IN THIS LIST

S&P 500® Corporate Pensions and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) in 2017

An In-Depth Look at the Dow Jones Sukuk Indices

Corporate Climate Competitiveness: Growing Your Business, Optimizing Investments, and Managing Costs

Carbon Scorecard: May 2018

Corporate Carbon Disclosure in Asia-Pacific

S&P 500® Corporate Pensions and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) in 2017

Contributor Image
Howard Silverblatt

Senior Index Analyst, Product Management

S&P Dow Jones Indices

Providing Americans with adequate retirement income and affordable medical care was one of the country's most hotly debated social and political topics of the 20th century. However, the times have changed, along with longevity, as the medical cost of that prolonged longevity has risen, and corporations’ ability to absorb the risks associated with multidecade portfolios to finance those commitments has fallen. Over the past three decades, corporations in the private sector have successfully shifted the responsibility of retirement to individuals, as programs have been frozen or closed to new employees, with 401(k)-type saving programs acting as substitutes. What remains is a lingering program of the past that will slowly decline in size and number of covered retirees over the coming decades. For now, both S&P 500 pensions and OPEB remain a manageable cost with sufficient resources and cash flow to support them— as slowly increasing interest rates could improve funding via lower discounted liabilities for 2018. For 2017, corporate pension underfunding stood at USD 304 billion—22.1% lower than the USD 391 billion level of 2016, as markets posted a second year of impressive double-digit gains. The funding level increased to 85.62% in 2017 from 80.75% in 2016, 81.14% in 2015, and 81.12% in 2014. The most recent low-funding level was in 2012, at 77.26%, with the last full-funding level occurring in 2007, at 104.40%.

Clearly, the traditional defined-benefit corporate pension has become a relic of an earlier age, one that dates back to World War II, when the average American's life expectancy was 65 years. By 1974, when Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA; the federal law that sets minimum standards for most voluntarily established pensions in the private industry), Americans’ average life expectancy had risen to 72 years. Today (according to the Center for Disease Control), the average life expectancy in the U.S. is 78 years (76 years for men and 81 years for women). In 1983, when the life expectancy was 74, the official Social Security age of "full retirement" was scaled forward from 65 years to 67 years, depending on the year of birth, as longevity continues to move up. Medicare eligibility, however, has remained at 65. As a result, post-employment medical costs associated with longevity have skyrocketed, as have the costs of prescription drugs and elder care.


OVERVIEW

  • Equity markets continued to set new highs last year, posting double-digit returns and outpacing the cost of lower interest rates, which have pushed up discounted liabilities, resulting in a 22.1% improvement in underfunding for 2017.
  • Interest rates utilized for discounted pension liabilities again declined in 2017, after 2015’s significant increase, and are less than half of those used in 2001.
  • Expected pension return rates declined for the 17th year in a row.
  • Most corporations have successfully shifted the burden of risk for retirement to the employee, as 401(k)-type savings accounts have become the norm, and active defined-benefit pensions in the private sector have become few and far between.
  • Given the dwindling coverage, the current obligations of pensions and OPEB are a manageable expense for most companies.
  • OPEB coverage continues to decline, as fewer covered retirees cost more per person, but are a quantifiable cost with a declining obligation.

pdf-icon PD F Download Full Article

An In-Depth Look at the Dow Jones Sukuk Indices

The issuance in the U.S. dollar-denominated sukuk market [as tracked by the Dow Jones Sukuk Total Return Index (ex-Reinvestment)] continued to be robust in 2017.  Sukuk issuance in 2017 has already outgrown the strong growth seen in 2016.  The total issuance through September 2017 was USD 20.25 billion, representing a 20% increase from the year before.  In fact, sukuk issuance has continued to record double-digit growth since the slump in 2015.  In 2017 YTD,1 we have seen the highest issuance since 2012.

As tracked by the index, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries continued to be the most active issuers of U.S. dollar-denominated sukuk and contributed over 80% of the new issuances.  Saudi Arabia debuted its first U.S. dollar-denominated sukuk and attracted strong market participants demand; it raised USD 9 billion in sukuk, equally split into 5- and 10-year tranches.  Other returning issuers like Indonesia and Oman raised USD 3 billion and USD 2 billion, respectively.  Hong Kong also came back to the market and launched a 10-year sukuk, which extended the yield curve from its two previous five-year sukuk.

