12
Sep

Sector Fundamentals – Secondary Products

HP BEITRAG Sektor Grundlagen - secondary

By Stefano Charrey

Download the report as a PDF

 

1. Introduction to Secondary Timber Products

We define secondary products as wood products that have been processed to a higher value added compared to round wood and lumber, predominantly in the form of engineered wood products (EWP). Engineered wood products include the following categories:

 

2. Markets for Secondary Timber Products

European and North American markets are core markets for secondary products companies, in terms of activity as well as listed opportunities to invest. In North America, where most secondary products companies are listed, timber construction has been historically centred around single-family homes. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) reported that in 2021 92% of single-family homes had timber frames. Certain European countries such as Austria, Sweden and Switzerland have been building multi-storey timber buildings for years and have reached a double-digit market share – according to a 2022 study by the German Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag (TAB), the share of multi-storey timber construction is 19% for Austria and 13.4% for Sweden. Compared to these leading European countries, multi-storey timber construction in North America is at a very early stage – according to data from the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, globally 71% of high-rise mass timber buildings are in Europe and only 18% in North America. Different types of buildings require different types of timber products: for example, single-family homes in the U.S., generally built using stick framing, don’t need high value-added products like cross-laminated-timber (CLT), which is instead required for multi-storey timber buildings. Hence, the relevant market drivers for CLT manufacturers are multi-family homes and, through the development of mass timber office buildings, the commercial property segment – keeping in mind that multi-storey mass timber buildings are currently a niche within those markets, but have significant growth potential.

EWPs enable timber construction to compete with traditional construction materials such as concrete and steel. In the following aspects[1], EWPs compete effectively with alternatives such as concrete and steel:

  • Time needed to complete construction (where timber has an advantaged thanks to prefabricated components which can be assembled offsite)
  • Construction Cost
  • Total cost of ownership (including cost to build, maintain and end-of-life) over the building’s lifetime
  • Sustainability, including considerations such as life-cycle carbon footprint, carbon removal and circularity

For US single-family homes, which represent by far the largest share of the US timber construction market, timber (under normal market conditions) is recognised as the cheaper alternative[2] thanks to significantly faster construction times[3].

 

2.1 Mass Timber and Cross-Laminated-Timber

Mass timber construction has a higher growth potential than the overall timber products sector, but remains a niche, especially in the U.S., and products like CLT represent a minor share of listed companies’ revenues. The high potential growth in this area, recognised by the FAO[4], is supported by mass timber’s cost competitiveness against traditional construction using reinforced concrete:

  • The 53-meters-high, 18-storey Brock Commons mass timber building in Canada has been reported to have cost 7% more than its reinforced concrete alternative[5].
  • According to a study by WoodWorks – Wood Products Council, analysing 10 mass timber projects in the US completed between 2015 and 2022, the actual cost of the mass timber projects ranged from -5% lower to 16% higher than the standard alternative construction method for the specific project[6].
  • In Switzerland, timber construction was estimated to be on average 19% more expensive than the solid construction method (based on reinforced concrete)[7], although the comparison is based on different underlying samples.

It should be noted that leading CLT producers are not in the secondary products category: the listed leaders in this space are the European Stora Enso, a forest owner with a diversified product portfolio including packaging, and Mercer International, a pulp & paper company that acquired a CLT facility from Katerra in 2021 and StructurLam, a leading American CLT manufacturer, in 2023.

 

[1] Fire safety is not included here, as it generally represents a regulatory constraint, rather than a competitive dimension, and there are both advantages and disadvantages when comparing timber and reinforced concrete structures, e.g. fire during construction of light timber frame structures  vs. steel’s structural weakness when exposed to high temperatures 

[2] https://waypointinspection.com/concrete-block-vs-wood-framed/

[3] https://www.mcdfla.com/concrete-vs-wood-home-construction/

[4] FAO Global Forest Sector Outlook 2050 https://www.fao.org/3/cc2265en/cc2265en.pdf

[5] https://sabmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/brockcommons.pdf

[6] Academic studies provide a wider range of results is significantly larger: Ahmed & Arocho (2021) estimate 6% higher costs for a mass timber residential project in Canada compared to reinforced concrete; Mallo & Espinoza (2016) estimate lower front-end costs (up to -22%) for a structure made out of CLT, Glulam and wood frames vs. a concrete and steel structure for a recreational project in California; Gu, Liang & Bergman (2020), being an outlier, estimate higher (+88%) front-end costs for a mass-timber building, neutralised by higher end-of-life residual value when taking a total life-cycle cost perspective, for a 12-storey project in Oregon – the unfavourable front-end cost comparison was attributed by the authors of the study to the limited supply in the region as CLT and Glulam were emerging categories in 2017 when the underlying data was constructed, but the numbers listed above for projects built during the same years in the same region appear more realistic for practical purposes.

