Archiv der Kategorie: Faktorinvesting

Analyst ESG power illustration from Pixabay by Mariana Vartaci

Analyst ESG power: Researchpost 222

Analyst ESG power: 12x new research on biodiversity, (un)green CEOs, climate FX, analyst ESG power, green institutions, dirty transition, climate controversies, experiments, risk parity, AI advisors, real estate token and simple language (# shows number of SSRN full document downloads as of April 17th, 2025)

Biodiversity dilemma: Biodiversity and Local Asset Values by Jess Cornaggia, Peter G. Iliev, Yu-Hsuan (Jennifer) Liang, and Qiang Wang as of April 14th, 2025 (#29): “House prices and agricultural land values increase with biodiversity loss at the property level, likely reflecting development-driven monetization. In contrast, at the county level, greater species richness correlates with higher asset values … the positive association between biodiversity loss and property value weakens over time, while the value premium for regional biodiversity strengthens. These findings indicate biodiversity is increasingly valued as natural capital in real estate markets …” (abstract).

ESG investment research

Green the CEOs: CEO Values and Corporate ESG Performance by Xiang Li, Onur Kemal Tosun, and Arman Eshraghi as of Dec. 6th, 2024 (#92): “We construct a novel CEO Values Index (henceforth, CVI) based on environmental, social, and governance values and behaviors displayed by CEOs …Examining a … dataset of S&P 500 CEO values, we document a positive and robust relationship between CVI and ESG performance, such that one standard-deviation increase in CVI is associated with 2.1% increase in corporate ESG score. The enhancement effect of CVI on corporate ESG is 1) long-lasting, 2) robust to shocks such as managerial turnover and Covid; 3) amplified (diminished) by extrovert (introvert) CEOs; 4) prone to political tendencies and amplified by Democratic-leaning CEOs; and 5) robust after various controls including greenwashing“ (abstract). My comment see Neues Research: Nachhaltigkeitsfokus auf grüne CEO? | CAPinside

Climate FX: Global Currency Risk and Corporate Carbon Emissions by Po-Hsuan Hsu, Yan Li, Mark P. Taylor, and Louis Zigan Wang as of April 10th, 2025 (#20): “… international sample of 2,159 GHG-reporting firms across 21 markets from 2003 to 2020. We first show that firms with higher FX risk (their exposures multiplied by FX volatility) release more GHG emissions in their own and upstream operations. This relation has a causal interpretation … FX risk also weakens corporate environmental performance” (abstract).

Analyst ESG power: Do manager care about analyst attention to ESG? by Kevin H. Kim as of April 15th, 2025 (#2): “This study examines the impact of analyst attention to ESG issues during earnings conference calls on firms’ future ESG incidents. Using a large language model fine-tuned for ESG contexts, we find that ESG attention is negatively associated with the number of future negative ESG incidents, suggesting that analyst attention to ESG encourages firms to mitigate potential ESG risks proactively. This effect is more pronounced when ESG attention conveys a negative tone. Moreover, when analysts focus on a specific ESG topic, firms are more likely to reduce incidents related to those particular topics. This relationship holds regardless of whether the ESG topic is classified as material or non-material under SASB materiality guidelines. We also provide evidence that ESG attention is negatively associated with both new types of ESG incidents and recurring incidents and a decrease in the severity level of future ESG incidents“ (abstract). My comment: This is an indicator that shareholder ESG engagement can be effective (for my engagement activities see FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R – DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T)

SDG investment research (in: Analyst ESG power)

Green institutions? Beyond Green Signaling: Are Institutional Investors Decarbonizing Their Portfolios? by Mohammad R. Allahdadi as of April 10th, 2025 (#8): “This study examines whether institutional investors decarbonize their U.S. equity portfolios after signing the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI). … The portfolio-level findings show that while PRI signatories maintain lower portfolio carbon footprints overall, the act of signing PRI does not lead to significant reductions in their carbon footprint over time. European investors’ portfolios even show potential increases in carbon footprint after signing. … PRI signatories classified as quasi-indexers demonstrate superior effectiveness in reducing firm-level emissions through their ownership positions” (abstract). My comment: The signing of UN PRI should not be used to indicate sustainable behavior (and thus not be considered very important for fund manager evaluations): Actions count

Dirty transition: Dirty Business: Transition Risk of Factor Portfolios by Ravi Jagannathan, Iwan Meier, and Valeri Sokolovski as of April 15th, 2025 (#85): “Between 2016 and 2023, the top 10% of carbon-emission-intensive firms (heavy emitters) accounted for over 90% of all Scope 1 emissions from U.S. public companies. We observe that about 35% of the market capitalization of ‘Value’ portfolios, compared to 5% of ‘Growth’ portfolios, regardless of how Value and Growth are defined, was comprised of heavy emitters. When we split the Big Value portfolio into heavy- and light-emitter stocks, we find that these two portfolios had similar realized (raw and risk-adjusted) returns and expected returns, as measured by Implied Cost of Capital, suggesting limited incremental compensation for transition risk. We also find that Big Growth low-emitter stocks consistently had lower expected returns than Big Value low emitter stocks, with the spread widening in recent years, despite similar emission levels“ (abstract). My comment: This clearly speaks for divestments from big emitters

Controversy costs: Real-Time Climate Controversy Detection by David Jaggi, Nicolas Jamet, Markus Leippold, and Tingyu Yu as of April 12th, 2025 (#142): “This study presents ClimateControversyBERT, a novel open-source language model for real time detection and classification of corporate climate controversies (i.e., brown projects, misinformation, ambiguous actions) from financial news. … the model effectively identifies inconsistencies between corporate climate commitments and actions as they emerge. We document significant negative market reactions to these controversies: firms experience an immediate average stock price drop of 0.68%, with further declines over subsequent weeks. The impact is intensified by high media visibility and is notably stronger for firms with existing emission reduction commitments“ (abstract). My comment: Investors should care about environmental controversies

Other investment research

Problematic experiments: Do experimental asset market results replicate? High-powered preregistered replications of 17 claims by Christoph Huber, Felix Holzmeister, Magnus Johannesson, Christian Konig-Kersting, Anna Dreber, Jurgen Huber, and Michael Kirchler as of Dec.13th, 2024 (#337): “Experimental asset markets provide a controlled approach to studying financial markets. We attempt to replicate 17 key results from four prominent studies, collecting new data from 166 markets with 1,544 participants. Only 3 of the 14 original results reported as statistically significant were successfully replicated, with an average replication effect size of 2.9% of the original estimates. We fail to replicate findings on emotions, self-control, and gender differences in bubble formation but confirm that experience reduces bubbles and cognitive skills explain trading success“ (abstract).

Risk parity risks: Risk Parity and its Discontents by Rodney N. Sullivan and Matthew Wey as of March 15th, 2025 (#115): “We use realized risk parity manager returns and a recreated risk parity portfolio beginning in 1951 and find that the risk parity asset allocation strategies underperform a 60/40 portfolio in both instances. Risk parity produces lower annualized returns and lower Sharpe and Sortino ratios than does a 60/40 portfolio. We also show that the starting level of bond yields – and not just the magnitude of bond yield changes – is important for understanding historical risk parity portfolio drawdowns. We show that a minor adjustment to the risk parity framework – by incorporating expected returns – can have material improvements to the resulting asset allocation outcomes” (abstract).

AI beats financial advisors: AI Appreciation and Financial Advice by Christoph Merkle as of April 15th, 2025 (#15): “… an aversion to artificial intelligence and lack of trust in recommendations generated by AI models could prove to be a major obstacle to their broad introduction. We test AI aversion in the context of financial advice in three incentivized experiments (N=1,176). Participants receive investment recommendations sourced either from ChatGPT or from a financial professional. The rate at which participants follow the recommendations and their satisfaction with the advice is consistently higher in the AI treatments. Observing intermediate investment outcomes weakens AI appreciation as outcomes distract from recommendation quality. Participants do not anticipate their AI appreciation, as a majority selects the financial professional in an experiment with free advisor choice. This suggests uncertainty surrounding AI capabilities, which is only resolved when seeing the actual recommendations” (abstract).

Real token: Market Maturation and Democratization Effects of Tokenized Real Estate Matthijs Bergkamp, Imtiaz Sifat, and Laurens Swinkels as of April 8th, 2025 (#47): “Using a comprehensive dataset of 455 tokenized properties worth $83 million over three years … We document three key findings. First, tokenization effectively reduces ownership concentration and increases participation with on average 573 unique holders per tokenized property. Second, we find strong evidence of increasing portfolio diversification. Third, market characteristics show convergence toward traditional real estate fundamentals: monthly turnover has decreased, while price movements demonstrate negative correlation with cryptocurrency markets. These findings suggest that blockchain technology can successfully democratize real estate investment while preserving the asset class’s fundamental characteristics” (abstract).

Better simple: No Matter Your Financial Literacy: Simplicity Wins When Choosing a Fund by Zihan Gong and Sebastian Müller as of January 9th, 2025 (#53): “This study assesses the impact of GPT-4-generated fund prospectus summaries … The findings reveal that easy-to-understand summaries significantly enhance text accessibility by approximately 13% and investment willing ness by 8%. … The study also finds that individuals’ self assessed financial competence plays a more crucial role than their actual literacy in interacting with financial information and making investment decisions” (abstract).

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

Werbung (in: Analyst ESG power)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in den von mir beratenen globalen Small-/Mid-Cap-Investmentfonds (siehe FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R) investieren und/oder ihn empfehlen.

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 (siehe auch My fund).

Zum Vergleich: Ein traditioneller globaler Small-Cap-ETF hat eine SDG-Umsatzvereinbarkeit von 5 %, ein diversifizierter Gesundheits-ETF 13 %, Artikel 9 Fonds 21%, liquide Impactfonds 39% und ein ETF für erneuerbare Energien 42 % (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 illustration from Pixabay by Tumisu

Say on pay shareholder voting problems: Researchpost 219

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

Hate signals: The Cost of Tolerating Intolerance: Right-wing Protest and Hate Crimes by Sulin Sardoschau and Annalí Casanueva-Artís as of Mach 20th, 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. 20th, 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. 28th,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 7th, 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 6th, 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)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in den von mir beratenen globalen Small-/Mid-Cap-Investmentfonds (siehe FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R) investieren und/oder ihn empfehlen.

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 derzeit 28 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).

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!).

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.

Illustration ESG-DNA from Pixabay by Elias Schaeferle

ESG-DNA: Researchpost 214

ESG-DNA: 11x new research on digital aid, cheap housing, ESG-DNA, climate returns, climate education, greenwashing, ESG scores, brown loans, alpha illusion, skew return, hedgefund illusion (# shows the number of SSRN full paper downloads as of Feb. 20th, 2025)

Social and ecological research

Effective digital aid: Can Digital Aid Deliver During Humanitarian Crises? By Michael Callen, Miguel Fajardo-Steinhäuser, Michael Findley, and Tarek Ghani as of January 31st, 2025 (#26): “… partnering directly with governments is often neither feasible nor desirable … We experimentally evaluated digital payments to extremely poor, female-headed households in Afghanistan, as part of a partnership between community, nonprofit, and private organizations. The payments led to substantial improvements in food security and mental well-being. Despite beneficiaries’ limited tech literacy, 99.75% used the payments, and stringent checks revealed no evidence of diversion. … Delivery costs are under 7 cents per dollar, which is 10 cents per dollar less than the World Food Programme’s global figure for cash-based transfers. These savings can help reduce hunger without additional resources …” (abstract).

