J.P. Morgan Weighs the Risks of Climate Tipping Points

(SeaPRwire) –   How does the financial market value an existential threat, such as nuclear war, an AI takeover, or a massive global pandemic? Simply put, it does not. In a true end-of-the-world scenario, the value of your assets becomes meaningless.

Most business leaders and investors have treated climate tipping points similarly—and for good reason. These points, where climate systems shift rapidly and permanently, appear too far off and too complex to model effectively.

However, tipping points, no matter how improbable, do not need to end civilization to fundamentally alter it. They may finally be receiving more serious attention in the corporate world, partly due to increased geopolitical risk and a series of unprecedented economic shocks in recent years, which have challenged the reliability of long-held assumptions.

“People are now confronting geopolitical risks at a level they haven’t for some time,” states Sarah Kapnick, J.P. Morgan’s global head of climate advisory. “And, similar to geopolitical risks, these are nonlinear risks that they are beginning to learn how to factor in.” She notes that companies whose boards include national security and environmental experts are best positioned to understand these connections.

In a new J.P. Morgan report, which I was able to preview exclusively, Kapnick presents a framework for comprehending and addressing the risks associated with climate tipping points. While banks frequently publish research on climate risks, evaluating tipping points represents a novel development. Currently, only the most progressive investors and companies have started to integrate tipping points into their business models and strategic planning. As time progresses, however, sophisticated firms will need to develop a methodology for addressing these issues or risk incurring significant costs, whether gradually or suddenly.

Sign up to Future Proof here

The scientific principles behind tipping points have been common knowledge in climate circles for many years. For instance, ongoing deforestation of the Amazon could induce a “dieback,” transforming the entire ecosystem into a savannah and unleashing unpredictable cascading effects. The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a crucial current system that moderates weather in North America and Europe, could falter as global temperatures rise, leading to abrupt climate shifts. Researchers are now actively discussing whether the world’s coral reefs, perishing under climate pressures, have already passed a point of no return.

Yet, as alarming as these prospects are, economists have historically found it challenging to integrate such risks into their models, and businesses lacked a practical method to account for them. The late Harvard economist Martin Weitzman described this dilemma with his “dismal theorem”: the more catastrophic the potential outcome, the less capable we are of dealing with it. Concurrently, he maintained that society should be prepared to pay a steep premium to avert extreme tail risks, essentially purchasing an insurance policy.

This logic might apply at a societal level, but it holds little weight for individual firms, where CEO tenures are often counted in years rather than decades and stock prices hinge on quarterly performance. Kapnick’s report, however, provides insights that are more applicable. Rather than urging companies to take drastic, financially detached actions, she advises them to develop the capability to assess their exposure in a world that has passed a climate tipping point.

Importantly, she translates tipping points into business terminology. By applying a discounted cash flow model, she calculates the immediate financial impact of a future flood occurring after a tipping point. Kapnick demonstrates that in the near term, the present value of potential damage appears reasonably contained. Take a flood causing $1,000 in damage per event, but with only a 0.2% annual probability under a baseline scenario without accelerated climate change. In that case, a firm might anticipate $30 in present-value damages over 30 years. If a climate tipping point occurs halfway through that period, the same calculation yields over $1,600 in present-value damages. This illustrates that when companies adopt a 30-year planning horizon, these risks become financially material.

How, then, should this risk be managed? The advice differs by sector. Venture capital ought to fund technologies that will gain importance after a tipping point. Policymakers must establish regulations to safeguard supply chains from breakdowns. Pension funds and family offices with long-term investment outlooks need to chart these risks within their portfolios.

Investors who adopt this long-term perspective and apply it to asset valuation are termed “high conviction pricers” by Kapnick. These evaluations are expected to influence debt markets first, where protecting against losses is paramount, before affecting equity markets, where the potential for gains often overshadows risks.
Notably, a physical tipping point does not need to happen for it to influence market prices. As understanding and concern increase, and the timeline for potential costs draws nearer, a growing number of institutions will start to price in tipping point risk. “It’s not solely about the physical risk and the direct loss,” Kapnick explains. “It’s about how information permeates the financial system and the resulting responses, which can occur well before the actual climate events unfold.”

Once financial markets start viewing tipping points as practical considerations rather than abstract theories, a widespread repricing of assets could happen swiftly and unevenly across different classes, ultimately benefiting those firms that made early preparations.

To get this story in your inbox, sign up to TIME’s Future Proof newsletter here.