Asset Managers Pose Systemic Risk — It’s Time To Recognize It By Colin McLean, FSIP

Asset Managers Pose Systemic Risk — It’s Time To Recognize It | Enterprising Investor

.container{
width:1040px;
}

Is printing money creating new systemic risks for the world economy?

As stock markets move to new highs, asset managers are booming, with vast inflows into bond and equity funds alike. The IMF has pointed out the potentially systemic risks created by concentrated pools of inflated and increasingly correlated assets. It is now time for regulators around the world to recognize the risks inherent in asset managers and funds that are too big to fail.

The financial crisis highlighted risks in banks and insurance, but other areas have been overlooked until now. Finally, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) are beginning to recognize risks in the investment sector and are turning their attention to some of the largest managers. In Washington, D.C., this month, European Central Bank (ECB) vice president Vítor Constâncio warned of the build-up of leverage and the growing exposure to illiquid assets in the asset management sector. But there seems no hurry to plug the gaps.

More Urgency Is Needed

The risks in big bond, equity income, and emerging market funds must be addressed. Asset managers reject any suggestion that they might represent a threat to the financial system and are quick to point the finger at banks. But globally, the top 10 asset managers have a market share of almost 30% of their sector, much more than the top 10 banks represent in banking. Assets managed globally are estimated to exceed $80 trillion. Looking at it another way, BlackRock (the world’s largest asset manager) managed roughly $4.7 trillion in assets at the end of 2014, while the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (the world’s largest bank) had “only” $3.28 trillion in assets on its balance sheet.

Quantitative easing (QE) has spurred growth in the investment sector since the crisis, contrasting with shrinkage in banking. Asset managers might not have leveraged balance sheets, but they are globally interconnected. The IMF noted this month that “correlations among major asset classes have risen markedly since 2010. Worryingly, concentration is not decreasing as the industry grows. Yet central banks seem unaware they might have exacerbated risks, creating asset bubbles with easy money policies. Why have regulators been slow to act?

Might the regulatory burden itself be a key driver of these concentration risks? The industry is being forced to improve its offerings for consumers, but there is little sign that competition itself is increasing. Cost and security seem to have become priorities for investors and their advisers, even above performance. Large funds offer apparent ease of dealing — in terms of investor subscriptions and redemptions — but underlying portfolio liquidity is likely to be deteriorating as they grow.

Undoubtedly financial advisers believe they are opting for safety. The virtuous cycle of success and fund growth gets regulatory encouragement. Many advisers find that larger funds reduce the compliance burden, in addition to being easier to explain to retail clients. Name recognition, perceived liquidity, and cost have become bigger factors than performance.

But in Aggregate, Systemic Risk May Be Growing

Overall stock market trading volumes are declining, with less capital now involved in market making. Big portfolio positions might be liquid enough for normal day-to-day dealing, but could be left stranded if investors make any significant rush for an exit. Regulation directs advisers to look at the apparent liquidity and security benefits of scale, but what is missing is a test of how this might work in a crisis.

New factors have been driving this fund concentration. Some star managers have attracted an enormous following, encouraged by the emphasis on brands and personality. The industry has always enjoyed good operating leverage, but strategy now seems focused almost entirely on scale. Scale offers great commercial advantage, with profitability improving as funds grow. Fortunately there are incentives for the best managers to limit fund growth to a level that still leaves opportunities for genuine performance.

But, increasing concentration points to the dominance of scale as a factor.

The recent acceleration in scale and concentration has, to date, seen only limited tests. Moves of star managers, such as Bill Gross, CFA, have triggered significant but orderly fund flows. Yet, it is possible in some less liquid asset classes — such as emerging markets and corporate bonds — for investor liquidity demands to exceed realistic liquidity in a sell-off. A fund’s scale can create an illusion of safety that may not be understood by private investors.

The regulatory problem is that managers are typically required only to test liquidity on open-ended funds at the margin — whether subscriptions and redemptions over a period of weeks should be at bid or offer prices. They must consider whether fund inflows or outflows might compromise fairness for ongoing fund investors. And, if mutual funds are very small, managers must consider an orderly plan for protecting residual investors and ensuring orderly liquidation.

