Connect with us

Column

Between Forex Traders And Customers

Published

4 years ago

on

A year ago, the activities of the MBA Forex Trading came to a halt after an alarm was allegedly raised by the Nigeria Stock Exchange (NSE) warning its customers that money deposited with the company was not safe.
A few months to the closure of the company, there were speculations that customers might lose money deposited and at the end of the day, customers of MBA Forex Trading lost millions of naira to the operators. Recall the case of MMM money operators that left many Nigerians poorer all in a bid to make quick money a few years back.
Till now, many have not learnt any lesson from such incident as they are still patronising those who expect them to deposit little money and earn more than that at the end of the day. Many of those forex trading firms advertise their businesses through the media which makes the unsuspecting public believe they are engaged in genuine business.
Since the collapse of MBA last year, some persons who were affected had lost their lives due to the shock of losing their hard-earned money. There were protests in cities where the company had branches and it was also gathered that some aggrieved customers went to summon the chief executive officer of the forex trading firm to “juju”, the African way, to be able to recover their money. But with all the previous experiences and disappointments, people still go into such business.
Some persons have argued that one of the reasons why a lot of Nigerians still patronise those ponzi schemes is due to the attitude and conduct of some deposit money banks. Many commercial bank customers alleged that even when you are an account holder in those banks, one finds it difficult to have access to the money most times.
Beyond that, the allegation of money deposited in the banks not appreciating from month to month also poses problems to depositors. It calls for concern that a customer deposits money in a bank for a period of time without reasonable interest accruable to it.
Years ago, a lot of interests accrued to such deposits and this encouraged the depositors.  Nowadays, the rate of bank charges like SMS, stamp duties, alert just to mention but a few, make people look elsewhere to deposit money. Some view it as a venture to make money for the banks instead of encouraging depositors who feel that when they deposit N20,000 as savings in the bank, after one or two months, by the time the customer returns, such money remains the same or even reduces.
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) should as a matter of fact look into the reasons why unsuspecting publics are reluctant in depositing money in the banks and prefer to patronise quacks. The Federal Government should make Nigerian citizens to be confident in depositing their money in the banks instead of depositing in investment companies that will disappoint them.
Financial institutions should be regulated by CBN and NSE and their activities checked from time to time to monitor their operations.   The issue of floating financial institutions that collapse now and then should be checked by relevant authorities as that has caused so much disaffection to the citizens.
It should be surprising that one will be invited for certain businesses where he or she is expected to deposit an amount of money which capital will triple within the shortest possible time.
Although people want their money to yield some profits so as to attend to their needs but have also complained of how much they have lost to the operation of the forex trading firms because of ‘quick money’. The level of poverty and hardship can compel people to get involved in such expensive businesses. They should be discouraged from taking advantage of the situation in the country to dupe others when their businesses are not genuine.
Let the Federal Government take the responsibility of creating jobs and enabling environment for businesses to thrive in Nigeria so as to curb further occurrences. It is pathetic to see people lose millions of naira because they want to make money to cater for the need of their families.
There are arguments from different quarters that those agencies advertise their services through the media which should be able to identify fake business operations. But it behooves the customers to patronise such and not after series of inquiries. Investors should make adequate inquiries before depositing their money into forex trading companies. It is not wrong to get ideas about a worthwhile business while making a living, but it is to be able to identify which is real or fake and then take a firm decision responsibly.
An adult should have a second thought when invited to claim a reward that is far beyond what you invested within a period  as the person is not the CBN neither does the person print money. That will go a long way in preventing people from falling victim.
Nigerians should stop being gullible and be wise. Is freezing the account of the investors which has affected the income of the patronisers the best option?  If putting in money into genuine business is good then nothing is wrong with that; after all, one does not get enough interest from the banks.
Anti-graft agencies are the ones that have the right to carry out investigations and scrutinise erring investment firms. Most of them failing unsuspecting public are registered with Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC). If some of the licensed companies are not genuine, why are they issued licenses to operate?
Those who lose money deposited with forex trading firms should not blame the investment companies; after all, they were not compelled to invest.

