Carbon Offsets and the New Wild West

space in the longer term. Currently, there is a lot of price variability, a lot of different approaches, and frankly, a lot of concern about the additionality of some of the projects as well as how to go about verifying them. So what is clear is that the offset space is

here to stay. With emission solutions for some of the harder to abate industries still in an R and D phase and companies announcing things like negative emissions targets, how does one get there without carbon removal or at minimum trees. So this week Switched On speaks with B and f's head of sustainability Research, Kyle Harrison, about a recent report he authored titled Long Term Carbon Offsets Outlook two. He looks at the supply side, demand pricing, geographic breakdown, and

a bunch of other things. Any clients can access this analysis at B NF go on the Bloomberg terminal or at benf dot com. And now let's speak with Kyle about the future of the offset space. Kyle, thank you so much for joining today on switched On. Thanks for having me Dana. So, Kyle, you are a veteran of switched On. You've been on here to talk about voluntary carbon offsets before, and we just recently put out a report that it really is a forecast for this market.

Why was now the time for us to have kind of an official, codified be enough forecast, because you know, these market outlooks are something that many of our analysts make for the industries that we cover in other parts

of the business. For the carbon offset market, I think maybe to put that into context, So, the carbon off set market has been around for a couple of decades now, since the the late nineties, and companies have been going out and buying these offsets to reach sustainability goals since then. But it really has been only in kind of like the last two or three years that the market has started to grow at a level commensurate with how much

interest companies haven't in carbon offsets. So really it's kind of this renaissance moment for not only the voluntary carbon market, but just carbon markets in general like the EU, E T S and of course other markets around the world. So being if you know, us covering what the carbon off set market looked like in the past has been sufficient. It's given people an idea of if they want to enter this market, what can they expect, Where does supply

come from, where's demand coming from, things like that. But what we're increasingly seeing, as you know, I've spoken to so many people and the team has spoken to so many people about this market is clients are getting a lot more sophisticated on this topic, and as a result, b NF needs to get more sophisticated on where this

market is going to go moving forward. And I think we could speak anecdotally to that over the past couple of years, but now to finally have some you know, cold hard data behind that outlook was really beneficial for us, and it's going to lead to a lot more again sophisticated discussions with our clients around how this market is evolving and how far out into the future are we looking the BNP special right. I think part of this is of course a short term outlook, and I think

over the next few years. That's where there's kind of one element of the carbon offset market remaining similar to how it is today. That's where that's the most fertile ground. But what we wanted to do is to say, how can this carbon offset market evolve over time? You know, in terms of who's buying offsets, but also where's the

supply coming from and who's regulating that market. And in order for us to really accurately have an idea of how that's going to change, we needed to look at the evolution of the market out and this is both regarding the compliance and the voluntary markets. For the report, we basically just call it a carbon off set. Were market agnostic in this case, and and that's a really good question. Actually, it's a very important point with this outlook.

One of the big question marks around how carbon offset markets are going to evolve over time is will a bigger offset market or a global carbon market come in and swallow all of the existing markets that exist out there, right like again the EU e t S, the Corsia offset market for airlines, and then of course the voluntary

carbon off set market. And this is a real possibility, you know, our our policy team at BNF has discussed this quite extensively, and you had a lot of world leaders discussing this at CUP twenty six a couple of months ago. So for this report, what we wanted to do is kind of just make it carbon off set agnostic, to tell clients that there is this distinct possibility that the voluntary market that we look at it today may very well be an entirely different type of market in

the future. But we still wanted to give clients an idea of what that could look like. That was the longlined to answer, and the short answer is yes, it does look at all carbon markets essentially. So we're going to talk about the three different scenarios that you laid out in the podcast today. They are the voluntary companies, then the science based targets initiative, and then the hybrid ones. Let's start with the voluntary ones. So where is the

demand coming from? I know that an increasing number of companies are making net zero and in some cases actually negative emissions claims for the future and targets going forward, and certainly the majority of countries in the world made a commitment to net zero. So where is the demand

coming from on the voluntary side. So if you think about the voluntary market scenario that we looked at on our report, again, what it's assuming is that the voluntary carbon off set market remains the same as it does today out into I know we've talked about this on previous podcasts, as you mentioned, Dana, but just for all those listeners out there, the way the market is structured today is it's primarily used for corporations to go ahead

