Conventional investing wisdom of recent years
suggests holding a broadly diversified, low cost global index fund or ETF is
the way to go. This article on the Monevator site by Lars Kroijer is very good
and certainly helped to persuade me of the merits of adopting a simple strategy
based on a global index fund combined with a solid bond fund.
Since this article was published in 2015 and later
reading Lars book 'Investing Demystified' as well as Hale's 'Smarter
Investing', my investing strategy has evolved to incorporate low cost, globally
diverse multi-asset index funds. My core holdings include Vanguard Lifestrategy and HSBC Global
Strategy which together make up around 45% of my total portfolio.
I am now starting to take a closer look at this strategy as I
learn more about the threats posed by climate change.
The Conflict
The world is changing and climate change is
rightly moving to the top of the political agenda. In the US, public opinion is
shifting and the Democrats want to put a Green New Deal at the heart of their
election campaign in 2020. This is an ambitious plan to transform the US towards net zero carbon emissions over just 10 years. Large fund managers are pushing big firms to reduce
their carbon impact to comply with the 2015 Paris agreement. Even Warren
Buffett has staked $30bn on clean energy.
As the world changes, our priorities change and my
approach to investing needs to reflect these changes. Oil and gas are fossil
fuels which have been the driver of the global economy for the past century but
in the process we now find that it has been a big factor in global warming. For
much of the 20th century, just five big oil companies - Exxon Mobil, Chevron,
Shell, TOTAL and BP - have been responsible for up to 20% of global oil and gas
production although their dominance is beginning to fade.
These oil majors are gearing up to expand
production and will always lobby hard via their trade associations to block
attempts to limit global CO2 emissions. However, the IPCC say oil and gas
production needs to fall by around 20% by 2030 and by around 55% by 2050.
In the UK, capacity for renewable energy has trippled in the past 5 years and in 2018, it overtook fossil fuel for the first time.
The climate science is convincing. We need to
limit global temperatures to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels to avoid some
very unpleasant consequences. One way to do this would be to quickly reduce our
dependence on fossil fuels and move to clean energy such as wind and solar.
In 2016, Morgan Stanley warned investors that long term investment in fossil fuels could turn out to be a poor decision "Investors cannot assume economic growth will continue to rely heavily on an energy sector powered predominantly by fossil fuels". Their latest report on this subject from last October is worth a read.
Just last week, California's largest energy
supplier PG&E filed for bankruptcy due to global warming. It could no
longer afford the insurance liability costs arising from wildfires which have
increased in frequency and duration due to the warmer, drier conditions of
recent years. This has caused alarm bells to ring in many boardrooms around the
US as they assess the economic costs and liabilities arising from the changing
climate.
The California state pension arrangement, CalPERS,
has millions of dollars invested in PG&E shares so many ordinary pension investors
will be affected, not to mention the higher costs for energy that people in the
state will have to pay from a replacement provider.
Who's next?
Global Index Funds
I have been making a few adjustments to my
portfolio in recent months but I wanted to dig a little deeper into my global
index funds to find out what proportion was invested in oil/gas and other areas
I would rather avoid now such as tobacco and also aircraft production as air travel is the fastest growing contributor to global CO2 emissions.
My Vanguard Lifestrategy 60 fund has most of its
equity holdings in 3 sub funds - Developed World (ex UK), US Equity and FTSE All
Share which together account for around 85% of the total equities. The
undesirable holdings for the Dev.World and US funds amount to around 8% and for
the UK fund it is much higher at 18% due to the heavy weighting of Shell and BP.
Unfortunately the UK All Share makes up 25% of the equity section of VLS which
means I am holding almost the same value of undesirables in this as in the
Developed World and US Equity combined. The total equity element of the fund is
obviously 60% so I calculated that maybe 10% of my VLS 60 fund value is
invested in holdings which are part of the problems we are facing.
 |
| VLS 60 Weightings (click to enlarge) |
I have also had a look at the situation with their
socially responsible SRI Global fund. This has higher charges of 0.35% compared
to 0.22% with Lifestrategy. It excludes investments according to eight ethical
criteria which includes environmentally detrimental activities. The fund
however includes big oil companies - I guess they are not (yet) considered to
be damaging. The exclusion list is compiled by FTSE Responsible Investment
Unit.
 |
| Vanguard SRI Global Weightings |
I also hold the HSBC Global Strategy Balanced fund
which has a far lower weighting to UK equities - currently just 2.9% compared
to 15% for VLS 60. Here's a comparison v VLS I did in 2017.
 |
| 5 Yr Comparison v Global Strategy Balanced (red line) (click to enlarge) |
Vanguard and BlackRock are the two largest asset
managers in the world with combined AUM of around $12 trillion. Over the past
decade they have become the biggest owners of the global economy. They are
therefore the biggest owners of fossil fuel companies and therefore have a
responsibility to hold the CEOs and boards of these companies to account and
ensure they comply with their obligations under the 2015 Paris agreement. These
asset managers have a big say in all the companies responsible for climate
change. I believe they have a duty to divest funds out of companies that
continue to pollute our environment and support those companies which make a
positive contribution such as clean energy.
The campaign against Blackrock could equally apply to Vanguard.
The Future
I am fairly clear that the era of fossil fuels is
ending, possibly much swifter than anyone could possibly have predicted just 5 years
back. Also, we are seeing a dramatic drop in the price of renewable
technologies such as wind and solar combined with advances in battery storage.
Sentiment from consumers, business and politicians is shifting at pace as the
scale of the climate threats become clearer.
I believe that as the shift in public opinion on
this issue hardens, the pressure will mount for increasing divestment away from
those companies which harm the environment, particularly those in the oil and
gas sector. At the same time, there will be increased investment into
sustainable solutions aiming to minimise the effects of climate change.
I guess these large oil companies will gradually
adapt their businesses to move with the times. Both BP and Shell have pledged to more closely align their business models with global climate goals. I guess also that if they do not
they will decline in size and become a smaller percentage of the index as
alternative clean energy companies grow and replace them.
However, I will be making a few adjustments to my
portfolio weightings over the coming weeks to reduce my exposure to big oil and
gas. I made a start earlier this year by off-loading my holding in City of
London as flagged up last September. BP and Shell are top 5 holdings and
account for 11% of the portfolio. I will probably exchange some of my VLS 60
for more HSBC Global Stategy in the multi-asset global index department and maybe add the SRI fund.
As ever, this article is merely a record of my personal investment decisions and should not be regarded as an endorsement or recommendation - always DYOR!
