Connect with us

Finance

Chinese lenders among top backers of “forest-risk” firms

Published

on

Chinese lenders among top backers of “forest-risk” firms

Recent data shows that Chinese banks have become the largest creditors to “forest-risk” companies, after major producing countries Brazil and Indonesia

Adobe Stock

Key findings

  • Recent data shows that Chinese banks have become the largest creditors to “forest-risk”* companies, after major producing countries Brazil and Indonesia, with over $23 billion in financing provided from 2018 to 2024.
  • Key Chinese banks, including CITIC, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and Bank of China, are among the top creditors for “forest-risk” companies such as Royal Golden Eagle Group, which has faced repeated allegations that its supply chain has driven deforestation.
  • The increasing flow of finance to “forest-risk” companies undermines China’s climate and environmental goals under the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration and national Green Finance Guidelines.
  • Meanwhile, Chinese banks rank poorly compared to their international counterparts in terms of deforestation-related policies, with four out of six major Chinese lenders scoring zero in the Forest 500 annual policy assessment.
Cattle grazing in Marabá, Pará State, one of the most deforested areas in Brazil

Cattle in Pará State of Brazil. 60% of tropical deforestation is linked to just three key products – beef, palm oil and soy. Fernanda Ligabue / Global Witness

Recommendations

  • Chinese banks and regulators must take stronger action to cut ties with deforestation-linked companies.
  • Chinese banks should publish and implement clear zero deforestation and human rights protection policies when financing “forest-risk” companies.
  • Banks should implement China’s 2022 Green Finance Guidelines by establishing due diligence processes to identify, monitor and screen out clients linked to deforestation.
  • Chinese banks should establish open communication channels to rapidly receive and address deforestation allegations from international community.
  • The Chinese banking regulator should strengthen green finance policies with clear requirements that banks cease financial support to companies with deforestation-linked supply chains.

Ranking global contributors to “forest-risk” finance: China’s rise to the top

Chinese banks became the largest creditors of “forest-risk” companies globally between 2018-2024 – excluding financial institutions based in Brazil and Indonesia – according to a new analysis by Global Witness, based on data released in September 2024 by the Forests & Finance coalition.

This marks a shift from Global Witness’s previous reporting on Chinese bank finance in 2021, which used Forests & Finance data from 2013-2020. During this period, Chinese banks were the fifth largest creditors globally of major companies producing and trading commodities at high risk of driving deforestation.

Advertisement

The Forests & Finance database, compiled by Dutch research firm Profundo, tracks financial flows to over 300 “forest-risk” companies involved in agricultural supply chains such as beef, palm oil and soy production – industries that are major drivers of tropical deforestation.

Profundo’s methodology, including how it defines “forest-risk” companies, is summarised below.

The financial sectors of Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia provide a disproportionate amount of “forest-risk” financing to commodity producers in their own countries and are excluded from this analysis, which focuses on international financial flows. When including these countries, China ranked third globally overall in 2023, the final year for which full data is available.

At COP26, countries like the US, France, the Netherlands and the UK pledged to end deforestation by 2030. However, private financial institutions based in those financial centres also remain some of the biggest supporters of “forest-risk” companies.

According to the data, between 2018-2024, Chinese banks provided a total of $23 billion in credit to “forest-risk” companies.

Advertisement

This figure for the seven-year period is higher than the figure provided in the seven-year period between 2014-2020 ($18 billion), indicating that the financial sector has failed to adjust lending practices to mitigate the damage some of these companies are wreaking upon global forests.

There are a handful of key Chinese banks among the top creditors providing “forest-risk” financing – CITIC, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and Bank of China were the top three creditors between 2018-2024, according to the data.

The two biggest “forest-risk” recipients of this Chinese bank lending are Sinochem and Royal Golden Eagle Group (RGE), despite both RGE and its subsidiaries facing repeated deforestation allegations.

COFCO, a major Chinese agricultural trader, is the third-largest recipient. Despite the company’s multiple commitments to address deforestation, in 2024 COFCO was alleged to have sourced soybeans from illegally leased Indigenous lands in Brazil.

Just one year prior, another investigation challenged whether COFCO had done enough to ensure its soy and palm oil supply chains were indeed deforestation-free.

Advertisement

In response COFCO claimed that it has not violated its own commitments, insisting that it takes numerous measures to monitor and enforce its supply chain standards.

