Example collocations logo

Funding in sentence

2082 examples of Funding in a sentence

To ensure that the money is there, the Education Commission is offering detailed proposals to reform the current global framework for funding education, and to bring multilateral development banks together to prioritize education and release new resources.
Education is the most cost-effective investment we can make, so the economic case for increased funding could not be clearer.
At the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in January 2016, the industry supported a generalized commitment to new initiatives – which one could interpret as a request for more government funding.
To change that, the top 20 antibiotics producers could ask their respective governments to “pilot” a funding mechanism for taking new drugs through clinical trials and to market.
This created an unnecessary new deadline of February 28 for the withdrawal of ECB funding and consequent collapse of the Greek banking system.
If Greece tries such unilateral defiance, the ECB will almost certainly vote to stop its emergency funding to the Greek banking system after the troika program expires on February 28.
First, they can redirect research funding from less critical pursuits to projects in molecular genetics that can offer insights into metabolic disorders.
The report also highlights the importance of unlocking capital for “Main Street” entrepreneurs, who struggle to find the funding they need to launch, sustain, or scale up their operations, particularly as the recent recession drove out many of the community banks on which they had traditionally relied for credit.
In the US, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) – created to ensure that banks that gather deposits in low- or middle-income communities reinvest some of their earnings in those communities – supports more than $60 billion in community finance, compared to the $48 billion of VC funding that was deployed last year.
With the right incentives and funding from philanthropic sources, job-creating entrepreneurs could serve as engines of more inclusive growth in communities across the US.
In recent years, Western investors have fixed their sights on emerging markets such as Brazil and China, leaving a funding gap for the pioneer markets of Africa.
They are right that Fannie and Freddie were “too big to fail,” which enabled them to borrow more cheaply and take on more risk – with too little equity funding to back up their exposure.
The midday meal scheme – which costs India’s government about $2 billion a year, with additional funding coming from state governments – feeds 120 million schoolchildren in more than a million primary schools across the country.
Worse, the current regulatory treatment of derivatives and of funding for large complex financial institutions – the global megabanks – exacerbates this fragility.
Local-government funding, through the seizure and resale of property, was reaching its limits.
Even without a consensus, however, there is a strong case for increasing funding for refugees, ensuring their humane treatment, and setting fair quotas for their resettlement.
Carbon taxes could play an important role in funding research and development.
Before that, a petition, signed by roughly 80 prominent British intellectuals and a few from other European countries, demanded the cessation of European Union funding for Israeli cultural projects and institutions.
But there is an important caveat, which has largely been ignored in public discussions: if this funding is senior to private debt (as IMF funding typically is), it will be harder for these countries to regain access to markets.
In other words, private markets need to be convinced both that there is a low probability of default (hence the importance of credible plans), and that there is some additional loss-bearing capacity in the new funding, so that, if there is a default, outstanding or rolled-over private debt does not have to bear the full brunt.
Why should the taxpayer accept a loss when they are bailing out the private sector by providing new funding?
In an ideal world, distressed countries would default as soon as private markets stopped funding them, and they would impose the losses on private bondholders.
In the real world, however, if Italy and Spain are viewed as being solvent, or too big to fail, official funding should be structured so that it gives these countries their best chance to regain market confidence.
This does not mean that official funding should be junior to private debt in any restructuring, for that would require substantially more loss-bearing capacity from the official sector – capacity that is probably not available.
Indeed, if official funding were junior, it would be providing a larger cushion to private creditors – and thus bailing them out to an even greater extent.
The simplest solution is to treat official funding no differently from private debt – best achieved if official lenders buy sovereign bonds as they are issued (possibly at a predetermined yield) and agree to be treated on par with private creditors in a restructuring.
As the country regains market confidence, the official funding can be reduced, and eventually the bonds can be sold back to the markets.
The bottom line is that official funding must be accompanied by loss-bearing capacity.
If the funding is channeled through the IMF, and is to be treated on par with private debt, the Fund will need a guarantee from the EFSF or strong eurozone countries that it will be indemnified in any restructuring.
The government will make noise here, but ultimately it will not risk the suspension of European funding and international isolation by rebelling against the European Union.
BackNext