Institutional Investors Inch Toward Global Warming Opportunities

Despite recent controversy over e-mails and a conference that is likely to lead to little in hard results, there is growing evidence that institutional investors increasingly are investing with global warming in mind.

(December, 10, 2009) – With the Copenhagen climate conference underway, two recent events give greater credence to the idea that institutional investors are increasingly buying into global warming investments.


The World Bank, in a press release, has announced that it has raised $130 million from institutional investors such as the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and Sweden’s AP2 and AP3 via a green bond issuance. The bonds, of which this is the third such offering in a year, are intended to aid in the financing of low-carbon production.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.


Besides the bond issuance, a leading European institutional investor—Norway’s Government Pension Fund, the world’s second largest sovereign fund—has decided to be the lead sponsor in a system meant to monitor water usage. The Carbon Disclosure Project’s Water Disclosure Project is meant to make investors aware of the risk and opportunities with regard to changing patterns in water availability, according to London’s Financial Times. While the Norwegian fund has drawn criticism for overly active advocacy investing, its agreement to be a lead sponsor suggests that the project will enjoy healthy financial backing.


This news comes as manmade climate change—and, in some circles, any sort of climate change—comes under increased scrutiny from both ends of the political spectrum. With global leaders gathered in Copenhagen to discuss potential climate agreements, recently retrieved e-mails from the United Kingdom’s East Anglia University are being used as evidence that climate-change proponents were falsifying data.



To contact the <em>aiCIO</em> editor of this story: Kristopher McDaniel at <a href='mailto:kmcdaniel@assetinternational.com'>kmcdaniel@assetinternational.com</a>

Ohio, On Behalf of Pension Funds, Files Suit Against Rating Agencies

 

Following similar suits by Mississippi and California, the Ohio Attorney General files suit against rating agencies.

 

(November 25, 2009) – The Ohio Attorney General, on behalf of numerous home-state pension schemes, has filed suit against national rating agencies over misleading ratings on real estate-backed securities.

 


The suit—filed by Attorney General Richard Cordray at the behest of the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, the Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, the School Employees Retirement System of Ohio, and the Ohio Public Employees Deferred Compensation Program—charges that Standard & Poor’s, Fitch, and Moody’s provided inflated ratings on many mortgage-backed securities (MBSs), the result of a structure that saw fees paid by the very security issuers that were packaging and selling the MBSs.

Want the latest institutional investment industry
news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters.

 


According to a statement released by the Attorney General’s office, the rating agencies’ misjudgments cost the Ohio funds upward of $457 million when they purchased securities they believed to be safe but were, in fact, set to fail as mortgage delinquencies rose in 2007 and 2008.

 


According to the release, the rating agencies were making “spectacularly misleading evaluations of mortgage-backed securities due in part to the lucrative fees they received from the same issuers they were supposed to be evaluating objectively.” Furthermore, the statement asserts, numerous people at these firms knew the ratings were incorrect. “We rate every deal,” the statement quotes a rating agency analyst as saying. “It could be structured by cows and we would rate it.”

 


Ohio is not the first state to file suit against the much-maligned agencies: Mississippi and California have done so, also on behalf of public pension plans pinned with losses after holding MBSs and other derivatives that were, in hindsight, clearly incorrectly rated.

 


For an ai5000 column on rating agencies—and how they are central in the blame game being played following 2008—click here .



To contact the <em>aiCIO</em> editor of this story: Kristopher McDaniel at <a href='mailto:kmcdaniel@assetinternational.com'>kmcdaniel@assetinternational.com</a>

«