Bankers JP Morgan Warn of “Catastrophic” Climate Change

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

JP Morgan wants the world to act on climate change – but critics claim they are still “funding fossil fuel”.

JP Morgan economists warn of ‘catastrophic’ climate change

By Tom EspinerBusiness reporter, BBC News

In a hard-hitting report to clients, the economists said that without action being taken there could be “catastrophic outcomes”.

The bank said the research came from a team that was “wholly independent from the company as a whole”.

Climate campaigners have previously criticised JP Morgan for its investments in fossil fuels.

The firm’s stark report was sent to clients and seen by BBC News.

While JP Morgan economists have warned about unpredictability in climate change before, the language used in the new report was very forceful.

“We cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened,” JP Morgan economists David Mackie and Jessica Murray said.

However, JP Morgan itself has been strongly criticised in the past for heavy investment in fossil fuels.

The Rainforest Action Network released a 2019 report claiming that the US banking giant provided the most fossil fuel firm financing of any bank in from 2016 to 2018.

Rupert Read, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of East Anglia, and a spokesperson for campaign group Extinction Rebellion, said that the bank is “taken by some to be the largest fossil fuel funder in the world.”

Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51581098

JP Morgan were early carbon trading enthusiasts in 2008, though it all went a bit sideways in the wake of the GFC, when carbon prices in Europe collapsed thanks to all the EU member state governments trying to give their own national champions an unfair advantage, by issuing too many carbon credits.

If the world does act on climate change, banks like JP Morgan stand ready to do their bit, though this time around they seem to be backing a centralised carbon tax.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
75 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Charles Higley
February 20, 2020 6:06 pm

So, what evidence do these bankers point to regarding the devastation of climate change? Where? What? When?
Oh, look a squirrel!

The answer is NOTHING!

Reply to  Charles Higley
February 20, 2020 6:23 pm

They are, literally, “shaking the tree” to see what falls out, in the way of future customers. There is an election cycle in progress, and the investment houses want to make damn sure that you are made to be aware they ARE AWARE of the ‘dangers’ of not addressing ‘climate change’. It’s just, and you know this too, “Virtue signalling on a corporate-business-size scale” …

Curious George
Reply to  _Jim
February 21, 2020 8:51 am

I am not sure if I like bankers more than lawyers.

Luke
Reply to  Charles Higley
February 20, 2020 6:37 pm

The next time that they need a bailout, LET THEM FAIL.

Bryan A
Reply to  Luke
February 20, 2020 10:45 pm

JP Morgan were early carbon trading enthusiasts in 2008, though it all went a bit sideways in the wake of the GFC, when carbon prices in Europe collapsed thanks to all the EU member state governments trying to give their own national champions an unfair advantage, by issuing too many carbon credits.

Sounds like the EU was trying to pull an ENRON on the Carbon Pricing Scheme

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Luke
February 21, 2020 5:17 am

shoulda done that the first time
saved us al a lot more upcoming grief

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  Charles Higley
February 21, 2020 12:29 am

I think people are missing the game being played by the big end of town here, especially the merchant bankers and such like.

They are gaming the situation. Firts they go with the mob and chant ‘deadly climate change’, ‘economic catastrophe’ etc etc and withdraw/withold their funds from the non ‘renewables sector. They are then sitting pretty on the fence, maybe drip feeding and being seen to invest in renewables to attract ‘green’ investment funds.

The game? Just before the ‘renewables’ thing implodes, and they will be the first to aunderstand what is really happening thanks to the useless msm, coal and gas assets will be cheap as chips and will generate massive capital gains if they buy in ( surreptitiously via tax havens with Arab, Russian and Chinese silenet partners of course) . If renewables turns out to be a significant part of the eventual enrgy mix and just cannot be exited but must be subsidised by humiliated western governments then they still win.

These turds are professional investors. They take a % of funds invested plus ongoing ‘management’ fees plus ‘exit’ fees. Who do you think needs to count their fingers after doing deals wth them? Them? Government? Green activists? the rest of Schmukmanity?

Don’t believe me? Ever heard of ‘shorting the market’? Standard practice for the scume end of town.

