The latest episode of our WellSaid podcast dives deep into the world of climate investing and the transformative role of AI in driving sustainable solutions.
The latest episode of our WellSaid podcast dives deep into the world of climate investing and the transformative role of AI in driving sustainable solutions.
2:00 Global climate policy environment
5:45 Climate investments as problem solvers
9:07 Assessing climate tech company fundamentals
11:25 How AI is driving climate innovation
13:50 Global competition for climate tech dominance
16:25 Geopolitical dynamics
21:35 Climate solutions as national security priorities
25:05 Growing climate demand in emerging markets
Alan Hsu: You are effectively seeing this policy response for AI, which is becoming inseparable from the demand for sustainable energy. And in the punch line is that even without climate policy, there would still be climate investments. Why? Because climate investments ultimately are about reducing costs, saving time, or developing business resilience. These all deliver economic benefits and these are timeless.
Thomas: The former president of the American Meteorological Society, Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd, described weather as your mood and climate change as your personality. Now, as our climate’s personality evolves, the weather is getting moodier. Hurricanes are stronger. Rainfall totals are higher. Heat waves are more intense. And while climate change can't be blamed for every individual storm or natural disaster, the connection between secular shifts in the Earth's climate and extreme weather patterns is scientifically irrefutable. As for the investment angle, technologies that help us adapt or to mitigate the effects of climate change are increasingly seen as technologies that save us money and protect our homes, communities, and as listeners of this podcast know, even and especially, national security. Joining me today to discuss the tailwinds driving the climate investment opportunity is Alan Hsu, a longtime climate investor and a portfolio manager of one of Wellington's climate-focused strategies. Alan, welcome back to WellSaid.
Alan: Thank you very much, Thomas. It's very nice to be back with you today.
Thomas: All right. Let's start with the big picture. And by that, I mean the policy framework here. So policymakers, regardless of their public stance on climate change, are taking action in light of these increasingly dangerous weather extremes we're seeing all around the world. So what and where, Alan, to your mind, are the biggest policy tailwinds for climate technology?
Alan: You really are seeing global support from a policy standpoint for what we would consider the climate transition. And you can categorize it as policy or not, is all of the focus on AI that is occurring globally. AI is effectively pulling forward the energy transition because of the immense demand for energy, but also the concurrent focus on sustainability and efficiency, which allows you to grow into that demand in a much more measured, sensible way. You are effectively seeing this policy response for AI, which is becoming inseparable from the demand for sustainable energy. And in the punch line is that even without climate policy, there would still be climate investments. Why? Because climate investments ultimately are about reducing costs, saving time, or developing business resilience. These all deliver economic benefits and these are timeless.
Thomas: So we're getting a global response. AI is a technology that's powering it. And this is going to happen regardless of the politics, right. All right. Well speaking of politics, what about the US? Can you give our listeners your inside baseball thoughts on the future of the US Inflation Reduction Act, as well as climate technology development in general? And, let's say beyond the headlines, in your view, Alan, how is the Trump administration, changing the game for renewables, EVs, and other climate solutions, particularly those that got so much attention in the Biden administration?
Alan: As usual, there are lots of puts and takes here. So tax credits as an example for electric vehicles have largely been reduced. While credits for renewable energy such as solar and wind remain relatively strong. There are forms of distributed energy that have gotten support. Again, it's important to emphasize the posture that the current administration is taking on AI because they are so focused on winning this idea of this AI race, it has allowed them to become creative and open minded about exploring all avenues, which ultimately lead to pulling forward the energy transition. So, for example, you are now seeing most countries that care at all about developing an AI advantage or competitive edge discuss forms of energy like nuclear that even 2 or 3 years ago were off the table or verboten. But now almost every major country is exploring everything from nuclear to combinations of technology like solar plus storage.
You're exploring a lot of different energy sources that, again, a few years ago, you would have not viewed as on the table or even economic. The other aspect that is worth mentioning is that you are also unlocking other pools of capital to explore energy transition technology. You are seeing venture capital go back into climate or sustainable clean energy. Whereas a decade and a half ago, the green energy funding that was representative of the mid-2000s was largely viewed as a negative experience, a non-profitable experience. So you're seeing a lot of different pools of capital work to unlock the bottleneck of power and energy. And ultimately, we think that this response from the US as a policy is very favorable for climate legislation.
