ThinkProgress Logo

Economy

Climate Progress

In 3-2 Vote, SEC Requires Companies To Disclose Climate Risks To Investors

Green InvestingIn a 3-to-2 vote, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission determined today that companies “must consider the effects of global warming and efforts to curb climate change when disclosing business risks to investors.”

Guidelines approved today require companies to weigh the impact of climate-change laws and regulations when assessing what information to disclose, the commission said. The SEC is responding to investors who said companies aren’t providing enough data on the potential risks to their profits and operations from environmental- protection laws. In the 3-to-2 vote, the commission said companies in the U.S. should also consider international accords, indirect effects such as lower demand for goods that produce greenhouse gases, and physical impacts such as the potential for increased insurance claims in coastal regions as a result of rising sea levels.

Ceres, a network of investors and climate activists, hailed the action as “the first economy-wide climate risk disclosure requirement in the world.” More than a dozen investors managing over $1 trillion in assets, plus Ceres and the Environmental Defense Fund, requested formal guidance in a petition filed with the Commission in 2007, and supported by supplemental petitions filed in 2008 and 2009.

For too long, the reality of climate change has been ignored by American business, exemplified by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s denial of global warming. This willful ignorance has left American business — from agriculture to the financial sector — unprepared for the increasing damages of climate change, such as sea level rise, drought and wildfires. Furthermore, these blinders have kept American business behind international competitors, who have leapt ahead by investing in the coming low-carbon economy.

Update

The SEC has posted its summary:

Specifically, the SEC’s interpretative guidance highlights the following areas as examples of where climate change may trigger disclosure requirements:

* Impact of Legislation and Regulation: When assessing potential disclosure obligations, a company should consider whether the impact of certain existing laws and regulations regarding climate change is material. In certain circumstances, a company should also evaluate the potential impact of pending legislation and regulation related to this topic.

* Impact of International Accords: A company should consider, and disclose when material, the risks or effects on its business of international accords and treaties relating to climate change.

* Indirect Consequences of Regulation or Business Trends: Legal, technological, political and scientific developments regarding climate change may create new opportunities or risks for companies. For instance, a company may face decreased demand for goods that produce significant greenhouse gas emissions or increased demand for goods that result in lower emissions than competing products. As such, a company should consider, for disclosure purposes, the actual or potential indirect consequences it may face due to climate change related regulatory or business trends.

* Physical Impacts of Climate Change: Companies should also evaluate for disclosure purposes the actual and potential material impacts of environmental matters on their business.

Why Is Taxpayer Owned Citigroup Paying $1.45 In Compensation For Every $1 In Profit?

AP090227015527For a while it looked as if compensation on Wall Street for 2009 would eclipse the record level of 2007, but in the end, the banks scooted in just under the bar, thanks to some last minute reductions by some of the Street’s biggest players. But that certainly does not mean that all is well in the world of Wall Street pay.

Take, for instance, today’s New York Times story on ailing banks that are nevertheless doling out huge bonus packages. This is a throwback to 2008, when failing banks like Merrill Lynch paid out huge bonuses at the same time that they were incurring catastrophic losses.

But one bank in particular stood out in the Times article: Citigroup. According to the Times, “Citigroup paid its employees so much in 2009 — $24.9 billion — that the company more than wiped out every penny of profit”:

[T]o keep up with the Goldmans, laggards like Citigroup are handing out fat slices of their profits, leaving little left over for their shareholders. Citigroup is, in effect, paying its employees $1.45 for every dollar the company took in last year. On average, its workers stand to earn $94,000 each.

This month, former Citigroup CEO John Reed slammed Wall Street’s return to stratospheric pay, saying “they just don’t get it. They are off in a different world.” And when Citigroup goes this route, “leaving little left over for shareholders,” that means leaving little for taxpayers, who still own the failed institution. I still can’t understand the hesitancy of Treasury to rein in Citigroup, considering the large stake that the government has in the company.

In the wider sense, this comes back to the inability (or reluctance, when it comes to investment banking) of shareholders to influence pay at the companies which they own. As James Kwak wrote, compensation ratios in the financial services industry should be closer to 30-40 percent (30 to 40 cents of each dollar earned going to compensation), and “shareholders should apply pressure to make this happen; basically, they should try to squeeze labor.”

And there are things the government can do to improve corporate governance and make things easier for shareholders — who often face a herculean task trying to influence anything — including institutionalizing shareholder votes on pay packages.

“The investor in America sits at the bottom of the food chain,” said John Bogle, the founder and former chairman of the Vanguard Group mutual fund. “The financial industry gets paid before their clients, and we get paid whether times are good or bad.” Oh, and Citi will also be hosting a cocktail party at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this week. Can every taxpayer, then, crash it?

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up