ESG interest: 7x new research on AI pollution, financial nature risks, Sovereign ESG risks, green mortgages, ESG communication effects, positive ESG competition (# shows number of SSRN full document downloads as of April 24th, 2025)
AI pollution:The Silent Polluter: Artificial Intelligence and CO2 Emissions by Ashrafee T. Hossain and Neal Willcott as of April 18th, 2025 (#48): “… Using a large sample of firm-year observations from publicly listed US firms covering the period from 2010 to 2020, we find statistically significant and economically consequential results that AI investment is positively associated with CO2 emissions. … Additionally, this association is more (less) prominent for firms with unethical (ethical) behavior and those with poor (strong) monitoring/governance. Not surprisingly, the market reacts adversely in the form of lower valuation when firms emit more while investing in AI initiatives. Moreover, CEOs of such firms tend to receive lower compensation” (abstract).
Financial nature risks: Firm-Level Nature Dependence by Alexandre Garel,Arthur Romec, Zacharias Sautner, and Alexander F. Wagner as of April 8th, 2025 (#557): “… we develop and analyze new firm-level measures—NatureDep scores—that quantify the extent to which a firm’s business activities depend on ecosystem services … The measures are available for a global sample of 26,595 firms from 115 countries between 2010 and 2022. … The three ecosystem services on which firms have the highest dependence are Water Flow Regulation, Storm Mitigation, and Water Supply. … the scores are largely uncorrelated with physical climate risk exposure metrics. However, information contained in NatureDep scores is associated with measures of downside risk. These results indicate that investors recognize that nature-related disruptions or regulatory shocks affect nature-dependent firms“ (p. 28).
Sovereign ESG risks: Governance, Resilience, and Sovereign Credit Ratings: Implications for ESG Investing Strategies by Sabah Abdullah and Zannatus Saba as of April 16th, 2025 (#11): “… The findings reveal that strong governance effectiveness (WGI_GE) and high ESG and ESR performance lead to better credit ratings, while weak institutions, low ESG scores, and insufficient climate adaptation elevate sovereign risk and borrowing costs. Migration dynamics — reflecting labor force volatility and socio economic stress — influence creditworthiness across models …” (abstract).
Green mortgages: Energy Costs and Default Risk in Green Mortgage Securitisations by Monica Billio, Massimo Dragotto, Alfonso Dufour, Samuele Segato, and Simone Varotto as of April 23rd,2025 (#11): “This study investigates the credit risk implications of Green-labelled residential mortgage-backed securities (Green RMBS) in the European Union. We find that loans securitised within Green RMBS deals exhibit 43% lower delinquency rates compared to loans in Non-Green RMBS. Green-labelled tranches are more likely to achieve investment-grade ratings and perform better under stress scenarios, with senior and mezzanine tranches remaining protected even in extreme default and loss conditions. … We find that low income and periods of high energy inflation amplify the negative impact that poor energy efficiency has on delinquency. These effects are driven by higher utility costs, which reduce disposable income, especially for vulnerable borrowers…“ (abstract).
ESG communication effects: The ESG Disclosure–Performance Paradox in BRICS: Strategic Alignment, Total Shareholder Returns, Profitability, and Firm Value by Marcos Alexandre dos Reis Cardillo and Leonardo Fenando Cruz Basso as of April 18th, 2025 (#16): “This study examines the financial implications of corporate sustainability disclosure and performance across emerging economies, using a panel of 2,987 firm-year observations from 2016 to 2023. … Results indicate that integrated sustainability disclosure—covering environmental, social, and governance dimensions—positively influences profitability and investor confidence while selective sustainability disclosure and performance erodes shareholder return and profitability. … even strategically integrated, sustainable practices efforts may erode firm value over time. …. excessive engagement leads to diminishing returns. … the findings suggest that in emerging economies, sustainable financial performance depends more on the ability to communicate sustainable commitment than on the actual depth or quality of sustainability practices“ (abstract).
Positive ESG competition: ESG Rating Competition and Rating Quality by Cai Chen, Svenja Dube. and Shiran Froymovich as of April 23rd, 2025 (#13): “… We exploit the entry of Sustainalytics as a new ESG rating agency in 2010. … First, we find that higher competition decreases incumbents’ ESG rating disagreements of the same scope. … Second, we find that incumbents’ ratings of ESG concerns are more strongly associated with future negative ESG news for firms additionally covered by Sustainalytics. … Third, we find that incumbents evaluate more difficult-to measure outcome metrics for firms covered by Sustainalytics, consistent with competition inducing more effort“ (abstract).
ESG interest: Predictors of Sustainable Investment Motivation: An Interpretable Machine Learning Approach by Sergey Sosnovskikh, Danila Valko, and Raphael Meyer-Alten as of April 22nd, 2025 (#7): “This study investigates the determinants influencing retail investors’ capital allocation to sustainable financial products, focusing specifically on Germany …. We utilised two surveys conducted in 2020 … our analysis identified that three primary motivation components – personal values, social and environmental impact, and investment return – exhibit significant overlap. The findings demonstrate that investment motivations are consistently predicted by sustainability interests. In contrast, socio-demographic factors (age, gender, education, household income) exhibit inconsistent pattern across investment motivations and exert weaker influence” (abstract).
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!).
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.
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).
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!).
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.
Good green returns: 14x new research on 20% energy efficiency returns, profitable green nudging, externalization returns, SRI value investing, green bond investor motives, private ownership ESG deficits, good biodiversity measures, biodiversity policy recommendations, wrong sustainable investment advice, huge green investment potential, investors love high CEO pay, planetary limits, real estate diversification limits, and ChatGPT financial deficits (# shows number of SSRN downloads as of Nov. 14th, 2024).
Social and ecological research
20% energy efficiency return: The Efficacy of Energy Efficiency: Measuring the Returns to Home Insulation by Linde Kattenberg, Piet Eicholtz and Nils Kok as of Nov. 7th, 2024 (#14): “… this study examines the effect of roof, wall and basement insulation on gas consumption in a large sample of (rental and owner-occupied) residential homes. The results of the difference-in-difference analysis show that home insulation measures significantly reduce gas consumption, with an average treatment effect of about 19%. … we observe an average reduction in the energy bill of €350 per year. Compared to the investment to install insulation, this yield an annual return of 19.9%, translating into a payback period of 5 years. Wall insulation has the highest return, of 21.8%, while basement insulation returns 14.9% and roof insulation returns 11,8% per year” (p. 21/22).
Profitable green nudging: Small Changes, Big Impact: Nudging Employees Toward Sustainable Behaviors by Laura Cappellucci, Lan Ha, Jeremy Honig, Christopher R. Knittel, Amy Vetter, and Richard Wilner as of June 25th, 2024 (#25): “… in partnership with a large biopharmaceutical company … we focused on reducing operational errors that led to dropped collection materials, long freezer door open times, and improper recycling practices. To achieve these goals, we employed social norms to nudge employees towards 1) reducing wasted collection materials, 2) minimizing the duration of freezer door openings, and 3) improving recycling practices. We found an average reduction of roughly 70 percent in plastic waste from dropped collection materials and cost associated with these materials. The frequency of freezer door alarms decreased by over 80 percent, and the duration of alarms decreased by over 45 percent, depending on the empirical specification. We also observed a roughly 40 percent reduction in uncollapsed cardboard …” (abstract).
ESG investment research (in: Good green returns)
Externalization returns: Peer Evaluations of Corporate Externalities by Darren Bernard, Elsa Juliani, and Alastair Lawrence as of Sept. 23rd, 2024 (#62): “Using responses from corporate executives across Australia, Europe, and North America, we form a measure of the perceived externalities of peer firms and validate it based on the extent of agreement among independent respondents, correlations with popular ESG ratings and measures of environmental impact, firm- and industry-level determinants, and other tests. Our extensions suggest that private companies are rated well, as are public companies with powerful CEOs (namely, CEOs who founded their firms). … We find that firms deemed deficient by peers have higher stock returns … We also find that named firms are more likely to be included in compensation peer groups, and deficient peers are more likely to be included than aspirational peers“ (p. 28/29).
SRI = value investing?Finding Value in Sustainable and Responsible Investments by Sebastian Lobe and Gerhard Halbritter as of June 20th, 2024 (#20): “Collecting a comprehensive set of 100 international sustainable and responsible invest ments (SRI) indices from mainly developed markets we find that SRI pursues first and foremost a “pure” value strategy … SRI’s pure value strategy is present in most interna tional markets. … By and large, the financial performance is neutral with slight indications that score-weighted indices and a combined screening approach (positive and negative screens) are financially more beneficial“ (p. 15/16). My comment: This is a surprising result since previous research such as the one mentioned in this paper (p. 3) showed a growth rather than a value tilt of ESG-investments. My own small cap SDG fund also has a slight growth tilt.
Green bond investor motives: Who pays the greenium and why? A decomposition by Daniel Fricke and Christoph Meinerding from Deutsche Bundesbank as of Nov. 1st, 2024 (#26): “… the average greenium in our sample amounts to minus 3 basis points. Decomposing this average greenium along the bonds’ ownership, we then document that it is largely borne by banks, investment funds and insurance companies (or their clients). … Investment funds generally overweight green over matched conventional bonds, potentially reflecting strong non-pecuniary green preferences of their clients. … banks display a tilt towards specific green bonds with a relatively pronounced greenium. This tilt is particularly sizeable when the sample is restricted to young bonds, small bonds, bonds with a long residual maturity, or bonds issued by the financial sector. … intermediaries may be marginal investors for certain green bonds because of market making, underwriting or liquidity management activities“ (p. 24/25).
Private ownership ESG: Corporate Ownership and ESG Performance by Belén Villalonga, Peter Tufano, and Boya Wang as of Nov. 8th, 2024 (#36): “Firms whose material owners include managers and governments perform better on ESG metrics, while those with individual, family, and corporate shareholders perform worse. … While firms with family ownership show less commitment to ESG activities, management matters. In particular, firms with family CEO-owners do better than those in which the CEO is not a family member (both family and non-family firms). The revealed preference of family CEOs for ESG seems to be greater among descendants than among founders of family firms“ (p. 39).
Good biodiversity measures: Mapping the transgression of the planetary boundary for functional biosphere integrity by Fabian Stenzel, Liad Ben Uri, Johanna Braun, Jannes Breier, Karlheinz Erb, Dieter Gerten, Helmut Haberl, Sarah Matej, Ron Milo, Sebastian Ostberg, Johan Rockström, Nicolas Roux, Sibyll Schaphoff, and Wolfgang Lucht as of Oct. 25th, 2024 (#18): “Two new control variables have been suggested for quantitatively assessing the core planetary boundary for functional biosphere integrity: 1) Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) and 2) a metric for ecological disruption (EcoRisk). … We find that EcoRisk and BioCol are good predictors of degradation for a variety of ecological empirical datasets. … We find that the local boundary is currently transgressed on 66% of the global ice-free land surface, with 47% already at high risk of degradation” (p. 1).