Profitable cheap housing: An Alpha in Affordable Housing? by Sven Damen, Matthijs Korevaar, and Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh as of Jan. 31st, 2025 (#175): “Residential properties with the lowest rent levels provide the highest investment returns to their owners. Using detailed rent, cost, and price data from the United States, Belgium, and The Netherlands, we show that this phenomenon holds across housing markets and time. If anything, low-rent units hedge business cycle risk. We also find no evidence for differential regulatory risk exposure. We document segmentation of investors, with large corporate landlords shying away from the low-tier segment possibly for reputational reasons. Financial constraints prevent renters from purchasing their property and medium-sized landlords from scaling up, sustaining excess risk-adjusted returns. Low-income tenants ultimately pay the price for this segmentation in the form of a high rent burden”. My comment:  Highly regulated and transparent residential affordable housing REITs with high new building activities could be attractive for investors and hopefully low-income tenants as well.

ESG investment research (in: ESG-DNA)

Little ESG-DNA? Responsible Investment Funds and their Management Companies’ Emphasis on ESG Performance: First Priority or Icing on the Cake? by Huiqiong Tang, Bart Frijns, Aaron Gilbert, and Ayesha Scott as of Sept. 29th, 2024 (#37): “… Using a comprehensive dataset of US domestic equity Responsible Investment Funds (RIFs) over the period 2005 to 2020, we find that improvements in fund-level ESG scores is … promptly sacrificed if the fund suffers outflows. We also find that RIFs managed by FMCs with either the lowest (≤20%) or the highest (>80%) ESG exposure levels are more likely to put extra effort toward enhancing funds’ ESG scores. Additionally, we observe that investors who choose FMCs with the highest ESG exposure level are less sensitive to financial returns when considering ESG performance” (abstract). My comment: My analysis of thousands of mutual funds show that my fund has one of the highest ESG-scores in addition to the highest SDG-aligned revenues based on Clarity.ai data from January 2025 (see SDG-Umsätze: Die wichtigste Nachhaltigkeitskennzahl – Responsible Investment Research Blog)

Climate risk returns: Do investors price physical climate risk? An analysis of weather-related power outages across the United States by Mert Demir, Cem O. Karatas, and Terrence F. Martell as of Feb. 13th, 2025 (#30): “…public attention to climate change in creases significantly after weather-related power outages, and this heightened awareness is mirrored by investors, as these risks are considered material and reflected in stock returns. Specifically, our findings show that firms in states with greater exposure to physical climate risks experience higher stock returns … We also show that the impact of physical climate risk on stock returns can be mitigated through proactive climate risk assessment models and effective response strategies. … We also observe a higher return premium compensating investors for the physical climate risk in states where climate change may be perceived as a lower priority on the agenda“ (p. 41/42).

Climate-education deficit: The Role of Information Provision for Sustainable Investing by Jennifer Brunne as of Oct. 2nd, 2024 (#30): “In a sequential discrete choice experiment, potential investors need to decide between a sustainable and unsustainable investment with either low, medium or high returns. Individuals … receive either additional unspecific or specific information on the climate consequences of investment decisions. … The main study was conducted for a representative US sample …” (N=1003; abstract). “… The results suggest that specific information exerts a bigger impact on the investment decision, especially when provided in webpage or text format with the latter requiring some initiative to gather information. … the impact is larger the higher climate values and climate concerns. Providing accompanying information to those already interested in sustainable investment might thus be most effective in achieving climate policy goals via an increased demand for sustainable investments” (p. 38/39). My comment: I provide detailed information with my monthly reports see FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals

Greenwashing damages: When green turns red: Is the perception of greenwashing a barrier to individual green investment? By Syrine Gacem, Fabrice Hervé, and Sylvain Marsat as of Feb. 14th, 2025 (#14): “… Based on a survey of 2,215 French investors … Our findings reveal that greenwashing perception acts as a significant barrier to green investing, discouraging conventional investors from considering green funds as attractive options, and dissuading existing green investors from increasing their green investments. … we also find an asymmetrical effect … whereas low perceptions have no positive impact“ (abstract).

ESG score differences: Do ESG Scores Explain ESG Controversies? By Robert Stewart as of Feb. 19th, 2025 (#6): “… The study uses ESG ratings from Bloomberg, Refinitiv, and Sustainalytics, and ESG controversy scores from Refinitiv and Sustainalytics on a sample of S&P 500 companies between 2018 and 2022. Sustainalytics’ ESG scores demonstrate consistent statistical significance in explaining ESG controversies while Bloomberg’s and Refinitiv’s ESG scores show weak explanatory power with some unintuitive association. The ESG methodology of the three raters are examined to determine potential sources of the differences in efficacy with the intent that ESG ratings that better explain ESG controversies may be used to inform better ESG rating design“ (abstract). … “Sustainalytics measures a risk score (unmanaged ESG risk) while Bloomberg and Refintiv measure a more generalized metric. Bloomberg’s ESG scores measure ESG management, and Refinitiv’s ESG scores measure ESG performance, commitment, and effectiveness” (p. 21).

SDG investment research

Hot loans: Financing the Transition? Taking the Temperature of European Banks’ Corporate Loan Books from the European Banking Authority by Raffaele Passaro, Benno Schumacher, Jacopo Pellegrino, Hannah Helmke and Elnaz Roshan as of Dec. 2nd, 2024 (#48): “… the average implied temperature rise of banks’ (non-SME) corporate loan portfolios ranges between 3.7°C and 4.1°C …. While we observe some heterogeneity across banks, none of them is on a pathway compatible with the agreed target. Additionally, we show that the implied temperature rise as per our methodology can also serve as proxy for transition risk, thereby combining the twofold objective from a double materiality perspective in a single metric” (abstract). My comment: I do not invest in bank stocks, my only direct financial services investment is HASI. My more detailed comment see Neues Research: Banken mit sehr hohen Klimarisiken | CAPinside

Other investment research (in: ESG-DNA)

Alpha-illusion? Out-of-Sample Alphas Post-Publication by Andrei S. Gocalves, Johnathan A. Loudis, and Richard E. Ogden as of Feb. 12th, 2025 (#141): “Anomaly strategies generate positive and significant CAPM alphas post-publication. Existing explanations include non-market risks, trading costs, and investment frictions. This paper introduces a complementary and novel channel: when a new anomaly strategy is published, investors face uncertainty in identifying the optimal weight to allocate to the anomaly in order to achieve a positive alpha post-publication, making the strategy less appealing. Empirically, we find that the average post-publication alpha of anomaly strategies is close to zero when optimal weights are estimated out-of-sample using pre-publication data. … Conceptually, this suggests investors have little incentive to add a new anomaly strategy to their portfolios.” (abstract).

Skew return: A Skew is a Skill: Portfolio Skewness of Mutual Fund Holdings by Jo Drienko, Chao Gao, and Yifei Liu as of Sept.28th, 2024 (#268): “The return cross-section of a mutual fund’s portfolio holdings is positively skewed on average. At the fund level, portfolio skewness varies substantially across funds yet is highly persistent over time. We show that actively managed mutual funds with high portfolio skewness outperform funds with low portfolio skewness by 2.88% ($7.35 million) on an annualized basis. This association becomes stronger amid more investment opportunities in the market. Further stock-level analyses reveal that shares added or tilted to by high skewness funds relative to low skewness funds significantly outperform their counterparts, pointing to stock selection skill as an explanation for both the portfolio skewness and its predictability of fund performance” (abstract).

Hedgefund underperformance: Active versus passive investment strategy and market outperformance: Are hedge funds overrated? by Julius Felix Thomas Pauli and Agnieszka Gehringer as of Feb. 11th, 2025 (#48): “Our results show evidence of a missing outperformance of the analyzed sample of over 3,000 hedge funds. Accordingly, and given the low observed market risk coefficient of these funds, their primary use should be to optimize the risk-return structure of a portfolio rather than relying on their individual returns”. My comment: The article argues in favor of funds of hedge fund investments without sufficiently addressing the volatility smoothing and significant direct and indirect costs and illiquidity risks.

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

Werbung (in: ESG-DNA)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in den von mir beratenen globalen Small-/Mid-Cap-Investmentfonds (siehe FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R) investieren und/oder ihn empfehlen.

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 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%.

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?).

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.

Return on sustainability illustration from Pixabay by mageephoto

Return on sustainability: Researchpost 210

Return on sustainability:14x new research on decarbon-now, biodiversity-climate interaction, green investment gap, regulation benefits, ESG literature overview, ESG disclosure effects, confusing supplier ESG, climate bond potential, water costs, return on sustainability, low-beta outperformance, active ETF benefits, trend-following and investment AI problems (#shows the number of SSRN full paper downloads as of Jan. 23rd, 2025: A low number shows a high news-potential).

Social and ecological research

Decarbon-now: Climate Transition: Why Decarbonize Now Not Later? A Literature Review from An Asset Owner Perspective by Wendy Fang, Skye King, Michael Mi, Mohamed Noureldin, Ben Squires, Eliza Wu, and Jing Yu as of Jan. 9th, 2025 (#39): “… Integrating insights from climate science, economics, and finance, we present three key angles: (1) Scientific evidence demands urgent action to avert irreversible damage from exceeding 1.5◦C global warming. (2) Economic models may underestimate climate impacts by not fully accounting for systemic shocks, nonlinearities, and tipping points. (3) Asset pricing theory predicts a higher carbon premium (higher cost of capital for high-climate-risk assets), yet empirical evidence shows that green assets outperform brown counterparts, especially in recent years. We reconcile this debate by arguing that markets have not fully priced in climate risks; investors’ underestimation of the urgency and magnitude of damage leads to complacency and inaction, exacerbating irreversible physical risks in a feedback loop. Thus, expecting a carbon premium is unwarranted until equilibrium is reached …“ (abstract).

Intertwined risks: Nature Loss and Climate Change: The Twin-Crises Multiplier by Stefano Giglio, Theresa Kuchler, Johannes Stroebel, Olivier Wang as of Jan. 2025: “We study the economic effects of the interaction of nature loss and climate change in a model that incorporates important aspects of both processes. We capture the distinct ways in which they affect economic activity—with nature constituting a key factor of production and climate change destroying parts of output—but also the ways in which they interact: climate change causes nature loss, and nature provides both a carbon sink and adaptation tools to reduce climate damages. Our analysis of these feedback loops reveals a novel amplification channel—the Twin-Crises Multiplier—that systematically affects optimal climate and nature conservation policies” (abstract).

