Terra Alpha Voices | Andrew Geller

After 11 remarkable years helping to build Terra Alpha Investments, our co-founder Andrew Geller recently transitioned from his day-to-day roles at the firm and moved to France. This long-planned transition marks an exciting new chapter for Andrew, and we are incredibly grateful for the years he devoted to building and shaping the firm.

 During his tenure, Andrew served as Chief Financial Officer and Chief Compliance Officer, and was responsible for all operational aspects of the firm, including finances, compliance, and legal requirements.

 Andrew began his 40+ year investment career as a buy-side equity analyst covering multiple broad industry groups, including transportation, financial services, and capital equipment. As an analyst, he worked at four firms over 11 years including PNC Bank and Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Andrew then spent nearly two decades on the sell-side in institutional equity sales at Oppenheimer & Co. advising large mutual funds, banks, and other money managers. While at Oppenheimer, Andrew worked in both Los Angeles and New York City.

 Andrew officially stepped down in early January 2026 and now serves as an Emeritus Advisory Board Member, remaining connected to provide guidance as needed. His contributions have helped create a strong foundation that will continue to guide Terra Alpha for years to come.

 Beyond his professional accomplishments, Andrew’s generosity, thoughtfulness, and commitment to our purpose and culture have left a lasting impression on everyone who has worked with him. We are thrilled for him as he begins this next stage, and celebrate the lasting impact of his leadership.

 _______

 How did you start in finance — is it something you were exposed to as a kid, in your family?

No. In fact, my father never bought a stock. He recently died, under a year ago. Over all these years, I could never convince him to buy a stock. Because of course you can lose money doing that. Can’t have that! That is beyond the pale.

But I liked numbers and how businesses work. And after an undergraduate business degree, I was in a bank training program, and the area I seemed most suited for was trading, currency trading, and stock analysis. So I was a stock analyst in almost every area of the economy, from transportation to utilities to financial services to industrials. It was constantly changing, every day, with different companies, what they’re doing, why they’re doing it, their valuation. To be tested every day. If you’re right 60% of the time, you’re somewhat of a star. Whereas if you’re wrong 60% of the time, you’re the opposite. I found it fascinating to have to deal with that all the time.

I did that for close to 12 years and was exposed to salespeople from all different brokerage firms, institutional salespeople. And I thought, “Wouldn’t that be an interesting side to be on?” So I got a job at Oppenheimer, and was there for about 20 years. If the timeline is correct, that would bring me to mid-2012, when [my wife and I] both quit our jobs. We traveled in the United States for a few months, went to Europe for a few months, and then came back to the States.

So at what point did sustainable investing come onto your radar?

Literally during that trip, which was late-ish 2014, Tim [Dunn] called me and said, “This is what I’m thinking of doing.” [After retiring from Capital], he had wanted to be involved in environmental advocacy, but then someone asked him, “Well, how are you investing your own money?” That was his lightbulb moment, and that’s how the idea percolated. He explained the nature of the fund. I think my first question might have been, “Is this just a do-gooder type fund?” He said, “No. It is that, which is good, but it’s also geared to make investors money. Here’s the thesis.”

I had never thought of this as being an investible area; it was not in my DNA. I always thought others would take care of it. It had not been on my radar as it should have been. The thesis, which to me still is axiomatic, is that companies that are more efficient than other companies in the same industry, everything else being equal, by definition, will make more money over time. And that will be reflected in their stock price. If the goal were to quickly trade stocks, then it would be impossible to show this is the case. But that wouldn’t be the way he’d be investing, that we’d be investing. Actually four-plus years is our average holding period.

Since it hadn’t been something that you’d seen as an investible area initially, at what point did you get comfortable with the idea that this kind of investing actually made sense?

Oh, immediately, once we talked more about it. It was really interesting, the axiomatic part in particular, and then: it’s Tim. Here would be a way of making our own firm — his idea, but our firm — in the way we would like a firm to be. We’d be long-term investors, and thoughtful employers that care about things in a way other asset managers usually do not.

The idea of moving companies to do the right thing, I thought, was interesting and great as well. It would become a virtuous circle. We’d invest in these kinds of companies, they would do well. We would talk to other companies, and including the companies we invest in, for them to do more. They would do more, they would make more money because they’re doing better on the environment, and stock prices would eventually reflect that and win more and more. That would attract investors, and so it would all be a good thing. That was appealing, so I said yes right away.

So what was the timeframe over which you guys decided, “Okay, let’s do this”?

Towards the end of 2014, we spoke to a few law firms, brokerage firms, and other asset managers about what would be the easiest and most efficient and best — and hopefully all those things would be the same answer — to start this. It turned out to be a limited partnership structure. We thought we’d have a very big potential market for institutions, so we wanted to gear our firm such that it could take in that money. So we spoke to well-known vendors — a firm called Seward & Kissel, a big law firm in this area. KPMG for our fund accounting. A firm called Apex for our fund administrator. These were great firms, number one, and two, it should lend comfort to investors that, “Oh, we see who they’re dealing with, that it is likely to be a good firm.” Plus, most importantly, they knew Tim and they knew Capital well. Everyone in the industry knows Capital. A lot were individual investors too. They knew where Tim came from and they knew the firms that we were dealing with.

