Home / news / World’s top three asset managers oversee $300bn fossil fuel investments – Data reveals crucial role of BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard in climate crisis

World’s top three asset managers oversee $300bn fossil fuel investments – Data reveals crucial role of BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard in climate crisis

World’s prime three asset managers oversee $300bn fossil gas investments – Knowledge reveals essential function of BlackRock, State Road and Vanguard in local weather disaster

View Reddit by MeteonocuView Source


  1. All 3 are largely passive managers. Meaning the investors whose assets they manage choose the funds whose assets they want to own, and the managers just try to keep them balanced according to some predetermined schema. They’re largely not making credit calls in these companies, and certainly not making ESG evaluations, unless it’s within the pre defined scheme. Active managers, or choosing different assets yourself, are your only hope if you want to make an impact in this way.

  2. Tbf though… is it not obvious that the top three assets managers would manage the world’s top assets? Oil remains one of the most valuable commodities in the world. I’m really neither surprised nor outraged. Companies that big are invested in other investment companies. They are so large that they become a reflection of the word’s assets in general.

  3. If you want to support sustainable investing, invest in ESG funds. A fund manager has a fiduciary duty to manage the fund as outlined in it’s prospectus and will only deviate when reasonably prudent. Many funds are passively managed and simply track an index which the fund manager is independent of.

  4. This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/12/top-three-asset-managers-fossil-fuel-investments) reduced by 92%. (I’m a bot)
    > The Guardian has worked with the thinktank InfluenceMap and the business data specialists ProxyInsight to analyse the role played by asset managers in the financing and management of some of the world's biggest fossil fuel companies.

    > The big three are among a number of asset managers that offer "Climate-friendly" and "Sustainable" investment funds that have substantial holdings in fossil fuel companies.

    > Many pension funds and asset managers support schemes to improve information about how climate-critical companies are responding to environmental concerns, including the Transition Pathway Initiative, which grades the boards of fossil fuel, energy and transport companies on their response.

    [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/dgu8dx/worlds_top_three_asset_managers_oversee_300bn/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ “Version 2.02, ~433936 tl;drs so far.”) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr “PM’s and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.”) | *Top* *keywords*: **company**^#1 **manage**^#2 **fuel**^#3 **fossil**^#4 **climate**^#5

  5. Most of this is passively managed index funds. It is just that [the biggest index funds](https://etfdb.com/compare/market-cap/) are S&P 500 and various total markets ETFs. They couldn’t divest from them even if they wanted to as they don’t control the underlying index itself.

    Now… if people targeted NYSE itself, that would be different.

    If the NYSE de-listed fossil fuel companies, they’d get removed from most of the major indicies that these funds track – the S&P 500, the CRSP US Total Market Index, etc. It would cause a truly massive sell-off.

  6. lmao, is The Guardian serious with this shit. These companies manage other people’s money. They don’t decide where the market goes or which companies are performing best. It’s their job to invest their client’s money as requested and judiciously and NOTHING MORE.

    I keep my savings with Vanguard and if they started playing games or going on crusades with the god damned fruit of my labors without my permission, I would literally fucking murder them.

  7. Someone has to keep gas in your car

  8. The Guardian doesn’t get it.

    **The stock market is an efficient market**.

    Probably the most efficient market there is.

    The strategy of “impact divestment” is ineffective in an efficient market. If some funds pull out of fossil fuels, it means P/E ratio drops below market average, which makes fossil fuels *more attractive as an investment for the funds that don’t care about ethics*, which creates an arbitrage opportunity and *incentivizes those funds to increase their fossil fuel share*, which in turn means P/E ratios tend to equilibrate back to market average.

    Vanguard et al have NO role in climate crisis, because Vanguard pulling out of fossil fuels would have almost no effect on new fossil fuel investments, because somebody else would simply take Vanguard’s place.

    The correct way of divesting from fossil fuels is carbon taxes, because it will make fossil fuel investments unattractive for ALL investors across the board.

  9. To everyone here protecting those guys, a question. Do you think there is a red line with investing your money? Would you be fine with investment firm investing into Nazi money or similar? Assuming it is more profitable.

Leave a Reply