[7] https://www.wuestpartner.com/ch-de/2021/05/12/was-kostet-ein-holzbau/

 

3. Companies and Business Models

When comparing companies that manufacture secondary timber products, investors need to distinguish among the different product categories and markets within which each company operates. Some companies in this space are not only manufacturers of EWPs but also distributors of building materials from third parties, including non-timber building materials. Business models can therefore vary significantly, from a focus on manufacturing to a mix of manufacturing and retailing.

The main listed companies included in the secondary products sub-sector are:

  • Accsys Technologies, a British manufacturer of engineered wood with a focus on water-resistance. It manufactures wood products as well as wood chips to be used for the production of panels, with the main applications being doors, windows, decking and cladding.
  • Atlas Engineered Products, a Canadian manufacturer of structural EWPs. Atlas also offers assembly, design, engineering and permitting services.
  • Bergs Timber, a Swedish manufacturer of windows, doors, prefabricated structures, wood protection (decks, cladding, etc.) as well as sawn timber.
  • Byggma, a Norwegian group focused on the production of panels and beams, with additional presence in building-related business areas such as windows manufacturing and the distribution of third-party lighting products.
  • Louisiana Pacific, a US manufacturer with a focus on sidings and OSB panels. It has operations in North and South America.
  • Steico, a German manufacturer primarily of wood-based insulation, and secondarily other engineered wood products such as LVL panels and I-joists.
  • Stella Jones, a Canadian manufacturer of timber products for industrial as well as residential applications. The company’s diverse product range includes railway ties, utility poles, treated timber for the construction of bridges and other maritime applications, and finally treated wood products for residential construction such as boards, plywood, and lumber.
  • UFP Industries, a US manufacturer with three major divisions: one focused on OSB and other structural timber products; one focused on wood packaging and other industrial applications; the third focused on products such as sidings, decking, and other products for exterior applications.
  • Western Forest Products, a Canadian manufacturer of commodity lumber (sawn timber) and EWPs, including decking and sidings, doors and windows, interior components and structural EWPs such as Glulam, in particular after the acquisition of Calvert in 2022.

Companies with a mixed business model of manufacturing and retail of third-party products include:

  • Boise Cascade, a US manufacturer of lumber and EWPs, and a distributor of third-party building materials sourced from leading manufacturers such as Louisiana Pacific or James Hardie, as well as other smaller regional manufacturers.
  • Builders FirstSource, a US manufacturer and, predominantly, retailer of a wide variety of timber and non-wood building products. Builders FirstSource also provides value-added services such as turn-key building solutions, (including installation) and software products for homebuilders and other customers.
  • Doman Building Materials, a Canadian company active in Canada and the US, manufacturing treated wood products for exterior applications, and distributing third-party building products, including timber and composite EWPs.
  • Goodfellow, a Canadian manufacturer of EWPs and wholesale distributor of building materials and floor coverings.
  • Taiga Building Products, a Canadian wholesale distributor of third-party wood products, with four facilities for wood treatment.

As can be seen in Figure 1, while all companies cover at least one secondary products category, some (Bergs, WFP, Goodfellow and Boise Cascade) also produce resp. distribute primary products. The wholesalers also distribute non-wood building products, such as insulation materials, fasteners, and other relevant products.

Figure 1: Product categories covered by Secondary Products companies. Source: companies’ reports, websites, Timber Finance.

 

 4. Profitability Profile

Secondary products companies provide significant value added compared to primary products companies, as they transform commodity products (logs and lumber) into products that are ready to be assembled during construction. As evident from Figure 2, the profitability of secondary products companies spiked in 2020-2022, despite having to source more expensive raw materials, they were able to pass on those increased costs to their customers – their operating (EBIT) margins were even significantly higher than during the more normal expansion phase 2010-2019.

Figure 2: Operating Margin (upper) and Return on Tangible Capital Employed (lower) in different economic phases. Sources: Bloomberg, companies’ reports, Timber Finance.

 

Let us for a moment focus on the “normal” expansion period from 2010 to 2019 and look at margins vs. return on (tangible) capital employed, Figure 3 helps with the visualisation. The fact that retailers/distributors tend to have thinner operating margins is not too surprising, as they tend to add value on a limited portion of their sales. When it comes to return on capital, the picture is mixed: distributors like Taiga, Boise Cascade and Doman delivered top-tier ROCE in line with manufacturers UFP Industries and Stella Jones. The lowest returns on capital were generated by the European companies in the secondary products universe (Steico, Byggma and Bergs), and by the two other distributors: the US-focused Builders FirstSource and the Canada-focused Goodfellow, which is also the smallest player and displays the lowest revenue per unit of capital employed.

 

Figure 3: operating income vs. return on tangible capital employed for secondary products companies. Green = manufacturers; Brown = retailers/distributors.

