Guest ayyy! by David Middleton
Shell investors vote down global-warming proposal
By Sarah Kent
Published: May 22, 2018 10:37 a.m. ET
THE HAGUE–Royal Dutch Shell PLC RDSB shareholders voted down Tuesday a proposal requiring the company align its strategy with efforts to limit global warming, signaling support for steps the company has already taken on climate change.
The resolution, put forward by Dutch activist shareholder group Follow This, won just 5% of the shareholder proxy vote. It called on the company to set emissions targets in line with international ambitions to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
[…]
At Tuesday’s meeting, a group of 27 investors with nearly $8 trillion under management put their names to a statement calling on the company and others in the industry to do more.
“We applaud the ambition stated…and indeed challenge all other oil-and-gas companies to follow suit; but we call for this ambition to be translated into firm medium- and short-term targets,” the statement said.
Signatories included Legal & General Investment Managers, Aviva Investors and UBS Asset Management, which count among the company’s top twenty shareholders, as well as the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the largest pension fund in the U.S.
[…]
Over the past week there have been several articles about this bit:
At Tuesday’s meeting, a group of 27 investors with nearly $8 trillion under management put their names to a statement calling on the company and others in the industry to do more.
So what?
When only 5% of shareholders are willing to vote for nonsense like this, who gives a rat’s ass about what a group of x investors with nearly $y trillion under management have to say about anything?
This post meets the approval of the real Arthur Fonzerelli…
Don’t have 8 trillion invested but I was one of those shareholders who voted it down.
Excellent. You invested to make money as do all investors. Green skinned zealots don’t seem to comprehend that.
Quite so. David does ask the question about who cares, but we should care about the “investment managers” that are pushing virtue signaling over making money for their clients. (Used to be in the industry; when I was, shenanigans like that were a fast ticket to SEC/NASD/State audit, shutdown, and appearances in court.)
Same here.
I’m seriously peeved by Shell’s continual appeasement of the climate nutters. I wish the company would just tell ’em to bugger off.
“Appeasement” and “Self destruct” are closely allied ideas, whether applied to companies or even countries (T. May, please note). The old maxim “never sell Shell” may not be wise much longer.
Never sell Shell by the seashore. If Sally sold Shell by the seashore… Sorry, I just couldn’t resist… 😎
If they were managing my money, they very quickly wouldn’t be.
Seems wallets and reason won the day.
Libs play optics…A million people demonstrated…..well, 325 million didn’t
The consensus was for the measure. Only 95% of votes went against.
lol ++
An Olympic race narrowed to two competitors–it was reported by the Soviet Union that their man came in second and the other coming in next to last.
So typical!
They tried the same junk at the largest Australian company BHP .. they got 18% vote. Most of the vote was couple of big Superannuation funds with very green policies and board (as it isn’t there money what do they really care).
The stunt was covered by the left wing press as a win in the same manner. Obviously 20% is a win in green/eco groups
https://theconversation.com/rio-tintos-climate-change-resolution-marks-a-significant-shift-in-investor-culture-95927
It would be against the fiduciary duty of the management to accept it. Doing something suicidal for the current business would seem to fit.
Elitist virtue signaling goes down in flames….Love It!
The 8 trillion ‘under management’ is at great risk if this is what their thinking is. Check and see if any of your investments are their management and shift it into another financial group. Hmm…97% of climate troughers believe in dangerous human caused global warming and only 5% of investors. Want a free evaluation of this kind of investment group? Look how activists have P155ed away trillions to no discermible benefit on a ‘problem’ that so far has yet to declare itself.
As long as Shell pays a 5% dividend there will be plenty of investors out there, including me, to take up the slack.
Well, they voted their pocketbook not the stupid.
A consensus gave us catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. And a consensus took it away.
David,
Love the “Narrowly” Snark
I love snark… 😎
Snark fin soup is ILLEGAL! – Emily Litella
Idiots. What oil company in their right mind would vote to put limitations on itself or its’ product for appeasement of an issue that hasn’t been proven? This seems like the new Progressive tact to get what they want. Like convincing white people they’re all racist because of their color.
