JPMorgan Chase, BlackRock, State Street drop out of massive UN climate alliance in stunning move

Fox Business via MSN ^ | 02/15/2024 | Thomas Catenacci

[SeekAndFind]

JPMorgan Chase and institutional investors BlackRock and State Street Global Advisors announced Thursday that they are quitting or, in the case of BlackRock, substantially scaling back involvement in a massive United Nations climate alliance formed to combat global warming through corporate sustainability agreements.

In a statement, the New York-based JPMorgan Chase explained that it would exit the so-called Climate Action 100+ investor group because of the expansion of its in-house sustainability team and the establishment of its climate risk framework in recent years.

BlackRock and State Street, which both manage trillions of dollars in assets, said the alliance's climate initiatives had gone too far, expressing concern about potential legal issues as well.

The stunning announcements come as the largest financial institutions in the U.S. and worldwide face an onslaught of pressure from consumer advocates and Republican states over their environmental, social and governance (ESG) priorities.

"The firm has built a team of 40 dedicated sustainable investing professionals, including investment stewardship specialists who also leverage one of the largest buy side research teams in the industry," the bank said in a statement shared with FOX Business. "Given these strengths and the evolution of its own stewardship capabilities, JPMAM has determined that it will no longer participate in Climate Action 100+ engagements."

BlackRock, meanwhile, withdrew its U.S. business from Climate Action 100+, shifting involvement in the alliance to BlackRock's smaller international entity where a majority of clients are pursuing decarbonization goals, the Financial Times first reported Thursday. A spokesperson for BlackRock confirmed to FOX Business that the move had been made in recent weeks.

[thinden]

wary inkterestink

[MrRelevant]

Hurting other businesses thats all. Priorities, priorities.

[nitzy]

Here is how this goes…

The wokies now say these institutions are racist and irresponsible and need to be taken over by the government.

[dadfly]

humm. guess they watched and noted who they were supporting in the Steyn climate trial of the century, too.

[vivenne]

Probably more about the $$$. Climate BS and wokeness, as it turns out, is not that profitable. They are money guys first and ideologues last.

[EEGator]

Ponzi schemes are very profitable for those in early.

[arthurus]

Dtarting to hit their investors’ bottom lines. Investors not having proper social consciousness are mad and de-investing.

[xoxox]

now Pocahontas <3 bitcoin.

Didn’t Dimon testify in Congress that “Bitcoin is a tool for criminals”?

[sauropod]

Something else.

[smokingfrog]

If the crypto miners can be forced to buy carbon credits, I can see how the greenies might support it. But if crypto currency can easily used to hide illicit income, the government will oppose it. Current policies for crypto are still kind of up in the air.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20230127a.htm

[Vaduz]

JPMorgan Chase and BlackRock found out that only the committee leaders get the big returns in the cash flow?.

[Miguk]

Tinfoil Hat Alert.

Reporting and Transparency issues that would force these investment entities to publicly release their bottom line, for the whole world to see and peruse, or keep their business in-house and avoid such pesky legalities?

Would being under the auspices of the UN open these investment houses up to increased scrutiny by world economic entities and force them to be more "transparent" than if they had their own organization in-house, that was only beholden to shareholders, their in-house counsel(s), and their select US government entities/Soros/EU masters?

By taking these actions/reporting, out of the public eye, by leaving these international entities, what are they trying to hide? Hide then? Hide now? Hide in the future?

Never trust bad actors/entities/corporations, to do the "right thing" for the right reasons. Ever.

[voicereason]

Not surprised about JP Morgan. Jamie Dimon seems to be getting less and less tolerant of nonsense like this.

[PeterPrinciple]

it would exit the so-called Climate Action 100+ investor group because of the expansion of its in-house sustainability team and the establishment of its climate risk framework in recent years.

---

not stopping, in house. must be a reason.

[PeterPrinciple]

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/jpmorgan-asset-management-quits-68-trillion-climate-group-1

Climate Action 100+ faces increasing political pressure in US

Jim Jordan has gone as far as calling CA100+ an ‘ESG cartel’

---

[xoxox]

plawsible.