and achieve their sustainability goals or to purchase offsets on a behavioral basis. And what I mean by that is they're not necessarily buying off sets in every situation to reach a net zero goal, and instead they might be going out and creating carbon neutral L and G or green steel or green aluminum, and I want to use offsets on an ad hoc basis in order to offer

that type of product. In terms of the supplying the market today, it's all different types of sectors, right, So it's anything ranging from a four street projects in substerarent Africa to a clean energy project, say in India or China or the United States. So we basically said, let's keep all those assumptions the same and let's see what

happens to supply demand in pricing. To your original question about this market, the first thing that we did to kind of assess demand for the voluntary carbon offset scenario is we looked at all the companies that are going out there and are setting those net zero targets as you mentioned, because what we can assume is that over time, companies are going to focus less on purchasing offsets for those behavioral reasons like I mentioned, and the demand is

actually going to be classified more as fundamental. And what that means is that they need to be net zero by and they're going to have residual emissions no matter how aggressive they are in their own internal sustainability initiatives, and that's going to create some type of demand for offsets.

So what we wanted to do is look at all the companies that we've tracked at BENF in our Corporate net Zero Assessment tool, but also some of the other tools that we have of all the largest heavy emitting companies in the world that have already set in net zero goal. What we can do is we can actually calculate the amount of emission reductions that are purely going to come from achieving those net zero goals. So that's

basically the baseline that we need companies to achieve. And then what we assume is that companies are going to reduce their gross emissions to a certain amount as well. So what that means is that they're gonna buy clean energy, or change their internal practices or purchase e vs, do things to actually reduce their own emissions, and they're gonna

do that to a certain extent. And then again, that gap between how much they're reducing their gross emissions and that net zero trajectory I mentioned before, that's your potential

universe for carbon off set demand. So we basically ran that scenario for a couple hundred companies, and then we extrapolated that to assume that more companies over time will set net zero goals um and that kind of gives us a good idea of what we're talking about in terms of long term demand, assuming the carbon off set market remains the same as it does today. Now for a very short break, stay with us. You brought up the building of clean energy as a way to do

offsets in our prior podcast. If you did hear this one, you can go back in time and find Kyle and I discussing this specifically the voluntary market. We talked a lot about additionality. I think it's worth bringing up again

here as we're looking forward. How hard is it for a company to, let's say, if they are generating clean electricity and then create a clean energy certificate, how hard is it for them to, you know, double count the saved emissions and is the accounting on this fairly straightforward or is it still quite blurry around the edges. It's very blurry and candidly it's not very well regulated right now. So all the areas of supply that we talked about in the report, and then we can certainly dive into

this a little bit more later on. Clean energy is probably the most controversial, and there's a couple of reasons for that. The first one is this overarching topic of removal carbon offsets versus avoidance carbon off sets. When you have people on both sides of this kind of argument saying that one is better than the other, or that all types should be used or that only one should

be used. If you think about a clean energy project, when you build a solar wind project, you're not actually leading to further carbon sequestration, right You're simply avoiding, say the emissions from a combined cycle gas plant or a coal plant. So clean energy is firmly classified as an avoidance offset, and you have a lot of skeptics and critics saying that type of offset should not be allowed for companies to go ahead and achieve an net zero

goal or some other type of sustainability target. So that's kind of the first area of criticism around carbon off sets from clean energy. The second one is around the economics, and this is specifically where that term additionality is very important. Here.

Additionality means how can I, as a developer or a customer buying carbon offsets, how can I incentivize and contribute to new added decarbonization that wouldn't have otherwise happened if those offsets weren't monetized, and you know, being when I hadn't actually just published are our latest levelized cost of electricity update, And what that report shows is clean energy is now cost competitive in most markets around the world.

In some markets, solar wind is the cheapest source of technology, and even if they're not the cheapest, they're still in competitive range with a lot of fossil generation. Theoretically, in a perfect world, a developer, someone who's selling clean energy should only be monetizing carbon offsets if it's going to

help bridge that gap and make that project competitive. So, for example, if the levelized cost of electricity for a gas plant is ten dollars a megawatt hour, and I'm building a solar project and I can only sell that power for fifteen theoretically that gap between those two with that five dollar per megawatt hour, that should be my

cost of carbon. But in a lot of these countries around the world, since clean energy is already cheaper, the premise or the need to sell carbon off sets doesn't actually exist, So that right there is going to actually make it. So a lot of projects around the world don't meet that additionality criteria. And then the third point I just want to add on this. You mentioned the accounting.