It claimed the farmers tied to deforestation were indirect suppliers and said it was “working to increase traceability of indirect purchases, which will lead us to strengthen our controls and risk monitoring for this part of the supply chain.”

One noteworthy data highlight is that, in 2024, Chinese bank credit provision to global manufacturing conglomerate RGE spiked, despite data for 2024 only including deals made between January-July.

RGE’s sprawling network of “shadow companies” has faced multiple allegations of deforestation over the years in relation to its palm oil and pulp and paper supply chains.

RGE denies allegations of wrongdoing. In response to a July 2024 publication published by the Rainforest Action Network (RAN), RGE claimed it was “local communities”, rather than one its subsidiary companies, who were responsible for clearing forests in its palm oil supply chain – despite allegedly providing no evidence to support this conclusion.

Advertisement

RGE has also denied links to deforesting companies in its pulp and paper supply chains, most recently in response to an October 2024 investigation from The Gecko Project and Bloomberg.

Orangutans at the Tanjung Puting National Park in Kalimantan on the island of Borneo, Indonesia in 2001, under protection from nearby deforestation

Orangutans in the protected Tanjung Puting National Park in Kalimantan on the island of Borneo, Indonesia. Paula Bronstein / Getty Images

Over the past two years, RGE has received a series of sustainability-linked loans (SLL) supported by a consortium of banks, including Chinese banks such as Shanghai Pudong Development Bank Co, Ltd and Bank of Communications (Hong Kong) Ltd.

These “sustainable” loans allow RGE to borrow under more favourable conditions, providing it hits pre-determined “linked” environmental and social targets.

For example, the $1 billion 2024 SLL (provided to two “sustainable” palm oil producers in RGE’s network of subsidiaries Asian Agri and Apical) is tied to indicators of the companies’ compliance with “anti-deforestation commitments”, as well as to independent suppliers’ traceability verification.

Advertisement

However, the credibility of these “sustainable” deals was called into question in the above published by the Rainforest Action Network.

Why this matters: Chinese banks’ lack of robust deforestation policies

The rising influence of Chinese banks in “forest-risk” sectors is of particular concern given that Chinese banks persistently have some of the weakest deforestation policies in place compared with banks from other countries.

The lack of formal policy raises questions about whether and how the world’s top creditors to “forest-risk” agribusinesses are carrying out due diligence to ensure their investments do not drive deforestation.

One way of comparing the strength of banks’ policies on deforestation is via the Forest 500, prepared by Global Canopy, which ranks financial institutions based on an evaluation of their publicly available commitments to tackle deforestation and related human rights abuses, assessing factors such as if all commodities are included, as well as the transparency of their reporting against targets.

A staff member counts money at a branch of the Bank of China on August 10, 2011 in Lianyungang, Jiangsu Province of China.

Key Chinese banks, including CITIC, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and Bank of China, are among the top creditors for “forest-risk” companies. VCG via Getty Images / Getty Images

Advertisement

Four out of six major Chinese lenders (including CITIC, Bank of China, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China) assessed in Forest 500’s database have policy scores of zero. Just two Chinese banks score above zero: China Construction Bank scores three points and Agricultural Bank of China scores four points.

All the banks from China in this assessment also score zero points for their approach to human rights abuses associated with deforestation, apart from Agricultural Bank of China, which scores one point only.

By comparison, the overall highest scoring financial institution in Forest 500’s ranking is Schroders, which scores a total of 58.5 points, and has a policy to eliminate “forest-risk” commodity-driven deforestation from its portfolios by 2025.

According to Forest 500, a strong deforestation policy for a bank includes clear, time-bound commitments to eliminate deforestation and associated human rights abuses from its financing, applies to all high-risk commodities across all financial services, and includes robust implementation measures such as due diligence, monitoring and transparent reporting.

Global Witness approached Bank of China, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and CITIC with an opportunity to comment on the report’s findings – including their financing activities and apparent lack of deforestation policies. None of the three banks responded to this request.

Advertisement

Recommendations: What should change

Chinese banks and their regulators must take their deforestation-risk portfolio seriously – the increasing financial support to the “forest-risk” companies shown by our analysis suggests a clear departure from China’s commitment and national policies.

The increasing flow of this funding, coupled with no national regulations to prevent it falling into the hands of deforesting companies, appears to contradict the commitments China has made on the international stage – such as those made under the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration, signed by China and more than 140 nations at COP26, that commits to realigning financial flows with forest protection.

Crucially, supporting companies with a track-record of causing environmental and social harm is also at odds with China’s national policies, especially those designed to guide and leverage finance to support the green and low-carbon transition.

For example, in 2022, a major overarching policy called Green Finance Guidelines set out detailed expectations for banks and insurance companies to identify, monitor, prevent and control their environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks.

The guidelines made it clear that banks should “strictly restrict” granting credit to clients that face significant environmental and social violations and risks (article 20) and strengthen ESG risk management in their credit and investment granting for overseas Belt and Road projects (article 25).

Advertisement

In recent years, China has made efforts to decarbonise its economy and balance growth within planetary boundaries. In fact, the world is increasingly looking to China for leadership in climate and nature actions as the country explores new opportunities in the clean energy sectors.

Aerial view of rainforest being removed to make way for palm oil and rubber plantations

Rainforest being removed to make way for palm oil and rubber plantations. WhitcombeRD / Getty Images

Since the 10th anniversary of the Belt and Road Initiative, China has also introduced a series of policies aimed at greening or reducing risks associated with overseas investments.

Despite being one of the world’s largest markets for “forest-risk” commodities such as soy, beef and palm oil, China currently lacks a national policy prohibiting the import of commodities linked to deforestation.

However, China has made notable bilateral commitments with key forest country partners. For instance, in April 2023, China and Brazil pledged to collaborate on eliminating deforestation and illegal logging, while also enforcing laws to prevent illegal imports and exports.

Advertisement

Major Chinese food companies and traders are piloting “deforestation-free” shipments of commodities like soy, and efforts are underway to make Brazilian beef supply chains to China more traceable.

Global Witness’ analysis suggests that Chinese banks and their regulators can do much more to reverse the environmental and social harm caused by financing deforestation-linked companies, which undermines China’s international climate and nature goals.

Global Witness calls for:

  • Chinese banks should publish and implement clear zero deforestation and human rights protection policies when financing “forest-risk” companies.
  • Banks should implement China’s 2022 Green Finance Guidelines by establishing due diligence processes to identify, monitor and screen out clients linked to deforestation.
  • Chinese banks should establish open communication channels to rapidly receive and address deforestation allegations from international community.
  • The Chinese banking regulator should strengthen green finance policies with clear requirements that banks cease financial support to companies with deforestation-linked supply chains.

Methodology

The Forests & Finance coalition dataset, produced by Profundo and analysed by Global Witness, identifies financial transactions with more than 300 company groups that are involved in the upstream segment of the beef, palm oil, pulp and paper, rubber, soy and timber supply chains in Southeast Asia, Central and West Africa and South America, collectively referred to as “tropical forest-risk sectors” as they drive most deforestation.

Profundo notes that this selection of “forest-risk companies” is “intended to be a representative sample of companies most impacting tropical forests … Factors that led to their selection include the size of the company and land area of operation, access to information on their financing, and known negative impacts of their operations on tropical forests.”

Profundo’s data is compiled from Bloomberg, Refinitiv, Orbis and other sources, along with company reports.

Advertisement

The dataset captures six types of asset class and transaction, split into investments (2024; bondholding and shareholding), and credit (2010-2024; revolving credit facilities; loan issuance; bond issuance and share issuance).

Profundo applied “segment adjusters” to each company to estimate how much of a given portion of total finance could reasonably be expected to have financed the production or trade of a “forest-risk” commodity.

That means, for example, that finance provided by a Chinese financial institution to the US branch of a global conglomerate company is discounted, meaning all financing in this dataset are Profundo’s estimates of funding allocated towards commodity production in regions where deforestation occurs.

Read more information on Profundo’s methodology.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Finance

Money issues? The financial psychotherapist will see you now

Published

on

Money issues? The financial psychotherapist will see you now

I am surprised that Vicky Reynal, a financial psychotherapist, is soft and reaffirming when I meet her. Perhaps I shouldn’t be – she is a therapist, after all. But something about her line of work, helping people untangle their issues with money, had primed me to expect someone more brisk, more clinical.

I think of how many business executives she meets with, how prohibitively expensive her time must be, and how strong her boundaries probably are. I even panic at the thought of logging into our Zoom meeting one minute late, because time, after all, is money.

Reynal, I’m sure, would find this compelling. She believes that we often have thoughts and feelings about money that actually have nothing to do with cold, hard cash, and everything to do with our earliest emotional experiences, deepest yearnings or misgivings.

