Connect with us

Investment

Stay or sell? The US$110-trillion investment industry gets tougher on climate – Financial Post

Published

 on


Some asset managers are tiring of quiet conversations with companies about emissions and are now threatening to divest

Article content

As COVID-19 ripped through the world in 2020, a cluster of senior figures at Aviva Investors, the £262 billion U.K. asset manager, held a series of virtual meetings over the course of six months to discuss the other big issue looming over their portfolios: climate change.

Advertisement

Article content

Concerned that global warming would hit the long-term valuations of companies, the group decided on a rare course of action for a big asset manager. Aviva Investors warned about 30 fossil fuel intensive companies that if they failed to take radical action to slash their emissions, it would sell out across its equities and fixed income portfolios within one to three years.

It was a bold move that dramatized a growing dispute within the US$110 trillion investment industry.

Many big asset managers still routinely dismiss divestment, arguing it is better to stay invested and try to alter corporate behaviour through background conversations with companies.

However, there are a growing number of large, traditional investors who are taking a tougher approach with companies over global warming, a change in attitude that could have huge ramifications for businesses around the world.

Advertisement

Article content

Big investors including the Netherlands Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP one of the world’s largest pension funds, and Norway’s oil fund, the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, have announced divestment plans.

At the same time, some of the investors who remain as shareholders are willing to adopt more confrontational tactics — most notably, the successful campaign by an activist investor to join the board of ExxonMobil Corp.

The shift comes as the investors are under pressure from clients, regulators and the public to use their power as shareholders to police companies’ climate change efforts.

An approach where you have perpetual engagement with no real change at a corporate level will be untenable

Mirza Baig

Colin Baines, investment engagement manager at Friends Provident Foundation, which lobbies for responsible investment, says that in order to cut emissions, many asset managers will have to rethink how they interact with companies.

Advertisement

Article content

Mirza Baig, global head of environmental, social and governance investments at Aviva Investors, who was involved in the discussions, predicts that more asset managers will consider tools such as divestment as the investment industry comes under pressure to prove it is taking climate change seriously.

“An approach where you have perpetual engagement with no real change at a corporate level will be untenable,” Baig suggests, adding that the current “softer approach to engagement” favoured by the investment industry is not delivering the results needed.

The climate police

A child runs as climate change activists gather to protest outside of BlackRock headquarters ahead of COP26 in San Francisco, California on Oct. 29, 2021.
A child runs as climate change activists gather to protest outside of BlackRock headquarters ahead of COP26 in San Francisco, California on Oct. 29, 2021. Photo by Carlos Barria/Reuters files

This potential for a tougher approach comes as report after report suggests climate change could have a catastrophic impact on investment returns and the global economy if left unchecked. In August, a landmark report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said “immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions” in emissions were needed to avert a calamitous effect on the planet.

Advertisement

Article content

Earlier this year, BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, predicted a cumulative loss in economic output of nearly 25 per cent over the next two decades if no climate change mitigation measures were taken. Its research also forecasts big falls in returns for sectors such as energy and utilities.

Investors argue they alone cannot change corporate behaviour, with a need for increased regulation and government policy to force businesses to tackle emissions.

But there is a growing acceptance that the investment industry too must play a role in the transition to a low-carbon economy, especially as demand for ESG investing soars. A survey by NinetyOne, the U.K.-listed investment house, recently found that half of 6,000 individual investors polled across 10 countries believed asset managers should use their influence as shareholders to help drive a reduction in emissions in carbon-heavy companies.

Advertisement

Article content

Asset managers are also increasingly expected to prove their eco-credentials in order to win new businesses or keep existing clients. In the U.K., a group of foundations, university endowments and religious groups has rolled out minimum standards they expect asset managers to meet around climate change. Investment firms that fail to meet those standards risk being dumped.

Then there is the threat of legal action. Before it announced divestment plans, ABP had faced the threat of legal action over its investments in fossil fuel investments from workers whose pensions it oversees.

Groups such as Climate Action 100+, a coalition of more than 600 investors with US$55 trillion in assets, have also been established to push companies to change. Earlier this year, CA100+ said that 52 per cent of the companies it was targeting — which account for about 80 per cent of global emissions — had set net zero targets.