Biodiversity policy recommendations: Biodiversity and Financial Risk Assessments by Timo Busch, Alexander Bassen, Kerstin Lopatta, Lisa Knob, and Sven Remer from the Research Platform Sustainable Finance as of May 2024: “The rapid loss of biodiversity is threatening the ecosystem services that many industries rely on, also posing significant risks to financial institutions and the overall financial system. Regulations like the SFDR, Taxonomy, and CSRD, therefore, aim to push companies and financial institutions to be more transparent about how their activities affect and depend on biodiversity. But financial institutions have been slow to account for biodiversity risks in their decision-making, often blaming the complexity of the issue and the lack of reliable, high-quality data. While several tools and metrics exist to help assess biodiversity risks, each has limitations and often needs to be used in combination to be effective. In addition, gaps and inconsistencies in current disclosure requirements do make this task even more daunting. This policy brief offers recommendations to policymakers, financial institutions, and businesses on how they can better analyse and manage biodiversity risks” (p. 1).
Wrong sustainable investment advice: Do advisors respond to investors’ preferences? by Thomas Cauthorn, Julia Eckert, Christian Klein, and Bernhard Zwergel as of Feb. 1st, 2024: “To understand if investment advisors are responsive to private investors’ preferences, we send trained mystery shoppers to 414 investment consultations. Our findings show that investment advisors generally recommend products that match investors’ risk preferences but only show limited consideration of investors’ sustainability preferences even when preferences are explicitly signaled. … Sustainability preferences that limit advisors’ ability to make an offer are altered in legal preference documentation. Investment advisors working for banks that primarily sell products from a single asset manager are more likely to wrongly document investors’ sustainability preferences. Inaccurate documentation persists even if advisors are monitored” (abstract). My comment: I recommend to use SDG-aligned revenues as key metric to measure sustainability. It is rather easy to determine and easy to understand.
SDG and impact investment research
Huge green investment potential: Household Climate Finance: Theory and Survey Data on Safe and Risky Green Assets by Shifrah Aron-Dine, Johannes Beutel, Monika Piazzesi, and Martin Schneider as of July 1st, 2024: “We use (Sö: German) household survey data …We find that the net effect of green investing is to increase the price of green assets and lower the cost of capital for green firms. … Green convenience yields and hedging demand for green equity are actually holding back green investment. Without them, green equity demand would be roughly 30% larger than its current level. … Many households currently invest in traditional equity to hedge a slower-than-expected transition to a green economy. Looking ahead, we show that widespread availability of green safe assets to households, in the form of green bank deposit accounts, could dramatically increase green investment. … If, for instance, green deposits could be offered at a 50 basis points lower interest rate than traditional deposit accounts, the overall share of green assets in the economy would grow from 8% to 37% of total financial wealth. This effect is entirely driven by a rise in the share of green safe assets. We show that the share of green equity would remain largely unchanged. We document that households’ current holdings of green assets are overwhelmingly in equity, while they generally prefer to hold safe assets. … in our model, we show that more information about green finance leads to a dramatic rise in the demand for green equity“ (p. 46/47). My comment see Neues Research: Warum grüne Geldanlagen noch gering sind | CAPinside
Investors love high CEO pay: Failed Say on Pay: How Do Companies Course Correct after to a ‚No‘ Vote? by Amit Batish, David F. Larcker, Lucia Song, Brian Tayan and Courtney Yu as of Oct. 14th, 2024 (#90): “When “say on pay” was legislated in the U.S. under the Dodd Frank Act of 2010, many observers hoped an advisory vote on executive compensation would provide a catalyst to “reign in” CEO pay that was perceived to be out of control … Over the last 14 years, companies in the Russell 3000 Index received average support of 91 percent for their pay programs. Moreover, average support has proven remarkably stable, fluctuating narrowly between a low of 89.2 percent (in 2022) and a high of 91.7 percent (in 2017). Meanwhile, the annual failure rate (companies receiving less than 50 support) averaged a mere 2 percent” (p. 1). My comment: Shareholder engagement focusing on CEO pay has not been effective in the past. We should not expect much from the introduction of ESG incentives, therefore.
Planetary limits: Boundary Conditions for Organizations in the Anthropocene: A Review of the Planetary Boundaries Framework Ten Years On by Amanda Williams, Paolo Perego, and Gail Whiteman as of Nov. 7th, 2024 (#18): “Our systematic review of the business literature demonstrates that business research on the planetary boundaries concept and on the climate boundary is increasing, though work on the other boundaries remains limited. Despite increased attention in business research, key gaps remain—scholarly conversations related to the planetary boundaries remain confined to sustainability journals, and there is little cross-analysis between the boundaries. … We propose a framework that addresses these gaps and establishes the planetary boundaries as cross-scale ecological boundary conditions for all organizations and managers operating under volatile and non-linear ecosystem conditions—key characteristics of the Anthropocene. Implementing our framework requires a transformation of the field in how scholars theorize, measure, and engage“ (p. 29/30).
Other investment research (in: Good green returns)
Real estate diversification limits: Market Risk of Real Estate: Using Direct Data to Understand Direct Risk by Hongyuan Zhang and Felix Schlumpf from the Zurich Insurance Company as of June 26th, 2024 (#245): “This research aimed to develop and validate an unsmoothing technique within the risk factor analysis framework to provide a more accurate representation of real estate market risk. By incorporating distributed lags in the risk factor model, we addressed the smoothing effects inherent in appraisal based data … The higher volatility and increased correlation with equity markets observed in the unsmoothed data suggest that real estate investments may not provide as much diversification as previously thought“ (p. 9/10).
ChatGPT financial limits: How Much Does ChatGPT Know About Finance? by Douglas (DJ) Fairhurst and Daniel Greene as of Oct. 11th, 2024 (#141): “This paper investigates the extent that large language models (LLMs) understand finance by analyzing responses to licensing exam preparation questions. … Our findings suggest that LLMs could be used to augment to finance professionals, as LLMs are skilled at summarizing large quantities of data and text. They also appear to be proficient at generating descriptions of basic finance principles and investment strategies. However, the frequency of inaccurate answers implies that caution and human oversight are required. … findings suggest that LLMs may be best used to give an overview of a topic and answer higher-level, broader questions rather than more specific, detailed, or nuanced prompts” (p. 29/30).
Werbung (in: Good green returns)
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 (aktuell durchschnittlich außerordentlich hohe 94% SDG-vereinbare Umsätze 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).
Wrong ESG compensation: 10x new research on new toxics, climate target ambitions, financial analysts and climate topics, new ESG regulation effect on investments, ESG compensation governance deficits, ESG compensation outcome deficits, costly custom indices, unattractive private capital investments, gender-typical investment problems, and AI for retirement planning
ESG research
New toxics: Novel Entities – A financial time bomb by Planet Tracker as of Oct. 1st, 2024: “There are hundreds of thousands of novel entities – toxic substances created by humans and released into the environment that may be disruptive to the planet – travelling through the global economy. … most novel entities have not undergone safety assessments or information on those are protected or not shared. … Evaluating novel entities after they have been created and released is not acceptable. … Novel entities are often viewed by investors and lenders as technological progress adding to revenue and earnings potential. Novel entities are a source of significant litigation risk. Novel entities produced decades ago can still cause significant financial downside to companies today and in the future” (p. 5).
Intrinsic climate success: Raising the bar: What determines the ambition level of corporate climate targets? by Clara Privato, Matthew P. Johnson, and Timo Busch as of Sept. 9th, 2024: “Since the launch of the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), we have witnessed a steady increase in the number of companies committing to climate targets for large-scale reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. … a two-stage qualitative study is conducted with a sample of 22 companies from five countries. … Within companies with highly ambitious climate targets, the findings indicate that certain factors are highly present, including leadership engagement, continual management support, employee involvement, participation in climate initiatives, and stakeholder collaboration. Conversely, none of these key factors are highly present in companies with less ambitious climate targets. Rather, these companies strongly identify the initiating factors of market-related pressures and non-market stakeholder influence as being the driving forces behind their target setting“ (abstract).
Climate analysts? Climate Value and Values Discovery by Zacharias Sautner, Laurence van Lent, Grigory Vilkov, and Ruishen Zhang as of July 24th, 2024 (#953): “Analyzing more than 310,000 earnings calls spanning two decades … the interest of analysts in “green topics ” is situational, reflecting market demands rather than persistent individual traits. Trading volume around earnings announcements is positively associated with the degree of climate discussions on earnings calls. … we find correlations between an analyst’s profile in earnings calls and career trajectories, with climate-centric analysts, particularly those focusing on value, experiencing better job opportunities. Climate analysts use voice, not exit, to ask (brown) firms to change“ (p. 25/26).
Regulation-driven divestments: Triggering a Divestment Wave? How ESMA’s Guidelines on ESG Fund Names Affect Fund Portfolios and Stocks by Stefan Jacob, Pauline Vitzthum, and Marco Wilkens as of Sept. 12th, 2024 (#58): “This paper examines the impact of the European Securities and Markets Authority’s (ESMA) Guidelines on funds’ names using ESG-related terms. These guidelines define clear exclusion criteria for sustainability-named funds. We examine the extent to which funds will be required to exclude non-compliant stocks, resulting in substantial divestments, particularly from firms with fossil fuel involvements. The enforcement of these guidelines is expected to significantly decarbonize the portfolios of sustainability-named funds, while at the same time triggering unprecedented selling pressure on certain stocks“ (abstract).
Wrong ESG compensation (1):ESG Overperformance? Assessing the Use of ESG Targets in Executive Compensation Plans by Adam B. Badawi and Robert Bartlett as of Sept. 10th, 2024 (#366): “The practice of linking executive compensation to ESG performance has recently become more prevalent in US public companies. In this paper, we document the extent of this practice within S&P 500 firms during the 2023 proxy season … We find that 315 of these firms (63.0%) include an ESG component in their executives’ compensation and that the vast majority of these incentives are part of the annual incentive plan (AIA) … While executives miss all of their financial targets 22% of the time in our sample, we show that this outcome is exceptionally rare for ESG-based compensation. Only 6 of 247 (2%) firms that disclose an ESG performance incentive report missing all of the ESG targets. We ask whether the ESG overperformance that we observe is associated with exceptional ESG outcomes or, instead, is related to governance deficiencies. Our findings that meeting ESG-based targets is not associated with improvements in ESG scores and that the presence of ESG-linked compensation is associated with more opposition in say-on-pay votes provides support for the weak governance theory over the exceptional performance theory“ (abstract). My comment With my shareholder engagement I ask companies to publish the pay ratio between their CEO and the average employee. Thus, all stakeholders can monitor if ESG compensation increases this already typically critically high metric (which I fear), also see Wrong ESG bonus math? Content-Post #188 and Kontraproduktive ESG-Ziele für Führungskräfte? | CAPinside
Wrong ESG compensation (2)? Paychecks with a Purpose: Evaluating the Effectiveness of CEO Equity and Cash Compensation for the Triple Bottom Line by Dennis Bams, Frederique Bouwman, and Bart Frijns as of Oct. 2nd, 2024 (#4): “We find that CEOs are more inclined to opt for a CSR strategy emphasizing Environmental Outcomes when they receive a larger proportion of their compensation in cash. … additional tests show that intentions have no predictive power for outcomes. … While the proportion of option compensation is beneficial for a CSR strategy that focuses on outcomes, the proportion of stock compensation motivates a focus on intentions. … In conclusion, our study shows that the prevailing approach of compensation packages focusing on equity compensation does not promote the triple bottom line principle.
Other investment research (in: Wrong ESG compensation)
Index illusion: Index Disruption: The Promise and Pitfalls of Self-Indexed ETFs by Bige Kahraman, Sida Li, and Anthony Limburg as of Sept. 27th, 2024 (#42): “The market for index providers is a concentrated market where the five largest providers serve approximately 95 percent of the market. … An increasing number of ETF issuers are creating proprietary indices in-house to avoid paying fees to third party index providers. In this paper, we … find that self-index funds offer higher, not lower, fees to their customers. To explain this, we suggest two hypotheses, one based on product differentiation and the other one based on conflicts of interest. Our results support the latter“ (p. 22). My comment: There are many (sustainability policy) reasons for custom portfolios but these portfolios should not be more expensive (see e.g. my direct SDG indexing options)
Private capital alpha illusion: The Private Capital Alpha by Gregory Brown, Andrei S. Goncalves, and Wendy Hu as of Sept. 25th, 2024 (#368): “We combine a large sample of 5,028 U.S. buyout, venture capital, and real estate funds from 1987 to 2022 to estimate the alphas of private capital asset classes under realistic simulations that account for the illiquidity and underdiversification in private markets as well as the portfolio allocation of typical limited partners. We find that buyout as an asset class has provided a positive and statistically significant alpha during our sample period. In contrast, over our sample period, the venture capital alpha was positive but statistically unreliable and the real estate alpha was, if anything, negative“ (p. 31). My comment: Most investors use gatekeepers of funds of funds to invest in private capital and after those costs even buyout alpha may be negligible”.
Lower-risk women: How Gender Differences and Behavioral Traits matter in Financial Decision-Making? Insights from Experimental and Survey Data by Giuseppe Attanasi, Simona Cicognani, Paola Paiardini, and Maria Luigia Signore as of Feb. 3rd, 2024 (#112): “… Our research suggests that gender alone does not exclusively determine diverse behavioral and investment choices. Instead, it is the context in which these choices are elicited that plays a crucial role. …(but) female investors consistently demonstrated a lower likelihood of engaging in investment activities across the financial domains of risk and ambiguity. … a tendency to invest less in risky financial assets limits the potential for accumulating greater wealth over time “ (p. 30).
Financial AI?Can ChatGPT Plan Your Retirement?: Generative AI and Financial Advice by Andrew W. Lo and Jillian Ross as of Sept. 4th, 2024 (#896): “… We focus on three challenges facing most LLM applications: domain-specific expertise and the ability to tailor that expertise to a user’s unique situation, trustworthiness and adherence to the user’s moral and ethical standards, and conformity to regulatory guidelines and oversight. … we focus on the narrow context of financial advice … Our goal is not to provide solutions to these challenges … but to propose a framework and road map for solving them as part of a larger research agenda for improving generative AI in any application” (abstract).
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Werbehinweis
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 (aktuell durchschnittlich außerordentlich hohe 97% SDG-vereinbare Umsätze der Portfoliounternehmen: Investment impact) und verwendet separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie Aktionärsengagement (Investor impact) bei derzeit 29 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).
Brown banks: 9x new research on CO2-costs, climate policy effects, Mittelstand climate, stock prices, ESG, CSR, gender diversity, green projects, and listed real estate (# shows the number of SSRN full research paper downloads as of June 13th, 2024)
Social and ecological research
Correct CO2 costs? Synthesis of evidence yields high social cost of carbon due to structural model variation and uncertainties by Frances C. Moore, Moritz A. Drupp, James Rising, Simon Dietz, Ivan Rudik, Gernot Wagner as of June 10th, 2024 (#9): “Estimating the cost to society from a ton of CO2 – termed the social cost of carbon (SCC) – requires connecting a model of the climate system with a representation of the economic and social effects of changes in climate, and the aggregation of diverse, uncertain impacts across both time and space. … we perform a comprehensive synthesis of the evidence on the SCC, combining 1823 estimates of the SCC from 147 studies with a survey of authors of these studies. The distribution of published 2020 SCC values is wide and substantially right-skewed, showing evidence of a heavy right tail (truncated mean of $132). … we train a random forest model on variation in the literature and use it to generate a synthetic SCC distribution that more closely matches expert assessments of appropriate model structure and discounting. This synthetic distribution has a mean of $284 per ton CO2, respectively, for a 2020 pulse year (5%–95% range: $32–$874), higher than all official government estimates … “ (abstract).
Strict policy effects:Climate and Environmental Policy Risk and Debt by Karol Kempa and Ulf Moslener as of April 25th, 2024 (#95): “… we find that policy determines how firms’ externalities, such as CO2 emissions and different types of environmental pollution, translate into credit risks and corporate bond pricing. The size as well as direction of the effect of externalities on credit risk and bond spreads depends on the stringency of policy. Ambitious policy increases the credit risk and costs of debt for dirty firms and decreases both for clean firms. Lenient regulation can have the opposite effect. … Finally, we find that a higher likelihood of stringent climate policies in the future increases the impact of CO2 emissions on credit risk“ (abstract).
Mittelstandsklima: Die unternehmerische Akzeptanz von Klimaschutzregulierung von Markus Rieger-Fels, Susanne Schlepphorst, Christian Dienes, Rodi Akalan, Annette Icks und Hans-Jürgen Wolter vom 3. Juni 2024: „Nur eine starke Volkswirtschaft kann die für den Klimaschutz erforderlichen Ressourcen aufbringen. Die Unternehmen sind dabei in der Mehrzahl bereit, diesen Weg mitzugehen. Speziell die mittelständischen Unternehmerinnen und Unternehmer weisen tendenziell eine hohe intrinsische Motivation auf, zum Schutz der Umwelt und des Klimas beizutragen. Das ist wichtig, da den Unternehmen stets ein strategischer Spielraum in der Umsetzung bleibt. Das Spektrum reicht dabei von einer Standortverlagerung über eine Produktionseinstellung und dem bewussten Ignorieren von Vorgaben bis hin zur freiwilligen Übererfüllung von Regulierungen …“ (p. 26/27). My comment: The reaction of global “Mittelstand” companies regarding my shareholder engagement activities (see Shareholder engagement: 21 science based theses and an action plan – (prof-soehnholz.com)) is more open than I thought
ESG investment research (in: Brown banks)
Brown banks? Banking on climate chaos – Fossil fuel finance report 2024 by Urgewald as of May 13th, 2024: “The 60 biggest banks globally committed $705 B USD to companies conducting business in fossil fuels in 2023, bringing the total since the Paris agreement to $6.9 T. These banks committed $347 billion in 2023 and $3.3 trillion total since 2016 to expansion companies – those companies that the Global Oil & Gas Exit List and the Global Coal Exit List report having expansion plans. … Total financing committed for companies with methane gas (LNG) import and export capacity under development, increased from $116.0 billion in 2022 to $121.0 billion in 2023. … 15.4 % of the financing by dollar value issued in 2023 matures after 2030; 3.7 % matures after 2050. Financing for fossil fuel extraction or infrastructure that matures after 2030 faces a risk of becoming stranded … several banks, including Bank of America and PNC, rolled back their previous exclusions in 2023 (see p. 32). Banks continue to prioritize net zero targets, though early research suggests that these targets, like other bank policies, leave loopholes for ongoing fossil fuel finance (see p. 35)” (p. 4). My comment: Check out you bank based on the detailed data: Banking on Climate Chaos 2024 – Banking on Climate Chaos
Climate correlations: The Cold Hard Cash Effect: Temperature’s Role in Shaping Stock Market Outcomes by Yosef Bonaparte as of April 15th, 2024 (#8): “The analysis conducted across 67 countries …highlight that warmer climates are linked to lower stock market returns, with a notable economic significance exceeding 9.12%, and reduced volatility, demonstrating an economic significance of at least 36.9%. Conversely, the Sharpe ratio, serving as a gauge of risk-adjusted returns, displays a positive co-movement with temperature change, indicating an economic significance surpassing 1.63%. Furthermore, cold countries earn greater stock market returns but are more negatively affected by temperature changes” (p. 16).
ESG or CSR?Combining CSR and ESG for Sustainable Business Transformation: When Corporate Purpose Gets a Reality Check by David Risi, Eva Schlindwein and Christopher Wickert as of June 7th, 2024 (#135): “ESG is a compliance-driven and metrics-oriented idea for stimulating sustainable business transformation. It focuses on reducing negative impacts and improving performance in specific areas. Moreover, it provides a reality check on how a firm is doing in light of increasing societal expectations for greater sustainability. By contrast, CSR is often viewed as a more values-based and internally driven approach to sustainability. It provides a strategy for developing a sense of meaning and purpose for responsible business conduct that reflects a firm’s values and identity… In their mutual integration, CSR and ESG create synergy since they can compensate for their respective weaknesses” (p. 12/13).
Good diversity: Board Gender Diversity and Investment Efficiency: Global Evidence from 83 Country-Level Interventions by Dave (Young Il) Baik, Clara Xiaoling Chen, and David Godsell as of May 4th, 2024 (#177): “We document increases in firms’ investment efficiency after the adoption of BGD interventions relative to firms in countries that do not concurrently adopt BGD interventions. Our results are economically significant, suggesting that treatment firms reduce inefficient investment by 0.6 percent of total assets or 6.5 percent of total investment and are 4 percentage points more likely to have above-median investment efficiency after interventions relative to firms in countries not concurrently adopting interventions“ (p. 33). My comment: I recently divested from a company because the social rating declined which was mainly due to low gender worker and board diversity
Impact investment research
Small climate steps: Inside the Blackbox of Firm Environmental Efforts: Evidence from Emissions Reduction Initiatives by Catrina Achilles, Peter Limbach, Michael Wolff and Aaron Yoon as of June 7th, 2024 (#35): “This study uses granular data at the firm’s project level, provided by the Carbon Disclosure Project, to present primary evidence on what large U.S. firms actually do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. … the majority of emissions reduction projects require small investments – the median investment per project is $127,000, with the median of firms’ total annual investment in such projects amounting to only 0.2% of net income. Second, 63% of all projects have payback periods of at most three years, while just about 10% of all projects pay off after more than ten years. These short-term projects mostly target energy efficiency in buildings or production, and typically do not involve new transformative technology and low-carbon energy. … our results suggest that short-term emissions reduction projects generate more CO2e and monetary savings per year, yield greater NPVs, and predict higher environment-related ESG ratings in the near future. However, total CO2e savings over the projects’ lifetime are at least 25% lower for short-term payback projects. Firms that exhibit the most CO2e savings have a mix of short- and longer-term projects, while firms exclusively implementing only short-term or longer-term projects save significantly less CO2e. We also study how characteristics of firms’ emissions reduction projects, such as their payback period and efficiency in saving CO2e, evolve over time and show which firms implement more short-term projects …. the evidence presented in this paper suggests that the majority of large U.S. firms do not act … long-term oriented” (p. 31/32).