Green investment gap: Investing in Europe’s green future – Green investment needs, outlook and obstacles to funding the gap by Carolin Nerlich and many more from the European Central Bank as of Jan. 10th, 2025 (#59): “The green transition of the EU economy will require substantial investment to 2030 and beyond. Estimates … all point to a requirement for faster and more ambitious action. Green investment will need to be financed primarily by the private sector. … capital markets need to deepen further, especially to support innovation financing. Progress on the capital markets union would support the green transition. Public funds will be vital to complement and de-risk private green investment. Structural reforms and enhanced business conditions should be tailored to encourage firms, households and investors to step up their green investment activities” (abstract).

Regulation benefits: More Constraints, More Consensus? How Regulation Shapes Investor Information Asymmetry by John M. Barrios, Zachary R. Kaplan, and Yongzhao Vincent Lin as of Nov. 23rd, 2024 (#144): “We examine the relation between product market regulation (PMR) and information asymmetry among investors. … greater PMR significantly reduces bid-ask spreads and insider trading. This reduction in information asymmetry is driven by decreased operating profit volatility, which lowers uncertainty about firm operations. However, the impact of PMR diminishes when government commitment to regulation is weak, particularly during periods of elevated economic policy uncertainty or among politically active firms capable of strategically influencing regulation …” (abstract).

ESG investment research (in: Return on sustainability)

ESG overview: A Review on ESG Investing by Javier Vidal-García and Marta Vidal as of Jan. 11th, 2025 (#86): “The overall results show significant heterogeneity, evidencing three predominant positions: some research suggests that ESG investments outperform conventional ones, others indicate a lower performance for ESG, implying a premium paid for sustainability criteria, and a third position indicates an equivalence in performance between the two. These discrepancies are attributed to the period analyzed, the sample, the statistical methodology, the culture and the ESG rating provider” (p. 25/26). My comment: If the performance is similar, why invest traditionally instead of sustainably?

ESG disclosure effects: Profit or Planet? Both! ESG Drivers of Efficient Portfolios and the Costs of Disclosure by Nico Rosamilia as of Jan. 2nd, 2025 (#13): “This study integrates the ESG variables in the five-factor asset pricing model by Fama and French and a model-free methodology represented by machine learning. The markets‘ main focus for the governance pillar relates to board characteristics and functions. The social pillar shows the significance of employee-related issues, while greenhouse emissions for the environmental pillar. The machine learning results provide the main drivers yielding the excess returns of the best sustainable portfolios. Finally, we test the ESG prediction power of fundamentals and find that ESG disclosure diverts company resources toward long-term sustainable investment over investment for profitability in the short term“ (abstract).

Confusing supplier ESG? ESG Alignment and Supply Chain Dynamics: Evidence from U.S. Customer-Supplier Relationships by Stefan Hirth and Sai Palepu as of Jan. 15th, 2025 (#21): “We study the role of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) alignment in shaping customer-supplier relationships within U.S. supply chains. … we find that major customers significantly influence supplier ESG performance, with a 6.9% increase linked to one unit increase in the major customer ESG scores. Positive ESG divergence, where a supplier outperforms its major customer, increases the likelihood of relationship termination by 18.1% …. Replacement suppliers generally exhibit higher ESG ratings than their predecessors …” (abstract). My comment: The “positive ESG divergence” confuses me, because I don’t expect suppliers to stop selling to lower-ESG customers and neither I expect customers stop buying from higher-ESG suppliers. My supplier activities see Supplier engagement – Opinion post #211 – Responsible Investment Research Blog

SDG investment research

Climate bond potential: Climate-linked bonds by Dirk Broeders, Daniel Dimitrov, and Niek Verhoeven from the European Central Bank as of Jan. 10th, 2025 (#68): “Climate-linked bonds, issued by governments and supranational organizations, are pivotal in advancing towards a net-zero economy. These bonds adjust their payoffs based on climate variables such as average temperature and greenhouse gas emissions, providing investors a hedge against long-term climate risks. … The price differential between climate-linked bonds and nominal bonds reflects market expectations of climate risks. This paper introduces a model of climate risk hedging and estimates that approximately three percent of government debt in major economies could be converted into climate-linked bonds” (abstract).

Water opportunity costs: The Pricing of Water Usage by Adrian Fernandez-Perez, Ivan Indriawan and Yiuman Tse as of Jan. 14th, 2025 (#61) “…we examine the relationship between firms’ water usage and stock returns. Our analysis shows a negative relationship between water usage and excess returns, with high-water-usage firms generating lower returns compared to their industry peers. This effect is stronger in high-water-consumption sectors like mining and manufacturing. We also find a positive link between water usage and operating costs …” (abstract).

Return on sustainability: The Sustainability Dividend: A Primer on Sustainability ROI by Matteo Tonello as of January 4th,2025: “… companies face growing pressure to determine the return on investment (ROI) of their sustainability efforts, a critical factor in gaining stakeholder trust and ensuring long-term success. This report highlights insights from a series of Member roundtables and polls, discusses the current state of sustainability ROI, and provides guidance for companies to get started. … Few companies are capitalizing on the power of authentic and transparent sustainability communication to showcase their sustainability results and gain internal and stakeholder support for sustainability“ (p. 2).

Other investment research (in: Return on sustainability)

Low-beta outperformance? Persistence in Alphas without Persistence in Skill by Sina Ehsani and Juhani Linnainmaa as of Jan. 8th, 2025 (#33): “The persistence of mutual fund alphas is often viewed as evidence that some funds possess skill and that this skill persists. … high-alpha funds are predominantly low-beta funds and vice versa. Thus, a strategy of investing in high-alpha funds benefits not from skill, but from a betting-against-multiple-betas effect …” (abstract).

Active ETF (AETF) benefits: ETFs as a disciplinary device by Yuet Chau, Karamfil Todorov and Eyub Yegen as of Jan. 6th, 2025 (#126): “… Unlike mutual fund shares, ETF shares can be shorted, which enables investors to bet against manager performance. We show that AETFs exhibit over five times greater flow-performance sensitivity than mutual funds, indicating that AETF managers face harsher penalties for poor performance. When an underperforming manager joins an AETF, investors respond by shorting more shares of the fund. Consequently, this manager is more likely to exit the fund management industry, thereby enhancing overall sector efficiency and allowing more high-performing managers to remain. Moreover, the stocks held within AETFs exhibit improved price informativeness. We also find that AETF managers outperform both mutual fund and passive fund managers” (abstract).

 Sensible trend-following: Can the variability of trend-following signals add value? By Philippe Declerck and Thomas Vy as of Dec. 6th,2024 (#67): “We document that there is information in the variability of binary signals used to build a cross-asset trend-following strategy. This information may help building trend-following strategies with slightly higher Sharpe ratios. This added value may come with higher maximum drawdown to vol ratios for short lookback periods (up to one month), while the longest period tested (2.5 months) lead to a reduction of both ratios. The optimal results are obtained for observation periods of 1 to 2 months” (abstract). My comment: Since quite some time, I use 40-day averages for risk-signals if clients want to have risk-managed portfolios.

AI model overload: Design choices, machine learning, and the cross-section of stock returns by Minghui Chen, Matthias X. Hanauer and Tobias Kalsbach as of Dec. 2nd, 2024 (#3367): “We fit over one thousand machine learning models for predicting stock returns, systematically varying design choices across algorithm, target variable, feature se lection, and training methodology. … we observe a substantial variation in model performance, with monthly mean top-minus-bottom returns ranging from 0.13% to 1.98%. These findings underscore the critical impact of design choices on machine learning predictions, and we offer recommendations for model design. Finally, we identify the conditions under which non-linear models outperform linear models“ (abstract).

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

Werbung (in: Return on sustainability)

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 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 5%, für einen Gesundheits-ETF beträgt diese 1% und für einen ETF für erneuerbare Energien 44%.

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?).

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

Green impact greenwashing illustration

Green impact? Researchpost 205

Green impact: 9x new research on the end of oil, biodiversity stress and neighbor risks, high greenwashing costs, bad climate solution returns, green patent disappointments, venture impact and there is no passive investing (# shows the number of SSRN full paper downloads as of Dec. 5th, 2024)

Nachhaltigkeits- und Investmentforschung aus Impact Investing Insights 2024 von Dirk Söhnholz vom 3. Dezember 2024: „In diesem Beitrag geht es vor allem um die Frage, wie man neue wissenschaftliche Forschung findet, die für die eigene Geldanlage relevant sein kann. Der Fokus liegt dabei auf nachhaltigkeitsbezogenem Research … wer sich nicht auf meine (Sö: Research-=Posts verlassen möchte, kann mit Hilfe dieses Beitrags selbst für sich relevante wissenschaftlich Forschung finden. Damit gibt es keine guten Ausreden mehr, wissenschaftliches Research zu vernachlässigen“ (S. 12/13).

Social and Ecological Research

Winning green paradox? The End of Oil by Ryan Kellogg as of Dec. 2nd, 2024 (#12): “It is now plausible to envision scenarios in which global demand for crude oil falls to essentially zero by the end of this century, driven by improvements in clean energy technologies, adoption of stringent climate policies, or both. This paper asks what such a demand decline, when anticipated, might mean for global oil supply. One possibility is the well-known “green paradox”: because oil is an exhaustible resource, producers may accelerate near-term extraction in order to beat the demand decline. This reaction would increase near-term CO2 emissions and could possibly even lead the total present value of climate damages to be greater than if demand had not declined at all. However, because oil extraction requires potentially long-lived investments in wells and other infrastructure, the opposite may occur: an anticipated demand decline reduces producers‘ investment rates, decreasing near-term oil production and CO2 emissions. … I develop a tractable model of global oil supply that incorporates both effects … I find that for model inputs with the strongest empirical support, the disinvestment effect outweighs the traditional green paradox. In order for anticipation effects on net to substantially increase cumulative global oil extraction, I find that industry investments must have short time horizons, and that producers must have discount rates that are comparable to U.S. treasury bill rates” (abstract).

ESG investment research (in: Green impact)

Low biodiversity risk? A Biodiversity Stress Test of the Financial System by Sophia Arlt, Tobias Berg, Xander Hut and Daniel Streitz as of Dec. 3rd, 2024 (#25): “Our study provides a comprehensive assessment of the European financial system’s exposure to biodiversity-related transition risk, alongside a comparative analysis with climate-related transition risk. … we find that while a non-negligible share of bank credit is linked to industries exposed to biodiversity transition risk (approximately 15% of total credit to non-financial firms), the overall financial system impact appears moderate. The bottom-up stress test indicates that even under severe stress scenarios, the additional losses from biodiversity risks are estimated at only 0.3 to 0.5% of the total non-financial corporate loan portfolio. … the capital shortfall associated with a severe shock to the biodiversity risk factor would only amount to about 0.5% of banks’ market capitalization“ (p. 23).

High biodiversity risk? Double Materiality of Biodiversity-related Risks: From Direct to Supply Chain Portfolio Assessment by Anthony Schrapffer, Jaime Andres Riano Sanchez,  and Julia Bres as of Dec. 3rd, 2024 (#32):“42.7% (resp. 31.4%) of a portfolio based on the Stoxx 600 has a strong or very strong direct (resp. indirect) dependency on biodiversity and that 59.9% (resp. 44.64%) has a strong or very strong direct (resp. indirect) impact on biodiversity. … The integrated oil and gas, clothing and electricity sectors are particularly sensitive as they have both a very high dependency and a very high negative impact on biodiversity“ (abstract).

Dangerous neighbors? Proximity Peril: The Effects of Neighboring Firms’ Biodiversity Risk on Firm Value by Chenhao Guo and Rui Zhong as of Nov. 13th, 2024 (#56): “Since geographically proximate firms operate in local biosphere and rely on common ecosystem services, a focal firm value might be affected by proximate firms’ biodiversity risk. … We find that one standard-deviation increase in neighboring firm’s biodiversity risk measure is associated with about 3.78% decline in the corresponding focal firm’s value on average. Using the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010 as an exogenous shock, we establish a causal relationship. … we find that proximate firm’s biodiversity risk leads to significant declines in sector-wide and long-run value components. Further analysis shows that the negative effects are more pronounced in industries with high biodiversity risk or when firms are connected through supply chains …” (abstract).

High cleanwashing costs: Greenwashing: Measurement and Implications by Qiyang He, Ben R. Marshall, Justin Hung Nguyen, Nhut H. Nguyen, Buhui Qiu, and Nuttawat Visaltanachoti as of Dec. 3rd, 2024 (#102): “This study employs earnings conference call transcripts and a specialized machine learning model, FinBERT, to measure greenwashing intensity for a broad sample of U.S. public-listed firms spanning the 2007-2021 sample period. … First, we observe that the economy-wide aggregate GW measure markedly increased after the 2015 Paris Agreement. Second, we find that the utility industry has the highest level of GW intensity among all industries. Third, we … find that relative to other firms, firms in the fossil fuel industry or the broader stranded asset industries, experienced a significant increase in greenwashing intensity after the Paris Agreement. Fourth, we find that firms with higher greenwashing intensity incur a greater amount of future environmental incidents, experience a higher amount of future EPA enforcement actions, and have higher future carbon emissions. Fifth, despite their higher likelihood of experiencing future environmental incidents and EPA enforcement, we find no evidence that GW firms produce more green innovation than other firms. … Our findings indicate that GW is associated with lower cumulative abnormal stock returns after earnings conference calls and predicts poorer future corporate operating performance. … we … document that firms with greater GW intensity tend to receive higher future environmental ratings from different rating companies. … after the Paris Accord, there is a positive relation between GW and top executives’ future job security. … greenwashing firms are more likely to link their CEO pay with corporate environmental performance in their compensation contracts. These findings suggest an agency explanation for greenwashing: managers engage in greenwashing to increase their job security and compensation, at the expense of shareholders and other stakeholders“ (p. 37/38). My comment: With my focus on high SDG-aligned revenues, high best-in-class instead of best-in-universe E, S an G Scores and my engagement focus on the CEO to average employee pay ration instead of the introduction of ESG-linked compensation I think that I am rather well protected against greenwashing of my portfolio companies.

SDG investment research

Climate hedges: Climate Solutions, Transition Risk, and Stock Returns by Shirley Lu, Edward J. Riedl, Simon Xu, and George Serafeim as of Nov. 21st, 2024 (#112): “A long-short portfolio constructed from firms with high versus low climate solutions within an industry group generates an average excess return of-5.37% per year from 2005 to 2023” (p. 34). … “… we find that high-climate solution firms exhibit lower stock returns and higher market valuation multiples. Their stock prices respond positively to events signaling increased demand for climate solutions. These firms also show higher future profitability during periods of regulatory uncertainty, unexpected increases in climate concerns, and when a larger share of their sales occurs in states with climate plans and stronger public support for addressing climate change. Overall, our results indicate that high-climate solution firms, whose business benefits as climate transition risks materialize, hedge investors against such risks”. My comment: Maybe it is good, that most investors cannot go short climate stocks. And remember: Past returns may not be a good indicator of future returns. My experience with climate-solution investments is rather positive.

No patent green impact? Green Innovations – Do patents pay off for the environment or for the investors? by Malte Schlosser, Ester Trutwin and Thorsten Hens as of Feb. 28th, 2024 (#271): “An examination of WIPO (Sö: World Intellectual Property Organization) patent data in conjunction with MSCI data reveals that companies with relatively more new green patents are those with less carbon emissions … Our analysis indicates that the firm’s green patent ratio does not contribute to an improved ESG score. However, we find evidence that the number of green patents within the last 240 months results in a better E, and industry adjusted ESG score. … While all patent strategies are underperforming the market, they tend to outperform or produce similar returns compared to the environmental and ESG strategies“ (p. 24/25).

Venture capital green impact? Impact Investment Funds by Alan S. Gutterman as of Sept. 16th, 2024 (#37): “This Work begins with an overview of the “impact startup” financial market .. The Work then dives into the practical “nuts and bolts” of practicing impact venture capital including the structure of impact investment funds and the steps that fund managers need to take to effectively “organize for impact” and the fundraising process for capitalizing the fund including due diligence, preparation and use of offering documents and negotiation of terms of the fund’s limited partnership or operating agreement. … The Work closes with a review of some of the challenges that must be overcome for the impact venture capital sector to fulfill its promise as important contributor to developing and implementing innovative and financially viable solutions to achieve society’s aspirations for sustainable development and progress” (p. 1).

Other investment research (in: Green impact)

No passive investing? Casting a Wide Net: Why True Passive Strategies Are Rare Catches by Alejandro Gaba, Jennifer Bender, Yvette Murphy, and John Tucker State Street Global Advisors from State Street Global Advisors as of Sept. 23rd, 2024 (#67): “With the rapid expansion of index funds, including smart beta and factor portfolios, what is active versus what is passive has become difficult to discern. Here we argue that only the theoretical market portfolio is “purely” passive and in practice only index portfolios that track broad market cap weighted indices (“passive-adjacent”) can be viewed as passive investing. Everything else is active. However, everything that is active lies on a spectrum and can be evaluated based on a framework we call “Conceptual Activeness.” We discuss three key parts of Conceptual Activeness – Simplicity, Transparency, and Acceptance …”. My comment: I miss a discussion of Multi-Asset Portfolios which are even less passive than equity portfolios, see Multi-Asset Benchmarks: Gibts nicht, will keiner. Oder doch? – Responsible Investment Research Blog. All my portfolios are rather simple, transparent but – unfortunately – not widely accepted (see Das-Soehnholz-ESG-und-SDG-Portfoliobuch.pdf).

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

Werbung (in: Green impact)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in den von mir beratenen globalen Small-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 29 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).

Sustainability deficit illustration: Painter by Alexas Fotos from Pixabay

Sustainability deficits: Researchpost 188

Sustainability deficits: 11x new research on green jobs, carbon prices, GHG reporting, accountants, ESG disclosures, institutional ESG, Governance returns, kid investments, ETF liquidity, loss aversion and customized investments (# shows SSRN full paper downloads as of August 8th, 2024)

Social and ecological research

Good green job effects: The Green Future: Labor Market Implications for Men and Women by Naomi-Rose Alexander, Longji Li, Jorge Mondragon, Sahar Priano, and Marina M. Tavares from the International Monetary Fund as of July 25th, 2024 (#15): “In AEs (Sö: Advanced economies), green jobs are predominantly found among high-skilled workers and cognitive occupations, whereas in EMs, many green jobs are manual positions within the construction sector …. green jobs are disproportionately held by men in both AEs and Ems … Additionally, we observe a green wage premium and narrower gender pay gaps in green jobs … many green jobs are well-positioned to harness the benefits of AI advancements … green jobs with a greater capacity to leverage AI exhibit a reduced gender pay gap” (p. 40/41).

Sustainability deficits (1): Negative carbon price effects: Firms’ heterogeneous (and unintended) investment response to carbon price increases by Anna Matzner and Lea Steininger as of July 29th, 2024 (#13): “Using balance sheet data of 1.2 million European firms and identified carbon policy shocks, we find that higher carbon prices reduce investment, on average. However, less carbon-intensive firms and sectors reduce their investment relatively more compared to otherwise similar firms after a carbon price tightening shock. Following carbon price tightening, firms in demand-sensitive industries see a relative decrease not only in investment but also in sales, employment and cashflow. Moreover, we find no evidence that higher carbon prices incentivise carbon-intensive firms to produce less emission-intensively. Overall, our results are consistent with theories of the growth-hampering features of carbon price increases and suggest that carbon pricing policy operates as a demand shock“ (abstract).

Sustianbility deficits (2): Corporate carbon deficits: The MSCI Sustainability Institute Net-Zero Tracker from the MSCI Sustainability Institute as of July 2024: “A series of indicators that investors use to guide transition finance … suggest that the world’s listed companies remain largely misaligned with global climate goals … Just over one-fifth (22%) of listed companies have set a decarbonization target that aims to reduce their financially relevant GHG emissions to net-zero by 2050 in line with a science-based pathway, as of May 31, 2024, an increase of eight percentage points from a year earlier … 38% of companies disclosed at least some of their upstream Scope 3 emissions, up eight percentage points from a year earlier, while 28% disclosed at least some of their downstream Scope 3 emissions, up seven percentage points over the same period” (p. 4). My comment: I ask every company within my fund to fully disclose GHG Scope 3 data so that all stakeholders can engage regarding these data.

Sustainability deficits (3): Accountant ESG deficits: ESG Assurance and Comparability of Greenhouse Gas Emission Disclosures by Jenna Burke, Jiali Luo, Zvi Singer, and Jing Zhang as of Aug. 7th, 2024 (#7): “… a recent rule from the SEC mandates expanded ESG disclosure, including external assurance of reported greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. …. we … find that companies with ESG assurance report more comparable GHG emissions. Comparability is further enhanced when companies use the same assurance provider and when the provider is more experienced. We also find some evidence that comparability is higher when assurance is provided by consulting and engineering firms than by accounting firms“ (abstract).

ESG investment research (in: Sustainability deficits)

Sustainability deficits (4): No ESG disclosure benefits? Does mandating corporate social and environmental disclosure improve social and environmental performance?: Broad-based evidence regarding the effectiveness of Directive 2014/95/EU by Charl de Villiers, John Dumay, Federica Farneti, Jing Jia, and Zhongtian Li as of July 11th, 2024 (#33): “The Directive …requires companies that are (i) listed on EU exchanges or have significant operations within the EU; (ii) employing more than 500 people; or (iii) deemed to be public-interest entities; to report their performance on non-financial matters, including environmental issues, social and employee matters, human rights, anti-corruption, and bribery” (p. 1). … “Analysing a cross-country sample from 2009-2020, we find that social and environmental performance has not meaningfully improved since the Directive was enacted, and instead of EU companies increasing their performance more than US companies, there was either no difference (for social performance) or US companies improved more than EU companies (for environmental performance). Thus, the results suggest that the Directive did not have the intended impact on the social and environmental performance of EU companies “ (p. 19). My comment: Is more regulatory pressure required or more stakeholder engagement or both?

