The CSR Newsletters are a freely-available resource generated as a dynamic complement to the textbook, Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation.

To sign-up to receive the CSR Newsletters regularly during the fall and spring academic semesters, e-mail author David Chandler at david.chandler@ucdenver.edu.

Showing posts with label Morgan Stanley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Morgan Stanley. Show all posts

Monday, October 30, 2017

Strategic CSR - Electric cars (I)

The article in the first url below sheds some light on the economics of the electric car:
 
"Electric cars have come a long way. They are no longer ugly, impossibly expensive and impractical, thanks to technological advances that have slashed battery storage from $1,000 per kilowatt-hour in 2010 to $273per kwh last year."
 
In particular, it highlights the extent to which Tesla (and other car companies) have so far relied so heavily on government subsidies – a prop that will soon come to an end:
 
"Nonetheless, … a 75 kwh battery (about 250 miles of range) still adds about $20,000 to a car's cost. So how do the cars sell? Public largess helps a lot. The federal government offers a tax credit of up to $7,500 each for the first 200,000 electric or plug-in hybrid cars a manufacturer sells. Throw in state tax credits, subsidies for recharging infrastructure, relief from gasoline taxes, preferential lanes and parking spots and government fleet purchases, and taxpayers help pay for every electric car on the road."
 
Anecdotal evidence suggests that, when this support is taken away, the cars are not so competitive, at least in terms of the mass market:
 
"When Hong Kong slashed a tax break worth roughly $55,000 fora Tesla in April, its sales ground to a halt. In Georgia, electric vehicle sales plummeted 80%the month aftera$5,000 tax credit was repealed."
 
The future for the market for electric cars, as envisioned by Tesla, also relies on certain assumptions that, while not impossible, are also far from guaranteed:
 
"… such scenarios hinge not just on the cost of batteries but on the price of oil and the efficiency of competing vehicles. [Economists] estimate that if batteries cost $270 per kwh, oil would have to cost more than $300 a barrel in 2020 to make electric and gasoline equally attractive. If battery costs fall to $100, as Tesla Founder Elon Musk has targeted, oil would have to average $90. … in an optimistic scenario, where battery costs fall 10% a year starting now and gasoline begins at $5 a gallon, electric vehicles will be competitive in five years. If battery costs fall just 5% a year and gasoline starts at $2.25, it will take more than 20."
 
At a more fundamental level, the author questions the extent to which electric cars have helped reduce climate change. This is principally because they are recharged at night, which is when electricity is more likely to be generated by coal:
 
"Economists … estimate electric vehicles account for more carbon dioxide per mile than existing cars in the upper Midwest, where coal-fired plants are more prevalent, and more than comparable hybrids in most of the U.S."
 
While I recognize that the oil companies and traditional car companies also get their fair share of government subsidies, it is instructive to realize that electric cars (at least using current technologies) might not be the silver bullet that Elon Musk often suggests. Strategic CSR, of course, argues for a level playing field – remove all subsidies, impose a lifecycle pricing that accounts for all costs incurred during production (in this case, a carbon tax for carbon-based fuel consumption), and allow the market to determine where to invest to optimize returns. In the meantime, we are stuck with government subsidies and, as a result, distorted market outcomes. As the author concludes:
 
"These subsidies have clearly accomplished one goal: They've accelerated innovation when the private market had little incentive to invest. Yet they may not be the most efficient way to combat carbon emissions. A carbon tax, for example, would incentivize conservation and alternative fuels regardless of oil prices."
 
In short, as summarized in a recent report by Morgan Stanley on impact investing:
 
"… the carbon emissions generated by the electricity required for electric vehicles are greater than those saved by cutting out direct vehicle emissions."
 
The article in the second url below suggests additional possible additional harm caused by electric cars -- this time in terms of e-waste:
 
"The number of electric cars in the world passed the 2m mark last year and the International Energy Agency estimates there will be 140m electric cars globally by 2030 if countries meet Paris climate agreement targets. This electric vehicle boom could leave 11m tonnes of spent lithium-ion batteries in need of recycling between now and 2030, according to Ajay Kochhar, CEO of Canadian battery recycling startup Li-Cycle."
 
Take care
David
 
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
Electric Cars Are the Future? Not So Fast
By Greg Ip
July 13, 2017
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
A2
 
The rise of electric cars could leave us with a big battery waste problem
By Joey Gardiner
August 10, 2017
The Guardian
 

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Strategic CSR - Financial Advisers

The research summarized in the article in the url below contains some worrying information about the financial advising industry:
 
"[Research published by] the University of Chicago and University of Minnesota found that 7 percent of financial advisers have been disciplined for misconduct that ranges from putting clients in unsuitable investments to trading on client accounts without permission. That's a troubling mark for an industry that relies on the trust of clients."
 
More worrying is that the 7% number is only an average. While the 'cleanest' companies such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs had less than 1% of their advisers who had been disciplined in this way, in some companies (which interestingly, given recent events, includes Wells Fargo) the number was above 15% and, in other companies, it was higher still:
 
"Nearly 20 percent of financial advisers at Oppenheimer & Co., with more than 2,000 advisers counted in the study, have misconduct records, according to the new paper."
 
Also disconcerting was that, although these advisers were initially punished, there did not appear to be any lasting stigma attached to their transgressions. In fact, it looks as though whatever drove them to transgress in the first place is a skillset that is in demand in this industry:
 
"Misconduct isn't left unchecked by financial firms. About half of advisers found to have committed misconduct are fired—although 44 percent of advisers who leave a job due to misconduct are hired by another firm within a year, according to the paper."
 
This is in spite of an elevated risk of future transgressions by past offenders:
 
"Many fired advisers end up moving to firms that have higher rates of misconduct than their previous employer did, and they become repeat offenders. 'Prior offenders are five times as likely to engage in new misconduct as the average financial adviser,' the study found."
 
For a list of the Top 10 and Bottom 10 companies in the industry in terms of the percentage of advisers who have been disciplined, see:
 
 
Take care
David
 
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
It Just Got Even Harder to Trust Financial Advisers
By Suzanne Woolley
March 1, 2016
Bloomberg Businessweek
 

Monday, September 28, 2015

Strategic CSR - Finance

The article in the url below reports the latest success for environmental activists campaigning against banks that finance companies involved in strip coal mining:
 
"Last week, with little fanfare, PNC Financial, the nation's seventh-largest bank, disclosed a significant strategic shift. The bank said it would no longer finance coal-mining companies that pursue mountaintop removal of coal in Appalachia, an environmentally devastating practice that has long drawn opposition."
 
It seems that PNC was one of the few remaining banks willing to finance this industry:
 
"PNC had been a holdout; Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Credit Suisse and others had already distanced themselves from coal companies involved in mountaintop removal."
 
As such, future options for the industry are running out:
 
"GE Capital and UBS appear to be the only large financial institutions in the country still willing to lend money to companies involved in this mountaintop mining, and even they are scrutinizing such activities."
 
The article suggests that this strategy of trying to cut-off supplies of finance is more effective for campaigners instead of trying to force investors to divest from carbon energy stocks:
 
"It's one thing for large investors like the Rockefeller family or Stanford University's endowment to pull out of fossil fuel companies. The result, maybe, is a marginally lower stock price for the big oil players. But it's quite another when the nation's banks decide, independently or collectively, to effectively shut off the financing for projects that require considerable capital. It has the effect of killing the business."
 
Take care
David
 
David Chandler & Bill Werther
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://www.sagepub.com/chandler3e/
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
A New Tack in the War on Mining Mountains
By Andrew Ross Sorkin
March 10, 2015
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
B1
 

Friday, March 7, 2014

Strategic CSR - Financial Crisis

Some quotes from the article in the url below that should be of concern to anyone hoping that we had learned from the Financial Crisis:
 
“Five years after the system was held at gunpoint by a massively interconnected and over-risked Wall Street, the country’s six biggest banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley—are now 37 percent larger than they were in the depths of the financial crisis. These institutions make more than four out of every 10 loans and tote two-thirds of the banking system’s $14.4 trillion in assets.”
 
“The total roster of U.S. banks is at all-time record low. In 1985, there were more than 18,000, compared with 6,891 now. … ‘The federal government has been keeping track of the number of banks since 1934 and this year is the very first time that the number has fallen below 7,000.’ [writes economics author and blogger Michael Snyder].”
 
“JPMorgan Chase is about the size of the entire British economy and holds 12 percent of all cash in the U.S.”
 
“Four U.S. banks now lug total derivatives exposure well north of $40 trillion, or more than the combined value of U.S. gross domestic product and the national debt.”
 
Too big to fail is not only alive and well, it is the global financial system! The graphic that accompanies the article demonstrates clearly how the banking industry has consolidated over the last two decades:
 
 
Have a good weekend.
David
 
David Chandler & Bill Werther
 
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: http://www.sagepub.com/chandler3e/
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
 
 
Is Wall Street Now Too Big to Care?
By Roben Farzad
December 10, 2013
Bloomberg Businessweek