It can be frustrating, then, that Reynal won’t talk much about herself. I’m genuinely curious – especially when I ask about her fascination with Warren Buffett, whom she has read extensively about and once met in person. She admits she was drawn to him growing up, but offers only vague hints as to why: references to formative financial experiences and the symbolic weight he held within her family, though she declines to elaborate.

As a psychotherapist, she tries to obscure her own life from her clients, to prevent it obstructing their process. Anonymity, it turns out, is a very good therapeutic tool.

Advertisement

“People try to guess where I’m from, and their guesses tell me so much about their internal world. Some people who have very strict and ungiving parents guess that maybe I’m eastern European, because of how cold they perceive me to be. Others guess I am Mediterranean or South American – from a warm country – because of how loving and giving [they think] I am.”

When Reynal was younger and went through therapy herself, she had a transformative experience working through some of the feelings about money. This, she thought, must be an area ripe for psychotherapeutic practice. But after nearly a decade studying psychology and psychotherapy, she was surprised to find that only a handful of research papers and textbooks directly focus on it.

“I thought, ‘Wait a minute, we are talking about our relationship with food, with sex, with people, why aren’t we talking about people’s relationship with money?’ It comes in the therapy room anyway, because it’s part of leading a life and people get into all sorts of messes because of it – and as therapists we have the lens to understand that.”

When Reynal began to explicitly market herself as a financial psychotherapist, she was suddenly overwhelmed by patients queueing up to talk to her. Her inbox was full of emails from would-be clients, telling her how relieved they were to find her. “They were saying: ‘I didn’t know a money psychotherapist existed, and I need your help,’” she says.

Advertisement

She sees some clients on a concession fee or a reduced rate, as they may be unemployed or struggling with debt. But others don’t need it. These are patients who know what they need to do when it comes to money on a rational level, but they just can’t bring themselves to do it: the client who obsessively buys shoes, or the one that can’t bring himself to buy basic things like a coat in the winter, because he feels a deep and bewildering desire to deny himself nice things – despite having more than ample means to buy them. Others have more than enough cash, but can’t find contentment. They come to her thinking: “Maybe you won’t judge me, for being wealthy and yet unhappy.”

Finances are central to how we relate to the world. The way we deal with our income affects our families, shapes our conversations with partners, and can cast long shadows over our relationship to our parents.

But as with so much in therapy, when people think they are coming to talk about money, it is actually not about the money at all. And beneath all that, it often reflects the lessons we absorbed growing up.

“It’s just a language that we use, because I think it’s easier to say: ‘You are being stingy,’ than to say: ‘I wish you were more affectionate with me,’ or ‘I don’t feel you love me enough,’ or ‘I love you more than you love me,’” says Reynal.

Our thoughts and feelings about money often reflect the lessons we absorbed growing up. Photograph: Andrew Aitchison/Alamy

She also meets clients who are struggling to make ends meet, who have the sense that they are being childish and impulsive with money – they feel belittled by the way that they spend. When Reynal raises this, I can’t help but wonder whether her clients attach those negative descriptions to themselves because in the US and the UK, poverty is often described as being about bad choices rather than broader economic conditions.

Advertisement

Most of us can point to relationships in our lives – certainly with ourselves – where the way in which we spend serves as a proxy for something deeper. The colleague who is a constant under-tipper, who feels hard done by despite always contributing least to the bill; the sibling who works like a dog but can never, ever ask for a raise; the friend who constantly feels on the edge of financial ruin, despite having more than enough.

So what are the subconscious motivators beneath these interactions? Reynal will often see clients who come in to talk to her about one thing: for example, a recurring frustration that they are always too generous and give far beyond their means, even to the point that it leaves them feeling resentful and angry; which in turn leads to a conversation about people pleasing and where the urge to put others’ needs first came from in their life.

Those behaviours, it turns out – just like infidelity or drug use, or any of the more obvious topics that we associate with therapy – may originate from a time in our lives when we felt unsatisfied. An incredibly generous person might have struggled to fit in during their teenage years, while another’s hunger for wealth might be due to an unmet need to be loved by their caregiver as a baby or feeling constantly rejected or dismissed as a child.

“They are non-obvious links on the surface … but they help us get to the real longing underneath, the real unmet desire.”

Her practice has helped her understand broader shifts, too. She remains shocked at how social media use has led to an unprecedented level of lifestyle inflation. People are no longer comparing their lives with their neighbours, but to totally unattainable lifestyles displayed by people paid to look rich.

