Oh look! A cartel of investors seeking to penalize companies that don’t submit to fake global warming dogma just lost 5 huge investment managers - BlackRock, Invesco, JP Morgan, Pimco and State Street
From here:
The departure of five US asset giants from Climate Action 100+ assessed (citywire.com)
“Morningstar’s Lindsey Stewart weighs in on the decisions of BlackRock, Invesco, JP Morgan, Pimco and State Street to leave the initiative.”
These managers were part of a cartel called “Climate Action 100+”. They are all American, maybe their lawyers told them they are AGENTS of their clients and DO NOT OWN the assets they manage investments on behalf of those clients.
From here:
It is illegal for investment managers to manage investments belonging to their clients in a manner that is not agreed with the client and set down in an investment management agreement. This applies at the level of the individual – via pooled funds like 401k plans and target date funds – as well as at the corporate level for pension funds, and treasuries.
So, who or what is “Climate Action 100+”?
About Climate Action 100+ | Climate Action 100+
Here is how it describes itself:
“Climate Action 100+ is an investor-led initiative to ensure the world’s largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters take necessary action on climate change.”
Except investment managers are not the investor – they are the agent of the investor.
“Over 700 investors are engaging companies on improving climate change governance, cutting emissions and strengthening climate-related financial disclosures, in order to create long-term shareholder value.
The work of the initiative is coordinated by five investor networks: the Asia Investor Group on Climate Change (AIGCC), Ceres, Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC), Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) and Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI). It is supported by a global Steering Committee.”
Here’s the red flag – “CA100+ will seek to ensure equality, diversity and inclusion are reflected in the composition of the Steering Committee.”
Screw the risks, returns and fees – just make sure quota hiring is achieved using quotas that we pick”.
Sund familiar? “Get wok, go broke” springs to mind. Lower the quality until everyone is equal, right?
There are no doubt many other large managers left amongst its 700 or so remaining investment managers, but let’s tot up the assets under management of the five American es that left.
BlackRock – 10 trillion, Invesco – 1.5 trillion, JP Morgan – 3.7 trillion, Pimco – 1.5 trillion (owned by Allianz of Germany) and State Street – 3.5 trillion (SSgA)
The odd 20.2 trillion bucks – making up around 20% of assets managed by investment managers:
Asset and wealth management revolution 2023: The new context (pwc.com)
“Asset managers faced a tough year in 2022, with assets under management (AuM) falling to US$115.1 trillion, nearly 10% below the 2021 high (US$127.5 trillion). This represented the greatest decline in a decade.”
I wonder how much of that was due to managing investments based on the false premise of global warming and how much was due to investors simply saying, “woke off”? These sums do not include the assets of insurance companies manging funds “in-house” or those managing investments directly or the assets of banks, for example.
For a little more context, the value of assets under management in the US and the way they are managed is here:
2024 investment management outlook | Deloitte Insights
Which has this little nugget – note “passive” means investing in a vehicle that tracks an index – “active” means the investment managers is set a benchmark, a target returns above the benchmark and a risk budget. A typical investment objective might be stated thus “outperform the benchmark by 1% per annum over a rolling three-year period with a tracking error of 3% and fees of 0.25% per annum”. A passive objective might be “match the benchmark every year with zero tracking error for fees of 0.05%”.
“Open-ended funds saw AUM decline by 15% in 2022, driven by fund outflows and market declines.
5 For the United States, a large component of this significant decline in AUM was attributed to the decrease in active mutual funds AUM, which shrunk by about 24% year over year in 2022.
6 In comparison, the AUM for index mutual funds and exchange traded funds (ETFs) in the United States fell by 17% and 10% year over year, respectively, while money market funds AUM rose marginally by 0.4% year over year in 2022.
7 This decrease in AUM was the largest single-year year-over-year AUM drop experienced by active mutual funds in the United States since 2008, when the AUM plummeted by 36%.”
That comment was for 2022 – sme recovery occurred in 2023!
Onwards!
Please subscribe ten dollars a month or annually for 100 bucks. You can also donate via Ko-fi – any amount from three dollars upwards. Ko-fi donations here: https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan
Maybe good old fashioned survival and greed will be the saving of us yet
Blackrock is sometimes credited as managing 30 trillion plus. I’d certainly think that they were in that category. But they are scum and the sooner their trillions are removed from them the better.