We use cookies to support features like login and allow trusted media partners to analyse aggregated site usage.
To dismiss this message and allow cookies to be used, please click "Continue".



Twitter board

Follow us
  • More and more pension schemes are increasing their allocations to private equity, but will the illiquid strategy br… https://t.co/8l8TI75r9v23 hours ago
  • Border to Coast Pensions Partnership CEO Rachel Elwell tells Mona Dohle about the challenge of developing a common… https://t.co/nQZfFveQdzyesterday
  • Out now- The portfolio institutional October issue featuring our cover on ESG and fixed income: Breaking new ground… https://t.co/hnmwYclXS52 days ago
  • Friday View: ESG in fixed income: The new frontier - LGPS bolster infrastructure collaboration - EM Roundtable: The… https://t.co/zxvEKaZkoM5 days ago
  • Local government pension scheme (LGPS) pool Border to Coast has appointed the first external managers for its £1.2b… https://t.co/eBAbx0ubzJ5 days ago
  • "Investors seduced by the impressive growth forecasts for emerging market economies should prepare themselves for a… https://t.co/7nAnrL8s7t7 days ago
  • "New RPMI Railpen chief investment officer Richard Williams talks to Mona Dohle about restructuring the scheme’s in… https://t.co/T1Xgvnx6Y410 days ago
  • Friday View: Pension funds turning to smart beta - Europe's fund managers ready for Brexit - Master trust rules rai… https://t.co/wZS8qe41Ci12 days ago
  • "The UK leaving the European Union will have a limited impact of the continent’s fund management industry, a former… https://t.co/tel0BRmGKX12 days ago
  • Pension schemes have had enough of high fees and poor returns. Is smart beta their chance of something better? Re… https://t.co/CzqPANU8D814 days ago
  • Read our latest roundtable where we brought fund managers, consultants and trustees together to discuss diversified… https://t.co/3TRGdybVwX16 days ago
  • Friday View: Lothian's alternative to pooling - Master trusts: The consolidation game - Whistle blower revelations… https://t.co/jbU9tbveK219 days ago
  • New authorisation rules are driving consolidation among master trusts, but what effect will this have on the DC mar… https://t.co/wQcgDpIvzs23 days ago
  • Friday View: Piecing together the pooling puzzle- DGF Roundtable - Royal Mail names pensions boss -LGPS Central sel… https://t.co/DPfZ3WUv6K26 days ago
  • portfolio institutional is launching a new series on LGPS pooling, tracking changes to investment strategies and up… https://t.co/Ld04PZ2TNK28 days ago
  • Friday View: ESG: What lies beneath? - Industry backs DWP's ESG push - LGPS Central CEO to step down - Railpen hire… https://t.co/S3knBieob033 days ago
  • Out now- The portfolio institutional September issue feat our cover on ESG: What lies beneath? -Interview: Railpe… https://t.co/x9EYxDVXEl37 days ago
  • Friday View: LGPS pool appoints CIO - Jack Dromey on cost reporting - TPR hires former FCA director - NEST issues p… https://t.co/aNVGQqK35Z40 days ago
  • RT @AonRetirementUK: How prepared is your portfolio? Read a write-up of the discussions at our recent event with @portfolio_inst, along wit…43 days ago
  • "Shadow pensions minister Jack Dromey comments on the need to set compulsory standards for cost reporting." Read m… https://t.co/vH1gGZBm1q43 days ago

Friday View: 8 May 2015

Climate change: the rational approach

By Ian Simm
Friday 8th May 2015

As we learned from the recent financial crisis, systemic issues can wreck portfolios and undermine investor confidence for years.  For many, climate change is emerging as a major systemic issue facing investors: economic damage from extreme weather and shifting climatic belts is likely to get worse, and governments are unlikely to sit on the sidelines.  Investors need to act now, developing a coherent, flexible strategy to manage the risk of intervention.

The “unburnable carbon” issue has become polarised.  Those advocating full divestment are seen by many as extreme, particularly as divestment entails the wilful avoidance of dividend streams and a risk of underperformance if energy prices rise.  However, recent statements from fossil fuel E&P companies to challenge the analysis behind stranded asset risk and/or downplay its significance have been less than persuasive.

Asset owners are increasingly frustrated, particularly if faced with rising stakeholder pressure to reduce exposure to fossil fuels.  Although there have been a few high profile announcements of wholesale divestment, for the vast majority, the default response is to do nothing and wait for further developments.

Polarised responses are irrational for two reasons.  First, recent developments in science and policy have had a major impact on the climate change issue, recasting it as a risk rather than an uncertainty, thereby facilitating the use of traditional investment management tools, particularly asset allocation.  And second, developments in energy efficiency markets have created options for investors to mitigate some of the risks implied by divestment.

Assessing the risk

Investors struggle to deal with uncertainty, where the magnitude and timing of a potential impact cannot be readily estimated, but are typically comfortable with incorporating risk information into their decisions, particularly the level of allocation to different types of asset.

For many years, the mainstream investor reaction to climate change has been that the science and likely policy response have been too uncertain to justify action.  However, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report of September 2013 reported a strong scientific consensus over the causes of climate change and the likely consequences for the planet of the current trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions.  Subsequent announcements from both the United States and China of specific plans to limit emissions of carbon dioxide have materially raised the chances of policy intervention.  Investors can now legitimately consider scenarios in which major economic blocs pass legislation to restrict CO2 emissions within the next decade, for example through a significant “Carbon Price” which will affect the economics of both energy producers and consumers.

Towards an investment response

Investors generally have three types of response to higher levels of risk: lower exposure to the assets concerned, reduce the risk and/or hedge it.

Faced with a material probability of a Carbon Price within a decade, a timescale that matters for decisions taken today, it is rational for investors to lower their exposure to assets that could be affected.  On the one hand, it is likely that the effect on today’s valuations of these lower wholesale prices is “drowned out” by myriad other drivers of prices, for example political risk. On the other hand, [as shown in Figure 1,] a Carbon Price may render those assets with a higher marginal cost of production “stranded,” or potentially worthless.  It is these assets that should be targeted for selective divestment.

To mitigate risk, investors should challenge the companies whose fortunes could be improved by a change of strategy, for example oil majors that could cut back on capital expenditure into high marginal cost assets, possibly with a commensurate increase in dividend levels.

Although the wholesale energy price is depressed by a Carbon Price, the retail energy price can be expected to rise (Figure 2).  By reinvesting the proceeds of selective divestment of fossil fuel assets into energy efficiency related business opportunities, investors not only hedge the risk that they miss out on future energy price rises, but also create exposure to energy prices that should increase in line with government intervention to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Divestment in practice

Taking a risk-analysis approach to the impact of future climate change policy, investors may rationally decide to reduce their exposure to fossil fuel assets rather than full divestment.  We recommend that a plan of action includes four components.  First, examine individual assets to determine their marginal cost of production (and thereby their potential exposure to Carbon Pricing); this is likely to be difficult except for discrete assets or for companies with high levels of disclosure.  Second, develop scenarios for the level of Carbon Prices and the probability and timing of their introduction; we recommend a simple model to start with which can be developed further as circumstances change.  Third, divest in line with the probability-weighted loss per asset, i.e. multiply the loss per asset in the scenario by the probability of the scenario occurring; this will be far from an exact science, so it makes sense to start with conservative assumptions, i.e. a relatively low level of divestment.  Fourth, consider reinvesting the divestment proceeds into the energy efficiency sector; this may introduce additional risks, for example exposure to the industrial capital expenditure cycle.

At the heart of this issue is the scarcity of useful data, particularly around marginal production costs.  Alongside their divestment plans, investors should request additional information from the companies they hold and consider supporting wider initiatives to persuade stock exchanges and financial market regulators to oblige companies to provide further public disclosure.

Positioning for outperformance

Policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions isn’t developed in a vacuum.  We won’t wake up one morning and discover a material Carbon Price has been imposed overnight.  Nevertheless, governments have a nasty habit of ratcheting up their intervention to solve important policy problems, so investors who can anticipate government action and take pre-emptive measures to protect themselves are likely to outperform.

Ian Simm is chief executive at Impax Asset Management


Leave your comment

View our comments policy

Please login or register with us to leave a comment. It's completely free!