U.S. investors willing to pay higher fees for funds with environmental benefits


The majority of U.S. investors would pay higher fees to be invested in a fund that benefits the environment, according to a new survey by asset manager Ninety One conducted after COP26.

The survey found that 56% of U.S. investors who invest in mutual funds would be willing to pay higher fees on a fund that aims to achieve environmental benefits, and that 24% would do so for funds that have demonstrated societal benefits, given the same returns between funds.

Only 8% of investors in the US said they would not pay more fees for these types of funds, when asked after the World Climate Summit in Scotland.

Results showed that U.S. investors were most likely to accept increased fees on funds that benefited the environment by helping fight climate change, compared with 41% of U.K. investors who said they would. , 37% in Italy and 30% of German investors and 22% of South African investors.

When American investors before the climate summit were asked which of the two predominant approaches to achieving the goal of net zero emissions they preferred, 54% said divestment and 34% chose transition.

However, after COP26, that percentage rose to 42% in the United States who said they would choose to take a transitional approach, while those who would choose to divest fell to 49%.

The survey of more than 5,000 investors in five markets, including the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, South Africa and the United States, found that 57% of all investors surveyed have investments focused on net zero or other environmental and societal benefits, and the majority of them, at 67%, have been in them for five years or more.

Hendrik du Toit, Founder and CEO of Ninety One, said: “Net zero for some means no net zero at all. Divesting is irresponsible and simply demonstrates a lack of understanding, awareness or transparency regarding the climate crisis.

“We need to focus on consistent long-term transition plans with net zero by 2050 for businesses and countries, not short-term reductions. “


About Author

Comments are closed.