A BlackRock spokesperson said the majority of its equity holdings, including those cited in the IEEFA’s report, were held through index-based exchange-traded funds and other index products, which track the investment results of third-party indices.“Index managers such as BlackRock seek to replicate the performance of the index and do not select or exclude one company over the other based on our views of a company,” the spokesperson added.“Index providers determine which companies to include in the indices they create based on the index methodology. The conclusions of this report are thus misplaced.”“A new path is needed that leads BlackRock, its clients and the global economy toward climate health and a new cycle of profitability and growth”IEEFAA source at a large asset manager backed up this view, saying that underperforming due to investment in fossil fuels was not BlackRock’s fault.“Investing in ETFs that track the stock market is particularly difficult during a period of market transition, where previously valuable sectors can become redundant,” the source added.The individual suggested a better question would have been whether BlackRock took an active bet toward fossil fuels that did not work out.Stewardship questions IEEFA has criticised BlackRock for its holdings in fossil fuel companiesIn its report the IEEFA also accused the world’s largest asset manager of a failure of stewardship across its passive investment portfolio, saying it had steered away from leading low-carbon strategies adopted by investors such as Sweden’s AP4.BlackRock had instead opted to pursue a strategy of engagement with companies, but it was “entirely questionable” whether this approach was yielding material results.IEEFA also argued that BlackRock’s board was a problem, with too many of its members in key decision-making roles having “significant ties” to the fossil fuel sector.The think tank made five main recommendations for BlackRock, including leading the way on investing in low-carbon indices and adopting a strategic use of fossil fuel divestment.“BlackRock plays a powerful leadership role in the current global investment debate over the direction of fossil fuel investing, but the direction it is largely offering is backward,” said the IEEFA.“A new path is needed that leads the company, its clients and the global economy toward climate health and a new cycle of profitability and growth.”BlackRock has faced a steady stream of criticism over its activity with regard to climate change in recent years.The anonymous source told IPE that the attention the report from the IEEFA had received in the media was more interesting than its substance “as a reflection of the scrutiny that is turning to fund managers on their decisions and the connection between rhetoric and actions”.“Some will be misplaced, but the spotlight is clearly moving in our direction,” the individual said. A think tank has accused BlackRock of costing its clients more than $90bn (€81.4bn) from a select group of fossil fuel-heavy investments – although the asset manager has challenged the methodology and findings of the organisation’s report.According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), BlackRock’s management of its fossil fuel holdings was “myopic”.“In holding after holding across the coal, oil and gas space around the world, weak performance over the last decade lags the market and weakens both actively and passively managed investments,” the think tank said.It highlighted the case of BlackRock’s holding in General Electric, which it said had declined by $19bn in value over a three-year period.
Pep Guardiola put his players through their paces this weekend.Read Also: Dutch legend confirms contact over Barcelona jobIf they are excluded, fifth would be good enough for the riches of next season’s Champions League, which are all the more valuable during the economic crisis caused by coronavirus.Just six points separate United from Crystal Palace in 11th leaving plenty to play for in the final nine games of the season once the Premier League restarts on June 17.FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmail分享 Kevin De Bruyne’s future could be placed in doubt if Man City’s appeal fails“Two years would be long. One year is something I might be able to cope with,” De Bruyne told Het Laatste Nieuws last month.City banked 93 million euros from prize money and television rights alone by reaching the quarter-finals of last season’s Champions League.The added loss of gate receipts and commercial revenue would make it extremely difficult for the club to meet FFP regulations in the future without cutting costs.City have steadfastly refuted UEFA’s allegations.“Based on our experience and our perception, this seems to be less about justice and more about politics,” said CEO of the City Football Group Ferran Soriano.UEFA has been under pressure, most publicly from La Liga president Javier Tebas, to impose a harder line on clubs backed by states, like City and Qatari-owned Paris Saint-Germain.European football’s governing body also have plenty riding on the case. Lose the appeal and the future of UEFA’s FFP regulations will be called into question.– Premier League impact –The hearing will be held by videoconference due to coronavirus restrictions from Monday to Wednesday.If no verdict is immediately announced after the hearing, the decision “could be made during the month of July,” said Matthieu Reeb, secretary general of CAS.Even if City’s appeal to CAS fails, the English champions could present a further appeal before the Swiss Federal Court.A delayed outcome would leave a cloud hanging over the return of the Premier League season.City seem certain to secure Champions League qualification on the field with a 12-point lead over fifth-placed Manchester United. Loading… However, billions of investment in players and managers has not yet been able to deliver the club’s first ever Champions League title. City are still involved in this season’s competition and will be allowed to compete should the 2019⁄20 edition of Champions League return in August no matter the outcome of the appeal. – Financial hit – But a two-season ban from the competition would represent a huge blow to the club’s prestige, finances and hope of hanging onto manager Pep Guardiola and key players like Kevin de Bruyne and Raheem Sterling. City are accused of overstating sponsorship revenue to hide that they had not complied with UEFA’s financial fair play (FFP) rules between 2012 and 2016 and were also handed a 30 million euro ($34 million, £27 million) fine. UEFA’s case was prompted when German magazine Der Spiegel published a series of leaked emails in 2018 that purported to show how City manufactured extra sponsorship revenue from a series of companies with connections to the club’s Abu Dhabi-based owner Sheikh Mansour. Under the Sheikh’s ownership, City’s fortunes have been transformed from perennially living in the shadow of local rivals Manchester United to winning four Premier League titles in the past eight years.Advertisement Manchester City’s appeal against a two-year ban from European competition will be heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) from Monday in a case of wide-reaching repercussions.