Other investment research (in: Brown banks)
Real estate hedge:U.S. and European Listed Real Estate as an Inflation Hedge by Jan Muckenhaupt, Martin Hoesli and Bing Zhu as of May 28th, 2024 (#27): “This paper investigates the inflation-hedging capability of an important asset class, i.e., listed real estate (LRE), using data from 1990 to the end of 2023 … Listed real estate provides an effective hedge against inflation in the long run, both in crisis and non-crisis periods. In the short term, listed real estate only hedges against inflation in stable periods. LRE effectively serves as a hedge against inflation shocks, particularly protecting against unexpected inflation from the first month and against energy inflation during stable periods. While stocks surpass LRE in long-term inflation protection and LRE has short-term benefits, gold distinguishes itself from LRE by offering reliable long-run protection, but only in economic downturns” (abstract). My comment: My “most-passive” multi-asset ETF portfolios have a target allocation of 10-12% Listed Real Estate, 5 to 6 % Listed Infrastructure and 5% US Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities
Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in meinen globalen Small-Cap-Anlagefonds (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: My fund – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com). Zur jetzt wieder guten Performance siehe zum Beispiel Fonds-Portfolio: Mein Fonds | CAPinside
Healthcare IT: 17x new research on climate profits, biodiversity, carbon policy, noisiness, brown subsidies, child marriages, diversity returns, ESG ratings, climate measures, index pollution, impact funds, engagement returns, green research, green real estate, green ECB (# shows number of SSRN full paper downloads as of March 7th, 2024).
Ecological research (in: Healthcare IT)
Climate adaption profits? Fiscal Implications of Global Decarbonization by Simon Black, Ruud de Mooij, Vitor Gaspar, Ian Parry, and Karlygash Zhunussova from the International Monetary Fund as of March 7th, 2024 (#2): “The quantitative impact on fiscal revenues for countries depends on the balance between rising carbon revenue and a gradual erosion of existing carbon and fuel tax bases. Public spending rises during the transition to build green public infrastructure, promote innovation, support clean technology deployment, and compensate households and firms. Assumptions about the size of these spending needs are speculative and estimates vary with country characteristics (especially the emissions intensity of the energy sector) and policy choices (whether investments are funded through user fees or taxes for the sector or by the general budget). On balance, the paper finds that the global decarbonization scenario will likely have moderately negative implications for fiscal balances in advanced European countries. Effects are more likely to be positive for the US and Japan if public spending is contained. For middle and low-income countries, net fiscal impacts are generally positive and sometimes significantly so—mostly due to relatively buoyant revenue effects from carbon pricing that exceed spending increases. For low-income countries, these effects are reinforced if a portion of the global revenue from carbon pricing is shared across countries on a per-capita basis. Thus, a global agreement on mitigation policy has the potential to support the global development agenda” (p. 26).
Green productivity?The impact of climate change and policies on productivity by Gert Bijnens and many more from the European Central Bank as of Feb. 28th, 2024 (#26): “The impact of rising temperatures on labour productivity is likely to be positive for Northern European countries but negative for Southern European countries. Meanwhile, extreme weather events, having an almost entirely negative impact on output and productivity, are likely to have a relatively higher impact on Southern Europe. … The impact of climate policies on resource reallocation across sectors is likely negative, as the more carbon-intensive sectors are currently more productive than the sectors that are expected to grow due to the green transition. … Smaller firms that have a harder time in securing finance and less experience in creating or adapting new innovations may initially face challenges and see a decline in their productivity growth. However, their productivity outlook improves as they gradually adjust and gain access to support mechanisms, such as financial assistance and technological expertise. … Market-based instruments, like carbon taxes, are not enough in themselves to spur investment in green innovation and productivity growth. As others have found, the green transition also calls for an increase in green R&D efforts and non-market policies such as standards and regulations, where carbon pricing is less adequate. … In conclusion, while shifting towards a greener economy can lead to temporary declines in labour productivity in the shorter term, it could yield several long-term productivity benefits“ (p. 60/61).
Biodiversity degrowth: Biodiversity Risks and Corporate Investment by Hai Hong Trinh as of Oct. 1st, 2023 (#188): “I document a strong adverse association between corporate investment and biodiversity risks (BDR) …. More importantly, in line with the life-cycle theory, the relation is pronounced for larger and more mature firms, suggesting that firms with less growth opportunities care more about climate-induced risks, BDR exposures in this case. When environmental policies become more stringer for climate actions, the study empirically supports the rationale that climate-induced uncertainty can depress capital expenditure due to investment irreversibility, causing precautionary delays for firms”.
“Good” carbon policies:Carbon Policy Design and Distributional Impacts: What does the research tell us? by Lynn Riggs as of Sept. 21st, 2023 (#15): “There are two main veins of literature examining the distributional effects of carbon policy: the effects on households and the effects on production sectors (i.e., employment). These literatures have generally arisen from two common arguments against carbon policies – that these polices disproportionately affect lower income households and that the overall effect on jobs and businesses will be negative. However, existing research finds that well-designed carbon policies are consistent with growth, development, and poverty reduction, and both literatures provide guidance for policy design in this regard” (abstract).
Social research (in: Healthcare IT)
Costly noise: The Price of Quietness: How a Pandemic Affects City Dwellers’ Response to Road Traffic Noise by Yao-pei Wang, Yong Tu, and Yi Fan as of July 15th, 2023 (#44): “We find that housing units with more exposure to road traffic noise have an additional rent discount of 8.3% and that tenants are willing to pay an additional rent premium for quieter housing units after the pandemic. We demonstrate that the policies implemented to keep social distance like WFH (Sö: working from home) and digitalization during the COVID-19 pandemic have enhanced people’s requirement for quietness. We expect these changes to persist and have long-lasting implications on residents’ health and well-being …” (p. 25/26).
Ungreen inequality subsidies?Do Commuting Subsidies Drive Workers to Better Firms? by David R. Agrawal, Elke J. Jahn, Eckhard Janeba as of March 5th, 2024 (#5): „Increases in the generosity of commuting subsidies induce workers to switch to higher-paying jobs with longer commutes. Although increases in commuting subsidies generally induce workers to switch to employers that pay higher wages, commuting subsidies also enhance positive assortativity in the labor market by better matching high-ability workers to higher-productivity plants. Greater assortativity induced by commuting subsidies corresponds to greater earnings inequality” (abstract).
Polluted marriages: Marriages in the shadow of climate vulnerability by Jaykumar Bhongale and Oishik Bhattacharya as of May 15th, 2023 (#26): “We discover that girls and women are more likely to get married in the year of or the year after the heat waves. The relationship is highest for women between the ages of 18 and 23, and weakest for those between the ages of 11 and 14. We also investigate the idea that severe weather influences families to accept less suitable daughter marriage proposals. We discover that people who get married in extremely hot weather typically end up with less educated men and poorer families. Similarly to this, men with less education who married during unusually dry years are supportive of partner violence more than other married men married in normal seasons of the year. These findings collectively imply that families who experience environmental shocks adapt by hastening the marriage of daughters or by settling for less ideal marriage offers “ (abstract).
Diversity returns: Diversity and Stock Market Outcomes: Thank you Different! by Yosef Bonaparte as of Feb. 9th, 2024 (#30): “… we gather data from 68 countries on key financial results and their level of diversity. We define diversity via four dimensions: ethnicity, language, religion, and gender. … our results demonstrate that the impact of diversity components on the stock market varies, yet overall, the greater the level of diversity the greater the stock market performance, and there is no volatility associated with this high return. In fact, we present some evidence that the overall volatility declines as diversity increases. To sum up, diverse culture is better equipped to understand and serve diverse consumer markets, thereby expanding the potential customer base. This inclusive approach not only reflects social responsibility but also aligns with economic advantages, as it results in improved corporate governance, risk management, and overall corporate performance“ (p. 15).
ESG investment research
ESG rating issues:Unpacking the ESG Ratings: Does One Size Fit All? by Monica Billio, Aoife Claire Fitzpatrick, Carmelo Latino, and Loriana Pelizzon as of March 1st, 2024 (#70): “In this study, we unpack the ESG ratings of four prominent agencies in Europe …” (abstract) … “First, using correlation analysis we show that each E, S, and G pillar contributes differently to the overall ESG rating. … the Environmental pillar consistently plays a significant role in explaining ESG ratings across all agencies … When analysing the intra-correlations of the E, S and G pillar we find a low correlation between the three E, S, and G pillars. An interesting accounting methodology emerges from RobecoSAM which exhibits notably high intra-correlations. This prompts us to raise questions about the validity of relying exclusively on survey data for calculating ESG ratings as RobecoSAM does. … the Governance pillar displayed the highest divergence across all years, followed by Social, Environmental and finally ESG. … Finally, our study on the main drivers of ESG ratings reveals that having an external auditor, an environmental supply chain policy, climate change commercial risks opportunities and target emissions improves ratings across all agencies, further emphasizing the importance of firms’ environmental strategies“ (p. 12/13). My comment:Unterschiedliche ESG-Ratings: Tipps für Anleger | CAPinside
Pro intensity measures: Greenness and its Discontents: Operational Implications of Investor Pressure by Nilsu Uzunlar, Alan Scheller-Wolf, and Sridhar Tayur as of Feb. 28th, 2024 (#23): “… We explore two prominent environmental metrics that have been proposed for carbon emissions: an absolute-based target for absolute emissions and an intensity-based target for emission intensity. … we observe that, for high-emission companies, an intensity-based target increases the producer’s expected profit, leading to less divestment compared to the absolute-based target. We also find that the intensity-based target is more likely to facilitate investments in increased efficiency than the absolute-based target“ (abstract).
Index-hugging pollution?Reducing the Carbon Footprint of an Index: How Low Can You Go? by Paul Bouchey, Martin de Leon, Zeeshan Jawaid, and Vassilii Nemtchinov as of Feb. 13th, 2024 (#31): “… The authors find that an investor may be able to reduce the carbon footprint of a typical index-based portfolio by more than 50%, while keeping active risk low, near 1% tracking error volatility. … We study the effects of constraints on the optimization problem and find that loosening sector and industry constraints enables a greater reduction in carbon emissions, without a significant increase in overall active risk. Specifically, underweights to Utilities, Energy, and Materials allow for a greater reduction in carbon emissions” (abstract). My comment: The Carbon footprint can be reduced much more by avoiding significant emitters altogether. Index deviation will increase in that case, but not necessarily relevant risk indicators such as drawdowns or volatility, see also 30 stocks, if responsible, are all I need (prof-soehnholz.com)
SDG and impact investment research (in: Healthcare IT)
Better sustainability measure: Methodology for Eurosif Market Studies on Sustainability-related Investments by Timo Busch, Eric Pruessner, Will Oulton, Aleksandra Palinska, and Pierre Garrault from University Hamburg, Eurosif, and AIR as of February 2024: “Past market studies on sustainability-related investments typically gathered data on a range of different sustainability-related investment approaches and aggregated them to one of a number of “sustainable investments”. However, these statistics did not differentiate between investments based on their investment strategy and/or objectives to actively support the transition towards a more sustainable economy. The methodology presented in this paper aims to reflect current approaches to sustainability-related investment across Europe more accurately. It introduces four distinct categories of sustainability-related investments that reflect the investments’ ambition level to actively contribute to the transition towards a more just and sustainable economy … Two core features of the proposed approach are that it applies to all asset classes and that investments only qualify as one of the four categories if they implement binding ESG- or impact related criteria in their investment process. The methodology will serve as a basis for future market studies conducted by Eurosif in cooperation with its members“ (p. 2). My comment: I like the four categories Basic ESG, Advanced ESG, Impact-Aligned and Impact-Generating. For further details regarding impact generation see also DVFA-Leifaden_Impact_2023-10.pdf. The “Leitfaden” is now also available in English (not online yet, though)
Engagement returns: Value of Shareholder Environmental Activism: Case Engine No. 1 by Jennifer Brodmann, Ashrafee T Hossain, Abdullah-Al Masum, and Meghna Singhvi as of Feb. 13th, 2024 (#20): “We observe short-term market reactions to S&P100 index constituents around two subsequent events involving Engine No. 1 – an environment activist investment firm: first, they won board seats at ExxonMobil (the top non-renewable energy producer) on May 26, 2021; and second, on June 2, 2021, they announced their plan to float Transform-500-ETF (an ETF targeting to ensure green corporate policies) in the market. We find that the market reacts significantly positively towards the stocks of the firms with more serious environmental (and emission) concerns around each of these two events. Overall, our findings suggest that a positive move by the environment activist shareholders results in an incremental favorable equity market reaction benefitting the polluting firms. … we posit that this reaction may be a product of market anticipation of a future reduction in environmental (and emission) concerns following the involvement of green investors” (abstract).
Bundled green knowledge: Wissensplattform Nachhaltige Finanzwirtschaft by Patrick Weltin vom VfU as of February 2024: “The final report summarizes the key findings of the Knowledge Platform for Sustainable Finance project. The research project is helping to increase understanding of sustainable finance among various key stakeholders. In addition to policymakers, financial market players, the real economy and civil society, these include employees in the financial sector, in particular trainees, young professionals and students. The final report summarizes and presents the key results of the work packages and possible overarching findings” (p. 5). My comment: I offered the VfU to discuss about a potential inclusion of my research summaries, but I did not get a reply.
Greener real estate: Finanzierung von energetischen Gebäudesanierungen Eine kritische Analyse unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Sustainable Finance-Regulierung der Europäischen Union von Tobias Popovic und Jessica Reichard-Chahine vom Februar 2024: “Financing of energy-efficient building renovations: … At 1 percent per year, the renovation rates in the building stock in Germany are significantly below the 2-4 percent that would be necessary to achieve the climate targets of the Paris Agreement as well as those of the EU and the German government. The too low renovation rates, the insufficient renovation quality and the associated sluggish standardisation are due to various obstacles, such as a lack of data on the energy status of buildings, a lack of renovation and financial knowledge on the part of building owners and users, a lack of renovation incentives and, last but not least, the lack of availability of appropriate financing and insurance products. … On the market side .. there is still a need for the development of innovative financing instruments …” (p. 5).
Healthcare-IT potential:Next Health – a new way to navigate the healthcare ecosystem by Karin Frick, David Bosshart and Stefan Brei as of Nov. 7th, 2023 (Deutsch; Francais #27): “Human and artificial intelligence working together have the potential to significantly increase quality in both medicine and productivity, thereby reducing costs. … The more cooperative the approach to data sharing, the greater the amount and quality of data available in the system, and the better the results. These developments will also change the position of patients in the healthcare system and how they see their role. The more frequently they come into contact with the healthcare system while they are healthy, the more their behaviour will come to resemble that of consumers. Even the hierarchical distance between doctor and patient will shrink or perhaps even disappear completely, for the simple reason that both parties will be taking advice from smart assistants when making decisions“ (p. 2). My comment: About a third of my small cap SDG fund is now invested in healthcare companies. With Nexus from Germany and Pro Medicus from Australia there are two healthcare IT companies in my mutual fund. For further information on Medtech also see What to expect from medtech in 2024 by Karsten Dalgaard, Gerti Pellumbi, Peter Pfeiffer, and Tommy Reid from McKinsey.
Other investment research (in: Healthcare IT)
ECB for green? Legitimising green monetary policies: market liberalism, layered central banking, and the ECB’s ongoing discursive shift from environmental risks to price stability by Nicolás Aguila and Joscha Wullweber as of Feb. 17th, 2024: “Through the analysis of ECB Executive Board member speeches, we have identified three main narratives about the consequences of the environmental crisis in the monetary authority’s spheres of influence: The first emphasises environmental phenomena as financial risks; the second highlights the green investment or financing gap; and the third focuses on the impacts of climate change on price stability. … We show that the third narrative is displacing the first as the dominant discourse around ECB climate policy. The shift in focus from the central bank’s duties to maintain financial stability to its responsibilities regarding price stability under the primary mandate could lead to far-reaching green monetary policies” (abstract).
Shareholder engagement options: 14x new research on real estate, waste, nature, biodiversity, corporate governance, loans, climate postures, decarbonization, greenwashing, shareholder proposals and engagement, sustainable investor groups, CEO pay and BNPL by Thomas Cauthorn, Samuel Drempetic, Julia Eckert, Andreas G.F. Hoepner, Sven Huber, Christian Klein, Bernhard Zwergel and many others (# shows # of SSRN full paper downloads as of Feb. 1st, 2024):
Social and ecological research
Invisible housing space: Der unsichtbare Wohnraum by Daniel Fuhrhop as of June 30th, 2023: “This dissertation analyzes »invisible living space« and its potential for the housing market … »invisible living space«: unused rooms in homes, which were (often) formerly used as children’s rooms but are no longer needed in now elderly, single-family households. Using the »invisible living space« could help avoid economic and ecological costs of new housing developments … this thesis investigates realistic methods for the activation of invisible living space … In addition to homeshare, this dissertation … shows the potential of existing, invisible living space for up to 100.000 apartments“ (p. 13/14). My comment: I suggest a similar approach with Wohnteilen: Viel Wohnraum-Impact mit wenig Aufwand which could especially attractive for Corporates to attract and maintain employees and improve the CSR-position
Repair or not repair? Consumerist Waste: Looking Beyond Repair by Roy Shapira as of Jan. 27th, 2024 (#58): “The average American uses her smartphone for only two years before purchasing a new one and wears a new clothing item five times before dumping it. … Consumerist waste is a multifaceted problem. It emanates not just from functional product obsolescence, which repair can help solve, but also from psychological (or “perceived”) product obsolescence, which repair cannot solve. … A key question is therefore not whether consumers have a right to repair but rather whether consumers want to repair. … Existing proposals focus on requiring disclosure at the purchasing point and assuring repair at the post-purchase point. These tools may be necessary, but they are hardly sufficient. … It may be more effective to focus on sellers’ reputational concerns instead” (abstract).
ESG investment research (Shareholder engagement options)
Nature-ratings:Accountability for Nature: Comparison of Nature-Related Assessment and Disclosure Frameworks and Standards by Yi Kui Felix Tin, Hamza Butt, Emma Calhoun, Alena Cierna, Sharon Brooks as of January 2024: “… provides an overview of the key methodological and conceptual trends among the private sector assessment and disclosure approaches on nature-related issues. … The report presents findings from a comparative research on seven leading standards, frameworks and systems for assessment and disclosure on nature-related issues … CDP disclosure system, European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards, International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) Standards, Natural Capital Protocol, Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) target setting guidance, Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) framework … Overall, the study revealed that the reviewed approaches are demonstrating an increasing level of alignment in key concepts and methodological approaches” (p. Vii/Viii).
Biodiversity premium: Loan pricing and biodiversity exposure: Nature-related spillovers to the financial sector by Annette Becker, Francesca Erica Di Girolamo, Caterina Rho from the European Commission as of December 2023: “Our findings show that the exposure of EU banks to biodiversity varies across countries, depending on the level of exposure of borrowing firms and the loan volumes. Secondly, using data on syndicated loans from 2017 to 2022, we observe a positive and significant correlation between loan pricing and the level of biodiversity exposure of the borrower“ (abstract).
Passive investment risks:Corporate Governance Regulation: A Primer by Brian R. Cheffins as of Jan. 26th, 2024 (#47): “… we find that equity capital flows into the “Big Three” investment managers (Sö: Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street Global Advisors) have slowed in recent years, with substantial differences between each institution. We also present a framework to understand how fund characteristics and corporate actions such as stock buybacks and equity issuances combine to shape the evolution of institutional ownership …. Our evidence reveals why certain institutions win and lose in the contest for flows and implicates important legal conversations including the impact of stock buybacks, mergers between investment managers, and the governance risks presented by the rise of index investing” (abstract).
Huge transition risks:Risks from misalignment of banks’ financing with the EU climate objectives by the European Central Bank as of January 2024: “The risks stemming from the transition towards a decarbonised economy can have a significant effect on the credit portfolio of a financial institution … The euro area banking sector shows substantial misalignment and may therefore be subject to increased transition risks, and around 70% of banks are also subject to elevated reputational and litigation risk” (p. 2/3).
Cost reduction or transition?Climate Postures by Thomas Cauthorn, Samuel Drempetic, Andreas G.F. Hoepner, Christian Klein and Adair Morse as of Jan. 27th, 2024 (#26): “… we define climate postures as the focus of firm climate efforts, where those in the status quo economy focus on costs, and those undertaking opportunities focus on transition. … We find priced evidence for both optimal status quo and transition opportunity firms in both energy and industrials/basic materials sectors. The sorting following the signal of a climate posture towards transition opportunities yields a 2.9% excess two-week return for European energy companies and a 1.6% return for industrials in North America. Our design also identifies across-sector market penalties in signals of climate costs“ (abstract).
Impact investment research (Shareholder engagement options)
Obvious greenwashing?Decarbonizing Institutional Investor Portfolios: Helping to Green the Planet or Just Greening Your Portfolio? by Vaska Atta-Darkua, Simon Glossner, Philipp Krueger, and Pedro Matos as of Sept. 29th, 2023 (#1208): “We … analyze climate-conscious institutional investors that are members of the most prominent investor-led initiatives: the CDP (that seeks corporate disclosure on climate risk related matters) and the subsequent Climate Action 100+ (that extends the mission of CDP and calls for investor action on climate change with top emitting firms). … We conclude that CDP investors located in a country with a carbon pricing scheme decarbonize their portfolios mostly via portfolio re-weighting (tilting their holdings towards low-emitting firms) rather than via corporate changes (engaging with high-emitting firms to curb their emissions). We continue to find mostly portfolio re-weighting even among CA100+ investors after the 2015 Paris Agreement and do not uncover much evidence of engagement. … we fail to find evidence that climate-conscious investors seek companies developing green technologies or encourage their portfolio firms to generate significant green revenues“ (p. 25/26).
