Europe's top money managers start to bring defence stocks in from the cold
LONDON - European asset managers are reconsidering their policies on investing in defence, under pressure from clients and some politicians to loosen restrictions and help fund the continent's race to re-arm.
Under European Union rules, a number of funds badged as sustainable need to ensure their investments 'Do No Significant Harm'. Many have avoided the sector entirely, with even engine maker Rolls Royce RR.L and Airbus AIR.PA, which has a big commercial aviation division, judged off limits.
But as the EU now seeks around 800 billion euros ($870 billion) of investment to bolster defence after U.S. President Donald Trump said Europe must take more responsibility for its own security, the sector is too important to ignore.
Britain's largest investor Legal & General LGEN.L is among those planning to increase exposure to defence, saying the sector's appeal has "risen dramatically" amid deeper geopolitical tensions, Reuters reported on Thursday.
Some of Europe's largest fund groups have separately begun to review their policies at board level, people familiar with the companies told Reuters, although the complexity and controversial nature of rewriting sustainability policies to include arms makers make the process tricky, the people said.
Switzerland's UBS Asset Management UBSG.S told Reuters it was reviewing defence sector exclusions across funds while Mercer, a leading consultant to pension funds, said investors were asking asset managers to include defence in portfolios, including those with sustainability aims.
The EU's spending boost has sent European aerospace and defence stocks including Germany's RheinmetallRHMG.DE and Italy's Leonardo LDOF.MI to record highs along with the sector index .SXPARO - and left investors without exposure ruing missed opportunities.
"Some (asset managers' clients) are saying, we actually think it's important that... Europe be able to defend itself. And so we'd actually like you to make investments in this sector," said Rich Nuzum, global chief investment strategist at Mercer, which advises investors managing $17.5 trillion of assets.
Exclusions on investing in controversial weapons – such as cluster munitions and biological weapons – are widely held and informed by international treaties. EU and UK rules do not ban investment in most other defence companies, but an investor focus on environmental, social and governance (ESG) helped dissuade big asset managers from doing so, like with tobacco.
"We're coming to a point where the atmosphere is that if you rule out defence, you're the one who has to explain, not the other way around," said Carl Haglund, CEO of Finnish pension and insurance group Veritas and ex-defence minister of Finland.
Reuters contacted 10 of Europe's largest asset managers to ask if they were reviewing their policies. As well as UBS, Allianz Global Investors ALVG.DE said it was reviewing its exclusions, but that the timing was coincidental.
France's BNP Paribas BNPP.PA reiterated its commitment to defence.
Amundi AMUN.PA and Schroders SDR.L said their policies were unchanged, while DWS DWSG.DE, HSBC Asset Management HSBA.L and Insight Investment declined to say if their exclusions were under review.
The global head of listed assets at Mirova, a smaller Natixis-owned manager, said rearmament efforts and Europe's rising security threats compelled the firm to reconsider its "cautious stance" to defence as it seeks to balance ethical considerations with a need for robust defence capabilities.
But Herve Guez noted the complexity of backing arms makers, highlighting problems around the risks that certain weapons end up in "controversial" countries.
POLITICAL PRESSURE
British politicians last week urged investors to support the military sector and France has floated removing ESG-related curbs on defence loans. Norway's central bank chief has said ethical investing standards may need to change.
Clients have begun asking about defence because companies like Rolls-Royce are "completely excluded from our investments", said Siobhan Archer, global stewardship lead at LGT Wealth Management, part of the private banking group of the Princely Family of Liechtenstein. LGT is looking "really closely" at what to do, Archer added.
Some fund managers are sceptical.
Carmignac's head of sustainable investing, Lloyd McAllister, said it was wrong to blame ESG funds for thwarting investment into defence, with most traditional funds - which hold far more in assets - including its own, able to invest.
Sustainable funds, he said, were for where "the positive benefit is much more visceral than a load of weapons sat in a warehouse".
Other investors are capitalising on an opportunity.
WisdomTree this week launched what it called the first European defence exchange traded fund.
Tom Vile Jensen, deputy director of trade body Insurance & Pensions Denmark, told Reuters he expected the country's retirement and pension groups to drop most remaining bans on defence investment.
There are signs sustainability-minded funds are rowing back.
European asset managers held 1.1% of their portfolios in aerospace and defence at the end of 2024, up from 0.7% two years earlier, Morningstar data showed.
ESG fund holdings rose to 0.5% from 0.4% a year earlier, the data showed. Barclays analysts this week said the ESG underweight in defence had fallen "markedly" since last year.
"We will go along with a more positive stance (on defence), it's inevitable if you consider the geopolitical situation," Legal & General's CIO Sonja Laud said.
($1 = 0.9228 euros)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
17 minutes ago
- Middle East Eye
How big tech and populism are upending 'western values'
The highly tense and polarised situation within the US and EU raises unprecedented challenges, especially amid the ongoing shifting of the global order from a unipolar to a multipolar one. Since the beginning the of the 21st century, the world has been embroiled in a series of crises: the war on terror, the global financial crisis, intensifying climate change, a worldwide pandemic, and a renewed great-power competition. This uneasy landscape has been further complicated by the Fourth Industrial Revolution, of which artificial intelligence is the most compelling and pervasive example, alongside the crisis of globalisation, the rise of China and the start of the second Trump administration. On the latter point, US President Donald Trump is now contesting, if not repudiating, the same world order that Washington created, managed and enforced over the past eight decades. His administration is wielding its new army of big tech companies in an alleged pursuit of a political, economic, cultural and social metamorphosis of humankind. It is not yet clear whether these big tech players will be a tool in the hands of Trump's 'America First' vision, or vice versa. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters As the late former secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, remarked seven years ago: 'Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretences. It doesn't necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could just be an accident.' New words have emerged in the current lexicon to explain this epochal change, such as techno-feudalism, techno-optimism and 'Dark Enlightenment'. A cast of characters from big tech - somewhere between CEOs and gurus - are now influencing politics, economics and the relationship between humans and technology to an unprecedented degree. 'Shadow empire' Some of these figures are in the spotlight daily, such as Tesla's Elon Musk, Open AI's Sam Altman and Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, while others seem more comfortable leading from behind the scenes. Some are perceived as the vanguard of 'reactionary acceleration', while others, like Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, who mentored Vice President JD Vance, portrays this period as the 'dusky final weeks of our interregnum' - or, if you prefer, the last days of an ancien regime; a sort of twilight, or worse, an apocalypse. It may be that change of era of which the late Pope Francis warned five years ago in his astute encyclical 'Fratelli Tutti' (All Brothers). Both European and American liberal-democratic establishments believe this change brings a fundamental threat to democracy and western societies, along with the 'values' upon which they are built. Who ultimately has the right to decide who's in and who's out? In normal times, this power would be in the hands of the electors They seem terrified by the possible rise of what has been described brilliantly, but disturbingly, as a 'shadow empire' driven by big tech magnates. At the same time, the rise of far-right movements in the US and Europe is seen as a clear and present danger that requires a 'whatever it takes' approach to keep these parties out of power. These widespread fears could explain some unprecedented developments in recent months in France, Germany and Romania. In France, Marine Le Pen's National Rally made significant gains in last year's legislative elections, despite a massive mobilisation against the party - but now a criminal conviction could derail her future political prospects. In Germany, a similar mobilisation occurred against the far-right Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD), but the party still managed to double its vote share in February elections. Yet it now risks being banned after Germany's spy agency classified AfD as 'extremist', allowing for increased state monitoring. Populists on the rise The most stunning event, however, was in Romania, where presidential elections were cancelled by the country's constitutional court last December after the first round was won by far-right candidate Calin Georgescu, amid allegations of Russian interference. Among the evidence cited in the declassified Romanian intelligence documents used to justify this decision was a coordinated TikTok campaign - but an investigative report later revealed that the centre-right National Liberal Party had paid for the campaign, which was hijacked to benefit Georgescu, who was subsequently banned from standing in the new election. Paris, Berlin and Bucharest have thus provided compelling examples of what 'whatever it takes' might mean. Amusingly, such behaviour drew criticism from Vance - not exactly a champion in the observance of democratic values - during his recent speech at the Munich Security Conference. The new fascism: Israel is the template for Trump and Europe's war on freedom Read More » 'For years, we've been told that everything we fund and support is in the name of our shared democratic values. Everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as a defence of democracy,' Vance said. 'But when we see European courts cancelling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others, we ought to ask whether we're holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard.' The bare facts, however, are that some of these populist forces are already in power, from Trump and his Maga supporters in the US; to Giorgia Meloni, now into her third year as Italy's prime minister; to the relaxed Viktor Orban who rules Hungary; to Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico, who has already survived an assassination attempt. Similar political forces appear to be on the rise in other countries. Some polls show a commanding lead for Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage. In Poland, an EU sceptic has just been elected president. Curiously, there is not much pushback over the questionable tactics and techniques being employed across Europe in efforts to keep far-right contenders out of power. Are such moves justifiable to bar from office allegedly undemocratic political figures and movements? Who ultimately has the right to decide who's in and who's out? In normal times, this power would be in the hands of the electors - but these do not seem to be normal times. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
The National
35 minutes ago
- The National
Oil heading for weekly gain amid optimism over US-China tariff talks
Oil prices were up on Friday and were heading for their first weekly gain in three weeks amid hopes for a US-China deal on tariffs. Brent, the benchmark for two thirds of the world's oil, was up 0.11 per cent at $65.41 a barrel at 2.49pm UAE time. West Texas Intermediate, the gauge that tracks US crude, added 0.05 per cent to $63.40 per barrel. Both Brent and WTI, which reversed earlier losses on Friday, are on pace for a 4.2 per cent weekly gain. For the year, they are down about 12 per cent. Crude futures posted modest gains on Thursday, but the market became more optimistic after a phone call between US President Donald Trump and China's Xi Jinping, who agreed to resume negotiations on trade and tariffs. The US and China are the two main protagonists in the global trade war, imposing tit-for-tat levies on each other's imports. However, they agreed to a detente on May 12, with Washington lowering its 145 per cent tariffs on Chinese imports to 30 per cent, while Beijing dialled down its own levies from 125 per cent to 10 per cent. The call between the two leaders, a sign of progress in their countries' negotiations, 'prompt[ed] relief after a recent escalation in tensions', analysts at Vanda Insights said. Crude prices took a hit after Mr Trump's sweeping global tariffs announced on April 2 disrupted stock markets and reignited fears of a global recession. However, with many of the tariffs temporarily paused and the US seeking deals with its partners, the uncertainty has reduced. A positive sign for oil prices is the decline in US oil inventories, indicating demand for the commodity remains strong. At the moment, market fundamentals seem to remain balanced, especially after Opec+ last month agreed to increase its monthly oil output at 411,000 barrels per day for July, the same as in May and June, analysts at Fitch unit BMI said. The decision was 'in view of a steady global economic outlook and current healthy market fundamentals, as reflected in the low oil inventories', the group said. Opec+ noted that gradual increases may be paused or reversed 'subject to evolving market conditions' and 'flexibility will allow the group to continue to support oil market stability'. Analysts say the move by Opec+ may be a gesture to mollify Mr Trump, who has called for lower crude prices. BMI analysts, however, cautioned that any slower economic growth later in 2025 'will see markets tip into oversupply'. They also expect a similar production rise for August, 'should market conditions and prices remain steady'. 'But both weaker demand for oil and increased production from both Opec+ and non-Opec producers will add to downside price pressures in the coming quarters,' BMI said. Upstream oil investments are projected to be under $570 billion in 2025, which would be a 6 per cent decline, marking the first annual drop since the Covid-induced slide in 2020 and the largest since 2016, the International Energy Agency said on Thursday. The decrease is being attributed to lower oil prices and demand expectations, amid economic uncertainties, the Paris-based IEA said.
Al Etihad
an hour ago
- Al Etihad
Trump and Musk to speak on Friday after alliance descends into public feud
6 June 2025 15:02 WASHINGTON (REUTERS)Donald Trump's aides scheduled a call between the US president and Elon Musk for Friday after a huge public spat.A White House official said the two men would speak on Friday. The official did not give a time for the call, which could ease the feuding after an extraordinary day of hostilities - largely conducted over social media - that marked a stark end to a close in Musk's Tesla closed down over 14% on Thursday, losing about $150 billion in market value in the largest single-day decline in value in its history. In pre-market European trading on Friday they pared some of those losses, rising 5% after the news that the two men were scheduled to speak. Politico first reported the planned had bankrolled a large part of Trump's presidential campaign and was then brought as one of the president's most visible advisers, heading up a sweeping and controversial effort to downsize the federal workforce and slash verbal punches erupted on Thursday after Trump criticised Musk in the Oval Office and the pair then traded barbs on their social media platforms: Trump's Truth Social and Musk's falling-out had begun brewing days ago when Musk, who left his role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency a week ago, denounced Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending president initially stayed quiet while Musk campaigned to torpedo the bill, saying it would add too much to the nation's $36.2 trillion in broke his silence on Thursday, telling reporters he was "very disappointed" in Musk."Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore," Trump said. As Trump spoke, Musk responded on X. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election," wrote Musk, who spent nearly $300 million backing Trump and other Republicans in last year's another post, Musk asserted that Trump's signature import tariffs would push the US into a recession later this year."The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," Trump after the closing bell, Musk replied, "Yes," to a post on X saying Trump should be impeached, something that would be highly unlikely given Trump's Republicans hold majorities in both chambers of businesses also include rocket company and government contractor SpaceX and its satellite unit whose space business plays a critical role in the US government's space program, said that as a result of Trump's threats he would begin decommissioning SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft. Dragon is the only US spacecraft capable of sending astronauts to the International Space on Thursday, Musk backed off the another sign of a possible detente to come, Musk subsequently wrote: "You're not wrong," in response to billionaire investor Bill Ackman saying Trump and Musk should make peace. Punching Back Trump and Musk are both political fighters with a penchant for using social media to attack their perceived enemies, and many observers had predicted a hit at the heart of Trump's agenda earlier this week when he targeted what Trump has named his "big, beautiful bill", calling it a "disgusting abomination" that would deepen the federal attacks amplified a rift within the Republican Party that could threaten the bill's prospects in the analysts say Trump's bill could add $2.4 trillion to $5 trillion to the nation's $36.2 trillion in debt. A prolonged feud between the pair could make it harder for Republicans to keep control of Congress in next year's midterm elections if it leads to a loss of Musk's campaign spending or erodes support for Trump in Silicon Valley."Elon really was a significant portion of the ground game this last cycle," said a Republican strategist with ties to Musk and the Trump administration who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity."If he sits out the midterms, that worries me."On Tuesday, Musk posted that "in November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people." Musk had already said he planned to curtail his political spending in the future. Musk's increasing focus on politics provoked widespread protests at Tesla sites, driving down sales while investors fretted that Musk's attention was too divided.