By: Eunice Choko-Kayode

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Column

Renewable Energy Faces Looming Workforce Crisis

Published

3 weeks ago

on

August 18, 2025

By

Despite a discouraging political climate and unprecedented uncertainty in the United States clean energy sector, low costs of wind and solar energy continue to drive growth of the domestic clean energy sector.
However, while market forces continue to support the expansion of renewable energy capacity, the sector faces critical challenges extending beyond the antagonism of the Trump administration.
The continued growth of solar and wind power risks being hampered by several mitigating factors, including (but not limited to) intensifying competition over increasingly scarce suitable land plots, stressed and volatile global supply chains, lengthy and unpredictable development processes, Complex and overlapping permitting processes, and a critical talent gap.
The renewable energy labor shortage has been years in the making, but is no less closer to resolution. The issue spans both white collar and blue collar positions, and threatens to kneecap progress in the booming sector.
Between the years of 2011 and 2030, it is expected that global levels of installed wind and solar capacity will quadruple. Analysis from McKinsey & Company concludes that “this huge surge in new wind and solar installations will be almost impossible to staff with qualified development and construction employees as well as operations and maintenance workers.
“It’s unclear where these employees will come from in the future,” the McKinsey report goes on to say.
He continued that “There are too few people with specialized and relevant expertise and experience, and too many of them are departing for other companies or other industries.”
The solar and wind industries are suffering from a lack of awareness of career paths and opportunities, despite their well-established presence in domestic markets.
Emergent clean energies face an even steeper uphill battle. Geothermal energy, for example, is poised for explosive growth as one of vanishingly few carbon-free energy solutions with broad bipartisan support, but faces a severe talent gap and punishingly low levels of awareness in potential talent pools.
But while the outlook is discouraging, industry insiders argue that it’s too soon to sound the alarms. In fact, a recent report from Utility Drive contends that “solutions to the energy talent gap are hiding in plain sight.”
The article breaks down those solutions into four concrete approaches: building partnerships with educators, formulating Registered Apprenticeship pathways, updating credential requirements to reflect real-world needs, and rethinking stale recruitment strategies.
Targeting strategic alliances with educational institutions is a crucial strategy for creating a skilled workforce, particularly in emerging sectors like geothermal energy.
Businesses can, for example, partner with and sponsor programs at community colleges, creating a pipeline for the next generation of skilled workers. Apprenticeships serve a similar purpose, encouraging hands-on learning outside of the classroom. Such apprenticeships can apply to white collar positions as well as blue collar roles.
“If we can figure out a way to educate the younger generation that you can actually have a career that you can be proud of and help solve a problem the world is facing, but also work in the extractive industry, I think that could go a long way,” said Jeanine Vany, executive vice president of corporate affairs for Canadian geothermal firm Eavor, speaking about the geothermal energy talent gap.
These approaches won’t solve the talent gap overnight – especially as political developments may discourage would-be jobseekers from placing their bets on a career in the renewables sector. But they will go a long way toward mitigating the issue.
“The clean energy transition depends on a workforce that can sustain it,” reports Utility Drive. “To meet the hiring challenges, employers will benefit from looking beyond the next position to fill and working toward a strategic, industry-wide vision for attracting talent.”
By: Haley Zaremba
Continue Reading

Column

Is It End For Lithium’s Reign As Battery King?

Published

1 month ago

on

August 1, 2025

By

Lithium-ion batteries power the world around us. Their prevalence in our daily life is growing steadily, to the extent that lithium-ion batteries now power a whopping 70 percent of all rechargeable devices.
From electric vehicles to smartphones to utility-scale energy storage, lithium-ion batteries are increasingly forming the building blocks of innumerable sectors.
But despite its dominance in battery technologies, there are some serious issues with lithium supply chains that make it a less-than-ideal model upon which to base our world.
Not only is extracting lithium often extremely environmentally damaging, it’s deeply intertwined with geopolitical pressure points. China controls a huge portion of global lithium supply chains, rendering markets highly vulnerable to shocks and the political will of Beijing.
China’s control is particularly strong in the case of electric vehicle batteries, thanks to a decade-long strategy to outcompete the globe.
“For over a decade, China has meticulously orchestrated a strategic ascent in the global electric vehicle (EV) batteries market, culminating in a dominance that now presents a formidable challenge to Western manufacturers,” reports EE Times.
The effect functions as “almost a moat” around Chinese battery production, buffering the sector against international competition.
The multiple downsides and risks associated with lithium and lithium-ion battery sourcing is pushing EV companies to research alternative battery models to power the electric cars of the future.
There are a litany of lithium alternatives in research and development phases, including – but not limited to – lead, nickel-cadmium, nickel-metal hydride, sodium nickel chloride, lithium metal polymer, sodium-ion, lithium-sulfur, and solid state batteries.
Solid state batteries seem to be the biggest industry darling. Solid-state batteries use a solid electrolyte as a barrier and conductor between the cathode and anode.
These batteries don’t necessarily do away with lithium, but they can eliminate the need for graphite – another critical mineral under heavy Chinese control. Plus, solid state batteries are purported to be safer, have higher energy density, and recharge faster than lithium-ion batteries.
While solid-state batteries are still in development, they’re already being tested in some applications by car companies. Mercedes and BMW claim that they are already road-testing vehicles powered by solid-state batteries, but it will likely be years before we see them in any commercial context.
Subaru is on the verge of testing solid-state batteries within its vehicles, but is already employing a smaller form of the technology to power robots within its facilities.
However, while solid-state batteries are being hailed as a sort of holy grail for battery tech, some think that the promise – and progress – of solid-state batteries is overblown.
“I think there’s a lot of noise in solid state around commercial readiness that’s maybe an exaggeration of reality”, Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe said during an interview on this week’s Plugged-In Podcast.
Sodium ion batteries are also a promising contender to overtake lithium-ion batteries in the EV sector. Sodium is 1,000 times more abundant than lithium.
“It’s widely available around the world, meaning it’s cheaper to source, and less water-intensive to extract”, stated James Quinn, the CEO of U.K.-based Faradion. “It takes 682 times more water to extract one tonne of lithium versus one tonne of sodium.That is a significant amount.”
Bloomberg projections indicate that sodium-ion could displace 272,000 tons of lithium demand as soon as 2035.
But even this does not signal the death of lithium. Lithium is simply too useful in battery-making. It’s energy-dense and performs well in cold weather, making it “indispensable for high-performance applications” according to EV World.
“The future isn’t lithium or sodium—it’s both, deployed strategically across sectors…the result is a diversified, resilient battery economy.”
By: Haley Zaremba
Continue Reading