 

Taking a full-cycle view, we notice a very large dispersion in profitability across companies. While we don’t have a sufficiently long history for Atlas (listed since 2017 through a reverse take-over) and Boise Cascade (IPOed in 2013) to include the 2008-2009 global financial crisis, we have numbers for all the other companies, see Figure 4.

Among manufacturers, Louisiana Pacific, focused on sidings and structural OSB, stands out – while it has the highest average profitability vs. peers, the results are characterized by significant volatility along the cycle. Warren Buffett’s conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway became a large shareholder of Louisiana Pacific in 2022. UFP, a diversified manufacturer of wood products for construction, wood packaging and exterior applications, has generated very solid returns on capital despite relatively lower margins. In 2008-2009, despite the massive downturn, UFP’s sales decreased less sharply than Louisiana Pacific’s, partially helped by diversification into sectors such as wood packaging. Despite similar long-term average profitability numbers, we see significant disparity once looking into the details.

Over a full cycle, despite the impressive profitability in the last few years, secondary timber products retailers generated relatively low EBIT margins but robust returns on capital (excluding goodwill from acquisitions). These numbers should be seen in the context of a different business model compared to manufacturers: retailers can be expected to have lower margins as they tend to compete on price rather than value; and the retailer’s business model is more scalable, from a capex point of view, so there is potential for significant long-term top-line growth. Indeed, retailer Builders FirstSource, despite relatively low margins and returns on capital, was able to grow at the fastest rate over a full cycle, at an impressive 20% CAGR top-line, far outpacing its peers[8]. The Canadian Taiga Building Products boasts the highest return on capital but does not appear to be able to scale as rapidly, with a below-average top-line growth rate.  Doman and Builders FirstSource show the largest difference when adjusting return on capital for goodwill: this is due to the goodwill amassed by Builders FirstSource in multiple acquisitions in 2021-2022 and by Doman Building in its 2021 acquisition of Hixson Lumber, a manufacturer and wholesaler of (treated) lumber products.

The outlier Accsys reached profitability for the first time in the extraordinary 2020-2022 price environment and its impressive top-line long-term growth rate should be relativised from the low basis it started from. The company is primarily focused on marketing its patented acetylation processes and products that make wood water-resistant.

Figure 4: Operating Margin and Return on Capital Employed over a full cycle. Sources: Bloomberg, companies’ reports, Timber Finance.

 

[8] Note however that Builders FirstSource is focused on the US market, while the other peers are focused on Canada.

 

5. Sustainability and Environmental Impact

Secondary Products manufacturers enable the use of timber in construction, as an alternative to reinforced concrete, or for the production of components such as wooden windows, which substitute aluminium or polypropylene windows. The following factors are important to consider when evaluating the sustainability of secondary products manufacturers:

  • The degree to which they source certified wood
  • The emissions they generate within their value chain relative to
    • The carbon stored in their products
    • The carbon emissions they avoid through product substitution (so-called Scope 4 emissions)

 

5.1 Procurement: Certified Wood Sourcing

Certified wood sourcing is an important tool for operating a sustainable value chain. At the same time, different business models within the secondary products sector imply different sustainability profiles, also with regards to sourcing wood (at the manufacturing stage) and wood products (for wholesale and retail distribution). As there is no standardised reporting across companies, investors need to evaluate on a case-by-case the sustainability aspects of each company’s value chain. Sustainable forestry certifications can be distinguished amongst three levels:

  • Chain-of-Custody certification ensures that companies have audited systems and procedures in place that help identify different types of wood sourcing profiles.
  • Controlled Wood and equivalent certifications intend to mitigate risks that wood is sourced from illegal or unsustainable sources.
  • Sustainable Forestry certifications aim to confirm the sustainable forestry origin of the sourced material.

It should be noted that a company that procures timber from non-certified sources should not automatically be considered unsustainable: some companies procure timber from private timberland owners and family-owned sawmills, whose sourcing practices should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. This is also one factor that makes standardised comparisons challenging.

 

5.2 Carbon Intensity

It is not mandatory at a global level to publish emissions data or systematically include Scope 1, 2, 3 as well as biogenic emissions. As a result, many companies that voluntarily disclose emissions data use different metrics – and some refrain from reporting data at all – making a systematic comparison impossible. Biogenic emissions are also a grey area: not all companies report them explicitly (even though this would be required by the GHG Protocol guidelines), as they are considered carbon-neutral. Despite the common practice of accounting for these emissions as carbon-neutral, burning biomass should be the last step once no better use for that biomass (e.g., for the production of wood-fiber insulation) has been found.

