Market Myopia's Climate Bubble

Madison E. Condon
{"title":"Market Myopia's Climate Bubble","authors":"Madison E. Condon","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3782675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A growing number of financial institutions, ranging from BlackRock to the Bank of England, have warned that markets may not be accurately incorporating climate change-related risks into asset prices. This Article seeks to explain how this mispricing can exist at the level of individual assets drawing from scholarship on corporate governance and the mechanisms of market (in)efficiency. Market actors: 1. Lack the fine-grained asset-level data they need in order to assess risk exposure; 2. Continue to rely on outdated means of assessing risk; 3. Have misaligned incentives resulting in climate-specific agency costs; 4. Have myopic biases exacerbated by climate change misinformation; and 5. Are impeded by captured regulators distorting the market. Further, trends in institutional share ownership reinforce apathy regarding assessment of firm-specific fundamentals, especially over long-term horizons. \n \nThis underpricing of corporate climate risk contributes to the negative effects of climate change itself, as the mispricing of risk in the present leads to a misallocation of investment capital, hindering future adaptation and subsidizing future fossil combustion. These risks could accumulate to the macroeconomic scale, generating a systemic risk to the financial system. While a broad array of government interventions are necessary to mitigate climate related financial risks, this Article focuses on proposals for corporate governance and securities regulation—and their limits. Signals from the Biden Administration suggest that mandatory climate risk disclosure regulation from the Securities and Exchange Commission is forthcoming. This Article argues that climate risk disclosure is necessary, though alone not sufficient, to address the widespread disregard of corporate climate exposure.","PeriodicalId":157380,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Anthropology eJournal","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Anthropology eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3782675","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

A growing number of financial institutions, ranging from BlackRock to the Bank of England, have warned that markets may not be accurately incorporating climate change-related risks into asset prices. This Article seeks to explain how this mispricing can exist at the level of individual assets drawing from scholarship on corporate governance and the mechanisms of market (in)efficiency. Market actors: 1. Lack the fine-grained asset-level data they need in order to assess risk exposure; 2. Continue to rely on outdated means of assessing risk; 3. Have misaligned incentives resulting in climate-specific agency costs; 4. Have myopic biases exacerbated by climate change misinformation; and 5. Are impeded by captured regulators distorting the market. Further, trends in institutional share ownership reinforce apathy regarding assessment of firm-specific fundamentals, especially over long-term horizons. This underpricing of corporate climate risk contributes to the negative effects of climate change itself, as the mispricing of risk in the present leads to a misallocation of investment capital, hindering future adaptation and subsidizing future fossil combustion. These risks could accumulate to the macroeconomic scale, generating a systemic risk to the financial system. While a broad array of government interventions are necessary to mitigate climate related financial risks, this Article focuses on proposals for corporate governance and securities regulation—and their limits. Signals from the Biden Administration suggest that mandatory climate risk disclosure regulation from the Securities and Exchange Commission is forthcoming. This Article argues that climate risk disclosure is necessary, though alone not sufficient, to address the widespread disregard of corporate climate exposure.
市场短视的气候泡沫
从贝莱德(BlackRock)到英国央行(Bank of England),越来越多的金融机构警告称,市场可能没有准确地将与气候变化相关的风险纳入资产价格。本文试图从公司治理和市场(in)效率机制的学术研究中解释这种错误定价是如何在个人资产层面存在的。市场参与者:1;缺乏评估风险暴露所需的细粒度资产级数据;2. 继续依赖过时的风险评估方法;3.有不一致的激励导致气候相关的机构成本;4. 气候变化的错误信息加剧了短视偏见;和5。受到扭曲市场的监管机构的阻碍。此外,机构持股的趋势强化了对公司特定基本面评估的冷漠,尤其是从长期角度来看。这种对企业气候风险的低估助长了气候变化本身的负面影响,因为当前对风险的错误定价导致投资资本的错误配置,阻碍了未来的适应,并补贴了未来的化石燃料燃烧。这些风险可能累积到宏观经济层面,对金融体系产生系统性风险。虽然有必要采取一系列广泛的政府干预措施来减轻与气候相关的金融风险,但本文主要关注公司治理和证券监管的建议及其局限性。拜登政府发出的信号表明,美国证券交易委员会(Securities and Exchange Commission)即将出台强制性气候风险披露规定。本文认为,气候风险披露是必要的,尽管单独是不够的,以解决普遍忽视企业气候风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信