Australia’s HESTA Accused of Greenwashing

The Environmental Defenders Office says HESTA’s investments in oil and gas companies could be in breach of the law.



Australia’s Environmental Defenders Office, an environmentally focused law center, has accused A$68 billion ($47.2 billion) superannuation fund HESTA of “greenwashing” and putting its participants at risk due to investments in two major oil and gas producers.

The EDO sent a legal letter to HESTA expressing its concerns that the pension fund’s investment in Woodside Energy and Santos, which according to the letter are major contributors to global warming, pose a financial risk to its members. The letter says the trustees of HESTA and its directors may be in breach of their obligations under the Superannuation Industry Act 1993 based on how they are managing the fund’s climate risks.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

The EDO letter also says that HESTA’s advertising and net-zero investment portfolio claims amount to greenwashing. The letter cites a list of claims HESTA makes on its website relating to its commitment to sustainable investing.  In 2020, HESTA claimed to be the first major Australian superannuation fund to commit to reducing its investment portfolio’s absolute carbon emissions by one-third within 10 years, and becoming “net zero” by 2050.

Citing HESTA’s latest portfolio holdings disclosure as of the end of 2021, the EDO’s letter says the pension fund has more than A$2 billion invested in companies expanding fossil fuels, including A$228 million in Woodside and A$190 million in Santos. The letter also says both companies are actively pursuing new fossil gas projects in Australia, and that the EDO has separate legal proceedings underway against them over the projects.

“As the world de-carbonizes, there is a real and foreseeable, and potentially substantial, risk that investment in gas projects is investment in ‘stranded capital,’” the letter states. It cites the International Energy Agency’s definition of stranded capital as investment in fossil fuel infrastructure that is not recovered over the operating lifetime of the asset due to reduced demand or prices resulting from climate policies.

“Continued investment in Woodside and Santos is an investment in stranded assets that could lead to negative member financial returns,” the letter says.

According to the EDO, neither Santos nor Woodside’s “net zero pathway” involves a reduction in scope 3 emissions that is aligned with the Paris Agreement. In addition, HESTA “has failed to adequately interrogate the net zero claims/emissions reduction representations made by companies in which member funds are invested,” per the letter, which also notes that HESTA has recently voted against shareholder proposals that requested Woodside and Santos disclose plans for how aligning capital allocation to oil and gas assets will help them achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

In response to a request for comment on the EDO’s letter and claims, a HESTA spokesperson tells CIO that “we can confirm that we‘ve received the letter and are currently reviewing it.”

Related Stories:

Australian Pension Funds Mercy Super and HESTA to Merge

Australian Pension Fund Commits to Becoming Net Zero by 2050

Australia’s IFM Investors Targets Net Zero Goal by 2050

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

SEC, CFTC Propose Reporting Changes to Keep Up With Private Fund Industry

Regulators cite rapid growth and the increased complexity of the private fund industry for need to amend confidential filing rules.

 




The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission have jointly voted to propose amendments to Form PF, a confidential reporting form for certain investment advisers to private funds.

 

Press releases from the SEC and the CFTC say the amendments to Form PF are intended to improve the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s ability to assess systemic risk, and enhance the oversight of private fund advisers.

 

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

The move is in response to the rapid growth of the private fund industry since Form PF was adopted in 2011, as well as the increasing complexity of the industry’s investing practices, according to the releases. They also note that certain investment strategies, including credit, digital asset, litigation finance and real estate strategies, have become more common.

 

“In the decade since the SEC and CFTC jointly adopted Form PF, regulators have gained vital insight with respect to private funds,” SEC Chair Gary Gensler said in a statement. “Since then, though, the private fund industry has grown in gross asset value by nearly 150% and evolved in terms of its business practices, complexity, and investment strategies.”

 

Gensler said that if adopted, the proposed changes would improve the quality of the information the SEC and CFTC receive from Form PF filers, with a particular focus on large hedge fund advisers. “That will help protect investors and maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets,” he added.

 

The proposed amendments include:

 

  • Enhancing how large hedge fund advisers report investment exposures, borrowing and counterparty exposure, market factor effects, currency exposure reporting, turnover, country and industry exposure, central clearing counterparty reporting, risk metrics, investment performance by strategy, portfolio correlation, portfolio liquidity and financing liquidity;
  • Requiring additional basic information about advisers and the private funds they advise, including identifying information, assets under management, withdrawal and redemption rights, gross asset value and net asset value, inflows and outflows, base currency, borrowings and types of creditors, fair value hierarchy, beneficial ownership and fund performance;
  • Requiring more detailed information about the investment strategies, counterparty exposures and trading and clearing mechanisms employed by hedge funds, while also removing duplicative questions; and
  • Removing the aggregate reporting requirement for large hedge fund advisers, as according to the SEC this information can obscure the data about hedge funds, including by masking the directional exposures of individual funds.  

 

While the proposal is supported by Gensler, along with Commissioners Caroline Crenshaw and Jaime Lizárraga, Commissioners Hester Pierce and Mark Uyeda both issued statements expressing concerns with the proposed amendments and said they would not vote in favor of the changes.

 

Pierce said that while she believes Form PF needs to be updated, the proposal “stretches a very limited data collection tool beyond its intended purpose.” She said the FSOC “does not need to have this kind of detailed knowledge of individual private funds’ activities to fulfill its mandate to identify risks to financial stability, promote market discipline, and respond to emerging financial stability threats.”

 

Uyeda took issue with the intent of the proposed changes to address the assessment of systemic risk, saying that the draft release  mentions “systemic risk” 118 times without describing or defining the term.

 

“Merely stating over and over that the proposed amendments will help to monitor and assess systemic risk and provide additional information does not make it so,” Uyeda said. “This shortcoming makes it difficult to evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed disclosures.”

 

Related Stories:

Be Wary of Single-Stock ETFs, Warn SEC Commissioner, Education Head

SEC Adopts Amendments to Proxy Voting Advice Rules

SEC Adopts New E- Filing Rules

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

«

 

You’re viewing the first of three free articles.

 Subscribe to a free PW Newsletter! 

…subscribing gets you free access to PW’s online content!

If you’re a subscriber, please login.

Close