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  Komrade Kuma
February 21, 2020 2:05 am

If you don’t think that’s credible, read the next post here at WattsUpWithThat

“China and India rejecting renewables for coal-fired futures”

There’s the reality check that the big end of town is totally aware of.

Reply to  Komrade Kuma
February 21, 2020 5:27 am

Good comments Kuma – thank you.

BCBill
Reply to  Komrade Kuma
February 21, 2020 10:05 am

That should be “these professional turds are investors”. They correctly believe that the public has forgotten the carbon fleecing of 2005 to 2010 and are testing the fleece to see if it is ready for another harvest.

TomO
Reply to  Komrade Kuma
February 21, 2020 6:26 pm

Shorting ?

In a way mebbe – foreclosure on loans would be the other tactic – drive the share price down and mess up the financials …

Greg Woods
Reply to  Charles Higley
February 21, 2020 2:52 am

I have noticed that producing ‘evidence’ is out-of-fashion in many areas, not only in science but also in political affairs….

Tish Farrell
Reply to  Charles Higley
February 21, 2020 7:57 am

Isn’t this about creating perceived ‘scarcity value’ (i.e. uninhabitable planet scenario) and thereby pushing investment potential of JPMorgan’s and The Nature Conservancy’s ‘NatureVest’ intiative i.e. commodifying environmental assets in order to ‘protect’ them and so save the planet:
https://impact.jpmorganchase.com/impact/sustainability/es-naturevest
See the video at this link

Neo
Reply to  Charles Higley
February 21, 2020 9:45 am

In the words of “Deep Throat” .. “Follow the Money”

This is a great way for JPMorganChase to make money off the panicked selling of their own customers

Gus Kernot
Reply to  Charles Higley
February 22, 2020 6:37 pm

In Australia we just had a pretty big wake-up call.

I guess you didn’t notice.

Jeff Alberts
February 20, 2020 6:11 pm

You’d think that if they REALLY thought there was a global catastrophe occurring, they’d propose the nuclear option. Literally.

Luke
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
February 20, 2020 6:38 pm

Did you get a bailout?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Luke
March 1, 2020 8:44 am

Not that I recall.

michael hart
February 20, 2020 6:15 pm

“We cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened,” JP Morgan economists David Mackie and Jessica Murray said.

They’re worse than we thought.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  michael hart
February 20, 2020 7:11 pm

LOL. Love that snippet. David needs to add that one to his library of video insults.

Nigel in California
Reply to  michael hart
February 20, 2020 8:36 pm

+1

February 20, 2020 6:17 pm

re: “JP Morgan wants the world to act on climate change – but critics claim they are still “funding fossil fuel”.”

They aren’t talking their book then, they are talking (what they think) your book (should be.)

This is S.O.P. They are in business to make money ‘servicing’ you, the customers. Meanwhile, they are making their own, separate, investment choices (which includes/does not exclude fossil fuels.)

Again, S.O.P.

February 20, 2020 6:22 pm

The politics and economics of climate science are weirder than the science of climate science. And it keeps getting weirder and weirder. Maybe somewhere down the road it will hit max weirdness and explode like the population bomb did a few decades ago.

https://tambonthongchai.com/2010/04/24/hello-world/

KcTaz
Reply to  chaamjamal
February 20, 2020 9:54 pm

Not so weird/

Same old, same old. It’s all about the bucks.

“If the world does act on climate change, banks like JP Morgan stand ready to do their bit, though this time around they seem to be backing a centralised carbon tax.”

Controlled and sold by them, of course, with appropriate commissions for all the “hard work” they will have to do handling all those carbon tax monies flowing into their coffers. Poor babies. Good grief!

Ronald Bruce
February 20, 2020 6:24 pm

Always follow the money trail look at who is making money out of this scam.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Ronald Bruce
February 20, 2020 7:28 pm

If you are sitting at the poker table, and can’t identify the mark, then you’re the mark.

J Mac
February 20, 2020 6:25 pm

“Follow the money!” becomes self-evident….