There's really not a lot stopping a company now from selling power from a clean energy project, monetizing renewable energy certificates, which of course are similar to a carbon offset, but they pertain to a megawatt hour rather than a ton of carbon like an offset does. And then selling carbon offsets is that third stream of revenue. And of course

there is a huge risk of double counting there. It's absolutely you know, there's a very high likelihood that a lot of the clean energy projects that are very active in this market today are guilty of that double counting, taking advantage of two commodities that really should be treated

as one. So, Dana, it's a it's a really controversial sector, and we talk a lot about that in the report the Fate of clean Energy and it's importance in the overall offset supply moving forward well, and the real question also with this has to do with with these auctions and with these projects that are happening at scale and

hopefully much more quickly. I mean, this is a conversation for another podcast, but in our new Energy Outlook also out to the year, we look at this hockey stick shape of needed implementation and building of clean energy in order to meet our climate goals. I would anticipate that these are at the scale where it's kind of hard to say that this was spurred by an offset, that it probably was part of the business strategy. To your point on how cheap these are, maybe I'm actually taking

I'm taking too much of a biased stance. I guess we know where I lie. On this question in terms of the debate. So there's two sides to it, and I shouldn't pick one. No, it's a it's a very good point. And the last thing I'll say on this is that I personally am sure there are companies out there that are looking at building a clean energy project and the biggest chunk of that revenue is going to come from offsets. But I personally have never seen a

project that is built on that premise. And a lot of the major registries, so that the two biggest actually VERA and gold Standard, they acknowledge this, and they've recently put forward changes that you can only issue carbon offsets from clean energy projects in the least developed countries. So all that clean energy offsets supply from the United States, India, China, like I mentioned before, that does exist today and is allowed in the voluntary carbon market, It's not necessarily going

to be the case moving forward. We're going to need to rely a lot more on projects and say Sub Saharan Africa, which is where we of a deep dive for our report. Let's go into the Science Based Targets initiative. So what is the s p t I. So the science Based Targets Initiative is a group that allows companies to set a paras aligned climate goal. So you think about the Paris Agreement. You have all of these countries out there that are making their nationally determined contributions their

paras aligned you know, climate goals. What the Science Based Targets Initiative operates under. What it assumes is that, let's say every country in the world dropped the ball on achieving their climate goals, and instead they rely on the individual private sector actors within those countries to go ahead and do the heavy lifting themselves. This assumes that every single corporation in the world goes out and plays their

part rather than relying on those countries. Historically, the Science Based Targets Initiative would allow companies to go out and set a near term paras aligned climate target. Most of those goals actually ended in they're not net zero goals, right, and they only go to a certain extent, you know, maybe a company reducing its Scope one and Scope two emissions by for example, and under that group, carbon offsets

are not allowed under any circumstance. If you are a member of the Science Based Targets Initiative and have set a regular parasol lined goal with them to achieve that goal, you can't use offsets. However, around top, the Science Based Targets Initiative put out a net zero science based framework, so that allows companies to take those science based targets I mentioned earlier and bring them out a step further,

going to net and zero emissions by earlier. The key thing here and the reason why we call this an s p t I scenario in our report, which actually might be a little bit generous in giving them full credit for this push here, But what they're saying is that a company can use offsets to achieve a science based net zero goal. Now, however, they can only purchase offsets to achieve that goal that are in that removal

category that I mentioned before. So any type of offset supply that simply avoids emissions, like a clean energy project that I mentioned before, or something like installing clean cook stoves in emerging economies which is another sector we modeled, or the biggest one, which is avoided deforestation, so actually protecting a at risk forest or vulnerable forest from being

cut down. All those projects simply avoid emissions. They don't lead to further sequestration and As a result, spt I is saying that you cannot use that type of supply in order to achieve your net zero goal. In the spt I scenario, what we're saying is that the demand is still coming from all those corporations that I mentioned before. So again, we looked at all these companies with net zero goals, then we looked at how much they could produce their gross emissions, and we assume that the gap

between the two is offset demand. But what we're doing here is we're actually shortening supply quite a bit. So instead of letting supply run unregulated, I mean you can i from anywhere, you can only buy from two key sectors that we modeled in the report, and that is reforestation, so planting new trees or a forestation, planting forests in

