Archiv der Kategorie: Engagement

Illiquid impact investments: Researchpost 220

Illiquid impact illustration from Pixabay by Kohji Asakawa

11x new research on green/brown ideology, tax pollution, solar risks, brown sovereign risk, green backtest risk, green supplier engagement, greening M&A, biodiversity startups, impact private equity, liquid impact, SDG revenues (# shows the number of SSRN full paper downloads as of April 3^rd, 2025)

Ecological Research

Green/brown ideology: Public Support for Environmental Regulation: When Ideology Trumps Knowledge by Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt and Max R. P. Grossmann as of April 1^st, 2025 (#8) “When environmental regulations are unpopular, policymakers often attribute resistance to information frictions and poor communication. We test this idea in the context of a major climate policy: Germany’s Heating Law of 2023, which mandates the phase-out of fossil fuel heating. … Despite successfully increasing factual knowledge, information provision has no significant effect on intended technology adoption, policy support, or incentivized measures of climate preferences. Instead, pre-existing environmental preferences and demographic characteristics emerge as the key predictors of responses to the regulation. A feeling that existing systems still work well and cost considerations dominate fossil fuel users’ stated reasons for non-adoption, while independence from fossil fuels and perceived contributions to the common good drive adoption among switchers. Our findings suggest that opposition to climate policy stems from fundamental preference heterogeneity rather than information frictions“ (abstract).

Tax pollution: Dirty Taxes: Corporate Taxes and Air Pollution by …. Thilo Erbertseder, Martin Jacob, Constance Kehne, and Hannes Taubenböck as of March 11^th, 2025 (#128): “… We use satellite data on nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels and exploit local business tax variation in Germany over 2008-2020. We find that a 1% tax increase leads to 0.15% higher NO2 levels. … This increase in pollution can be explained by higher taxes preventing firms from shifting towards cleaner assets“ (abstract).

Sustainable investment research (in: Illiquid impact)

Solar risks: Solar Flare Up: Systemic Organizational Risk in the Residential Solar Industry by David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan as of Dec. 3^rd, 2024 (#87): “… A systemic risk is one in which the system itself — through its incentives, structure, and culture — encourages or fails to detect behavior contrary to what is intended by those who developed or manage the system. To illustrate the potential for systemic organizational risk to arise, we consider the curious case of the residential solar industry, in which complex financing, generous tax credits, generous sales commissions, and uncertain costs — coupled with widespread public interest in the adoption of solar — have combined to create an incredibly complex industry with multiple points of potential breakdown” (abstract) … iSun, a publicly traded solar company based in Vermont, has been accused of misappropriating funds; the company went bankrupt in 2024 and delisted from the NASDAQ. One firm estimates that as many as 75 percent of solar companies in California face bankruptcy because of the state’s revision of net-metering rules. Major publicly traded companies, such as Sunrun and Sunnova, have seen their stock prices fall in excess of 80 percent from their peak. Recently, the external auditor for SunPower resigned because the company did not have the “internal controls necessary to develop reliable financial statements” and therefore it was “unwilling to be associated with the financial statements prepared by management.” The company subsequently declared bankruptcy“ (p. 5). My comment: See Neues Research: Systemische Risiken von Solarinvestments | CAPinside

Brown sovereign risk: Creditworthy: do climate change risks matter for sovereign credit ratings? By Lorenzo Cappiello, Gianluigi Ferrucci, Angela Maddaloni, and Veronica Veggente from the European Central Bank as of March 26^th, 2025 (#32): “… higher temperature anomalies and more frequent natural disasters—key indicators of physical risk—are associated with lower credit ratings. In contrast, transition risk factors do not appear to be systematically integrated into credit ratings throughout the entire sample period. … Additionally, more ambitious CO2 emission reduction targets and actual reductions in CO2 emission intensities are associated with higher ratings post-Paris Agreement, … countries with high levels of debt and those heavily reliant on fossil fuel revenues tend to receive lower ratings after the Paris Agreement …“ (abstract). My comment: I use bonds of multilateral development banks instead of sovereign bonds for my portfolios.

Green backtest risk: Performance of sustainable indices: Are there differences between pre- and post-inception by Niklas Kestler and Hendrik Scholz as of April 1^st, 2025 (#14) “… this paper conducts a comprehensive analysis of 141 sustainable indices … There is evidence that the pre-inception period seems to perform better than the post-inception period. This is especially visible for Smart-Beta-ESG and Thematic-ESG indices. … Moreover, we find some indication of outperformance for Broad-ESG indices“ (p. 13/14). My comment: Since many years, I do not use backtests anymore

Green supplier engagement: Climate Disclosures and Decarbonization along the Supply Chain by Pietro Bonetti, Yang (Ellen) En, Igor Kadach, and Gaizka Ormazabal as of Dec. 26^th, 2024 (#338): „… Our … exploit the unique features of the CDP, the world-leading platform of corporate climate risk disclosures. We find a strong positive association between customer and supplier disclosures to the CDP. … We also observe that supplier CDP disclosures likely induced by customers’ demand are associated with subsequent lower carbon emissions. Moreover, customers are more (less) likely to terminate relationships with the most (least) polluting suppliers and with those not meeting their disclosure demands”. My comment: With my shareholder engagement I ask to publish GHG Scope 3 emissions (including suppliers) and I also ask for independent ESG-Scoring of all significant suppliers (which typically prominently include GHG-effects), see Shareholder engagement: 21 science based theses and an action plan

Greening M&A: Environmental Disclosure, Regulatory Pressure, and Sustainable Investment: Evidence from Mergers and Acquisitions by Kee-Hong Bae, Hamdi Driss, and Nan Xiong as of April 1^st, 2025 (#1): “We investigate how environmental disclosure regulations influence firms’ mergers and acquisitions. Leveraging the staggered adoption of 26 environmental disclosure mandates across the globe as shocks that pressure companies to improve their environmental performance, we find that 1) acquirers increasingly target firms with better environmental performance following the mandates, 2) these acquirers realize positive short-term and long-term abnormal stock returns, and 3) they achieve substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and environmental damage costs post-acquisition” (abstract). My comment: This speaks against the often-used hypothesis, that public companies sell brown businesses to private companies which may not care much about environmental issues.

Biodiversity startups: Biodiversity Entrepreneurship by Sean Cao, G. Andrew Karolyi, William W. Xiong, and Hui Xu as of March 31^st, 2025 (#14) “… we identify 630 biodiversity-linked start-ups in PitchBook and compare their financing dynamics to other ventures. We find biodiversity start-ups raise less capital but attract a broader coalition of investors, including … mission-aligned impact funds and public institutions (“values-driven investors”). Values investors provide incremental capital rather than substituting value investors, but funding gaps persist. …” (abstract).

Illiquid impact: Impact Investing and Worker Outcomes by Josh Lerner, Markus Lithell, and Gordon M. Phillips as of March 26^th, 2025 (#199): “… Consistent with earlier studies, impact investors are more likely than other private equity firms to fund businesses in economically disadvantaged areas, and the performance of these companies lags behind those held by traditional private investors. We show that post funding impact-backed firms are more likely to hire minorities, unskilled workers, and individuals with lower historical earnings, perhaps reflecting the higher representation of minorities in top positions. They also allocate wage increases more favorably to minorities and rank-and-file workers than VC-backed firms“ (abstract).

SDG-Revenues: ESG rating providers: Survey on impact ratings by the DVFA Sustainability Committee as of April 1st, 2025: „Impact ratings are often the basis for calculating the proportion of sustainable investments in investment funds. …10 of the 18 rating providers surveyed answered our questions about their impact ratings in the period from September to November 2024. … The participants in the survey have a combined market share of up to 90% for sustainability data and ratings … The approach of the various rating providers shows, in addition to a large number of similarities, some significant differences…. almost all providers use the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as the basis for their rating system … It turns out that almost all providers place a strong focus on the impact of a company’s products and services. The impact is often quantified on the basis of sales data. … Three providers determine impact purely on a company basis and three providers purely on an activity basis. A further three calculate both company and activity-based impact. This reflects the DVFA’s impression that neither investors nor regulators have developed a uniform standard for measuring sustainable investments. …“ My comment: I am a member of the DVFA Sustainability Committee (Translated with the free version of DeepL.com)

German impact research studies (in: Illiquid impact)

SDG-Umsätze: ESG-Ratinganbieter: Befragung zu Impact-Ratings vom DVFA-Fachausschuss Sustainability vom 1. April 2025: „Impact-Ratings sind oftmals die Grundlage zur Berechnung des Anteils nachhaltiger Investitionen in In vestmentfonds. …10 der 18 befragen Ratinganbieter beantworteten im Zeitraum von September bis November 2024 unsere Fragen zu ihren Impact-Ratings. … Die Teilnehmer der Umfrage haben gemeinsam einen Marktanteil bei Nachhaltigkeitsdaten und -ratings von bis zu 90 % … Die Vorgehensweise der verschiedenen Ratinganbieter zeigt, neben einer Vielzahl von Gemeinsamkeiten, einige wesentliche Unterschiede…. nahezu alle Anbieter nutzen die UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) als Grundlage für ihr Bewertungssystem … Es zeigt sich, dass fast alle Anbieter einen starken Fokus auf die Wirkung der Produkte und Dienstleistungen eines Unternehmens legen. Dabei wird die Wirkung oft anhand von Umsatzdaten quantifiziert. … Drei Anbieter ermitteln Impact rein unternehmensbasiert und drei Anbieter rein aktivitätsbasiert. Weitere drei ermitteln gleichermaßen unternehmens- und aktivitätsbasiert. Das spiegelt den Eindruck der DVFA wider, dass weder bei Investoren noch bei Regulierern ein einheitlicher Standard zur Messung der nachhaltigen Investitionen entwickelt hat. …“ Mein Kommentar: Ich bin Mitglied des DVFA Fachausschusses Sustainability. Mein Ansatz siehe auch SDG-Umsätze: Die wichtigste Nachhaltigkeitskennzahl

Liquid impact: Wirkungen der nachhaltigen Kapitalanlage von Rolf Häßler von NKI Research vom März 2025: „… Ergebnisse der Befragung der größten börsennotierten Unternehmen im deutschsprachigen Raum … 41,9 % der befragten Unternehmen stellen fest, dass die Anforderungen der nachhaltigen Kapitalmarktakteure einen sehr oder eher großen Einfluss auf ihre Gesamtstrategie haben – Tendenz steigend. Noch höher ist dieser Einfluss mit Blick auf Ziele und Strategie im ESG-Management (58,1 %) und die konkreten Maßnahmen (67,8 %). Im Hinblick auf den Einfluss der verschiedenen ESG-Anlagestrategien bewerten die Unternehmen die beiden Dialogstrategien als besonders einflussreich“ (S. 3). My comment: Impact is possible even with exchange-listed investments (for my shareholder engagement activities see e.g. My shareholder engagement: Failures, successes and adaption)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Werbung (in: Illiquid impact)

Der Fonds konzentriert sich auf die UN-Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung mit durchschnittlich einzigartig hohen 99% SDG-vereinbaren Umsätzen der Portfoliounternehmen und sehr hohen E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Scores sowie einem besonders umfangreichen Aktionärsengagement bei 29 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).