February 20, 2020 6:47 pm

It’s time to again ask “Why not coal?” Coal has been America’s energy source for electricity production for the past 80 to 100 years. It has a proven track record. The problem was “Leave well enough alone, it works”. There were emission and energy efficiency decencies that could be improved upon, but weren’t.
Today we now know that a coal fired power plant can operate and put into the atmosphere less CO2 than a new natural gas fired power plant. The energy efficiency of a coal power plant can be increased by approximately 14 to 16% bringing it on par with a new natural gas power plant.
America needs to look at it’s energy supplies and determine what is the best way to utilize our energy sources for the next 100 to 150 years. How can we get the most out of everything, so we always have the energy we need when we want it?

Reply to  Sid Abma
February 20, 2020 7:01 pm

Hello Sid Abma
Here is the problem with coal as explained by a real rocket scientist.

“So this is a chunk of coal (speaker holds up a large chunk of coal). It was also made by plants. It also contains carbon dioxide that was in the atmosphere, but the carbon in this chunk of coal was taken out of the atmosphere 350 million years ago. And since the Industrial Revolution, we’ve been taking it out of the ground and using it for fuel. The burning of fossil fuel, whether it is coal, oil, or natural gas, has released this very very old carbon back into the atmosphere a lot faster than the plants and the oceans can take it out of the atmosphere. Bit by bit it is moving the Keeling Curve up. 1989 was the last time we saw atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm. And it appears that 2016 will be the last time we see CO2 below 400 ppm”

Details

https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/02/20/nasa-climate/

Al Miller
Reply to  chaamjamal
February 20, 2020 7:16 pm

Dear Chaamjamal, you forgot to make any point- so what? We who research and think for ourselves have realized that CO2 does NOT control climate. Prove us wrong- we’re waiting through literally thousands of failed predictions…

Reply to  Al Miller
February 20, 2020 7:56 pm

Yes sir Mr Al Miller

Thank you for this well stated heads up!

Dr Deanster
Reply to  Al Miller
February 20, 2020 7:56 pm

Not to mention the fact that when that 350 million yr old Carbon was incorporated into plants, the CO2 ppm was in the thousands ppm …. not hundreds. So, we are putting the carbon back where it belongs ….. in the atmosphere so it can once again drive life.

Trebla
Reply to  chaamjamal
February 23, 2020 4:48 am

Dear Chammjamal. So this human who was concerned about the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere decided to build a wind turbine to deal with the problem. So he used a lot of coking coal to produce the steel to make the tower to support the turbine and he dug up a ton of limestone, heated with natural gas to drive the carbon dioxide out of it to create the quicklime to make the cement to produce the concrete to support the steel column to hold up the wind turbine. But the carbon dioxide had been sequestered by the limestone millions of years ago and he released it in a few hours. So he realized that he was no better than the guy with the lump of coal.

MarkW
Reply to  Sid Abma
February 20, 2020 8:42 pm

A solution that doesn’t work for a problem that doesn’t exist.
How many years has Sid been pushing this scam?
No matter how hard he looks, he just can’t find enough suckeers.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Sid Abma
February 20, 2020 8:49 pm

Why not coal?

Easy answer One million BTUs of natural gas is ~$2.00 at Henry Hub. Buy a turbine from GE or Seimens and you are in business. No scrubbers, no ash pits, no water permits.

It is also the real reason that the generators are not interested in nuclear either.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
February 21, 2020 12:57 pm

Economics of Nuclear Reactor (by “Illinois EnergyProf”) vs Nat Gas; Nat Gas plant gets paid off first, but a nuke can be shown to be more profitable in the long run (computed using recent year figures).

No one want to “Go the distance” with nuclear though.

yarpos
February 20, 2020 6:54 pm

From what I recall from 2009 and previous fiascos, Bankers cannot manage their own domain effectively, you know the domain they are actually supposed to be expert in. Now they want to lecture us about climate impacts???

ozspeaksup
Reply to  yarpos
February 21, 2020 5:21 am

anything that makes em a quid
no morals no scruples no proof required

February 20, 2020 7:05 pm

Yeah, monetizing atmospheric gases is good business. Too much of this: pay. To little of that: pay.

