3 ms·
> "You can't dump stocks without someone else buying the shares from you." At what price? That's the impact of moves like this: 1) lowering stock prices for e
by loganfrederick 7y ago
> "You can't dump stocks without someone else buying the shares from you."
At what price?
That's the impact of moves like this: 1) lowering stock prices for existing companies and 2) allocating money/increasing prices for climate-friendlier companies. It could mean the difference between, say, a large oil company getting $1 billion from a European fund and a battery technology company getting that billion.
- navigatesol 7y ago>At what price? My point exactly. I know that executive pay is most often tied to share price, but who do you think really suffers more: the CEO who gets a slightly smaller bonus, or the fund that has to dump shares for whatever it can get? Look at the example in the article. The fund dumped $300MM of Exxon shares in June, share price mostly unaffected. >It could mean the difference between, say, a large oil company getting $1 billion from a European fund and a battery technology company getting that billion. But unless the company is issuing new shares, it doesn't receive any of the money. It's a transaction between old/new shareholders. I can see the drive to be able to market your investment fund as climate friendly to attract more AUM, but it's unclear to me it makes financial sense as the investor (at least generally).
- loganfrederick 7y agoYou're not wrong. I'm interpreting it more from the asset manager's perspective than the company's. You're correct in that they are making a conscious choice to maybe forgo a profit on oil in order to bet on something more speculative. That's just the thesis they are going with and may adversely effect performance.