No greenwashing impact? The financial impact of greenwashing controversies by European Securities and Markets Authority as of Dec. 19th, 2023: “… the number of greenwashing controversies involving large European firms increased between 2020 and 2021 and tended to be concentrated within a few firms belonging to three main sectors, including the financial sector. We also investigate the impact of greenwashing controversies on firms’ stock returns and valuation and find no systematic evidence of a relationship between the two. The results suggest that greenwashing allegations did not have a clear financial impact on firms and highlight the absence of an effective market-based mechanism to help prevent potential greenwashing behaviour. This underscores the importance of clear policy guidance by regulators and efforts by supervisors to ensure the credibility of sustainability-related claims“ (p. 3). My comment: Investor should do much more against greenwashing (to avoid additional regulation)
Shareholder engagement framework:Introducing a standardised framework for escalating engagement with companies by Niall Considine, Susanna Hudson, and Danielle Vrublevskis from Share Action as of Dec. 6th, 2023: “ShareAction is introducing the concept of a standard escalation framework to facilitate the application of escalation tools with companies through corporate debt and listed equity. The escalation framework comprises: The escalation toolkit, which groups different escalation tools into five categories of increasing strength; The escalation pathway, which sets out how the asset manager will apply and progress through the escalation toolkit in a timely manner. We also include expectations on resourcing and reporting on the escalation framework” (p. 7). My comment: You may also want to read DVFA-Fachausschuss Impact veröffentlicht Leitfaden Impact Investing – DVFA e. V. – Der Berufsverband der Investment Professionals which soon will also be available in English (and to which I was allowed to contribute). You find the picture of the article and explanations there or here Shareholder engagement: 21 science based theses and an action plan – (prof-soehnholz.com)
Shareholder voting effects:Shareholder Proposals: Do they Drive Financial and ESG Performance? by Victoria Levasseur and Paolo Mazza as of Jan. 23rd, 2024 (#24): “Our findings reveal that shareholder proposals are associated with increased nonfinancial performance, as evidenced by improved ESG scores. However, these proposals are associated with a negative impact on financial performance, and the extent of this correlation varies across different financial ratios. Furthermore, the study underscores notable differences in the effects of shareholder activism based on the geographical location of the company’s headquarters, specifically between the United States and Europe” (abstract).
Unsustainable Divestors?New evidence on the investor group heterogeneity in the field of sustainable investing by Julia Eckert, Sven Huber, Christian Klein and Bernhard Zwergel as of Jan. 18th, 2024 (#74): “We provide new insights about the investor group heterogeneity in the field of sustainable investing. Using survey data from 3,667 German financial decision makers, we … find a new investor group which we call: Divesting Investors. Second, we analyze the differences with regard to the perceived investment obstacles between the investor groups that do not want to (further) invest sustainably or want to withdraw capital from sustainable investments” (abstract). My comment: Divestment is a powerful instrument for sustainable investors to become even more so, see Divestments: 49 bei 30 Aktien meines Artikel 9 Fonds – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com). For me, the option to divest is so important that I do not invest in illiquid investments anymore.
Other investment research (Shareholder engagement options)
CEO overpay everywhere? CEO Pay Differences between U.S. and non-U.S. firms: A New Longitudinal Investigation by Ruiyuan (Ryan) Chen, Sadok El Ghoul, Omrane Guedhami, and Feiyu Liu as of Dec. 11th, 2023 (#29): “We use time series CEO compensation data across 34 nations from 2001-2018, and find about a 23% pay premium for U.S. CEOs. This premium diminishes in comparison to G7 countries …. We also find that top U.S. CEOs earn substantially more, but excluding them reduces the overall pay premium” (p. 1). My comment: Investor should focus more on reducing the CEO to median employee pay ratio and not to introduce (additional) ESG bonifications, compare Wrong ESG bonus math? Content-Post #188 – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)
Unsustainable BNPL: “Buy Now, Pay Later” and Impulse Shopping by Jan Keil and Valentin Burg as of Nov. 29th, 2023 (#190): “We analyze if “Buy Now, Pay Later” (BNPL) generates impulsive shopping behavior. Making BNPL randomly available increases the likelihood that an impulsive customer completes a purchase by 13%. … Shopping behavior of all customers changes in ways resembling impulsiveness – by looking more hasty, premature, unoptimized, and likely to be regretted retrospectively“ (abstract). My comment: Not all fintech is sustainable
Diversification myths: 14x new research on ESG and consumption, ESG data, ESG washing, ESG returns, climate risks, voting, divestments, diversification myths, anomalies, trend following, real estate and private equity (# shows number of full paper downloads as of Jan. 18th, 2024)
Social and ecological research
Low ESG-consumption effect: How Do Consumers Use Firm Disclosure? Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment by Sinja Leonelli, Maximilian Muhn, Thomas Rauter, and Gurpal Sran as of Jan. 11th, 2024 (#79): “In a sample of more than 24,000 U.S. households, we first establish several stylized facts: (i) the average consumer has a moderate preference to purchase from ESG-responsible firms; (ii) consumers typically have no preference for more or less profitable firms; (iii) consumers rarely consult ESG reports and virtually never use financial reports to inform their purchase decisions. … Consumers increase their purchase intent when exogenously presented with firm-disclosed positive signals about environmental, social, and—to a lesser extent—governance activities. Full ESG reports only have an impact on consumers who choose to view them, whereas financial reports and earnings information do not have an effect. After the experiment, consumers increase their actual product purchases, but these effects are small, short-lived, and only materialize for viewed ESG reports and positive social signals. … we provide explanations for why consumers (do not) change their shopping behavior after our information experiment“ (abstract).
ESG investment research (Diversification myths)
ESG data criticism:ESG Data Primer: Current Usage & Future Applications by Tifanny Hendratama, David C. Broadstock, and Johan Sulaeman as of Jan. 12th, 2024 (#66): “ESG data is important, and will become even more so as time progresses. … There remains a prevalent use of combined ESG scores instead of E, S and G specific pillar scores; The use of combined ESG, and pillar specific scores may themselves detract focus away from crucial underlying raw data; Empirical research depends heavily on a small number of ESG data providers; That some data providers focus more on the E than the S – creating a need for data users to make sure the scoring ethos of each provider aligns with their expectations and requirements; There is a potentially material quantity of ESG data inconsistencies which could result in unintended investment allocation” (p. iv). My comment: I use segregated E, S and G ratings since many years and best-in-universe instead of best-in-class ratings
Costly washing:ESG washing: when cheap talk is not cheap! by Najah Attig and Abdlmutaleb Boshanna as of Dec. 26th, 2023 (#63): “… we introduce an easily replicable ESG washing measure. We then document a robust negative impact of ESG washing on corporate financial performance … we show that the COVID-19 pandemic incentivized firms to engage in increased overselling of their ESG performance. Taken together, our new evidence suggests that ‚cheap talk is not cheap‘ and the misalignment between ‘ESG talk’ and ‘ESG walk’ not only fails to serve shareholders‘ best interests but may also undermine a firm’s social license to operate” (abstract).
Disclosure or performance?The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: A critical review of the performance measures used by Thomas Thijssens as of Jan. 9th, 2024 (#8): “More extensive disclosures may even be a signal for inferior rather than superior performance in terms of actual environmental impact. This suggestion is fueled by the observations that more polluting industries have on average more extensive ED (Sö: Environmental disclosure) and higher environmental commitment is associated with higher GHG emissions“ (p. 18). My comment: Most other studies known to me show – in general – positive effects of more disclosure
Performance-neutral ESG:Drawing Up the Bill: Is ESG Related to Stock Returns Around the World? by Rómulo Alves, Philipp Krüger, and Mathijs van Dijk as of Jan. 13th, 2024 (#47): “… our analysis of a comprehensive global database (including 16,000+ stocks in 48 countries and seven different ESG rating providers over 2001-2020) uncovers very little evidence that ESG ratings are related to stock returns around the world. … thus it has been possible to “do good without doing poorly.” Our findings also suggest that the prices of strong ESG stocks have not consistently been driven up, and that, going forward, ESG investors could potentially still benefit from any demand effects resulting in the pricing of ESG preferences. On the flip side, our analysis implies that ESG investing has so far not been effective in reducing (increasing) the cost of equity capital of strong (poor) ESG firms, which could lead firms to internalize climate and social externalities (Fama 2021, Pástor et al. 2021)“ (p. 14). My comment: I could not agree more for the small and midcap companies on which I focus
Huge climate risks: How climate stress test may underestimate financial losses from physical climate risks by a factor of 2-3x by Jakob Thomä from 1 in 1000 and Theia Finance Labs as of Dec. 1st, 2023: “A high baseline climate risk (i.e. using a climate stress-test model with meaningful baseline GDP losses over the next 30 years) stress-test scenario can create a 10% shock to global equity markets. A combination of climate tipping points, ecosystem decline, and social risks can increase that number as a cumulative risk to 27%, almost 3x the baseline losses. A low baseline scenario of a 4% shock in turn turns into a 14% shock when considering these other factors. These losses are dramatic as they are secular and not cyclical. It is worth flagging that this event would be unprecedented in modern financial market history“ (p. 4). My comment: Thanks to Bernd Spendig for informing me about this study.
Climate risk aversion:Institutionelle Investor:innen und physische Klimarisiken vom Lehrstuhl für Sustainable Finance, Universität Kassel as of September Dec. 17th, 2023: “Approximately 40 percent of the surveyed institutions do not take physical climate risks into account when valuing corporate bonds. In addition, a majority of respondents who already take physical climate risks into account are unsure whether these risks are adequately taken into account. In this regard, Part II reveals that 80% of the surveyed institutional investors believe that physical climate risks are not adequately reflected in the risk premiums of corporate bonds” (abstract).
Impact investing research
Voting deficits: Voting matters 2023 by Abhijay Sood at al from Share Action as of Jan. 11th, 2024: “In 2023, only 3% of assessed resolutions passed, just eight out of 257 resolutions. This is down from 21% of assessed resolutions in 2021 … In 2023, the ‘big four’ (BlackRock, Vanguard, Fidelity Investments, and State Street Global Advisors) only supported – on average – one eighth of those put forward, a marked drop since 2021 … Eight asset managers with public net zero targets supported fewer than half of all climate resolutions … Three quarters of all shareholder proposals covered in our study asked only for greater corporate disclosure, including those which some asset managers have deemed overly “prescriptive”. The other quarter of resolutions ask for movement in line with globally agreed climate goals or international human rights standards. … Resolutions at financial services companies on fossil fuel financing received the lowest support by asset managers of any climate-related topic” (p. 8-10). My comment: I focus more on direct dialogue (engagement) than voting, see Shareholder engagement: 21 science based theses and an action plan – (prof-soehnholz.com)
Divestment myths:Beyond Divestment by David Whyte as of Jan. 16th, 2024 (#11): “The top 20 shareholders in both BP and Shell have increased their total number of shares by three quarters of a billion in BP, and half a billion in Shell since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015. Indeed, although 47% of BP shareholders and 54% of Shell shareholders have reduced their stake, net share ownership overall has risen significantly in both companies. … more than a quarter of the 20 investors who made the most significant reductions in shareholdings in either BP or Shell increased their overall fossil fuel investment. … only 60 institutional investors have sold all of their shares in the two oil firms. This represents 3% of BP and 4% of Shell shareholders“ (abstract).
