The 29^th United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP29, ended in much frustration in Azerbaijan last year. The agreement on the new climate finance goal was a disappointment to Southeast Asia, which urgently needs more funding to tackle and adapt to climate change.

At the summit, developed countries agreed to increase their climate finance provision to developing countries from US$100 billion to US$300 billion annually by 2035. Contributions from governments and multilateral development banks are expected to meet this target. Given the broader goal to raise US$1.1 to US$1.3 trillion annually in climate finance, this means developing countries would need to raise up to US$1 trillion annually from the private sector and other sources by 2035. These finance provisions will help to fund climate mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, such as through increased uptakes of renewable energy) and climate adaptation projects (adjusting to the consequences climate change) in developing countries.

Global South representatives have expressed anger and disappointment with the negotiation process and with the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG) because, in their view, climate finance should primarily consist of grants and, to a lesser extent, low-interest loans that minimise financial burdens on governments in developing countries. The NCQG, however, suggests that developing countries will have to rely on for-profit private investments to satisfy most of their climate finance needs, especially as discussions of new finance sources, such as from levies on fossil fuels and air travel, remain vague.  Moreover, if inflation is taken into account, the pledged US$300 billion climate finance target will lose 20 per cent of its value by 2035.

Southeast Asia has good reasons to be frustrated with the climate finance agreement at Baku. According to the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Southeast Asia needs US$210 billion — around 5 per cent of the region’s gross domestic product (GDP) — annually until 2030 to invest in climate-resilient infrastructure, and it is unlikely that public finances alone can reach this target. Southeast Asia’s adaptation needs call for investments in multiple areas, such as in agriculture, water management, mangrove protection, and Early Warning Systems to identify climate-related risks and hazards. Estimated total climate adaptation cost, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) in each Southeast Asian country, ranges from 0.1 per cent (for Singapore) to 2.2 per cent (for Cambodia).

To protect its standard of living, Southeast Asia should step up its efforts on climate action and look for additional alternative sources of climate finance.

Southeast Asia’s energy demand growth is also not being evenly matched by investments in renewable energy. A quarter of the growing global energy demand over the next decade is estimated to come from Southeast Asia. However, according to the International Energy Agency, renewable energy investment in Southeast Asia accounts for only 2 per cent of the global total. Although public and private finance play crucial roles in accelerating energy transition in the region, concessional finance of US$12 billion by the early 2030s is needed.

Given the inadequacy of the NCQG, Southeast Asia should continue to look beyond UN climate conferences for climate finance. Even if greater climate finance commitments had been reached at COP29, it would have nevertheless been a Pyrrhic victory. As history demonstrates, countries tend to fall short of their promises. In 2009, developed countries pledged to provide US$100 billion in climate finance per year by 2020, but their contributions only surpassed this target for the first time in 2022.

In Southeast Asia, Indonesia and Vietnam have joined the Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs), a multilateral climate finance initiative supported by the Group of 7 (G7) that encourages developing countries to transition away from coal-fired power.

Large financing gaps remain, however. Countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam have joined the Japan-led Asia Zero Emission Community (AZEC) initiative, which aims to mobilise up to US$8 billion until 2030 to support decarbonisation in Asia, but a third of AZEC projects involve natural gas and fossil-fuel technologies. Asean and the ADB have also established the Asean Catalytic Green Finance Facility (ACGF) to provide loans for green infrastructural investments in the region. Another noteworthy initiative is Singapore’s Financing Asia’s Transition Partnership (FAST-P) which utilises blended finance to advance energy transition in Asia.

It is uncertain whether the options listed above will suffice. Southeast Asia’s battle against climate change is a high-stakes race against time. According to a study by Swiss Re in 2021, the GDP of Asean countries could, in the worst-case scenario, fall by 37.4 per cent by 2048 if the average global temperature rises up to 3.2 degree Celsius compared to the pre-industrial period.

To protect its standard of living, Southeast Asia should step up its efforts on climate action and look for additional alternative sources of climate finance. This should include (but should not be limited to) debt relief, debt-for-nature swap (writing off countries’ debt in return for tangible outcomes in climate/nature projects), green bonds, and support for the new UN global tax convention that aims to raise tax revenues to support sustainable development in the Global South. Such efforts are necessary but might not be sufficient: the financing gap is huge, and the time is short.

Prapimphan Chiengkul is an Associate Fellow with the Climate Change in Southeast Asia Programme at the ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute.

This article was first published in Fulcrum, ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute’s blogsite. 

Another book I applaud is Jonathan Clements’ “How to Think About Money.” “We want to seize control of our finances, so we have more control over our lives,” he writes. The goal, he notes, isn’t to get rich. “The goal is to have enough money to lead the life we want.”

Finally, Benjamin Graham’s classic, “The Intelligent Investor,” is still the “best book about investing,” according to Warren Buffett. The third edition is now out.

There are also a number of free online courses via platforms such as Coursera or edX. Some recent offerings include: Financial Planning for Young Adults, available from the University of Illinois, and Finance for Everyone: Smart Tools for Decision-Making, taught by University of Michigan professors.

Podcasts, too, are entertaining and educational. Right here on Yahoo Finance, there’s “Financial Freestyle” with Ross Mac. Others to check out: Jordan Grumet’s “Earn and Invest” and Morningstar’s “The Long View.”

I am 73, single, retired from my public service work last year, receiving a pension. I have collected Social Security since age 70, and started taking out Required Minimum Distributions from my 457(b) and traditional IRA accounts this year. But I am still working part time with a different employer (no pension, no retirement plan), receiving a W-2.

Am I still qualified to put $8,000 pre-tax money into an IRA account for the year 2024? (The gross income from my part-time job is more than $8,000.) Is there an income limit for traditional IRA deductions in my situation?

Congrats on waiting until age 70 to turn on your Social Security checks. That means you will have the biggest possible amount moving forward compared to starting them back at your full retirement age.

By pushing back tapping your benefits from your IRA until age 70, you earned delayed retirement credits. Those came to roughly an 8% annual increase in your benefit for each year until you hit 70 when the credits stopped accruing.

Read more: What is the retirement age for Social Security, 401(k), and IRA withdrawals?

Now, as for those contributions, you sure can contribute. There is no age restriction on making regular contributions to traditional or Roth IRAs.

A traditional tax-deductible IRA, if you’re not covered by a retirement plan at work, has no income restrictions. If you expect to be in a lower tax bracket in the next few years, the immediate tax deduction and pushing back that tax bill makes sense. Although you’re already taking your RMDs, new contributions can whittle down your taxable income.

But if you’re already in a low tax bracket, I would consider a Roth IRA.

Contributions to a Roth IRA aren’t deductible. They’re made with after-tax dollars, so you don’t report the contributions on your tax return, but you can take money and any earnings out tax-free if you hold the account for at least five years.

How much you can set aside does depend on your total income. For tax year 2024, your modified adjusted gross income limit for single filers is $146,000 with a reduced amount up to $161,000. For 2025, the income limit for contributing is between $150,000 and $165,000.

Since RMDs are never required in Roth IRAs, this is a great way to keep on saving.

For the 2024 tax year, the maximum contribution is $7,000, or $8,000 for those 50 or older who take advantage of the $1,000 catch-up contribution. That’s you. And you can contribute to a 2024 IRA until the April 15 tax filing deadline in 202 5 .

I need to purchase a car at the end of April 2025. I’m saving for a down payment between now and then so I can take out a lower loan amount. I’m also paying down my debt so my credit score increases, helping me with a better interest rate on my loan. I don’t seem to be making much progress on either. Which of the two do you recommend concentrating on more?

If you can put the brakes on buying a car for a bit longer, do it. I recommend focusing on slashing your debt. I’m not sure what kind of debt you’re whittling down, but if your interest rate is sky-high, you have to take control of that first.

Raising your credit score takes time, and adding new debt is not your best option if you can hold off on that big purchase.

Read more: 10 tips to improve your credit score in 2025

If you are paying off revolving credit card debt that keeps rolling over month to month, it’s daunting. The average credit card interest rate is over 20%. That’s pretty hard to get out from under without some real elbow grease. You need to pay much more than your minimum monthly amount to make a dent.

Your debt level is a big factor in your credit score calculation. The higher your credit score, the lower your annual percentage rate (APR) will be on your car loan. The average auto loan interest rate for new cars in the third quarter of 2024 was 6.6%, while the average used car loan interest rate was 11.7%, according to Experian’s State of the Automotive Finance Market report.

Folks with excellent scores — 800 and higher — can find rates as low as 5.25% for new car loans, but that can triple for borrowers with poor credit scores, according to Experian research.

There are a few schools of thought on how to pay down your current debt. With the so-called avalanche method, you pay off debt with the highest interest rate first. Other people opt for the snowball method, which involves focusing on smaller debts first. I am in the avalanche school, but whatever works best for you matters.

Other moves to kick up your score: If you know you’re going to buy a new car, for instance, don’t open new credit card accounts, or close accounts. You need to show that you know how to manage credit by paying balances on time. Never miss a payment or due date. All it takes is one late payment to smash your score and make lenders cautious.

In addition to your credit score, other factors contribute to your interest rate, such as the lender and the length of the loan, which brings us back to saving up a bigger down payment.

I feel your frustration. To get the best car loan, you’ll probably need sizable savings for a down payment, which can be as much as 20% for a new car and closer to 10% for a used one. So saving up is critical, but in my experience, getting your debt under control and your credit score cleaned up has to come first.

Thanks to the readers who felt comfortable sending along your questions. Keep ’em coming.

Kerry Hannon is a Senior Columnist at Yahoo Finance. She is a career and retirement strategist, and the author of 14 books, including “In Control at 50+: How to Succeed in The New World of Work” and “Never Too Old To Get Rich.” Follow her on Bluesky.

Click here for the latest personal finance news to help you with investing, paying off debt, buying a home, retirement, and more

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

Most readers would already be aware that Beeks Financial Cloud Group’s (LON:BKS) stock increased significantly by 12% over the past three months. However, we wonder if the company’s inconsistent financials would have any adverse impact on the current share price momentum. In this article, we decided to focus on Beeks Financial Cloud Group’s ROE.

Return on equity or ROE is a key measure used to assess how efficiently a company’s management is utilizing the company’s capital. In simpler terms, it measures the profitability of a company in relation to shareholder’s equity.

View our latest analysis for Beeks Financial Cloud Group

The formula for return on equity is:

Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) ÷ Shareholders’ Equity

So, based on the above formula, the ROE for Beeks Financial Cloud Group is:

5.8% = UK£2.2m ÷ UK£37m (Based on the trailing twelve months to June 2024).

The ‘return’ is the income the business earned over the last year. That means that for every £1 worth of shareholders’ equity, the company generated £0.06 in profit.

So far, we’ve learned that ROE is a measure of a company’s profitability. We now need to evaluate how much profit the company reinvests or “retains” for future growth which then gives us an idea about the growth potential of the company. Generally speaking, other things being equal, firms with a high return on equity and profit retention, have a higher growth rate than firms that don’t share these attributes.

At first glance, Beeks Financial Cloud Group’s ROE doesn’t look very promising. Next, when compared to the average industry ROE of 17%, the company’s ROE leaves us feeling even less enthusiastic. Hence, the flat earnings seen by Beeks Financial Cloud Group over the past five years could probably be the result of it having a lower ROE.

As a next step, we compared Beeks Financial Cloud Group’s net income growth with the industry and discovered that the company’s growth is slightly less than the industry average growth of 0.9% in the same period.

Earnings growth is an important metric to consider when valuing a stock. It’s important for an investor to know whether the market has priced in the company’s expected earnings growth (or decline). By doing so, they will have an idea if the stock is headed into clear blue waters or if swampy waters await. If you’re wondering about Beeks Financial Cloud Group’s’s valuation, check out this gauge of its price-to-earnings ratio, as compared to its industry.

Story Continues