Hot off the presses, boys:

https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2020/02/20/two-theories-one-ideological-other-verified/

RockyRoad
February 20, 2020 7:13 pm

Carbon never ceases to amaze me!

It gives us life, food to eat, power for transportation, lights, and computers, and even the houses we live in!

However, it drives otherwise brilliant people completely insane!

Very dangerous stuf, that carbon!

BobM
Reply to  RockyRoad
February 20, 2020 8:10 pm

They’re not so brilliant.

Redge
Reply to  BobM
February 21, 2020 12:04 am

They’re educated fools or worse

William Haas
February 20, 2020 8:42 pm

J.P Morgan economists do not know what they are talking about. The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we have been experiencing is very small and is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So mankind does not have the power to stop Mother Nature from changing the climate as has been happening for eons. But even if we could somehow stop the climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the current climate. Most likely the current interglacial period will gradually end but the transition to the next ice age may take thousands of to happen as it has in the past. This is all a matter of science.

Gerry, England
Reply to  William Haas
February 21, 2020 2:56 am

In my pub quiz this week was a question on Nobel prizes. Out of medicine, chemistry, physiology and economics, which was the latest to be introduced as a prize category. I thought ‘peace’ would be in there but that would be too easy so the odd one out had to be ‘economics’ given it is generally bullshit.

Chris Hanley
February 20, 2020 9:17 pm

James Burnham proposed the process back in 1941 in The Managerial Revolution, historian Robert Conquest (2005):
“… The downward slope, unless interrupted, can scarcely lead to anything but corporatism. The only probable interruption would be due to the buildup of resentment against the system. That is to say, this etatism may itself produce the catastrophe from which it purports to save us. Let us hope we survive …”.
https://www.hoover.org/research/slouching-toward-byzantium
Brexit and the ‘zombie parliament’ in UK, the implacable refusal of so-called elites to accept the Trump presidency, the EU bureaucracy and torpid member economies are all indications of this trend and CC™ is the perfect vehicle.

Earthling2
February 20, 2020 10:18 pm

If they can just make a point or two on the spread for buying and selling the indulgences, then it is another cash cow for life. As others have previously noted…

Michael Lemaire
February 20, 2020 10:33 pm

“Catastrophic” climate change? He is a little behind. We are at “climate collapse” level now.

Chaswarnertoo
February 20, 2020 10:53 pm

Cui bono? JP Morgan, spect.

n.n
February 20, 2020 11:09 pm

Latent redistributive change backed by leverage and little more. Portends of an imminent economic reset, per chance a bank reconciliation.

layor nala
February 21, 2020 12:04 am

You have confirmed that JP Morgan are not to be trusted with handling anybody’s money!

Martin A
February 21, 2020 12:06 am

J. P. Morgan?

They are a load of *ankers.

Redge
February 21, 2020 12:06 am

The bank said the research came from a team that was “wholly independent from the company as a whole”.

Show your work

Ed Zuiderwijk
February 21, 2020 12:38 am

There will be great opportunity for a Chinese bank to finance fossil fuel operations globally.

One wonders what the US military might think of such a prospect.

February 21, 2020 1:19 am

Rupert Read, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of East Anglia, and a spokesperson for campaign group Extinction Rebellion, said…

….any old rubbish that will get his name in the papers and keep him in a woke university place.

February 21, 2020 1:52 am

rogerglewis
on February 21, 2020 at 10:49 am said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
A bit of retreaded climate porn to boot.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-11/jpmorgan-economists-warn-of-black-swan-risks-from-climate-change

