There's a lot of work going on among investors & in banking, insurance etc to try and figure out how to manage "climate risk" in, say, a pension portfolio investment (or a loan book or in underwriting).
-
Show this thread
-
A lot of this is *complex*, because there's lots of aversion to outright divesting/exiting certain sectors (for reasons like diversification, or believing they can time the market, or just questioning the usefulness of doing so).
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likesShow this thread -
I have been thinking about this for 2 reasons. "ESG" is getting big now; plenty of evidence of this, plus there are dedicated ESG reporters (not climate, not investment) at most of the big business media outlets - even WSJ.
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
(I mean I think about this ALL the time but, hey.) The other reason is: the complexity of figuring out a response has always seemed *kind of* reasonable to me. Say you're a pension fund manager & you see industries in decline AND also not great for the future of humanity...
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
...but some of these transitions are inevitably going to be multi-year affairs, difficult to time, and even pension funds don't want to have a bad quarter/year in the meantime. And you're often better off losing with everyone else than winning alone.
5 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
So a lot of the investment tactics are kind of subtle, like weighting & favouring best-of-breed companies so you don't lose out on an entire sector (even if the risks are intrinsic to the entire sector).
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread
Wow. This is bananas to me. Thanks so much for sharing.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.