Other investment research (Diversification myths)
Diversification myths:Diversification Is Not A Free Lunch by Dirk G. Baur as of Jan. 3rd, 2024 (#56): “We … demonstrate that diversification generally comes at a cost through lower returns and is thus not a free lunch. While the risk of diversified portfolios is clearly lower than that of less diversified or undiversified portfolios, the return is generally also lower. There is only one exception. If the investor is ignorant and picks stocks randomly, diversification is a free lunch. … if diversification is a free lunch, it would violate the fundamental positive risk – return relationship in finance. Specifically, if risk can be reduced without a cost, risk and return are not positively aligned” (p.15). My comment: Even for randomly picked stocks the marginal gains of diversification are very low (see p. 11) whereas the reductions in sustainability – which are not covered in this paper – can be high, see 30 stocks, if responsible, are all I need – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)
Normal anomalies:Anomalies Never Disappeared: The Case of Stubborn Retail Investors by Xi Dong and Cathy Yang as of Dec. 29th, 2023 (#56): “Our examination of 260 anomalies challenges the prevailing notion that market efficiency erodes anomaly-based profits, these anomalies continue to thrive, especially over longer timeframes. We demonstrate that retail investors play a pivotal role in the persistence of these anomalies. Their stubborn trading patterns, especially against anomalies, not only contribute to initial mispricing but also lead to delayed price corrections“ (p. 37).
Trend following theory:Speculating on Higher Order Beliefs by Paul Schmidt-Engelbertz and Kaushik Vasudevan as of Aug.3rd, 2023 (#187): “We study investors’ higher order beliefs, using survey data from the Robert Shiller Investor Confidence surveys. While previous work has documented instances of non-fundamental speculation – investors taking positions in a risky asset in a direction that conflicts with their fundamental views – we find that such speculation is the norm for the U.S. stock market. The majority of investors in the Shiller surveys, who represent an important class of investors, report that other investors have mistaken beliefs, but nevertheless report positive return expectations from speculating in the direction of these mistaken beliefs. In addition, investors report that they believe that stock markets overreact and exhibit momentum and reversal in response to news. … We find that higher order beliefs may substantially amplify stock market fluctuations. When investors exhibit the same fundamental belief biases that they attribute to other investors, patterns such as overreaction, momentum, and reversal can persist in equilibrium, even though everybody knows about them“ (p. 37/38). My comment: I use simple trend following strategies to reduce drawdown-risks for investors who do not like bond investments but not to try to enhance returns
US Real Estate: A First Look at the Historical Performance of the New NAV REITs by Spencer J. Couts and Andrei S. Goncalves as of Jan.12th, 2024 (#31): “…we study the historical investment performance of NAV REITs relative to public bonds, public equities, and public REITs from 2016 to 2023. … First, the smoothness of NAV REIT returns due to lagged price reactions creates an important challenge to the measurement of the alphas of NAV REIT investments relative to public market indices. Moreover, return unsmoothing methods significantly mitigate (but do not fully solve) this issue. Second, traditional performance analysis indicates that NAV REIT investments generated substantial alpha (above 5% per year) relative to public indices over our sample period“ (p. 26).
PE calculation-uncertainties: Unpacking Private Equity Performance by Gregory Brown and William Volckmann as of Dec. 20th., 2023 (#31): “… complicating the analysis are the increasingly common practices of funds using subscription lines of credit (fund-level debt) and recycling capital. Even the variation in the timing of capital deployment across funds has important implications for common performance measures used to evaluate funds such as internal rate of return (IRR) and multiple on invested capital (MOIC). …. values likely observed during fundraising periods for subsequent funds – are strongly affected by subscription lines and deployment pacing. Intermediate MOICs are only weakly affected by subscription lines, but strongly affected by capital deployment pacing. Both IRRs and MOICs are strongly affected by recycle deal accounting methodology“ (abstract). “When a fund utilizes subscription lines, net IRR is very sensitive over the life cycle of the fund and can massively exaggerate performance during the investment/fundraising period. Net MOIC can also be exaggerated early in the investment period …” (p. 17).
Sustainable investment can be radically different from traditional investment. „Asset Allocation, Risk Overlay and Manager Selection“ is the translation of the book-title which I wrote in 2009 together with two former colleagues from FERI in Bad Homburg. Sustainability plays no role in it. My current university lecture on these topics is different.
Sustainability can play a very important role in the allocation to investment segments, manager and fund selection, position selection and also risk management. Strict sustainability can even lead to radical changes: More illiquid investments, lower asset class diversification, significantly higher concentration within investment segments, more active instead of passive mandates and different risk management. Here is why:
Central role of investment philosophy and sustainability definition for sustainable investment
Investors should define their investment philosophy as clearly as possible before they start investing. By investment philosophy, I mean the fundamental convictions of an investor, ideally a comprehensive and coherent system of such convictions (see Das-Soehnholz-ESG-und-SDG-Portfoliobuch 2023, p. 21ff.). Sustainability can be an important element of an investment philosophy.
Example: I pursue a strictly sustainable, rule-based, forecast-free investment philosophy (see e.g. Investment philosophy: Forecast fans should use forecast-free portfolios). To this end, I define comprehensive sustainability rules. I use the Policy for Responsible Investment Scoring Concept (PRISC) tool of the German Association for Asset Management and Financial Analysis (DVFA) for operationalization.
When it comes to sustainable investment, I am particularly interested in the products and services offered by the companies and organizations in which I invest or to which I indirectly provide loans. I use many strict exclusions and, above all, positive criteria. In particular, I want that the revenue or service is as compatible as possible with the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations (UN SDG) („SDG revenue alignment“). I also attach great importance to low absolute environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks. However, I only give a relatively low weighting to the opportunities to change investments („investor impact“) (see The Soehnholz ESG and SDG Portfolio Book 2023, p. 141ff). I try to achieve impact primarily through shareholder engagement, i.e. direct sustainability communication with companies.
Other investors, for whom impact and their own opportunities for change are particularly important, often attach great importance to so-called additionality. This means, that the corresponding sustainability improvements only come about through their respective investments. If an investor finances a new solar or wind park, this is considered additional and therefore particularly sustainable. When investing money on stock exchanges, securities are only bought by other investors and no money flows to the issuers of the securities – except in the case of relatively rare new issues. The purchase of listed bonds or shares in solar and wind farm companies is therefore not considered an impact investment by additionality supporters.
Sustainable investment and asset allocation: many more unlisted or alternative investments and more bonds?
In extreme cases, an investment philosophy focused on additionality would mean investing only in illiquid assets. Such an asset allocation would be radically different from today’s typical investments.
Better no additional allocation to illiquid investments?
Regarding additionality, investor and project impact must be distinguished. The financing of a new wind farm is not an additional investment, if other investors would also finance the wind farm on their own. This is not atypical. There is often a so-called capital overhang for infrastructure and private equity investments. This means, that a lot of money has been raised via investment funds and is competing for investments in such projects.
Even if only one fund is prepared to finance a sustainable project, the investment in such a fund would not be additional if other investors are willing to commit enough money to this fund to finance all planned investments. It is not only funds from renowned providers that often have more potential subscriptions from potential investors than they are willing to accept. Investments in such funds cannot necessarily be regarded as additional. On the other hand, there is clear additionality for investments that no one else wants to make. However, whether such investments will generate attractive performance is questionable.
Illiquid investments are also far from suitable for all investors, as they usually require relatively high minimum investments. In addition, illiquid investments are usually only invested gradually, and liquidity must be held for uncertain capital calls in terms of timing and amount. In addition, illiquid investments are usually considerably more expensive than comparable liquid investments. Overall, illiquid investments therefore have hardly any higher return potential than liquid investments. On the other hand, mainly due to the methods of their infrequent valuations, they typically exhibit low fluctuations. However, they are sometimes highly risky due to their high minimum investments and, above all, illiquidity.
In addition, illiquid investments lack an important so-called impact channel, namely individual divestment opportunities. While liquid investments can be sold at any time if sustainability requirements are no longer met, illiquid investments sometimes have to remain invested for a very long time. Divestment options are very important to me: I have sold around half of my securities in recent years because their sustainability has deteriorated (see: Divestments: 49 bei 30 Aktien meines Artikel 9 Fonds).
Sustainability advantages for (corporate) bonds over equities?
Liquid investment segments can differ, too, in terms of impact opportunities. Voting rights can be exercised for shares, but not for bonds and other investment segments. However, shareholder meetings at which voting is possible rarely take place. In addition, comprehensive sustainability changes are rarely put to the vote. If they are, they are usually rejected (see 2023 Proxy Season Review – Minerva).
I am convinced that engagement in the narrower sense can be more effective than exercising voting rights. And direct discussions with companies and organizations to make them more sustainable are also possible for bond buyers.
Irrespective of the question of liquidity or stock market listing, sustainable investors may prefer loans to equity because loans can be granted specifically for social and ecological projects. In addition, payouts can be made dependent on the achievement of sustainable milestones. However, the latter can also be done with private equity investments, but not with listed equity investments. However, if ecological and social projects would also be carried out without these loans and only replace traditional loans, the potential sustainability advantage of loans over equity is put into perspective.
Loans are usually granted with specific repayment periods. Short-term loans have the advantage that it is possible to decide more often whether to repeat loans than with long-term loans, provided they cannot be repaid early. This means that it is usually easier to exit a loan that is recognized as not sustainable enough than a private equity investment. This is a sustainability advantage. In addition, smaller borrowers and companies can probably be influenced more sustainably, so that government bonds, for example, have less sustainability potential than corporate loans, especially when it comes to relatively small companies.
With regard to real estate, one could assume that loans or equity for often urgently needed residential or social real estate can be considered more sustainable than for commercial real estate. The same applies to social infrastructure compared to some other infrastructure segments. On the other hand, some market observers criticize the so-called financialization of residential real estate, for example, and advocate public rather than private investments (see e.g. Neue Studie von Finanzwende Recherche: Rendite mit der Miete). Even social loans such as microfinance in the original sense are criticized, at least when commercial (interest) interests become too strong and private debt increases too much.
While renewable raw materials can be sustainable, non-industrially used precious metals are usually considered unsustainable due to the mining conditions. Crypto investments are usually considered unsustainable due to their lack of substance and high energy consumption.
Assuming potential additionality for illiquid investments and an impact primarily via investments with an ecological or social focus, the following simplified assessment of the investment segment can be made from a sustainability perspective:
Sustainable investment: Potential weighting of investment segments assuming additionality for illiquid investments:
Source: Soehnholz ESG GmbH 2023
Investors should create their own such classification, as this is crucial for their respective sustainable asset allocation.
Taking into account minimum capital investment and costs as well as divestment and engagement opportunities, I only invest in listed investments, for example. However, in the case of multi-billion assets with direct sustainability influence on investments, I would consider additional illiquid investments.
Sustainable investment and manager/fund selection: more active investments again?