Reply to  rogerglewis
February 21, 2020 1:53 am

There is every reason to doubt the BBC’s report on the new report, The BBC and Roger Harribin are alarmist extremists, there’s no sugar-coating that pill or indeed the same conclusion of Mr Monbiot at the Guardian. Jamie Dimon’s Report last Spring (2019) https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/PR-TCFD-1000-Supporters_FINAL.pdf This JP Morgan report is rather good Mountains and Molehills. The Green New Deal mandates zero net emissions for the US by 2030 for the entire energy sector (not just from electricity generation), and does so while phasing out nuclear power and relying heavily on carbon sequestration by forests. This sets a goal that cannot be achieved. At best, the Green New Deal is a slogan to galvanize support for change; at worst, it’s a sign of how little work its proponents have done. This year’s paper gets into the details of where energy comes from, how it’s used, and the de-carbonization challenges facing the world’s industrialized and emerging economies. Additional topics include the latest research on wildfires, and Trump’s War on Science. http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/JPM.2019.pdf There is every reason to doubt the BBC’s report on the new report, The BBC and Roger Harribin are alarmist extremists, there’s no sugar-coating that pill or indeed the same conclusion of Mr Monbiot at the Guardian. Jamie Dimon’s Report last Spring (2019) https://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/Corporate-Responsibility/document/jpmc-cr-climate-report-2019.pdf https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/news/# Mark Carney and Michael Bloomberg are photographed at the top of the news page of The Producers of the report the BBC are dishonestly referring to as JPMorgan, the group is independent of JPM apparently. That the Central Banking cartel is pushing carbon credits and a carbon-based taxation/Debt system to replace the current Broken system is undoubted, This is Green Washing, Clive Spash is the go-to on the impossible contradictions engendered in this new elitist fix to keep the rest of humanity in debt bondage. https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/about/# This is about saving the Big Banking cartel not about saving the environment or indeed prosperity. https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2020/01/24/163-tales-from-mount-incomprehension/ https://notthegrubstreetjournal.com/2019/11/25/the-incomparable-professor-smil-energy-matters-without-the-spin-and-the-late-professor-sir-david-mackay-energy-without-hotair-grubstreetjournal-grubstreetscience-grubstreetenergy-theexergist-th/ https://notthegrubstreetjournal.com/2020/02/18/wassuppp-diagnosisand-the-energy-based-solutions/ rogerglewis on February 21, 2020 at 8:50 am said: Your comment is awaiting moderation. https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/PR-TCFD-1000-Supporters_FINAL.pdf all off the back of this press release by the looks of it.

Adamsson
February 21, 2020 2:23 am

Well the original J P Morgan made his fortune with government help they are just continuing the tradition

George Lawson
February 21, 2020 2:28 am

You can bet your life that by making this statement these people have company profit in mind somewhere along the line What do bankers and accountants know about the science of climate change? They should shut up and let the hoax take its own course and they will eventually be embarrassed by their own gullibility when we are all still enjoying life as usual in twenty, thirty and fifty years time.

Alasdair Fairbairn
February 21, 2020 3:01 am

This secular religion is following the routes of the older religions. Beware the priests.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Alasdair Fairbairn
February 21, 2020 4:41 am

Beware the Inquisition.

DMacKenzie
February 21, 2020 6:00 am

Professional Economists know nothing about climate change. When Professional Engineers get worried about climate change, then everyone should be concerned. At present Professional Engineers are addressing energy conservation, building safety, manufacturing efficiency, product durability…all those things they have been doing since the invention of the catapult and steam engine….as far as climate change, they are worried about the economists.

DocSiders
February 21, 2020 6:03 am

One bit of evidence for catastrophic weather, please Mr. Banker (who were allowed to steal few $Trillion to fix the 2008 PROBLEM THAT YOU CAUSED).

Pointing at the sky and screaming has gotten old.

When are big time criminals like the faulty financiers (Derivative Bubble and Bad Loan Bubble makers) and Criminal Deep Staters like Comey and Brennen going to see jail time?…or the Gallows?

#RestoreJustice

DocSiders
Reply to  DocSiders
February 21, 2020 6:14 am

The Big Bank Bankers are Globalists. They are also partial to Socialism…for the proletariat. They get to continue to buy and wield power.

Too bad the drafters of our Constitution didn’t foresee…and draft language to dilute…the illegitimate power of Oligarchs.

AffirmativeActionMonkey
February 21, 2020 7:57 am

“Rupert Read, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of East Anglia….”

PHILOSOPHY? U. OF EAST ANGLIA? HOW COULD ANY SERIOUS PERSON ARGUE WITH IMPECABLE CREDENTIALS LIKE THAT?