Advertisement

“There’s this manic level of social comparison,” she says. “People begin to believe that everyone has more money than they do. A lot of clients of mine are men who come under an enormous amount of pressure because they have taken on mortgages bigger than they could afford or cars that they couldn’t afford. They have to accept that they have failed against their own standards, or the shame of not being able to provide what their family wanted or was hoping for.”

In some ways, it’s no surprise that many of her clients feel a sense of relief after finding her. These kinds of struggles aren’t often met with much sympathy – especially in an economy where so many are simply trying to make ends meet.

“There’s this idea that is quite common that money will fix everything. And of course, if you are struggling to pay your bills, money would make that better. But to make the leap that if people have money they must be happy, or they have no right to be unhappy – that’s a big leap,” she says.

She lists many of the ways that people struggle with wealth. Some clients have more than their families did, and self-sabotage as a result, perhaps believing they don’t deserve it. They don’t invoice clients properly for work, or feel guilty when there’s a lot of money in their account. Others spend money extravagantly, almost to rid themselves of it. And in the therapy room she often learns about how the stories clients have heard growing up affect them: if their families thought of wealth as immoral or greedy, for example, what does that say about them if they become wealthy?

But Reynal also stresses the many stabilizing and positive relationships people have with money – like feeling empowered after years of struggle, or wanting to be financially independent because it is freeing.

Advertisement

“It’s not about stripping emotions out of financial decisions,” she says. “It’s about becoming aware of them.”

In that sense, she invites readers to be inquisitive about their own attitudes towards money, how they spend it, and where their own beliefs about financial security come from.

“We can’t all afford therapy. But opening up that curiosity can be enough: why am I buying this thing? Or why am I feeling guilty about spending money on that thing, if I have enough for it? What’s the longing behind that?” she says.

Some may think there are just a number of different ways to split the bill. But for those who look deeper, they may just find out something new about themselves.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Netflix stock pre-earnings: Is the upside already priced in?

Published

on

Netflix stock pre-earnings: Is the upside already priced in?

00:00 Speaker A

We are cranking it up a few extra gears with Stock of the Week. I’m locked in on Netflix ahead of its July 17th earnings report. What’s caught my attention is that the stock has been underperforming the broader market rally this month. Shares are down five and a half percent in July while the S&P 500 is up 1.7%. Judging by the Wall Street commentary out there, analysts aren’t making too much of this trend divergence though. Needham analyst, Laura Martin, is out today raising her target price on Netflix to $1500 from $1126. She says she remains impressed with Netflix’s global scale and stable content spending. Jumping into the Yahoo Finance platform, you can see Martin isn’t alone in her bullishness. The street has hiked its 2025 EPS estimate on Netflix by 79 cents compared to just 90 days ago. They have also lifted their 2026 EPS estimate by 60 cents during that same time span. Still with me, my round table Larry Tenterelli, Steve Sosnick, and Inez Ferre. Uh, Inez, I want to go to you here on Netflix out of the jump. Netflix, I can understand why these estimates have climbed. Really for the better part of two years, Netflix has come out here and they have completely destroyed, crushed, hammered, however you want to put it, earnings estimates, and they have come out and raised guidance. I’m trying to think, why won’t that happen again, given how popular the platform is?

02:24 Inez Ferre

Well, certainly you have a lot of Wall Street that believes that they can continue to outperform as a company. I mean, they’ve had their password share crackdown. They’ve had their ad tiers that has done very well. They are pushing into live sports. So there’s a lot of reasons why the street is bullish on the stock that and you mentioned the sort of underperformance this week, but look, if you take a look at a year to date chart and you take a look at where it’s come from the April lows, you have Seaport Global that has been that noted this when they actually lowered their rating to neutral because they said, “It’s a lot that’s baked into the stock right now. And on evaluation standpoint, they’re saying, let’s just wait to for for management to execute on everything that is now priced into the share into these shares because they’ve gone up since those April lows, almost 50%.”

04:01 Speaker A

Advertisement

Larry, let me get over to you here. The stock has underperformed in July. Any concern or red flag on your part there ahead of earnings?

04:24 Larry Tenterelli

No, that’s part of the rotation that I discussed that started on July 1st. The chart that you just put up showed a sharp pullback in Netflix on July 1st. And we saw that with quite a few of the high momentum stocks and money moved into small caps, healthcare, home builders. And I I think it’s a normal sector rotation. Fund managers have made a lot of money this year in tech and some of these growth stocks. And I think it’s a normal rotation to book some gains and then reallocate into underperformers. Netflix is a very strong long-term uptrend. It could always consolidate after nearly a 50% move off the lows, but the long-term trend is very strong.

05:20 Speaker A

Hey Larry, that’s what I’m trying to get at. Is it, is the stock become so priced for perfection? Even if Netflix comes out again, beats on earnings, maybe the street’s just continue to inclined to sell this name.

Advertisement

05:37 Larry Tenterelli

That’s possible. There there’s a lot of gains in a stock like Netflix that could be booked. So as a trend follower, I’m going to stay with the weekly trend, which is strong, but a lot of these stocks have had big run-ups. So if there was some profit taking into earnings or after earnings, as long as they stay over the 50-day moving average, it really wouldn’t concern me.

06:04 Speaker A

Steve, last word to you. Is Netflix perhaps one of the most perfect stocks in the market? Uh, they had Squid Games, the finale drop at the end of the quarter. This is going to be the first full quarter where they raise prices on folks. So their profit should look pretty good. And oh yeah, there’s no tariff exposure.

06:39 Steve Sosnick

Advertisement

Oh, it’s certainly been a beneficiary for all the reasons you’ve suggested and both and Inez and Larry both made great points about like the the year-to-date performance and also sort of the um, end of the second quarter markup fading uh, at the as of the 1st of July. Um, but I do think, you know, it’s proven to be a very price inelastic stock. I know that I’ve tried to cancel it and my wife and kids have revolted every time I try. Can’t cancel Netflix, Steve. What are you doing, man?

07:39 Steve Sosnick

I don’t watch it. My family does. I watch other stuff. I watch more sports than Netflix, but what ends up happening is they they they rebelled and said, “Absolutely not.” And so I think they’re, you know, this company, every time they’ve tried to do something that people thought might scare off customers, it hasn’t. The question now is, is it priced, is it priced to perfection, or is it priced beyond perfection? Uh, the trends are certainly very strong. Um, it’s been a great company and the, you know, but but as with many things market-related, have we gotten we’ll find out when the earnings come out if we’ve gotten a bit ahead of our skis, um, in terms of expecting another round of perfection. But boy, the market since the last earnings, uh, the market’s really repriced this stock in a very positive way.

Continue Reading

Finance

Ex-Google and Meta Engineers Launch Nauma: Personalized Financial Planning Tools for Tech Professionals

Published

on

Ex-Google and Meta Engineers Launch Nauma: Personalized Financial Planning Tools for Tech Professionals

SAN FRANCISCO, July 10, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — A team of former Google and Meta engineers has launched Nauma, a new platform designed to help people working in tech navigate complex financial decisions with confidence. Nauma’s mission is to democratize fiduciary-quality financial guidance, providing highly personalized planning tools without the high costs of traditional financial advisors.

Today, most high-net-worth families rely on advisors who charge based on Assets Under Management (AUM)—typically 1% of a client’s assets each year. For a family with $5 million, that means paying $50,000 annually, even as the level of service often remains static. Worse, these fees tend to rise 6–8% per year as portfolios grow, creating a system where costs scale without a proportional increase in value.

“The AUM model is outdated and misaligned with clients’ best interests,” said Alex Sukhanov, co-founder of Nauma. “Advisors operating under this model are incentivized to keep assets under their control, which can lead to biased advice when clients actually want to use their money—to buy real estate, start a business, or donate to charity.

Nauma is designed to give tech professionals clarity and control over their financial lives. The platform addresses the complex challenges faced by this group, including optimizing taxes, managing equity compensation, planning for early retirement, and protecting generational wealth.

“Tech professionals are building substantial wealth earlier in their lives, but most tools and advisors aren’t designed for their unique needs,” said Simone, Nauma’s co-founder. “We’re building the modern, intelligent financial planning infrastructure we wish we had—one that puts people, not assets, first.”

Advertisement

For more information, visit https://nauma.ai

About Nauma
Founded by ex-Google and Meta engineers, Nauma provides advanced financial planning tools tailored for people working in tech. By replacing the legacy AUM fee model with scalable, technology-driven solutions, Nauma empowers users to navigate complex financial decisions and build wealth on their own terms.

Media Contact
hello@nauma.ai

Untitled design (45)

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/74982a9a-7d84-4a5c-8e07-edb337b65345

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending