InSight

Market InSights:

Dogecoin

More related articles:

Boulder Risk Management, investment
Articles
Kevin Taylor

Our ‘InSight’ on Environmental Risk Management

Climate change has emerged as a pressing global issue, triggering a paradigm shift in the way organizations approach risk management. The recognition of climate-related risks and their potential impacts on operations, supply chains, regulations, and reputation has prompted a growing need for effective climate risk management strategies. In this blog post, we will explore the concept of climate risk management, its significance in the face of a changing climate, and the key steps organizations can take to mitigate these risks and ensure long-term sustainability. You won’t hear about the BEST, you WILL hear from the rest The best companies at managing their climate change risk are companies you’ll never hear about. In the vast landscape of companies striving to effectively manage their climate change risks, there are some unsung heroes that have gone above and beyond, despite not receiving widespread recognition. These companies have demonstrated a remarkable commitment to sustainable practices and proactively addressing climate-related challenges. While they may not be the household names dominating headlines, their efforts serve as a testament to the possibilities of responsible corporate action. One such company is Novo Nordisk, a Danish pharmaceutical firm that has made significant strides in integrating climate change considerations into its business operations. Novo Nordisk has set ambitious targets to reduce its carbon emissions and has been recognized as a global leader in sustainability. By investing in energy-efficient technologies, transitioning to renewable energy sources, and engaging suppliers to adopt sustainable practices, the company has managed to minimize its environmental impact. Additionally, Novo Nordisk actively collaborates with stakeholders, sharing best practices and knowledge to inspire and encourage others in the industry to follow suit. Another commendable example is Interface, a global modular flooring company based in the United States. Interface has embedded sustainability into its core business strategy and aims to have a net-zero environmental footprint by 2020. The company has taken innovative measures to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, such as implementing renewable energy projects and using recycled and bio-based materials in its products. Interface’s sustainability vision, known as “Mission Zero,” not only encompasses environmental considerations but also emphasizes social responsibility and circular economy principles. By continually pushing the boundaries of sustainable practices, Interface demonstrates that profitability and environmental stewardship can go hand in hand. These exemplary companies prove that effective climate change risk management is not limited to the spotlight-grabbing giants of the industry. Through their commitment, innovation, and collaboration, they serve as inspiring models for businesses worldwide, demonstrating that proactive measures to mitigate climate risks can yield positive environmental and financial outcomes. As more companies emulate their efforts, the collective impact can lead to a more sustainable and resilient future for our planet. You will hear about some of the companies that fail to have environmental risks managed well – and it affects their stock prices Volkswagen (VWAGY): In 2015, Volkswagen was embroiled in a scandal known as “Dieselgate.” The company admitted to intentionally manipulating emission tests to meet regulatory standards, leading to significantly higher emissions from its vehicles than reported. This failure to address climate risks and comply with emissions regulations not only resulted in financial penalties and a loss of trust from customers but also tarnished VW’s brand reputation and led to a significant decline in its market value. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PCE): PG&E, a California-based utility company, faced severe consequences due to its lack of preparedness for climate-related risks. The company’s inadequate management of vegetation near its power lines contributed to the ignition of multiple wildfires in recent years, including the devastating Camp Fire in 2018. The resulting property damage, loss of life, and legal liabilities forced PG&E to file for bankruptcy and face intense scrutiny over its failure to implement proper climate risk management practices. Adidas (ADDYY): In 2011, Adidas, a major sports apparel and footwear company, faced supply chain disruptions due to extreme weather events in Asia. Floods in Thailand, where many of its suppliers were located, resulted in factory closures and disrupted production. Adidas experienced delays in product delivery and lost sales, revealing the vulnerability of its supply chain to climate-related risks. This incident emphasized the need for companies to assess and address the potential impacts of extreme weather events on their supply chains and take proactive measures to build resilience. BP (British Petroleum) (BP): BP, a multinational oil and gas company, faced a significant environmental disaster in 2010 when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. The incident resulted in one of the largest oil spills in history, causing extensive ecological damage to marine ecosystems and coastal communities. The company was criticized for its insufficient risk management practices and failure to adequately prepare for and respond to such an event, highlighting the importance of having robust climate risk management plans in place for the oil and gas industry. At InSight, we focus on managing climate change balance sheet risk Understanding Climate Risk: Climate risk refers to the potential adverse impacts of climate change on an organization’s assets, operations, and stakeholders. These risks encompass a wide range of factors, including extreme weather events, sea-level rise, shifting weather patterns, regulatory changes, and shifts in public perception and consumer preferences. Organizations must assess the vulnerabilities and exposure of their operations to these risks to understand the magnitude of the challenges they face. Developing Adaptation Strategies: Incorporating climate risk management into an organization’s overall risk management framework is essential for building resilience and ensuring business continuity. The first step is to conduct a thorough assessment of the potential impacts of climate change on various aspects of the business. This assessment should consider both physical risks (e.g., damage to infrastructure, disruptions in supply chains) and transition risks (e.g., regulatory changes, market shifts). Based on this assessment, organizations can develop adaptation strategies tailored to their specific circumstances. These strategies may include investing in resilient infrastructure, diversifying supply chains to reduce dependencies on vulnerable regions, implementing energy-efficient practices, and exploring low-carbon business models. It is crucial to involve stakeholders from different

Read More »
Taxmageddon
Articles
Kevin Taylor

What about ‘Taxmageddon’ should you be worried about?

What about ‘Taxmageddon’ should you be worried about? For years, the common belief has been that taxes, particularly income taxes, will be lower in the future for workers. That differing tax into the future almost always meant keeping more money in your pocket. But now, maybe not. The lower individual federal income tax rates ushered in by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) are already scheduled to expire at the end of 2025. But with Biden’s November victory that looks to change sooner rather than later. We think the most likely and probably the best-case scenario would be a return to the pre-TCJA deal starting in 2021. This means a reversion for most earners to pay the same rates they were in 2016 and the decade prior. For many, this means about 2-3% higher taxes in their effective tax rate. The worst-case scenario we anticipate would include higher rates on ordinary income. And higher rates on dividends and long-term capital gains too, which are currently taxed at 0%, 15%, 18.8%, 20%, and 23.8%. These rates, often criticized as being far lower than the income rate, are likely to see some changes. Both in the top-line rates, with Bidens’ opening bid raising that to the ordinary income rate. It’s very likely to see the benefits of such a low tax threshold become a source of change.  The next, worst-case scenario will be if Washington includes eliminating more write-offs for individual taxpayers, while simultaneously subjecting all wages and self-employment income to the dreaded Social Security tax. This would be 6.2% withheld from employee paychecks but 12.4% from self-employment income. A major change for independent contractors and the self-employed.   The absolute worst-case scenario that we can imagine for investors and workers, is that most or all of these changes, and more, are imposed retroactively. Meaning that the damage has already been done and that the proposed changes could be from as early as the start of 2021 (unlikely but possible) or from the proposal of the legislation which could mean the changes are in effect as early as May of 2021. What should we be doing if ‘Taxmageddon’ is real? First, make some assumptions for what your income is going to be over the next 3-5 years. This will help you uncover some of the tax issues for those in the highest two tax brackets. If you are individually making more than $207,000 or jointly making $414,700 you should be reworking your assets today, to be able to handle the coming changes.  One of the oddest recommendations, as alluded to above, is that if you’re traditionally differing taxes, is to realize some gains sooner rather than later. This might be a first for many investors who have not seen a tax increase, particularly one that affects the capital gains process. Additional Resources for ‘Taxmageddon’ Tax Mitigation Playbook Download Opportunity ZoneOverview

