Farming as Financial Asset

Front matter

A rae GPO

ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATIONS Series Editors: Brett Christophers, Rebecca Lave, Jamie Peck, Marion Werner

Fundamental to the Economic Transformations series is the conviction that “geography matters” in the diverse ways that economies work, for whom they work, and to what ends. The so-called imperatives of globalization, the promises of development, the challenges of environmental sustainability, the dull compulsion of competitive life, the urgency of campaigns for economic rights and social justice — in all of these realms geography really matters, just as it does for a host of other contemporary concerns, from financialized growth to climate change, from green production to gender rights, from union renewal to structural adjustment. This major new series will publish on these and related issues, creating a space for interdisciplinary contributions from political economists, economic geographers, feminists, political ecologists, economic sociologists, critical development theorists, economic anthropologists, and their fellow travellers.

Preface

Acknowledgements

List of illustrations

Optic: how do we study the finance—farming nexus? History: how old is the finance—farming nexus?

Numbers: what we know (and do not know) about finance-gone-farming

States: how are foreign investments in farming regulated and accounted for?

Value(s): why has the road to “greener pastures” been so bumpy? Delegation: what happens inside the agri-investment chain? Grounding: what does assetization look like from below? Radices: food futures, with or without finance as we know it? Epilogue

References Index

137 167 181

183 205

PREFACE

This book seeks to unpack a large-scale phenomenon that has sparked a lively debate in the media, among scholars and in activist circles since 2008: the increasing interest of finance capital in all things agricultural, particularly in farmland and farming ventures. My aim in writing has been to enable nonspecialist readers to delve into a subject that is often marred with technical jargon and social complexity. Finance and, by implication, how other people’s money is managed are topics too important to be left to specialists, whether they are academics or the finance professionals themselves. “Finance-gone-farming” offers a unique opportunity to study the emergence, evolution and production of a new social space — or “asset class” — through which money is used to create more money on behalf of the “better off” parts of the world, which are able to participate in capital markets. But its study also calls for historical depth, as modern finance has a much longer history in the remaking of agricultural landscapes than is often acknowledged in existing debates.

What follows has a broad interdisciplinary outlook, speaking to debates in geography, heterodox economics, sociology, anthropology, the social study of finance, agrarian studies and political ecology. Although there is a growing literature on the financialization of food and agriculture, none boasts the empirical grounding and unique field access (down to the level of invested farms) that I have negotiated over seven years of global network building. This book will also be of interest to scholars committed to opening the “black box” of investment chains and the asset/wealth management industry, as well as to those who have attempted to develop more practice-oriented understandings of “financialization” and its social and ecological consequences.

Previous work loosely informing this book is listed in the reference list. Chapter 6 in particular draws heavily on parts of that work (Ouma 2020).

A last technical remark. To ensure anonymity, I have changed the names of certain protagonists, withheld the sources of some quotes and slightly altered certain quotes. In all cases, an asterisk is used to indicate this.

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The fieldwork informing this book took me to many different corners of the world: the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Tanzania, Singapore, Australia, Kenya and Aotearoa New Zealand. This journey reflects the globespanning networks of modern money management, which touch many sites at once, ever keen to carve out value from a place and redistribute it elsewhere. The connections that made my encounters possible were dependent on the generosity of many people, who, in one way or another, all facilitated my research, the production of the book or a critical review of parts of it.

Many people in the money management industry (asset managers, farm operators, different service providers, pension fund representatives) have shared their scarce time for interviews or field visits, and most of those approached were remarkably open about such requests. Although not all of them may agree with some of the arguments made in this book (which themselves have evolved over time), I hope they gain something from reading it. Among the many asset and farm managers interviewed, a few individuals in Tanzania, Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, Germany and Singapore were extraordinarily generous with their time, and deserve special thanks. They know who they are.

I also wish to thank many other people who contributed to this project. Peter Lindner of Goethe University (Frankfurt) has been supportive throughout my career, ever since we started working together in 2007. My colleagues Julian Stenmanns, Iris Dzudzek, Alex Vorbrugg, Tim Briickmann and Mara Linden have provided critical feedback on various parts of this book. In the United States, a number of people were very helpful in facilitating my research, including Professor Bruce Sherrick at Illinois State University.