Zum Vergleich: Ein traditioneller globaler Small-Cap-ETF hat eine SDG-Umsatzvereinbarkeit von 5 %, ein diversifizierter Gesundheits-ETF 14 %, Artikel 9 Fonds 21%, liquide Impactfonds 39% und ein ETF für erneuerbare Energien 43 % (vgl. Hohe SDG Umsätze? Nur wenige Investmentfonds!).

Insgesamt hat der von mir beratene Fonds seit der Auflage im August 2021 eine ähnliche Performance wie traditionelle globale Small- und Mid-Cap-Fonds (vgl. z.B. Fonds-Portfolio: Mein Fonds | CAPinside und Globale Small-Caps: Faire Benchmark für meinen Artikel 9 Fonds?).

Ein Fondsinvestment war also bisher ein „Free Lunch“ in Bezug auf Nachhaltigkeit: Ein besonders konsequent nachhaltiges Portfolio mit marktüblichen Renditen und (eher niedrigeren) Risiken. Vergangene Performance ist allerdings kein guter Indikator für künftige Performance.

Say on pay shareholder voting problems: Researchpost 219

Say on pay illustration from Pixabay by Tumisu

5x new research on hate crimes, ESG comparability, say on pay, costly heuristics and bond factors (#shows full paper SSRN downloads as of March 26^th,2025)

Hate signals: The Cost of Tolerating Intolerance: Right-wing Protest and Hate Crimes by Sulin Sardoschau and Annalí Casanueva-Artís as of Mach 20^th, 2025 (#33): “… This paper investigates how right-wing demonstrations affect the incidence of hate crimes, focusing on Germany’s largest far-right movement since World War II … we find that a 20% increase in local protest attendance nearly doubles hate crime occurrences. … large protests primarily act as signals of broad xenophobic support, legitimizing extremist violence. This signaling effect propagates through right-wing social media net works and is intensified by local newspaper coverage and Twitter discussions. Consequently, large protests shift local equilibria, resulting in sustained higher levels of violence primarily perpetrated by repeat offenders. Notably, these protests trigger resistance predominantly online, rather than physical counter-protests“ (abstract).

ESG comparability? Accounting Comparability, ESG Reputational Risk and Corporate Investment Efficiency by Kostantinos Chalevas, Maria Giaka, Dimitrios Gounopoulos, and Dimitrios Konstantios as of Oct. 20^th, 2024 (#313): “…. we present robust evidence that firms with greater (Sö: accounting) comparability benefit from lower ESG reputational risk, reduced cost of capital, and increased investment activity. … Our findings underscore the critical role of comparability in enhancing financial decision-making …”

Good say on pay? Shareholder Votes and Executive Strategic Disclosures: Evidence from Say-on-Pay by Summer Zhao as of Feb. 28^th,2025 (#105): “… Say-on-Pay (SoP) in the United States … requires regular shareholder votes on executive compensation. … I present causal evidence that executives subject to SoP provide abnormally optimistic disclosures to potentially influence shareholders’ perceptions of their performance and voting decisions. This tone inflation is associated with more favorable SoP voting results but subsequent declines in firm value … the documented tone inflation is driven by executives’ heightened career concerns and compensation more closely tied to stock performance after SoP adoption … the findings highlight the unintended consequences of shareholder votes on managers’ strategic disclosure incentives“ (abstract).

Costly heuristics: How Costly are Trading Heuristics? By Hee-Seo Han, Xindi He, and Daniel Weagley as of March 7^th, 2025 (#140): “… Our set of heuristics is derived from processing articles published in top finance journals over the past 75 years. … We find a negative relationship between heuristic usage and future returns for retail investors. … In contrast, institutional investors selectively employ a limited subset of heuristics and generate superior returns on trades incorporating these heuristics. … We also document that heuristic usage is more prevalent among female investors and investors with larger balances …“ (p.39/40).

Bond factor failures: The Corporate Bond Factor Zoo by Alexander Dickerson, Christian Julliard, and Philippe Mueller as of March 6^th, 2025 (#39): “Analyzing 563 trillion possible models, we find that the majority of tradable factors designed to price bond markets are unlikely sources of priced risk …” (abstract).

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Werbung (in: Say on pay)

Zum Vergleich: Ein Gesundheits-ETF hat eine netto SDG-Umsatzvereinbarkeit von 12%, Artikel 9 Fonds haben 21%, Impactfonds 38% und ein ETF für erneuerbare Energien 45% (vgl. Hohe SDG Umsätze? Nur wenige Investmentfonds!).

Green voting disaster: Researchpost 215

Green voting disaster illustration from Pixabay by Mabel Amber

20x new research on biodiversity measures,climate catastrophes, hydrogen, brown tech, green and brown returns, green stamps, green reporting, GHG reporting issues, redundant ESG information, greenwashing definitions, green portfolio theory, governance scores, green ventures, green voting disaster, green fund deficit, fear, investment advice, alternatives and LLM overconfidence (#shows the number of full research paper downloads from SSRN as of Feb. 27^th, 2025)

Social and ecological research

2 biodiversity measures: Species metrics by Imène Ben Rejeb-Mzah, Nathalie Jaubert, Alexandre Vincent, and Zakaria Ajerame as of February 20^th, 2025 (#910): “This research paper investigates … two biodiversity measurements …: Rarity Weighted Richness (RWR) and Species Threat Abatement and Restoration (STAR). RWR measures the specific richness of an ecosystem by weighting species according to their rarity, emphasizing ecosystems rare species that are more vulnerable to environmental and human pressures. Conversely, STAR was designed to quantify the impact and contribution of actions to restore habitats and preserve rare and endangered species, as well as broader biodiversity …” (abstract).

Costly catastrophes: Going NUTS: the regional impact of extreme climate events over the medium term from the European Central Bank by Sehrish Usman, Guzmán González-Torres Fernández, and Miles Parker as of Dec. 11^th, 2024 (#91): “.. the impact of an extreme event may not only persist but can also intensify over time … Overall, four years after the event, output is 1.4 percentage points lower in regions affected by a heatwave, and 2.4 percentage points lower in regions affected by a drought. … adaptation capital is less productive than other types of capital in aggregate, total factor productivity falls. Moreover, we document the falling population in affected regions. To the extent that these impacts are more likely to occur in certain countries, there may well be migratory pressures within Europe itself … We also find evidence that economic activity may be higher following an extreme climate event, although this appears to be restricted to just one case: floods occurring in high-income regions. The destruction of capital leads to a period of reconstruction, including higher output and TFP, suggesting these regions are able to “build back better” and upgrade their capital“ (p. 31/32).

Costly hydrogen: Hydrogen in Renewable-Intensive Energy Systems: Path to Becoming a Cost-Effective and Efficient Storage Solution by Chunzi Qu, Rasmus Noss Bang, Leif Kristoffer Sandal, and Stein Ivar Steinshamn as of Jan. 13^th, 2025 (#20): “… reducing hydrogen costs to 12.5% of current levels and increasing round-trip efficiency to 70% could make it competitive. These are challenging targets but feasible given positive predictions on cost reduction and efficiency attainability currently. Hydrogen storage reduces total energy system costs by partly replacing lithium batteries to lower storage costs, due to its suitability for long-term storage, while increasing grid flexibility to lower transmission costs. Moreover, integrating hydrogen can decrease the share of nuclear and fossil fuels in the generation mix, reducing generation costs. Italy and Germany are identified as primary targets for hydrogen expansion in Europe. In scenarios of limited lithium supply, hydrogen becomes more competitive and essential to compensate for system storage capacity shortages, though it may not reduce total system costs” (abstract). My comment: No surprise that funds which have been relying heavily on hydrogen investments have had disappointing results so far.

ESG investment research (in: Green voting disaster)

Brown technology: ESG in Platform Markets by Stefan Buehler, Rachel Chen, Daniel Halbheer, and Helen S. Zeng as of Feb. 25th, 2025 (#17): “Platforms have radically transformed many markets. Initially perceived as the harbinger of a new economy, platforms today can no longer ignore their impact on the triple bottom line of profit, planet, and people …, as their adverse effects on the environment (e.g., massive energy consumption and carbon emissions) and society (e.g., misinformation, hate speech, discrimination, degradation of mental health, and privacy violations) become increasingly evident …. As a result, consumers, regulators, and even business leaders demand greater transparency along the environmental (E), social (S), and governance (G) pillars of a platform’s activities” (abstract). My comment: See why I do not invest in such patforms in my direct equity portfolios even though many ESG ETFs/funds are heavily invested in such stocks: Glorreiche 7: Sind sie unsozial? – Responsible Investment Research Blog

Indirect ETS effects: Pricing Pollution: Asset-Pricing Implications of the EU Emissions Trading System by Joop Huij, Philip Stork, Dries Laurs, and Remco C.J. Zwinkels as of Feb. 20^th, 2025 (#48): “Our findings point towards a robust influence of carbon prices on stock prices starting from Phase II of the EU ETS in 2008. We find that the transmission of carbon prices to stock prices … also applies to non-European firms that are regulated to a lesser extent” (abtract).

Carbon market premium: Green and brown returns in a production economy from the European Central Bank by Ivan Jaccard, Thore Kockerols, and Yves Schüler as of Feb. 19^th, 2025 (#27): “Using a sample of green and brown European firms, we initially demonstrate that green companies have outperformed brown ones in recent times. Subsequently, we develop a production economy model in which brown firms acquire permits to emit carbon into the atmosphere. We find that the presence of a well-functioning carbon market could account for the green equity premium observed in our data“ (abstract).

Green stamp premium: The Value of Being Green: Assessing the Impact of Green Bond Issuance on Stock Prices of European Listed Companies by Radoslaw Pietrzyk, Sylwia Frydrych, Paweł Węgrzyn, and Krzysztof Biegun as of Feb. 19^th, 2025 (#22): “… generally, the issuance of green bonds does not result in a significant change in the stock prices of the issuing companies. … certified green bonds generally show a more favourable market perception with no significant change in stock prices. In contrast, non-certified green bonds are associated with a decline in the stock prices of the issuing companies“ (abstract).

Green reporting premium: Strategic Transparency: Impact of Early Sustainability Reporting on Financial Performance by Jose Antonio Muñiza, Charles Larkin, and Shaen Corbet as of Feb. 24^th, 2025 (#7): “… by analysing a sample of 2,857 publicly traded companies in the United States … results show a clear financial advantage for firms reporting sustainability information, with those reporting before the Paris Agreement experiencing significantly stronger financial performance than their non-reporting counterparts” (abstract).

Dubious GHG accounting? Corporate Carbon Accounting: Current Practices and Opportunities for Research by Gunther Glenk as of Feb. 24^th, 2025 (#43): “The common framework for determining and reporting corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions today is the GHG Protocol. … Their design and implementation, however, often result in disclosures that obscure firms’ actual emissions and decarbonization progress“ (abstract).

Redundant ESG infos? From KPIs to ESG: Addressing Redundancy and Distortions in ESG Scores by Matteo Benuzzi, Özge Sahin, and Sandra Paterlini as of February 20^th, 2025 (#11): “We investigate the construction of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) scores, focusing on Refinitiv’s (acquired by the London Stock Exchange Group) methodology. We uncover critical challenges, including the inflation of correlations caused by missing data imputation and redundancy among Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). … we demonstrate imputing missing values with zeros distorts relationships between KPIs. … Our findings reveal that a small subset of KPIs can closely replicate Refinitiv’s pillar scores, highlighting that many of the 180 KPIs used are redundant”. My comment: The detailed data which are assembled for ESG-scores should be interesting for many responsible investors, independent of the aggregation method.