Advertisement

Article content

“What you can see with the CA100+ outcomes…is that engagement can be impactful,” says Carola van Lamoen, head of sustainable investing at Robeco, the Dutch asset manager.

There has been very little playing chess like a chess champion

Ben Caldecott

But the CA100+ data also reveals the extent to which those net zero ambitions often lack substance. Only around one quarter of companies had included their most material so-called Scope 3 emissions — the emissions from their customers.

Moira Birss, climate and finance director at Amazon Watch, the U.S. environmental group, says thanks in part to “toothless” engagement from asset managers, many of the net zero commitments made by companies are “extremely vague or do little to nothing to address the need to rapidly wind down fossil fuels”.

“We need to see way more action from the fund industry,” she adds.

Advertisement

Article content

This is backed up by research. A study by academics at Edhec Business School found that while institutional investors claim they are actively engaging with companies on climate issues, this is not followed by an actual decrease in the carbon footprint of those businesses. “(Investors) are unlikely to play a major role in the low carbon transition unless their active ownership becomes more effective,” the authors wrote.

Ben Caldecott, director of the sustainable finance program at the University of Oxford Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, says one of the problems with the current model of engagement favoured by the investment industry is that few asset managers have a long-term plan around how to interact with businesses over climate change.

Advertisement

Article content

“There has been very little playing chess like a chess champion, where (asset managers are) thinking several moves ahead and coming up with proper strategies,” he says. “Very few are thinking about all the levers they have available.”

These levers include backing greener companies and projects, as well as tools such as divestment and shareholder activism, including filing resolutions at annual meetings, he says.

Divestment and activism

An Exxon Mobil Corp. gas station in Falls Church, Virginia on April 28, 2020.
An Exxon Mobil Corp. gas station in Falls Church, Virginia on April 28, 2020. Photo by Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg files

The divestment movement traces its roots back to religious groups and foundations, which typically shunned stocks for ethical reasons. In recent years, swaths of university endowments, religious groups and foundations around the world have committed to divest from some fossil fuel intensive companies, but big asset managers and pension funds have been slower to react.

Advertisement

Article content

A report by Reclaim Finance, a non-profit, this year found that fewer than half of the world’s 29 biggest asset managers had a policy to limit coal investments, considered one of the most polluting fossil fuels, let alone other carbon-intensive industries.

Many asset managers argue that divestment will not change corporate behaviour. “A lot of investors still feel that in order to influence a company you have to be invested in it,” says Stephanie Pfeifer, chief executive of Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, one of the groups behind CA100+.

Others argue that by selling out too early on climate grounds, investors could miss out on strong returns over the next few years. In October the FT reported that hedge funds were swooping in to buy up the shares of unloved oil and gas companies, making big profits in the process.

Advertisement

Article content

There are also concerns that the shares of the biggest polluters could end up in the hands of less diligent investors, who care little about the global ramifications of climate change. “I’m not convinced that divesting because of climate will solve the issue. There will be people willing to take those shares forever,” says Sébastien Thévoux-Chabuel, a fund manager at Comgest, the French asset manager.

Many asset managers have also been reluctant to get behind shareholder activism around climate change, such as by voting for resolutions calling for companies to set climate transition plans. As recently as 2017, BlackRock regularly argued that it preferred discussing climate change privately with companies, rather than publicly voting for climate resolutions that boards were unsupportive of. Even now, few asset managers co-file resolutions around climate change at annual meetings.

Advertisement

Article content

If it can happen at Exxon it can happen to any of them

Bess Joffe

One sign that this could be starting to change is the activist campaign such at Exxon undertaken by Engine No. 1, a small hedge fund.

Despite owning just 0.02 per cent of the shares, Engine No. 1 managed to win over shareholders to support its efforts to overhaul the oil major’s board, with a mandate to prepare it for a future free of fossil fuels.

Al Gore, the former U.S. vice-president and co-founder of sustainable asset manager Generation Investment Management, said the fact that Exxon was now reviewing its investments in hydrocarbons was a “direct result” of Engine No. 1’s campaign, describing the activist’s success as “thrilling”.