Many insights related to my Aotearoa New Zealand case studies benefited enormously from discussions with Nick Lewis, Richard Le Heron, Matt Henry, Mike Roche, Russel Prince, Christina Stringer, Ann Pomeroy,

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Christina Berneheim and Wendy Larner. Harvey Perkins and Geoff Lawrence were both extraordinarily generous, providing feedback on several of the draft chapters at an early stage. Tobias Klinge, now a PhD student at the University of Leuven, conducted excellent research on the regulation of foreign investments in Aotearoa New Zealand forestry and agriculture as part of a master’s study supervised by me at Goethe University in 2018. His work informs several parts of this book. In Tanzania, Mangasini Katundu of Moshi Cooperative University, a partner in the project funded by the German Research Council that partly informs this book, particularly assisted with fieldwork. Dennis Malele of the same institution provided additional findings on one of the Tanzanian case studies. Many other people had their fair share in facilitating my research there, including Emmanuel Sulle, Brian Cooksey, Martina Locher, Hazel Gray, Andrew Coulson, Faustin Maganga, Esther Towo and the great team at COSTECH.

This book wouldalso not exist without the “technical” support of Frieda Gresch, Petra Turba, Elke Alban, Thea Fechner, Alexander Melchert, Julia Blauhut, Ian Copestake and Susan Askvik. This technical support also includes some quite “big players”. Market intelligence providers Savills (London) and Valoral Advisors (Luxembourg) kindly shared data on the “AG investment” space with me, and Preqin (London) and Agri-Investor (London), two other data service providers, gave me special subscription deals within the range of my research budget. That I had this budget at all is thanks to the German Research Council, which funded a part of the underlying research between 2017 and 2020 (grant no. 363300598). Other sources of financial support were the Centre of African Studies, via the support of Marc Boeckler at Goethe University and the chair of economic geography at the same institution (again, thanks to Peter Lindner!). I am also glad that some investment conference organizers had mercy on me and let me take part at their events at reduced rates.

Finally, I would like to thank the team at Agenda, Steven Gerrard and Alison Howson, and two anonymous reviewers, as well as the editors of Agenda's Economic Transformations series: Jamie Peck, Brett Christophers, Rebecca Lave and Marion Werner. Without their encouragement, I would probably never have written this book. In particular, Brett's work has had a huge influence, and I am glad that both our interests have recently converged around the finance—land nexus (for him, more public land, though).

A note of extra thanks goes to some very special people. During my research, and the writing of this book, my partner Eva and daughter Adele Akinyi, joined by Amina Luz in October 2019, had to cope with my partial physical and mental absence. I do not take such sacrifices for granted, and would like to thank them for their love and patience.

Stefan Ouma Bayreuth

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURES

4.7

4.8 5.1

5.2 6.1

7:1 7.2

The agri-investment chain and its share- and stakeholders Comparison between the architecture of a contemporary dairy fund (A) and the New Zealand and Australian Land Company (B, New Zealand Branch only)

Annual net acquisitions of let agricultural land, 1965—1984: sample of c.40 financial institutions

Comparison of two leading sources of agri-finance market intelligence

The many entry points for finance in global food and agriculture asset classes

Evolution of investment funds specialized in food and agricultural assets, 2005—2018

Development of the Global Farmland Index, 2002—2015 The geography of agri-investment-focused pension funds Actors along the agri-investment chain

Investment funds specialized in food and agriculture by main region

Agri-focused investment funds by target region and strategy Data snapshot, agricultural investments New Zealand, 2001-2017

Dairy farm land valuation in time

Risk—return profile of Illinois farmland compared to other asset classes, 1970—2013

Inside the investment calculus

A comparison between two investment chains touching down in Aotearoa New Zealand (Case 7) and Tanzania (Case 2)

xi

ILLUSTRATIONS

7.3 8.1

9.1

The deal cycle

Changes in land use per region in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2008-2012

How to get into the doughnut, and the forms of finance that may help

PHOTOGRAPHS

31 6.1

TA

7.2

Imperial landscape in Queensland

NGO campaign for pension funds’ divestment from farmland and agriculture

From “Third World solidarity” to private equity: a large-scale grain farm in Central Tanzania

Aggregated assets: (left panel: a new mega dairy farm in Aotearoa New Zealand, monitored via helicopter; right panel: a vertically integrated poultry-feed-complex in Tanzania)