Greenwashing definitions: How to enforce ‘greenwashing’ in the financial sector? By Veerle Colaert and Florence De Houwer as of Feb. 24^th, 2025 (#13): “National supervisors have … reported detecting only a limited number of instances of greenwashing, and formal enforcement decisions remain scarce. … We found that there is a plethora of definitions of “greenwashing” in the financial sector …. Those definitions differ in terms of their material scope of application (environmental claims versus any sustainability-related claims), their personal scope of application (certain financial market participants versus all market participants), the objective standard against which greenwashing should be measured (basic environmental or sustainability standards versus prior claims made by the greenwashing entity), the subjective state of the greenwasher (is “intent” relevant or not), the scope of resulting damage (consumer/investor detriment versus unfair competition), and the question whether greenbleaching is deemed an instance of greenwashing. None of those definitions are, however, legally binding” (abstract). My comment: I suggest to use activity-based net SDG-aligned revenues to find sustainable funds and greenwashing, see SDG-Umsätze: Die wichtigste Nachhaltigkeitskennzahl – Responsible Investment Research Blog

Green portfolio theory: Advancing sustainable portfolio selection: Insights from a structured literature review by Sofia Baiocco as of Feb. 19^th, 2025 (#11): “The purpose of this paper is to rigorously analyze the current state of empirical research on sustainable portfolio selection … From an initial pool of 757 papers … we applied a six-step screening procedure resulting in a final sample of 44 high-quality articles addressing the topic. .. these papers revealed two main methodological streams: the first extends Markowitz’s (1952) portfolio selection theory by incorporating sustainability as an additional criterion; the second uses multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methodologies to balance returns, risks, and sustainability objectives. The prevalence of MCDM methods underscores their value in accommodating investor preferences … several challenges need to be addressed, including the inconsistency of ESG data, the complexity of calculation methodologies, and the risk of greenwashing, all of which can undermine portfolio performance and the applicability of these models” (abstract). My comment: I have made very good experiences with passive forecast-free allocations, see Das-Soehnholz-ESG-und-SDG-Portfoliobuch.pdf

Governance confusion: The G in ESG: How good are the governance ratings in ESG ratings? by Kornelia Fabisik as of Feb. 26^th, 2025 (#37): “I examine the governance ratings’ ability to provide useful information to shareholders. My results not only suggest rather limited success in predicting relevant firm outcomes (such as financial-statement restatements, governance incidents, class action law suits, operating performance, firm value, stock returns, and credit ratings), but in the case of most raters, I identify multiple instances of counterintuitive results, that is, with the opposite direction of the effect” (abstract).

SDG and impact investment research

Green voting disaster: Voting Matters 2024 Are asset managers using their proxy votes for action on environmental and social issues? by Danielle Vrublevskis, Felix Nagrawala, and Lia Viasilikiotis from Share Action as of Feb. 18^th, 2025: “Support for shareholder resolutions has hit an all-time low, driven by the voting behaviour of large US asset managers … Asset managers are not voting in line with commitments they have made to net-zero or as part of Climate Action 100+ … Asset managers are increasingly ignoring urgent environmental and social issues … Our first ever analysis of votes on management items shows asset managers fail to use these votes to hold some of the largest companies in the world accountable …” (p. 10/111). My comment: I now use this study to exclude ETF issuers and fund managers of the bottom half of the participants in this study, e.g. Blackrock.

Green venture premium? When does it pay to be green for startups? Sustainability signaling and venture funding by Markus Koenigsmarck, Martin Geissdoerfer, and Dirk Schiereck as of Feb. 24^th, 2025 (#8): „… on a dataset of 27,000 startups … We find a robust U-shaped connection sustainability signaling and venture funding, with the most and least sustainable startups attracting more funding than their peers. This pattern is persistent for just-green and just-brown subsamples …” (abstract).

Missing green funds? Green Finances: Young Adults and Climate Change by Danielle Kent, William Beckwith, Syed Shah, and Robert Wood as of Dec. 4^th, 2024 (#51): “… while the environment is very important to them, young adults struggle to believe their individual actions can make a difference. They want government and large corporations, particularly banks, to take more action towards sustainability. … Most participants wanted to adopt solar panels and electric vehicles, but the required investment was beyond their reach. Our findings highlight that more financial product innovations offering incremental sustainability investment opportunities, that do not require property ownership, are needed to reduce the financial hurdles to sustainability action for young people …” (abstract). My comment: Look at my fund (see “Werbung” below).

Other investment research (in: Green voting disaster)

Fear beats risk: Fear, Not Risk, Explains Asset Pricing by Rob Arnott and Edward F. McQuarrie as of Feb. 7^th, 2025 (#816): “Risk theory has dominated the asset pricing literature since the 1960s. We chronicle empirical failures of risk theory in its prediction of the excess return on equities, to lay the groundwork for a complementary framework, investor-focused rather than asset-focused, and centered on fear rather than objective measures of risk. A fear premium puts fear of missing out on a par with fear of loss. Most anomalies and factors of the past half-century would have been expected, given a fear-based model for returns. The new paradigm is offered as a starting point to advance investment science” (abstract).

Convincing advice? Financial Advice and Investor Beliefs: Experimental Evidence on Active vs. Passive Strategies by Antoinette Schoar and Yang Sun as of Oct. 23^rd, 2024 (#278): “… we test how retail investors assess and update their priors based on different types of financial advice, which either aligns with their priors or goes against it. We compare advice that emphasizes either the benefits of passive investment strategies (such as diversification and low fees) or active strategies (such as stock picking and market timing). We find that participants rate advice significantly higher when it aligns with their priors rather than contradicts them. But people update their beliefs about investment strategies in the direction of the advice they receive, independent of their priors. At the same time, there is significant heterogeneity based on the subjects‘ financial literacy. Financially more literate subjects positively update in response to seeing passive advice, but most do not update (and rate the advice negatively) when exposed to active advice. In contrast, financially less literate subjects are strongly influenced by both types of advice. Finally, we show that subjects rate the advice lower if the advisor is perceived to have misaligned incentives (the advisor in the video mentions receiving commission-based pay) compared to when it is more aligned (advisor receives flat fee)” (abstract). My comment: No wonder that it is very difficult to sell active funds whereas active ETFs are booming

Costly alternatives: What is the Future of Alternative Investing? by Richard M. Ennis as of Feb. 20^th, 2025 (#347): “Alternative investments, or alts, cost too much to be a fixture of institutional investing. A diverse portfolio of alts costs at least 3% to 4% of asset value, annually. Institutional expense ratios are 1% to 3% of asset value, depending on the extent of their alts allocation. Alts bring extraordinary costs but ordinary returns — namely, those of the underlying equity and fixed income assets. Alts have had a significantly adverse impact on the performance of institutional investors since the GFC. Private market real estate and hedge funds have been standout under-performers. Agency problems and weak governance have helped sustain alts-investing. CIOs and consultant advisors, who develop and implement investment strategy, have an incentive to favor complex investment programs. They also design the benchmarks used to evaluate performance …” (abstract). My comment: Maybe private debt and private equity investments are not the best way to generate positive impact and risk-adjusted returns

LLM Overconfidence: How Much Should We Trust Large Language Model-Based Measures for Accounting and Finance Research? by Minji Yoo as of Nov. 4^th, 2024 (#565): “Researchers often ask ChatGPT to provide confidence levels for its predictions, using these scores to measure the likelihood that a sample is correctly labeled. … Experiments using ChatGPT on financial sentiment analysis reveal a substantial 38–43% gap between average accuracy and self-reported confidence under popular prompts … a fine-tuning approach that retrieves probability estimates directly from the model nearly eliminates overconfidence … smaller, non-generative LLMs, such as RoBERTa, show no overconfidence and outperform prompted ChatGPT in both calibration and failure prediction when fine-tuned. Finally, this paper highlights how empirical analyses can be affected by the methods used to obtain confidence scores” (abstract).

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Werbung (in: Green voting disaster)

Zum Vergleich: Ein Gesundheits-ETF hat eine netto SDG-Umsatzvereinbarkeit von 7%, Artikel 9 Fonds haben 21%, Impactfonds 38% und ein ETF für erneuerbare Energien 43% (vgl. SDG-Umsätze: Die wichtigste Nachhaltigkeitskennzahl – Responsible Investment Research Blog).

Insgesamt hat der von mir beratene Fonds seit der Auflage im August 2021 eine ähnliche Performance wie durchschnittliche globale Small- und Midcapfonds (vgl. z.B. Fonds-Portfolio: Mein Fonds | CAPinside und Globale Small-Caps: Faire Benchmark für meinen Artikel 9 Fonds?).

Beastly problems: Researchpost 212

Beastly problems illustration from Pixabay by Clkr-free Vector Images

11x new research on meat and milk, electricity outages, emissions against competition, costly ESG events, cheaper ESG funds, ESG AI, impact channels, political banks, fund flow risks, and private equity outperformance illusion (#shows SSRN full paper downloads as of Feb. 7th, 2025).

Ecological and social research

Beastly problems (1): Climate and Nature based Interventions in Livestock – Assessing the Mitigation Potential and Financing Flows by FAIRR as of Jan. 28^th, 2025: “Annual public and private funding towards on-farm livestock interventions estimated in this report are low, amounting to USD $284.5 million (globally) and USD $120 million (for the US), respectively, representing between 0.1% and 0.2% of all climate financing over the periods assessed. … Continued reliance on interventions with incremental benefits creates a lock-in, incentivising intensive livestock production practices and delaying our ability to transition towards a net-zero and nature-positive future. … The research highlights the need to dedicate more capital towards interventions that address nature-related planetary boundaries such as biogeochemical flows, freshwater change, land-system change, biosphere integrity and novel entities. Furthermore, research, engagement and increased investment are needed across a broad range of interventions, including sustainable on-farm practices, but also demand-side measures such as protein diversification, alternative food technologies, and tackling food loss and waste to effectively reduce emissions, curb nature loss, and address human health-related impacts across the entire livestock value chain“ (p. 6).

Beastly problems (2): „Super-Emittenten“ der Fleisch- und Milchwirtschaft in Deutschland – Studie zu ihren Treibhausgasemissionen und Klimaverpflichtungen von Konstantinos Tsilimekis von Germanwatch vom Januar 2025: „In Deutschland trägt die Tierhaltung zu 5,3 % aller THG-Emissionen und zu 68,1 % der THG-Emissionen aus der Landwirtschaft bei. … Wir zeigen u. a., dass die Emissionen der zehn umsatzstärksten Schlachtkonzerne und der zehn umsatzstärksten Milchkonzerne im Jahr 2022 rund 61 % der im selben Jahr in Deutschland ausgestoßenen Emissionen durch PKWs entsprachen. Berücksichtigt man bei der Berechnung auch sog. Opportunitätskosten, dann steigen die Emissionen der Konzerne sogar auf das 1,5-fache der PKW-Emissionen. Darüber hinaus nehmen wir auch bisherige klimaschutzbezogene Eigenangaben der beiden Marktführer Tönnies und DMK Deutsches Milchkontor näher in den Blick. Dabei kommen wir zu dem Schluss, dass gerade diese beiden Konzerne noch deutlich in Sachen Vollständigkeit, Transparenz und Kohärenz nachbessern und damit für die Branche wegweisend vorlegen müssen …“ (Zusammenfassung).

