Connect with us

Finance

Where Does The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation Go From Here?

Published

on

Where Does The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation Go From Here?

Confusion has reigned since the EU’s “Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR)” legislation went into force in March 2021. SFDR had highly ambitious objectives—not only preventing fund “greenwashing” but also shifting capital in support of the EU’s “Green Deal” to become carbon neutral by 2050. Three years later, it is worth asking whether SFDR has achieved those objectives. Or whether it has simply become a complex and ever-changing labeling exercise.

As a starting point, it is still unclear exactly how to categorize a sustainable fund under SFDR. There has been much discussion about what exactly constitutes an Article 8 fund (so-called “light green” since they “promote environmental or social characteristics”) and an Article 9 fund (“dark green” since it goes further and “has sustainable investment as its objective”). The language here is highly ambiguous, particularly since the term “sustainable investment” is used to cover both types of funds, as discussed below. This has created a bonanza for lawyers hired by fund managers to help them substantiate how they are categorizing their funds.

The lack of clarity has created significant confusion in the market. Fund managers have “downgraded” Article 9 funds to Article 8. They have “upgraded” Article 6 funds, which are not claiming any sustainability benefits but still have to report on sustainability risks, to Article 8 and even Article 9. According to Morningstar, in the past quarter 220 funds changed their classification, 190 of these being Article 6 to Article 8.

Advertisement

Very sensibly, on September 14, 2023 Mairead McGuinness, Commissioner for Financial Services, Financial Stability and Capital Markets Union announced “an in-depth three month consultation for stakeholders” to determine “if our rules meet their needs and expectations, and if it is fit for purpose.”

On May 3, 2024 the EU published a Summary Report of this Consultation. It found “Widespread support for the broad objectives of the SFDR but divided opinions regarding the extent to which the regulation has achieved these objectives during its first years of implementation.” Here are some of the key findings:

· “89% of respondents consider that the objective to strengthen transparency through sustainability-related disclosures in the financial services sector is still relevant today.”

· “94% of respondents agree that opting for a disclosure framework at the EU level is more effective than national measures at Member State level.”

Advertisement

· “77% of respondents also highlighted key limitations of the framework such as lack of legal clarity regarding key concepts, limited relevance of certain disclosure requirements and issues linked to data availability.”

· 84% felt “ that the disclosures required by the SFDR are not sufficiently useful to investors.”

· 58% don’t feel the costs “to be proportionate to the benefits generated.”

· 82% felt “that some of its requirements and concepts, such as ‘sustainable investment ’are not sufficiently clear.”

It also found that 83% of respondents felt that “the SFDR is currently not being used solely as a disclosure framework as intended, but is also being used as a labelling and marketing tool (in particular Article 8 and 9).” That said, there was no consensus on whether to split the categories in a different way than Articles 8 and 9 or to convert them into formal product categories by clarifying and adding criteria to the underlying concepts.

Advertisement

While the Consultation was clearly useful, it is telling that there is no clear path forward. It is also telling that there is substantial tension around the issue of transparency. The Consultation found strong support for it but that the current amount was insufficient, yet what there is has a questionable cost/benefit ratio. Squaring that circle will be hard, especially since transparency is seen as the key driver of capital allocation. The brutal fact of the matter is that this complex legislation has been overly ambitious in terms of allocating capital. It is time for some soul searching. Among other things, this involves addressing three underlying fundamental issues: (1) the purpose of the legislation, (2) the impacts it is intended to achieve, and (3) how it addresses the need for financial returns.

In terms of purpose, the original legislation is clearly aimed at using fund disclosure as a lever to reallocate capital to address important environmental and social issues. Here the legislative text states, “As the Union is increasingly faced with the catastrophic and unpredictable consequences of climate change, resource depletion and other sustainability‐related issues, urgent action is needed to mobilise capital not only through public policies but also by the financial services sector. Therefore, financial market participants and financial advisers should be required to disclose specific information regarding their approaches to the integration of sustainability risks and the consideration of adverse sustainability impacts.”

The language here is telling in the word “impact(s).” It appears 39 times in the 16-page directive. At the same time, the term sustainability risk(s) appears 33 times. “A sustainability risk means an environmental, social or governance event or condition that, if it occurs, could cause a negative material impact on the value of the investment.” There is a fundamental tension here that is not addressed since these are independent variables. A company can be doing a good job of managing its sustainability risks for shareholder value creation, now called “single” or “financial” materiality, while still creating negative impacts on the world, or “impact” materiality. The two combined, as is the case with the European Sinancial Reporting Standards (ESRS) developed by the Sustainability Reporting Board (SRB) of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) for the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), are “double materiality.” As with the CSRD, the EU is expecting a great deal from reporting.

Advertisement

This begs the question of what is a “sustainable investment?,” as noted above. The term is used 11 times in the directive. It is only defined on the eighth time, halfway through on p. 8:

“‘’sustainable investment’ means an investment in an economic activity that contributes to an environmental objective, as measured, for example, by key resource efficiency indicators on the use of energy, renewable energy, raw materials, water and land, on the production of waste, and greenhouse gas emissions, or on its impact on biodiversity and the circular economy, or an investment in an economic activity that contributes to a social objective, in particular an investment that contributes to tackling inequality or that fosters social cohesion, social integration and labour relations, or an investment in human capital or economically or socially disadvantaged communities, provided that such investments do not significantly harm any of those objectives and that the investee companies follow good governance practices, in particular with respect to sound management structures, employee relations, remuneration of staff and tax compliance.”

This definition makes clear that SFDR is primarily aimed at directing capital to address environmental and social issues, and many are named.

Advertisement

At the same time, there is an added layer—not only must these investments create positive impact, but they must also “not significantly harm any of those [environmental or social] objectives.” This ignores the fact that every company, no matter how well intended, produces negative externalities even when it is diligently operating according to existing laws and regulations. It’s a kind of “have your cake and eat it too” desire. Thrown in at the end is a caveat about good governance which is mentioned three times but never defined. I suspect that most boards of directors, even in Europe, would consider shareholder value creation at the core of good governance. The essence of the message from SFDR is that fund managers should invest in companies that do good, don’t do bad, and have good corporate governance.

The essential question, then, is whether SFDR has had any real world impact. Has there been a massive reallocation of capital in line with SFDR’s very laudable policy objectives? Although Article 8 funds now account for 55% of European fund assets, Article 9 funds only account for 3.4%. It is safe to say that the increase of Article 8 fund assets has not driven a massive shift in corporate activity to meet the EU’s environmental and social sustainability goals. So is it fair to say that SFDR has not achieved the real world impact that the legislation originally intended? In fact, it’s unclear whether there have been any efforts to actually assess whether SFDR has met the EU’s policy objectives of capital reallocation in service of achieving a more sustainable economy. As the EU revisits SFDR, it will be important to be clear about how to assess the success of any policy objective and what data would be used to measure this.

There is also the important question of how financial returns fit into the SFDR. The answer is “not much.” The term is used exactly one time: “In order to comply with their duties under those rules, financial market participants and financial advisers should integrate in their processes, including in their due diligence processes, and should assess on a continuous basis not only all relevant financial risks but also including all relevant sustainability risks that might have a relevant material negative impact on the financial return of an investment or advice.” So financial return is only discussed in the context of single materiality and completely ignored in the context of impact materiality. It’s as if the legislation assumes no tradeoffs exist. Similarly, the term “value creation” is never used. “Value” is used three times. Twice about sustainability risks and once about insurance products.

Advertisement

So what should be done? Easy to say but hard to do given the political and economic capital that has been invested in the SFDR. The EU needs to carefully consider what the policy objective of the legislation is, ensure the intended impact is something that is actually achievable through fund disclosure, carefully tailor the legislation to achieve those intended impacts, consider the cost-benefit ratio, and determine how they will measure and assess whether it’s achieving the intended impact. There’s also the important missing piece of returns. Whatever politicians wish capital would do, what it does do is go to where there is the right risk-adjusted return.

Oh, and while disclosure is very important, it’s equally important to not expect too much from it alone.

Advertisement

Finance

What falling wage growth says about where the U.S. economy is heading

Published

on

What falling wage growth says about where the U.S. economy is heading

Americans are getting smaller pay raises while tariffs and higher gas prices are threatening to make everything more expensive.

Translation: The affordability problem isn’t improving.

Advertisement

New government data released Friday showed non-supervisory workers getting a 3.4% pay raise on average hourly earnings over the last year. That’s the slowest pace of wage gains since 2021, and a downshift from the last two years, when pay bumps were closer to 4%.

The slowdown comes as economists worry about rising inflation, with the Iran war choking off oil tankers and pushing gas prices up over $1 per gallon in just a month, to a national average of $4.09 on Friday.

As diesel costs break $5.50 a gallon (compared to just $3.89 a month ago), retailers and grocers are now contending with higher transportation costs. Amazon said Thursday it will begin charging sellers a 3.5% “fuel and logistics-related surcharge” beginning on April 17.

Airlines like United and JetBlue are raising bag fees in an effort to offset sky-high jet fuel costs. The International Air Transport Association says the price of jet fuel is up 104% in the past month.

“With the recent uptick in inflation driven by energy prices, real wage growth is likely to decelerate further, putting increased pressure on consumers,” said Thrivent’s chief financial and investment officer, David Royal.

Advertisement

For now, Americans are still seeing their earnings rise at a faster pace than the increase in price tags at the store. As pay rose by 3.4%, the most recent inflation data showed prices rising by 2.4% year-over-year.

Wage gains for non-supervisory employees — a category that includes roughly four out of every five non-farm workers — have been outpacing price increases since March 2023, when post-pandemic inflation finally began to cool.

But the concern is that the story could change soon. Because of the bump from oil prices, Navy Federal Credit Union Chief Economist Heather Long said it’s possible inflation could pace at 4% this month.

“Four percent is above that 3.5 percent annual wage gain, and that’s where you see a lot of squeeze on workers, particularly middle-class and moderate-income workers,” Long said.

Warning signs are flashing that slowing wage growth could ripple beyond the gas station and prices at the grocery store. Higher mortgage rates now have some worried about icing out even more potential homebuyers.

Advertisement

The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate rose from 5.99% at the start of the war to 6.45% on April 3, according to Mortgage News Daily. The rise is due in part to concerns that the Federal Reserve will have to raise interest rates to tamp down on war-driven inflation.

“With choppy job growth, weaker labor-force attachment and rising uncertainty, many households — especially renters and first-time buyers — could become more cautious as weaker inflation-adjusted wages erode recent affordability improvements,” said Zillow senior economist Orphe Divounguy.

If wages can’t keep up with rising costs across the board, it’s likely that affordability will become a larger issue than it already was prior to the war. An NBC News poll conducted during the first week of the war with Iran found that, for a plurality of respondents, inflation and the cost of living was the most important issue facing the country.

Economists feel the same way.

Responding to a question from NBC News at a March 18 news conference, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell noted that “real” wage gains — a measure of wages adjusted for inflation — need to be positive in order for Americans to feel better about affordability.

Advertisement

“it will take some years of positive real earning gains for people to feel good again, we think. But you’re right — when you talk to people, they do feel squeezed,” Powell said.

Continue Reading

Finance

Focus Wealth Management Appoints Henry Kim as Chief Financial Officer and Head of Compliance

Published

on

Focus Wealth Management Appoints Henry Kim as Chief Financial Officer and Head of Compliance

TORONTO, April 4, 2026 /CNW/ – Focus Wealth Management is pleased to announce that Henry Kim has joined the firm as Chief Financial Officer and Head of Compliance. In his new role, Mr. Kim will oversee the firm’s finance, governance, and compliance functions, further strengthening operational and investment processes across the organization.

Henry Kim, Focus Wealth Management (CNW Group/Focus Wealth Management)

Mr. Kim previously served as Chief Financial Officer of the University Pension Plan of Ontario and as Chief Financial Officer and Chief Compliance Officer at CGOV Asset Management. He also held the role of Director, Investment Finance at CPP Investments and began his career in Assurance and Advisory Services at Deloitte & Touche.

“Henry’s expertise in finance and governance makes him an invaluable addition to our leadership team,” said Greg Thompson, Executive Chairman. “His appointment strengthens our operational and compliance framework while supporting our mission to deliver aligned, long-term investment outcomes for our clients.”

Mr. Kim holds a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from the University of Western Ontario and an MBA from the University of Toronto. He is a Chartered Professional Accountant and serves on the Board of Directors of Lumenus Mental Health, Development and Community Services as Chair of the Finance and Audit Committee and Treasurer.

Focus Wealth Management is a privately owned and independently operated firm located in Toronto.

Advertisement
Focus Wealth Management (CNW Group/Focus Wealth Management)
Focus Wealth Management (CNW Group/Focus Wealth Management)
Cision
Cision

View original content to download multimedia: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/April2026/04/c7403.html

Continue Reading

Finance

Financial Health Review Team Charts Course for Remainder of Review Period – East Lansing Info

Published

on

Financial Health Review Team Charts Course for Remainder of Review Period – East Lansing Info



A committee appointed by the East Lansing City Council to review local finances is poised to make recommendations about the city’s income tax, facility sales and much more over the next three months. 

During the first half of its six-month review period, the committee has spent hours hearing presentations on city department budgets, employee benefits and other components of the city budget. Next, the committee will discuss the information it has gathered and make recommendations for the City Council to consider. 

At its meeting on Thursday, the committee created a list of topics it will discuss over the remainder of its review period. Many of the discussions were brief and did not indicate what recommendations the committee may make. Still, the conversations were helpful to understand the types of changes the city may make to address a structural budget deficit. 

New recommendations for the income tax could be coming. 

Advertisement

In 2018, East Lansing voters allowed the city to implement an income tax of 1% on residents and .5% on non-residents. The tax allowed the city to tax Michigan State University employees and was paired with a five-mill reduction to the city’s property tax cap. 

After the income tax reimburses the general fund for revenue lost by the property tax reduction, 60% of the tax goes to paying down the city’s pension liability, 20% goes to police and fire and 20% goes towards infrastructure. 

A graphic included in last year’s budget presentation that shows how income tax revenue is allocated.

Since the tax was put in place, it has been a lifeline for city finances, generating millions of dollars in additional income each year. The tax is set to sunset at the end of 2030, unless it is renewed by voters.

The committee could make recommendations about whether or not to put the income tax on the ballot for renewal and if the revenue should be used in a different way than it is currently. The committee is set to discuss the income tax at its next meeting on April 16. 

More regional collaboration on the horizon?

Advertisement

The committee was initially set to discuss creating authorities by working with other municipalities at Thursday’s meeting. However, East Lansing Chief Financial Officer Audrey Kincade said city attorneys did not respond to a request to come to the committee meeting, delaying the discussion.

Committee Chair Jill Rhode said the review team will later discuss if it would save the city money to work with other jurisdictions to create a parks or fire authority, and if local district courts should be combined.

The committee will look into revenue from MSU. 

The impact Michigan State University has on the city’s finances has been widely discussed in city meetings, as the university is East Lansing’s top employer and contributes much of the income tax gains. MSU also relies on city services and land on its campus is not subject to property taxes. 

Rhode said she wonders if there’s a way to put a surcharge on MSU event tickets. She clarified she is not sure if this is a possibility, but would like to ask city attorneys about it. 

Advertisement

The committee will also discuss revenue sharing between the state and city. Previously, discussions at committee meetings and City Council have raised questions about if East Lansing receives enough money for the services it provides to MSU’s campus, including fire services. 

Recommending changes to employee benefits will be considered. 

The cost of benefits for city employees has long been central in discourse about the city’s financial challenges, as unfunded pension liability is one of the main reasons for East Lansing’s budget troubles. 

Rhode said the city should also look at how it funds post-employment benefits, saying the city would save money by fully funding its plan. While the city doesn’t currently have money to fully fund the plan, it could look at making adjustments like redirecting funds from the income tax if voters renew it.

Rhode also suggested the committee examine the cost of other employee benefits, like health insurance. 

Advertisement

“I was surprised that employees contribute nothing to health insurance, I think that is extremely rare,” she said. “I think we should address that and look at it and figure out why that is here.”

Committee member Ann Holmes also suggested the committee examine the city’s practices for reviewing new hires and major expenses from year-to-year. This could mean putting a hiring freeze or reassessing expenses at the start of a new fiscal year. 

Mayor asks the committee to give recommendation on business fees. 

Last budget season, the city installed a new business fee model that aimed to charge bars that saw more public safety issues than others. The Downtown Development Authority contributed $200,000 for police overtime on Thursday through Saturday nights and other busy days downtown. After the $200,000 is expended, businesses are to pay for ELPD overtime costs associated with calls to their business. 

The fee applies to businesses with an entertainment license, which includes bars. However, these businesses can choose to pay a fee that is based on occupancy instead

Advertisement
The fee structure for businesses with an entertainment license, which includes bars. (From city’s website)

The fee structure was controversial, as some business owners said at city meetings that police calls to incidents near their bars were incorrectly attributed to them and they already pay high taxes. Some also worried the structure would be a disincentive to call the police. 

At Thursday’s meeting, Mayor Erik Altmann requested the committee look into a business fee structure that would increase fees for businesses that need police services more often. 

“I think there’s a question about whether fees for public safety are allocated appropriately to consumers of public safety services in our downtown,” Altmann said. “There are a couple of bars in particular that consume a lot of public safety services.”

Committee to review DEI department. 

Committee member David Lancaster asked that the group discuss the city’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Department at a future meeting. 

“I wonder why we have a DEI department,” he said. “I would think… since 2020 [when the department was added] that anything should be ingrained into personnel policies, and that would seem to be the responsibility of the personnel department and the city manager.” 

Advertisement

The exchange was brief and it’s unclear what recommendations could be made to the DEI department, but Rhode did add it to the list of topics the committee will discuss. 

Recommendations could be issued about taking on debt for facility improvements. 

At a discussion-only City Council meeting last month, the body discussed potentially spending upwards of $30 million facility improvements to City Hall, the Hannah Community Center, the fire station, recreational facilities and parking garages. 

The cost of a 20 and 25-year bonds with improvements to the third floor of the Hannah Community Center. (From agenda)
The cost of a 20 and 25-year bonds without improvements to the third floor of the Hannah Community Center. (From agenda)

Prior to Thursday’s meeting, Belleman provided the committee with a memo that clarified the costs for the improvements would be absorbed by the city’s budget, not paid for by a property tax increase. 

The facility improvements would be paid for using a 20 or 25-year bond. Paying for the improvements through a bond would spread the cost out over decades, but add millions in interest payments. 

Should the city sell properties?

Advertisement

When the city previously discussed using a bond to pay for infrastructure improvements, Altmann floated the idea of selling properties like the Aquatic Center, Soccer Complex and even Hannah Community Center. 

At Thursday’s meeting, Altmann said he thinks the sale of city assets must be discussed by the committee. It was explained that in order for the city to sell properties, voters must first approve the sale on a ballot. 

Councilmember Mark Meadows said another option to reduce the cost of operating facilities could be contracting with a third-party company to manage them. 

Committee to talk about severity of financial challenges, previous review. 

Committee Vice Chair Roberta Jameson was not at Thursday’s meeting, but Rhode said Jameson has reviewed recent city budgets and sent questions to try to determine the extent of the city’s financial woes. 

Advertisement

A financial forecast presented to the City Council earlier this year projected East Lansing will be bankrupt within five years if it does not make adjustments. However, in recent years budget projections showing large losses have not come to fruition. 

City Manager Robert Belleman previously said the discrepancy between budget projections and year-end results has largely been due to vacant positions and delaying major projects. 

Previously, the committee recommended the city start using a “vacancy factor” for budgeting. A vacancy factor would attempt to account for vacant positions during the budget process, and give the city a more accurate look at its finances at the start of the fiscal year. 

In addition to Jameson’s coming report, the committee will review recommendations from a Financial Health Review Team that made recommendations about a decade ago. The committee will see what suggestions were made and if the city put these recommendations into place.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending