Small investors could be big losers under federal climate change legislation

May 07, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Small investors could be big losers if a greenhouse gas reduction plan known as cap and trade becomes law and accounting standards for carbon credits have not been established, according to a new study released today by a University of California, Davis, professor.

In an analysis of pending federal legislation and accounting practices, UC Davis management professor Paul Griffin determined that U.S. companies would receive up to $36 billion in climate change allowances next year under provisions of a bill the U.S. House of Representatives passed last year.

But their balance sheets would show only $7.5 billion in allowances using an accounting procedure set by a federal energy agency. Companies also could choose from one of several other established accounting standards, each of which would produce very different results, according to Griffin.

"There will be confusion," said Griffin, an accounting expert at the UC Davis Graduate School of Management. "The average public investor will be at a disadvantage relative to a professional investor like Goldman Sachs."

When balance sheets do not give a clear picture of assets and liabilities, investors cannot accurately assess a firm's value, according to Griffin.

"It raises an issue of fairness," he said. "Everyone wants openness and transparency now, and this could move us away from that."

Under the bill now before the Senate, total would be capped, and companies would receive annual government emission allowances. Firms with low emissions could sell their unused allowances to firms that have exceeded their limits. The bill thus would create incentives for buyers and sellers of credits to cut emissions.

In 20 years, U.S. firms would receive approximately $700 billion in allowances under the bill.

"These are big numbers that should be reflected in balance sheets," Griffin said.

So far, the debate over cap and trade has been largely about the cost to consumers, the effect on the federal deficit and the impact on global . There has been little discussion of what it would mean for the balance sheets of companies.

"The Securities and Exchange Commission hasn't given any guidance on the debits and the credits that would result from the bill," Griffin said.

In his study, Griffin compiled financial and emissions data of all firms in the Standard & Poor’s 500. Using this data and applying rules that might be used by accountants, he calculated how the financial statements of each of the large publicly traded companies would be affected under different accounting scenarios.

Applying standards used by the European Union, total assets from on U.S. company balance sheets would be as high as $36 billion in the first year of the bill, according to Griffin's calculations. However, under U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission standards, the total benefits received from the government would be shown as zero. According to Griffin, companies could opt for a method that allows them to show zero benefit and zero liability from the government credits.

"A large swath of U.S. companies could account for an aggregate economic obligation of between $39 billion and $44 billion entirely off the books," Griffin said.

Explore further: Marcellus drilling boom may have led to too many hotel rooms

More information: Download the full study at: ssrn.com/abstract=1601122

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

EPA: Climate bill could cost family $100 annually

Oct 25, 2009

(AP) -- A Senate plan to tackle global warming would add about $100 a year to the energy costs for a typical household, according to an analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Recommended for you

Marcellus drilling boom may have led to too many hotel rooms

10 hours ago

Drilling in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale region led to a rapid increase in both the number of hotels and hotel industry jobs, but Penn State researchers report that the faltering occupancy rate may signal that there are ...

Entrepreneurs aren't overconfident gamblers

Sep 17, 2014

Leaving one's job to become an entrepreneur is inarguably risky. But it may not be the fear of risk that makes entrepreneurs more determined to succeed. A new study finds entrepreneurs are also concerned about what they might ...

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MikeLisanke
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2010
7th paragraph mentions greenhouse emissions and the 10th finally mentions cap and trade.

Did the author think we wouldn't read the article if it talked about how cap and trade was going to cost the little guy (us) lots of money?
marjon
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2010
And AGWites wonder why so many don't believe you?