Sooner Or Later, Climate Change Is Coming For Your Wallet

Last week Gary Gensler, the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, made what seemed like an uncontroversial statement: “I think we can bring greater clarity to climate risk disclosures.” The SEC, he said, will begin to consider requiring public companies to tell their investors how climate change could threaten their business. That’s an important step, because for as much as we know about how the climate crisis is changing our lives, we’re only starting to get our heads around what it will truly cost you and me.

The oil and gas industry is already pushing back. Industry groups are stepping up lobbying to avoid disclosing their emissions, according to the Financial Times. These short-sighted attempts will unfortunately hurt our economy.

According to a report released in April by SwissRe, the global reinsurance company, the U.S. economy stands to lose 10% of its economic value by 2050 under a worst case scenario, where average global temperatures rise 3°C compared to pre-industrial levels. The SwissRe “worst case” scenario, however, is our current reality—one in which temperatures remain on their current trajectory, and both the Paris Agreement and 2050 net-zero emissions targets are not met.

To some, SwissRe’s projection of a 10% loss in 30 years may not sound alarming. But that datapoint can otherwise be stated as: The U.S. will suffer natural disasters such that it is not expected our economy will be able to recover from them. The prospect of suffering damage so profound that we are unable to economically recover is alarming. And it is not a distant future.

Scientists had hoped that Covid-related disruptions would produce a large reduction in carbon emissions. But the reductions were less than expected. The world produced only 6% less carbon last year than the one before. This modest response to an unprecedented synchronous global shutdown of economic activity puts the scope and scale of current emissions into perspective. To quantify the challenge, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that emission reduction ranges must be around 45% lower than present to meet a 1.5°C temperature goal.

Weather and climate disasters cost the U.S. economy $450 billion (2.1% of GDP) in 2020, the highest year on record. And we hold the No. 1 spot for the number of disasters year-to-date according to EM-DAT, a database that tracks disasters globally. We also know climate change has made most of these events worse than they would have otherwise been.

The mere 1°C temperature increase that has already occurred has contributed to new water shortages in towns across California, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. Increasing evaporation has also reduced soil moisture, which helps explain the $7 billion to $13 billion cost to insurers from the 2020 wildfires. Costs that will inevitably translate into a higher price tag to you, the consumer.

The future costs of climate change on the U.S. economy are uncertain, but what is worse is that they may be underestimated. Underestimation occurs because projections are often made using an enumerative approach, where losses are valued sector by sector and then tallied to estimate the total impact on social welfare.

In other words, current approaches miss cascading risks, problems that exacerbate other disasters in unforeseen ways. Global supply-chain disruptions are an example of why cascading risks are difficult to model—because all industries can be affected when businesses of all sizes as well as national and subnational governments are interdependent. Economic disruptions from Covid-19 provide a case in point. The pandemic highlighted the vulnerabilities of complex supply chains that are now ubiquitous. As severe weather events continue to worsen, the U.S. economy will continue to suffer shortages — not only from domestic disruptions to products like orange juice, corn, and soy, but also from disasters abroad. The regions that produce most semiconductor chips and rare earth elements, critical in computers, smartphones, aerospace and defence, and medical appliances are concentrated in regions particularly vulnerable to climate hazards.

The economic consequences of climate change are countless. Under the last administration, the U.S. Commodities and Futures Trade Commission released the first-ever assessment of the impact of climate change on the financial system. The 196-page report’s first sentence reads: “Climate change poses a major risk to the stability of the U.S. financial system and to its ability to sustain the American economy.”

The good news is that scientists, economists, and financial regulators agree on what needs to be done—even the oil and gas executives are on board. The key recommendation from the CFTC is that “The United States establishes a price on carbon. It must be a fair, economy-wide price… at a level that reflects the true social cost of those emissions.” The authors go further, stating that “a carbon price is the single most important step to manage climate risk and drive the appropriate allocation of capital.” The SEC’s moves toward mandatory climate risk disclosures are first steps on that path.

But if you’re not in a position to influence the risk calculus of public companies, there is something else you can do. You can buy insurance. The IMF’s researchers find that insurance penetration is a top factor in determining the resilience of a country to the impact of climate change. Yes, it might cost you a little more than you expected to spend this year. But climate change is coming for your wallet sooner or later.

About the authors: Jennifer R. Marlon is a research scientist at Yale University’s School of the Environment. Bianca Taylor is founder of Tourmaline Group and a member of the Bretton Woods Committee. The two are public voices fellows of the OpEd Project and the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

After years in the doldrums, European banks have cleaned up their balance sheets, cut costs and started earning more on loans.

The result: Stock prices have surged and lenders are preparing to hand back some $130 billion to shareholders this year. Even dealmaking within the sector, long a taboo topic, is back, with BBVA of Spain resurrecting an approach for smaller rival Sabadell .

The resurgence is enriching a small group of hedge funds and others who started building contrarian bets on European lenders when they were out of favour. Beneficiaries include hedge-fund firms such as Basswood Capital Management and so-called value investors such as Pzena Investment Management and Smead Capital Management.

It is also bringing in new investors, enticed by still-depressed share prices and promising payouts.

