BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Locked
User avatar
yatesd
Posts: 488
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 8:19 am
Location: MD

BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by yatesd » Thu May 25, 2017 5:38 am

The Wall Street Journal just published this article today. I'm not asking whether you agree or disagree on this political/scientific topic.

Reading this article gave me some pause about how "Vanguard" can use "my money" to leverage votes on issues and topics that I may not support. This concept never really bothered me until today...I'd like to hear your thoughts on this potential issue and what Vanguard does to prevent employees from becoming "too powerful or influential" as a stockholder and how they avoid these kinds of conflicts.

209south
Posts: 459
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by 209south » Thu May 25, 2017 6:30 am

I haven't seen the article, but if it is accurate I agree with your premise...I invest with Vanguard because they are a low-cost provider of investments I seek...i.e. broadly diversified index funds. I am not interested in their 'actively managed' funds, and am similarly not interested in them providing 'active feedback' on issues like climate change...what's next, will a future Vanguard custodian choose not to invest in munitions companies?

BHUser27
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 3:07 pm
Location: A Midwestern Town

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by BHUser27 » Thu May 25, 2017 6:46 am

This is about investors asking a large corporation to perform a scientific study related to business risk. Seems like a good idea to me.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/201 ... risks.html
Two of the world's largest asset managers are strongly considering a public rebuke to Exxon Mobil Corp. over climate change at the company's annual meeting next week, according to people familiar with the matter.

BlackRock Inc. and Vanguard Group are weighing a vote in favor of an investor proposal that would seek to pressure the oil giant to conduct a climate "stress test" to measure how regulations to reduce greenhouse gases and new energy technologies could impact the value of its oil assets, the people said.

Exxon has urged investors to vote against the resolution.

If the proposal passes at Exxon's annual meeting May 31, experts say it would be the strongest signal to date that investors are seeking greater disclosure of the threats that climate change could pose to businesses. Passage would also highlight the emerging power of money managers with large passive investing businesses -- and their willingness to wield it.
Last edited by BHUser27 on Thu May 25, 2017 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TheTimeLord
Posts: 4706
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by TheTimeLord » Thu May 25, 2017 6:57 am

yatesd wrote:The Wall Street Journal just published this article today. I'm not asking whether you agree or disagree on this political/scientific topic.

Reading this article gave me some pause about how "Vanguard" can use "my money" to leverage votes on issues and topics that I may not support. This concept never really bothered me until today...I'd like to hear your thoughts on this potential issue and what Vanguard does to prevent employees from becoming "too powerful or influential" as a stockholder and how they avoid these kinds of conflicts.
If you don't want this to happen you will have to buy individual stocks and vote the shares yourself. Bottom line, with passive investing owning an ever increasing percentage of the market Index funds are going to have to become more and more involved in corporate governance since they are becoming the largest shareholders.
Run, You Clever Boy!

User avatar
jhfenton
Posts: 2177
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:17 am
Location: Ohio

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by jhfenton » Thu May 25, 2017 7:34 am

Meh. I agree with one of the commenters to the article: "This article is not about the threat of climate change but rather the threat of climate change regulations on corporate results."

If Vanguard were taking a political stance on carbon regulation, I would have an issue with that. But asking a company to evaluate and be more open about potential a political and business risk is not overly concerning.

rob65
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 1:30 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by rob65 » Thu May 25, 2017 7:46 am

The only legitimate criticism of index funds, IMHO, is how they will effect corporate governance. Vanguard, Blackrock, and State Street are the largest non-insider owners of most publicly traded companies. Will index fund managers hold corporate management accountable in the same way individual shareholders or active managers would? Politics aside, ignoring the business risk of climate policy on firms like Exxon is not good management.

Nate79
Posts: 1354
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by Nate79 » Thu May 25, 2017 9:04 am

If index funds want to vote at their holdings shareholder meetings I think that they (the index fund) should put it to a vote to their shareholders (us). Or if they want to publicly pressure a company like Exxon to do something put it to a vote of the holders of the index fund. How do we get a say in what Vanguard does towards the individual company holdings except to leave with our feet and go to another company?

AlohaJoe
Posts: 2563
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:00 pm
Location: Saigon, Vietnam

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by AlohaJoe » Thu May 25, 2017 9:19 am

Nate79 wrote:If index funds want to vote at their holdings shareholder meetings I think that they (the index fund) should put it to a vote to their shareholders (us).
This is, honestly, a dumb idea.

