TCW Names Scott Dennis Head of ETFs
LOS ANGELES, May 19, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The TCW Group, a leading global asset manager, today announced that it has named Scott Dennis as the firm's Head of Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). In this role, he will oversee ETF Capital Markets across asset classes as well as TCW's ETF strategy and business execution. He is based in the firm's Boston office and reports to Jennifer Grancio, Global Head of Distribution.
Dennis' appointment comes as TCW has seen significant growth in both the number of ETFs it offers and assets. Since entering the ETF business in 2023, TCW's offerings have rapidly grown to six fixed-income and five equity ETFs, with assets above $3 billion. TCW's flagship fixed income ETF, the TCW Flexible Income ETF (FLXR), has seen its assets triple in the past year to more than $1 billion and is now the fifth-largest ETF in its category.
"More and more investors and financial advisors are looking to TCW to provide a diversity of ETFs that offer active management, intraday liquidity, and tax efficiency," said Grancio. "As we plan an expansion of our platform in the coming year and beyond, Scott will be an integral leader as we take our ETF offerings into an exciting new stage of growth to meet this tremendous investor demand."
Dennis joins TCW after 16 years at BlackRock in its iShares business, where he was a core member of the team that built its over $1 trillion fixed income ETF platform, focusing on ETF capital markets, distribution, and trading strategy. Most recently, he led the iShares Insurance Solutions Business, where he was responsible for growing ETF usage on insurance general account balance sheets as well as overseeing the accounting and regulatory initiatives for ETF usage across the insurance industry. During his tenure at BlackRock, he held several leadership positions in the iShares business as the Head of Wealth Capital Markets, iShares Markets Coverage and iShares Fixed Income Capital Markets.
Prior to BlackRock, Dennis worked at Morgan Stanley in fixed income institutional sales and trading and Bloomberg's trading systems group. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Lafayette College.
"TCW has emerged as one of the most exciting and innovative ETF issuers over the past few years, building on its 50-plus year heritage as a trusted asset manager," Dennis said. "I look forward to contributing to this team as we build on these recent successes by offering more active investment opportunities and grow assets."
About The TCW Group
TCW is a leading global asset management firm with a broad range of products across fixed income, alternative investments, equities, and emerging markets with over half a century of investment experience. Through its ETF suite, TCW MetWest Funds and TCW Funds, TCW manages one of the largest fund complexes in the U.S. TCW's clients include many of the world's largest corporate and public pension plans, financial institutions, endowments and foundations, as well as financial advisors and high net worth individuals. For more information, please visit www.tcw.com.
Disclosures:
Before investing you should carefully consider the fund's investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information is in the prospectus, a copy of which may be obtained from etf.tcw.com. Please read the prospectus carefully before you invest.
This material is for general information purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, any security. TCW, its officers, directors, employees or clients may have positions in securities or investments mentioned in this publication, which positions may change at any time, without notice. While the information and statistical data contained herein are based on sources believed to be reliable, we do not represent that it is accurate and should not be relied on as such or be the basis for an investment decision. The information contained herein may include preliminary information and/or "forward-looking statements." Due to numerous factors, actual events may differ substantially from those presented. TCW assumes no duty to update any forwardlooking statements or opinions in this document. Any opinions expressed herein are current only as of the time made and are subject to change without notice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Investments involve risk. Principal loss is possible.
The Fund is advised by TCW Investment Management Company LLC. Distributed by Foreside Financial Services, LLC.
NOT FDIC INSURED | NO BANK GUARANTEE | MAY LOSE VALUE
© 2025 TCW Group. All rights reserved.
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250519788049/en/
Contacts
Media Contact:Doug MorrisHead of Corporate CommunicationsTel: 213-244-0509
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
BlackRock's GIP to take stake in Eni's carbon capture business
MILAN (Reuters) -U.S. asset manager BlackRock's infrastructure fund GIP has agreed to buy a 49.99% stake in Eni's carbon capture and storage business (CCUS), the Italian company said on Monday without disclosing the price. The proposed deal is part of Eni's broader strategy to sell minority stakes in satellite operations to fund their growth. Eni CCUS Holding includes the HyNet and Bacton projects in Britain and L10 in the Netherlands. It also has future rights to acquire Italy's carbon capture project in Ravenna. 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
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
BlackRock backs Gupta's bid to retain grip on UK steel empire
BlackRock, the world's biggest asset manager, is backing a controversial bid by the metals tycoon Sanjeev Gupta to retain control of his faltering UK steel empire. Sky News has learnt that executives at BlackRock have authorised the issuance of a financing support letter which could enable Mr Gupta to continue to exert a grip on Liberty Steel's Speciality Steels UK (SSUK) arm - which employs nearly 1,500 people in South Yorkshire. Money latest: Michelin-guide restaurant launches water menu - with bottles costing up to £19 People close to the situation said on Monday that private capital funds managed by BlackRock had expressed a willingness to provide tens of millions of pounds to Liberty Steel UK. One source suggested the figure could be as high as £75m. Sky News revealed at the weekend that Mr Gupta was lining up a so-called connected pre-pack administration of SSUK that would result in it ridding itself of hundreds of millions of pounds of tax and other liabilities. BlackRock, which declined to comment, is already understood to have provided funds to Liberty Steel in the US and Australia. Mr Gupta is racing to finalise a deal ahead of a winding-up petition hearing scheduled for Wednesday which could result in the compulsory liquidation of SSUK. One source close to the tycoon expressed a belief that the hearing would be adjourned, as it had been in May and July. Begbies Traynor, the accountancy firm, is working on efforts to progress the pre-pack deal. Whitehall sources said at the weekend that government officials had stepped up planning for the collapse of SSUK if the winding-up petition is approved. If that were to happen, SSUK would enter compulsory liquidation within days, with a special manager appointed by the Official Receiver to run the operations. Mr Gupta's UK business operates steel plants at Sheffield and Rotherham in South Yorkshire, with a combined workforce of more than 1,400 people. A connected pre-pack risks stiff opposition from Liberty Steel's creditors, which include HM Revenue and Customs. UBS, the investment bank which rescued Credit Suisse, a major backer of the collapsed finance firm Greensill Capital - which itself had a multibillion dollar exposure to Liberty Steel's parent, GFG Alliance - is also a creditor of the company. Grant Thornton, the accountancy firm handling Greensill's administration, is also watching the legal proceedings with interest. A Liberty Steel spokesperson said at the weekend: "Discussions are ongoing to finalise options for SSUK. "We remain committed to identifying a solution that preserves electric arc furnace steelmaking in the UK--a critical national capability supporting strategic supply chains. "We continue to work towards an outcome that best serves the interests of creditors, employees, and the broader community." Last month, The Guardian reported that Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, was monitoring events at Liberty Steel's SSUK arm, and had not ruled out stepping in to provide support to the company. Such a move is still thought to be an option, although it is not said to be imminent. The Department for Business and Trade said: "We continue to closely monitor developments around Liberty Steel, including any public hearings, which are a matter for the company. Other parts of Mr Gupta's empire have been showing signs of financial stress for years. Mr Gupta is said to have explored whether he could persuade the government to step in and support SSUK using the legislation enacted to take control of British Steel's operations. Whitehall insiders told Sky News in May that Mr Gupta's overtures had been rebuffed. He had previously sought government aid during the pandemic but that plea was also rejected by ministers. SSUK, which also operates from a site in Bolton, Lancashire, makes highly engineered steel products for use in sectors such as aerospace, automotive and oil and gas. The company said earlier this year that it had invested nearly £200m in the last five years into the UK steel industry, but had faced "significant challenges due to soaring energy costs and an over-reliance on cheap imports, negatively impacting the performance of all UK steel companies". Liberty Steel declined to comment on BlackRock's support.
Harvard Business Review
5 hours ago
- Harvard Business Review
Boards Can Continue to Lead the Way on Climate Governance
During the past year, political and investor pushback against corporate climate efforts has intensified. Nearly 320 anti-ESG bills have been introduced across U.S. state legislatures since 2021. States such as Florida and Texas have curbed the use of ESG considerations in public investments. The U.S. SEC has all but repealed its climate-disclosure rules, and pending climate-disclosure rules in California are mired in litigation. This backlash has triggered a corporate retreat in some parts of corporate America. Firms are scaling back climate disclosures, reducing sustainability headcount, and in some cases abandoning emissions goals. Major financial institutions—including BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, State Street, and JPMorgan Chase—have withdrawn from global climate alliances, while companies such as Alphabet and McDonald's have purged 'ESG' from public statements. ExxonMobil took the unusual step of suing shareholders for proposing stronger emissions targets. Yet the underlying risks associated with climate change—from supply-chain disruption to asset impairment and shifting consumer preferences—haven't disappeared. If anything, they are accelerating. As climate impacts grow more visible, companies will need strategies that address both mitigation (reducing emissions) and adaptation (strengthening resilience to physical and operational climate risks). Globally, companies appear to recognize these risks. Despite headlines about ESG retreat, a PwC study found that 37% of the more than 4,000 companies reporting climate targets to CDP in 2024 had increased their ambitions, and only 16% had dialed them back. The question for boards then is not whether they should engage in climate governance, but how to do so credibly, legally, and effectively in an era of heightened scrutiny. Guidance for a Shifting Landscape Last year, in an HBR article ' How Robust Is Your Climate Governance? ' we outlined eight hallmarks of meaningful board engagement on climate. In view of the political and social changes that have taken place since that article was published, we provide the following updated guidance for navigating today's shifting climate landscape. 1. Know your climate profile, now more than ever. In an era of heightened scrutiny, a board's foundational knowledge of its climate profile serves as its first line of defense. Boards must develop rock-solid understanding of their climate exposure—how the company affects climate and especially vice versa. Climate data must be not only internally accurate but externally defensible. This means requesting third-party verification of emissions metrics, rigorously stress-testing assumptions, and preparing for public scrutiny. Scenario planning should incorporate a range of plausible futures—including regulatory fragmentation, delays in policy implementation, supply-chain instability, reduced tax benefits, and escalating physical climate impacts. For each scenario, boards should understand the risks and opportunities it presents for the company as well as how it affects the company's responsibilities as a corporate citizen. 2. Define the board's role. When facing pressure to retreat from climate oversight, boards should recognize that climate risks connect to core business fundamentals rather than ESG trends. As we wrote in our earlier article, the board's role in climate oversight should be clearly defined and documented in charters, committee descriptions, and proxy filings. The linkages to fiduciary duties—risk management, strategic resilience, and long-term value creation—should also be clear. We recommend having legal counsel review governance documents to ensure compliance with evolving expectations. 3. Build a defensible oversight structure. Rather than centralize oversight in a stand-alone ESG committee, a distributed governance model is more resilient and less vulnerable to attacks. A stand-alone 'ESG committee' makes an easy target for activists. We continue to recommend assigning responsibility for coordinating climate oversight to a primary committee (such as governance or nominating), while embedding specific climate responsibilities into other relevant committees: audit (for disclosure), risk (for exposure), and compensation (for incentives). The integrated approach becomes even more valuable when facing criticism, because it demonstrates that climate considerations are embedded in core business processes. This signals integration into the business, not conformity to the latest trend. Explicitly document how the board's structure supports accountability and coherence, reducing perceptions of arbitrary decision-making. Should the political winds shift again, boards can adjust emphasis without wholesale structural change. 4. Build expertise thoughtfully. Meaningful oversight requires informed engagement. Focus on ensuring that directors have business-relevant expertise—transition economics, energy systems, regulatory risk—rather than symbolic 'climate credentials.' Use independent briefings, industry site visits, and neutral education partners to demonstrate a multi-source learning approach. Boards that show deliberate, ongoing engagement will enhance both their credibility and their understanding. At a time when trade-offs are more complex than ever, boards lacking climate literacy will struggle to make informed choices—or explain their climate position to skeptical stakeholders. 5. Clarify climate positioning—consistency is critical. Companies face the delicate task of defining their climate posture without appearing to abandon commitments or stakeholder expectations. Whether the company aims to lead, follow, or comply on climate the current environment, clarity is crucial. As we've previously emphasized, boards must align with management on the company's climate posture. They should also communicate the company's stance accurately. ' Greenhushing '—downplaying or withholding information about climate commitments and activities from the public—may seem sensible as a way to avoid the spotlight, but lack of transparency can alienate other stakeholders, and failure to disclose financially material climate-related information raises legal issues. Lack of transparency also makes collective action to address climate change more difficult. Inconsistent or opaque positioning creates unnecessary risk. Stakeholders—including employees—will be watching to see whether a company's actions consistently reflect its stated climate position and corporate values. This means aligning internal strategy with public statements, investor presentations, and regulatory filings. If you are scaling back goals, explain why—whether due to technology limits, economic shifts, or capital reallocation. Such positioning should be the result of business strategy, not political convenience. In the face of skepticism about climate initiatives, a coherent climate stance—regardless of ambition level—builds trust. 6. Probe management plans, and demand clarity and accountability. With average shareholder support for ESG resolutions declining from 33.3% in 2021 to 19.6% in 2024, boards must ensure their oversight provides the accountability that external mechanisms may not. We continue to advocate the approach from our previous article: Boards must review climate strategies with the same rigor as financial forecasts. This includes emissions targets, capital allocation, and operational planning. Avoid aspirational goals without clear roadmaps. Ask: What assumptions underpin our targets? Who is accountable? Can we defend these assumptions publicly—to shareholders, the media, or policymakers? Independent verification and board-level dashboards add credibility and clarity to climate oversight. Plans to scale back strategies or relax emissions targets should get the same level of scrutiny as plans to increase them. A useful litmus test: 'If called before a Congressional hearing, can we explain our climate plan with clarity and credibility?' 7. Tie incentives to operations. Though controversial, tying climate goals to executive incentives can signal serious intent. Figures for 2025 are not yet available, but the practice actually grew slightly in 2024—28% of S&P 500 companies linked executive pay to climate metrics in 2024, up from 23% in 2023. Whenever it is used, climate-linked compensation must be auditable, proportionate, and clearly tied to operational outcomes. Consider how climate performance connects to business outcomes rather than external recognition or ratings. If incentives are politically sensitive, use non-compensation levers such as performance reviews, strategy reviews, or balanced scorecards. The goal is creating alignment through accountability mechanisms. 8. Acknowledge trade-offs and embrace complexity. Climate governance is no longer about win-win narratives (if it ever was). It requires navigating real tensions: short- vs. long-term returns, investor expectations vs. emissions goals, and resilience vs. risk. Be honest about trade-offs and avoid overly simplistic ESG narratives, such as 'Doing well by doing good.' Instead, document how the board weighs competing priorities and scenarios. Sophistication and transparency signal integrity. The best defense against politicized criticism is a well-reasoned, well-documented decision-making process rooted in business realities. Articulate clearly how the board weighs competing stakeholder interests and time horizons. More than ever, boards must embrace a realistic perspective on climate governance, acknowledging the complexities and uncertainties involved. In an environment where climate action faces criticism, transparently acknowledging challenges and demonstrating a thoughtful approach to overcoming them—rather than presenting a simplistic narrative—will foster greater trust and resilience. . . . Retreating from climate governance in the current political moment may provide short-term relief, but it carries long-term strategic risk. Climate change remains a material business issue. Even if the pushback grows, some stakeholders—from insurers to employees—will continue to demand clarity and accountability. That means embedding climate into the core of governance—not as a political gesture but as a strategic necessity. And it means preparing for scrutiny, not fearing it.