But he added that these types of campaigns are “not for the faint hearted”, requiring a lot of time, effort and money. The U.S. hedge fund is estimated to have spent US$12.5 million on the battle at Exxon, as well as dedicating months to the campaign — something few investors could afford to do with a single stock.

Advertisement

Article content

Still others have been inspired by Engine No. 1. “We are looking at how we can work with other asset owners to do more (like this),” says Bess Joffe, head of responsible investment at Church Commissioners for England, which manage the CofE’s investment fund and backed Engine No 1. “We see a lot of potential for…activist stewardship to play an increasing role.”

Describing Engine No. 1 as the “little engine that could”, Joffe says companies need to wake up to the fact that they could be the next target of an effective shareholder climate campaign. “If it can happen at Exxon it can happen to any of them. We will leverage that in future in conversations with other companies.”

Tougher times for companies

Cary Krosinsky, a lecturer at Yale and Brown universities, says that both selling out and activism have problems when they are conducted in isolation. “(Divestment) is largely a waste of time,” he says, while activism can be expensive.

Advertisement

Article content

Yet he also argues that selling out of stocks might form part of a tougher approach that is based on a “carrot on a stick” effort. “(What is) not useful is a 10-year (engagement) campaign that leads to little or no change,” he says. If a period of engagement ends with no progress, deciding to ditch a company might make sense, he argues. “That’s not divestment, that’s a sell discipline.”

David Blood, who co-founded Generation with Gore, says that passive giants such BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street Global Advisors will have a harder time divesting. “(They) don’t have a choice until you change the index or you decide to get your clients’ approval to deviate from the benchmark,” he said. “They have to ramp up their engagement efforts quite significantly.”

Advertisement

Article content

But active managers must vote with their wallets, says Blood: “You can have engagement for a while but unless you have a clear and present commitment to divest, your engagement isn’t credible. I don’t think you have decades to work with companies, I think you have a couple of years.”

Catherine Howarth, chief executive of ShareAction, a charity that promotes responsible investment, says investors have an obligation to manage both financial and systemic risk, adding that “high-quality shareholder activism” or divestment can help in this process. “If you just engage and there is never any sanction for the company, you’ll never sell, then management will just continue on doing what they are doing,” she says. “I think we are going to see more divestment and bold activism in the next 12 months.”

Advertisement

Article content

Even investors who are big advocates of engagement are increasingly weighing up divestment and increased activism. Earlier this year, Robeco rolled out a new climate engagement programme that included an option to divest.

“Exclusions are a means of last resort. We prefer engagement over exclusions,” says Van Lamoen. “(But) if there is a lack of commitment, then we could opt for divestment.”

  1. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault at COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland on Nov. 2, 2021.

    More than two-third of Canadians support the federal government’s climate policy announcements: poll

  2. Mark Carney.

    ‘Greenwashing’: Do the maths on Mark Carney’s US$130-trillion net zero pledge stack up?

  3. An open pit at Glencore Plc's Bulga Coal operations near Singleton, Australia, on Oct. 3, 2015.

    Coal miners become surprising winners from energy market turmoil

New York State Common Retirement Fund, one of the U.S.’s biggest public pension plans, is doing similar. It has dumped 22 coal stocks after a long assessment process and is currently reviewing its investments in shale oil and gas companies.

Advertisement

Article content

The Church of England too is ditching stocks over climate concerns, even if Joffe says she believes that “having a seat at the table” is generally more effective. Last year, the church’s two investment bodies restricted investments in companies including Berkshire Hathaway and Korea Electric Power Corp over climate change concerns.

Joffe says a tougher approach, involving activism and divestment, “will have to become more mainstream”, especially if asset managers and asset owners are to meet their net zero commitments.

For companies, this means a tougher time from shareholders, says Tom Matthews, a partner who specialises in corporate activism at White and Case. He adds the “narrative around climate change has shifted significantly versus where it was in 2015,” when the Paris agreement was signed. “We’re seeing companies getting targeted because they haven’t woken up quickly enough.”