Thomas: I tend to look at the climate technology market, like all markets, through a geopolitical lens. It’s right there in my title. But as a homeowner who lives in an area prone to flooding, Boston, and is concerned about the future for my daughter, I'm very aware of the practicality and the value of these products. So if these innovations, let's say, lower my insurance rate, my utility bills, if they increase my safety and comfort, I'm all for them. And I assume I'm not alone in this economic view. So how has shifting business and consumer sentiment on climate tech changed your investment approach?
Alan: No, Thomas, you aren't alone in this view and you are hitting upon a very important point. If not perhaps the most important aspect of climate investing that still doesn't get nearly enough attention. Climate investing makes sense, because even if you don't care about the weather, the atmosphere, the scientific perspective on warming, climate investments solve real-world problems in tangible ways.
Nearly every company in the climate resilience opportunity set, or the companies that we follow and would invest in, offer products or services that either avoid a cost, reduce time to do something, or establish business resilience. And the basic intuition here is that CO2 is a negative externality. It represents the cost of doing business. Every business, every person creates some form of a CO2 footprint just by the virtue of being active. So your business activity generates a series of costs. And CO2 is actually one way to proxy what this cost is. Our research actually finds that companies that are better than their peers on CO2 intensity actually tend to outperform. What's the possible intuition behind that? We think it could be a couple of things, but first would be because better CO2 intensity, meaning you're more efficient in generating revenue per unit of CO2 that you create, it tends to reflect that you're a better-run business. You're probably therefore more profitable.
And then the second aspect is that it can show superior corporate stewardship. You either have a management team or other stakeholders, boards that are focused on efficiency, that are focused on resource optimization, that are focused on creating the collective benefit of all of the different stakeholders. You mentioned that you're a homeowner. I am as well, and so you should be thrilled by all of the different examples of how climate investments can generate real economic payback. So, for example, home insulation has something like a two-year payback when it's placed in your attic, maybe a little bit longer if it's put in your wall. Think about smart lighting or LED technology. Think about wood composite decking and siding that is starting to take more share, for example, from a vinyl or traditional engineered wood products. Because of the lower total cost of ownership and the ease of maintenance, your payback can be anywhere from 4 to 7 years. Thinking of this from a larger industrial lens, factory automation technology can deliver paybacks of anywhere from half a year to five years, while also boosting the safety and the resilience and reducing time it takes to deliver a manufactured good. So these are all technology. And they will continue to be adopted not only because of the shift in consumer preferences, but because it delivers a real economic payback.
Thomas: Let's bring this down to the balance sheet a little bit, Alan. And I'm curious, you've mentioned a lot of the factors that are driving interest in the sector, so what company fundamentals matter most in this space?
Alan: That's a great question, Thomas. Depending on whether a company meets our investment threshold for climate revenue materiality, we tend to focus on upside versus downside, and what we think the path of compounding is for any particular investment. I don't think that myself or our team would categorize ourselves as growth or value oriented. We think both of those inputs are crucial in determining whether an investment opportunity is attractive or not. I do think that, in general, we tend to look for the types of ideas that tend to show up on our radar, and that excites us include companies that are operating in healthy industries, meaning there is some amount of discipline within the industry. Supply-demand is either favorable or is becoming favorable, based on our research. We tend to prefer companies where the ROEs are either very good and we think they can be sustained, or they're okay, but we think that they're going to improve dramatically based on some improvement in market exposure, some improvement in margin structure. And then with all of that, we try to distill down to a free-cash-flow metric. We think ultimately cash is king. So if you can value these companies based on what you're getting from a free-cash-flow perspective, then that is, for us, an attractive investment opportunity.
And then the final aspect of our investment process that I still think explains most of the alpha that is available in public markets actually relates to the reinvestment opportunity. I think what the market often gets wrong, and this is particularly true as it relates to climate, is the very, very long runway of reinvestment that is available to companies that are focused on energy transition, decarbonization, resource efficiency, automation, or adaptation. We think that those areas offer many, many years, if not decades of problem solving. And so, this idea of being able to generate attractive returns on equity over a long period of reinvestment is what excites us. And that tends to be what we look for in our investments.