TABLES

3.1 4.1 6.1

7.1

Tea 8.1 xii

Examples of territory occupied and main land use, 1650—1917 Largest closed funds in the market, 2018

Example of an ESG framing in an Africa-focused asset manager’s annual report

Different types of agricultural investment structures

How leveraging works

Labour impact of investment chains sampled

28 56

107 121 132 159

Chapter 1

Finance has gone farming. Since the financial and food price crises of 2007/8, the world has seen a stark rise in financial investments in farmland and agricultural production by investment banks, sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, private equity funds, insurance companies, family offices, endowment funds and high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs). Indeed, finance has been identified as one of the main drivers of the so-called “global land rush” (Grain 2008; McMichael 2012; Fairbairn 2014; Ouma 2014), in which non-financial entities, such as state-run or parastatal companies or other types of corporate entities, also play a central role. As a result of declining or negative returns on mainstream assets in the wake of the global economic meltdown, a fear of rising levels of inflation caused by counter-cyclical interventions, money printing and quantitative easing in “core countries” such as the United States, low returns on savings and a rise in general distrust in complex financial products, investors searched for new “alternatives” within their “investment universe” What was suddenly in demand was less “financial engineering” and more “real things” Farming seemed a perfect match, with parts of the financial industry starting to make a strong case for the sector as an “alternative asset class” that was sustained by a set of strong market fundamentals. A growing world population (passing 7 billion people by the end of 2011); changing dietary preferences towards meat and protein in emerging markets such as China and Indonesia; a rising demand for agrofuels (and carbon sinks) in the light of peak oil and climate change; the limited availability of agricultural land (“peak soil”); and stagnant, or even decreasing, productivity levels in core production regions and climate-change-induced crop failures all seemed to make farming a safe financial bet. The financial industry quickly determined that these factors would shape future demand-—supply dynamics along the agri-food chain in crucial ways.

In light of these dynamics, a standard narrative has evolved, which emphasizes that investments in agricultural operations and the underlying farmland should guarantee stable returns on capital invested. In addition, their “value” is likely to appreciate when growing demand meets growing resource scarcity. Unlike gold, a favourite during times of financial crisis, agricultural production and the underlying land store and produce capital. Additionally, investments in farmland and agriculture are said to enhance portfolio diversification and efficiency, thereby increasing the robustness of investment portfolios with regard to external shocks. These promises, which go hand in hand with the relatively low complexity of farmland investment instruments and the tax allowances granted on farmland investments in many countries, have made agriculture a space of “other investment’, rendered as exceptionally secure in a turbulent world. As The Economist puts it, “No matter how bad things get, people still have to eat” (The Economist 2009). Accordingly, between 2005 and mid-2018 the number of investment funds specializing in food and agriculture assets skyrocketed from 38 to 523, with assets under management (AuM) surpassing US$83 billion, excluding timber (Valoral Advisors 2018a). During the same period institutional investors, such as sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, insurance companies, asset management companies, investment banks, family offices, endowment funds and HNW’s, have significantly increased their exposure to food and agriculture (Lapérouse 2016: 1). This surge in agri-investments has led to the proliferation of new investment vehicles, relations and practices. Although these numbers seem tiny compared to other “asset classes” — investors had channelled US$533 billion into natural resources globally as of June 2017 (Preqin 2018a: 56) — one cannot deny that something has happened in the “AG space” (to use the industry vernacular) over the past ten years. Shiny investment brochures, high-profile conferences dedicated to the agricultural investment space and the rise of an agri-focused investment media are further testament to this.