Expensive outages: The Economic Costs of Temperature Uncertainty by Luca Bettarelli, Davide Furceri, Michael Ganslmeier, and Marc Tobias Schiffbauer from the International Monetary Fund as of Jan. 31^st, 2025 (#18): “Combining novel high-frequency geospatial temperature data from satellites with measures of economic activity for the universe of US listed firms, … the results show that temperature uncertainty—by increasing power outages, reducing labor productivity, and increasing the degree of exposure of firms to environmental and non-political risks, as well as economic uncertainty at the firm-level—persistently reduce firms’ investment and sales. This effect varies across firms, with those characterized by tighter financial constraints being disproportionally more affected” (abstract).

Emissions against competition? The Carbon Cost of Competitive Pressure by Vesa Pursiainen, Hanwen Sun and and Yue Xiang as of Feb. 3^rd, 2025 (#33): “… The positive relationship between competition and carbon emissions is stronger for firms in areas less concerned about climate change. It is also stronger in areas with weaker social norms. Our results suggest that short termism is not the primary driver, as the emissions-competition link is at least as strong for firms with longer-term-oriented shareholders. … ” (abstract).

ESG investment research (in: Beastly problems)

Costly ESG events: Understanding Reputational Risks: The Impact of ESG Events on European Banks by Erdinc Akyildirim, Shaen Corbet, Steven Ongena, and David Staunton as of July 27^th, 2024 (#152): “This study examines the financial impact of Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSI) events on European banks. Exploiting a dataset of 11,832 reputational shocks from 2007 through 2023, we find evidence of significant negative abnormal stock returns and increased volatility following CSI media coverage. High-severity media coverage, as well as the reporting of previously unknown problems, increases the magnitude of the shock. … proactive ESG engagement buffers against reputational risks. European banks with higher deposit instability exhibit especially negative short-term returns, reflecting the interconnections between investor and depositor behaviour. Changes in total deposits that coincide with negative CSI news magnify the effect on stock prices and volatility”.

Cheaper ESG funds: ESMA Market Report Costs and Performance of EU Retail Investment Products 2024 as of Jan. 14^th, 2025: “… Despite the decline in costs, active equity funds continued to underperform (after fees) passive non-exchange-traded equity funds and exchange-traded equity funds. … As reported in 2022, the ongoing costs of environmental, social and governance (ESG) funds are lower than or similar to the ongoing costs of non-ESG equivalents. Overall, ESG funds outperformed their non-ESG equivalents in 2023, with disparities across asset classes. Equity ESG funds outperformed their equivalents, while fixed income and mixed ESG funds underperformed” (p. 4).

ESG AI + and -: Big Data and Machine Learning in ESG Research by Kai Li as of Feb. 4^th, 2025 (#112): “In recent years, there has been a drastic increase in the use of machine learning methods in ESG research. Finance and accounting researchers have employed various machine learning methods, ranging from simple bag-of-words and topic modeling to more advanced methods such as word embedding, BERT, and generative AI. These methods have equipped researchers with useful tools to explore and analyze new data sets that were previously difficult or impossible to study. Moreover, machine learning has significantly expanded the range of tool kits researchers can employ to process data, as well as the range of data beyond texts, such as audio and videos … much work has been done on the “E” dimension, focusing on evaluating environmental performance, such as climate change, climate risk, and extreme weather exposure, at different levels. Meanwhile, more work could be done to measure “S” performance and gain a better understanding from the social perspective. …“ (p. 15).

SDG and impact investment research

10 impact channels: Channels of influence in sustainable finance: A framework for conceptualizing how private actors shape the green transition” by Jan Fichtner, Simon Schairer, Paula Haufe, Nicolás Aguila, Riccardo Baioni, Janina Urban and Joscha Wullweber as of January 27^th, 2025 …: “… growth in ‘sustainable finance’ assets is not necessarily causing more sustainability-advancing productive investment to drive the green transition. We thus argue that sustainable finance is not exclusively about investing or providing finance, but crucially also about changing corporate practices toward greater sustainability. … We identify ten channels of influence concerning sustainable finance: (1) initial financing; (2) refinancing; (3) (re)insurance; (4) ratings; (5) climate-litigation; (6) company engagement; (7) divestment; (8) reputation; (9) coalition-building; and (10) standard-setting. These are grouped according to the specificity and breadth of their sustainability impact …” (abstract). My detailed comment see Neues Research: Vielfältige reale Nachhaltigkeitswirkung | CAPinside

Political banks: Do banks price environmental risk? Only when local beliefs are binding! By Irem Erten and Steven Ongena as of Nov. 7^th, 2024 (#151): “… At loan origination banks charge higher rates to firms creating more environmental damage, especially when they are lowly capitalized, and when the firms operate in “greener” states with lower climate denial and there is more negative environmental news. Biodiversity risk is also priced, especially when public interest in it intensifies. Following the Trump withdrawal from Paris, banks modulate their environmental risk pricing in “browner” states. In sum, environmental risk pricing in bank lending is also driven by local beliefs and attitudes” (abstract).

Other investment research (in: Beastly problems)

Flow risks: Risky Business: When Behavioral Biases Meet Mutual Fund Scale Challenges by Cristhian Andres Rodriguez Revilla as of Oct. 28^th, 2024 (#118): “… A key discovery is that perceptions of threat profoundly influence managerial behavior. In conditions of substantial contractions, managers can capitalize on these challenges, effectively protecting and potentially increasing portfolio value. Conversely, during periods of significant expansion, the excessive rewards appear to compromise strategic focus and reduce investment decision quality, … The study highlights that the poorest competitive results during heavy inflows are linked to managers’ speculative choices, particularly in initiating new positions that result in adverse investment returns after three months …“ (p. 45).

Private outperformance illusion: The tyranny of IRR by Ludovic Phalippou as of Dec. 10^th, 2024 (#4009): “The use of since-inception Internal Rate of Return (si-IRR) may contribute to the prevailing belief that private equity returns are much greater than those of other asset classes. This perception, in turn, drove the sharp increase in capital allocated to private equity funds in developed markets, and their fast penetration into retail investor portfolios. The „Yale model,“ which posits that superior returns arise from substantial allocations to private equity, is heavily predicated on a si-IRR …” (abstract).

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Werbung (in: Beastly problems)

Der Fonds konzentriert sich auf die UN-Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung mit durchschnittlich außerordentlich hohen 99% SDG-vereinbaren Umsätzen der Portfoliounternehmen und verwendet separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie Aktionärsengagement bei derzeit 28 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).

Zum Vergleich: Ein traditionelle globaler Small-Cap-ETF hat eine SDG-Umsatzvereinbarkeit von 20%, für einen Gesundheits-ETF beträgt diese 7% und für einen ETF für erneuerbare Energien 43%.

Ein Fondsinvestment war also bisher ein „Free Lunch“ in Bezug auf Nachhaltigkeit: Man erhält ein besonders konsequent nachhaltiges Portfolio mit markttypischen Renditen und Risiken. Vergangene Performance ist allerdings nicht unbedingt ein guter Indikator für künftige Performance.

Impact beats ESG: Researchpost 208

Impact beats ESG illustration by Megan Rezaxin Conde from Pixabay

Impact beats ESG includes 6x new research papers on Ukrainian refugees, brown monetary risks, ESG washing, pollution measurement and impact funds (#shows the number of SSRN full paper downloads as of Jan. 9^th, 2025).

Social and ecological research

Homesickness: The Effect of Conflict on Ukrainian Refugees’ Return and Integration by Joop Adema, Cevat Giray Aksoy, Yvonne Giesing, and Panu Poutvaara as of March 14^th, 2024 (#23): “Our analysis has highlighted that the vast majority of Ukrainians in Ukraine plan to stay and most Ukrainian refugees in Europe plan to return … which contrasts with high pre-war emigration desires. … In our panel survey, we find that close to 2% of Ukrainian refugees returned every month. … Ukrainians’ confidence in their government and optimism have reached exceptionally high levels in international comparison … ” (p. 24).

ESG investment research (in: Impact beats ESG)

Brown monetary risks: Green Stocks and Monetary Policy Shocks: Evidence from Europe by Michael D. Bauer, Eric A. Offner, and Glenn D. Rudebusch as of Dec. 23^rd, 2024 (#44): “… euro-area green stocks appear significantly less affected by monetary policy surprises to interest rates than higher-carbon brown stocks … focusing on narrower stock market indexes for the green and brown energy sectors, we find that the interest rate reactions of the renewable energy industry are weaker than the response of the oil & gas energy sector … These conclusions are in broad agreement with recent research using U.S. data … a carbon premium, while not firmly established empirically in the literature, seems to be a promising potential candidate explanation for the differential green/brown sensitivity. … Another potential explanation is a demand channel, according to which the product demand for green firms is less cyclical and less interest-sensitive than for brown firms …“ (p.34/35).

ESG washing: Green Window Dressing by Gianpaolo Parise and Mirco Rubin as of Dec 13^th, 2024 (#46): “ESG fund managers are assigned two conflicting objectives: to deliver performance and to invest responsibly. While investors monitor how fund managers fare along the first dimension daily and from unbiased performance metrics, they tend to evaluate funds’ responsibility through sustainability ratings. These ratings are based on granular portfolio holdings that must be publicly disclosed four times a year. However, portfolio disclosure is only informative as long as managers disclose portfolio holdings that are representative. If managers move into and out of responsible portfolios to time regulatory filings, sustainability ratings might be uninformative. In this paper, we establish that money managers engage in “green window dressing.” We document that funds move in and out of ESG stocks around disclosure to inflate sustainability ratings. We support this claim with four separate sets of analyses. … We find that expensive funds, as well as star and laggard funds are more likely to engage in green window dressing. … green window dressers end up attracting substantially higher capital flows. This last result holds only for institutional clients, which is consistent with the argument that institutional investors delegate green window dressing to ESG mutual funds” (p. 37-39). My comment: I disclose the fund holdings monthly and change them typically only once a year (see www.futurevest.fund).

Impact beats ESG: Different Shades of ESG Funds by Simona Abis, Andrea M Buffa and Meha Sadasivam as of Dec. 9^th, 2024 (#84): “… among active equity mutual funds in the US …. the majority of the growth in ESG investment … comes from what we define as opportunistic funds; i.e, those funds which use ESG-related information only with the objective of maximizing risk-adjusted returns. Whereas, funds that have ESG-related considerations in their objective function for non-pecuniary reasons, altogether only represent 25% of the funds and 8% of the AUM of ESG-related active mutual funds by 2022. A more detailed portfolio analysis uncovers that funds with different ESG objectives display very different portfolios and trading behavior. With only impact, impact activist and opportunistic activist funds displaying significantly greater ESG ratings of stocks held” (p. 33). My comment: My fund invests in very high ESG rated companies which should have a positive impact measured by SDG-aligned revenues and in addition I try to have investor impact through stakeholder engagement

Impact investment research

Pollution washing? Socially responsible investing and multinationals’ pollution – Evidence from global remote sensing data by Virginia Gianinazzi, Victoire Girard, Mehdi Lehlali, and Melissa Porras Prado as of Dec. 19^th, 2024 (#69): “Our findings reveal a positive association between ESG or sustainable institutional ownership and pollution reduction …. Firms with higher SRI ownership tend to decrease pollution. This relationship is predominantly observed in OECD countries or those with stringent environmental laws. In contrast, in non-OECD locations, where environmental regulations may be less stringent, vegetation quality around facilities does not show any significant reaction to SRI inflows. This heterogeneity suggests a potential strategic behavior of multinationals receiving SRI when deciding where to focus their environmental efforts. These insights also illuminate the concrete environmental impacts driven by sustainable capital, surpassing reliance solely on self reported emissions data” (p. 29).