Looking at overall country exposure in the Dow Jones Sukuk Total Return Index (ex-Reinvestment), the GCC currently represents 65%, and among the GCC, Saudi Arabia has the largest exposure, at 34%, followed by United Arab Emirates, at 20%.  Sukuk issued from Malaysia and Indonesia constitute around 10% and 17%, respectively.


Corporate Climate Competitiveness: Growing Your Business, Optimizing Investments, and Managing Costs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • There is a transition underway to a greener, low-carbon economy. Businesses that successfully decarbonize their operations in line with global energy transition commitments may be more likely to protect their license to grow and avoid increased costs from carbon pricing.
  • Current standard practice is to measure the financial return of project investments. Best practice during this transition, however, could be to prioritize investments that meet science-based targets (SBTs) and decarbonize operations.
  • Companies could evaluate investments for financial and environmental performance to achieve carbon targets and mitigate risks associated with hidden future carbon prices.
  • Reporting that is aligned with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Disclosures (TCFD) increases transparency with internal and external stakeholders for financially material climaterelated risks and opportunities.
  • Trucost’s analysis of four publicly disclosed investments intended to deliver environmental and financial returns reveals that three of them could fail to meet either or both performance targets. For example, investment in coal storage, meant to improve the condition of the coal and reduce the amount purchased and combusted, was found to have significant hidden carbon emissions.  The Green Transition Tool demonstrates that this supposedly green investment turns out to be brown.
  • Trucost’s Green Transition Tool scenarios enable businesses to prioritize investments, consider environmental and financial performance, and report in line with TCFD recommendations.

INTRODUCTION

There is a transition underway to a greener, low-carbon economy.  As companies navigate the complexities of this shift, many could grapple with complex investment decisions—What to invest in? Where? How much to invest?  Some may want to incorporate low-carbon technology in their operations or substitute greener materials in their products.  Others may want to improve process and product designs, enhance management practices, or adopt different business models.

Conventional business practice considers the financial returns of capital investments, but does not typically factor in hidden financial and environmental benefits, such as reduced carbon taxes, penalties, and emissions.  Better-informed investment decisions consider environmental and financial returns side by side.

Companies have many possible pathways to reduce energy consumption and transition to low-carbon business.  Businesses must determine the optimal pathway that minimizes environmental impacts, while delivering acceptable financial returns.  For most companies, this can be challenging because it requires robust environmental data at a local level.

Companies are under increased pressure to address climate-related issues.  For example, customers want to understand how companies’ business practices are aligned with their climate goals.  Investors want to understand how companies are managing material climate risks, and if they will be realized as financial costs.  The TCFD recommends disclosing clear, comparable, and consistent information using scenario analysis as a tool for assessing those transition and physical risks and opportunities.1

As customers, investors, and policymakers impose new expectations about climate-related activities, it is vital for businesses to consider the climaterelated implications of their investments if they want to maintain carbon competitiveness.

 

pdf-icon PD F Download Full Article

Carbon Scorecard: May 2018

S&P Dow Jones Indices is committed to providing transparency to markets and publishing relevant environmental metrics on indices.  A range of metrics reveals the carbon footprint of each index, alongside exposure to fossil fuels, stranded assets, and renewable energy.  A new metric has been added this year: carbon price risk exposure.  This metric, developed by Trucost, helps investors understand how companies, and ultimately portfolios and indices, are exposed to the risk of governments imposing a price on carbon emissions.

KEY FINDINGS
  • Absolute emissions decreased for the S&P Asia 50, S&P Europe 350, S&P Global 1200, S&P Latin America 40, S&P/ASX All Australian 50, and S&P TOPIX 150.
  • In 2017, all indices increased their share of renewable power generation and decreased their share of fossil fuel power generation, with the exceptions of the S&P/ASX All Australian 50 and S&P Asia 50.
  • The S&P/TOPIX 150 had the smallest coal exposure score and is well positioned in the face of punitive climate legislation.
  • The carbon intensity of every index assessed increased in 2017, except for the S&P Asia 50, which decreased its carbon intensity by 26%.
  • In 2017, the index with the highest carbon intensity was the S&P/TSX 60 whereas in 2016 it was the S&P Asia 50.
  • Within the S&P/IFCI, 26% of earnings of the index’s listed companies were at risk from 2030 carbon pricing regimes according to the Trucost carbon pricing model.
  • S&P Dow Jones Indices is committed to providing index solutions that provide choices and reflect low-carbon options. When we compare indices with their carbon-focused counterparts, the low-carbon versions actually outperformed the benchmark over a five-year period in most cases.

INTRODUCTION

The S&P Dow Jones Indices Carbon Scorecard stands as a barometer for the carbon intensity of financial markets today and its relation to the direction of the economy

As regulators strengthen policies that support the growth of “sustainable” economies, the investment community will rely on transparent markets to manage risk and capitalize on sustainable development opportunities.  How companies can adapt their products and services to changing consumer demands and how they are exposed to regulations that seek to put a price on carbon are among the key questions to which shareholders, lenders, and insurers now seek answers.

In addition, financial regulators are moving to embed sustainable finance at the core of capital markets.  Earlier this year, the EU High Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance, which S&P Global was proud to be a member of, recommended a wide range of policy interventions.  In response, the EU published its Action Plan on Sustainable Finance, which introduced a raft of proposed regulatory measures that will, if implemented, impose greater emphasis on investor duties and transparency in markets.Such moves are mirrored across the world.  For example, the U.S.Department of Labor recently updated its guidance on the integration of ESG in the investment process, and the UK is seeking to strengthen pension regulations.  As such, we have seen increasing market participant interest in understanding the exposure of their investments to a range of carbon indicators.

Understanding carbon risks and their potential financial impact is crucial if we are to avoid sudden and inconsistent write-downs of assets and redirect capital toward activities that are aligned with global climate commitments.  Mandatory and voluntary guidance have acted as a crutch to encourage behavioral change, and it is now considered best practice to report on portfolio exposure to carbon even in markets where guidance is lacking.  Investors with over USD 60 trillion in AUM now report their carbon exposure.1

S&P Dow Jones Indices published its Carbon Scorecard for the first time in 2015 to show the exposure of major global benchmarks to carbon risks.  Subsequent publications show how quickly the market (measured as the largest companies in each region) is transitioning to a lower-carbon economy.

For the first time, we have added two fixed income benchmarks to the 10 equity benchmarks assessed by the Carbon Scorecard to provide a broader perspective on the carbon exposure of global financial markets.


Corporate Carbon Disclosure in Asia-Pacific

Asia-Pacific (APAC) firms quantify supply chain risks, set science-based targets, and implement internal carbon pricing.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Trucost, part of S&P Dow Jones Indices, assessed the trends in corporate disclosure of carbon emissions to see how companies are managing risks in three important areas: quantifying supply chain carbon emissions, setting meaningful emission reduction targets, and pricing carbon to understand the current and anticipated financial implications of impending regulatory and policy measures.  The headline findings include the following.

  • In 2017, APAC businesses continued to expand their carbon reporting to all-time highs, rising 22% since 2016 and 32% since 2014. However, this reporting varied greatly in terms of depth and breadth.
  • Many corporations, particularly in the health care and financial services sectors, do not fully track the carbon sources that are most material to their business activities.
  • APAC companies lag global companies in modeling Scope 3 emissions to simplify their carbon calculations.
  • Companies in APAC are increasingly setting science-based targets that will cut emissions in line with international efforts to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.
  • Nearly one-half of APAC companies have set or plan to set an internal price on carbon to help understand the risks and opportunities of the transition to a low-carbon economy.

INTRODUCTION

Trucost analyzed environmental data submitted by companies to the CDP annual climate change questionnaire.  Trucost compared data for 2017 with previous years to identify trends in carbon management and reporting, focusing on companies in APAC.  The analysis covered emissions from company operations and use of electricity (Scopes 1 and 2, respectively), as well as value chain emissions (Scope 3) as classified in the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol.1

pdf-icon PD F Download Full Article

Processing ...