Sustainability deficits (5): Institutional ESG deficits: Comparisons of Asset Manager, Asset Owner, and Wealth and Retail Portfolios by Peter Jacobs, Ursula Marchioni, Stefan Poechhacker, Nicolas Werbach, and Andrew Ang from BlackRock as of April 16th,2024 (#183): “We examine 800 portfolios from European asset managers, asset owners, and wealth/retail managers … The average European institutional portfolio exhibits a total risk hovering between 10 to 11%, with little difference across the average asset manager, asset owner, and wealth/retail portfolios. Equity risk … accounting for almost 90% of the total portfolio risk. Decomposing equity risk further, country-specific tilts are the primary driver of equity risk, contributing approximately half of the overall equity risk. Style factors and sectors represent 35% and 17% of the equity risk, respectively. … the largest style factor exposure is small size. … the average European institution has lower carbon intensities, but perhaps surprisingly lower ESG scores, than the MSCI ACWI benchmark“ (p. 22). My comment: I do not expect significant positive share- and bondholder pressure from these investors. This opens room for more customized investor-driven solutions (see the last research publication of this blog post).

Governance returns: From Crisis to Opportunity: The Impact of ESG Scores and Board Structure on Firms’ Profitability by Luis Seco, Azin Sharifi and Shiva Zamani as of Aug. 6th, 2024 (#13): “This study … of firms listed in the S&P 500 index from 2016 to 2022 reveals that firms with a higher BSI index (Sö: Board structure index) demonstrate enhanced financial profitability …. Among the ESG components, only the Governance score significantly impacts financial profitability, … whereas Environmental and Social scores do not show a significant direct effect on net profit margins … the positive impact of robust board structures and governance practices is more pronounced in the post-COVID period “ (p. 16/17). My comment: Our study from 2014 revealed similar results, see Fetsun, A. and Söhnholz, D. (2014): A quantitative approach to responsible investment: Using ESG multifactor models to improve equity portfolios, Veritas Investment Arbeitspapier, presented at PRI Academic Network Conference in Montreal, September 23rd (140227 ESG_Paper_V3 1 (naaim.org))

Other investment research (in: Sustainability deficits)

Kids beat adults: Invest Like for Your Kids: Performance and Implications of Children’s Investment Accounts on Portfolios in Adulthood by Denis Davydov and Jarkko Peltomäki as of April 16th, 2024 (#78): “… we explore the performance of custodial investment accounts for children and their subsequent impact on portfolio performance in adulthood. We find that children’s investment accounts demonstrate superior performance, boasting an average Sharpe ratio over 35% higher and an annual return three times greater compared to adults’ accounts. Notably, the observed trading activity and account behavior in children’s accounts suggest a preference for passive investment strategies. In addition, the combination of lower volatility and higher returns in children’s accounts may indicate a more effective diversification strategy adopted by parents. … the risk-taking and overall account activity of teenage boys become significantly higher than those of girls, resulting in deteriorated investment performance. … individuals who had investment accounts during childhood consistently demonstrate superior performance compared to their peers who started investing in adulthood” (p. 26/27).

ETF liquidity risk: Passing on the hot potato: the use of ETFs by open-ended funds to manage redemption requests by Lennart Dekker, Luis Molestina Vivar, and Christian Weistroffer as of Aug. 1st, 2024 (#12): “Investment funds are the largest group of ETF investors in the euro area. Our results … show that investment funds were the most run-prone investor type during the COVID-19 crisis. We then show that ETF selling by open-ended funds during March 2020 was stronger for funds facing larger outflows. … This finding is consistent with funds using ETFs for managing liquidity and raising cash if needed“ (p. 16).

Loss aversion? A meta-analysis of disposition effect experiments by Stephen L. Cheung as of pril 3rd, 2024 (#53): “This paper reports a meta-analysis of the disposition effect – the reluctance to liquidate losing investments – in three standard experimental environments in which this behaviour is normatively a mistake. … the literature finds that investors are around 10% more willing to sell winning compared to losing assets, despite optimal choice dictating the opposite“ (abstract).

Hyper-managed customized investments? Beyond Active and Passive Investing: The Customization of Finance from the CFA Institute Research Foundation by Marc R. Reinganum and Kenneth A. Blay as of Aug. 6th, 2024: “…The overwhelming ascendancy of index funds associated within the US Equity Large-Cap Blend category is the exception rather than the rule. … The economics of customizable portfolios, enabled by technology facilitating hyper-managed separate accounts, will yield better outcomes for investors in terms of after-tax returns and alignment with investor attitudes and preferences. … In the future, active and passive investing will coexist but will increasingly take place within hyper-managed separate accounts, where the passive component will be implemented in an unbundled way rather than in a fund to maximize net economic benefits and other objectives. … The next frontier for asset managers and their service providers will be the era of low-cost customization“ (p. 76/77). My comment: See Index- und Nachhaltigkeits-Investing 2.0? | CAPinside

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

Werbehinweis

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in meinen globalen Smallcap-Investmentfonds (SFDR Art. 9) investieren und/oder ihn empfehlen. Der Fonds konzentriert sich auf die Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (SDG: Investment impact) und verwendet separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie ein breites Aktionärsengagement (Investor impact) bei derzeit 29 von 30 Unternehmen: Vgl. My fund.

Green salt illlustration from H Hach from Pixabay

Green salt: Researchpost 187

Green salt: 10x new research on green salt, digital aid, ESG risks, ESG ratings, direct ESG indexing, environmental engagement, green regulation, stock return dispersion and equal weigthing

Social and ecological research

Green salt? Expanding the Use of Molten Salt for Renewable Energy Storage and the Role of Green Technology Policies by Lavinia Heisenberg and Richhild Moessner as of July 31st, 2024 (#6): “This paper discussed expanding the use of molten salt for renewable energy storage and generation, in an environmentally friendly way and making use of existing infrastructure. These include using molten salt to store solar energy in concentrated solar plants, replacing coal by molten salt to power thermal plants and thereby convert existing coal thermal plants to renewables, and linking these two uses. They also include molten salt thermal batteries for grid-scale energy storage, and using molten salt in green hydrogen production” (p. 9).

Digital humanitarian aid: Can Digital Aid Deliver during Humanitarian Crises? by Michael Callen, Miguel Fajardo-Steinhäuser, Michael G. Findley, and Tarek Ghani as of July 31st, 2024 (#3): “We experimentally evaluated digital payments to extremely poor, female-headed households in Afghanistan …. The payments led to substantial improvements in food security and mental well-being. Despite beneficiaries’ limited tech literacy, 99.75% used the payments, and stringent checks revealed no evidence of diversion. … Delivery costs are under 7 cents per dollar, which is 10 cents per dollar less than the World Food Programme’s global figure for cash-based transfers” (abstract).

ESG investment research (in: Green salt)

Low ESG risks pay: MSCI ESG Ratings and Cost of Capital by Jakub Malich and Anett Husi from MSCI Research as of July 22nd, 2024: “The objective of our study was to determine whether companies with higher resilience to financially material sustainability-related risks (as measured by MSCI ESG Ratings) did benefit from a lower cost of capital. Key takeaways: We found a significant historical correlation between a company’s MSCI ESG Rating and its financing costs. This relationship held in both equity and debt markets … Companies assessed to be the most resilient to financially material sustainability-related risks consistently financed themselves more cheaply than those considered more vulnerable“ (p. 4). My comment: I invest in stocks with low ESG risks and my returns have been good so far, see e.g. Fonds-Portfolio: Mein Fonds | CAPinside

Better social than green? The Influence of ESG Ratings on the Performance of Listed Companies in Germany during by Crisis by Katharina Neuenroth and Alexander Zureck as of July 29th, 2024 (#8): “Data of a sample of 20 companies listed in the Deutscher Aktienindex (DAX) was utilised for the analysis and a time period of two years (2020 – 2021) was considered. The required information was gathered from the Refinitiv Thomson Reuters database. The research found no significant influence of environmental and governance ratings on EBITDA. However, a significant positive influence of the social rating was observable.“ (abstract). My comment: My SDG-portfolios have more social than green exposure and most have performed rather well over time see www.soehnholzesg.com

Direct ESG Indexing: Smart Beta, Direct Indexing, and Index-Based Investment Strategies by from Jordan Doyle and Genevieve Hayman from the CFA Research Institute as of July 30th, 2024: “…. we review the origins of index investing and develop an indexing framework that captures incremental levels of active management for new index-based products within the evolving index investing landscape. This conceptual framework helps investors, firms, and policymakers better understand and define index-based products. Additionally, we offer policy recommendations to clarify terminologies with respect to smart beta products and direct indexing, and we encourage increased disclosure on the part of index providers regarding indexing methodologies” (p. 3). …. “Several recent studies have highlighted the increased calls for personalized strategies and product offerings within investment management. In a Charles Schwab Asset Management (2023) survey, 88% of ETF investors expressed interest in further personalizing their investment portfolio, with 78% wishing to better align investments with their personal values” (p. 7). My comment: I offer direct ESG and SDG index solutions since quite some time now but demand has been very low, see Direct ESG Indexing: Die beste ESG Investmentmöglichkeit auch für Privatkunden?

Good ESG banks? Stock returns and ESG scores of banks by Silvia Bressan and Alex Weissensteiner as of July 29th, 2024 (#12): “We analyze the relationship between United States bank stock returns and ESG scores from January 2013 to December 2022. Our findings indicate that during bear markets, high ESG banks perform slightly better than low ESG banks. However, during market rebounds, the outperformance of high ESG banks becomes significantly more pronounced. … during the more stable period from March 2021 to December 2022 … high ESG banks exhibiting lower equity performance“ (p. 30/31).

Impact investment research (in: Green salt)

Green bank returns: Does Banks’ Environmental Engagement Impact Funding Costs? by  Md Jaber Al Islam,  Fernando Moreira, and Mustapha Douch as of July 24th, 2024 (#12): “This study investigates 853 banks across 59 countries from 2004 to 2021, identifying a significant relationship between banks’ environmental engagement and lower funding costs. This association is more pronounced among banks with better management, lower deposit levels, and operating in countries with higher GDP. Depositors and investors support ecofriendly banks due to their favourable conditions in risk, capital adequacy, profitability, and reputation. Besides, the Paris Agreement has been instrumental in heightening awareness among depositors and investors regarding climate change.” (abstract).

Effective green regulation: The impact of ECB Banking Supervision on climate risk and sustainable finance by Lena Schreiner and Andreas Beyer as of July 23rrd, 2024 (#37): “This paper provides a first empirical analysis of the impact of the European Central Bank’s (ECB’s) climate-risk-related supervisory efforts … We …. find a significant impact on both improvements in climate risk exposure and management and on an increase in banks’ green finance activities“ (abstract).