Read More »
Inflation
Articles
Kevin Taylor

Four Things That Actually Matter With Inflation

Inflation is simply the rising costs of goods and services over time. It’s an important part of the planning process to make assumptions about buying power over time. It allows you to know how to budget your money using a placeholder that should represent to some academic degree the effectiveness of your dollar as you get closer to the time you need it. However, I have had several discussions with clients who assume the incline of inflation is something like 2% annually. And while that is a reasonable, and likely adequate initial placeholder, if your financial advisor is simply using that number because the talking heads on TV or the software they use have that number already baked in, then you need to have a serious discussion about the gaps that arise from such short cutting. A miss on the inflation discussion has two permanent repercussions on your financial plan: Inflation assesses its toll further and further into plans. It’s insidious and you won’t know the impact until the end of retirement, when you have fewer resources to make course corrections. It will affect what your expectation should be for your internal rate of return, particularly in your fixed income investments. If you are assuming a 2% inflation rate a 2% treasury may be appropriate, but if your personal inflation rate is actually 4% (likely from the reasons below) you will have an unaccounted for gap between the rising costs of goods and services and the yield from your chosen investments. This article is a good checklist to make sure that your financial advisor can discuss and will make adjustments for this gaps in inflation math: Your lifestyle No two retirees live the same lifestyle in retirement. If heard other advisors say that, and be able to adjust the product suite they use for risk, or which goals they bake into a plan, or even change the expected costs they use from goal to goal. But then each of them will extrapolate the costs of that lifestyle inflating at 2%. This is a mistake. This shows a lack of understanding as to what causes inflation and the effect it will have on your plan.  Inflation does not affect all products equally, in fact the most impacted items are usually isolated to the items that are purchased by everyone. Groceries, gasoline, and basic services are more impacted by steadily rising costs than that of large ticket consumer goods and electronics.  You may think that this isn’t a big deal right? We all buy groceries and that is a part of my financial plan. This type of thinking is ill-advised and offers a major gap in the calculations and the expectations you should have for your income.  Example: A client of mine said:  “I have a simple life, I don’t buy that many new things, and I’m not all that interested owning new cars, clothes and gadgets in retirement, my calculation for inflation should be pretty low.”  So he wanted me to lower his expected rate of inflation. I said wait a minute, you’re not thinking about that correctly, while yes, he is right that the things he buys may be simple and he’s not going to buy much, he’s wrong about the effect of inflation. Because he’s using the “2% average” he’s heard about he’s missed where the number comes from. The CPI is the change in a basket of goods and services, so it takes into account everything a regular american can reasonably buy (and it doesn’t include gasoline). So in aggregate the number may be 2%, but by not buying those items he’s taking on more, not less, inflation risk for the normal person. See in the chart below where we have eliminated the baskets he didn’t see himself buying (recall that the higher ticket consumer goods generally are disinflationary – the cost of a flat screen TV comes down with time and not up).  Item Annual change in inflation as a Percentage(%) Example clients inflation estimate Groceries +4% +4% Utilities +5% +5% Gasoline +5% +5% Movie Passes +4% +4% Healthcare +6% +6% Automobiles -3% NA Consumer Electronics -3% NA Clothing -2% NA Average 2% 4.8%   So while he is thinking that his appetite for spending is low, his exposure to inflation is more than twice the normal of people in retirement. So when we plan we are trying to extrapolate the costs of a certain lifestyle in retirement, in this scenario the inflation expectation should rise for this client, not fall. More severely, using a standard 2% inflation rate, will cause him to have a shortfall that becomes more complicated as he gets deeper and deeper into retirement.  Declining quality is inflation Several of the items that comprise your quality of life today, deteriorate in quality over time. This is not a hard and fast rule, and in some cases the opposite is true. But if you think about the nature of appliances, automobiles, and other big ticket consumer goods they can become suspect. The refresh cycle for large appliances in the 1990’s was 20% longer than it is for today. This is the result of a few elements, the “smart” revolution and added technology creating more demand for new items, and the decline in their quality. Both of these are measured as disinflationary, the costs of these items have come down year over year, and the “features-scape” is expanding. This all seems disinflationary and in the CPI it’s measured as costs coming down on these items. And while that might be a true statement for someone, the Bureau of Labor Statistics “buys” these items year over year to test the market changes, and for most people this is actually hidden inflation. Here is the math. If the price of an item comes down year over year by say 4%, but the refresh cycle is impacted by anything greater than 4% in a year, the result for regular people is actually inflation, not deflation. Because the

Read More »

Pin It on Pinterest