an area where there's never historically been a forest. And then we also look at technology based removal, and in the case of this report, we use direct air capture as a proxy for all technology based removal. And the big takeaway from this is that really, until direct air capture comes into maturity, which we can't necessarily expect for another few decades, you're gonna have a huge shortfall when

it comes to carbon off set supply. So what we say is that there's gonna be an undersupply of carbon off sets starting in the late and what that means is that the price for carbon off set is going to shoot up to very unsustainable highs. In this case over two dollars a ton starting around wow. Yes, very expensive. And to put that into contacts the current price or the average price in twenty around two dollars and fifty

cents a ton well. And also to put into context, so our team that looks specifically at the E E T S compliance market, they're thinking that we're going to hit a hundred euros a ton by just before so around the same time that which is what is considered to be maybe one of the most if not the most mature carbon market, you know, around the same time you're seeing other spaces, maybe because it's such a complicated space with so much diversity across the world, they're being

prices around two hundred. I mean that is um I know, we're talking US dollars to to euros. So there's a little bit of a difference there, but not enough to account for such a high price that potentially in the future it's very expensive, and just for context, so that that two dollars and it's it's around roughly actually two a ton to be specific, that price is from direct air capture, so that is the cost for direct air capture. Around that time. Our Aniable Materials team anticipates that the

price for direct aircapture, of course will come down. We've seen that with the learning rates for solar and wind and so many other technologies that we've covered at VNF. Right, but I think the big takeaway is that you know, even in we anticipate that the cost for direct air capture is going to be around hundred dollars a ton, still still super expensive compared to what prices for carbon off sets are today, and there could be benefits to this. Right.

One of the benefits to such extremely high prices is that this will function as effectively a carbon tax. All those companies that haven't net zero goal, they won't be able to rely on carbon offsets as a lifeline or get out of jail free card. They'll have to focus more on reducing their own gross emissions and rely less on offsets. And really that is the goal of a

carbon market in the end. Right to incentivize companies to focus on cleaning up their own act as much as they can and then using offsets for any of those residual emissions. So there is a nice ben fit there. But I think the main takeaway year is that, you know, all those advocates for a removal only carbon off set market at least to cover again that fundamental demand. It's a it's a little bit of a flawed outlook because it kind of underscores how dire that supply situation could

really be in a removal only world. We'll be right back, Okay, So we've been through these two scenarios and your third one is sort of not its own scenario because it's hybrid. So what is the hybrid scenario? The hybrid scenario is meant to represent a gradual evolution of the carbon off set market. So, just for a refresher, that voluntary scenario that assumes the market stays as it does today and you know, nothing changes in terms of regulation or who's

buying in what types of supply exists. We take that voluntary scenario and we make a few little tweaks to it from now out until in our hybrid scenario. So what it's saying is that, yeah, sure, they're all a lot of critics to how the offset market works today. The market is rapidly evolving. Things are going to change, but those changes are going to take time, and that's

kind of what we assume for this hybrid scenario. So the market remains very similar out to What that means is that prices, well, they do go up compared to what they are today, they still remain fairly manageable for companies and actually I would say in terms of overall market design that they're great right because they go up to a level where it's gonna price some companies out of the market, but it's still going to get to

a level where it's gonna incentivize more supply. Traders are gonna get involved more, and it's going to create a more liquid market. Then will we assume from is that the market starts to resemble that spt I scenario that we just discussed. So there's some more regulation that's put in place, and there's more stringent kind of beliefs around how carbon offset should work, and the overall kind of

market shifts towards a removal only world. So demand is still driven by companies, but it's removal only, and that leads to kind of similar issues that we saw in the s p t I scenario, and the market really quickly again becomes undersupplied and prices shoot up above that

two ton of threshold. Again. The most interesting change though in the hybrid scenario from is something that I discussed at the beginning of the discussion today, and that is that those discussions at copy around a global carbon market where instead of companies as the main players, it's actually countries that comes to fruition and there's a very high

likelihood that happens. The big question is how long is that get to take right, getting every country in the world to set an ambitious sustainability goal and then allow for the trading of verified emission reductions between countries is a very complicated process. So what we say that that happens, but it takes a little while for it to take hold. But when it does take hold, countries are again the

main ones buying offsets. Corporations take a back seat in this market, but we still remain in a room moval only world. Again, prices still remain very high, but they come down a little bit compared to the spt I scenario because it's no longer direct air capture that's dictating the market, and there's some other technologies or offset sectors like reforestation that play a more prominent role in setting price.