As we see in Figure 5, different products and business models (manufacturer vs. retailer) lead to very different emission intensities. This is not surprising, but investors need to keep in mind that emission intensity should be seen in the context of the entire value-chain. Retailers tend to have lower emission intensities, because someone else – in this case the manufacturers – had to generate emissions in order to deliver those products sold by the retailers. A notable outlier is the large share of biogenic emissions as a percentage of total Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Again, biogenic emissions should be understood on a relative basis and case-by-case: if there is no better use for the sawdust and by-products, then they can be rationalised. Despite their emissions per kWh of electricity being comparable to coal[9], as long as biogenic emissions substitute coal, they can be considered “incrementally” neutral (rather than “carbon-neutral”). To give context, as per data by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, coal represented 19.5% of power generation in the U.S. in 2022. The very low carbon intensity displayed by Accsys Technologies relative to peers should be seen in the context that Accsys is focused on a chemical process, acetylation, a different and very specific industrial process within the timber value chain.

Figure 5: Emissions profile and carbon intensity of revenues. For Boise Cascade, the emissions were modelled based on their reported energy consumption and sources as of 2020. Western Forest Products’ latest emission numbers were reported as of 2020. Where not separately disclosed, biogenic emissions were estimated based on the share of biomass in energy production. Sources: companies’ reports, Timber Finance.

 

Not only do different business models lead to different emissions profiles, making carbon intensity harder to compare across companies: from the point of view of lifecycle emissions, different products have different lifecycles and therefore different carbon storage time horizons, and this adds an additional layer of complexity to the evaluation of the environmental impact of a company.

 

[9] https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/index_e.php. Even higher estimates from https://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PFPI-biomass-carbon-accounting-overview_April.pdf

 

 

5.3 Carbon Balance

While analysing the total carbon balance, it is worth quantifying the waterfall of carbon emissions in a company’s value chain vs. the carbon stored in its products. Using the numbers estimated and provided by German wood-fiber insulation specialist Steico, a positive balance is obtained (Figure 6), even when including biogenic emissions. On top of this, one should add the fact that Steico’s insulation products (of course, like other insulation products as well) help reduce a building’s operating emissions for decades after installation: the positive life-cycle carbon balance is impressive. Using the numbers provided by Louisiana Pacific, the US manufacturer focused on OSB and sidings, we obtain similar results (Figure 7): even after adjusting for biogenic emissions (estimated, as they are not explicitly reported by the company), which are significant relative to fossil Scope 1-3 emissions, more carbon is stored in the products than is emitted along the value chain.

Another way of looking at the carbon balance is to compare the carbon stored in the timber that is sourced at the beginning of the value chain (not included in the charts below) to the carbon stored in the manufactured products. For Louisiana Pacific, we estimate the ratio to be 49%. For Steico, the company’s own estimate is 73%, with 27% of the input raw materials being burned to produce energy.

Figure 6: Carbon balance of Steico. Sources: company reports, Timber Finance estimates for biogenic emissions.    

 

Figure 7: Carbon balance of Louisiana Pacific. Sources: company reports, Timber Finance estimates for biogenic emissions and CO2 stored in products.     

 

 

5.4 Substitution Effects and Scope 4 Emissions

Substitution effects refer to the emissions that are avoided when building with low-carbon alternatives to emission-intensive materials (such as reinforced concrete). These avoided emissions are also called Scope 4 emissions. There are several studies quantifying substitution effects and there is significant variability in the assumptions and results, but the conclusion is robust on average (see Leskinen et al., 2018): building with timber leads to lower life-cycle emissions. This is in large part due to the fact that timber, over the decades during which the trees grew, has sequestrated carbon from the atmosphere.

Another study commissioned by the Climate Action Directorate-General of the European Commission (see Rüter et al., 2016), analyses substitution effects for different types of secondary wood products, in particularly taking the following three substitution dimensions into consideration:

  • Production of functionally equivalent alternatives
  • Disposal or recycling at end of life of wood products vs. non-wood alternatives
  • Disposal or recycling at end of life of the recycled wood products (second-order effects)

The so-called displacement factors in the study by Rüter et al. can be interpreted as kg CO2-equivalent saved for each kg of wood product used that replaces a non-wood alternative in terms functionally equivalent units (in order to make the numbers meaningful).

Figure 8: material substitution factors (« displacement factors ») for selected wood products. A negative number represents a climate benefit. Authors assume a 20% energy efficiency gain in manufacturing processes between 2010 and 2030. Source: Rüter et al. (2016).