Vanguard voted on 155,490 proposals last year. Do you really want them to send you a 276 page ballot like this?

https://about.vanguard.com/vanguard-pro ... 2654330804

Do you really think anyone would pay attention to it?

If you own an international fund then you have to deal with proposals in 72 countries. Most of those proposals aren't in English.

Were you upset when Vanguard advocated about executive compensation?

Were you upset when Vanguard voted for (or against) any of the mergers or acquisitions that happened last year?

User avatar
William4u
Posts: 1250
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:02 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by William4u » Thu May 25, 2017 9:22 am

rob65 wrote:The only legitimate criticism of index funds, IMHO, is how they will effect corporate governance. Vanguard, Blackrock, and State Street are the largest non-insider owners of most publicly traded companies. Will index fund managers hold corporate management accountable in the same way individual shareholders or active managers would? Politics aside, ignoring the business risk of climate policy on firms like Exxon is not good management.
And not disclosing the business risk of climate policy (which Exxon likely knows about already, since they are not stupid) is to not disclose pertinent information to investors.

Similarly, the Pentagon has thoroughly researched the effects of climate change on how it might lead to destabilization and conflicts in the future. These are important factors affected by climate change, and all of it is important to deal with well in advance.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... climate-c/

Nate79
Posts: 1354
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by Nate79 » Thu May 25, 2017 9:27 am

AlohaJoe wrote:
Nate79 wrote:If index funds want to vote at their holdings shareholder meetings I think that they (the index fund) should put it to a vote to their shareholders (us).
This is, honestly, a dumb idea.

Vanguard voted on 155,490 proposals last year. Do you really want them to send you a 276 page ballot like this?

https://about.vanguard.com/vanguard-pro ... 2654330804

Do you really think anyone would pay attention to it?

If you own an international fund then you have to deal with proposals in 72 countries. Most of those proposals aren't in English.

Were you upset when Vanguard advocated about executive compensation?

Were you upset when Vanguard voted for (or against) any of the mergers or acquisitions that happened last year?
So good point that it would be very difficult to do 155,490 voting per year.

My question back is where is the limit for Vanguard and who controls what they do?

Dominic
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 11:36 am

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by Dominic » Thu May 25, 2017 9:42 am

rob65 wrote:The only legitimate criticism of index funds, IMHO, is how they will effect corporate governance. Vanguard, Blackrock, and State Street are the largest non-insider owners of most publicly traded companies. Will index fund managers hold corporate management accountable in the same way individual shareholders or active managers would? Politics aside, ignoring the business risk of climate policy on firms like Exxon is not good management.
Active management can sell companies if they don't like their governance. Passive management has to vote in favor of improved governance and sustainability.

swimfin
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:14 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by swimfin » Thu May 25, 2017 12:23 pm

This article appeared in WSJ today ( May 25 ) ?

What section and page ? I looked for it after reading the OP submission and could not find it.

puppies
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 2:37 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by puppies » Thu May 25, 2017 12:25 pm

Here's the wsj link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/blackrock- ... 1495704601

(it's the same article as the FoxNews one)

William4u wrote: And not disclosing the business risk of climate policy (which Exxon likely knows about already, since they are not stupid) is to not disclose pertinent information to investors.

Similarly, the Pentagon has thoroughly researched the effects of climate change on how it might lead to destabilization and conflicts in the future. These are important factors affected by climate change, and all of it is important to deal with well in advance.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... climate-c/
Completely agree. IMO Vanguard, and indeed all shareholders, should demand this.

xjz
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:13 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by xjz » Thu May 25, 2017 12:45 pm

This doesn't really seem concerning to me.

Fundamentally, investing in a mutual fund is giving your money over to some collection of fund managers on the belief that they will act in the best interests of your investment. Fund managers then purchase securities with your money. In many cases, those securities include shares of publicly traded companies. These shares represent partial ownership of the company itself, and can often include voting shares, especially considering there are jurisdictions where non-voting shares are not permitted.

One of the big draws of Vanguard (and more broadly, passive index investing) is taking the choice of where to put the money out of the hands of individual fund managers, instead preferring to follow a relatively transparent, externally defined list of holdings. This is only one aspect of fund management. The others (including management of the holdings' voting rights) are still in the hands of fund managers. They have to be, because there is no sensible definition for passive indexing of corporate governance.

So Vanguard takes positions using the assets-under-management power they have to make informed decisions about the companies they are investing in. As an investor, you are still free to entrust your investments to a different fund manager if you begin to have too many objections to the actions of your fund manager. What is the alternative? I see none.

ftobin
Posts: 999
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:28 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by ftobin » Thu May 25, 2017 12:52 pm

Dominic wrote:Active management can sell companies if they don't like their governance. Passive management has to vote in favor of improved governance and sustainability.
I would actually prefer it if passive management was truly passive on these issues and abstained, letting active investors drive the discussion.

Many systems work better when there are diversified inputs making continual corrections on the output. When we have a situation where there are effectively only a handful of inputs (the big index houses), we're going to end up with a similar situation two the US's two-party system, where inputs (people) end up fall into one of two camps. The outputs then become more like a step-function rather than a smooth gradient.

lack_ey
Posts: 5715
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by lack_ey » Thu May 25, 2017 1:13 pm

The issue here seems fairly reasonable, with long-term investors considering asking for transparency and information about long-term implications and risks to the business. That's relevant no matter the underlying challenges, whatever they may be. Maybe some of the other owners are shorter-term holders and management cares more about the next quarter or two and would rather not have this debate and disclosure in the public space.

More broadly, while many here want index fund managers out of these things, there's a lot of criticism of fund companies voting too much with management, not being proactive enough on corporate governance, and so on. For what it's worth, one Jack Bogle has long pushed for mutual fund companies being more active in this space.

On every issue, no matter which way they go, somebody is going to be upset.

An individual not seeking to support the fund companies in their endeavors could invest in stocks directly or find a different fund manager.

User avatar
Phineas J. Whoopee
Posts: 6656
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:18 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by Phineas J. Whoopee » Thu May 25, 2017 1:18 pm

The specific request to analyze and disclose a public corporation's business risk doesn't bother me at all, and in fact this example seems well crafted. If the corporation replies "there is none," then that's what it said, but to go further:

I think there is a point at which politics and corporate governance inextricably intersect. Both are about policy that affects a great number of people. I am not making any argument about how the two should interact, only that it's a mistake, in my view, to think of them as entirely separable.

None of this post is speculation about proposed legislation or future actions of individual officeholders, which would be off topic.

PJW
Last edited by Phineas J. Whoopee on Thu May 25, 2017 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bigred77
Posts: 1916
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by bigred77 » Thu May 25, 2017 1:26 pm

ftobin wrote:
Dominic wrote:Active management can sell companies if they don't like their governance. Passive management has to vote in favor of improved governance and sustainability.
I would actually prefer it if passive management was truly passive on these issues and abstained, letting active investors drive the discussion.

Many systems work better when there are diversified inputs making continual corrections on the output. When we have a situation where there are effectively only a handful of inputs (the big index houses), we're going to end up with a similar situation two the US's two-party system, where inputs (people) end up fall into one of two camps. The outputs then become more like a step-function rather than a smooth gradient.
I also would prefer for passive investment managers to abstain from all voting.

I want Vanguard managers to be the best at efficiently managing a fund that tracks their specified benchmark index with as little tracking error as possible. Plus I want them to do it while keeping their costs minuscule.

I do not want, nor do I expect, them to follow and fully understand the inner workings of every public company in all of the myriad of indexs they cover. I don't want them making judgement calls. I don't want them to wrestle with governance issues. I want that left to active managers who are free to (and traditionally have) observe management teams and keep them in line. Let Carl Icahn and other activist investors handle that job. They're better at it.

selters
Posts: 443
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:26 am

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by selters » Thu May 25, 2017 1:29 pm

I think it will be unfortunate when Vanguard and Blackrock own 30-40% (or more) of the shares in most of the companies in the S&P 500. They're already close to 15% and their share is increasing by two percentage points every year. Furthermore, the rate at which it is growing is accelerating every year.

My view is that it would be more healthy for the stock market if Vanguard's growth slowed down significantly. Ironically enough, that means I think Bogleheads should purchase their vanilla market cap weighted index funds from Fidelity, Schwab, Blackrock or other providers offering competitive expense ratios.
Last edited by selters on Thu May 25, 2017 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

EddyB
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 3:43 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by EddyB » Thu May 25, 2017 1:34 pm

ftobin wrote:
Dominic wrote:Active management can sell companies if they don't like their governance. Passive management has to vote in favor of improved governance and sustainability.
I would actually prefer it if passive management was truly passive on these issues and abstained, letting active investors drive the discussion.

Many systems work better when there are diversified inputs making continual corrections on the output. When we have a situation where there are effectively only a handful of inputs (the big index houses), we're going to end up with a similar situation two the US's two-party system, where inputs (people) end up fall into one of two camps. The outputs then become more like a step-function rather than a smooth gradient.
That's not at all the system we have had, though; we've had relatively short-term investors exert pressure for purposes that aren't at all consistent with long-term passive investors' interests. When activists come into a company and demand a share buyback, demand a spin-off of a line of business, etc., that isn't necessarily abut long-term value creation (and is primarily about the opposite of that!). I've been gladdened by the recent pushback from BlackRock, Vanguard, Fidelity, State Street, etc., to re-focus companies on long-term value creation after years of being too often forced to focus on short-term interests by activists. The big advisers have put real thought into how they expect governance and transparency to affect value, and the've been pretty clear with companies about what their expectations are. I don't equate passive investment selection with being content to allow management and boards to give less than their best.

iamlucky13
Posts: 673
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:28 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by iamlucky13 » Thu May 25, 2017 1:44 pm

Is Vanguard doing this for the sake of their index funds, which I can't make sense of, or for their active funds, in which case it's potentially important information for the fund managers, both in deciding how much to invest and how to vote their shares for financial (not ideological) reasons?

In the latter case, even if they are taking this action in a coordinated manner at the company level instead of each manager pursuing the information on their own (less efficient), they should still be accounting internally for the time spent according to however they track their internal spending, and it should only affect the expenses of the active funds...unless the finance world for some reason works different from the industries I've worked in.

User avatar
baw703916
Posts: 6640
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:10 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by baw703916 » Thu May 25, 2017 3:46 pm

Without diving into this specific instance, this is something that was implied in recent remarks of Jack Bogle in which he pointed out that Vanguard, Blackrock, and State Street collectively hold 21% of all U.S. equities.

--if their collective share gets a little larger, and they decide to work together, they could start tightening the screws on all sorts of corporate governance issues (e.g. executive compensation). When the holders of 30% of outstanding shares start twisting arms, boards tend to start paying attention.

--this possibility could lead to additional oversight/regulations/scrutiny, which might impact the large indexers' business model.
Most of my posts assume no behavioral errors.

Sidney
Posts: 6643
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:06 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by Sidney » Thu May 25, 2017 5:06 pm

baw703916 wrote:Without diving into this specific instance, this is something that was implied in recent remarks of Jack Bogle in which he pointed out that Vanguard, Blackrock, and State Street collectively hold 21% of all U.S. equities.

--if their collective share gets a little larger, and they decide to work together, they could start tightening the screws on all sorts of corporate governance issues (e.g. executive compensation). When the holders of 30% of outstanding shares start twisting arms, boards tend to start paying attention.

--this possibility could lead to additional oversight/regulations/scrutiny, which might impact the large indexers' business model.
Although if they are focusing primarily on compliance issues (e.g. disclosure) one might treat that differently than if they were focused on a business decision (executive compensation). Obviously at times, the area between those can get grayed.
I always wanted to be a procrastinator.

sreynard
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 8:11 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by sreynard » Thu May 25, 2017 5:25 pm

Not a big deal for S&P500 companies. They hire yet another compliance lawyer, some staff, a secretary, er ah, administrative assistant. Another few million dollars to write off their income tax every year. Just another cost of doing business.

BigJohn
Posts: 1397
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 11:27 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by BigJohn » Thu May 25, 2017 5:34 pm

While you might or might not think this is particular issue is valid, the potential precedent worries me. Sure, if you agree with doing this it sounds great but how will you feel next time when you disagree with what they support? There are all sorts of grey areas between compliance (or may be more correctly how you comply) and political activism. Once this starts, where does it stop? Will an activist board at VG or BR take their early success further as the years go by? In 10 -20 years will we need to search for a low cost MF company that also has similar political views?