Other investment research

Unfair investment AI? AI, Investment Decisions, and Inequality by Alex G. Kim, David S. Kim, Maximilian Muhn, Valeri V. Nikolaev and Eric C. So as of Dec. 30^th, 2024 (#1400): “Using two large-scale experiments with actual financial data from 200 publicly traded firms … our evidence shows that generative AI significantly enhances both financial comprehension and investment performance, making earnings information more accessible to a broader investor base. … AI’s effectiveness critically depends on the alignment between its outputs and user expertise … AI can widen performance gaps by disproportionately benefiting sophisticated investors“ (p.33/34).

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Werbung (in: Impact beats ESG)

Zum Vergleich: Ein traditionelle globaler Small-Cap-ETF hat eine SDG-Umsatzvereinbarkeit von 5%, für einen Gesundheits-ETF beträgt diese 1% und für einen ETF für erneuerbare Energien 44%.

Ein Fondsinvestment war also bisher ein „Free Lunch“ in Bezug auf Nachhaltigkeit: Man erhält ein besonders konsequent nachhaltiges Portfolio mit markttypischen Renditen und Risiken.

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 31: Finanzierung nachhaltiger Energieproduktion

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 31 Illustration von HASI

Hannon Armstrong Sustainable Infrastructure: Unternehmensübersicht

Der von mir beratene Fonds enthält zwar nur 30 Aktien, aber Anfang Dezember 2024 wurde die jährliche Aktienselektion durchgeführt. Diese hat zum Verkauf von drei Aktien aus dem Bestandsportfolio geführt, davon zwei wegen meiner Erhöhung der SDG-Umsatzvereinbarkeitsanforderung von 50% auf 90%.

Das SDG-Investmentbeispiel 31 aus dem von mir beratenen Fonds ist HASI bzw. Hannon Armstrong Sustainable Infrastructure. HASI ist eine von den drei neu in den Fonds aufgenommenen Aktien. HASI finanziert Investments mit Fokus auf nachhaltige Energie. Dafür hat HASI drei Geschäftsbereiche: „Behind the meter“ mit Energieeffizienz und netzunabhängigen Solarinvestments, netzgebundene Solar-, Wind- und Speicherinvestments und „Fuels, Transport & Nature“. Insgesamt wurden zuletzt über 13 Milliarden US-Dollar gemanagt. Durch den projektorientierten Ansatz schwanken die Umsätze mit den drei Bereichen beträchtlich.

Sehr hohe SDG-Vereinbarkeit und geringe ESG-Risiken (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 31)

Auch HASI erfüllt meinen wichtigsten Nachhaltigkeitsanspruch, nämlich Produkte oder Services anzubieten, die möglichst kompatibel mit den Nachhaltigen Entwicklungszielen der Vereinten Nationen (SDG) sind. Clarity.ai weist für HASI 100% netto-Umsatzvereinbarkeit mit den SDG aus. Das ist noch höher als die aktuell 95% des von mir beratenen Fonds und liegt erheblich über den 53% des Amundi MSCI New Energy ESG Screened ETFs. Schwere Incidents oder Verstöße gegen die zahlreichen 100% Ausschlusskriterien bzw. kritischen Aktivitäten des Fonds sind nicht bekannt.

Der aggregierte Best-in-Universe ESG-Score von HASI liegt mit 74 von 100 über dem bereits hohen Fondsdurchschnitt von 70. Mit 97 ist besonders der E-Score herausragend (Fonds: 73) aber auch der Governance-Score ist mit 83 sehr gut (Fonds:80). Auch der Sozialscore liegt mit 63 über dem Fondsdurchschnitt von 61.

Positive Share- und Stakeholder-Engagement-Reaktion

Investment- und Engagementstart bei HASI war Anfang Dezember 2024. Die Investor Relations Abteilung von HASI hat sich auf meine Anfrage hin sehr schnell gemeldet und meine Fragen beantwortet. Ausserdem wurde signalisiert, dass man für meine Anregungen in Bezug auf ESG-Mitarbeiter- und Kundenbefragungen aber auch Lieferantenbewertungen offen ist. Ich habe daraufhin meine konkreten Vorschläge mit den zugehörigen wissenschaftlichen Grundlagen und Best-Practice-Beispielen an HASI geschickt (vgl. 241203_Nachhaltigkeitsinvestmentpolitik_der_Soehnholz_Asset_Management_GmbH.pdf).

Gute Portfoliodiversifikation (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 31)

HASI ist das einzige Unternehmen im Portfolio, welches dem Finanzdienstleistungssektor zugerechnet wird. Mit First Solar ist nur noch ein anderes US-basierte Unternehmen in Bereich erneuerbare Energien tätig, aber die Geschäftsmodelle sind komplett unterschiedlich, so dass kein direkter Wettbewerb besteht. Damit ist die Diversifikationseigenschaft gut.

Mit knapp 4 Mrd. USD Marktkapitalisierung ist HASI nahe am Median der Unternehmen des Fonds und damit dem angestrebten Smallcapfokus.

Seit der Aufnahme ins Portfolio ist der Aktienkurs von HASI um 10% gefallen.

Weitere Informationen zum Fonds

Ein Fondsinvestment war also bisher ein „Free Lunch“ in Bezug auf Nachhaltigkeit: Man erhält ein besonders konsequent nachhaltiges Portfolio mit markttypischen Renditen und Risiken (vgl. Free Lunch: Diversifikation nein, Nachhaltigkeit ja?).

Weitere Beiträge zum Fonds (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 31)

My fund

Nachhaltiges Investmentbeispiel 1: Gesundheitspersonalservices (5-2024)

SDG-Investment 2: Handschuhe aus Australien (6-2024)

Impactbeispiel 3: Wassermessgeräte (6-2024)

Impactbeispiel 4: Schwedische Labortechnik (6-2024)

Impactfonds im Nachhaltigkeitsvergleich (6-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 5: US-Arzneimittelvertrieb (7-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 6: Hörimplantate aus Australien (8-2024)

3 Jahre nachhaltigster diversifizierter Fonds? (8-2024)

My shareholder engagement: Failures, successes and adaption (8-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 7: Chinesische Taxis? (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 8: Baskische Schienenfahrzeuge (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 9: Krebsbekämpfung aus Schweden (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 10: US-Krebsvorsorge und -Diagnose (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 11: Solartechnik aus den USA (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 12: Schweizer Apotheken (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 13: Fokus Grüner Star (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 14: US-Dentalvertrieb (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 15: Smart Grids aus der Schweiz) (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 16: Schweizer Orthopädie (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 17: Mettler Toledo (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 18: Nachhaltige Busse (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 19: Deutsche Gesundheits-Software (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 20: Deutsche Onshore-Windenergie (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 21: Medizingeräte aus Japan (11-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 22: US-Gesundheitsservices (11-2014)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 23 Pro Medicus (11-2014)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 24: Australischer Krankenhausbetreiber (11-2014)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 25: Biopharmatechnik (12-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 26: Erneuerbare Energie für Afrika (12-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 27: Laborservices aus Australien (12-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 28: Finnische Wellness (12-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 29: Transplantationsprodukte (12-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 30: Deutsche Medizintechnik (12-2024)

Disclaimer

Dieser Beitrag ist von der Soehnholz ESG GmbH erstellt worden. Die Erstellerin übernimmt keine Gewähr für die Richtigkeit, Vollständigkeit und/oder Aktualität der zur Verfügung gestellten Inhalte. Die Informationen unterliegen deutschem Recht und richten sich ausschließlich an Investoren, die ihren Wohnsitz in Deutschland haben. Sie sind keine Finanzanalyse und nicht als Verkaufsangebot oder Aufforderung zur Abgabe eines Kauf- oder Zeichnungsangebots für Anteile der/s in dieser Unterlage dargestellten Aktie/Fonds zu verstehen und ersetzen nicht eine anleger- und anlagegerechte Beratung.

Die in diesem Artikel enthaltenen Informationen dienen ausschließlich zu Bildungs- und Informationszwecken. Sie sind weder als Aufforderung noch als Anreiz zum Kauf oder Verkauf eines Wertpapiers oder Finanzinstruments zu verstehen. Die in diesem Artikel enthaltenen Informationen sollten nicht als alleinige Quelle für Anlageentscheidungen verwendet werden.

Anlageentscheidungen sollten nur auf der Grundlage der aktuellen gesetzlichen Verkaufsunterlagen (Wesentliche Anlegerinformationen, Verkaufsprospekt und – sofern verfügbar – Jahres- und Halbjahresbericht) getroffen werden, die auch die allein maßgeblichen Anlagebedingungen enthalten.

Die Verkaufsunterlagen des Fonds werden bei der Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft (Monega Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH), der Verwahrstelle (Kreissparkasse Köln) und den Vertriebspartnern zur kostenlosen Ausgabe bereitgehalten. Die Verkaufsunterlagen sind zudem im Internet unter www.monega.de erhältlich. Die in dieser Unterlage zur Verfügung gestellten Inhalte dienen lediglich der allgemeinen Information und stellen keine Beratung oder sonstige Empfehlung dar. Die Kapitalanlage ist stets mit Risiken verbunden und kann zum Verlust des eingesetzten Kapitals führen. Vor einer etwaigen Anlageentscheidung sollten Sie eingehend prüfen, ob die Anlage für Ihre individuelle Situation und Ihre persönlichen Ziele geeignet ist.

Diese Unterlage enthält ggf. Informationen, die aus öffentlichen Quellen stammen, die die Erstellerin für verlässlich hält. Die dargestellten Inhalte, insbesondere die Darstellung von Strategien sowie deren Chancen und Risiken, können sich im Zeitverlauf ändern. Einschätzungen und Bewertungen reflektieren die Meinung der Erstellerin zum Zeitpunkt der Erstellung und können sich jederzeit ändern. Es ist nicht beabsichtigt, diese Unterlage laufend oder überhaupt zu aktualisieren. Sie stellt nur eine unverbindliche Momentaufnahme dar. Die Unterlage ist ausschließlich zur Information und zum persönlichen Gebrauch bestimmt. Jegliche nicht autorisierte Vervielfältigung und Weiterverbreitung ist untersagt.

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 29: Transplantationsprodukte

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 29 Illustration von Gerd Altmann von Pixabay

XVIVO Perfusion: Unternehmensübersicht

Das SDG-Investmentbeispiel 29 der 30 Aktien meines Fonds ist XVIVO Perfusion aus Schweden. XVIVO ist ein Medizintechnikunternehmen, das sich nach eigenen Angaben für die Verlängerung der Lebensdauer aller wichtigen Organe einsetzt, damit Transplantationsteams auf der ganzen Welt mehr Leben retten können. Das Unternehmen ist in drei Segmenten tätig: Dem Verkauf von Lungen- und Herztransplantationsprodukten, dem Verkauf von Leber- und Nierentransplantationsprodukten und Dienstleistungen im Bereich der Organentnahme.

Etwa 60% des Umsatzes werden in Amerika, vor allem den U.S.A., und etwa ein Drittel in Europa gemacht. Lungen- und Herztransplantationsprodukte, vor allem medizinische Einwegartikel, machen über 60% des Umsatzes aus. Mehr als 20% entfallen zudem auf – überwiegend ebenfalls Einwegartikel – mit dem Fokus Leber und Niere.

Update: Im April 2025 wurden alle Aktien von XVIVO nach einem Scoringupdate aufgrund eines nunmehr zu niedrigen Umweltscores verkauft.

Sehr gute SDG-Vereinbarkeit und akzeptable ESG-Risiken (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 29)

Auch XVIVO erfüllt meinen wichtigsten Nachhaltigkeitsanspruch, nämlich Produkte oder Services anzubieten, die möglichst gut vereinbar mit den Nachhaltigen Entwicklungszielen der Vereinten Nationen (SDG) sind. Clarity.ai schätzt den kompletten Umsatz von XVIVO mit 100% als sehr gut vereinbar mit den SDG, vor allem SDG 3 (Gesundheit) ein. Damit liegt XVIVO noch über dem bereits sehr hohen Fondsdurchschnitt von 95% und sehr weit über den 8% eines diversifizierten Gesundheits-ETFs (z.B. Amundi MSCI World Health Care ETF).

Kritische Aktivitäten oder Verletzungen der Ausschlusskriterien sind von XVIVO nicht bekannt.

Die aggregierten ESG-Scores von XVIVO liegen bei guten 61 von 100, damit aber unter dem hohen Fondsdurchschnitt von 70. Der Governance-Score liegt mit 66 unter dem durchschnittlichen Score des Fonds von 80 und auch der der Sozialscore von 54 ist niedriger als der Fondsdurschnitt von 61. Der Umweltscore von 71 ist ungefähr so hoch wie der des Fonds insgesamt, der bei 73 liegt.

Grundsätzliche Offenheit für mein Share- und Stakeholder-Engagement

Mein Investment- und Engagementstart waren der März 2024. XVIVO hat sehr schnell auf meine ersten Fragen reagiert und zeigt sich offen dafür, einige meiner Anregungen aufzunehmen, z.B. in Bezug auf ESG-Befragungen von Mitarbeitern. In Bezug auf GHG Scope 3 Emissionen, umfassende ESG-Befragungen von Kunden bzw. ESG-Beurteilungen von Lieferanten gibt es offenbar (noch) keine Pläne. Zu meinen konkreten Vorschlägen (vgl. 241203_Nachhaltigkeitsinvestmentpolitik_der_Soehnholz_Asset_Management_GmbH.pdf) schreibt XVIVO: „We will consider this in our work to continuously improve within ESG aspects”.

Nachtrag: Im Jahresbericht 2024 werden GHG Scope 3 Emissionen ausgewiesen. Das ist aber sicher nicht meinen Anregungen (alleine) zuzurechnen.

Nachhaltigkeitsfazit (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 29)

Die Unternehmen in meinem Portfolio gehören sowohl in Bezug auf Ausschlüsse als auch ESG- und SDG-Kriterien bereits zu den besten weltweit. Alternative Investments scheiden nach diesen Kriterien etwas schlechter ab und es ist nicht abschätzbar, ob deren Engagementreaktion positiver als die von XVIVO wäre. Deshalb verkaufe ich allein wegen dieser unbefriedigenden Reaktion auf meine Engagements keine Aktien. Divestments erfolgen in der Regel nur dann, wenn meine Mindestanforderungen an Ausschlüsse, ESG-Risiken bzw. SDG-Umsätze nicht mehr erfüllt werden.

Dabei bin ich davon überzeugt, dass Investments und Divestments durchaus reale Auswirkungen auf Unternehmen haben können, vor allem, wenn transparent über diese berichtet wird, so wie ich das hier mache (zum Thema Divestments siehe Impact divestment: Illiquidity hurts) und zum Thema „Additionalität“ von börsennotierten Investments siehe z.B. Who Clears the Market When Passive Investors Trade? von Marco Sammon und John J. Shim vom 15.April 2024).

Gute Portfoliodiversifikation

Mit Biotage, Elekta und XVIVO ist Schweden überproportional im Fonds vertreten. Die Unternehmen machen sich aber keine Konkurrenz und auch aus anderen Ländern findet sich kein Wettbewerber von XVIVO im Fonds. Mit 130 Mitarbeitern und einer Marktkapitalisierung von ungefähr 1,4 Milliarden Euro gehört XVIVO zu den kleinsten Unternehmen im Fonds, dessen Median-Marktkapitalisierung aktuell bei ungefähr vier Milliarden Euro liegt.

Seit der Aufnahme der Aktie in den Fonds ist diese um ungefähr 60 Prozent gestiegen.

Weitere Informationen zum Fonds (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 29)

Ein Fondsinvestment war also bisher ein „Free Lunch“ in Bezug auf Nachhaltigkeit: Man erhält ein besonders konsequent nachhaltiges Portfolio mit markttypischen Renditen und Risiken (vgl. Free Lunch: Diversifikation nein, Nachhaltigkeit ja?).

Weitere Beiträge zum Fonds

My fund, vor allem:

Nachhaltiges Investmentbeispiel 1: Gesundheitspersonalservices (5-2024)

SDG-Investment 2: Handschuhe aus Australien (6-2024)

Impactbeispiel 3: Wassermessgeräte (6-2024)

Impactbeispiel 4: Schwedische Labortechnik (6-2024)

Impactfonds im Nachhaltigkeitsvergleich (6-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 5: US-Arzneimittelvertrieb (7-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 6: Hörimplantate aus Australien (8-2024)

3 Jahre nachhaltigster diversifizierter Fonds? (8-2024)

My shareholder engagement: Failures, successes and adaption (8-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 7: Chinesische Taxis? (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 8: Baskische Schienenfahrzeuge (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 9: Krebsbekämpfung aus Schweden (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 10: US-Krebsvorsorge und -Diagnose (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 11: Solartechnik aus den USA (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 12: Schweizer Apotheken (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 13: Fokus Grüner Star (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 14: US-Dentalvertrieb (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 15: Smart Grids aus der Schweiz) (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 16: Schweizer Orthopädie (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 17: Mettler Toledo (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 18: Nachhaltige Busse (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 19: Deutsche Gesundheits-Software (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 20: Deutsche Onshore-Windenergie (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 21: Medizingeräte aus Japan (11-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 22: US-Gesundheitsservices (11-2014)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 23 Pro Medicus (11-2014)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 24: Australischer Krankenhausbetreiber (11-2014)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 25: Biopharmatechnik (12-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 26: Erneuerbare Energie für Afrika (12-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 27: Laborservices aus Australien (12-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 28: Finnische Wellness (12-2024)

Disclaimer (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 29)

Smart ESG investors: Researchpost 207

Smart ESG investors illustration from Pixabay by Gerd Altmann

14x new research on CSDDD, ESG charts, missing disclosures, good ESG disagreements, cheap ESG funds, smart ESG investors, ambiguity factor, brown bankruptcies, green premium, ESG literature review, ESG compensation, gender bias, index effects, and multilateral development banks (# shows number of SSRN full paper downloads as of Dec. 19th, 2024)

Social and ecological research

Good CSDDD regulation? The Entrepreneurial Impact of the European Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence by Juan Dempere, Eseroghene Udjo and Paulo Mattos as of Dec. 13^th, 2024 (#4): “The European Commission’s Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence, adopted in 2022 and approved in 2024, mandates that companies identify, prevent, and mitigate hostile human rights and environmental impacts across their operations and supply chains, integrating sustainability into corporate governance. … Findings suggest that while the directive imposes compliance challenges and costs, particularly for startups and small and medium-sized enterprises, it offers significant long-term benefits, such as improved risk management, enhanced reputation, and market differentiation. The directive promotes accountability and ethical practices, harmonizing due diligence across the EU and fostering a culture of sustainability. It concludes that companies addressing these impacts can gain a competitive edge and attract sustainability-focused investors, necessitating support mechanisms for startups and small and medium-sized enterprises to mitigate burdens and encourage compliance” (abstract). My comment: Through my shareholder engagement I encourage companies to use third party ESG evaluations of suppliers (see Supplier engagement – Opinion post #211)

ESG investment research (in: Smart ESG investors)

2000 sustainability charts: Course 2024-2025 in Sustainable Finance & Climate Change y Thierry Roncalli from Amundi Asset Management as of Dec. 13^th, 2024 (#1374): “These lectures notes have been written for the course in Sustainable Finance given at the University of Paris-Saclay. The slides cover the following topics: 1. Introduction, 2. ESG Scoring,3. Impact of ESG Investing on Asset Prices and Portfolio Returns, 4. Sustainable Financial Products,5. Impact Investing, 6. Biodiversity, 7. Engagement & Voting Policy, 8. Extra-financial Accounting, 9. Awareness of Climate Change Impacts, 10. The Ecosystem of Climate Change, 11. Economic Models \& Climate Change, 12. Climate Risk Measures, 13. Transition Risk Modeling, 14. Climate Portfolio Construction. 15. Physical Risk Modeling and 16. Climate Stress Testing & Risk Management” (abstract). My comment: Lots of interesting and current information in here (although only little information on listed impact/SDG investments)

More ESG information needed: Learning Fundamentals from Text by Alex G. Kim, Valeri V. Nikolaev, Maximilian Muhn and Yijing Zhang as of Dec. 10^th, 2024 (#364): “… We … analyze a comprehensive set of topics discussed in companies’ annual reports. … sustainability and governance are consistently among the least important topics judging by the market reactions. Building on our approach, we show that regulatory interventions can successfully enhance the relevance of textual communication. We also show that firms strategically position information within MD&A (Sö: Management discussion and analysis) to influence investor focus” (abstract).

Good ESG disagreement? Unveiling the consequences of ESG rating disagreement: An empirical analysis of the impact on the cost of equity capital by Chiara Mio, Marco Fasan, Antonio Costantini, Francesco Scarpa, and Aoife Claire Fitzpatrick as of Dec. 13^th, 2024 (#26): “Using a sample of 23,201 firm-month observations from January 2019 to March 2021, we find that ESG disagreement positively moderates the negative relationship between the average ESG score and cost of equity. … the association between ESG rating disagreement and cost of equity is more pronounced in the presence of high analyst information uncertainty”. My comment: Select the ESG rating provider with the best concept (not necessarily the market leader)

Cheap ESG funds: The Puzzle of ESG Fund Fees by Aaron J. Black and Julian F. Kölbel as of Dec. 13^th, 2024 (#34): “… (Sö: US) ESG funds have expense ratios that are, on average, 9.5 to 12.7 basis points lower than comparable non-ESG funds. This fee reduction for ESG funds first emerged in 2015 and has persisted through 2024. … Our findings highlight the strategic use of fee waivers as a key factor in driving down net expense ratios for ESG funds. These waivers, which are more frequent and larger in magnitude for ESG funds than for non-ESG funds, offset higher gross fees. … First, we examine whether investors expect lower returns for ESG funds. We find evidence for this explanation, which compliments the literature on a negative premium for green stocks by providing fund-level evidence. Second, … We present descriptive evidence that ESG funds exhibit higher holdings overlap with their peers than non-ESG funds, indicating a more competitive environment. Finally, we test whether fund providers use lower fees on ESG funds as a strategy to cross-sell higher-fee funds within the same fund family. Our findings suggests that ESG fund fees covary negatively with the fees of other funds offered by the same provider, which is consistent with the cross-selling explanation …” (p. 34/35). My comment: My ESG SDG fund has very little overlap with other sustainable funds and it’s a stand-alone fund (see e.g. Globale Small-Caps: Faire Benchmark für meinen Artikel 9 Fonds?)

