundamentals as of yet, it has helped to attract interest back towards commodities as a whole. Oil remains crucial to the wider commodity cycle, and will have to pull other commodities with it. In line with many market commentators, we feel recent price moves have been difficult to justify from a fundamental perspective. Given this, it is important to consider where we could all be wrong. One is Chinese construction. You need JavaScript active on your browser in order to see this video. Although we expect strong sales, 2016 will be a year of destocking. Developers have been tasked by the Chinese government with running down property inventory, particularly in smaller, provincial cities. This means that construction activity should be much lower than sales this year and thus a drag on commodity demand. Should indicators show a more sustained recovery in property investment or new start activity, following on from the surprisingly strong February data, demand expectations will improve and the recent price moves may be considered more sustainable. For us, this remains only a possibility given that it would involve a U-turn in the government approach to property activity, which in itself is one of the pillars of the much vaunted “supply-side reform” agenda. In summary, we do not think the overarching challenges in commodity markets are set to significantly diminish. While demand for commodity-containing goods may be good, and certainly better than 2015 owing to destocking, raw commodity demand will not. The Commodities Note is an online commentary on the industry from the Financial Times Colin Hamilton is the head of commodities research at Macquarie Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2016. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web. Source link

Browser does not support script. Contact us The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) has published the findings of its Review of Architectural Competitions by a specially appointed Task Group after approval by the RIBA Council last month. The RIBA Task Group concluded that the RIBA should actively promote good competitions and their benefits to clients.  It made five specific recommendations in its report; to provide improved guidance and more choice for clients, open up opportunities for architects, and reduce waste through more efficient processes and use of technology as follows: Celebrate and promote the benefits of competitions for all types of buildings and structures – by demonstrating that competitions are good for all buildings and client ambitions and that they can help to achieve the beautiful ordinary, not just iconic buildings. Increase the quantity of well-managed, well regulated competitions – by investing in the growth of RIBA Competitions as market leader, greater engagement of potential clients with the assistance of newly appointed Competition Champions and developing new alternative processes to suit a wider range of clients. Provide new best practice guidance and support to clients – by providing guidance as to when and if a competition is appropriate as well as detailed guidance as to the most appropriate competitive selection process; and offering support from newly appointed Client Mentors in the early stages, who can help guide inexperienced clients through the process. Promote best practice and continuous improvement to processes –by adhering to best practice and reducing waste by limiting the amount of work required of competition entrants, providing guidance about the risks and pitfalls, making it clear that no architect will gain an advantage by doing more work than asked for and ensuring professional judges are suitably qualified and experienced. Improve the standards of other competition providers and private clients by working in partnerships with other professional associations, such as the Landscape Institute, RTPI, IStructE, ICE and RICS and potentially offering a service to promote non-RIBA competitions, provided they adhere to best practice. The Task Group comprised clients, client advisers, architects and RIBA executives, and was set up by the RIBA in 2013 to review the use of competitions in the UK. Martin Knight, Chair of the RIBA Competitions Task Group said: “Good competitions offer valuable choices to clients and opportunities to architects, whether to younger or smaller practices or established firms.  They encourage research and innovation, promote public debate and emphasise the value of good design but they often have an image problem, especially amongst practices which have been stung by poorly-run competitions, where the rules haven’t been transparent or fair and where the cost of wasted resources can be high. The introduction of an industry-wide RIBA championed ‘best practice standard’ with improved processes, additional guidance and support for clients at the outset of a project, will tackle the causes of this negative perception amongst the profession. “We need to increase the quantity of good competitions and demonstrate to clients that they are good for all projects – to achieve the ‘beautiful ordinary’, not just iconic buildings.  RIBA Competitions has a critical role to play in promoting best practice competitive selection processes.” ENDS Notes to editors: Martin Knight, Chair of the RIBA Competitions Task Group and Linda Stevens, RIBA Head of Client Services are available by telephone to discuss the RIBA Task Group Review into architectural competitions. To arrange an interview time please contact Howard Crosskey in the RIBA Press Office: 020 7307 3761 howard.crosskey@riba.org The RIBA Task Group Review of Architectural Competitions is available to read and download here: http://www.architecture.com/RIBA/Competitions/Review/CompetitionsTaskGroupReport1.aspx To view case studies of previous RIBA Competitions from all sectors including Civic & Commercial, Culture & Leisure, Education & Health, Housing and Structures & Public Realm please visit: http://www.architecture.com/RIBA/Competitions/CaseStudies/CaseStudiesHome.aspx    To hear previous clients discuss Competitions please visit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct0WxYggAI0 The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) champions better buildings, communities and the environment through architecture and our members www.architecture.com Follow us on Twitter for regular RIBA updates www.twitter.com/RIBA      Posted on Tuesday 7th October 2014 Source link

Water companies must publish information on their indicative wholesale access charges for 2017/18 no later than October 2016, to ensure a level playing field in the non-household retail market, Ofwat has said. The regulator has set out what information companies holding appointments as water and/or sewerage undertakers, whose areas are wholly or mainly in England, will need to include. This, it said, will allow retailers sufficient time to develop their retail pricing proposals ahead of the beginning of the charging year. The publication of these charges will not only facilitate a level playing field, the regulator added, but will also provide an opportunity for any changes to wholesale access charges to be reflected in central systems handled by the market operator. Despite widespread resistance to its September 2015 proposal that charges be published in July and October, Ofwat said it expects the large water companies to publish them in October, and to notify stakeholders in July 2016 if they anticipate significant changes to their wholesale access charging structures, and what those changes may be. It said it would consult on the requirements for the publication of wholesale access charges from 2017 onwards in the coming months. The regulator has also today published guidance for those applying for water supply licences and/or sewerage licences (WSSLs) from April 2016. The market is due to open in April 2017, allowing 1.2 million businesses and other non-household customers of providers based mainly or wholly in England to choose their supplier of water and wastewater services. It will link with the existing market in Scotland, which opened to non-household customers in April 2008. Water companies continue to position themselves for market opening, with an announcement from Northumbrian Water earlier this month that it would rebrand its non-household retail business as ‘Wave’, which it hopes to establish as a “major player in the market”. Utility Week understands that Anglian Water Business and at least one other WASC are soon to follow suit. Of the water-only companies (WOCS), Affinity Water, Bristol Water, Essex and Suffolk Water, Sutton and East Surrey Water and Cholderton and District Water all tell Utility Week they plan to remain in the market, with South East Water and Cambridge/South Staffordshire Water refusing to comment. And of the WASCs, eight of nine say they will not exit the retail market, with Southern Water saying it is “undecided”. In January Portsmouth Water became the first to reveal that it would exit the business retail market when competition is introduced, handing the baton to Scottish supplier Castle Water. And, earlier this month, Severn Trent Water and United Utilities (UU) stated their intention to team up and create a new, separate, and yet-to-be-named retail business. Source link