Oher investment research

Stock return dispersion: Which U.S. Stocks Generated the Highest Long-Term Returns? by Hendrik Bessembinder as of July 16th, 2024 (#5538): “This report describes compound return outcomes for the 29,078 publicly-listed common stocks contained in the CRSP database from December 1925 to December 2023. The majority (51.6%) of these stocks had negative cumulative returns. However, the investment performance of some stocks was remarkable. Seventeen stocks delivered cumulative returns greater than five million percent (or $50,000 per dollar initially invested) … The highest annualized compound return for any stock with at least 20 years of return data was 33.38%, earned by Nvidia shareholders” (abstract).

Equal weigthing: Worth the Weight by Tim Edwards, Anu R. Ganti, and Hamish Preston from S&P Dow Jones Indices as of July 23rd, 2024: “The S&P 500 Equal Weight Index has recently displayed underperformance in comparison to the S&P 500, driven primarily by historical extremes of performance in the market’s largest names. Moreover, concentration in the broader U.S. equity market has increased to its highest in many years, while single-stock momentum trends are showing unusual signs of extension. Historically, such periods have tended to eventually revert toward their historical means, with such reversion accompanied by stronger relative performance by equal weight indices” (p. 17). My comment: I use equal weighting for equity portfolios since many years and are happy with the results, see e.g. here Das-Soehnholz-ESG-und-SDG-Portfoliobuch.pdf (soehnholzesg.com)

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

Werbehinweis (in: Green salt)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in meinen globalen Smallcap-Investmentfonds (SFDR Art. 9) investieren und/oder ihn empfehlen. Der Fonds konzentriert sich auf die Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (SDG: Investment impact) und verwendet separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie ein breites Aktionärsengagement (Investor impact) bei derzeit 29 von 30 Unternehmen: Vgl. My fund.

Zur jetzt wieder guten Performance siehe zum Beispiel Fonds-Portfolio: Mein Fonds | CAPinside

Biodiversity finance illustration from ecolife zone

Biodiversity finance and more: Researchpost #186

Biodiversity finance: 18x new research on climate regulation, green millionaires, donations, fintechs, ESG ratings, climate analysts, ESG funds, social funds, smart beta, asset allocation, research risks, green hedge funds, biodiversity, impact funds, proxy voting, sustainable engagement, and timberland investing

Social and ecological research

Non-negative climate regulation? Firms’ Response to Climate Regulations: Empirical Investigations Based on the European Emissions Trading System by Fotios Kalantzis, Salma Khalid, Alexandra Solovyeva, and Marcin Wolski from the International Monetary Fund as of July 15th, 2024 (#13): “Using a novel cross-country dataset … We find that more stringent policies do not have a strong negative impact on the profitability of ETS-regulated or non-ETS firms. While firms report an increase in their input costs during periods of high carbon prices, their reported turnover is also higher. Among ETS-regulated firms which must purchase emission certificates under the EU ETS, tightening of climate policies in periods of high carbon prices results in increased investment, particularly in intangible assets” (abstract).

Greening millionaires? Wealth transfer intentions, family decision-making style and sustainable investing: the case of millionaires by Ylva Baeckström and Jeanette Carlsson Hauff as of June 21st, 2024 (#13): “… little is known about how the wealthy make sustainable investment decisions. Using unique survey data from 402 millionaires … Our results show that funds are more likely to be channeled towards sustainable causes in families that are society-oriented and adopt democratic decision-making styles compared to families whose decision-making style is autocratic and intend for future generations to inherit their wealth” (abstract).

Selfish donations? Donations in the Dark by Ionela Andreicovici, Nava Cohen, Alessandro Ghio, and Luc Paugam as of March 13th, 2024 (#103): “We examine the impact of the 2013 shift from mandatory to voluntary disclosure of corporate philanthropy in the United Kingdom (UK). … we find that, relative to a sample of United States firms, UK firms (i) reduce corporate philanthropy disclosure and (ii) increase corporate philanthropic donations in the voluntary period. … Overall, our results point towards the idea that the shift to voluntary disclosure (i) reduces managerial incentives to transparently report corporate philanthropic activities and (ii) exacerbates managers’ incentives to engage in self-serving corporate donations“ (abstract).

Limited fintech-inclusion: Promise (Un)kept? Fintech and Financial Inclusion by Serhan Cevik from the International Monetary Fund as of July 15th, 2024 (#12): „The ownership of accounts in formal financial institutions increased from 51 percent of the world’s adult population in 2011 to 76 percent in 2021, but there is still significant variation across countries. … While digital lending has a significant negative effect on financial inclusion, digital capital raising is statistically insignificant. … the overall impact of fintech is also statistically insignificant for the full sample, but becomes positive and statistically highly significant in developing countries” (abstract).

ESG investment research (in: Biodiversity finance)

Positive High-ESG effects: The Effects of ESG Ratings on Firms’ Financial Decisions by Sahand Davani as of July 12th, 2024 (#27): “I show that firms with higher ESG ratings (high-ESG firms) have higher ownership by ESG institutional investors, have lower perceived cost of capital, and issue more net equity than net debt compared to similar firms with lower ESG ratings (low-ESG firms). Consistently, I find that high-ESG firms try to maintain their high ESG ratings at the current levels, while the ESG ratings of similar low-ESG firms decline” (abstract).

Analysts climate ignorance: Analysts’ Perspectives on Climate Change: An Examination of Analyst Reports by Jesse Chan as of July 12th, 2024 (#30):  “Despite focusing on firms operating in industries most exposed to climate change, I find a minority of analysts (<11%) discuss climate topics in their analyst reports … analysts are concentrating their discussion among electric utilities and other electronic equipment manufacturers, and typically discuss climate change related business opportunities and regulatory issues related to climate change. Climate related discussions, and particularly discussion of regulatory issues, are associated with more pessimistic long-term growth forecasts and revisions, implying analysts expect these issues to affect firms‘ financial performance in the long run” (abstract).

Easy ESG sell? ESG and Mutual Fund Competition? by Ariadna Dumitrescua and Javier Gil-Bazo as of July 12th, 2024 (#37): “Investors have heterogenous preferences for ESG. Not all investors care for sustainability, and among those who do, they value different ESG objectives differently. The model predicts that in equilibrium the market is segmented: neutral investors (those with no preference for ESG) invest only in conventional funds and ESG investors invest only in ESG funds. While competition is fierce in the conventional segment of the market and only the best funds survive, it is relaxed by investors’ ESG preferences in the ESG segment of the market. If the intensity of ESG investors’ preferences is sufficiently high, ESG funds of lower quality will be able to survive“ (p. 18/19).

ESG steering? Smarter Beta Investing: Forget Exclusions, add Steering towards lower Emissions by Heiko Bailer and Jonathan Miller as of July 17th, 2024 (#28): “Steering strategically tilts portfolios towards sustainable factors such as lower emissions … This research investigates the effectiveness of steering compared to exclusion-based strategies. … The analysis, spanning September 2019 to May 2024, reveals that steering maintains or improves risk-adjusted returns compared to exclusions. Additionally, steering portfolios exhibit lower risk and avoid unintended biases toward smaller companies, often observed with exclusions“ (abstract). My comment: The resulting steering strategies appear to have rather limited SDG-revenue alignments. My experience shows attractive risk/return characteristics for strategies using many strict exclusions and demanding ESG- and SDG-Revenue requirements. It would be interesting to compare the results with steering approaches (which may be driven by significant Tech allocations).

Risk reducing ESG: Can Environmental and Social Stocks Weather Market Turbulence? A risk premia analysis by Giovanni Cardillo, Cristian Foroni and Murad Harasheh as of July 23rd, 2024 (#28): “Analyzing all listed firms in the EU and UK and exploiting COVID-19 as an exogenous shock, our findings challenge prior literature by demonstrating that firm sustainability does not necessarily reduce the cost of equity in adverse states of the economy. … Nevertheless, our results indicate that riskier yet more sustainable firms experience a relatively smaller increase in their cost of equity, suggesting a moderating rather than a first-order effect of sustainability. Second, investors positively value firms that reduce CO2 emissions and offer green and more ethical products, as evidenced by lower risk premia assigned to such firms. Lastly, we provide robust evidence that more sustainable firms exhibit less uncertain and higher cash flows during the pandemic than their less sustainable counterparts“ (abstract).

Green optimization limits: Portfolio Alignment and Net Zero Investing by Thierry Roncalli from Amundi as of July 12th, 2024 (#28): “First, the solution is parameter and data sensitive. In particular, we need to be careful in choosing the carbon scope metric … Scope 3 and consumption-based emissions need to be taken into account to align a portfolio with a net-zero scenario. The problem is that we see a lack of data reliability on these indirect emissions today. Similarly, the solution is highly dependent on the green intensity target and the level of self-decarbonization we want to achieve. … The second key finding is that portfolio decarbonization and net-zero construction lead to different solutions. … These results are amplified when we add the transition dimension to the optimization program. … it is quite impossible to achieve net zero alignment without allowing the algorithm to exclude companies (or countries) from the benchmark. … As a result, some key players in the transition, such as energy and utility companies, unfortunately disappear. … The final lesson is that it is easier to implement net zero in bonds than in equities. … there is another important point that is missing from our analysis. This is the issue of engagement. … The reason is that engagement is difficult to model quantitatively” (p. 20-22). My comment: Given the many discretionary decisions for “optimizations”, I usually call them “pseudo-optimizations”.

No green outperformance? Do sustainable companies have better financial performance? Revisiting a seminal study by Andrew King as of July 24th, 2024 (#2180): “Do high-sustainability companies have better financial performance than their low-sustainability counterparts? An extremely influential publication, “The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance”, claims that they do. Its 2014 publication preceded a boom in sustainable investing …Yet I report here that I cannot replicate the original study’s methods or results, and I show that a close reading of the original report reveals its evidence is too weak to justify its claims concerning financial performance” (abstract). My comment: It is very important to clearly write, understand and also to replicate scientific studies. But as long as the performance of sustainable investments is similar as the performance of traditional investments, I clearly prefer sustainable investments.

Green hedge funds: Are the Hedges of Funds Green? by Huan Kuang, Bing Liang, Tianyi Qu, and Mila Getmansky Sherman as of April 15th, 2024 (#59): “… we … find that funds with higher green beta not only outperform other funds but also exhibit lower risk. This outperformance is driven by fund managers’ superior investment skill in both green stock picking and green factor timing. Furthermore, we document that investors reward green funds with higher inflows after the 2015 Paris Agreement, but only within high-performance funds. Finally, we show that political beliefs, climate news sentiment, and participation in the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) all influence hedge funds’ exposure to sustainable investing and investor flows” (abstract).

Biodiversity finance and bond risks: Biodiversity Risk in the Corporate Bond Market by Sevgi Soylemezgil and Cihan Uzmanoglu as of July 14th, 2024 (#165): “We investigate how risks associated with biodiversity loss influence borrowing costs in the US corporate bond market. … we find that higher biodiversity risk exposure is associated with higher yield spreads among long-term bonds, indicating biodiversity as a long-run risk. This effect is stronger among riskier firms and firms that mention biodiversity, particularly biodiversity regulation, in their financial statements. … we find that the impact of biodiversity risk on yield spreads is more pronounced when biodiversity-related awareness and regulatory risks rise” (abstract).