So the firm started at the very end of 2014 and the first fund actually started in April of 2015. It was up and running immediately and it was funded and we had investors and it was pretty fascinating. Our first employee was Dan [Sanborn] in March of 2015. And then in September of 2016, his son was born. That was a serious moment. I thought, “Oh, yikes, it’s not just us — now there’s a child involved.”

How do you see the sustainable investing movement in the years ahead, given the state of politics in the country? Do you feel like it’s being threatened?

It is being threatened, currently. But back to the axiomatic nature of it: companies that are smarter about environmental inputs will do better. One, they could and should make more money than their competitors. Also, they may avoid certain bad things. For instance if a company is very water-dependent and manufacturing in an area that might be increasingly prone to droughts, and that company works to mitigate the risk by moving some or all of their operations out of the region or by having more than one plant in different areas, then it will lessen its risk, by definition.

If one company doesn’t do that and another company does, there might be no change at all for years and years — until there’s a drought event. Then, the company who didn’t bother with that [kind of risk mitigation], they’re out of business for nine months and the other company takes that business. Even after the nine months when the first company gets up and running again, it has probably lost market share for years. So, it takes some larger-scale happening to show, “Oh, this approach is better.” And it should be part of the DNA of a company that if we want to be doing this long term, then we need to do these things that are going to be naturally better for the environment. I don’t see how that could possibly change. It doesn’t change.

What has helped Terra Alpha be effective in moving companies to do good environmentally?

The logic case of why they should be doing A, B, or C. For a US company, to try to talk to them about you need to do the right thing, that’s not really a discussion. It might be for some people internally at the company, but it’s really hard to make a company do something. Instead, if more and more investors are investing in the company because they’re doing something — or not investing because they’re not doing something — that moves them, number one. Number two, if they are going to do something and it’s going to earn them more money because of a greater efficiency, and because they think maybe that their brethren in the same industry are doing that and they’re not, then they need to do it – that moves them to do that. And if we can make that happen faster than otherwise, or help it along, then we’ve done a service.

There’s this company, for example, which doesn’t get high marks on lots of other things, but they do actually get pretty high marks on environmental issues. And they move the companies they’re buying from to do a lot of solid environmental things. Is it because they’re good guys and want to save the world? I would vote “no” on that. But they’re doing it because if they can make that widget for instead of 19 cents, for 17 cents, then they make a higher margin on it. Are they doing better for the environment? If they’re still selling the same amount of things and those things are being made more efficiently, then, yes, they are.

And if it’s a retail type store, to also move their suppliers to do the right thing. There’s always upfront costs, and that’s, I think, always somewhat the bugaboo that puts off a company from doing something. But it shouldn’t, because the return can be there over the course of years.

And if you could redo anything you’ve done from what you’ve learned, how might you go about things differently?

Not a lot. I think we’ve set up the firm in such a way that it’s the most discernible and easiest to invest in. We could talk to companies maybe more robustly, although that’s hard to do more than we’ve done. I mean, we have real contact with many of the companies that way. We have to be certain not to ever receive any  inside information. So the discussion centers on longer-term kinds of things, not we’re-about-to-merge-with-somebody kind of thing, nothing like that. But substantive discussion. I don’t think that should change. If there were other easier legal ways for our name to be out there more, we would, but it’s hard given our structure. Then Tim would have an even greater platform. Given our size, we have, I think, an outsized contact with companies. But if we were bigger, it would be even more so. So, a wish to be bigger for, to be fair, bigness sake, but also to have greater influence.

If you were to give advice, either to somebody wanting to follow in the footsteps of you and Tim and start something, or to someone taking over for your work, what would it be?

Always consider where the other person is coming from. You want people to want to work for the firm, not be apprehensive or scared, but comfortable in coming to work, whether it’s virtual or in an office. I think that’s crucial to any longevity of a firm.

And be honest about everything you do. That’s the only kind of firm I’d want to work for. And if something is not fair, then it needs to be addressed. Don’t let issues fester. Employees wouldn’t want to be at a firm where they think they’re being, in some way, taken advantage of.

A micro version of the good compliance. Of transparency.

Right. Be honest with your employees, be transparent with your employees. This is why we’re doing X, Y, and Z, or this is why we want to do it. And more than just telling people we’re going to do A, B and C, let’s talk about it. We might be the final deciders, or Tim might be the final decider, and that might not change, but let’s discuss. Because that’s the smarter thing to do because other ideas will come about, which might move thinking. Maybe before the meeting he thought, “Oh, for sure A, and no, you know what? Oh, I didn’t consider all those other points. You know what, let’s do B.” That’s the reason for the discussion. It shouldn’t be by decree. It shouldn’t be that way and it shouldn’t feel that way.

As you look back, what do you feel most proud of?

That we have talked to companies and they have actually listened to us — and I think we’ve moved the needle at least a little. And I think moving it a little and in the right direction is more than a lot of investors can say, more than a lot of anyone can say. A lot of the changes have to come from larger companies; if they don’t change, everything else is just on the margin or just too small. Which is, if I can back up for a half second, how I thought about the environment. Yes, I’ll do my own recycling and that, but I still thought it was pretty small-bore, very, very, very small-bore. But here we have a chance of trying to move large companies to do the right thing, and that makes me pretty happy.