Joel Snider
February 21, 2020 8:01 am

Funny how these big money interests are pushing this garbage, isn’t it?

Rhys Jaggar
February 21, 2020 8:35 am

Whenever a bankers’ briefing comes out, you must always ask what their own financial bets are.

Most briefings are written to drive stock price changes in the right direction for the writers.

Banks are driven not by ecological purity, but by making money.

Forget all the things in the report except one thing: what does it tell you about the desires of JPM in terms of stock price movements?

Brian R Catt
February 21, 2020 11:15 am

That would be the JPM people lending the money to renewables companies for a quick and easy guaranteed subsidy return at bill payer’s expense, and the carbon credit trading department.

Its a bank. Follow the money.

ResourceGuy
February 21, 2020 11:52 am

There are many disclosure requirements from the SEC. Let’s add some more on climate lobby pressure coming ahead of stock holders in the new crony capitalist branch of the Great Climate Crusades.

tom0mason
February 21, 2020 1:00 pm

So the weakest of the big money banks has been sent in to shore-up the sagging CO2/Climate crisis meme. This done now as it is apparent the UN client proxies are losing the plot, and as more science researchers see that CO2 is an innocent gas, and that solar minimum means something.
Who will be next to offer a catastrophic future ?
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank?
The Bilderberg Group?
The Rothschilds?
European Investment Bank?
Lloyds Banking Group?
HSBC Holdings (HSBC)?
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group?
Banco Santander?
Toronto-Dominion Bank?

Clarky of Oz
February 21, 2020 2:02 pm

“JP Morgan were early carbon trading enthusiasts in 2008, though it all went a bit sideways in the wake of the GFC, when carbon prices in Europe collapsed thanks to all the EU member state governments trying to give their own national champions an unfair advantage, by issuing too many carbon credits.”

So they didn’t see the GFC coming but now they can see the GHG. May I remains slightly sceptical of their forecasting abilities?

mikee
February 21, 2020 3:26 pm

We’re in the money! Pass the kool aid!

David Tallboys
February 22, 2020 3:54 am

You can get the JP Morgan report from the Extinction Rebellion site ! :

https://rebellion.earth/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/JPM_Risky_business__the_climate_and_the_macroeconomy_2020-01-14_3230707.pdf.pdf

Or something similar if that link doesn’t work.

Dennis G. Sandberg
February 22, 2020 7:51 am

European banks are over exposed on wind and solar loans. Now that Germany has convincingly demonstrated that wind and solar are unworkable the banks are understandably in panic. Renegotiating power purchase agreements and an abrupt end to subsidies will not end well for banks and bond holders. 2008 financial crisis here we go again and soon, very soon (IMHO).

Roger Knights
February 22, 2020 1:06 pm

In early January I posted following on another site, Seeking Alpha.:

“I just heard, on NPR, a five-minute (or more) interview of Larry Fink, head of Blackrock, which oversees $7 trillion in investments, about its recent annual letter to shareholders. It said that his firm would now filter investments (i.e., stock holdings) based on their sustainability, favoring and disfavoring them accordingly, and would not prioritize shareholder returns. He said he was doing this in response to concerns shareholders have been expressing for a long time about climate change and the need to do something. He also said there is a trend in the financial world by other big institutions to act similarly. Therefore, a lot of big funds are looking to window-dress their list of holdings to appease certain stockholders and current opinion.

“I now strongly suspect that this is the main force behind the run-up in TSLA. (Confirmation would be if other notably green firms have also seen a rip in their SPs.) ”

The lengthy BlackRock letter for 2020 is online at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjCvOPHh-bnAhV-ITQIHbcBBRkQFjACegQIEhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.blackrock.com%2Fcorporate%2Finvestor-relations%2Fblackrock-client-letter&using=AOvVaw1FZgC3ACBVF22f4bRMlYlN

The similar statement from Morgan Stanley, and the actions by other big money sources like Bezos, indicate that this fad has taken root there and elsewhere. It’s called EGS investing—Environmental, Social, (corporate) Governance.

Johann Wundersamer
March 5, 2020 2:22 am
%d bloggers like this: