Finance

Where Does The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation Go From Here?

Published

2 years ago

May 16, 2024

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.

Upset puzzled businesswoman making do not know gesture. Young black business woman standing isolated … [+] over white, looking at camera, shrugging. Clueless concept

getty

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.

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.”

· “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.

Smart and thoughtful mature woman holding her chin and pondering idea, making difficult decision, … [+] looking uncertain doubtful. Indoor studio shot isolated on beige background

getty

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.

Front view portrait of a confused businesswoman shrugging shoulders looking at camera at office

getty

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.

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.

Close-up portrait of her she nice attractive puzzled ignorant wavy-haired girl showing gesture no … [+] information isolated on bright vivid shine yellow background.

getty

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.

Young beautiful arab woman over isolated background clueless and confused expression with arms and … [+] hands raised. Doubt concept.

getty

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.

Click to comment

Finance

Canton High School students find success in personal finance

Published

2 minutes ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Canton High School students find success in personal finance

CANTON, Miss. (WLBT) – A group of juniors at Canton High School has won back-to-back state championships in Mississippi’s Personal Finance Challenge.

The team’s work can be seen through the school’s reality fair, where students are assigned careers and salaries and must make the same financial decisions adults face each month.

Teena Ruth, a personal finance teacher, said the exercise resonates beyond the classroom.

“It’s an eye-opening experience,” Ruth said. “They kind of see what it’s like for even their parents when they have to make these decisions every day — when they are writing out those checks.”

For student Jalynn Dunigan, the program carries personal significance.

“To be known for something else outside of cheer and not just what I do on a court, on a field. I can do something and put my brains to it and people can know that I’m not just pretty,” Dunigan said. “I’m smart as well.”

Student Henser Vicente said the team’s success sends a broader message.

“We’re making a statement that we’re not what you think we are,” Vicente said. “Like, we’re greater than what you think. We can do better than what you think we can do.”

A proposed financial literacy bill in Mississippi would require students to pass a semester of personal finance as a graduation requirement.

Alexandria Luckett said the team’s national success is already motivating others at the school.

“I’m so happy that people are getting more involved in things like this and stepping out of their comfort zone and just putting themselves out there,” Luckett said. “Because I know there’s a lot of shy students [who] don’t necessarily join clubs or anything. So, when they see a group like this going to nationals two times in a row, I feel like that motivates a lot of students.”

Nelly Rosales said competing at the national level has given the team a platform beyond the competition floor.

“We’ve gone to Cleveland, Ohio, we’ve gone to Atlanta, and then hopefully this year we get to go out of state again,” Rosales said. “Being able to be a role model to a lot of children — like especially Hispanic girls who don’t see a lot of role [models] especially in the community — being able to be a role model is a really big thing.”

The students are currently gearing up for this year’s State Personal Finance Challenge set to take place next month.

Want more WLBT news in your inbox? Click here to subscribe to our newsletter.

See a spelling or grammar error in our story? Please click here to report it and include the headline of the story in your email.

Finance

A 27-year-old drew down half of her stock portfolio to buy real estate. It’s part of her plan to hit financial independence.

Published

12 hours ago

March 1, 2026

Press Room

A 27-year-old drew down half of her stock portfolio to buy real estate. It’s part of her plan to hit financial independence.

A few years into her accounting career, Carolyn Yu began thinking seriously about financial independence.

“I’d feel very stressed and tired,” Yu, who was working at a Big Four firm at the time, told Business Insider. “I thought, maybe someday I could have more freedom and not spend 24/7 working at a very demanding job.”

She picked up “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” and started listening to the popular real estate podcast, BiggerPockets. One takeaway stood out: focus on buying assets that can grow in value.

Yu, who’d been consistently investing in the stock market since college, felt compelled to make a move. In late 2024, she drained about half her stock portfolio in order to pay cash for a two-bedroom, two-bathroom condo in Fort Worth, Texas.

The Bay Area-based Gen Zer had been eyeing Texas in part for its tax advantages, including the absence of state income tax. She considered other Texas markets, but Fort Worth stood out for its affordability and growth potential.

“The population growth, the crime rate, the property value growth — they all looked good to me,” she said.

She flew to Fort Worth, toured the condo, signed a contract the next day, and closed within a month. Yu intentionally kept her first purchase under $100,000, unsure whether she had the capital or experience to take on something larger.

“Pretty much 50% of my stock portfolio was gone,” she said. But the drawdown didn’t faze her. “I knew that $80,000 transitioned into another investment.”

Scaling to 5 properties in 2 years by recycling capital

Yu grew her portfolio by reinvesting equity from one property into the next.

Her strategy centers on buying below market value, improving the property, allowing it to appreciate, and then tapping into the built-up equity to help finance another purchase.

As her portfolio expanded, her financing evolved. She moved from paying all cash for her first condo to using conventional loans and later DSCR (debt service coverage ratio) loans, which are designed for investors and rely heavily on a property’s cash flow.

Her second purchase was a two-bedroom, one-bath single-family home. She bought it in June 2025 for about $105,000, putting down 25%. After investing about $50,000 in renovations, she said the home appraised at $195,000 and rented for $1,500 a month.

“This property allowed me to execute the BRRRR strategy successfully,” she said, referring to buy, rehab, rent, refinance, repeat. She said she was able to pull out about 70% of the appraised value to help fund her next purchases.

Within about two years of buying her first condo, Yu had a five-property portfolio. Her first three are cash-flowing, while her fourth is currently listed for rent, and her fifth is being prepared for tenants. Business Insider reviewed mortgage documents to confirm ownership and lease agreements to verify rental rates.

Yu resides in the Bay Area, but invests in real estate in Fort Worth.

Courtesy of Carolyn Yu

One of the challenges she’s faced since buying property has been vacancy.

She purchased her first condo in late 2024 — “probably the worst time to rent because of winter vacancy,” she said — and it sat empty for six months. She eventually lowered the asking rent by about $100 a month before securing a tenant.

The vacancy was stressful, but manageable because she had paid cash and didn’t carry a mortgage. Still, she owed about $600 a month in HOA dues.

Her advice to other investors: keep at least six months of reserves, know your numbers inside and out, and expect vacancies and repairs.

Why she prefers real estate to stocks

Yu still invests in stocks, but said she prefers real estate because it feels more controllable and scalable. In addition to generating a few thousand dollars a month in rental income, she’s also building equity in her properties.

“Real estate gave me more control, more tangible assets, more tax efficiency,” she said, pointing to depreciation, mortgage interest deductions, and the ability to refinance without selling. She also enjoys negotiating deals.

She funnels most of her rental income back into her stock portfolio. Her end goal is financial independence and work flexibility.

Yu wants to own at least eight properties by 2027 and have her portfolio appraised at roughly $2 million. By then, she hopes rental income will cover her expenses and provide enough cushion to leave her W-2 job, so she can focus solely on her real estate business.

She’s also changed how she thinks about spending. Early in her career, she said she coped with work stress by traveling frequently. Now, she prioritizes investing over lifestyle upgrades.

“I would rather put my money into investments right now in exchange for vacations in the future,” she said. “I think it’s totally worth it because I think in two years, I could be financially free.”

Finance

When making travel plans, timing and financing are major considerations

Published

1 day ago

March 1, 2026

Press Room

When making travel plans, timing and financing are major considerations

For the true travel fan, there’s often a built-in conflict on how best to plan for your next adventure.

On the one hand, the world awaits. Spin the globe, cover your eyes and point. Or, throw a dart at the map! Then it’s time to dig in and research your next dream destination.

On the other hand, getting the best bargain can be a last-minute proposition. There may be a fare sale today, but not tomorrow. How does that mash up with your bicycle tour in Italy? Or your friend’s wedding in Hawaii?

Spreading out all the options on the table can be daunting. It’s a bit like taking a sip from the fire hose. And we all have varying degrees of tolerance for changing prices, tiny seats and geopolitical uncertainty.

So let’s take a snapshot of what’s happening now, knowing you won’t likely drink from the same river, or fire hose, twice.

Since most of today’s snapshots are on the phone, there are some handy settings: You can zoom in for a closer look at that fruit and cheese platter, frame it up nicely for a good shot of your seatmate, or look out the window and get a nice view from 30,000 feet.

Fares we love. There are just a few fares to zoom in on right now.

Anchorage-Chicago. Three airlines will offer nonstop flights this summer: Alaska, United and American. Alaska and United fly the route year-round. There are just a couple of months where travelers have to stop in Denver or Seattle on the way. Right now, the Basic price is $349 round-trip. United has the least-expensive Main price of $429 round-trip. Alaska charges more: $449-$469 round-trip.

The rate to Chicago is steady throughout the summer, as long as you’re open to flying on other airlines, including Delta and now Southwest, starting May 15.

Anchorage-Dallas. Choose from four airlines with competitive prices. United and Delta offer great rates starting on March 30, for travel all summer and into the fall for $331 round-trip in basic economy. Remember: Basic economy means you’ll be sitting in the middle seat back by the potty. There are few, if any, advance seat assignments permitted and you’re the last to board. Don’t expect to accrue many frequent flyer points. Alaska will give you 30%. Delta and American offer none. United is axing MileagePlus points for basic travelers soon.

Delta and United offer the chance to pay $100 more for pre-reserved seats and mileage credit. Of course, they may charge you more for a nicer seat on the plane. But that’s another story.

American Airlines charges a little bit more, about $20 more for a round-trip, to fly nonstop. It’s a nice flight.

Anchorage-Albuquerque. Delta is targeting this route with a nice rate: $281 round-trip in Basic or $381 in Main. But it’s just between May 23 and June 29. Why? Well, it lines up nicely with Southwest’s launch on May 15. Who knows why airlines cut their fares during a traditionally busy season? It’s just a hunch.

Looking at airfares more broadly, there are a few more bargain rates out there, but most only go through May 20. Airlines are hoping for a robust summer — so prices go up after that.

For example, between March 29 and May 20, Alaska Air offers a nonstop from Anchorage to Los Angeles for $257 round-trip in basic. For pre-assigned seats and full mileage credit, the main price is $337 round-trip. Prices go up to $437 round-trip in the summer.

The view from 30,000 feet is pretty clear, although past performance is no guarantee of future results. Several carriers, including American, Delta, United, Southwest and Alaska are adding flights for the summer. There will be robust competition, which means lower fares. Just last week, Alaska Air dropped the price from Anchorage to Seattle to $210 round-trip. That rate is gone, but others will come along.

Charge it. Banks own the airlines by virtue of their popular credit cards. Do they own you, too?

Sifting through the various credit card offers and bonus points emails, it’s easy to forget that banks, not travelers, are the airlines’ biggest customers. At a Bank of America conference last year, Alaska Airlines reported it receives about 15% of its total revenue from its loyalty plan. That adds up to more than 1.7 billion in 2024. Delta has a similar deal with American Express, which paid the airline about $8.2 billion last year.

Think about that the next time the flight attendants are handing out credit card applications in the aisle.

Zooming in, if you’re going to play the Atmos loyalty game on Alaska Airlines, you have to have an Alaska Airlines credit card from Bank of America.

I carry the plain-old Alaska Air card. I used to have two of them, primarily for the $99 companion fare. That’s still a compelling offer. But to get that benefit, you have to charge it on an Alaska Airlines Visa card.

So the question is: Is it worth it to pay $395 per year for the new Summit Visa card from Bank of America?

If you use your credit card for your business or if you regularly charge thousands of dollars every month, the Summit card may be the card for you.

One of the foundational benefits is for every $2 you charge, you earn one status point toward your next elite tier, such as titanium. It’s possible to charge your way to the top tier of the frequent flyer ladder without ever stepping on a plane. If that’s your level of charge-card use, then the Summit is for you. For the lesser Ascent card like mine, you earn one status point for every $3 spent.

For a little wider view, consider that your other travel costs, including accommodations, can hit your budget a lot harder than an airline ticket. It’s one reason I carry a flexible spend credit card in addition to my Alaska Airlines card. Here’s a snapshot of some popular options:

1. Bilt Rewards. I finally signed up for a Bilt account, although I haven’t yet received my card. There are two big benefits with Bilt: You can charge your rent and transfer points to Alaska Airlines. There also is a scheme to charge your mortgage, but it’s more convoluted. But the charge-your-rent option is a stand-alone gold star for the Bilt program, even if you don’t fly Alaska Airlines.

In addition to the link with Alaska Airlines, Bilt points transfer to other oneworld carriers like British, Japan Airlines and Qatar Air. Hotel partners include Hyatt, my favorite, and Hilton. A big bonus comes with the “Obsidian” card, $95 per year: three points for every dollar spent on groceries.

But there’s also a Bilt card with no annual fee. And there are no extra fees incurred when you charge your rent.

2. American Express. If you fly on Delta, the American Express card is a natural choice.

The two companies really are joined at the hip. The last American Express card I had was a Delta “Gold” card, which included a 70,000-point signup bonus. Cardholders get a free checked bag, although Delta offers two free checked bags for SkyMiles members who live in Alaska, and 15% off award tickets.

The Delta card is free for the first year, then $150 per year thereafter.

There is a dizzying array of American Express cards available, including some with no annual fee. But with Delta there is a narrowed-down selection, including one that’s more than $800 per year. That includes lounge access and some other benefits, including a companion pass.

American Express cardholders also can transfer their points to Hilton and Bonvoy as well as to 15 other airlines.

Capital One offers the Venture X card, which offers cardholders 75,000 points plus a $300 travel credit at their in-house travel service. The cost is $395 per year. Get the slimmed-down Venture card for just $95 per year. You still can earn the 75,000 bonus points after spending $4,000 in the first three months. Plus, there’s a $250 credit with Capital One Travel.

Airline partners include EMirates, Singapore Air, Japan Air and EVA Air, from Taiwan. Hotel partners include Hilton and Marriott.

I’ve carried several Chase cards for years. Right now I have the Chase Sapphire Preferred card, for which I received 80,000 bonus points. But that was several years ago. More recently, I got the Chase-affiliated Ink Business Cash card to harvest a 90,000 point bonus. Previously, I carried the Chase Sapphire Reserve. I got a 100,000 point bonus for that. But I dropped that card when the fee went up to $795 per year.

Stacking the cards like that — getting more than one — has helped me to get more bonus points, both for American Express and for Chase.

The best value for Chase points that I’ve found is for Hyatt Hotels. Right now, it’s the best redemption ration, but that can change. Chase also allows for transfers to Emirates, United, Singapore Air and Southwest, among others. The Chase travel portal is managed by Expedia, so you can redeem points for other hotels at a lower redemption rate.

The long view: All airline mileage plans are now credit card loyalty plans. Terms and conditions change, along with signup bonuses and other features of the cards. Last year, Chase dropped its airport restaurant feature, which offered $29 per person at select restaurants in Los Angeles, Seattle and Portland. A couple of years ago, the Priority Pass affiliated with Chase dropped the Alaska Airlines lounges as a partner.

It takes some time and effort to keep up with the programs and get the best value. But airline credit card plans are here to stay, even if the frequent-flyer programs are watered down year after year.