Weathering the Storm: Climate Risk Stress Tests
Extreme weather has always meant extreme risks for businesses and investors. Yet climate change has varied the calculus, and many businesses are facing new, potentially existential risks as the world and the energy transition heat up. As such, central banks and financial supervisors have begun conducting climate risk stress tests, to ensure these institutions are capable of mitigating the potential impacts of a changing climate. But what do these tests entail, which markets have been the most proactive in conducting them, and what exactly is 'climate risk' anyway? On today's show, Tom Rowlands-Rees is joined by Tifenn Brandily, BloombergNEF's head of transition risk and alignment, and special guest Edo Schets, Bloomberg's head of climate, nature and regulatory financial solutions, to discuss findings from the note 'Climate Risk Stress Test Review'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bank of America Stock (BAC) Nears Record High as Pivotal Earnings Report Looms
Bank of America (BAC) is scheduled to report its Q2 2025 earnings on July 16, with analysts forecasting $0.90 per share, reflecting modest 8% year-over-year growth. I believe BAC is well-positioned to beat expectations, supported by conservative loan loss provisioning, ongoing share buybacks, strength in its Global Markets division, and higher net interest income amid slower-than-expected Federal Reserve rate cuts. Easily unpack a company's performance with TipRanks' new KPI Data for smart investment decisions Receive undervalued, market resilient stocks right to your inbox with TipRanks' Smart Value Newsletter BAC stock currently trades at $45, within striking distance of its all-time high of $47 per share. With resistance clearly set, BAC stock will need a strong catalyst to make further headway beyond $50 per share. Given the lack of clear catalysts, I remain Neutral on BAC stock. It currently trades at 1.66x tangible book value and 12.6x 2025 earnings—a valuation that's lower than peers like JPMorgan Chase (JPM), but still richer than that of many U.S. regional banks. Heading into Q2 2025, Bank of America's provisioning appears notably conservative. The bank's macroeconomic outlook assumes an unemployment rate of just below 5% by the end of 2025, remaining at that level through 2026, which is slightly more pessimistic than the Federal Reserve's projection of 4.5% for both years. Similarly, Bank of America forecasts 1% GDP growth in Q4 2025, undercutting the Fed's more optimistic estimate of 1.4%. In short, Bank of America's current reserves already reflect a cautious economic view, making it unlikely to build a significant provision in Q2 2025. The bank appears to have already accounted for a moderate economic slowdown later this year and into 2026. Analysts expect Bank of America to deliver earnings of $0.90/share in Q2 2025, up 8% year-over-year. This would represent a marked slowdown from the 18% annual increase observed in the first quarter of 2025. I believe the projected 8% EPS growth is overly conservative. Based on my estimates, share repurchases alone could contribute around 5% EPS growth. Additionally, Bank of America is likely to raise its net interest income (NII) guidance, as the Federal Reserve is now expected to deliver only two rate cuts in 2025, compared to the four cuts the bank had initially anticipated in its own outlook. I also expect slightly stronger performance from the Global Markets division, supported by heightened market volatility early in Q2 2025, which could contribute a paltry $0.02 per share to earnings. In summary, I expect Bank of America to modestly beat consensus earnings estimates, driven by conservative provisioning, upward NII revisions, and a slight lift from trading activity. My forecast is EPS of approximately $0.92 for Q2 2025. Based on my projections, Bank of America is on track to deliver earnings of approximately $3.57 per share in 2025, assuming consistent 8% growth in both Q3 and Q4 of 2024. This would translate to a return on tangible book value of around 13% for the year. However, this solid profitability appears to be largely priced in, with BAC stock trading at 1.66x its tangible book value of $27.12 per share. Its 2025 P/E multiple of 12.6x is more attractive than that of large peers like JPMorgan Chase (14.6x), but still above the average for regional banks, which trade closer to 10.7x forward earnings. Looking ahead to 2026, earnings growth is expected to moderate, with no repeat of the Global Markets tailwind and potential pressure from anticipated Fed rate cuts. Given this outlook, I believe a Hold rating is appropriate for