No Symmetry

While regulators worry about investors in small funds, there is no symmetry in the approach to the risks of the largest funds. Managers should be required to demonstrate the implications of a significant withdrawal: how they might achieve price discovery and liquidity. If their only plan is gating investors, the systemic risk could simply be pushed elsewhere. Investors would scramble for liquidity in other assets if their largest investments were locked-in for a period.

The FSB, chaired by Governor Mark Carney of the Bank of England, recently warned that it would move to address any too-big-to-fail problems among entities that are neither banks nor insurers. But it is still consulting and has not yet spelled out what new rules are necessary. There is an urgent need for research and analysis to develop a working definition of systemic risk. And, it would be best if this were harmonized globally so that global asset managers know where they stand.

Together, the FSB and IOSCO aim to look at the potential for size, complexity, and interconnectedness to impact the wider financial system through disorderly failure. The new consultation will likely focus on managers with AUM exceeding $1 trillion and funds of over $100 billion, but it is easy to see that smaller funds than this could raise systemic issues, particularly when considering that some may employ leverage. The asset managers likely to be affected have not yet been named, and this consultation will continue until 29 May 2015.

This approach may not capture risks to individual national or regional finances. If concentration might be a risk globally in asset managers, the risk to individual exchanges and asset classes should surely also be looked at. National regulators should ask managers to be more explicit in explaining the risks of scale to investors. More detailed attention to funds below $100 billion that might dominate their asset classes is needed. And a broader set of policy tools is necessary to address the risks stemming from financial firms at large.

It is time for regulators to move from their narrow focus on banks and insurers to recognize wider systemic risk.

Advertisements

Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research

Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research

09/12/2014 – Reducing income inequality would boost economic growth, according to new OECD analysis. This work finds that countries where income inequality is decreasing grow faster than those with rising inequality.

The single biggest impact on growth is the widening gap between the lower middle class and poor households compared to the rest of society. Education is the key: a lack of investment in education by the poor is the main factor behind inequality hurting growth.

“This compelling evidence proves that addressing high and growing inequality is critical to promote strong and sustained growth and needs to be at the centre of the policy debate,” said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría. “Countries that promote equal opportunity for all from an early age are those that will grow and prosper.”

Rising inequality is estimated to have knocked more than 10 percentage points off growth in Mexico and New Zealand over the past two decades up to the Great Recession. In Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, the cumulative growth rate would have been six to nine percentage points higher had income disparities not widened, but also in Sweden, Finland and Norway, although from low levels. On the other hand, greater equality helped increase GDP per capita in Spain, France and Ireland prior to the crisis.

The paper finds new evidence that the main mechanism through which inequality affects growth is by undermining education opportunities for children from poor socio-economic backgrounds, lowering social mobility and hampering skills development.

People whose parents have low levels of education see their educational outcomes deteriorate as income inequality rises. By contrast, there is little or no effect on people with middle or high levels of parental educational background.

The impact of inequality on growth stems from the gap between the bottom 40 percent with the rest of society, not just the poorest 10 percent. Anti-poverty programmes will not be enough, says the OECD. Cash transfers and increasing access to public services, such as high-quality education, training and healthcare, are an essential social investment to create greater equality of opportunities in the long run.

The paper also finds no evidence that redistributive policies, such as taxes and social benefits, harm economic growth, provided these policies are well designed, targeted and implemented.

The working paper, Trends in income inequality and its impact on economic growth, is part of the OECD’s New Approaches to Economic Challenges Initiative, an Organisation-wide reflection on the roots and lessons to be learned from the global economic crisis, as well as an exercise to review and update its analytical frameworks.

Comparative advantage

Comparative advantage

document.createElement(‘header’);
document.createElement(‘nav’);
document.createElement(‘section’);
document.createElement(‘article’);
document.createElement(‘aside’);
document.createElement(‘footer’);

It can be argued that world output would increase when the principle of comparative advantage is applied by countries to determine what goods and services they should specialise in producing. Comparative advantage is a term associated with 19th Century English economist David Ricardo.

Ricardo considered what goods and services countries should produce, and suggested that they should specialise by allocating their scarce resources to produce goods and services for which they have a comparative cost advantage. There are two types of cost advantage – absolute, and comparative.

Absolute advantage means being more productive or cost-efficient than another country whereas comparative advantage relates to how much productive or cost efficient one country is than another.

Example

In order to understand how the concept of comparative advantage might be applied to the real world, we can consider the simple example of two countries producing only two goods – motor cars and commercial trucks.