Didn’t any of these clever people ask where the 2 degrees came from?
The usual suspects (eg. Guardian) are spinning this as though activists are holding Shell’s feet to the fire. In fact no institutional investors (even Norway’s wealth fund) voted for this resolution. I suspect they also don’t want shareholders setting operational targets displacing management’s discretion and accountability.
But the season of Climate Proxy Wars is just starting, and maybe they will get lucky with another target. A caveat from some observers:
“This trend, while relatively new, is alarming and it differs significantly from traditional activism. While traditional activist shareholders used the proxy proposal process to advance views that differed from management on what was best for the company, they never did anything that would undermine the reason for their investment, which was to maximize shareholder value. In contrast, the new wave of shareholder activists, have a fundamentally different goal; to exploit the proxy proposal process to drive wider societal change.”
More at https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/05/23/climate-proxy-fighting-season-and-first-result/
What gets me is that these so called investors, at least in the case of Aviva and Legal & General, are public companies owned by real investors. Have the directors of these companies consulted their shareholders before embarking on this action? Until recently I owned Aviva shares – I don’t recall being asked to vote on any climate related issues
Indeed; these companies (Aviva etc.) hold in trust the assets of their shareholders with a duty to maximise both assets and returns. At their board meetings they should asked why voted in this manner without consent.
Go to UNEP FI and read some of their publications and about their activities.
For example:
“Carbon Asset Risk Framework”, Published July 2015
UNEP FI / WRI (World Resources Institute) report.
http://www.unepfi.org/publications/climate-change-publications/portfolio-carbon-initiative-publications/carbon-asset-risk-framework
UNEP FI
Portfolio Decarbonization Coalition (PDC)
“Smart Carbon Pricing Policies Can Drive Investment in a Cleaner Future”, c.Nov. 2014
http://www.unepfi.org/pdc/smart-carbon-pricing-policies-can-drive-investment-in-a-cleaner-future
UNEP FI
Re: (TCDF) Taskforce on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures
Investment
http://www.unepfi.org/investment/tcfd
Above should be: (TCFD)
UNEP FI
Energy Efficiency
Re: Energy Efficiency investment, financing.
http://www.unepfi.org/climate-change/energy-efficiency
UNEP FI
Re: Shareholder proposals.
“Over 100 Financial Institutions Mobilized to Increase Global Investment in Energy Efficiency”, 2015, 4 pages.
http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/EnergyEfficiencyFinanceStatement.pdf
UNEP FI, 12 December 2017
Re: UN Alliance.
“UNEP FI, UN Global Compact and PRI Form UN Alliance For SDG Finance”
http://www.unepfi.org/news/themes/positive-impact/unep-fi-un-global-compact-and-pri-form-alliance-for-sdg-finance
Try:
http://unepfi.org/news/themes/positive-impact/unep-fi-un-global-compact-and-pri-form-un-alliance-for-sdg-finance
UNPRI / PRI Association, London, UK
PRI partnership with UNEP FI and UN Global Compact
http://www.unpri.org
And:
Gov. UK
Companies House
PRI Association, London, UK
Section: Filing History > Reports
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07207947
UNEP FI
Search Results For: Ceres
Supporting Institutions include: Ceres
http://www.unepfi.org/?s=Ceres
UNEP FI
Re: IPCC
“2009 Investors Statement on the Urgent Need for a Global Agreement on Climate Change”, 12 pages
Includes signers.
http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/need_agreement.pdf
And:
UNEP FI, June 2014
Re: IPCC
http://unepfi.org/publications/climate-change-publications/guidance-for-financial-institutions-publications/climate-change-implications-for-investors-and-financial-institutions
UNEP FI
Search Results For: Freshfields report, 2005
UNEP FI and PRI
Webpage has additional articles.
http://www.unepfi.org/?s=Freshfields+report
Al Gore also mentioned in another article on this webpage.
