Exclusive-JPMorgan asset management unit quits industry climate coalition
By Ross Kerber
(Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co said its asset management unit has left a flagship industry climate effort, a blow to the group that had paused operations in January in an effort to halt defections amid political pressure from U.S. Republicans.
A statement sent by a representative of the unit known as JPMAM noted the pause by the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative in January, which took place "in the midst of developments in the regulatory environment and client expectations. In light of that, JPMAM has decided to exit."
The company did not immediately comment further. Nor did organizers of the initiative. It has been under pressure from Republicans, many from energy-producing states, who say fund firms colluded to cut emissions. Companies that have faced such accusations have strongly denied wrongdoing.
Launched in December 2020, the group known as NZAM aimed to align the global fund management industry with climate goals. At the start of the year, it counted more than 325 signatories managing more than $57.5 trillion in assets.
But BlackRock, the world's biggest asset manager, quit NZAM in January, leading to the suspension of efforts. JPMorgan itself left a parallel effort, the Net Zero Banking Alliance, the same month.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
Republicans' stunning flip flops on ‘national emergencies'
In February, President Trump issued executive orders raising tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico. In April, he slapped a 50 percent tariff on countries that the U.S. has a trade deficit with and a minimum 10 percent tariff on all others. The administration claimed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1997 gives the president the authority to declare a national emergency and take immediate action to protect the country. Illicit trafficking in fentanyl along with threats to border security allegedly justified the tariffs imposed on China, Canada and Mexico. America's large trade deficit was the justification for the 'Liberation Day' tariffs imposed on countries throughout the world. Trump's actions marked the first time the International Emergency Economic Powers Act has been used to increase tariffs. Last month, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court on International Trade (comprised of Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees) declared that Trump had overstepped his authority. The tariffs, the judges noted, were not relevant to reducing fentanyl trafficking or illegal immigration. And since the U.S. has had a trade deficit for each of the last 47 years, it is difficult to argue that it constitutes a national emergency. A few days later, an appeals court allowed the administration to continue to collect tariffs while litigation moves through the courts. In the meantime, the silence from Republican members of Congress — the body which, according to Article I of the Constitution, alone has the authority to raise and spend revenue — is deafening. It is worth noting that before Jan. 20, 2025, many of congressional Republicans endorsed a proposal limiting the president's power to act unilaterally by declaring national emergencies. In 2019, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the 'Article One Act.' The bill would have terminated all national emergency declarations after 30 days unless both houses of Congress voted to extend them. Calling for 'real action, as opposed to symbolic show votes that don't address the root of the problem,' Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) signed on as a cosponsor. Fifteen senators, including nine Republicans, signed a bipartisan letter urging Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to have the full Senate consider the Article One Act. The aim of the legislation, the letter indicated, 'is simple but fundamental: Congress cannot continue to cede its powers to another branch, regardless of who is president, and which party holds a majority.' Members of Congress 'who are troubled by emergency declarations,' Lee emphasized, 'only have themselves to blame.' Nothing happened. In 2023, Lee reintroduced the Article One Act. 'Law-making by proclamation,' he asserted, 'runs directly counter to the vision of our Founders and undermines the safeguards protecting our freedom. It is high time that Congress reclaimed the legislative power and restored constitutional balance to our system.' Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), as he endorsed the Article One Act in the House, reminded his colleagues that 'the presidency was never meant to have monarchical power over the American people.' The legislation did not get a floor vote in either chamber. Executive orders and national emergency declarations — used all too frequently by Obama, Trump and Biden to bypass Congress — pose a clear and present danger to the system of checks and balances that has served this country well for over 200 years. And the problem of executive overreach is getting worse. In the first 100 days of his second term, Trump has issued executive orders and declared national emergencies at a faster pace than any president in modern history. But Republicans in Congress no longer seem troubled by executive orders based on emergency declarations. In March, Lee introduced a bill that differed dramatically in substance and tone from the Article One Act. The 'Restraining Judicial Insurrectionists Act of 2025' mandated that a three-judge panel review all lower court injunctions against the president and grants of declaratory relief, followed by an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court. 'American government cannot function if the legitimate orders of our commander-in-chief can be overruled at the whim of a single district judge,' Lee declared. In April, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) refused to permit a floor vote to repeal Trump's 'reciprocal tariffs.' Every president, 'no matter the party,' Johnson opined, has 'a broad degree of latitude' over trade. The Senate rejected a similar measure with a 49-49 vote; neither Lee, Grassley nor any other Republican who signed onto the 2019 Article One Act letter supported the legislation. Justice Anthony Kennedy warned in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), the case declaring the line-item veto to be unconstitutional, that the separation of powers is violated and liberty is threatened when spending is 'determined by the executive alone' and the president has the power 'to reward one group and punish another, help one set of taxpayers and hurt another, favor one State and ignore another.' Clearly, many congressional Republicans agree. But if they continue to choose partisan self-interest over principle, voters will have good reason to blame them — and the Trump administration — for the weakening of our democratic institutions. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Pell Grants Are an Engine of Social Mobility. Don't Cut Them.
To preserve tax cuts for the wealthy, the Republican budget reconciliation proposals moving through Congress cut programs for the neediest in ways that will lead to higher costs for everyone in the long run. The plans include not only cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, but also to Pell Grants, the program that provides federal assistance for higher education. The first Pell Grant was awarded in 1973 and since then has helped millions of low-income students attend college. The grants overwhelmingly go to the poorest households — only 6% of Pell Grant recipients come from families that earn over $60,000 annually. The program's reputation as an engine of social mobility has long given it bipartisan support — but now, the Senate's plan will harm the lowest-income recipients by reducing the eligibility of working students.
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
Trump has a plan to remake the housing-finance system. It's baffling to many lawmakers and experts.
GOP lawmakers and the mortgage industry are raising questions about the Trump administration's plans to maintain government control over much of the nation's housing finance system, defying expectations that it would back off. President Donald Trump surprised the industry late last month by pledging to take public Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-controlled companies that stand behind half the $16 trillion residential mortgage market — while preserving an implicit federal guarantee for their solvency. His top housing regulator, Bill Pulte, who oversees the companies, added to the confusion by saying the administration is exploring ways to sell shares while keeping the companies under government authority. The insistence on preserving significant sway over the two mortgage giants, which were seized by the Bush administration during the financial crisis and placed in conservatorship, is setting up a potential rift with Republicans — and possibly even some administration aides who have long worked to reduce the government's footprint in the housing market. 'I want to get them out of conservatorship,' said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), chair of the Senate Banking subcommittee with oversight of Fannie and Freddie. 'But I want to be very careful about how we do it, because we need the secondary market, and we need it to work,' he added, referring to the market where mortgage loans are purchased and sold to investors. Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, said 'we need to continue to investigate recapitalization and releasing' the companies from government control. The question of what to do with Fannie and Freddie has bedeviled policymakers for decades, with Republicans wanting the government to take its hands off housing finance and Democrats fearing that privatizing the firms would destabilize the market and push up mortgage rates. At stake is a potential windfall of hundreds of billions of dollars for an administration that is staring at massive fiscal deficits. The government holds a roughly $340 billion liquidation preference for the two companies, by one estimate — meaning the money would go to the Treasury Department before anyone else in the event of a sale. Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, will meet with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Atkins on June 17 to discuss the future of Fannie and Freddie, underscoring the importance of the issue. Fannie and Freddie don't make loans themselves, but rather purchase them from mortgage companies and bundle them into securities to sell on the secondary market, freeing up the lenders to make more loans. That, plus the government guarantee, helps keep mortgage rates down, supporters say. Trump was widely expected to support privatization, after his first administration worked to prepare the companies for their eventual release. But his latest comments look more like what former President Joe Biden would do, according to Jim Parrott, a nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute and a former economic adviser in the Obama White House. 'In the Biden administration, you could imagine a version of this,' Parrott said. 'The fact that we're hearing about it in this administration, I think, is catching folks by surprise.' The FHFA responded in an email that it is 'studying how, if the President elects to take Fannie and Freddie public, it can be done in the safest and soundest manner which includes keeping them in conservatorship.' It added: 'In any scenario, we will ensure the [mortgage-backed securities] market is safe and sound and that there is no upward pressure on rates.' White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said the administration 'is committed to strengthening the Federal Housing Finance Agency to advance the President's mission of restoring the dream of homeownership for all Americans.' Keeping Fannie and Freddie in conservatorship, according to one shareholder, amounts to attaching 'training wheels' as the government figures out how to monetize its stake. 'I think Pulte has probably confused people more than anything with his message,' said Tim Pagliara, a shareholder and author of the book 'Another Big Lie: How the Government Stole Billions from the American Dream of Home Ownership and Got Caught!' 'So the idea, for example, of allowing these entities to operate in conservatorship is a strategy that they probably talked about with the investment bankers on their primary concern, which is mortgage rates going up,' he added. 'It's like putting training wheels on a bike.' The administration's pronouncements have perplexed housing finance analysts who are unsure of what a scheme to take the companies public while keeping them in conservatorship would look like — or whether there would be sufficient investor appetite to make it worthwhile. JPMorgan strategists wrote in a note that they were 'flummoxed' by the comments. 'It's just hard to imagine why anybody would think there would be strong investor interest in that kind of model, unless the government were to convey they were going to run the [government-sponsored enterprises] in a way that's investor-friendly, and I think we're a long way off from that,' Parrott said. David Dworkin, president and CEO of the National Housing Conference, a stakeholders' group, agreed. 'The most important element of a successful stock sale is a board that is truly independent and has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders,' he said. 'Under conservatorship, that is actually not even allowed. So, without an independent board with a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, there is no value to the stock.' Still, he said, 'there are far too many comments coming from major players, including the president of the United States, to avoid the conclusion that major action on conservatorship could be in the very near future.' Another housing finance analyst, granted anonymity to frankly discuss the nascent plans, also expressed skepticism about the idea that investors would bite on purchasing shares in conservatorship, with the federal government still owning the vast majority of the asset. 'The direction of that control can change at the next election,' the analyst said. 'Each administration has already demonstrated they want to use Fannie and Freddie in different ways, so what are you investing in?' For the most part, Republican lawmakers are keeping their powder dry as they wait for additional details about the administration's plans. '[Senate Banking Committee] Chairman [Tim] Scott looks forward to hearing more' from Trump and Pulte on their plans for Fannie and Freddie, spokesperson Ben Watson said. Asked if conservatorship should end, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Banking subcommittee with oversight of Fannie and Freddie, said, 'I don't know.' 'We're going to wait until the first quarter of 2026 to have that conversation,' said Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.), chair of the Financial Services housing subcommittee. 'Releasing them from conservatorship, that's one thing, but most of the folks I talked to still want the federal government on the hook.' The first Trump administration worked to build capital at the companies to prepare them for the end of conservatorship, an effort led by then-Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and former Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mark Calabria. Calabria has returned for Trump 2.0, now in a position with the White House Office of Management and Budget. Two key Treasury officials — Jonathan McKernan and Luke Pettit — also hail from the school of thought that Fannie and Freddie should be released from conservatorship. 'The Treasury Department has not really engaged on this yet — so it does not appear to me that the administration is very far into the analysis of options phase,' Parrott said. 'Until the Treasury Department really engages in any of this meaningfully, it's hard to know where all this lands.'