As for Aviva Investors, Baig says he believes the U.K. asset manager will end up selling out of at least some of the companies it is targeting because they are not making progress quick enough. “We have to be bold enough to walk way,” he says.

© 2021 The Financial Times Ltd
_____________________________________________________________

If you like this story sign up for FP Energy Newsletter.

_____________________________________________________________

Advertisement

Comments

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

Bukele steps up El Salvador’s bet on sliding bitcoin; buys another 150 coins

Published

 on

El Salvador President Nayib Bukele said the Central American country had acquired an additional 150 bitcoins after the digital currency’s value slumped again, enlarging his bet on the cryptocurrency despite criticism.

Bitcoin, the world’s biggest and best-known cryptocurrency, is down about 30% from the year’s high of $69,000 on Nov. 10. Bukele said last week that El Salvador had acquired 100 additional coins to take advantage of the currency weakening.

Late on Friday, Bukele announced the government had stepped into the market again.

“El Salvador just bought the dip! 150 coins at an average USD price of ~$48,670,” Bukele wrote on Twitter.

Until Nov. 26, El Salvador had 1,220 bitcoins.

In September El Salvador became the world’s first nation to adopt bitcoin as legal tender, a move that generated global media attention but also attracted criticism from the opposition and foreign financial institutions.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) said on Monday that El Salvador should not use bitcoin as legal tender, considering risks related to the cryptocurrency.

 

(Reporting by Nelson Renteria; Writing by Drazen Jorgic; Editing by Daniel Wallis)

Continue Reading

Investment

Trump's Media Company to Get $1 Billion in Investment From SPAC – Bloomberg

Published

 on


Former President Donald Trump’s media company said Digital World Acquisition Corp. has agreed to a $1 billion investment following the combination of both companies. 

Trump first announced the plan to merge with the so-called blank-check firm in October that would help enable him to regain a social media presence after he was kicked off Twitter Inc. and Facebook Inc. platforms. The new enterprise will be in operation by the first quarter of 2022 and plans to start a social media company called Truth Social. 

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

Gold Is a Green Investment. Owning it Can Be Tricky. – Barron's

Published

 on


Gold bullion bars


David Gray/AFP via Getty Images

Most investors don’t think of gold as a sustainable investment. Historically, it has required large amounts of water, energy and toxic chemicals to mine and refine. Mining companies have been accused of exploiting developing countries and their workers.

Yet gold bullion—as opposed to miners—is surprisingly green. Once fashioned into bars, it just sits in vaults, having virtually no carbon footprint. According to the World Gold Council, there are 201,296 metric tons of previously mined gold in storage. https://www.gold.org/goldhub/data/above-ground-stocks Gold miners increase that stock by just 1.5% a year—3,000 tons.

Two money managers,




Franklin Templeton

and Sprott Asset Management, recently filed with regulators to launch the Franklin Responsibly Sourced Gold https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse-arca/rule-filings/filings/2021/SR-NYSEArca-2021-73%20Pdf.pdf and the Sprott ESG Gold https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nysearca/2021/34-92506.pdf exchange-traded funds. 

According to its filing, the Franklin ETF will seek “to predominantly hold responsibly sourced gold bullion, defined as London Good Delivery gold bullion bars produced after January 2012 in accordance with London Bullion Market Association’s Responsible Gold Guidance.” https://www.lbma.org.uk/responsible-sourcing/guidance-documents The Sprott one seeks to buy gold from miners that meet its proprietary environmental, social and governance criteria in addition to market association approval. 

Neither Sprott nor Franklin Templeton were available to speak while seeking regulatory approval. 

The London bullion association’s 2012 Responsible Gold Guidance required gold to be sourced from refiners not linked to human rights abuses or armed groups, i.e., “conflict gold.” The association’s standards have evolved since then to include environmental criteria. Still, gold sourced after 2012 before those criteria were added could come from dirtier sources.

A 2021 open-letter https://www.globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/open-letter-lbma-concerns-responsible-sourcing-programme-fails-curtail-human-rights-abuse-and-illicit-gold-supply-chain/signed by five human rights groups said “downstream customers cannot have confidence that the LBMA’s Good Delivery gold is free of human rights abuses and not linked to conflict.”

The association responded to these accusations with its own open letter,  https://www.lbma.org.uk/articles/lbma-responds-to-ngo-open-letter-on-responsible-sourcing stating that it “recognizes the challenges that all audit programs face, and whilst no program is perfect, we remain committed to continuous improvements, and ongoing engagement with stakeholders in addressing the supply-chain risks.”

The new Sprott ETF should have a higher standard for sourcing gold because of its unique ESG criteria.  But its regulatory filing acknowledges that it may not be able to find enough ESG-approved gold, so that the trust expects to hold some amount of unallocated [i.e., non-ESG approved] gold at any given point in time.”   

All of which is to say these new ETFs may not be much greener than traditional bullion ones. 

Yet gold’s carbon advantages are real. According to one study https://www.gold.org/goldhub/research/gold-and-climate-change-decarbonising-investment-portfolios by climate-risk analysis firm Urgentem, for a portfolio of 70% equities and 30% bonds, introducing a 10% allocation to gold (and reducing the other asset holdings by equal amounts) reduced portfolio carbon emissions intensity by 7%, while a 20% gold allocation lowered it by 17%.

“The emissions associated with holding gold are frankly a lot less than holding equities,” says Terry Heymann, CFO of gold trade-group World Gold Council.

While bullion as a low-carbon investment makes sense, Heymann posits that the mining industry is also becoming ESG-friendly, pointing to the World Gold Council’s 2019 publishing of its Responsible Gold Mining Principles https://www.gold.org/about-gold/gold-supply/responsible-gold/responsible-gold-mining-principles, which the Council’s 33 member companies—including the world’s largest miners—have all committed to following. The principles support the Paris Climate Accord’s goal of producing zero carbon emissions by 2050. 

“You’re going to see a lot more use of renewables [at mines]— solar, hydro, or wind,” Heymann says. “Secondly, you’re going to see a move towards electric vehicles.” He points to miner Newmont’s (NEM) “all-electric mine” in Northern Ontario, https://mining.ca/mining-stories/goldcorp-electric/ which has a fleet of battery-powered trucks as an example of the industry’s future.

Yet miners have a long way to go to convince ESG experts. The differences between bullion and mining stocks are “night and day,” says Adam Strauss, co-manager of Appleseed (APPLX), an ESG-focused fund which has 7% of its portfolio in the




Sprott Physical Gold Trust

(PHYS).  “Gold mining is a very dirty business.”

A 2020 report by the Columbia Center on Sustainable Development and the Responsible Mining Foundation called the mining industry’s efforts to achieve its sustainable development goals so far “cosmetic.”  https://www.responsibleminingfoundation.org/app/uploads/RMF_CCSI_Mining_and_SDGs_EN_Sept2020.pdf Although she acknowledges individual miners differ, Perrine Toledano, the CCSI’s mining analyst, says that some miners “just cherry-pick the [sustainable goal] they want and then communicate on its positive impact.”

Could an ESG ETF tracking just the 33 World Gold Council member companies that have agreed to its principles be sustainable? Sustainalytics, one of the largest ESG ratings services, gives mixed grades to different members, calling the ESG-risk of Chinese miner Zijin Mining Group “Severe,” and rating it one of the worst companies in its entire coverage universe.

That said, those ratings could improve in time. “Every single one of our members is committed to implement the responsible gold mining principles, and I know that work is under way,” says Heymann. “We’ve got four members in China, and they’re all committed to doing this.” This March, Zijin issued a release regarding its “ESG Report to emphasize Sustainable Development,”stating  it continues “to improve our ESG performance in environmental and ecological protection, human rights protection, anticorruption, responsible supply chain and community engagement.” and that it invested 1.92 billion renminbi in 2020, a 51% increase over 2019, on environmental protection.

“Having some sort of [ESG] guidance is very positive,” Sustaianlytics mining analyst Dana Sasarean says about the Council’s principles. “If the world requires gold, I think it’s important to make sure that this gold is produced in the most responsible way. But there are challenges.”

Write to editors@barrons.com

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending