It could reduce Asia-Pacific’s gross domestic product by 17% in 2070, ADB says.
3 min
Countries in Asia-Pacific will need to spend big to adapt to climate change. But the cost of inaction could be higher, according to a new report by the Asian Development Bank.
Left unchecked, climate change could punch a 17%-sized hole in the region’s economic growth over the next decades, the Manila-based bank said Thursday.
“The window to stay within the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement is rapidly closing,” the ADB said.
The international treaty aims to limit the average rise in global temperatures to that threshold, beyond which experts expect climate change to have increasingly disastrous consequences. In the nine years since the agreement was adopted, inaction has put that goal nearly out of reach, the multilateral bank said.
With greenhouse-gas emissions reaching record highs, nations need to dramatically increase—and immediately start delivering—efforts to get on track for 1.5°C, a United Nations Environment Programme report said last week. Failure to do so will lead to debilitating impacts to economies, the report said.
Asia-Pacific’s position in the climate crisis is a tricky one: it’s both home to some of the most vulnerable economies and a major polluter, contributing over 50% of global GHG emissions.
If emissions breach critical levels, ADB estimates climate change could reduce Asia-Pacific’s gross domestic product by 17% in 2070. Rising sea levels threaten coastal assets and populations, while heat waves would sap labor supply and productivity, and climate-dependent sectors like agriculture, forestry, and fisheries face shocks that will stifle output.
Estimates from the Deloitte Economics Institute calculate that about 75% of Asia-Pacific’s GDP is at high risk of climate disruption. This stands to affect at least half of the world’s labor force, which is in the region and in vulnerable industries. Climate inaction could lead to regional economic losses of about $96 trillion by 2070, the institute said in a report.
Asian countries have made strides toward decarbonising, but just maintaining policies implemented so far will lead to dangerous levels of global warming, the ADB said.
Taking the right type of action won’t come cheap. Estimates for Asia vary widely, in part due to different geographical definitions, but consensus is that funding is well below where it needs to be.
The ADB report estimates Asia-Pacific needs to invest anywhere from $102 billion to $431 billion annually to adapt to climate change. That far exceeds the $34 billion committed over 2021-2022.
Globally, the U.N. calculates the net-zero transition needs $0.9 trillion to $2.1 trillion a year between 2021 and 2050. That “is substantial but manageable in the broader context of the close-to-US$110 trillion global economy and financial markets.”
It remains technically possible to get on a 1.5°C pathway, as solutions like solar and wind power hold promise for fast, sweeping emissions cuts, the U.N. report said.
Getting back on track could be a big boost for Asia-Pacific economies.
The region is well-placed to benefit from the energy transition, the ADB said. It has massive potential for renewable-energy generation and can produce some of the world’s cheapest renewable electricity, it said. Advantages like fast-growing economies, a large workforce and strong manufacturing base equip Asia to develop the technologies needed for global decarbonisation.
That presents a wealth of opportunities for investors.
If governments formulate consistent policies and build climate-oriented financial systems, that can draw the private capital that’s key to plugging the funding gap, ADB said.
Policy uncertainty over could deter investment, particularly in the case of a change of political administrations. Investors hold more sustainable assets when countries adopt climate laws, and misaligned policies reduce incentives for private investors, ADB said.
That is particularly relevant in a year that has seen elections across Asia, including in India, Indonesia and Japan. The upcoming presidential election in the U.S. is in especially sharp focus as the outcome has implications for climate-change efforts.
That’s because of the U.S.’s role as a key player in green innovation and international cooperation on climate commitments and financing, as well as a major trading partner, said ADB principal economist Shu Tian.
Policy uncertainty from a key player can significantly affect the international climate agenda, she said.
“The U.S.’s stance on climate action influences the low-carbon transition through market mechanisms, affecting consumers, suppliers, and investors,” she said. “This, in turn, could impact climate investments across the [APAC] region.”
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
The Australian leather house has opened an immersive four-day pop-up in Manhattan, unveiling its Bloom Collection and redefining what a product launch can look like.
Following the successful launch of its Palais Collection, MAISON de SABRÉ has unveiled a new modular handbag system offering more than 720 styling combinations.
Wall Street’s hottest momentum trade has reversed sharply, as former winners tumble and heavily shorted stocks surge.
3 min
Wall Street’s hottest trade has gone ice cold.
For years, it paid off to buy stocks that were rising in price—and bet against struggling shares. The momentum trade was especially profitable this year, as investors piled into hot stocks including Micron Technology, Nvidia, Advanced Micro Devices and other artificial-intelligence darlings while wagering against those likely to be hurt by the embrace of AI.
The S&P 500 Momentum Index soared 44% in the second quarter, its best quarterly performance on record, and it surged 133% over the past five years, nearly double the broad market’s performance.
Mega funds and rookie investors alike piled into the trade, some using leverage and options contracts in an effort to amplify their returns, propelling the underlying shares higher.
“It is a self-fulfilling prophecy,” said Matthew Tym, managing director at Cantor Fitzgerald, of the trade.
Suddenly, the trade is a loser. The momentum index has tumbled more than 9% since July 1, lagging behind the S&P 500’s 2.8% gain. The index—which tracks stocks in the S&P 500 based on a “momentum score”—is on track for the biggest quarterly underperformance in 25 years. July was the second-worst month for the momentum trade in around 40 years, according to Bank of America estimates; the only month worse was April 2009, in the teeth of the global financial crisis.
Hedge funds that bought momentum shares while shorting low-momentum stocks suffered even more. At the same time, a basket of the most popular stocks held by hedge funds tracked by Goldman Sachs recorded its biggest one-month underperformance in July relative to the S&P 500 in more than 20 years, according to the bank’s analysts.
Momentum trading is based on a rather simple observation: Investments that go up tend to keep outperforming; those that underperform often remain laggards. This kind of trading might seem too simple a stock-picking strategy to work. Yet it often has.
“For decades, it didn’t take a lot of sophistication to run a momentum strategy and make a decent living at it,” says Agustin Lebron, senior researcher at EquiLibre, a trading firm.
Part of the reason: It takes a while for corporate and other information to spread to various investors, so they slowly build positions, producing buying momentum.
“A huge pension fund can’t flip around its positions in a day,” says Lebron. “Behavioral biases also account for some of the effect, as well—people tend to sell their winners too early and hold losers too long.”
Fans of the strategy point to the human tendency to extrapolate from past results—and chase investment returns—noting that momentum patterns have been evident in markets for decades, even centuries. They also say that some of the worst months for momentum strategies are during longer periods of outperformance.
Some have been doing the trade by buying the strongest investments in a sector while shorting the weakest; others lean in to rising markets or asset classes. Still others use a quantitative approach or turn to banks or others who sell ways to make distinct wagers on momentum as a “tradable factor” or a “thematic basket.”
The fans remain believers. “Any strategy has disappointing periods,” says Antti Ilmanen, global co-head of the portfolio solutions group at AQR Capital Management.
The surge in Moderna and other biotech stocks helped crush the momentum trade. These shares were among the most heavily shorted in recent years, but positive news on a cancer vaccine from Moderna and Merck sent those stocks flying, crushing some quant and other hedge funds. Moderna is up around 150% so far this month.
These traders had an especially rough day on Aug. 19, which Goldman Sachs told its clients was the worst day for “systematic long-short managers” in more than two years. About half of the losses were because of momentum trades, the bank said.
Some traders have begun to short, or bet against, the very stocks that propelled the momentum trade earlier this year. Net short positions in futures tied to the Nasdaq-100 index among speculators recently climbed to some of the highest levels of the past two decades, according to data from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
The about-face is a sign of how markets have become more treacherous for investors, even as indexes keep climbing. Part of the issue: the recent meltdown of Situational Awareness, a hedge fund that had piled into some of the most popular momentum shares, including chip stocks. After a period of market tumult, Nvidia shares rocketed almost 9% after its earnings, showing how quickly sentiment can shift.
Some investors say the run-up in share prices driving tech stocks higher reminds them at times of the dot-com frenzy decades ago.
Mike Ogborne, the founder of San Francisco-based Ogborne Capital Management, said he has grown more cautious on technology stocks and is keeping more of his portfolio in cash than he typically does.
And he is nervous about the surge in spending by technology giants and quarterly capital expenditures that keep rising.
“It is a little bit like Cinderella and the clock striking midnight. You don’t know when midnight is going to come around,” Ogborne said. “They don’t send a memo around telling you when the capex cycle is over.”