UNEP FI
Search Results For: Roadmaps
24 October 2016
Roadmaps include Australia, Canada, UK and US.
http://www.unepfi.org/?s=roadmaps
Al Gore mentioned in another article on this webpage.
UNEP FI
Search Results For: North America
Actions, activities, events, etc.
Also > Older Posts Pages.
http://www.unepfi.org/?s=North+America
AAAYYY!!!
(DM, any chance you can move my comment to the top spot? ☺)…
I can’t move comments… bur I might be able do do something even cooler.
Check out the end of the post…😎
What a bunch of dimwits. How the hell can an oil company reduce emissions in any meaningful way except by selling less oil? That’s economic suicide. I wouldn’t want my money managed by any investment company that couldn’t understand why this would be a bad thing.
Instead of money, they should pay investors like this GVC dividends — green vanity credits.
“Signatories included … the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the largest pension fund in the U.S.”
CALPER’s constituents are the retirees of the state governments. However this is not much of a risk to them, because the state’s taxpayers are on the hook for the difference if investment returns don’t cover the costs (and they don’t and won’t). So the ultimate losers on this kind of investment policy are the people who pay high taxes in this people’s republic.
So they are making a STATEMENT through the retirement system?
Isn’t that SPEECH?
Isn’t there a free speech violation of all the people covered who never licence anyone to make such statement?
Perhaps surprisingly, one of the votes against the motion was the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund who, despite conflating political virtue signalling with making money on an investment portfolio of late, decided that “…the companies are best positioned to set the specific targets in-line with their long-term strategy…”,meaning it’s not up to slacktivist shareholders to dictate how a company runs its affairs.
It’s not all indicative of the SWF seeing sense though, they still maintain that “…boards should integrate relevant climate change challenges and opportunities in their business management…”.
Jesus Wept.
“Gorebal”, should be “Gorebull”.
It’s the Gorebull Woemann what done it!
Shell isn’t likely be in the retail business much longer if they don’t get their prices at the pump under control.
Average US gasoline price: $2.96/gal
https://gasprices.aaa.com
I paid $2.59 per gallon for gasoline yesterday.
According to some experts I saw on CNBC, an increase of $0.80 per gallon will lower the GDP of the U.S. by one percent. A decrease of that amount would increase U.S. GDP by one percent.
The lower we can keep gasoline prices the better. It’s better for our economic progress and it is better for poor people.
I’d be happy to pay the average.
In central Washington State, the price is usually 7% higher — regular today was $3.18 to $3.30.
We voted for higher taxes just 2 years ago. There are many road improvements in progress, and the roads are getting better. That’s a good thing.
Shell, and others like it, are always higher and I can’t tell the difference, so skip them.
TA, it’s worse than that. If the average goes up 80 cents that would be mega inflationary which would trigger the fed to raise interest rates. That in turn would commence our next recession. (all one need do is look at what happened a decade ago) Inflation already stands at 2.5% in this high growth economy. Too much more and it’s bye, bye economy…
(don’t listen to dem experts on CNBC, listen to da fonz… ☺)
I think we’re paying around £12.00 per Gallon in the UK.
Price advertised in Litres of course, so about £3.00 per Litre, just cos’ we’re all stupid in the UK and couldn’t possibly tell the difference between a gallon and a Litre.
I also understand around 70% is tax.
I listen to you, fonz. You always have some good comments.
Asset inflation can’t cause general inflation.
The reason is simple. When people spend more money on gas, they have less money to spend on other things. The drop in demand for those other things means those other things go down in price and cancel out the increase in gasoline.
Only the federal reserve printing too much money can cause general inflation.
Thanx, TA, i really appreciate that. Not only has DM got my mug shot at the top of the post, but i just got a compliment (i’m all choked up!)
Marko, whatever the hell yer smokin’ over there, pass it over to me…
Just enough people who understand the importance of making a return on their investment. Naturally the gang will call for a taxpayer bailout of the mislead retirees. The Mike things change the more they stay the same
I don’t have a problem with companies with investors as the investors should know what the board is doing. In Australia the big eco company players are superannuation funds and they often don’t disclose clear and exactly what they are doing to the members.