I realized that was kind of a mouthful, but I think that the main point here is that the hyde with scenario, it does kind of take a lot of liberties and it makes a lot of assumptions, but what it does encapsulate is that there's so much uncertainty in the market right now, and it's not going to stay the same way as it does today right It's going to go through a lot of changes, and we wanted to look at a scenario where that could potentially happen.

So when did carbon offsets first start the market? At least in terms of the voluntary market that was created in the late nineties, But if you look at actual supply and demand even up until it's been pretty inconsistent. So if you look at a year, for example, we saw just over forty million carbon off sets retired by companies.

What that means is that companies went out and they bought those offsets and then they effectively removed them from the market and use them to account for their sustainability goals. And that's the best way for us to kind of assess demand historically is to look at retirements. If you fast forward to we saw nine three million carbon off sets retired, so it's a little more than double what

we saw. But you know, you know this better than anyone, Dana, any technology or market that we look at at benf it's kind of everything is moving up into the left, right or up into the right. I'm sorry, um, very different choice you're looking at exactly now. This is this is very much a positive one and it's moving up into the right. So that is the case here. But that type of growth over five years is nothing to

write home about. And then it was again another record year for retirement when the market did come close to doubling in terms of demand, but it's still fairly small in the grand scheme of things. A company like Shell, for example, their scope three emissions which come from the say the use of their their oil downstream in jet fuel and plastics and cars. Their scope three missions alone or seven are several hundred million metric tons of c O two. So if they wanted to go ahead and

purchase offsets to address just their scope three emissions. The market wouldn't be big enough today for comparisons sake. So it's growing, but it's right now still tiny and has such a long way to go to meet the demand for all these companies out there. So this is an industry that has been considered to be fairly nascent or small up until quite recently, even though it's had a couple of decades. You know, you're saying this up into

the right. It really depends on what the severity is of how hot something is, and I think I have an idea as to why this might be a very hot space right now. So November copy article six came up again and this idea of global interplayer in some way embracing some version of carbon offsets came up and actually got traction for the first real time at a cop Yes, it had been discussed, but I mean this seemed like this was more of a triumph than in

previous versions. Do you think that that is the primary reason why this is taking off or does it have much more to do with maybe different company and country net zero targets And really this is just being a necessity for some of these places and companies to actually reach those goals. It's a combination of both. Right, A lot of companies are again setting these these net zero goals, and every single day a major company goes out and either sets in at zero goal or ratchets up there

existing one. So there a lot of it is again company driven. But what their discussions at cop did around this article six, like you mentioned, is I think you're right, it got a lot of public attention on the importance of having a global carbon mark get I think just the real question now is who's going to be the major player in that? Will it be companies? If you ask me, I think companies will be the major players for at least the next couple of years at an

absolute minimum. But I think that's one of the big questions. And then the other one is what types of supply will be permitted. So that's why I think this offsets outlook that we've just produced. It. It comes out at such an important time because it allows us to kind of flex some of these assumptions and put to test some of the ways that people think this market should evolve and actually look at is it sustainable or not? The results are you know, of course, as we've been

discussing here, you know, pretty shocking. So there are some bodies and organizations are out there that are aware of these limitations in terms of verification and additionality and just some of the things we've discussed around you know, how many where, When? Why? What are the bodies and the organizations that are looking to put some structure in place for the buyers. The first ones are the Registry is

kind of oversee the market today. You can't see me right now, but if I were to say oversea, I'd be putting those kind of in quotations right because any project that wants to get verified to buy or sell a carbon offset should be on those registries. But beyond that, there's very little regulation that we're seeing in the market

right now. That's changing though again those registries I mentioned before, like gold Standard and VERA, as well as ones like the American Carbon Registry and Climate Action Reserve, these groups are getting a lot more pressure now both from the media but also from investors in various stakeholders to ramp up the regulation. I mean, that's why we did see a change like limiting clean energy offset to apply to

least developed countries. These registries are also now creating kind of a bifurcation to allow for a distinguishment of high quality credits compared to low quality ones. So VERA has what it's called its Climate, Community and Biodiversity or CCB verification, and that actually earmarks the carbon offset projects that have what we call CO benefits, so beyond reducing emissions, they will benefit communities or tech biodiversity, or improve water filtration

or or all these different things. So the registries are going to have a big say in this. The other one that I would just mention is the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets. So that is a group that has been run by Mark Harney as well as

some other people for the past couple of years. And what the task Force one of the kind of major pieces of output from it was to create a governance body that's going to create things like core carbon principles for the carbon offset markets to basically determine, you know, if I, as a customer want to buy a carbon offset, I can guarantee that it's going to meet this level

or this threshold of quality. Right, it'll meet It'll check you know, boxes X, Y and Z. So those core carbon principles and that governance body are going to be really essential and essentially building a you know, a carbon market two point o or a carbon office at market two point oh. That's going to function much more like a traditional commodity market. And of course, if you're a trader or you're an investor, you know you're seeing dollar

signs when you hear that, right. That as a tremendous opportunity for traders and banks to get involved in this space kind of help boost that liquidity and help suppliers offload their offsets and help all these corporations and again maybe one day countries to achieve their climate goals. So on that functioning like a commodity we have this forecast where we're looking out into many years in the future

and where the price may eventually go. And you know you had mentioned essentially two U s dollars a ton by the year. Are you also seeing a good amount of volatility? Will this be something that is actively traded and the traders themselves have an opportunity to make quite a bit of money if they're they're looking at the vets correctly, because you know, one of the things we saw in the uts market is that for a long time,

it didn't have the volatility. Now that of course has changed, and this is now a very hot space to be in again, but for a while it wasn't absolutely and that's the goal I think a lot of traders, you know, we get a lot of questions now from energy companies, utilities, from banks. They're all setting up trading desks specifically to capitalize on the volatility in the carbon offset markets. So we do expect more volatility today's market, you know, as much as we keep referring to it as a market

today's discussion, it's really anything but a legitimate commodity market. Right, Like I mentioned, pricings is not driven by supply and demand fundamentals. It's much more driven by behavioral decisions like a company waking up one day and saying, I think I'll buy offsets today. Right. That type of behavior or that type of supply demand is not sustainable long term in this market. And again that's one of the outcomes

of that voluntary scenario we looked at. If the market stays the same as it does today, prices will will make unsustainably low and the markets basically get to die out before it even gets going. What we need to see is is again an increase in price in And again I think traders are banking on that increased amount of volatility. So there's gonna be a huge business opportunity for them as supply and demand increase over time. And yeah,

we do. We do make a very big assumption in this report that this does start to resemble a more traditional commodity. That may not necessarily be the case, but it's going to be what's needed in order to scale the market up. You do have some critics for that, but I think that is kind of the cold hard

reality of it. Final question, just to put into context, keeping in mind that I think an individual living in Western Europe where I am, generates about ten tons of c O two a year, and I believe where you are in North America it's about twelve tons a year last time I checked. So, just on an individual basis, how many tons of c O two have been offset to date? If you look at the amount that's actually been retired, So of course there is issuance of carbon offsets,

that's how much supply has come into the market. I don't necessarily think that's a next a great or accurate picture because a lot of those offsets are just out there floating around um. A lot of them probably didn't need to be verified for an offset anyway. So I think something like a retirement is a much more accurate

way of looking at this. And if we look at the the amount of carbon offsets retired, since it's around four hundred and fifty million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent and that is collectively, so again that sounds like a lot. But in the grand scheme of things what we're talking about again with with NEO and with some of our other reports about large scale decarbonization, it's tiny, right.

I think the exciting thing if if again, if you're stakeholder and you're listening to this podcast today, I think the exciting thing is about where this market could go. Because we could see kind of you know, large gale significant growth in the immediate future. Let's hope that we see some really creative and constructive ways for us to think about removing carbon from the atmosphere, not omitting it to begin with. On that note, Kyle, thank you very

much for joining today. Thanks so much. Always fun to talk about this market. It's like the wild West. Today's episode of Switched On was edited by Rex Warner of gray Stoke Media. Bloomberg an e f A is a service provided by Bloomberg Finance LP and its affiliates. This recording does not constitute, nor should it be construed as investment advice, investment recommendations, or recommendation as to an investment

or other strategy. Bloomberg an f should not be considered as information sufficient upon which to base an investment decision. Neither Bloomberg Finance LP nor any of its affiliates makes any representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this recording, and any liability of this recording is expressly disclaimed. He