PLACING THIS BOOK’S APPROACH

The global run on farmland and agricultural production by financial actors has sparked a lively debate in the media, among scholars and in activist circles. The overall tone of these debates is an alarming one, as financiers are blamed for rising land prices, corporate enclosures, the dispossession of smallholder farmers and the expansion of large-scale industrial agriculture around the world. Although this book acknowledges the concerns voiced in these debates, it takes a broader and deeper view on the transformation of farmland, agricultural production and food chains into objects of financial desire. It proposes a middle ground between work that is engaged with theorizing the systemic dynamics of financialized capitalism and its extension into the world of farmland and agriculture (Russi 2013; Schmidt 2016; Clapp & Isakson 2018) and more practice-oriented approaches to the world of finance. It does so by providing critical entry points for moving in between M—-M (in analogy to Karl Marx’s schematization of the circulation of money, which — when invested — becomes more money). This implies studying the practicalities of agricultural investment chains in their wider historical and systemic context. Investigating the conditions that mediate and limit attempts at financializing land and the commodities it produces, the approach proposed here treats the realization of M’ as an operation that cannot simply be taken for granted. The particular gist of the approach proposed in this book is that it invites us to trace the formation of agrifinance capital across a number of interlinked sites (Schatzki 2016), rather than assuming that it readily hops from place to place. Eventually, such a perspective allows us to develop a “microfounded political economy of the investment chain” (Braun 2016: 6) at a moment when ever more domains of the social and natural world have become captured and transformed through such far-flung relations, as well as the practices of asset and wealth management that underpin them.

The book will unravel and engage these processes in eight chapters and an epilogue. In each, I will first engage with an analytical or empirical problem that we encounter in the existing debates on the global land rush and the role of finance therein. Many of these problems stem from the particular way in which the notion of financialization — the preferred analytical optic of many scholars on the finance-driven land rush — has been mobilized; others are related to certain practical problems that researchers often encounter when trying to uncover the geographies and operations of global finance.

This pedagogical strategy allows for the debunking of some widely held assumptions in the existing debate on finance-gone-farming, and, indeed, the workings of global financial markets more generally.

INSTITUTIONAL LANDSCAPES AND THE FINANCIAL ASSET CHARACTER OF AGRICULTURE

The connecting tissue of this book is the notion of institutional landscapes. Inspired by a report published back in 1979 on the rise of institutional land ownership in the United Kingdom, titled The Landscapes of Institutional Landowners (Worthington 1979), as well as more recent takes on the notion of landscape in critical human geography (Mitchell 2000), institutional landscapes are those parts of the human and non-human world that have become transformed into a financial asset, a property that yields an income stream and that can be resold in the future, as part of portfolio considerations of institutional investors. These, in turn, serve the needs of the more privileged ones of “us”.

The term “institutional investor” does not have a common standard definition. One feature often mentioned is that these are “not physical persons” but “are organised as legal entities” (Celik & Isaksson 2014: 95-6), and that they can assume a wide variety of legal forms, from closed-end investment companies to private-equity-like limited partnerships to sovereign wealth funds. They “may act independently or be part of a larger company group or conglomerate” (ibid.: 96), such as mutual funds, which are often subsidiaries of banks or insurance companies. At times, the term is used synonymously with “intermediary investors” (ibid.) — that is, beneficiary institutions that manage “other people’s money” (Kay 2015) in line with specific performance, risk and maturity goals' — but in some cases institutional investors may be the ultimate asset owners (for example, institutions representing wealthy families).* These definitional niceties aside, institutional investors now move a staggering amount of money across the globe and are key makers of space in the early twenty-first century.

In other words, institutional landscapes are an expression of the expansion of a “global return society’, in which the reproduction of the better-off people of the Global North (and, increasingly, the Global South) has become tied to the reproduction of finance capital, both “at home” and abroad. Today a wide range of “things” can become part of institutional landscapes (and thus financial resources or “assets”), but, in this book, it is something most closely associated with the term “landscape”: agriculture. Bereft of a better word, however, this book mobilizes farming as a generic term in order to indicate that finance has become interested in all things related to “the farm” as a production unit (arable crops, livestock, trees, etc.), but also in the pre- and post-farm-gate stages of the agri-food chain. So, although the book heavily focuses on farmland investments, it also repeatedly moves beyond them, and several of its case studies blur the line between production and other domains, with one of them moving beyond it altogether.

In detail, institutional landscapes can be described as follows.

e They sensitize us for the fact that the workings of supposedly higher forces — so-called “financial markets” — are engrained in many things surrounding us.

1. Maturity goals refer to the planned date of payment — i.e. when a liability, such as a pension or insurance payout, is due.

2. They can be contrasted with retail investors, who are individuals and who can access only certain types of financial products.

e They are characterized by their financial asset character, whose realization requires concrete and future-oriented interventions in the world of farming. It is through such interventions that the latter becomes synchronized with the conventions and capital needs of investors, even though this often remains a frictional endeavour.

e They are not a product of nature but of landscaping practices: spacemaking social activities we can investigate. Institutional landscaping creates distinct socio-natures reflecting the asset character of the targeted agricultural venture.

e They do not simply overwrite the past, but often incorporate and thrive on older agrarian landscapes in order to generate financial value from the human and non-human world. Like other landscapes, institutional landscapes are a palimpsest, a layered product of multiple histories and determinations, including both the visible and the invisible hand of the state.

e They are, eventually, the product of “global value relations” (Araghi 2003) established between multiple places and the operations that link them. In this way, institutional landscapes can never be thought of without the “imperial” needs of those whose capital has been instrumental in bringing them into being in the very first place. Often the roots of this capital lead right back into the “middle of society”

The book renders institutional landscapes intelligible, unpacks their political contestation and eventually aims at repoliticizing the spatially extensive operations that lurk beneath them. It does so by offering a number of specific entry points into the global economic connections through which such landscapes are produced. These are often taken for granted, reified in popular and professional discourse or mistaken for what they are not. Thus, the journey that follows covers a range of topics that are pivotal for understanding how institutional landscapes emerge, what knowledge we can produce about them, how we situate these historically and geographically and how these are produced and reproduced as “large-scale phenomena” (Schatzki 2016) on the ground. This clearly sets apart what follows from other, more macro-oriented accounts that take a more orthodox, and less geographically attuned, political economy approach (e.g. Russi 2013; Schmidt 2016; Clapp & Isakson 2018).

GROUNDING AGRI-INVESTMENT CHAINS

As this book will show, assets as sources of financial income have become so widespread that it is justified to speak about “the age of asset management”

(Haldane 2014; see also Muniesa et al. 2017). Therefore, there is an urgent need to understand how assets come into being. Like a commodity (Callon 1998), something is not born an asset, but turned into one. Assetization inside and outside agriculture often happens through spatially extensive investment chains (Arjaliés et al. 2017; Cotula & Blackmore 2014) involving many players. As expressions of the fact that the original sources of capital (e.g. depositing employees) are often linked via delegation structures with other intermediaries such as pension funds or asset managers (Clark & Monk 2017), these connect different actors, histories, institutional contexts and material realities with each other and often cut through different legal systems. By combining risk-return-effective geographic localizations and specific extraction strategies, global investment chains become arenas for the redistribution of value, besides becoming the enablers of new, sometimes global, commodity chains. We can trace their making, the actors involved, the links they establish and the glue that underpins these — which is exactly what I have done over a period of six years (2012 to 2018), conducting multisited research across five continents. The approach adopted here takes us to investment conferences — sites of group making, where agriculture as an asset class is consolidated through narratives and numbers so that investors become confident enough to bet on farming; it takes us to meetings of asset managers, where they give accounts to their investors and try to raise new capital; it takes us to the headquarters of pension funds and asset managers, where capital allocation and investment decisions are being made; it takes us to the agricultural assets themselves and the surrounding communities in frontier regions, such as Tanzania and Aotearoa New Zealand,’ where we will witness how agricultural ventures are restructured in such ways that they meet the models, calculations and requirements of the world of money management; and it takes us to the offices of various intermediaries, such as investment consultants, lawyers and market intelligence providers, who provide crucial business services to investors and asset managers alike, and who play an important role in consolidating “agriculture as an asset class’, as well as the state agencies in the frontiers of the finance-driven land rush, where investments are being facilitated. But it also leads us to sites of resistance, where finance-driven investments in agriculture are being criticized, and alternative visions of agriculture are being propagated (as an interesting

3. I use the wording “Aotearoa New Zealand” in this book in order to make visible the colonial origin of today’s nation state, a past that continues to shape the present. The addition “Aotearoa” stands for the description of the country in the language of the indigenous Maori population, which is also the second official language of the country (next to English).

Asset management firm(s)

JA ey Original asset | Investors Z > owners - High net worth <a individuals P Parent

- Private - Institutional individuals investors with —— companies equity, (savers) different risk, structures debt ` - Governments retum and ma - Corporate turity profiles entities (firms, Many of them organizations) serve as trustees of other Lenders people's money

- Commercial banks

- Development finance institutions

Capital injections into project Flow returns generated by project

Source Upstream Midstream Downstream

Figure 1.1 The agri-investment chain and its share- and stakeholders

Source: Adapted from Cotula and Blackmore (2014: 2) (reprinted with permission).

side note: if time and resources permitted it, it would also take us to exotic places such as Luxembourg, Guernsey and the Cayman Islands, places that are crucial for optimizing the tax structure of some of the agri-investments discussed in this book).

Obviously, the socio-spatial complexity of agri-investment chains poses a challenge for regulators, as well as for political engagement and research. Yet, once investment chains and their underlying actor constellations have been identified and geographically grounded, different “pressure points” (Cotula & Blackmore 2014: 3) can be identified for regulation or activist engagement (see Figure 1.1). Such an endeavour must always keep in mind that it is “ultimately all of us” (Muniesa et al. 2017: 133) who are linked to global investment chains, and the production of institutional landscapes, via a giant “network of delegation” (ibid.).

A TALE OF TWO FRONTIERS

Aotearoa New Zealand is regarded as one of the prime agricultural investment frontiers globally. Together with the United States, Brazil and Australia (Luyt et al. 2013), the country has accounted for most of the individual funds and other institutional equity structures invested in primary agriculture. This is at odds with the public and academic perception that most of the financialization of farming has taken place in countries of the Global South. The country adopted neoliberal agricultural policies in 1984, with successive governments supporting foreign investment into agriculture in an effort to recapitalize indebted farms, boost export volumes and enhance efficiency. The result of more than three decades of regulatory and rural restructuring has been an influx of investors, first in forestry from the early 1990s onwards, but later on increasingly in the agricultural sector more generally. Foreign direct investments (FDIs) into farmland have sharply increased since about 2010, with the entry of pension and private equity funds into the country’s dairy, beef, wine and deciduous fruits subsectors. The country’s strong agricultural potential, well-developed farmland markets, proximity to Asian markets, significant depth in farming expertise and effective legal and contracting processes make it an “institutional-grade” investment destination. Although the state-mediated efforts of granting foreign investors access to farmland and forestry have by no means been uncontested domestically, foreign investment is often normalized in a context in which overseas connections are part of the national history and rural imaginary.

The east African nation of Tanzania is interesting because it is considered to be one of the main “frontier markets” by financiers. Many would go as far as considering it “an ideal country for large-scale agricultural land investments due to its record of liberal economic reforms and high growth rates in the last two decades” (Bluwstein et al. 2018: 807). Despite the frenzy, frontier markets such as Tanzania are associated with particular risks that usually keep large Western institutional investors away, but they may attract more risk-taking factions of capital. Thus, the country has seen a number of private-equity-driven investments into large-scale farms over the past 15 years or so. Some of these investments have targeted former state farms from the socialist era, which have been promoted by Tanzanian state players as ready-made sites for investment. The bid to attract investors into farmland is driven by a larger agricultural transformation agenda that aims at modernizing the largely “peasant-based” agricultural sector of the country, which has, however, attracted considerable criticism from civil society organizations within and outside Tanzania. This conflict-ridden transition context makes Tanzania an ideal setting for studying the articulation of global agri-investment chains with local agrarian, economic and political-institutional settings.

INTRODUCTION PRODUCING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT INSTITUTIONAL LANDSCAPES

The first part of the research informing this book included participant observation of agricultural investment conferences, the analysis of hundreds of industry intelligence and investment brochures, and interviews with key players in the agricultural investment scene. The second part followed specific investment chains into two main frontier regions of the finance-driven land rush, Aotearoa New Zealand and Tanzania. The grounding of particular investment chains in these distinct geographical contexts also allows us to place the contemporary drive of financial expansion into agriculture into a longer history of metropolitan financial expansion and place making in colonial and settler-colonial contexts. Moving back and forth between the macro and the micro, this book will ground agri-finance investment chains in specific sites, but seeks to “study up” their workings at the same time. Obviously, such a research strategy comes at a price. It not only tends to lose sight of those affected by the workings of the powerful (e.g. workers in farming ventures, adjacent communities, other farmers) but also encounters many challenges in practice owing to the secretive nature of the money management industry. Many of the players involved — especially private equity funds — are exempt from comprehensive reporting because of their private nature (unlike stock listed enterprises) or are bound to confidentiality agreements as a result of their fiduciary duties. These limits to knowledge production will become repeatedly visible in the narrative that follows. The words of an eminent scholar of modern financial markets, sociologist Donald MacKenzie, capture this problem well: