Wealth management

Wealth Management firms are secondary intermediaries and investment advisory firms which specialize in a combination of financial services to provide value to high-worth clients. They can make equity or debt investments but will adhere closely to a client mandate, seeking returns over a medium-term horizon.

Responding entities tracked


Criteria

Responding Wealth management Tracked

Institutions by number

Chart Bar

Institutions that are joining the “Paris race,” by making a commitment to any level of action under any of the three dimensions (Targets, Integration, Flows). Depending on which Criteria is selected, this trend shows the number of institutions or the total assets they represent (USD billion).

How many institutions are joining the “Paris race”, by making a commitment to any level of action under any of the three dimensions. Depending on which is selected, this trend shows the number of institutions or the total assets they represent (USD billion).

The number of wealth management firms reporting on Paris responses is small but has increased steadily over the years. Most firms have reported integration measures, although only initial steps, while targets and portfolio alignment have showed some better progress.

While only a single institution reported any response in 2015, the number reached 14 by 2020. Total assets with these institutions have been rising faster since 2018. In 2020, reporting wealth management firms could be linked to assets worth USD 238 billion, yet this represents a small share of the total wealth industry, estimated at USD 4.5 trillion.

Trends By Dimension


Criteria

Targets

Distribution

Institutions by number

Chart Bar

Distribution of integration scores for the selected institution category. Gradations in each bar represent different levels of response (ranging 0-100 from “Initial response” to “Advanced response”). The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Distribution of targets scores for the selected institution category. Gradations in each bar represent different levels of response (ranging 0-100 from “Initial response” to “Advanced response”). The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Reliability

Target drivers

*based on average nr or AUM of reporting entities in the last 5 years

AVERAGE SCORE

Avg by number of institutions

Chart Bar

The green line indicates the average integration score (0-100 from “Initial response” to “Advanced response”) for the selected institution category. The average across institutions can be calculated as simple average of scores or weighted by the assets of covered entities. The dotted line indicates the score of the single institution emerging as the category’s “early leader.”

The green line indicates the average targets score (0-100 from “Initial response” to “Advanced response”) for the selected institution category. The average across institutions can be calculated as simple average of scores or weighted by the assets of covered entities. The dotted line indicates the score of the single institution emerging as the category’s “early leader.”

Reliability

Target drivers

*based on average nr or AUM of reporting entities in the last 5 years

The number of wealth management firms setting targets is small yet has been increasing steadily each year. One wealth management firm reported targets in 2015, and 7 in 2020.

All reporting institutions have shown only an initial response so far, and the average score is low at 21 in every year. While more firms are joining the race, so far they have followed the relatively low standards set by early movers.

As an early leader, Tribe Impact Capital had the highest score in 2020, at 25, again showing there is limited room for improvement between the average firm compared to best practice in the industry. Commitments to raise awareness and influencing actors in the system are driving the score. These low scores may reflect a perception in wealth management firms that their relative distance from primary markets implies less need to set direct targets for impact in their portfolios.

Integration

Distribution

Institutions by number

Chart Bar

Distribution of integration scores for the selected institution category. Gradations in each bar represent different levels of response (ranging 0-100 from “Initial response” to “Advanced response”). The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Distribution of targets scores for the selected institution category. Gradations in each bar represent different levels of response (ranging 0-100 from “Initial response” to “Advanced response”). The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Reliability

Integration drivers

*based on average nr or AUM of reporting entities in the last 5 years

AVERAGE SCORE

Avg by number of institutions

Chart Bar

The green line indicates the average integration score (0-100 from “Initial response” to “Advanced response”) for the selected institution category. The average across institutions can be calculated as simple average of scores or weighted by the assets of covered entities. The dotted line indicates the score of the single institution emerging as the category’s “early leader.”

The green line indicates the average targets score (0-100 from “Initial response” to “Advanced response”) for the selected institution category. The average across institutions can be calculated as simple average of scores or weighted by the assets of covered entities. The dotted line indicates the score of the single institution emerging as the category’s “early leader.”

Reliability

Integration drivers

*based on average nr or AUM of reporting entities in the last 5 years

Only 8 wealth management firms in the UK responded with some degree of integration in 2020. All reporting institutions are at the initial response stage, having scored below 20. Like in targets, this suggests that new reporting companies are following standards set by those already reporting. However, we can see a small improvement in recent years: before 2018, there were no wealth managements firms scoring in integration.

On average, the average integration score was 6 until 2018, reaching 8 in 2019 and 2020. This small increase is explained by the two new reporting wealth management firms: Tribe Impact Capital scored 16 in 2020, while Lombard Odier Investment Managers scored 15. Like in targets, it leaves a small room for improvement for the average wealth manager when comparing to early leaders.

The score trend is mainly driven by an increase in the number of reporting institutions with shareholder engagement and commitments to report on climate progress.

Flows

INVESTMENT TRENDS

USDm *2019-2020 data is incomplete

Chart Bar

Bars show the volume of transactions in primary low-carbon and climate-resilient investments, and green bond issuances. Figures are always expressed in USD million.

Sources: BNEF, CBI, CPI, NAZCA, RAN

Reliability

Flows drivers

*based on average nr or AUM of reporting entities in the last 5 years

PORTFOLIO ALIGNMENT

Institutions by number

Chart Bar

Distribution of institutions based on the assessment of the share of their investment portfolios exposed to climate-critical sectors as either aligned or misaligned with Paris goals. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: FFD, FinanceMap, TPI

Reliability

Flows drivers

*based on average nr or AUM of reporting entities in the last 5 years

There is no activity tracked on primary investments, owing to wealth management firms’ role at a distance from tangible assets and activities. However, available information on portfolios shows that wealth management firms are generally misaligned with Paris. Portfolio tracking starts in 2020 (6 institutions). Only one firm has an aligned portfolio: Cazenove Capital Management.

TRENDS BY INDICATORS


Targets indicators


Awareness of climate change

awareness of climate change

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have announced a clear commitment to addressing climate change through their activities, thereby raising awareness for action on climate risks or goals. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: PRI, TPI or activity tracked under other indicators (adoption of mitigation targets, investment and divestment goals, activity to influence actors in the system).

Reliability

Adoption of quantified mitigation targets

Adoption of quantified mitigation targets

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have set clear targets for climate action (primarily reducing their emissions), whether those are quantitative targets or general, and whether they are disclosed transparently. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: SBTi, ERI, NAZCA, WMB, TPI, NZAOA, PRB

Reliability

Mitigation targets by type

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have set a target, by type of target adopted. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: SBTi, NAZCA

Reliability

Adoption of investment goals

ADOPTION OF INVESTMENT GOALS

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have set and disclosed clear, accountable and measurable targets to provide a volume of financial services and investments for climate action. The distribution can be based on the institutions by number or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: WRI

Reliability

AGGREGATE INVESTMENT GOALS

USDm

Chart - How to read

Bars show the cumulative volume of investments that institutions have committed to in goals at the organizational level. Figures are always expressed in USD millions.

Sources: WRI

Reliability

Adoption of divestment goals

Adoption of divestment goals

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have announced a clear target to divest from fossil fuels, with a clearly defined scope. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: DivestInvest, FFD

Reliability

Adoption of institutional strategy on climate change

Adoption of institutional strategy on climate change

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have set an institution-level strategy to incorporate climate change risks and opportunities, including investment or decarbonization plans. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: PDC, PRI, TPI, CAFI, PRB

Reliability

Influencing actors in the system

Influencing actors in the system

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that are engaging with government and industry on climate change. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: InfluenceMap, World Economic Forum / Mission Possible, BEI, IA, SAS, PSI, PRI, NZAOA, WMB, TPI

Reliability

Integration indicators


Disclosure of climate risks

Disclosure of climate risks

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have committed to the disclosure of climate risks and, if so, whether the level of disclosure has been assessed and can be considered sufficient. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: AODP, PRI, TCFD, CA 100+, WMB

Reliability

Emissions reporting

Emissions reporting

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have committed to disclose their emissions, and whether there is evidence that emissions are already been tracked internally. Emissions that are verified or cover the full range of activities (scope 1, 2, and 3) are here considered of higher quality. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: TPI, PCAF, PRI

Reliability

Climate progress reporting

Climate progress reporting

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that are committing to provide, or providing regular updates on measures implemented, and actions taken.

Distribution can be based alternatively on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USDbn).

Sources: SSEI, CAFI, PSI, WRI, PRB, NZAOA, WMB, PRI

Reliability

Carbon price

CARBON PRICE

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have committed to an internal carbon price to inform their decision making, have already adopted one, or transparently disclosed one to the public. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: CDP, CPLC, TPI, WMB, NAZCA

Reliability

CARBON PRICE RANGE ADOPTED

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that adopted and disclosed a carbon price, by actual carbon price range. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion), while the carbon price range is expressed in USD/tCO2.

Sources: CDP

Reliability

Climate scenario tools

Climate scenario tools

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that integrated temperature and climate scenario tools to support decision making, and the level of sophistication of the scenario used. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: PRI, TPI

Reliability

Climate risk due diligence

Climate risk due diligence

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have adopted internal climate risk due diligence and related procedures, distinguishing between organizations that so far committed to do so and those that have already put measures in place, and the degree at which they are integrated across the operational and strategic levels of the organization. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: PRI, TPI, CAFI

Reliability

Climate-related accountability

Climate-related accountability

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have adopted measures for climate accountability, looking at the extent of accountability and incentives for chief and operations-level staff, and at the existence of dedicated staff responsible for coordinating climate action. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: PRI, TPI, SSEI

Reliability

Shareholder / client engagement

Shareholder / client engagement

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions that have committed to engaging shareholders or clients on climate action, or that are taking the necessary steps by mandating climate reporting requirements or through active ownership. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: PRI, PRB, SSEI, 2Di FM, CA 100+

Reliability

Flows indicators


Investment trends

Investment trends

USDm *2019-2020 data is incomplete

Chart - How to read

Bars show the volume of transactions in primary low-carbon and climate-resilient investments, and green bond issuances. Figures are always expressed in USD million.

Sources: BNEF, CBI, CPI, NAZCA, RAN

Reliability

Portfolio alignment

PORTFOLIO ALIGNMENT

Institutions by number

Chart - How to read

Distribution of institutions based on the assessment of the share of their investment portfolios exposed to climate-critical activities as either aligned or misaligned with Paris goals. The distribution can be based on the number of institutions or their underlying assets (USD billion).

Sources: FFD, FinanceMap, TPI

Reliability

Send feedback