BAC at current levels. This cautious stance is also supported by Berkshire Hathaway's ongoing reduction in its BAC stake, despite the stock remaining the firm's fourth-largest holding, which comprises 10.19% of Buffett's portfolio. The limited upside potential suggests it's wise to stay neutral for now. Turning to Wall Street, Bank of America earns a Strong Buy consensus rating based on 18 Buy and 2 Hold ratings over the past three months. Notably, not a single analyst is bearish on Bank of America. The average BAC stock price target is $49.38, implying a 9% potential upside. Bank of America's macroeconomic outlook remains more conservative than the Federal Reserve's, which suggests its earnings are better insulated in the event of a slowdown in U.S. economic activity later in 2025 and into 2026. I expect BAC to slightly beat Q2 2025 earnings estimates, supported by stronger net interest income, continued share repurchases, and a modest profitability boost from the Global Markets division. That said, I remain neutral on the stock. Like Warren Buffett, who has recently trimmed Berkshire's position in BAC, I believe the bank's solid profitability is already reflected in the stock's price, which trades at 1.66x tangible book value. Lastly, while Wall Street analysts maintain a Strong Buy rating, the implied upside of just 9.59% suggests limited near-term reward for new investors at current levels. Disclaimer & DisclosureReport an Issue Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
21 minutes ago
- Forbes
As Shares Skyrocket, Will Creator Deals Drive Netflix's Next Growth Run?
(Photo by Phil Barker/Future Publishing via Getty Images) Netflix has been on an epic stock market run the past year, share prices up 81% to nestle comfortably above $1,200 apiece as it reaps the rewards of definitively winning the Streaming Wars of the past several years, with analysts setting target prices as high as $1,600. Give credit to management's willingness to pivot, after a disastrous Q1 earnings call three years ago, into ad-supported tiers, a password crackdown, videogame and live events/venues initiatives, and investments in local productions in 50 centers around the world. It's paid off massively for the company and its investors. This week saw Pivotal Research set a Street-high target price of $1,600 for Netflix shares. Netflix shares have skyrocketed the past 12 months, to north of $1,200 a piece But where does the streaming giant go from here if it wants to keep driving growth? The ad tier is launched, and growing slowly, but already bringing in higher average revenue per user than Netflix's traditional ad-free offerings. The password crackdown's boost to subscriber growth is likely largely exhausted, though we won't know going forward, because the company stopped r0utinely reporting subscriber adds before the last earnings call. In that call, the company said it added a whopping 13 million subscribers to puff the global total to 301 million, far larger than any competitor. So where to go to grow? Analysts have some thoughts, mostly about the vast collection of wildly diverse talent pumping out episodes on YouTube and other social media, receiving a share of ad revenue and otherwise monetizing their productions with merchandise, sponsorships, live events and other strategies. That approach has paid off massively for Alphabet-owned YouTube. Nielsen's The Gauge estimates more than 12% of total watch time is devoted to YouTube programming. Roku released stats that were even higher, as much as 18% of view time. Wells Fargo analysts released a note earlier in the week setting a $1,500 target price for Netflix, but suggesting it find ways to be a bit more like YouTube. Wells Fargo Sr. Equity Analyst Steven Cahall said Friday in a CNBC interview that YouTube content, which costs YouTube nothing on the front end, is increasingly grabbing view time with young and even middle-aged consumers. And that's exactly the kind of programming Netflix should be adding to its portfolio. 'Some of this very, very high value, professional short-form seems like a natural in-between where it still has a big impact on consumers but it's not quite the really short, mobile-native, user-generated content,' Cahall said. To grab some of that view time back, Netflix should take a page out of its own playbook from about a decade ago, when it cut nine-figure exclusive deals with prominent showrunners in traditional television such as Shonda Rhimes and Ryan Murphy, Cahall said. The splashy deals put the industry on notice about Netflix's ambitions to create high-quality premium content that could contend with anything on broadcast or cable. 