I guess this is aimed at fellow finance peeps who might still not (want to) get it...
good stuff on this in this piece (focused on US housing): www.bloomberg.com/opinion/arti...
Millions of US homes are underinsured because their premiums don’t reflect the risk of climate-fueled catastrophes.
well, I guess the extent of the value depreciation will depend on how quickly investors do have their "climate Minsky moment" - and this could still take time, alas: as we heard from a banker after the subprime crisis: "as long as the music plays, you gotta keep on dancing"
now, 10% by 2029 seems really big... have you seen any analysis showing something like this?
the gap probably comes from the fact that not all costs fall on REITs, far from it - a large part is borne by the users of the impacted real estate 28% of total asset value does not sound that low, IMHO -- at least, it should be enough for developers and their funders to care
there is also a more niche ClimateRiskSky feed, in case of interest
sorry for cross-posting, but there is also a more niche ClimateRiskSky feed, in case of interest
"Current valuations imply either very strong abatement action, or that climate change will have a negligible effect on GDP. But neither of these assumptions should be considered very likely"...
"Put simply, measuring and managing supply emissions make business sense. Those that fail to act will be left behind", warns CDP's Director of Supply Chain and Reporter Services
and indeed, Minns says "they SHOULD be in the future" - it's like, models have precedence over reality