Thomas: And this problem is not going to be solved over a short-term period.
Alan: We don't think so either.
Thomas: So Alan, you've mentioned AI a couple of times already. It's clearly an important part of this narrative. Now, a number of industries that were previously ring-fenced as climate solutions, may now be major beneficiaries of AI's massive energy demands. So which innovations have the biggest potential runways thanks to this emerging AI revolution?
Alan: Thomas, we think AI will end up being much more significant for climate than for nearly any other discrete investment area. If you think very simply, the last 20 years have all been about digital transformation. Hardware went from computers on your desktop to mobile phones in your pocket. Software went from on the mainframe to, again, in the cloud or on your phone. Media went from print to purely digital. That shift has been entirely about digital transformation. But now because of AI, we think the cost of intelligence and in some ways the cost of analysis nearly approaches zero. And so what's left is what do you do with that intelligence? What do you do with that analysis? And we think that creates a bottleneck or a bid for improving physical goods and services. And this is exactly what climate investing is primarily about, improving the way physical systems or infrastructure systems again, food systems, energy, electricity, water, all of these are systems which are collections of assets with better intelligence, better analysis. We think the next obvious step of what will happen in terms of progress is improving using that intelligence, using that analysis to improve the way all of those systems are either built, redeployed, reconfigured or upgraded. We think it will all occur with this emphasis on sustainability and efficiency.
So if you look at the world's companies that are focused on upgrading the grid or upgrading transportation systems, or renovating or improving buildings, housing, those are the types of companies that we've spent the last 15 years investing in. Those are the companies we think will be the biggest beneficiaries going forward. As the digital transformation that we've already seen for the last 20 years makes way to the physical transformation we expect over the next 20 years.
Thomas: So a massive upside, given the potential benefits that AI has across this entire set.
Alan: It wouldn't be an understatement to say that I'm a little bit biased, Thomas, but yes.
Thomas: All right, now let's widen the lens a little bit here, Alan, and talk about large markets, including, Europe, China, India. They're all shifting their energy mix, of course, towards renewables. It's a complicated process, obviously, involving not just producers and operators, but as you mentioned, grid technology, energy storage infrastructure. So, Alan, which countries have set themselves up to pull ahead here?
Alan: We think if we start with China, they have the greatest likelihood, in my mind, of representing unlimited innovation on energy transition, unlimited innovation on developing all sources of energy. They deploy more solar in a year than we will deploy in several years, in the United States, for example. There is an ability in China to create a plan or a vision and execute with ruthless efficiency. There's very little by way of opposing regulation. They can, by mandate, effectively enforce or highly incentivize the development of renewables and all of the different provinces. And the tendency, ultimately, is to overbuild that capacity. But if you're trying to reduce the cost of energy and drive the marginal cost of electricity and the marginal cost of token production down as much as possible, then I think that that overbuild is not only inevitable, but probably a positive in the very long term. But China has vast land, they have vision. They are, if you look at their political leadership, they all tend to be engineers and scientists. That creates a little bit more of this engineering precision focus on how to develop a lot of this, economic progress. So I think that China that is already doing far more in nuclear, far more and coal far more in renewables than the US does, is going to be well ahead.
I think the picture in Europe and India are a little bit grimmer than in the United States. And part of this, I think, is because there is population density and vastly more regulation that gets in the way of progress, if you're only trying to optimize or maximize for energy transition. Europe and India, I think, are in a slightly worse position than the United States, which puts the United States effectively in the middle. We have land. We have a lot of innovation. We have significant amount of intelligence as it relates to energy and scientists and people that are very expert in applied technology, but we also have some regulation. I think it will slow our progress in some forms of very, very clean energy like nuclear.
Thomas: So Alan, you're veering dangerously into my area of interest here, which is, of course, geopolitics. Mentioning China, of course as a leader in this area is, critical to great power competition and how the policy backdrop is shaping up. In fact, my conversations with the Trump administration and, of course, the Biden administration before that, they were very clear and are very clear about the strategic-competition aspect that China represents in renewable technologies in general. So there's a much more strategic view of these technologies, given the great-power competition context here. So I'm curious for your thoughts about how these geopolitical tensions, which also encompass this global trade war that we're seeing, how are they affecting this market, in your view?
Alan: Well, Thomas, you're the geopolitical expert. I was hoping to come here and get some advice from you on this question. I try not to have a strong opinion or base any investment decision on my personal geopolitical views. It's not hard if we're just talking about the perspective of the intersection of energy with AI, trade war, etc. It's not hard to just focus on energy to envision a scenario where our greatest competitor, arguably China, gets so far ahead of us from an energy perspective because, again, effectively no constraints on what they can achieve from an energy standpoint that they get so far ahead of us in de-bottlenecking power limitations, in reducing any friction around access to energy and power, which all of the hyperscalers have described as the largest bottleneck today, that you could begin to see some moves that we take to limit them in other ways.
How does that affect our investments, our investment view? That is a little bit of wait and see and take it one day or one month at a time. Our posture is the core economics of what are likely to happen; the idea that cost of compute, cost of tokens will continue to come down; knowledge, the access to unfettered knowledge will continue to go up. But again, difficult to understand exactly how geopolitical tensions play out. But it would not surprise me if the progress that China makes in energy leads to some other type of response from the US.
Thomas: I think you're already starting to see that response, Alan. I think what I'm getting from all of this is that policymakers — this is true in the US, but it's also true globally — are scouring industries through this strategic lens, and they're trying to determine which are the industries that we need to control, or at least win or compete in, in this broader great-power competition. Clean energy, renewables, energy in general is squarely falling into this bucket. So I think what we're going to see across this whole landscape that you're describing here is an acceleration of protection and promotion of these core strategic industries. And that'll look different across various administrations. The Biden administration was using more incentives. The Trump administration is using more tariffs to try to compel changes in behavior. But my view is that this is likely to accelerate given the national security stakes that are involved here. And I think this is going to be disruptive. But, one of the things that we like to talk about a lot in this podcast is disruption means differentiation. So I do think this is going to create a lot more winners and losers across this space. It also means that you're going to have to be applying more geopolitical analysis to your broader framework. So, we both sit on the same floor so you can come and stop by anytime you like.
Alan: Thomas, you said it much better than I could have. And as you stated, I largely agree with those views. Another underappreciated tailwind, you can call it policy or not, from a climate perspective, is that as the US and other countries really begin to go through the process of identifying any of the holes in supply chains, any of the vulnerabilities, you will see more and more of this focus on bringing back manufacturing capacity. You know, post the entrance of China into the World Trade Organization 25 or so years ago, you've effectively seen this significant movement of all manufacturing capacity from the US and other Western European countries over to China.
And that has created perhaps some strategic vulnerabilities as it relates to supply chain or essential goods. And I think as you see that come back, and you're already seeing progress there, you've certainly begun to see some announcements there. We do think that that need to rebuild that manufacturing capacity, I think it's several tens of trillions in aggregate. If you even brought back a fraction of that to the US, well, the need to rebuild some of that manufacturing capacity. But again, with this focus on sustainability or resilience or resource efficiency is another tailwind, whether you call it policy or not, to this idea of climate investing.
Thomas: Yeah, I do think that resiliency is a key driving factor in all policy going forward. Climate is obviously central to that. The other key driver, Alan, and I want to dig into this a little bit more with you is national security. And, you know, one of the things that I pay a lot of attention to is where climate change is hitting hardest, and that happens to be the equator all the way around the world. And the tropics, you know, 30 degrees north and south of there.
But the way that the Pentagon thinks about that is, well, this is the region where most of the geopolitical hotspots already sit, from North Africa to East Africa, West Africa, the entire Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan, the India-China border, Taiwan Strait, South China Sea. And the Pentagon is quite concerned that these climate changes will lead to more climate migration, more resource wars, more failed states, rising extremism. So there's a big national security push, particularly towards adaptation here. Can you make these societies more resilient to rising temperatures, more storms, more floods, food and water scarcity issues. So to me, that's a massive driver. And I'm wondering how you incorporate that into your investment process.
Alan: We think that that lens into looking at the opportunity set, incorporating either national security informed, candidly, by perhaps climate science is the term to use. But is an important one to bring up. So as an example, to this point, several years ago, based on our partnerships with Woodwell Climate Research Center and our internal climate science team, we were able to identify the very point that you're making, not just that populations are largely centered around the equator, but a lot of the world's global agriculture supply also comes from areas that are plus or minus a couple hundred kilometers or so from the equator.
A lot of the world's soy, wheat, corn, beef, vegetables, fruits, etc, nuts come from those geographies. And based on the climate science perspective that we were incorporating into our research, courtesy in some in some cases of our partnerships, it led to one very stark conclusion, which is that a lot of the world's agriculture was going to become much more at risk and vulnerable to things like natural disasters, the cycle of flooding or drought, etcetera, that could impair agricultural productivity. And it led us to this conclusion of looking for the types of companies that we think promote agriculture resilience as a form of climate resilience, or as an expression of climate resilience. Can you create products, technology, software analysis to become better, more efficient at how you seed, how you water, where you grow your crops? Can it allow you to shift where that agricultural productivity takes place? So this wasn't exactly national security the way that you're describing it. But you could very easily categorize food security as an aspect of security, of statehood or people groups and being able to take a climate science lens to incorporate this, this notion of security into our investing, we do think is helpful and has led to some perhaps surprising investment opportunities.
Thomas: Well, there is, unfortunately, a historical correlation between agricultural disruption, food inflation, and conflict. So you're not wrong. And thinking that there is this national security piece to it. And I think that, gives even more impetus to invest in these areas and there's a social benefit here as well as a purely return framework.
Alan: It turns out that resource scarcity really does matter. And to the degree that you identify how that scarcity either gets worse or can be improved, I do think that that can lead to very interesting investment insights.
Thomas: I’m curious, and I'm wondering if there's a new investment opportunity across EMS that's related specifically to climate adaptation, decarbonization, because, again, these are the places that are on the front lines of the climate shifts. Think of India, right? It's squarely in the center of monsoon seasons. It's got food and water scarcity issues already. You've got geopolitical tensions with China on the northern border given the water situation. So how might climate investing play out across EMS?
Alan: I think a lot of how it will play out is some combination of the current status quo, but also how the political or government leadership, how aggressively they pursue some form of sustainable development.
One of the common ingredients to achieving modernity, to modernizing, is the cheap and abundant availability of critical inputs like energy. And I think that as countries are advancing as they're growing, as are attempting to modernize, you do see this relatively rapid adoption of those types of inputs with perhaps not as much of a focus initially on the sustainability of those inputs and or developing some of the resilience structure or process or technology that allows that net-positive creation of country wealth to be sustained.
So what I would expect is, for most emerging economies to begin to posture a little bit more decidedly on areas that we would consider sustainable energy or resilience. And I don't think that the products or the technologies for them will look any different than it looks for us in the Western economies, or how it's looked in the United States.
Thomas: It's a demand issue.
Alan: It's a demand issue, but it's also a cost benefit analysis. And I think that this is effectively where the story for emerging market adoption is quite favorable, because you've had 20 years of investment in solar by China and by the US, the cost per megawatt hour is much cheaper today than it was back then. It doesn't need to be subsidized to quite the same degree. You can increasingly adopt new applications of technologies that you combine, like solar and storage, to get interesting use cases today in emerging markets at a much more compelling price point than you would have been able to get even three five, but certainly 15 years ago.
Thomas: Alan, I could go on for another three hours with this conversation, but why don't we end it there? Let me just say that I think we're incredibly lucky to have you and Wellington and your years of experience here and applying it across this incredibly important topic is fantastic. So thanks again for spending the time with us. And it's been great having you here on WellSaid.
Alan: Very gracious of you. Thank you, Thomas, it was a pleasure to be here.
Views expressed are those of the speaker(s) and are subject to change. Other teams may hold different views and make different investment decisions. For professional/institutional investors only. Your capital may be at risk. Podcast produced October 2025.
Wellington Management Company LLP (WMC) is an independently owned investment adviser registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). WMC is also registered with the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as a commodity trading advisor (CTA) and serves as a CTA to certain clients including commodity pools operated by registered commodity pool operators. WMC provides commodity trading advice to all other clients in reliance on exemptions from CTA registration. WMC, along with its affiliates (collectively, Wellington Management), provides investment management and investment advisory services to institutions around the world. Located in Boston, Massachusetts, Wellington Management also has offices in Chicago, Illinois; Radnor, Pennsylvania; San Francisco, California; Frankfurt; Hong Kong; London; Luxembourg; Milan; Shanghai; Singapore; Sydney; Tokyo; Toronto; and Zurich. This material is prepared for, and authorized for internal use by, designated institutional and professional investors and their consultants or for such other use as may be authorized by Wellington Management. This material and/or its contents are current at the time of writing and may not be reproduced or distributed in whole or in part, for any purpose, without the express written consent of Wellington Management. This material is not intended to constitute investment advice or an offer to sell, or the solicitation of an offer to purchase shares or other securities. Investors should always obtain and read an up-to-date investment services description or prospectus before deciding whether to appoint an investment manager or to invest in a fund. Any views expressed herein are those of the author(s), are based on available information, and are subject to change without notice. Individual portfolio management teams may hold different views and may make different investment decisions for different clients. In Canada, this material is provided by Wellington Management Canada ULC, a British Columbia unlimited liability company registered in the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Saskatchewan in the categories of Portfolio Manager and Exempt Market Dealer.
In Europe (excluding the United Kingdom and Switzerland), this material is provided by Wellington Management Europe GmbH (WME) which is authorized and regulated by the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht – BaFin). This material may only be used in countries where WME is duly authorized to operate and is only directed at eligible counterparties or professional clients as defined under the German Securities Trading Act. This material does not constitute investment advice, a solicitation to invest in financial instruments or information recommending or suggesting an investment strategy within the meaning of Section 85 of the German Securities Trading Act (Wertpapierhandelsgesetz). In the United Kingdom, this material is provided by Wellington Management International Limited (WMIL), a firm authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK (Reference number: 208573). This material is directed only at eligible counterparties or professional clients as defined under the rules of the FCA. In Switzerland, this material is provided by Wellington Management Switzerland GmbH, a firm registered at the commercial register of the canton of Zurich with number CH-020.4.050.857-7. This material is directed only at Qualified Investors as defined in the Swiss Collective Investment Schemes Act and its implementing ordinance. In Hong Kong, this material is provided to you by Wellington Management Hong Kong Limited (WM Hong Kong), a corporation licensed by the Securities and Futures Commission to conduct Type 1 (dealing in securities), Type 2 (dealing in futures contracts), Type 4 (advising on securities), and Type 9 (asset management) regulated activities, on the basis that you are a Professional Investor as defined in the Securities and Futures Ordinance. By accepting this material you acknowledge and agree that this material is provided for your use only and that you will not distribute or otherwise make this material available to any person. Wellington Investment Management (Shanghai) Limited is a wholly-owned entity and subsidiary of WM Hong Kong.
In Singapore, this material is provided for your use only by Wellington Management Singapore Pte Ltd (WM Singapore) (Registration Number 201415544E). WM Singapore is regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore under a Capital Markets Services Licence to conduct fund management activities and is an exempt financial adviser. By accepting this material you represent that you are a non-retail investor and that you will not copy, distribute or otherwise make this material available to any person. In Australia, Wellington Management Australia Pty Ltd (WM Australia) (ABN 19 167 091 090) has authorized the issue of this material for use solely by wholesale clients (as defined in the Corporations Act 2001). By accepting this material, you acknowledge and agree that this material is provided for your use only and that you will not distribute or otherwise make this material available to any person. Wellington Management Company LLP is exempt from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services licence (AFSL) under the Corporations Act 2001 in respect of financial services provided to wholesale clients in Australia, subject to certain conditions. Financial services provided by Wellington Management Company LLP are regulated by the SEC under the laws and regulatory requirements of the United States, which are different from the laws applying in Australia. In Japan, Wellington Management Japan Pte Ltd (WM Japan) (Registration Number 199504987R) has been registered as a Financial Instruments Firm with registered number: Director General of Kanto Local Finance Bureau (Kin-Sho) Number 428. WM Japan is a member of the Japan Investment Advisers Association (JIAA), the Investment Trusts Association, Japan (ITA) and the Type II Financial Instruments Firms Association (T2FIFA). WMIL, WM Hong Kong, WM Japan, and WM Singapore are also registered as investment advisers with the SEC; however, they will comply with the substantive provisions of the US Investment Advisers Act only with respect to their US clients.
©2025 Wellington Management Company LLP. All rights reserved.