 

A couple of things, however, should also be highlighted, when talking about substitution factors. Firstly, biogenic emissions from biomass that is burned within the manufacturing process, as mentioned earlier, are generally considered carbon-neutral, hence they are not considered as “real” emissions when estimating substitution factors. While biomass does substitute, at least in part, fossil emissions and can be regrown, it still generates real emissions, so the assumption of (perfect) carbon neutrality in this case is questionable. That said, it remains a fact that sustainably harvested biomass regenerates in the next cycle and sequestrates CO2 – something that coal clearly cannot do. Secondly, there is in part criticism against the concept of harvesting, from a philosophical point of view: why don’t we let forests grow instead of harvesting, which actually leads to a net release of carbon into the atmosphere for years after the clear-cut? When managing forests sustainably, seedlings are planted after harvesting, and the carbon sequestration cycle starts again. In boreal forests, such as in Scandinavia, it takes approximately 20 years to offset the (net) emissions released after felling, until the harvested area becomes again a net absorber of carbon (Peichl et al., 2022)[10]. Harvesting cycles with a duration of many decades in boreal regions provide room for net sequestration in the long term. Thirdly, papers like Harmon (2019) claim that product substitution benefits are generally grossly overestimated due to questionable assumptions such as

  • constant displacement values over time that fail to include potential increases in the efficiency of concrete and steel production processes
  • constant energy mix, which leads to an overestimation when the share of renewable energy increases over time
  • reduced fossil fuel demand from the construction sector equates to overall reduced fossil demand, while in fact excess supply is used for other applications
  • default preference for non-timber products

While such assumptions are indeed simplistic – Harmon is right and provides some interesting intellectual comments – it should be noted that they are not necessarily as impactful as suggested by the author. The displacement factors estimated by Rüter et al. (2016) above, assume improved efficiency of non-wood product manufacturing. Also, while it is true that the energy mix evolves over time, what matters for substitution effects is the current energy mix – it matters how we manufacture today. With regards to fossil fuels, yes, if we keep producing the same amount of fossil fuels, then reducing demand for construction theoretically may free up supply for other sectors. But the global goal is to reduce fossil production, so any solution that reduces fossil demand while not causing, net-net, more emissions, should be considered or even be welcome. On the preference (or not) for timber products: even if one assumes that timber products are the preferred option, there is always an alternative (like concrete and steel). Let us use a different example: if renewable energy production were much cheaper than fossil energy production, and hence preferred, would this mean that the positive aspects of renewable energy compared to fossil energy disappear? A philosophically intriguing question, but the answer is probably: “no”. That said, one may argue whether “displacement” or “replacement” factor is semantically more appropriate. The weaknesses of the above assumptions are probably more relevant from a business strategy point of view (in terms of future competitiveness) than from a substitution-factor calculation point of view.

 

[10] Peichl et al. conclude that the net emissions are due to the lack of sequestration in the initial years rather than an increase in emissions after clear-cutting.

 

6. Conclusions

Secondary products companies enable the use of carbon-storing timber products in the construction sector and play an essential role in the value chain, where they are significant value-adders. Companies in this part of the timber value chain are still evolving in terms of environmental reporting – while some of them provide detailed and comprehensive metrics, others currently almost completely lack consistent and accurate reporting.

As their business is closely connected to the real estate business cycle, their profitability is cyclical and follows the broader construction market. In general, companies with high operating margins were those which generated the largest returns on capital employed. Secondary products companies differentiate strongly among each other, in terms of products and business models, where some integrate manufacturing, retail and construction services. The last 20 years have been characterised by two rather extreme phases: the US subprime real estate crisis, which led to a collapse in demand, and the 2021-2022 period characterised by global supply chain disruptions, aftermath of a) the anti-covid restrictions and consequent reopening, and b) the Russia-Ukraine conflict with the connected Russian sanctions disrupting commodity markets. This time around, looking ahead with a long-term view, the US housing market fundamentals appear to be in better shape than in 2007, but investors should be cautious not to take the strength of the timber market in 2021-2022 as a base case.

 

7. Literature

Harmon, M. E. (2019). Have product substitution carbon benefits been overestimated? A sensitivity analysis of key assumptions. Environmental Research Letters, 14(6), 065008.

Leskinen, P., Cardellini, G., González-García, S., Hurmekoski, E., Sathre, R., Seppälä, J., … & Verkerk, P. J. (2018). Substitution effects of wood-based products in climate change mitigation.

Liang, S., Gu, H., Bergman, R., & Kelley, S. S. (2020). Comparative life-cycle assessment of a mass timber building and concrete alternative. Wood Fiber Sci, 52(2), 217-229.

Mallo, M. F. L., & Espinoza, O. (2016, August). Cross-laminated timber vs. concrete/steel: cost comparison using a case study. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Timber Engineering–WCTE, Vienna, Austria (pp. 22-25).

Peichl, M., Martínez‐García, E., Fransson, J. E., Wallerman, J., Laudon, H., Lundmark, T., & Nilsson, M. B. (2023). Landscape‐variability of the carbon balance across managed boreal forests. Global Change Biology, 29(4), 1119-1132.

Rüter, S., Werner, F., Forsell, N., Prins, C., Vial, E., & Levet, A. L. (2016). ClimWood2030-Climate benefits of material substitution by forest biomass and harvested wood products: perspective 2030. Final report (No. 42). Thünen Report.

 

8. Credits

The following pictures were used (public domain resp. Creative Commons licenses):

  • Cross-Laminated-Timber: Rain Alexandr Dimitrievic (Wikimedia Commons)
  • Lamianted-Veneer-Lumber: KLski (Wikimedia Commons)
  • Sidings: Math (Unsplash)
  • OSB: Design Build Love (Flickr)
  • Insulation: Global Environment Facility (Flickr)
  • Glulam Bridge: B.J. Holmes (Wikimedia Commons)
  • Plywood: Mendaliv (Wikimedia Commons)
  • I-joists: A woodperson (Wikimedia Commons)

 

5. Disclosures and Conflicts of Interest

 

Some or all the companies mentioned in this report may be included in the Timber Finance Forest-Based Construction Basket tracker and included in the Timber Finance Carbon Capture & Storage Index.

Please note that this research is prepared for information purposes and targeted to institutional investors in Switzerland. They do not represent investment advice and do not take into consideration the individual requirements, risk tolerance and goals of an investor. Recipients who are not Swiss institutional investors should seek the advice of their independent financial advisor prior to taking any investment decision based on this report or for any necessary explanation of its contents.

The information presented in this report is obtained from several different public sources that we consider to be reliable. Nevertheless, we cannot guarantee the accuracy of the presented information. The information used may change quickly and we are not committed or obliged to modify the reports base on new information. The opinions and views expressed in this report reflect those of the author at the point in time of its compilation and may vary at any time. Valuation methods like DCF and any other analysis or expert judgement do not provide any guarantee that the target price or fair value will be reached, for example because of unforeseen changes in financial or economic conditions.

 

For more details and questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch with us at info@timberfinance.ch or:

 

Timber Finance

Ausstellungsstrasse 36

CH-8005 Zürich

Tel. 044 991 13 44

 

 

General disclaimer © 2023 Timber Finance Management AG (“Timber Finance”). All rights reserved. Redistribution or reproduction in whole or in part are prohibited without written permission of Timber Finance. Timber Finance Management AG makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the ability of any index to accurately represent the asset class or market sector that it purports to represent and Timber Finance Management AG and its third-party licensors shall have no liability for any errors, omissions, or interruptions of any index or the data included therein. All data and information is provided by Timber Finance “as is”. Past performance is not an indication or guarantee of future results. This document does not constitute an offer of any services. It is not possible to invest directly in an index. Exposure to an asset class represented by an index may be available through investable instruments offered by third parties that are based on that index.

Copyright © 2023 Timber Finance Initiative. All rights reserved.

Share Post:

Kategorien
Linkedin

Important Legal Notice

Wichtige Rechtsaufklärung

Die offizielle Website der Timber Finance Management AG (nachfolgend TFM genannt) enthält u.a. Informationen und Meinungen zu Anlageinstrumenten, Produkten und Dienstleistungen (nachfolgend zusammenfassend „Finanzprodukte“ genannt). Sie können die Website daher nur besuchen, wenn Sie die folgenden wichtigen rechtlichen Hinweise für Finanzprodukte sorgfältig lesen und anschließend akzeptieren. Mit Ihrer Zustimmung und Ihrem Zugriff auf die Website erklären Sie, dass Sie die rechtlichen Hinweise verstanden haben und ihnen ausdrücklich zustimmen. TFM kann Dritte in den Betrieb der Website einbeziehen. Die nachfolgenden Inhalte gelten sinngemäss auch für Informationen, die Kunden z.B. in Form von abonnierten Newslettern erhalten. Die Informationen sowie die Nutzungsregeln können jederzeit aktualisiert werden. Die Änderungen sind verbindlich. Bei der weiteren Nutzung der Website und unserer Dienste gehen wir von Ihrer Kenntnis und Ihrem Einverständnis aus.

Lokale rechtliche Beschränkungen

Die Website enthält Informationen und Meinungen zu Finanzprodukten (z.B. strukturierte Produkte), die in anderen Ländern unterschiedlichen Zulassungsvoraussetzungen unterliegen können. Sie richtet sich nicht an natürliche oder juristische Personen, für die die Nutzung oder der Zugang zur TFM-Website aufgrund ihrer Nationalität oder ihres Wohnsitzes/Sitzes oder aus anderen Gründen mit der Rechtsordnung ihres Landes unvereinbar wäre. Dies gilt insbesondere für Staatsbürger und/oder Einwohner von Großbritannien, Japan und den USA.

Keine Empfehlung oder Angebot

Die veröffentlichten Inhalte stellen weder eine Empfehlung noch ein Angebot zum Kauf, Halten oder Verkauf der genannten Finanzprodukte oder zur Vornahme sonstiger Transaktionen oder Rechtsgeschäfte dar. Sie dienen ausschließlich dem persönlichen Gebrauch und der Information und können jederzeit ohne vorherige Ankündigung durch die TFM geändert werden, ebenso wie diese rechtlichen Hinweise für Finanzprodukte. Die im Abschnitt über Finanzprodukte bereitgestellten Inhalte sind keine Empfehlungen für Ihre Anlage- und sonstigen Entscheidungen und haben keinen Beratungscharakter. Vor der Investition in ein Finanzprodukt muss der Anleger die aktuellen rechtlichen Dokumente und alle anderen Dokumente, die aufgrund lokaler gesetzlicher und aufsichtsrechtlicher Vorschriften erforderlich sein können (z.B. Prospekt sowie Jahres- und Halbjahresbericht eines Investmentfonds), sorgfältig gelesen haben. Es ist besonders wichtig, die darin enthaltenen Rechts- und Risikohinweise eingehend zu studieren. Vor einer Anlageentscheidung ist es zudem ratsam, einen Spezialisten zu konsultieren.

Keine Gewähr

Die TFM stellt die Inhalte ihrer Finanzprodukte mit grösstmöglicher Sorgfalt zusammen. Die TFM und ihre Vertragspartner übernehmen jedoch keine Gewähr oder Haftung gegenüber Dritten für die Richtigkeit, Aktualität und Vollständigkeit der veröffentlichten Inhalte. Insbesondere ist die TFM nicht verpflichtet, die Inhalte zu aktualisieren oder veraltete Inhalte zu entfernen. TFM übernimmt auch keine Verantwortung und gibt keine Garantie dafür ab, dass die Funktionen der Website mit Inhalten zu den Finanzprodukten nicht unterbrochen werden oder fehlerfrei sind, dass Fehler behoben werden oder dass die Website oder der jeweilige Server frei von Viren oder sonstigen schädlichen Bestandteilen und Programmen ist. Darüber hinaus kann es auf der TFM-Website Links geben, die zu Websites Dritter führen. Diese Links entziehen sich vollständig der Kontrolle von TFM. TFM übernimmt daher keinerlei Verantwortung für die Richtigkeit, Vollständigkeit und Rechtmäßigkeit des Inhalts solcher Websites sowie für allfällige darauf enthaltene Angebote und Dienstleistungen.

Risikohinweis

Grundsätzlich gilt: Je höher das Risiko (Kursschwankungen), desto länger sollte die Anlagedauer sein, und desto höher sind die Renditechancen. Sowohl der Wert des investierten Kapitals als auch die daraus resultierenden Erträge (z.B. Ausschüttungen im Zusammenhang mit Investmentfonds) unterliegen Schwankungen oder können ganz entfallen. Anlagen in Fremdwährungen sind direkten und indirekten Wechselkursschwankungen unterworfen. Einzelne Finanzprodukte sind generell höheren Risiken ausgesetzt.

Wertentwicklung

Eine positive Wertentwicklung (Performance) in der Vergangenheit ist keine Garantie für eine positive Wertentwicklung in der Zukunft. Die TFM und ihre Gegenparteien können daher nicht garantieren, dass das investierte Kapital seinen Wert erhält (oder sogar steigert), und die Anleger müssen bereit oder in der Lage sein, erhebliche Verluste oder sogar Totalverluste hinzunehmen. Bei der Berechnung der Performance werden allfällige Gebühren und Kosten (z.B. Kommissionen und Kosten, die bei der Zeichnung und Rücknahme von Fondsanteilen erhoben werden), die beim Kauf, Halten oder Verkauf des Finanzproduktes anfallen, nicht mitberücksichtigt.

Prospektpflicht

Bei den portraitieren Unternehmen handelt es sich um allgemeine Kommunikation und Werbung und nicht um ein öffentliches Angebot mit Prospektpflicht gemäss FIDLEG Art. 35, sondern um eine Privatplatzierung in Analogie zu FIDLEG Art. 36 und Art. 39, die sich an einen eingeschränkten Kreis von weniger als 500 professionellen und qualifizierten AnlegerInnen mit vertieften Kenntnissen der Wald-, Holz-, Bau- und Energiewirtschaft und einem Gesamtwert von weniger als CHF 8 Mio innert 12 Monaten richtet. Interessierte AnlegerInnen richten sich direkt für weitere Abklärungen an das portraitierte Unternehmen. 

Ausschluss der Haftung

Soweit gesetzlich zulässig, lehnen die TFM und ihre Vertragspartner jegliche Haftung (einschliesslich Fahrlässigkeit und Haftung gegenüber Dritten) für Verluste ab, die direkt, indirekt oder infolge von Schäden im Zusammenhang mit der Nutzung der Website und ihrer Inhalte oder mit den Risiken der Finanzmärkte. Der Zugriff auf und die Nutzung der Website wird nicht garantiert.

Eigentumsrechte

Alle Inhalte dieser Website sind urheberrechtlich geschützt und sind Eigentum der TFM, sofern nicht ausdrücklich anders angegeben. Kein Teil dieser Website gewährt eine Lizenz oder ein Recht zur Nutzung von Bildern, Texten, Marken oder Logos. Durch ein Herunterladen oder Kopieren der Website werden keinerlei Rechtsansprüche auf die darin enthaltene Software oder das darin enthaltene Material übertragen

Anwendbares Recht/Gerichtsbarkeit

Der Zugang und die Benutzung der TFM-Website und dieser wichtigen rechtlichen Hinweise für Finanzprodukte unterstehen schweizerischem Recht. Ausschliesslicher Gerichtsstand ist Zürich, Schweiz.

 
Ich wohne in der Schweiz.
Ich wohne nicht in der Schweiz

Important Legal Notice

Important Legal Notice

The official website of The Timber Finance Management AG (hereinafter referred to as TFM) contains, among other things, information and opinions on investment instruments, products and services (hereinafter referred to collectively as financial products). You can therefore only visit the website if you carefully read and subsequently accept the following important legal information for financial products. With your consent and your access to the website, you declare that you have understood and expressly agree to the legal information. TFM may involve third parties in the operation of the website. The following content also applies mutatis mutandis to information that customers receive, for example in the form of subscribed newsletters. The information as well as the rules of use can be updated at any time. The changes are binding. By the further use of the website and our services we proceed from your knowledge and your agreement.

Local legal restrictions

The website contains information and opinions on financial products (e.g. investment funds) which may be subject to different registration requirements in other countries. It is not directed at natural or legal persons for whom the use of or access to the TFM website would be contrary to the legal system of their country due to the nationality or domicile/registered office of the person concerned or for other reasons. This applies in particular to citizens and/or residents of Great Britain, Japan and the USA.

No recommendation or offer

The published contents constitute neither a recommendation nor an offer to purchase, hold or sell the financial products mentioned or to engage in other transactions or legal transactions. They are for personal use and information purposes only and may be changed at any time without prior notice by TFM, as may these legal notices for financial products. The contents provided in the section on financial products are not recommendations for your investment and other decisions and have no advisory character. Before investing in a financial product, the investor must have carefully read the current legal documents and all other documents that may be required by local legal and regulatory regulations (e.g. prospectus and annual and semi-annual report of an investment fund). It is particularly important to study the legal and risk information contained therein in detail. Before making an investment decision, it is also advisable to consult a specialist.

No warranty

TFM takes the greatest possible care in compiling the contents of its financial products. TFM and its contractual partners do not assume any guarantee or liability vis-a-vis third parties with regard to the correctness, up-to-dateness and completeness of the published content. In particular, TFM is under no obligation to update the content or remove obsolete content. TFM also assumes no responsibility and gives no guarantee that the functions of the website with content on the financial products will not be interrupted or error-free, that errors will be rectified or that the website or the respective server is free of viruses or other harmful components and programs. Furthermore, there may be links on the TFM website that lead to third-party websites. These links are completely beyond the control of TFM. TFM therefore accepts no responsibility whatsoever for the accuracy, completeness and legality of the content of such websites or for any offers and services contained therein. The Internet is an open network accessible to everyone and is therefore not considered a safe environment. TFM therefore accepts no liability whatsoever for the security of data transmitted via the Internet.

Risk notice

As a rule, the higher the risk (price fluctuations), the longer the investment period should be, and the higher the return opportunities. The value of the invested capital as well as the resulting income (e.g. distributions in connection with investment funds) are subject to fluctuations or can be completely eliminated. Investments in foreign currencies are subject to direct and indirect exchange rate fluctuations. Individual financial products are generally subject to higher risks.

Performance

A positive performance (performance) in the past is no guarantee for a positive performance in the future. TFM and its counterparties therefore cannot guarantee that the capital invested will maintain (or even increase) its value, and investors must be willing or able to accept any substantial losses or even total losses. When calculating performance, any fees and costs (e.g. commissions and costs charged on the subscription and redemption of fund units) levied on the purchase, holding or sale of the financial product are not taken into account.

Exclusion of liability

To the extent permitted by law, TFM and its contracting partners disclaim all liability (including negligence and liability towards third parties) for any loss arising directly, indirectly or consequentially from any kind of damage connected with the use of the website and its contents or with the risks of the financial markets. Access to and use of the Website is not guaranteed.

Ownership rights

All contents of this website are protected by copyright and are the property of TFM, unless expressly stated otherwise. No part of this website grants any license or right to use images, texts, trademarks or logos. Downloading or copying the website does not transfer any legal claims to the software or material contained therein. Any complete or partial reproduction, transmission, use or further publication of the contents of this website requires the written consent of TFM as well as the express indication of the source.

Applicable law/jurisdiction

Access to and use of the TFM website and this important legal information for financial products are subject to Swiss law. The exclusive place of jurisdiction is Zurich, Switzerland.

I am a Swiss resident
I do not reside in Switzerland