Comparative advantage

Comparative advantage

Using all its resources, country A can produce 30m cars or 6m trucks, and country B can produce 35m cars or 21m trucks. This can be summarised in a table.

In this case, country B has the absolute advantage in producing both products, but it has a comparative advantage in trucks because it is relatively better at producing them. Country B is 3.5 times better at trucks, and only 1.17 times better at cars.

Opportunity cost ratios

However, the greatest advantage – and the widest gap – lies with truck production, hence Country B should specialise in producing trucks, leaving Country A to produce cars.

Economic theory suggests that, if countries apply the principle of comparative advantage, combined output will be increased in comparison with the output that would be produced if the two countries tried to become self-sufficient and allocate resources towards production of both goods. Taking this example, if countries A and B allocate resources evenly to both goods combined output is: Cars = 15 + 15 = 30; Trucks = 12 + 3 = 15, therefore world output is 45 m units.

PPF for international trade

Opportunity cost ratios

It is being able to produce goods by using fewer resources, at a lower opportunity cost, that gives countries a comparative advantage.

The gradient of a PPF reflects the opportunity cost of production. Increasing the production of one good means that less of another can be produced. The gradient reflects the lost output of Y as a result of increasing the output of X.

Opportunity cost ratios

Having a comparative advantage in X, Country A sacrifices less of Y than Country B. In terms of two countries producing two goods, different PPF gradients mean different opportunity costs ratios, and hence specialisation and trade will increase world output.

Only when the gradients are different will a country have a comparative advantage, and only then will trade be beneficial.

Identical PPFs

If PPF gradients are identical, then no country has a comparative advantage, and opportunity cost ratios are identical. In this case, international trade does not confer any advantage.

Identical PPF gradients

Criticisms

However, the principle of comparative advantage can be criticised in a several ways:

  1. It may overstate the benefits of specialisation by ignoring a number of costs. These costs include transport costs and any external costs associated with trade, such as air and sea pollution.
  2. The theory also assumes that markets are perfectly competitive – in particular, there is perfect mobility of factors without any diminishing returns and with no transport costs. The reality is likely to be very different, with output from factor inputs subject to diminishing returns, and with transport costs. This will make the PPF for each country non-linear and bowed outwards.  If this is the case, complete specialisation might not generate the level of benefits that would be derived from linear PPFs. In other words, there is an increasing opportunity cost associated with increasing specialisation. For example, it may be that the maximum output of cars produced by country A is only 20 million (compared with 30), and the maximum output of trucks produced by country B might only be 16 million instead of 21 million. Hence, the combined output from trade might only be 46 million units (instead of the 51 million units initially predicted).

Diminishing returns

  1. Complete specialisation might create structural unemployment as some workers cannot transfer from one sector to another.
  2. Relative prices and exchange rates are not taken into account in the simple theory of comparative advantage. For example if the price of X rises relative to Y, the benefit of increasing output of X increases.
  3. Comparative advantage is not a static concept – it may change over time. For example, nonrenewable resources can slowly run out, increasing the costs of production, and reducing the gains from trade. Countries can develop new advantages, such as Vietnam and coffee production. Despite having a long history of coffee production it is only in the last 30 years that it has become a global player. seeing its global market share increase from just 1% in 1985 to 20% in 2014, making it the world’s second largest producer.
  4. Many countries strive for food security, meaning that even if they should specialise in non-food products, they still prefer to keep a minimum level of food production.
  5. The principle of comparative advantage is derived from a highly simplistic two good/two country model. The real world is far more complex, with countries exporting and importing many different goods and services.
  6. According to influential US economist Paul Krugman, the continual application of economies of scale by global producers using new technology means that many countries, including China, can produce very cheaply, and export surpluses. This, along with an insatiable demand for choice and variety, means that countries typically produce a variety of products for the global market, rather than specialise in a narrow range of products, rendering the traditional theory of comparative advantage almost obsolete.
  7. However, the underlying principle of comparative advantage can still be said to give some ‘shape’ to the pattern of world trade, even if it is becoming less relevant in a globalised world.

Why do countries trade?

Why do countries trade?

document.createElement(‘header’);
document.createElement(‘nav’);
document.createElement(‘section’);
document.createElement(‘article’);
document.createElement(‘aside’);
document.createElement(‘footer’);

Countries trade with each other when, on their own, they do not have the resources, or capacity to satisfy their own needs and wants. By developing and exploiting their domestic scarce resources, countries can produce a surplus, and trade this for the resources they need.

Clear evidence of trading over long distances dates back at least 9,000 years, though long distance trade probably goes back much further to the domestication of pack animals and the invention of ships. Today, international trade is at the heart of the global economy and is responsible for much of the development and prosperity of the modern industrialised world.

Goods and services are likely to be imported from abroad for several reasons. Imports may be cheaper, or of better quality. They may also be more easily available or simply more appealing than locally produced goods. In many instances, no local alternatives exist, and importing is essential. This is highlighted today in the case of Japan, which has no oil reserves of its own, yet it is the world’s fourth largest consumer of oil, and must import all it requires.

The production of goods and services in countries that need to trade is based on two fundamental principles, first analysed by Adam Smith in the late 18th Century (in The Wealth of Nations, 1776), these being the division of labour and specialisation.

Division of labour

In its strictest sense, a division of labour means breaking down production into small, interconnected tasks, and then allocating these tasks to different workers based on their suitability to undertake the task efficiently. When applied internationally, a division of labour means that countries produce just a small range of goods or services, and may contribute only a small part to finished products sold in global markets. For example, a bar of chocolate is likely to contain many ingredients from numerous countries, with each country contributing, perhaps, just one ingredient to the final product.

Specialisation

Specialisation is the second fundamental principle associated with trade, and results from the division of labour. Given that each worker, or each producer, is given a specialist role, they are likely to become efficient contributors to the overall process of production, and to the finished product. Hence, specialisation can generate further benefits in terms of efficiency and productivity.

Specialisation can be applied to individuals, firms, machinery and technology, and to whole countries. International specialisation is increased when countries use their scarce resources to produce just a small range of products in high volume. Mass production allows a surplus of good to be produced, which can then be exported. This means that goods and resources must be imported from other countries that have also specialised, and produced surpluses of their own.

When countries specialise they are likely to become more efficient over time. This is partly because a country’s producers will become larger and exploit economies of scale. Faced by large global markets, firms may be encouraged to adopt mass production, and apply new technology.  This can provide a country with a price and non-price advantage over less specialised countries, making it increasingly competitive and improving its chances of exporting in the future.

The advantages of trade

International trade brings a number of valuable benefits to a country, including:

  1. The exploitation of a country’s comparative advantage, which means that trade encourages a country to specialise in producing only those goods and services which it can produce more effectively and efficiently, and at the lowest opportunity cost.
  2. Producing a narrow range of goods and services for the domestic and export market means that a country can produce in at higher volumes, which provides further cost benefits in terms of economies of scale.
  3. Trade increases competition and lowers world prices, which provides benefits to consumers by raising the purchasing power of their own income, and leads a rise in consumer surplus.
  4. Trade also breaks down domestic monopolies, which face competition from more efficient foreign firms.
  5. The quality of goods and services is likely to increases as competition encourages innovation, design and the application of new technologies. Trade will also encourage the transfer of technology between countries.
  6. Trade is also likely to increase employment, given that employment is closely related to production. Trade means that more will be employed in the export sector and, through the multiplier process, more jobs will be created across the whole economy.

The disadvantages of trade

Despite the benefits, trade can also bring some disadvantages, including:

  1. Trade can lead to over-specialisation, with workers at risk of losing their jobs should world demand fall or when goods for domestic consumption can be produced more cheaply abroad. Jobs lost through such changes cause severe structural unemployment. The recent credit crunch has exposed the inherent dangers in over-specialisation for the UK, with its reliance on its financial services sector.
  2. Certain industries do not get a chance to grow because they face competition from more established foreign firms, such as new infant industries which may find it difficult to establish themselves.
  3. Local producers, who may supply a unique product tailored to meet the needs of the domestic market, may suffer because cheaper imports may destroy their market. Over time, the diversity of output in an economy may diminish as local producers leave the market.

Russian Economy

Russian Economy Stalls in Q3

Russian Economy Stalls in Q3

//

The Russian GPD posted zero growth in the three months to September, following a revised 0.14 percent expansion in the previous period, as a rise in internal trade and real estate activities was not enough to offset a drop in manufacturing.