Smart ESG investors: Analyzing Sustainable Investor Returns by Jean-Paul van Brakel, Joop Huij and Georgi Kyosev as of Dec. 13^th, 2024 (#31): “We find that, in aggregate, non-sustainable funds earned 65 basis points higher yearly returns than sustainable funds. However, after accounting for the timing and magnitude of flows, we find that sustainable investors earned 88 basis points higher yearly returns than their non-sustainable peers. We show that this outperformance is driven by an asymmetric response to historical fund performance: sustainable investors invest more after periods of strong returns but do not divest more when returns are disappointing. … The higher returns earned by sustainable investors … result from a combination of their timing skills and their ability to select funds with specific advantageous characteristics” (abstract).

Ambiguity factor? Pricing Climate Ambiguity by Francesco Rocciolo, Monica Billio, Massimo Guidolin, and Yehuda Izhakian as of Dec. 13th, 2024 (#20): “The theoretical literature on climate finance advocates the existence of a tight relation between climate change and uncertainty of the probabilistic models (ambiguity) concerning future climate-related events affecting consumption opportunities. This paper provides empirical evidence for the relevance of this phenomenon to asset pricing. … This paper suggests the existence of a so-far undisclosed climate-ambiguity cross-sectional pricing anomaly. An idiosyncratic cross-sectional climate ambiguity factor explains up to 92% of the abnormal returns linked with the anomaly”.

Brown bankruptcies: Greening the Red: Climate Transition Risk and Corporate Bankruptcy by Matilde Faralli and Costanza Tomaselli as of Nov. 21^st, 2024 (#102): “Using a novel dataset of business bankruptcies from 2000 to 2023 … we find that brown companies are more prone to financial distress and bankruptcy filings …. Analysis of emissions data reveals that facilities of reorganized firms exhibit lower emissions post-bankruptcy … This improvement is potentially driven by debt relief, which provides financial flexibility for green investments” (abstract). My comment: My focus on highly-ESG rated companies so far has not resulted in any bankruptcy

SDG and impact investment research

Green premium illusion? Reevaluating the Carbon Premium: Evidence of Green Outperformance by Christoph Hambel and Floor van der Sanden as of Dec 8^th, 2024: “The carbon premium refers to the excess returns of brown firms over their green counterparts. Our findings provide robust evidence supporting a negative carbon premium in the US based on a sample with more than 3,500 publicly listed firms from 2007 to 2023, indicating that green firms tend to outperform brown firms. The key findings carry over to the global sample with more than 10,000 firms across 90 countries. … those findings are primarily driven by vendor-estimated emissions, and the carbon premium becomes non-significant if we restrict the sample to firms that report their emissions” (abstract). My comment: I prefer to invest in green firms even without a green premium (=free green lunch)

Sustainable investment literature review: Sustainable Investing by Lubos Pastor, Robert F. Stambaugh, and Lucian A. Taylor as of Dec. 9^th, 2024 (#204): “We review the literature on sustainable investing, focusing on financial effects. First, we examine the effects of investor tastes on portfolio tilts and asset prices in a simple equilibrium setting. We establish novel connections, including a direct relation between the green portfolio tilt and the greenium. We also relate our framework to prior modeling of divestment. Finally, we review evidence related to the main concepts from our theoretical analysis, including the greenium, green tilts, climate risk, and investor tastes” (abstract).

ESG compensation issues: Regulatory and Investor Demands to Use ESG Performance Metrics in Executive Compensation: Right Instrument, Wrong Method by Marco Dell’Erbaa and Suren Gomtsian as of Dec 13^th, 2024 (#22): “The analysis highlights the limitations of ESG objectives unrelated to shareholder value and demonstrates the limited circumstances where some company specific ESG objectives can drive rapid changes in targeted performance by drawing attention to these objectives. These findings question the evolving practice of a uniform integration of ESG metrics in compensation plan design of all companies and urge regulators, institutional investors, and corporate boards to adopt a more tailored, focused, and selective strategy in integrating ESG metrics into executive pay” (abstract). My comment: With my shareholder engagement I recommend disclosing the difference between top management and average worker pay (CEO pay ratio) which should not increase with the introduction of ESG compensation.

Other investment research (in: Smart ESG investors)

Risk averse women: What matters most? Exploring the driving forces of gender differences in singles’ investment behavior by Jan-Christian Fey as of Dec. 13^th, 2024 (#9): “… I propose a novel approach for exploring the origins of gender differences in investor behavior… To illustrate my methodology, I use data from the second wave of the Deutsche Bundesbank Panel on Household Finances (PHF). Within this dataset, I limit my analysis to single households. … I find that women are less likely to hold risky financial assets than men. To a significant part, this gender gap in the extensive margin results from females’ lower willingness to take financial risks and lower household net disposable income. In an additional analysis, I attribute women’s higher level of financial risk aversion to factors other than general risk attitude. Moreover, there is substantial heterogeneity in the gender differences observed for the extensive margin and financial risk attitude. For example, the gender gap in financial risk attitude is considerably smaller for younger age groups. With respect to the conditional risky share, I find that both sexes hold a comparable proportion of their financial wealth in risky financial assets. However, within the risky financial assets portfolio, women invest in more conservative securities than men. According to my analyses, this gender gap is mainly due to inherently different investment styles rather … According to my estimates, women’s extensive margin would be 1.34 percentage points higher if they had men’s average net disposable income. That is, due to their lower income, women participate less often in risky financial assets …” (p. 34/35).

Multilateral stability: The Resilience of MDB Bonds to Credit Rating Downgrades by Thea Kolasa, Steven Ongena, and Christopher Humphrey as of Nov. 27^th, 2024 (#33): “We show that credit rating downgrades do not consistently impact multilateral development banks (MDBs) in the same way as they do firms and sovereigns. Unlike other entities, MDBs do not experience significant market reaction in bond yield spreads following credit rating downgrades. Additionally, downgrades of shareholder countries’ credit ratings do not systematically affect bond yield spreads for MDBs. The study suggests that the unique attributes of MDBs, such as preferred creditor treatment and callable capital, may account for these differences. Furthermore, MDBs’ bond issuance behavior is not significantly altered by credit rating downgrades” (abstract). My comment: For my responsible investment portfolios I use MNDB bonds instead of government bonds since many years

Hope for Small Caps: From Realized to Expected: The Passive Investing Impact by Pouya Behmaram as of Dec. 13^th, 2024 (#40): “The core of this study is the Indexing Inclusion ratio (IXI), a new measure of passive ownership. … the data suggests that as the surge in passive strategies slows down and the market moves towards equilibrium, the expected returns for high-indexed stocks may diminish. Another key finding is the concept of the indexing premium, which underscores the difference in expected returns between high and low-indexed stocks. A consistent negative indexing premium throughout the study period suggests that the strong performance of high-indexed stocks may have caught many off-guard. This study also clarifies the ambiguous performance patterns of value and small-cap stocks. The rise of passive investment and the dominance of growth and large-cap stocks in passive portfolios can provide insights into their recent underperformance” (p. 36). My comment: My fund focuses on small and mid-caps and will hopefully benefit from such a future equilibrium

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Werbung (in: Smart ESG investors)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in den von mir beratenen globalen Small-/Mid-Cap-Investmentfonds (siehe FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R – DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T) investieren und/oder ihn empfehlen. Der Fonds konzentriert sich auf die UN-Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung mit durchschnittlich außerordentlich hohen 95% SDG-vereinbaren Umsätzen der Portfoliounternehmen und verwendet separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie Aktionärsengagement bei derzeit 27 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 28: Finnische Wellness

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 28 Illustration von Miki von Pixabay

Terveystalo: Unternehmensübersicht

Das SDG-Investmentbeispiel 28 aus dem von mir beratenen Fonds ist Terveystalo aus Finnland. Terveystalo erbringt Dienstleistungen in den Bereichen Gesundheitsfürsorge, Arbeitsmedizin und Krankenhausversorgung. Terveystalo ist der größte private Gesundheitsdienstleister in Finnland und ein führender Anbieter von Arbeitsmedizin in der nordischen Region.

Das Unternehmen bietet ein breites Spektrum an primärer Gesundheitsfürsorge, spezialisierter Pflege und Wellness-Services für Firmen- und Privatkunden sowie für den öffentlichen Sektor. Die Services werden von über 370 Kliniken in Finnland angeboten und die arbeitsmedizinischen Dienstleistungen in über 150 schwedischen Kliniken.

Sehr gute SDG-Vereinbarkeit und geringe ESG-Risiken (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 28)

Auch Terveystalo erfüllt meinen wichtigsten Nachhaltigkeitsanspruch, nämlich Produkte oder Services anzubieten, die möglichst kompatibel mit den Nachhaltigen Entwicklungszielen der Vereinten Nationen (SDG) sind. Clarity.ai schätzt 99% der Umsätze von Terveystalo als konform mit den SDG, speziell dem SDG 3 Gesundheit ein. Der Anteil liegt damit noch über dem bereits sehr hohen Fondsdurchschnitt von 95% und sehr weit über den 8% eines diversifizierten Gesundheits-ETFs (z.B. Amundi MSCI World Health Care ETF).

Kritische Aktivitäten bzw. potenzielle Ausschlusskritieren sind bezüglich Terveystalo nicht bekannt.

Die aggregierten Best-in-Universe ESG-Scores von Terveystalo liegen bei 70 und damit genau beim Fondsdurchschnitt aber weit über dem Mittelwert aller Unternehmen. Während der Governance-Score mit 67 unter dem Fondsdurchschnitt von 80 liegt, sind der Umweltscore mit 74 (73) und der Sozialscore mit 71 (61) höher als die Mittelwerte der Portfoliounternehmen des Fonds.

Offene aber unverbindliche Reaktion auf mein Share- und Stakeholder-Engagement

Investment- und Engagementstart bei Terveystalo war der Mai 2024. Meine erste Anfrage wurde sehr schnell beantwortet. In Bezug auf Mitarbeiter und Kunden gibt es keine Pläne zu umfassenden ESG-Befragungen. Auch umfassende und unabhängige ESG-Beurteilungen von Lieferanten sind nicht geplant. Dafür sollen die GHG Scope 3 Emissionen bald umfassend berichtet werden.

Meine konkreten Vorschläge zu diesen für mich zentralen Engagementhemen (vgl. 241203_Nachhaltigkeitsinvestmentpolitik_der_Soehnholz_Asset_Management_GmbH.pdf) wurden freundlich aber unverbindlich aufgenommen: „These are noted and will be considered in the future engagement with stakeholders”.

Nachtrag vom 17.3.2025: Inzwischen berichtet Teryestalo GHG Scope 3 Emissionen umfassend (vgl. Annual Report 2024 Annex 1 vom 14.3.2025). Aus dem Remuneration Report kann zudem die CEO pay ratio entnommen werden.

Nachhaltigkeitsfazit (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 28)

Die Unternehmen in meinem Portfolio gehören sowohl in Bezug auf Ausschlüsse als auch ESG- und SDG-Kriterien bereits zu den besten weltweit. Alternative Investments scheiden nach diesen Kriterien etwas schlechter ab und es ist nicht abschätzbar, ob deren Engagementreaktion positiver als die von Terveystalo wäre. Deshalb verkaufe ich allein wegen dieser unbefriedigenden Reaktion auf meine Engagements keine Aktien. Divestments erfolgen in der Regel nur dann, wenn meine Mindestanforderungen an Ausschlüsse, ESG-Risiken bzw. SDG-Umsätze nicht mehr erfüllt werden.

Dabei bin ich davon überzeugt, dass Investments und Divestments durchaus reale Auswirkungen auf Unternehmen haben können, vor allem, wenn transparent über diese berichtet wird, so wie ich das hier mache (zum Thema Divestments siehe Impact divestment: Illiquidity hurts) und zum Thema „Additionalität“ von börsennotierten Investments siehe Who Clears the Market When Passive Investors Trade? von Marco Sammon und John J. Shim vom 15.April 2024).

Gute Portfoliodiversifikation

Terveystalo ist das einzige finnische Unternehmen im Fonds. Es gehört zwar dem Gesundheitssektor an, aber direkte Konkurrenten von Terveystalo sind nicht im Portfolio vertreten. Terveystalo hat zwar über fünfzehntausend Mitarbeiter, mit einer Marktkapitalisierung von etwas über einer Milliarde Euro gehört Terveystalo aber zu den kleinsten Unternehmen im Fonds und passt damit sehr gut in das internationale Small-Cap Ziel-Profil.

Seit der Aufnahme der Aktien in den Fonds hat diese ungefähr 18% an Wert gewonnen.

Weitere Informationen zum Fonds (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 28)

Insgesamt hat der von mir beratene Fonds seit der Auflage im August 2021 eine ähnliche Perfomance wie durchschnittliche globale Small- und Midcapfonds (vgl. z.B. Fonds-Portfolio: Mein Fonds | CAPinside und Globale Small-Caps: Faire Benchmark für meinen Artikel 9 Fonds?).

Ein Fondsinvestment war also bisher ein „Free Lunch“ in Bezug auf Nachhaltigkeit: Man erhält ein besonders konsequent nachhaltiges Portfolio mit markttypischen Renditen und Risiken (vgl. Free Lunch: Diversifikation nein, Nachhaltigkeit ja?).

Weitere Beiträge zum Fonds

My fund

Nachhaltiges Investmentbeispiel 1: Gesundheitspersonalservices (5-2024)

SDG-Investment 2: Handschuhe aus Australien (6-2024)

Impactbeispiel 3: Wassermessgeräte (6-2024)

Impactbeispiel 4: Schwedische Labortechnik (6-2024)

Impactfonds im Nachhaltigkeitsvergleich (6-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 5: US-Arzneimittelvertrieb (7-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 6: Hörimplantate aus Australien (8-2024)

3 Jahre nachhaltigster diversifizierter Fonds? (8-2024)

My shareholder engagement: Failures, successes and adaption (8-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 7: Chinesische Taxis? (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 8: Baskische Schienenfahrzeuge (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 9: Krebsbekämpfung aus Schweden (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 10: US-Krebsvorsorge und -Diagnose (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 11: Solartechnik aus den USA (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 12: Schweizer Apotheken (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 13: Fokus Grüner Star (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 14: US-Dentalvertrieb (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 15: Smart Grids aus der Schweiz) (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 16: Schweizer Orthopädie (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 17: Mettler Toledo (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 18: Nachhaltige Busse (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 19: Deutsche Gesundheits-Software (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 20: Deutsche Onshore-Windenergie (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 21: Medizingeräte aus Japan (11-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 22: US-Gesundheitsservices (11-2014)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 23 Pro Medicus (11-2014)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 24: Australischer Krankenhausbetreiber (11-2014)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 25: Biopharmatechnik (12-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 26: Erneuerbare Energie für Afrika (12-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 27: Laborservices aus Australien (12-2024)

Disclaimer (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 28)

Good green banking: Researchpost 206

Good green banking illustration by Joerg from Pixabay

Good green banking: 8+x new practical research on bad plastic credits, good green pledges, relative ESG investing, positive net zero banking, value creation intransparency, transition belief consequences, bio damage premium, many sustainability guides, and angel investor success factors (# shows SSRN full paper downloads as of Dec. 12^th, 2024. Low numbers indicate that few people have read that research)

Ecological and social research

No plastic credits? Unpacking plastic credits: Challenges to effective and just global plastics governance by Sangcheol Moon et al. as of Dec. 9^th, 2024 (#23): “Amid growing concerns over plastic pollution and ongoing efforts to develop a global plastics treaty, this paper critically examines plastic credits as a compensatory measure for addressing plastic pollution. Despite claims of being a novel financing and control measure, plastic credits mirror the shortcomings of carbon credits and fail to account for the material complexities and varied impacts of different types of plastics. If linked to public policy, plastic credits risk creating regulatory loopholes and delaying more effective measures like sector-specific plastic reduction. We argue that plastic credits do not represent an innovative approach to genuine plastic pollution reduction or its financing; instead, they could exacerbate fragmented plastics governance and reinforce legitimation of waste colonialism“ (p. 1).

ESG investment research (in: Good green banking)

Good pledges: Corporate Green Pledges by Michael Bauer, Daniel Huber, Eric Offner, Marlene Renkel, Ole Wilms as of Dec. 11^th, 2024 (#5): “We identify corporate commitments for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions—green pledges—from news articles using a large language model. About 8% of U.S. firms have made green pledges, and these companies tend to be larger and browner than those without pledges. Announcements of green pledges significantly and persistently raise stock prices, consistent with reductions in the carbon premium. Firms that make green pledges subsequently reduce their CO2 emissions“ (abstract). My comment: With my shareholder engagement I ask for disclose of broad GHG scope 3 emissions so that all stakeholders can require Scope 3 pledges by these companies, see Shareholder engagement: 21 science based theses and an action plan

Relative ESG: The Evolving attractiveness of relative ESG ratings to institutional investors by Christian Riis Flor and Mo Zhang as of Dec. 10^th, 2024 (#8): “We find that institutional investors significantly increase holdings in firms with below-average ESG performance when these firms make ESG improvements. Conversely, firms with already high ESG ratings attract less additional institutional investment, even with continued ESG advancements. … “ (p. 8). “Our findings indicate that only socially constrained institutions consistently prefer companies with high ESG performance. Meanwhile, sophisticated institutional investors, such as hedge funds, respond to ESG improvements only in firms with exceptionally high or low ESG grades. In contrast, less sophisticated investors, such as banks, are more likely to respond to ESG rating changes in firms with average ESG performance” (p. 3). My comment: I focus my limited capital on the already best ESG rated companies and make proposals how they can become even better with the hope, that companies which are not so well rated will (have to) follow the ESG leaders (see Shareholder engagement: 21 science based theses and an action plan).

SDG investment research

Good green banking: The Economics of Net Zero Banking by Adair Morse and Parinitha Sastry as of Dec. 5^th, 2024 (#36): “Banks have voluntarily committed to align their lending portfolios with a net zero path toward a decarbonized economy. In this review, we explore the economic channels for why portfolio decarbonization might be consistent with lender profit maximization. … We uncover multiple roles for risk arguments influencing decarbonization. Moreover, decarbonization and green investment are tied to enhanced profitability through bank lending growth. Yet, the literature has many dots yet to connect” (abstract).

Value disclosure deficits: Value creation reporting for sustainable development – a framework based on the current state of reporting by Patricia Ruffing-Straube and Saverio Olivito as of Dec. 5^th, 2024 (#36): “… assessing the impact of firms on people and planet proves difficult as combining the large amount of information provided in sustainability reports to a clear indication of impact is not a trivial exercise. … only 55% of Swiss firms report on sustainable value creation in 2022. The disclosures made on this topic are not easily comparable and mostly lack clear targets and in particular information on target achievement. … Euro Stoxx 50 firms … results are largely comparable. Based on our findings we propose a novel framework for the analysis of sustainable value creation reporting …” (p.26). My comment: I suggest to focus on SDG-aligned revenues, see SDG Revenue Alignment: Bringing Clarity to Impact Investing by Clarity AI

Important transition beliefs: Climate Transition Beliefs by Marco Ceccarelli and Stefano Ramelli as of May 6^th, 2024 (#494): “We provide survey evidence of considerable heterogeneity in investors’ expectations regarding the state of the energy transition by 2030, 2040, and 2050. These climate transition beliefs capture a dimension of human thinking different from environmental preferences or climate concerns. Investors with more optimistic transition beliefs associate green investments with higher returns and lower risk, and they are more likely to prefer a green over a conventional equity fund. The role of climate transition beliefs in green investing appears more important for investors without strong pro-environmental preferences” (p. 31).

Bio-damage premium? The World Market Price of Biodiversity Risk by William W. Xiong as of Dec. 10^th, 2024 (#22): I investigate whether biodiversity risks are priced in global stock markets by studying 21,248 publicly listed stocks across 117 countries from April 2016 to June 2023. “… I examine firm-level biodiversity risk exposures and show that they are positively associated with stock returns worldwide …. this study shows that firms involved in biodiversity incidents experience higher monthly stock returns in the month of incident(s), … notably in the US” (abstract).

Many sustainability guides: Alan S. Gutterman has published several detailed sustainability guides from 2021 until September 2024 e.g. with the following topics: Sustainability Standards and Instruments, Manufacturing, Product Development, Sales and Distribution, Fair Operating Practices, Sustainable Leadership, Sustainability and Organizational Culture, Strategic Planning for Sustainability, Stakeholder Relationships and Engagement, Financing the Business and Sustainable Finance and Impact Investment, Investing for Impact

Other investment research (in: Good green banking)

Angel success factors: Are Some Angels Better than Others? Johan Karlsen, Aksel Mjøs, Katja Kisseleva, and David T. Robinson as of July 10^th, 2024: “… data from Norwegian equity transaction records to measure the performance of angel investors … angel investors exhibit a form of performance persistence: Namely, the re turns on the previous angel investment and the success or failure of the last firm the angel invested in strongly predict the performance in the current investment and success or failure of the current firm. … Our evidence suggests that industry-specific knowledge mixed with deal-selection skill is important for explaining performance differences across angel investors. … We are the first to link the performance in angel investments to performance in other investments …” (p. 36/37).

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Werbung (in: Good green banking)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in den von mir beratenen globalen Small-/Mid-Cap-Investmentfonds (siehe FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R – DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T) investieren und/oder ihn empfehlen. Der Fonds konzentriert sich auf die UN-Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung mit durchschnittlich außerordentlich hohen 95% SDG-vereinbaren Umsätzen der Portfoliounternehmen und verwendet separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie Aktionärsengagement bei derzeit 26 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).