“There’s still a lot of juice left to squeeze,” said Bennett Lindenbaum, co-founder of Basswood, a hedge-fund firm based in New York that focuses on the financial sector.

Basswood began accumulating positions around 2018. European banks were plagued by issues including political turmoil in Italy and money-laundering scandals . Meanwhile, negative interest rates had hammered profits.

Still, Basswood’s team figured valuations were cheap, lenders had shored up capital and interest rates wouldn’t stay negative forever. The firm set up a European office and scooped up stock in banks such as Deutsche Bank , UniCredit and BNP Paribas .

Fast forward to 2024, and European banking stocks are largely beating big U.S. banks this year. Shares in many, such as Germany’s largest lender Deutsche Bank , have hit multiyear highs .

A long-only version of Basswood’s European banks and financials strategy—which doesn’t bet on stocks falling—has returned approximately 18% on an annualised basis since it was launched in 2021, before fees and expenses, Lindenbaum said.

The industry’s turnaround reflects years spent cutting costs and jettisoning bad loans, plus tougher operating rules that lifted capital levels. That meant banks were primed to profit when benchmark interest rates turned positive in 2022.

On a key measure of profitability, return on equity, the continent’s 20 largest banks overtook U.S. counterparts last year for the first time in more than a decade, Deutsche Bank analysts say.

Reflecting their improved health, European banks could spend almost as much as 120 billion euros, or nearly $130 billion, on dividends and share buybacks this year, according to Bank of America analysts.

If bank mergers pick up, that could mean takeover offers at big premiums for investors in smaller lenders. European banks were so weak for so long, dealmaking stalled. Acquisitive larger banks like BBVA could reap the rewards of greater scale and cost efficiencies, assuming they don’t overpay.

“European banks, in general, are cheaper, better capitalised, more profitable and more shareholder friendly than they have been in many years. It’s not surprising there’s a lot of new investor interest in identifying the winners in the sector,” said Gustav Moss, a partner at the activist investor Cevian Capital, which has backed institutions including UBS .

As central banks move to cut interest rates, bumper profits could recede, but policy rates aren’t likely to return to the negative levels banks endured for almost a decade. Stock prices remain modest too, with most far below the book value of their assets.

Among the biggest winners are investors in UniCredit . Shares in the Italian lender have more than quadrupled since Andrea Orcel became chief executive in 2021, reaching their highest levels in more than a decade.

Under the former UBS banker, UniCredit has boosted earnings and started handing large sums back to shareholders , after convincing the European Central Bank the business was strong enough to make large payouts.

Orcel said European banks are increasingly attracting investors like hedge funds with a long-term view, and with more varied portfolios, like pension funds.

He said that investor-relations staff initially advised him that visiting U.S. investors was important to build relationships—but wasn’t likely to bear fruit, given how they viewed European banks. “Now Americans ask you for meetings,” Orcel said.

UniCredit is the second-largest position in Phoenix-based Smead Capital’s $126 million international value fund. It started investing in August 2022, when UniCredit shares traded around €10. They now trade at about €35.

Cole Smead , the firm’s chief executive, said the stock has further to run, partly because UniCredit can now consider buying rivals on the cheap.

Sentiment has shifted so much that for some investors, who figure the biggest profits are to be made betting against the consensus, it might even be time to pull back. A recent Bank of America survey found regional investors had warmed to European banks, with 52% of respondents judging the sector attractive.

And while bets on banks are now paying off, trying to bottom-fish in European banking stocks has burned plenty of investors over the past decade. Investments have tied up money that could have made far greater returns elsewhere.

Deutsche Bank, for instance, underwent years of scandals and big losses before stabilising under Chief Executive Christian Sewing . Rewarding shareholders, he said, is now the bank’s priority.

U.S. private-equity firm Cerberus Capital Management built stakes in Deutsche Bank and domestic rival Commerzbank in 2017, only to sell a chunk when shares were down in 2022. The investor struggled to make changes at Commerzbank.

A Cerberus spokesman said it remains “bullish and committed to the sector,” with bank investments in Poland and France. It retains shares in both Deutsche and Commerzbank, and is an investor in another German lender, the unlisted Hamburg Commercial Bank.

Similarly, Capital Group also invested in both Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank, only to sell roughly 5% stakes in both banks in 2022—at far below where they now trade. Last month, Capital Group disclosed buying shares again in Deutsche Bank, lifting its holding above 3%. A spokeswoman declined to comment.

U.S.-based Pzena, which manages some $64 billion in assets, has backed banks such as UBS and U.K.-listed HSBC , NatWest and Barclays .

Pzena reckoned balance sheets, capital positions and profitability would all eventually improve, either through higher interest rates or as business models shifted. Still, some changes took longer than expected. “I don’t think anyone would have thought the ECB would keep rates negative for eight or nine years,” said portfolio manager Miklos Vasarhelyi.

Some Pzena investments date as far back as 2009 and 2010, Vasarhelyi said. “We’ve been waiting for this to turn for a long time.”

Sooner Or Later, Climate Change Is Coming For Your Wallet

The impact on the environment will soon extend to the economy.

Shares in European banks such as UniCredit have been on a tear