Impact investment research

RI market segmentation: Styles of responsible investing: Attributes and performance of different RI fund varieties by Stuart Jarvis from PGIM as of July 2nd, 2024 (#18): “Paris-aligned funds … achieve a low level of portfolio emissions, not just through a combination of significant divestment from sectors but also by selecting companies with low emissions levels. The resulting companies have decarbonised significantly in recent years … Impact funds … have demonstrated willingness to invest in sectors with currently-high emissions … Performance for these funds has been the most challenged in recent years …” (p. 12). My comments see Orientierung im Dschungel der nachhaltigen Fonds | CAPinside

Biodiversity finance overview: Biodiversity Finance: A review and bibliometric analysis by Helena Naffaa and Xinglin Li as of June 26th, 2024 (#31): “Using bibliometric analysis tools, key features of the literature are revealed, influential works are recognized, and major research focuses are identified. This systematic mapping of the field makes contribution to the existing research by providing historical evolution of the literature, identifying the influential works, and current research interests and future research direction“ (abstract).

Empowering small investors? Open Proxy by Caleb N. Griffin as of July 12th, 2024 (#27): “This Article has explored how the world’s largest asset managers have voluntarily implemented programs for “voting choice,” agreeing to pass through a measure of voting authority to selected investors. Unfortunately, the current instantiation of voting choice offers only a narrow set of artificially constrained options, which, in effect, merely transfer a fraction of the Big Three’s voting power to another oligopoly. In order to amplify the choices available to investors, this Article proposes that large asset managers shift from the current closed proxy system to an open proxy system wherein any bona fide proxy advisor could compete for the right to represent investors’ interests. Such a policy change would infuse intermediated voting programs with essential competitive pressure and allow for truly meaningful voting choice” (p. 41).

Depreciation-aligned sustainability: Timing Sustainable Engagement in Real Asset Investments by Bram van der Kroft, Juan Palacios, Roberto Rigobon, and Siqi Zheng as of July 3rd, 2024 (#151): “This paper provides evidence that sustainable engagement improves firms’ sustainable investments only when its timing aligns with the (“real” not “book”) depreciation of their physical assets. … Further, our results appear unexplained by a selection in REITs and are generalized to the US heavy manufacturing industry, heavily relying on real assets. Therefore, this paper argues that sustainable engagement poses an effective tool to improve firms’ sustainable investments when accurately aligned with the depreciation cycles of their physical assets” (p. 35/36).

Other investment research (in: Biodiversity finance)

Attractive timberland: Investing in US Timberland Companies by Jack Clark Francis and Ge Zhang as of June 27th, 2024 (#11): “Over a 20-year sample period it turns out that the US timberland corporations, on average, perform about as well as the highly diversified US stock market index. It is surprising that the timberland companies do not outperform the stock market indexes because, in order to encourage tree planting, the US Congress has almost completely exempted timberland companies from paying federal income taxes. Furthermore, it is scientifically impossible to assess the value of the large amounts of photosynthesis that the timberland companies produce” (abstract). My comment: In my opinion, similar returns clearly speak for the more responsible investments.

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

Werbehinweis (in: biodiversity finance)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in meinen globalen Smallcap-Investmentfonds (SFDR Art. 9) investieren und/oder ihn empfehlen. Der Fonds konzentriert sich auf die Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (SDG: Investment impact) und verwendet separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie ein breites Aktionärsengagement (Investor impact) bei derzeit 29 von 30 Unternehmen: Vgl. My fund.

Zur jetzt wieder guten Performance siehe zum Beispiel Fonds-Portfolio: Mein Fonds | CAPinside

ESG rumor illustration from yaobim from Pixaby

ESG rumors: Researchpost #169

ESG rumors: 8x new research on carbon offsets, green innovation, sustainable fund outperformance, ESG rumors and their effects on equities and bonds, ESG factors, safe bonds and private equity (# shows SSRN full paper downloads as of March 27th, 2024)

Ecological and social research

Problematic Offsets: Carbon Offsets: Decarbonization or Transition-Washing? by Sehoon Kim, Tao Li, and Yanbin Wu as of March 23rd, 2024 (#104): “Carbon offsets allow firms to claim reductions in carbon emissions by purchasing and retiring carbon credits sold by projects or entities that achieve those reductions. … While large firms with net-zero commitments are more likely to use offsets, we find evidence that offsets are often used strategically by firms that are already positioned close to achieving these targets or in industries where it is easier to boost their ESG rankings relative to their peers. When faced by an exogenous shock to their incentives to boost rankings, firms with low emissions in industries with narrow cross-peer emission gaps become more likely to use offsets whereas heavy-emission firms in large-gap industries do not. Moreover, firms that strategically increase the use of offsets do so by retiring credits from low-quality offset projects, which command lower prices and therefore provide a cost-effective way of transition-washing. Overall, our evidence does not support the purported idea that carbon offsets can be effective at facilitating net-zero transitions by heavy-emission firms. … we do not find evidence that these firms would use such “good” offsets in large-enough quantities to meaningfully reduce their net emissions“ (p. 29/30). My comment: I do not consider/use offsets for my investments.

ESG investment research (ESG rumors)

Green innovation variations: Doing Good by Being Smart: Green Innovation and Firms’ Financial and Environmental Performance by Qiang Cheng, An-Ping Lin, and Mengjie Yang as of March 22nd, 2024 (#25): “We find that firms with more valuable pollution prevention patents have better future financial and environmental performance, whereas the value of firms’ pollution control patents is not associated with their future financial or environmental performance. We further document that pollution prevention innovation improves financial performance through its positive effects on sales growth and cost efficiency …“ (p. 29/30).

2023 ESG outperformance: Sustainable Reality – Sustainable Funds Show Continued Outperformance and Positive Flows in 2023 Despite a Slower Second Half by Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing as of Feb. 29th, 2024: “Sustainable funds outperformed their traditional peers in 2023 with a median return of 12.6% compared to traditional funds’ 8.6%, according to Morningstar data. … Sustainable fund assets under management (AUM) globally grew to $3.4 trillion, up 15% from 2022 and reaching 7.2% of total AUM. Inflows to sustainable funds remained positive overall at $136 billion, 4.7% of the prior year-end AUM. … Equity funds with a global, Europe or APAC investment focus skew primarily to Industrials and Health Care, while funds investing in the Americas are more overweight Technology. Greater exposure to Technology stocks helped sustainable equity funds investing in the Americas in 2023, but this was not the only factor influencing sustainable funds’ outperformance” (p. 1). … “If a hypothetical fund achieved the median return for each of the past five years, a sustainable fund would be up +35% compared with a traditional fund’s +25%” (p. 6). … “Europe-domiciled Sustainable Funds Outperformed Traditional Funds, With Article 8 and Article 9 Funds in a Similar Range” (p. 18). My comment: I have a similar experience, see 2023: Passive Allokation und ESG gut, SDG nicht gut – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)

ESG rumors (1): Attention-Grabbing ESG: Do Investors Extract Value-relevant ESG Information from Social Media? by Yoshitaka Tanaka and Shunsuke Managi as of March 23rd, 2024 (#9): “Initially, we find that unconditional excess stock returns exhibit a positive correlation with positive and attention-grabbing ESG events and a negative correlation with negative ESG events. Our findings also indicate that events with low financial materiality, despite their high social prominence, do not have a lasting effect on stock returns. … we find that the greater is the information asymmetry regarding ESG information, the greater is the stock return response. On the other hand, when we control for firm attributes, we find no correlation between materiality and stock returns. The regression results suggest that the response of stock returns to ESG events may be attributed to market inefficiencies arising from information asymmetries rather than fundamental factors“ (p. 20). My comment: I ,like that my ESG ratings provider incorporates ESG controversies in its frequently updated ESG ratings

ESG rumors (2): From News to Numbers: Quantifying the Impact of ESG Controversies on Corporate Bond Spreads by Doina C. Chichernea, J. Christopher Hughen, and Alex Petkevich as of March 23rd, 2024 (#7): “… we document that bondholders demand a higher credit spread for bonds issued by firms with higher ESG controversies. The adverse effect of ESG controversies on bond pricing is long-lived and is primarily observed in bond issues with higher credit risk and more pronounced information asymmetry. We also document that current ESG controversies significantly predict an increase in the firm’s future asymmetric information and default risk …” (abstract).

No ESG factor? Are ESG Factors Truly Unique? by Svetoslav Covachev, Jocelyn Martel, and Sofia Brito-Ramos as of March 21st, 2024 (#71): “This paper studies the relationships between carbon and ESG risk factors and commonly accepted equity risk factors. … the carbon and ESG risk factors can be replicated as linear combinations of risk factors that are based on stock characteristics that are not directly related to environmental and ESG policies. We note that the main inputs for building the carbon and ESG factors are ESG ratings, which have a documented link with firm size. Bigger firms tend to have greater resources for gathering and disclosing ESG information. We also examine the risk exposures of popular ESG indexes, which provide a convenient means to invest in ESG-focused companies. Our findings indicate that the indexes examined are all exposed to the market and size factors, but they are also well-explained by the long leg of the ESG factor” (p. 15). My comment: Sustainable investments should not be expected to have higher returns but rather lower (ESG and thus overall) risks than comparable other investments.

Other investment research (ESG rumors)

Flights to bonds: Global or Regional Safe Assets: Evidence from Bond Substitution Patterns by Tsvetelina Nenova as of March 25th, 2024 (#5): “This paper provides novel empirical evidence on portfolio rebalancing in international bond markets through the prism of investors’ demand for bonds. … Safe assets such as US Treasuries or German Bunds face especially inelastic demand from investment funds compared to riskier bonds. But spillovers from these safe assets to global bond markets are strikingly different. Funds substitute US Treasuries with global bonds, including risky corporate and emerging market bonds, whereas German Bunds are primarily substitutable within a narrow set of euro area safe government bonds. Substitutability deteriorates in times of stress, impairing the transmission of monetary policy“ (abstract).

Private equity dissected: The economics of private equity: A critical review by Alexander Ljungqvist as of Feb. 15th, 2024: “… I have aimed to critically synthesize the main insights of more than 90 academic studies of private equity … to draw the following conclusions. Private equity funds have, on average, historically outperformed public-market indices after fees, but maybe not when adjusted for risk, leverage, and illiquidity. … Private equity funds generate returns for their investors through a combination of the value they add to their portfolio companies and their ability to target companies whose performance is about to take off anyway.  Whether private equity creates social value for the economy at large is an open question. … Private equity is a demanding asset class in which more sophisticated investors can expect to earn better returns than less sophisticated investors. There is scope for ample misalignment of interests between fund managers and investors. Private equity is an innovative asset class, creating new practices and solutions at a fast pace. Recent examples include subscription lines, GP-led secondaries, and NAV financing“ (p. 42/43).

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

Advert for German investors:

Sponsor my research by investing in and/or recommending my global small cap mutual fund (SFDR Art. 9). The fund focuses on the Sustainable Development Goals and uses separate E, S and G best-in-universe minimum ratings and broad shareholder engagement with currently 28 of 30 companies: FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R – DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T or My fund (prof-soehnholz.com).

Small-Caps Illustration durch Benchmark meines Fonds mit einer Peergroup

Globale Small-Caps: Faire Benchmark für meinen Artikel 9 Fonds?

Small-Caps: Ich möchte möglichst nachhaltig und transparent, d.h. regelbasiert investieren. Die nachhaltigsten regelbasierten ETFs- bzw. Publikumsfonds erreichen aber nur ungefähr die Hälfte der Nachhaltigkeit meiner nachhaltigsten Aktienportfolios (Details dazu vgl. Nachhaltigkeitsinvestmentpolitik auf www.futurevest.fund). Interessenten sind neben der absoluten auch an der relativen Performance dieser Portfolios interessiert. Dafür ist eine faire Benchmark nötig. Es ist schwer, eine solche zu finden.

Keine diversifizierte SDG-Benchmark?

Meine Regeln beinhalten vor allem Länder- und Aktivitätsausschlüsse, ESG-Anforderungen und solche an Vereinbarkeit mit den Nachhaltigen Entwicklungszielen der Vereinten Nationen (SDG). Außerdem versuche ich, ein breites und tiefes Shareholder Engagement umzusetzen.

Die Aktien für meinen Fonds werden Bottom-Up selektiert. Es gibt also keine Allokationsvorgaben z.B. für Länder oder Branchen oder Unternehmensgrößen. Bisher hatten die USA einen Anteil von etwa 40 bis 60 Prozent, danach folgt Australien mit ca. 10% sowie diverse europäische Länder.

Bei den Branchen lag das Gewicht je nach Definition bei 30 bis 60 Prozent Gesundheit und bis zu 40% Industrie.

Ein ESG- plus SDG-Index bzw. eine derartige Fonds-Vergleichsgruppe (Peergroup) wären als Benchmark geeignet. Fonds mit Fokus auf Cleantech oder erneuerbarer Energieproduktion (SDG 7) performen ganz anders als Fonds mit Gesundheitsfokus (SDG 3). Deshalb ist eine SDG-diversifizierte Benchmark nötig. Ich kenne aber keine solche Benchmark bzw. Peergroup, deren Daten öffentlich zugänglich sind und die somit allen Interessenten für Vergleiche zur Verfügung stehen.

Allenfalls der Global Challenges Index der Börse Hannover (GCX) könnte als Benchmark dienen. Allerdings beinhaltet er vor allem ökologisch ausgerichtete Aktien und kaum welche mit Sozialfokus. Außerdem ist er Europalastig und beinhaltet überwiegend höher kapitalisierte Unternehmen als mein Fonds. Ein Vergleich der Positionen von GCX und meinem Fonds ergibt nur sehr wenige Gemeinsamkeiten. Deshalb ist die Korrelation zu meinem Fonds mit ca. 0,6 (seit Fondsauflage im August 2021) auch relativ gering.

Small-Caps Benchmark adäquat?

Eine hohe SDG-Vereinbarkeit ist für branchenfokussierte Unternehmen einfacher erreichbar als für diversifizierte. In den letzten Jahren haben zudem immer mehr Small- und Mid-Cap-Unternehmen aussagekräftige ESG-Daten veröffentlicht. Deshalb gibt es zunehmend mehr SDG-kompatible Unternehmen mit guten ESG-Ratings. Aus diesen Gründen sind überwiegend kleine und wenige Großunternehmen in meinem Portfolio vertreten.

Die durchschnittliche Kapitalisierung der Unternehmen im Portfolio ist von anfangs ca. 15 Milliarden auf inzwischen unter 5 Milliarden gesunken. Je nach Zeitpunkt bzw. Definition war der Fonds also zu Beginn eher ein Mid-Cap- und ist jetzt eher ein Small-Cap-Fonds. Ich erwarte aus den oben genannten Gründen, dass der Fonds auch künftig Small-Cap-fokussiert bleibt.

Korrelationen seit Fondsauflage zeigen knapp 0,6 mit globalen Mid-Caps und etwas über 0,6 mit globalen Small-Caps. Einen kombinierten Small/Mid-Cap-Index bzw. ETF, der für Vergleiche genutzt werden kann, habe ich nicht gefunden. Datenanbieter wie Morningstar oder CAPInside stellen aber Fondspeergroups aus Small- und Mid-Cap-Fonds zusammen. Diese scheinen mir für Performancevergleiche meines Fonds für die Vergangenheit am ehesten geeignet. Bei der CAPInside Peergroup liegt die Korrelation seit Fondsauflage bei 0,7. Dabei ist allerdings zu beachten, dass solche Vergleichsgruppen aufgrund der relativ hohen Kosten aktiver Fonds typischerweise geringere Renditen erreichen als direkte Wertpapierindizes bzw. kostengünstige ETFs.

Der Vorteil einer Small- bzw. Small/Mid-Cap-Benchmark ist, dass mein Fonds mit sehr viel mehr anderen Fonds verglichen werden kann als mit der GCX-Benchmark. Außerdem sind viel mehr Anleger gewohnt, mit traditionellen (Small/Midcap) als mit nachhaltigen (GCX) Benchmarks zu arbeiten. Für künftige Vergleiche wäre eine reine Smallcap-Peergroup adäquater. Eine solche frei zugängliche Vergleichsgruppe gibt es jedoch weder bei Morningstar noch bei CAPInside.

Keine eigene Impact-Peergoup

Ich habe auch versucht, eine eigene Peergroup mit vergleichbaren Fonds zu erstellen. Ich habe aber keine Fonds gefunden, die konsequente ESG- und breite SDG-Kriterien nutzen und global vor allem in Small-Caps investieren. Es gibt zwar SDG- bzw. Impactfonds, aber die sind oft auf nachhaltige Energien fokussiert und/oder nur auf eine Region. Wenn es sich um globale Fonds handelt, enthalten sie typischerweise sehr viele (Technologie-) Mega-Caps, die meiner Meinung nach weder nach ESG- noch nach SDG-Kriterien nachhaltig genug sind (vgl. Glorreiche 7: Sind sie unsozial? – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)).

Am ehesten können deshalb die Fonds genutzt werden, die dem Global Challenges Index folgen. Wie erwartet, haben diese erheblich geringere USA- und Sozialallokationen und aktuell eine etwa doppelt so hohe durchschnittliche Marktkapitalisierung wie mein Fonds.

Problematische Faktoranalysen

Ich könnte auch auf Faktoranalysen verweisen, um die Fondsperformance zu erklären. Für meinen Fonds ist aber aufgrund seiner Konzeption, außer in Bezug auf SDG, ESG und Small- und Mid-Caps, keine klare und dauerhafte Faktorabhängigkeit zu erwarten. Und die mir bekannten öffentlichen und damit einfach von Interessenten nachprüfbaren Faktoranalysen nutzen keine SDG- bzw. ESG-Faktoren.

Bei Morningstar wird für meinen Fonds z.B. eine unpassende „Aktien global All-Cap“ Benchmark genutzt und eine Flex-Cap- (inkl. Mega- und Large-Caps) anstatt einer Small/Mid-Cap-Peergruppe, die es ebenfalls gibt. Bei der Morningstar-Portfolioanalyse ist der Small-/Mid-Cap-Fokus dagegen deutlich erkennbar.

Der Fonds hat nach Morningstar-Klassifikation keinen klaren Value- oder Growth-Fokus und nur geringe Momentum-Komponenten. Für Interessenten problematisch ist, dass die Ergebnisse solcher Faktoranalysen stark von den jeweiligen Faktordefinitionen abhängen können (vgl. z.B. Kessler, Stephan and Scherer, Bernd and Harries, Jan Philipp, Value by Design? (November 14, 2019). The Journal of Portfolio Management Quantitative Special Issue, 46 (2) 25-43, 2020, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3905/jpm.2019.1.122, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3593557).

Fazit: Die für meinen Fonds am besten geeignete Benchmark über die bisherige Laufzeit ist eine Vergleichsgruppe aus globalen Small- und Mid-Cap-Fonds. Im Vergleich zu einer solchen Fondsgruppe von CAPInside hat mein Fonds eine ähnliche Performance seit Auflage und vor allem seit Mitte 2023 und seit Auflage eine Korrelation von ca. 0,7. Das ist nachvollziehbar, denn seit der letzten jährlichen regelbasierten Portfolioumstellung zu Mitte/Ende 2023 besteht der Fonds aus noch mehr Small- und Mid-Caps als vorher. Für künftige Analysen ist dagegen eine reine Small-Cap-Benchmark adäquater.

Besonders nachhaltige marktübliche Performance

Natürlich wäre es aus meiner Sicht gut, eine Outperformance gegenüber solchen Benchmark zu erreichen. Weil für meinen Fonds neben den oben genannten Branchen auch – relativ schlecht performende – nachhaltige Energien, Infrastruktur und Immobilien eine wichtige Rolle spielen, war das in den letzten Jahren aber schwierig. Die Rendite meines Fonds ist deshalb aus meiner Sicht OK. Mit ungefähr 13% Volatilität sind die Schwankungen zudem relativ gering (Interessenten können die Performance z.B. hier prüfen: Fonds-Portfolio: Mein Fonds | CAPInside).

Nachdem Small-Caps lange Zeit relativ schlecht rentiert haben, erwarten einige Marktbeobachter, dass sich die Renditen bald verbessern könnten. Weil ich prognosefrei arbeite, kann ich das nur hoffen. Zumindest gelten Small-Caps als Aktien, die grundsätzlich schnell und stark steigen können. Im Dezember 2023 hat mein Fonds mit den +9% gezeigt, dass das durchaus vorkommen kann.

Mein erklärtes Ziel, mittelfristig eine marktübliche Performance mit besonders nachhaltigen Investments zu erzielen, habe ich bisher erreicht. Anders ausgedrückt: Wenn man weltweit in Small-Caps investieren möchte, kann man das mit meinem Fonds besonders nachhaltig machen und sollte dabei keine Performancenachteile haben.

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

Werbung (Small Caps):

Der von mir beratene Fonds (SFDR Art. 9) ist auf soziale SDGs fokussiert. Ich nutze separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie ein breites Aktionärsengagement bei aktuell 26 von 30 Unternehmen: FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R – DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T oder Divestments: 49 bei 30 Aktien meines Artikel 9 Fonds

Disclaimer

Diese Unterlage 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 nicht als Verkaufsangebot oder Aufforderung zur Abgabe eines Kauf- oder Zeichnungsangebots für Anteile des in dieser Unterlage dargestellten Fonds zu verstehen und ersetzen nicht eine anleger- und anlagegerechte Beratung. 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 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.