IlliniDave
Posts: 2125
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 7:09 am

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by IlliniDave » Thu May 25, 2017 5:47 pm

This is an edit. I responded to the OP but after seeing more I realize my original response was due to misunderstanding. I am for robust oversight of corporations to protect shareholder interests regarding their investments. It seems reasonable that if Exxon has assessed risk to specific pending regulation they should disclose it. They should not be forced to speculate publicly about hypothetical future regulations though.
Don't do something. Just stand there!

lack_ey
Posts: 5715
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by lack_ey » Thu May 25, 2017 6:09 pm

BigJohn wrote:While you might or might not think this is particular issue is valid, the potential precedent worries me. Sure, if you agree with doing this it sounds great but how will you feel next time when you disagree with what they support? There are all sorts of grey areas between compliance (or may be more correctly how you comply) and political activism. Once this starts, where does it stop? Will an activist board at VG or BR take their early success further as the years go by? In 10 -20 years will we need to search for a low cost MF company that also has similar political views?
Maybe you're not aware but the big fund companies have been trending this direction of greater involvement for a while now, for better or worse. It's already started. Of course we're all going to variously disagree with some of the things done, or inaction taken, at times. Doing nothing is a position too.

This page has Vanguard's position broadly:
https://about.vanguard.com/vanguard-pro ... overnance/

Blackrock's:
https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/en- ... priorities

Recall that State Street Global Advisors (SSgA) was the one that commissioned the Fearless Girl statue (in front of the bull on Wall Street)—which ended up getting criticism from multiple angles as well as plaudits—and asked for more female board representation across all stocks on account of a range of research indicating better returns from companies led by more diverse boards. I haven't read the papers myself. That IMHO is much more overt activism and outreach.

IlliniDave wrote:I am for robust oversight of corporations to protect shareholder interests regarding their investments. I do not like the idea of entities like Vanguard engaging in political activism in my name against an industry in which I'm invested, which is all this is. All the data supporting both sides of the "climate risk" arguments are out there (unless Exxon has been launching their own satellites to measure the atmosphere, which I don't think is the case). I doubt any corporation has hidden data to trump what NOAA, NASA, and others have been gathering. As far as what the data means, Exxon probably is not qualified to weigh in on that anyway.
They're not asking for a research report about the broader effects. They're asking about how it relates to Exxon's business specifically, whatever that might be, and what they're doing and foresee in the future. That's about long-term business prospects.

As noted earlier, many have called for greater activism, not less, with less voting with management. Index fund managers have been blamed in both directions. So in the least there is some disagreement about how the money managers and underlying companies should be behaving.

User avatar
yatesd
Posts: 488
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 8:19 am
Location: MD

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by yatesd » Thu May 25, 2017 6:14 pm

IlliniDave wrote:This is an edit. I responded to the OP but after seeing more I realize my original response was due to misunderstanding. I am for robust oversight of corporations to protect shareholder interests regarding their investments. It seems reasonable that if Exxon has assessed risk to specific pending regulation they should disclose it. They should not be forced to speculate publicly about hypothetical future regulations though.
I agree...and the spin in this case is political. If BlackRock & Vanguard were lobbying for disclosure on the impact of alternative fuels, solar, etc then it would be justified. Climate risk (doesn't directly impact Exxon), legislative changes, cost of fuel, and environmental concerns by the public is a different matter.

Of course, never really thought about these issues before reading the article:

- What if index funds rule the world (or rule the investment world through voting shares)? Seems dangerous and comes with the potential for impropriety
- What if index funds couldn't vote? Also seems dangerous...would be concerned that we could get stuck with a bad CEO, board, etc. I like the idea of some representation.
- What happens if all shareholders of index funds had voting rights? I like the concept, but i agree about the concern for bureaucracy.
- How does a fund company keep any one person from being too powerful? Receiving bribes, wining/dining, etc? Avoiding controversial issues? Who determines a controversial issue? Scary stuff...

IlliniDave
Posts: 2125
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 7:09 am

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by IlliniDave » Thu May 25, 2017 6:27 pm

lack_ey wrote:[
IlliniDave wrote:I am for robust oversight of corporations to protect shareholder interests regarding their investments. I do not like the idea of entities like Vanguard engaging in political activism in my name against an industry in which I'm invested, which is all this is. All the data supporting both sides of the "climate risk" arguments are out there (unless Exxon has been launching their own satellites to measure the atmosphere, which I don't think is the case). I doubt any corporation has hidden data to trump what NOAA, NASA, and others have been gathering. As far as what the data means, Exxon probably is not qualified to weigh in on that anyway.
They're not asking for a research report about the broader effects. They're asking about how it relates to Exxon's business specifically, whatever that might be, and what they're doing and foresee in the future. That's about long-term business prospects.

As noted earlier, many have called for greater activism, not less, with less voting with management. Index fund managers have been blamed in both directions. So in the least there is some disagreement about how the money managers and underlying companies should be behaving.
Yeah, I figured that out, had already edited my post, I guess while you were responding. As I said above, if Exxon knows something about affects of specific pending regulation, they should reflect it in what they tell shareholders. The should not be asked to speculate about regulations that may or may not come to pass some years down the road or revolutionary technologies that don't exist yet. Might as well ask them to study what an asteroid impact would do to the business.
Don't do something. Just stand there!

BigJohn
Posts: 1397
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 11:27 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by BigJohn » Thu May 25, 2017 7:38 pm

IlliniDave wrote:This is an edit. I responded to the OP but after seeing more I realize my original response was due to misunderstanding. I am for robust oversight of corporations to protect shareholder interests regarding their investments. It seems reasonable that if Exxon has assessed risk to specific pending regulation they should disclose it. They should not be forced to speculate publicly about hypothetical future regulations though.
Exactly the kind of grey area between compliance/governance and politics that worries me!

IlliniDave
Posts: 2125
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 7:09 am

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by IlliniDave » Thu May 25, 2017 7:52 pm

BigJohn wrote:
IlliniDave wrote:This is an edit. I responded to the OP but after seeing more I realize my original response was due to misunderstanding. I am for robust oversight of corporations to protect shareholder interests regarding their investments. It seems reasonable that if Exxon has assessed risk to specific pending regulation they should disclose it. They should not be forced to speculate publicly about hypothetical future regulations though.
Exactly the kind of grey area between compliance/governance and politics that worries me!
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you ... I thought I was drawing the line before the gray area.

If a regulation has been passed, and say is set to go into effect in one year, and if it affects a company and they have estimated its impact, I think that information should be reflected in what they tell shareholders.

What I don't think they should do (nor should activist shareholders force them to do) is sit there and publicly speculate via what-if drills about potential regulations that have not been implemented yet but might maybe get discussed one day.

The former is a known change that is coming, the latter is a bunch of tarot card reading.
Don't do something. Just stand there!

BigJohn
Posts: 1397
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 11:27 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by BigJohn » Thu May 25, 2017 8:17 pm

Dave, in this case I completely agree with your assessment of where the line is. Others, here and at VG/BR, obviously don't and think this is a good idea. So it's grey not because of what you or I think but because 100 people will have 101 opinions on where the line should be drawn.

alfaspider
Posts: 920
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 4:44 pm

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by alfaspider » Thu May 25, 2017 8:52 pm

puppies wrote:Here's the wsj link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/blackrock- ... 1495704601

(it's the same article as the FoxNews one)

William4u wrote: And not disclosing the business risk of climate policy (which Exxon likely knows about already, since they are not stupid) is to not disclose pertinent information to investors.

Similarly, the Pentagon has thoroughly researched the effects of climate change on how it might lead to destabilization and conflicts in the future. These are important factors affected by climate change, and all of it is important to deal with well in advance.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... climate-c/
Completely agree. IMO Vanguard, and indeed all shareholders, should demand this.
The existence of the risk in general is pretty much common knowledge. But as applied to any specific company, I feel like you are asking them to take a wild guess. There are just too many unknowns about how climate change may or may not impact a company- and much of that risk is political. Exxon can't predict how future governments may or may not choose to regulate them in response. Not sure how this proposal benefits the shareholders in any material way.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41106
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: BlackRock, Vanguard Mull Pressuring Exxon to Disclose Climate Risks

Post by LadyGeek » Thu May 25, 2017 9:03 pm

This thread has run its course and is locked (topic exhausted). See: Locked Topics
Moderators or site admins may lock a topic (set it so no more replies may be added) when a violation of posting policy has occurred. Occasionally, even if there are no overt violations of posting policy, a topic (or thread) will reach a point where the information content of the discussion has been essentially exhausted and further replies are much more likely to cause distress to the community than add anything of value.
Also note that climate policy is off-topic: Non-actionable (Trolling) Topics
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

Locked