'The argument here is they can do the same thing," Cahall said. 'They can go find these really large-scale creators who put a lot of content on YouTube, get a lot of views, and make a lot of money, and they can say, 'Hey, come to Netflix, you have the same size audience. We'll pay you money, and you don't have to take a risk on advertising.' Such deals will 'take money,' though nothing like those Rhimes and Murphy deals of a decade ago. More importantly, Cahall said, 'it's not the same risk profile.' The creators bring their own audience, and deep knowledge about how to connect with and nurture that audience, removing most of the risk of partnering with them. Certainly, there are plenty of big, long-time online creators who are producing good-quality content at remarkable velocity. In recent months, I've interviewed or moderated panels with leaders from such long-time venues as Smosh, Dhar Mann Studios, Buzzfeed Studios, and Dhar Mann CEO Sean Atkins, a long-time cable TV veteran, said he gives a few tours a week of the company's extensive production studios in Burbank, Calif., just a couple of miles from the studio lots of Warner Bros., Disney and NBCUniversal. There's an 'oh, sh--' moment on the tour for most of the folks, Atkins said, when they see Dhar Mann's operations are sprawling enough to need the same golf carts to get around the grounds as on the traditional studios. At last week's StreamTV Show conference in Denver, I interviewed Trey Kennedy, an Oklahoma-based comedian who started telling six-second jokes on the long-gone social-video site Vine. Kennedy has long since migrated to TikTok and YouTube for his humor, building an audience big enough that he cut a deal with Hulu for a one-hour comedy special released in January. He has a national comedy tour set for the fall. Also at The StreamTV Show, I interviewed Laura Martin, managing director and sr. internet & media analyst for Needham & Co. To her mind, the 100-plus exhibitors and dozens of niche networks on display at the conference are largely ignored by Wall Street because they're not able to compete at a big enough scale with the two companies that matter most, Amazon and YouTube. Amazon's links between advertising and directly selling those advertised products to its couple of a hundred million or so Prime Video subscribers make it one powerful path for the future of video. And YouTube has married oceans of user-generated content with television's highest-value programming, the NFL, which is available through YouTube TV. 'On the content side, they're sort of blurring the lines, we sort of think that's where the world is going writ large,' Martin said. Wall Street looks at the smaller players and wonders, 'Why aren't you talking about short-form, omni-device and influencers, plus -premium content. There's a real disconnect." Martin said both Paramount Global and Warner Bros. Discovery are stuck in a 'distracted' place. Paramount is trying to negotiated a lawsuit settlement directly with President Donald Trump over alleged 'election interference' for editing a Kamala Harris interview last fall on 60 Minutes. The delays in settling that suit are in danger of putting controlling shareholder Shari Redstone's National Amusements in default before it can complete an $8 billion sale to a group led by David Ellison and Skydance Entertainment. WBD, meanwhile, announced last week that it would go ahead with a widely expected split of the company, putting its legacy cable channels such as CNN, TNT, TBS, and Discovery in one unit, along with most of WBD's $34 billion in debt and a share of the spun-off Studios & Streaming unit. That latter group would include the Max (soon to be renamed HBO Max) streaming service and WBD's production studios for film, TV and games. Shepherding that split to reality will leave WBD leadership distracted for a year, Martin estimated, then will have to wait another year before doing any deals, because of tax-minimization strategies. 'I think it's the wrong strategic move,' Martin said. 'We're not going to be talk about either of those companies for the next two or three years." That leaves a 'competitive set' of serious streaming players of just four: Netflix, Amazon, Alphabet/YouTube, and Disney. 'The question will be if Disney is too small to compete,' Martin said. 'Its (market valuation) is $200 billion, Netflix is $500 billion and the rest are more than $2 trillion.' For Netflix, grabbing more content from YouTube's stable might just be a way to keep driving growth, and perhaps even slightly slowing the YouTube juggernaut, mostly by being a bit more like what YouTube has become.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Too many ETFs? Here's how to cut through the noise and start investing
With more than 1,600 exchange-traded funds (ETFs) now trading in Canada — and more being launched each month — some investors don't know where to begin. The country is on track for another record year of ETF launches in 2025, adding to an already complex marketplace. Investors have 'analysis paralysis. They quite honestly don't know where to start,' says Anita Bruinsma, financial planner and investment coach at Clarity Personal Finance In Toronto. 'I'm finding with my clients that they just kind of give up, and they often leave their money sitting in cash because they get totally overwhelmed.' As at May 31, there were 1,628 ETFs in Canada, according to National Bank Research. So far in 2025, 155 new ETFs have launched while 24 have been delisted. In 2024, Canada saw 224 new ETF launches and 61 delistings. The growing number of options is being driven by several trends, says Tiffany Zhang, director of ETFs and financial products research at National Bank Financial. These include an uptick in actively managed ETFs, an increase in the number of issuers, and more niche products targeting specific market exposures — more issuers have been launching CLO (collateralized loan obligation) ETFs, for example. Bruinsma sees it as a business strategy — banks and investment companies are focused on creating new, differentiated products that will attract investor dollars. The move to actively managed ETFs is, in part, because companies can charge higher fees, and ultimately make more money, she adds. Here, experts provide a few tips to get started: Bruinsma encourages a passive investing approach using ETFs that track broad market indices like the S&P 500, the TSX or the EAFE Index. There may be many ETFs available, but if you narrow it down to 'just the true passively managed, boring, plain vanilla ETFs,' the list becomes much more manageable. 'It actually becomes very easy to pick,' she added. She warns that actively managed ETFs can add unnecessary risk. The risk with an actively managed ETF is that someone's picking the best performers — how confident are you that they're picking the right ones?, she says. 'No one has a crystal ball. No one can say which of these stocks are going to do the best.' For example, some investors may be tempted to put 80 per cent of their money into a sector-specific ETF, like one focused on U.S. technology, which leaves them vulnerable if that sector or its key companies underperform. A broad market ETF, like one tracking the S&P 500, provides more diversification across sectors and reduces the risk, Bruinsma says. Another common mistake among new investors is buying too many ETFs, which can lead to overlapping investments, says Jason Heath, managing director of Markham, Ont.-based Objective Financial Partners. Take a look at three of the biggest ETF companies by assets in Canada — iShares, BMO and Vanguard, he says. iShares and BMO have ETFs that track the S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index — their ETFs are iShares S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF ( and BMO S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF ( Additionally, Vanguard has its Vanguard FTSE Canada All Cap Index ETF ( that tracks the FTSE Canada All Cap Domestic Index, a very similar index, he adds. The top eight holdings are the same for each ETF. Heath says. Ten-year performance has been 8.96 per cent, 8.96 per cent, and 8.87 per cent, respectively, through May 31. 'The point? You don't necessarily need to diversify your ETFs if they own the same things,' Heath said. 'You can even buy a single all-in-one (a.k.a asset allocation) ETF that gives you bonds as well as Canadian, U.S., and international stocks in a single ETF.' It's easy to get caught up in the strength of the U.S. stock market, especially over the past decade, but Bruinsma cautions against leaning too heavily on U.S. ETFs. For example, an investor might buy an S&P 500 ETF, then add a NASDAQ-100 ETF — both U.S.-focused — along with a global ETF that also has heavy U.S. exposure, and then layer on yet another U.S.-focused fund. The U.S. has been a top performer, but it hasn't always been, Bruinsma says. Canada and Europe, for example, have also outperformed at different times, she adds, noting that markets move in cycles. And when those cycles occur, investors may sacrifice returns by having too much invested down south. The country could be exposed to an economic slowdown or crisis, Bruinsma adds. "You always want to make sure that you have a little bit invested everywhere so that you're not exposed to one particular event happening.'