The green groups love them but it’s easy to play the moral high ground with other peoples money.
https://www.smh.com.au/money/super-and-retirement/australian-super-fund-comes-second-in-global-green-rankings-20160429-gohxfo.html
Those people with trillions under management have a legal responsibility to maximise the returns on those funds. Investors in those funds are within their legal rights to sue fund managers who take actions that do not maximise returns. Such laws are pretty standard across the Western world.
In Australia we pay about US$3.80 (per US gallon). Should be about the say as US.
Our fuel is overpriced for one reason – profit motive. I think Europe is much worse however.
A large fraction of it is due to taxes. e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/930000/images/_933965_fuel_duty3_300.gif
Some politicians like to talk the green twaddle about getting rid of fossil fuels. But those politicians never get to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, who over-rules everybody except the Prime Minister. They need the revenue from taxes on fossil fuels, and they know it.
The profit motive is the reason why you can purchase gasoline at gas stations.
Your fuel is overpriced for 1 reason: taxes.
http://online.wsj.com/media/info-energybk0605-taxes.gif
We have a saying in Norway: There are only two things to be sure of in life – either the gas prices go up or they do not go down……
you should had been more precise: this include only specific tax.
All ordinary taxes that every business have to pay are in “price excluding tax”…
Yep. In 2009 ExxonMobil paid $25.9 billion in “sales-based taxes” and $34.8 billion in “other taxes and duties.” These taxes were accounted for as “Costs and Other Deductions” and subtracted from their gross revenues, leaving XOM with $34.8 billion worth of “Income before income taxes.” XOM paid $15.1 billion in income taxes on the $34.8 billion, leaving them with $19.7 billion in net income.
Out of XOM’s gross revenue of $301.5 billion, government entities received $75.8 billion. After expenses and taxes, XOM was left with $19.7 billion.
Government entities made $3.84 for every $1 XOM made… And XOM bore the full costs of generating that income.
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/11/115024/XOM_2009F&O.pdf
And this doesn’t count the billions in royalties and revenue-sharing paid out to governments around the world.
Sobering. “Legal” taxes on oil were almost 4x what the company earned.
And every one of their employees paid an additional 25-35% in combined state-local-federal-sales-gas-and “fees” on all of THEIR income.
But you still forgot those hideous subsidies to the evil oil companies! /sarchasm
Subsidies? Like only being taxed 35% on earnings, rather than 35% on gross revenue? 😉
In Australia the excise tax payable on both diesel and unleaded petrol (gasoline) is currently around $0.41/litre, GST is around $0.12/litre i.e. taxes make up about 38% of a typical current pump price of $1.36/litre. In 2016 Australian passenger cars and light commercial vehicles consumed almost 25,000 megalitres of diesel and petrol fuel combined, presumably this means that in 2018 the Federal Government will be pocketing around $13billion in taxes paid on fuel for passenger cars and light commercials.
In what passes for your mind, are you saying that oil companies in the US don’t make a profit?
Regardless, only a few pennies of the cost of that gasoline is profit.
Good to see the lunatics aren’t yet in charge at RDSB.
Shell did the smart thing and asked OTHER shareholders to vote. The non-institutional investors, not the gazillionaires, ruled the day. If I had money in a fund that was as foolish as those mentioned, I’d move it very quickly and loudly to something more sensible.
Those turkey CAGWers are going to try all the tricks they can, you know.
Royal Dutch Shell’s (RDS-A & RDS-B) ownership is complicated. Institutional investors own anywhere from 12% to 67% of the shares, depending on how you define institutional investors.
They may own those shares, David Middleton, but if they vote to do something that makes the stock price tank, then they have many shares of nothing. RDShell can be broken up and sold off to other companies. How many times have we seen this?
The point is that a very small percentage of shareholders of all varieties voted for this nonsense.