Column

Why Oil Prices Could See Significant Upside Shift

Published

1 month ago

on

July 28, 2025

By

The 9th OPEC International Seminar was held in Vienna recently, wherein participants discussed energy security, investment, climate change, and energy poverty, with a particular emphasis on balancing these competing priorities.
According to commodity analysts at Standard Chartered, the summit, titled “Charting Pathways Together: The Future of Global Energy”, featured significantly greater engagement from international oil companies and consuming country governments, with discussions converging on a more inclusive shared agenda rather than non-intersecting approaches seen in previous years.
However, StanChart reported there was a clear mismatch between what energy producers vs. market analysts think about spare production capacity.
Unlike Wall Street analysts, who frequently talk about spare capacity of 5-6 million barrels per day (mb/d), speakers from several sectors of the industry noted that spare capacity is both limited and very geographically concentrated.
StanChart believes this erroneous assumption about spare capacity has been a big drag on oil prices, and the implications for the whole forward curve of oil prices could be potentially profound once traders realize that roughly two-thirds of the capacity they thought was available on demand does not actually exist.
This makes the analysts bullish about the general shape of their forecast 2026 price trajectory (Figure 32), i.e., a set of significant upward shifts as opposed to the flat trajectory seen in the market curve and in analyst consensus.
In other words, oil prices could have as much as $15/barrel upside from current levels.
StanChart is not the only oil bull here. Goldman Sachs recently hiked its oil price forecast for H2 2025, saying the market is increasingly shifting its focus from recession fears to potential supply disruptions, low spare capacity, lower oil inventories, especially among OECD countries and production constraints by Russia.
GS has increased its Brent forecast by $5/bbl to $66/bbl, and by $6 for WTI crude to $63/bbl, slightly lower than current levels of $68.34/bbl and 66.24/bbl for Brent and WTI crude, respectively.
However, the Wall Street bank has maintained its 2026 price forecast at $56/bbl for Brent and $52 for WTI, due to “an offset between a boost from higher long-dated prices and a hit from a wider 1.7M bbl/day surplus.’’ Previously, GS had forecast a 1.5M bbl/day surplus for the coming year.
Further, Goldman sees a stronger oil price rebound beyond 2026 due to reduced spare capacity.
EU natural gas inventories have climbed at faster-than-average clip in recent times. According to Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE) data, Europe’s gas inventories stood at 73.10 billion cubic metres (bcm) on 13 July, good for a 2.31 bcm w/w increase.
Still, the injection rate is not enough to completely fill the continent’s gas stores, with the current clip on track to take inventories to about 97.9 bcm, or 84.3% of storage capacity, at the end of the injection season.
Europe’s gas demand remains fairly lacklustre despite extremely high temperatures across much of the continent in recent weeks.
According to estimates by StanChart, EU gas demand for the first 14 days of July averaged 583 million cubic meters/day, nearly 3% lower from a year ago but a 10% improvement from the June lows.
However, StanChart is bullish on natural gas prices, saying the market is likely underestimating the likelihood of more Russian gas being taken off the markets.
Back in April, U.S. senators Lindsey Graham (Republican) and Richard Blumenthal (Democrat), introduced “Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025”, with the legislation enjoying broad bipartisan support (85 co-sponsors in the Senate out of 100 senators).
In a joint statement on 14 July, the two senators noted that President Trump’s decision to implement 100% secondary tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas if a peace agreement is not reached within 50 days but pledged that they will continue to work on “bipartisan Russia sanctions legislation that would implement up to 500 percent tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas”.
StanChart has predicted that the Trump administration is unlikely to take actions that risk driving oil prices higher. However, Russian gas remains in the crosshairs, with U.S. LNG likely to see a surge in demand if Russian gas exports are curtailed.
StanChart estimates that the EU’s net imports of Russian pipeline gas averaged 79.8 million cubic metres per day (mcm/d) in the first 14 days of July, with all non-transit flows into the EU coming into Bulgaria through the Turkstream pipeline, with Hungary and Slovakia also receiving Turkstream gas.
There was also a flow of about 65 mcm/d of Russian LNG in the first half of July, with Russia providing 18.6% of the EU’s net imports. StanChart has predicted that we could see a strong rally in natural gas prices if Washington slaps Moscow with fresh gas sanctions.
By: Alex Kimani
Continue Reading

Trending