On a quarter-on-quarter seasonally adjusted basis, fishing and farming activities shrank the most by 3.5 percent, followed by restaurants and hotels (-1.63 percent), health and social services (-0.88 percent) and construction (-0.8 percent). Manufacturing contracted 0.44 percent and the mining sector dropped 0.51 percent.
In contrast, financial activities posted the highest gain (3.26 percent), followed by agriculture (1.41 percent), internal trade (0.69 percent) and real estate (0.63 percent). Transportation grew 0.13 percent.
Year-on-year, the economy advanced 0.7 percent, slowing for the third straight quarter.

Joana Taborda | joana.taborda@tradingeconomics.com
12/12/2014 1:49:39 PM

Russia Trade Surplus at 3-Month Low

Russian trade surplus shrank 24 percent to USD 12.93 billion in December of 2014 after declining 25 percent a month earlier.

Year-on-year, exports shrank 24.1 percent to USD 37.6 billion, following a 21.7 percent drop in November. Shipments to countries outside the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) dropped 23.5 percent while sales to the CIS countries – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan – fell 27.1 percent.
Imports declined 24 percent to USD 24.7 billion. Purchases from the non-CIS countries fell 21.9 percent while those from the CIS countries dropped 39.2 percent.
In November of 2014, Russia posted a USD 13.6 billion surplus.
Considering last three months of 2014, exports shrank 17.4 percent year-on-year while imports decreased at a faster 19.4 percent.

Central Bank of Russia | Joana Taborda | joana.taborda@tradingeconomics.com
2/11/2015 1:16:12 PM

The satire of the trades

Story//

This story is part of an ancient Egyptian text known as ‘The teaching of Duaf’s son Khety’. A father is taking his son to scribe school where the boy will learn how to read and write. The father is telling his son why being a scribe is the best profession in the world. He emphasises how good the life of a scribe is by comparing it to the lives of craftsmen and others.

Although the father speaks badly of the other professions, he probably does not mean it as strongly as it sounds. More likely, he is making it seem that life is very bad for other people so that he can convince his son to become a scribe

Story//

The teaching of Duaf’s son Khety ‘

‘I will make you love writing more than your mother,
I will show its beauties to you;
Now, it is greater than any trade,
There is not one like it in the land

Story//

The teaching of Duaf’s son Khety ‘


Metal-workers.
…I have seen the metal-worker working
At the mouth of his furnace;
With fingers like the stuff of a crocodile
He stinks more than fish eggs.

Story//

The teaching of Duaf’s son Khety ‘


Carpenters working.
The carpenter who uses an adze,
He is more tired than a worker in the fields;
His field is the wood, his hoe the adze.
His work is endless…

Story//

The teaching of Duaf’s son Khety ‘


Jewellery workshop.
The jeweller drills with his chisel
In different kinds of stone;
Once he is done with the inlay of the eyes
His arms are weary, he is tired;
Sitting down at sunset,
His knees and back ache.

Story//

The teaching of Duaf’s son Khety ‘


Razor, comb, tweezers and other grooming tools.
The barber is still shaving at the end of the day,
To the town he takes himself,
To his corner he takes himself,
From street to street he takes himself
To search for people to shave.
He works with his arms to fill his belly,
Like a bee which can only eat as it has worked.

Story//

The teaching of Duaf’s son Khety ‘


A statue of a scribe.
Look, no trade is free from a director,
Except the scribe’s: he is the director.
But if you know writings, it will be better for you,
More than these trades I have shown you

TRADES

//

Craftsmen in ancient Egypt were usually trained and skilled labourers. They were often well-respected in the community and had a comfortable lifestyle. Yet every craftsman’s lifestyle and social standing depended on the quality of his skills and experience. Thus, some craftsmen had more difficult lives than others.Ancient Egyptian workshopMost craftsmen worked in workshops with other craftsmen. Objects for temples or the pharaoh were made in temple workshops or palace workshops. Objects for ordinary people were made by local craftsmen in small workshops.

Social Business Summit Hoping to End Poverty with Innovative Ideas by Amber E. Box

Be A Social Entrepreneur Social Business Summit Hoping to End Poverty with Innovative Ideas » Be A Social Entrepreneur

//

On October 2nd of this year, the second annual Social Business Summit will convene in the Philippines. This year’s meeting will focus on rebuilding provinces of the country affected by Typhoon Yolanda, also known across the rest of the world as Typhoon Haiyan. The struggle that many parts of the country are facing on a daily basis is poverty and the inability to combat it, especially in the face of such disasters as Yolanda/Haiyan. The summit is sponsored by Gawad Kalinga, a social entrepreneurship project already working on rebuilding communities in the Philippines. Gawad Kalinga’s founder, Tony Meloto, recently talked to Rappler about the Social Business Summit, describing the issues they hope to address.

Be A Social Entrepreneur Social Business Summit Hoping to End Poverty with Innovative Ideas » Be A Social Entrepreneur

//

According to Meloto, the “goal is to really address the two major reasons why we cannot achieve prosperity: loss of our human capital due to poverty…and the abandonment of land.”

With the meeting this week, Meloto and his team members are hoping to attract social entrepreneurs and innovators from around the world. The idea is to capitalize on the assets available within the groups attending in order to capitalize on the assets of those living in poverty conditions by way of ideas that will help rebuild stronger and more sustainable communities. The communities are already being built by Gawad Kalinga, but the summit will provide a platform to discuss the ability to develop and hone ideas to can make these new communities be as strong as they can in order to maintain and sustain their viability, hopefully allowing areas across the Philippines to rise out of poverty.

In addition, the summit is teaming up with the School for Experiential and Entrepreneurial Development (SEED Philippines) which are local high school students who will not have the opportunity to go to college. By doing so, the event hopes to foster the entrepreneur ideas into these younger generations, who are the future of the Philippines.

Be A Social Entrepreneur Social Business Summit Hoping to End Poverty with Innovative Ideas » Be A Social Entrepreneur

//

Taking place over three days, the event will put great minds from across the world together to achieve the same goals, “building a kinder, fairer, better and safer world that we can build together,” according to Meloto

The Pig Idea By Diane Walters

Be A Social Entrepreneur The Pig Idea » Be A Social Entrepreneur

//

A slide appeared, on the screen on TED.com, of a dumpster full 13,000 bread crusts as social entrepreneur Tristram Stuart mused about never being able to get a sandwich from a retail shop that was made from bread crusts. Where do all the bread crusts go? From this single bread factory (shown on the slide), 13,000 bread crusts are dumped into the trash every day.

This food waste expert explained that in America, and other well-developed nations, grocery stores usually carried double the inventory it expected to sell. And, if you add in the food that is fed to livestock, there is up to quadruple the amount that is needed to feed the masses. In his further investigation of food waste, Stuart visited a farmer who was letting 16,000 pounds of spinach die because there were some blades of grass growing here and there. It was not suitable for market. It is quite common for farmers to throw out 1/3 to 1/2 half of their crops due to imperfect sizes, shapes or color that would be turned away at market.

In Europe, in 2001, feeding regular unprocessed food to livestock became illegal because of the foot and mouth disease epidemic. Because of the ban, soy has since become a major crop in South America. Due to the expansion of this commodity, forests are being cut down in places like Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay to grow soy. From 1965 to 2004 soy production rose from 29 to 200 million tons, most of which is used for livestock feed after the oil is extracted. For 9,000 years, pigs had been fed with the surplus food products and refuse that people did not eat. Presently, people throw away this human grade food by the ton every single day — and pay to have it hauled away to rot in landfills. Then, they buy pig food.

The Pig Idea was born from what Stuart had learned from the overwhelming food waste problem. He joined forces with other Londoners to create public awareness of food waste around the world with the hope that the animal food ban will be lifted. The idea is ecologically sound. Eliminating so much processed feed would save the planet about 20 times more carbon dioxide emissions. More of the rainforest in the Amazon would be saved, as not as much farmland would be needed. More farmers in Europe would be able to stay in business by saving the cost of the expensive grain they are forced to buy. The problem of the foot and mouth disease can be eliminated by cooking the food given to the pigs and chickens.

To bring awareness to this issue, Stuart and his colleagues — the hambassadors, seven of London’s best restaurants, and thousands of Londoners gathered in Trafalgar Square to enjoy over 5,000 portions of free food, including pork that had been raised on food that would have otherwise been wasted at The Pig Ideas’ Feast of 2013.

Stuart started studying food waste at the age of 15 when he raised pigs to supplement his income. He is a renowned author for his book “Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal,” and has won numerous and prestigious awards for his dedication to preserving the planet as well as the pigs.