Scientific research shows that active portfolio management usually generates lower returns and often higher risks than passive investments. With very low-cost ETFs, you can invest in thousands of securities. It is therefore no wonder that so-called passive investments have become increasingly popular in recent years.
Diversification is often seen as the only „free lunch“ in investing. But diversification often has no significant impact on returns or risks: With more than 20 to 30 securities from different countries and sectors, no better returns and hardly any lower risks can be expected than with hundreds of securities. In other words, the marginal benefit of additional diversification decreases very quickly.
But if you start with the most sustainable 10 to 20 securities and diversify further, the average sustainability can fall considerably. This means that strictly sustainable investment portfolios should be concentrated rather than diversified. Concentration also has the advantage of making voting and other forms of engagement easier and cheaper. Divestment threats can also be more effective if a lot of investor money is invested in just a few securities.
Sustainability policies can vary widely. This can be seen, among other things, in the many possible exclusions from potential investments. For example, animal testing can be divided into legally required, medically necessary, cosmetic and others. Some investors want to consistently exclude all animal testing. Others want to continue investing in pharmaceutical companies and may therefore only exclude „other“ animal testing. And investors who want to promote the transition from less sustainable companies, for example in the oil industry, to more sustainability will explicitly invest in oil companies (see ESG Transition Bullshit?).
Indices often contain a large number of securities. However, consistent sustainability argues in favor of investments in concentrated, individual and therefore mostly index-deviating actively managed portfolios. Active, though, is not meant in the sense of a lot of trading. In order to be able to exert influence by exercising voting rights and other forms of engagement, longer rather than shorter holding periods for investments make sense.
Still not enough consistently sustainable ETF offerings
When I started my own company in early 2016, it was probably the world’s first provider of a portfolio of the most consistently sustainable ETFs possible. But even the most sustainable ETFs were not sustainable enough for me. This was mainly due to insufficient exclusions and the almost exclusive use of aggregated best-in-class ESG ratings. However, I have high minimum requirements for E, S and G separately (see Glorious 7: Are they anti-social?). I am also not interested in the best-rated companies within sectors that are unattractive from a sustainability perspective (best-in-class). I want to invest in the best-performing stocks regardless of sector (best-in-universe). However, there are still no ETFs for such an approach. In addition, there are very few ETFs that use strict ESG criteria and also strive for SDG compatibility.
Even in the global Socially Responsible Investment Paris Aligned Benchmarks, which are particularly sustainable, there are still several hundred stocks from a large number of sectors and countries. In contrast, there are active global sustainable funds with just 30 stocks, which is potentially much more sustainable (see 30 stocks, if responsible, are all I need).
Issuers of sustainable ETFs often exercise sustainable voting rights and even engage, even if only to a small extent. However, most providers of active investments do no better (see e.g. 2023 Proxy Season Review – Minerva). Notably, index-following investments typically do not use the divestment impact channel because they want to replicate indices as directly as possible.
Sustainable investment and securities selection: fewer standard products and more individual mandates or direct indexing?
If there are no ETFs that are sustainable enough, you should look for actively managed funds, award sustainable mandates to asset managers or develop your own portfolios. However, actively managed concentrated funds with a strict ESG plus impact approach are still very rare. This also applies to asset managers who could implement such mandates. In addition, high minimum investments are often required for customized mandates. Individual sustainable portfolio developments, on the other hand, are becoming increasingly simple.
Numerous providers currently offer basic sustainability data for private investors at low cost or even free of charge. Financial technology developments such as discount (online) brokers, direct indexing and trading in fractional shares as well as voting tools help with the efficient and sustainable implementation of individual portfolios. However, the variety of investment opportunities and data qualities are not easy to analyze.
It would be ideal if investors could also take their own sustainability requirements into account on the basis of a curated universe of particularly sustainable securities and then have them automatically implemented and rebalanced in their portfolios (see Custom ESG Indexing Can Challenge Popularity Of ETFs (asiafinancial.com). In addition, they could use modern tools to exercise their voting rights according to their individual sustainability preferences. Sustainability engagement with the securities issuers can be carried out by the platform provider.
Risk management: much more tracking error and ESG risk monitoring?
For sustainable investments, sustainability metrics are added to traditional risk metrics. These are, for example, ESG ratings, emissions values, principal adverse indicators, do-no-significant-harm information, EU taxonomy compliance or, as in my case, SDG compliance and engagement success.
Sustainable investors have to decide how important the respective criteria are for them. I use sustainability criteria not only for reporting, but also for my rule-based risk management. This means that I sell securities if ESG or SDG requirements are no longer met (see Divestments: 49 bei 30 Aktien meines Artikel 9 Fonds).
The ESG ratings I use summarize environmental, social and governance risks. These risks are already important today and will become even more important in the future, as can be seen from greenwashing and reputational risks, for example. Therefore, they should not be missing from any risk management system. SDG compliance, on the other hand, is only relevant for investors who care about how sustainable the products and services of their investments are.
Voting rights and engagement have not usually been used for risk management up to now. However, this may change in the future. For example, I check whether I should sell shares if there is an inadequate response to my engagement. An inadequate engagement response from companies may indicate that companies are not listening to good suggestions and thus taking unnecessary risks that can be avoided through divestments.
Traditional investors often measure risk by the deviation from the target allocation or benchmark. If the deviation exceeds a predefined level, many portfolios have to be realigned closer to the benchmark. If you want to invest in a particularly sustainable way, you have to have higher rather than lower traditional benchmark deviations (tracking error) or you should do without tracking error figures altogether.
In theory, sustainable indices could be used as benchmarks for sustainable portfolios. However, as explained above, sustainability requirements can be very individual and, in my opinion, there are no strict enough sustainable standard benchmarks yet.
Sustainability can therefore lead to new risk indicators as well as calling old ones into question and thus also lead to significantly different risk management.
Summary and outlook: Much more individuality?
Individual sustainability requirements play a very important role in the allocation to investment segments, manager and fund selection, position selection and risk management. Strict sustainability can lead to greater differences between investment mandates and radical changes to traditional mandates: A lower asset class diversification, more illiquid investments for large investors, more project finance, more active rather than passive mandates, significantly higher concentration within investment segments and different risk management with additional metrics and significantly less benchmark orientation.
Some analysts believe that sustainable investment leads to higher risks, higher costs and lower returns. Others expect disproportionately high investments in sustainable investments in the future. This should lead to a better performance of such investments. My approach: I try to invest as sustainably as possible and I expect a normal market return in the medium term with lower risks compared to traditional investments.
First published in German on www.prof-soehnholz.com on Dec. 30th, 2023. Initial version translated by Deepl.com
Nachhaltige Geldanlage kann radikal anders sein als traditionelle. „Asset Allocation, Risiko-Overlay und Manager-Selektion: Das Diversifikationsbuch“ heißt das Buch, dass ich 2009 mit ehemaligen Kollegen der Bad Homburger FERI geschrieben habe. Nachhaltigkeit spielt darin keine Rolle. In meiner aktuellen Vorlesung zu diesen Themen ist das anders. Nachhaltigkeit kann eine sehr wichtige Rolle spielen für die Allokation auf Anlagesegmente, die Manager- bzw. Fondsselektion, die Positionsselektion und auch das Risikomanagement (Hinweis: Um die Lesbarkeit zu verbessern, gendere ich nicht).
Strenge Nachhaltigkeit kann sogar zu radikalen Änderungen führen: Mehr illiquide Investments, erheblich höhere Konzentration innerhalb der Anlagesegmente, mehr aktive statt passive Mandate und ein anderes Risikomanagement. Im Folgenden erkläre ich, wieso:
Zentrale Rolle von Investmentphilosophie und Nachhaltigkeitsdefinition für die nachhaltige Geldanlage
Dafür starte ich mit der Investmentphilosophie. Unter Investmentphilosophie verstehe ich die grundsätzlichen Überzeugungen eines Geldanlegers, idealerweise ein umfassendes und kohärentes System solcher Überzeugungen (vgl. Das-Soehnholz-ESG-und-SDG-Portfoliobuch 2023, S. 21ff.). Nachhaltigkeit kann ein wichtiges Element einer Investmentphilosophie sein. Anleger sollten ihre Investmentphilosophie möglichst klar definieren, bevor sie mit der Geldanlage beginnen.
Beispiel: Ich verfolge eine konsequent nachhaltige regelbasiert-prognosefreie Investmentphilosophie. Dafür definiere ich umfassende Nachhaltigkeitsregeln. Zur Operationalisierung nutze ich das Policy for Responsible Investment Scoring Concept (PRISC) Tool der Deutschen Vereinigung für Asset Management und Finanzanalyse (DVFA, vgl. Standards – DVFA e. V. – Der Berufsverband der Investment Professionals).
Für die nachhaltige Geldanlage ist mir vor allem wichtig, was für Produkte und Services die Unternehmen und Organisationen anbieten, an denen ich mich beteilige oder denen ich indirekt Kredite zur Verfügung stelle. Dazu nutze ich viele strenge Ausschlüsse und vor allem Positivkriterien. Dabei wird vor allem der Umsatz- bzw. Serviceanteil betrachtet, der möglichst gut mit Nachhaltigen Entwicklungszielen der Vereinten Nationen (UN SDG) vereinbar ist („SDG Revenue Alignment“). Außerdem lege ich viel Wert auf niedrige absolute Umwelt-, Sozial- und Governance-Risiken (ESG). Meine Möglichkeiten zur Veränderung von Investments („Investor Impact“) gewichte ich aber nur relativ niedrig (vgl. Das-Soehnholz-ESG-und-SDG-Portfoliobuch 2023, S. 141ff). Impact möchte ich dabei vor allem über Shareholder Engagement ausüben, also direkte Nachhaltigkeitskommunikation mit Unternehmen.
Andere Anleger, denen Impact- bzw. eigene Veränderungsmöglichkeiten besonders wichtig sind, legen oft viel Wert auf sogenannte Additionalität bzw. Zusätzlichkeit. Das bedeutet, dass die entsprechenden Nachhaltigkeitsverbesserungen nur durch ihre jeweiligen Investments zustande gekommen sind. Wenn ein Anleger einen neuen Solar- oder Windparkt finanziert, gilt das als additional und damit als besonders nachhaltig. Bei Geldanlagen an Börsen werden Wertpapiere nur anderen Anlegern abgekauft und den Herausgebern der Wertpapiere fließt – außer bei relativ seltenen Neuemissionen – kein Geld zu. Der Kauf börsennotierter Anleihen oder Aktien von Solar- und Windparkunternehmen gilt bei Additionalitätsanhängern deshalb nicht als Impact Investment.
Nachhaltige Geldanlage und Asset Allokation: Viel mehr nicht-börsennotierte bzw. alternative Investments und mehr Anleihen?
Eine additionalitätsfokussierte Investmentphilosophie bedeutet demnach im Extremfall, nur noch illiquide zu investieren. Die Asset Allokation wäre radikal anders als heute typische Geldanlagen.
Lieber keine Mehrallokation zu illiquiden Investments?
Aber wenn Additionalität so wichtig ist, dann muss man sich fragen, welche Art von illiquiden Investments wirklich Zusätzlichkeit bedeutet. Dazu muss man Investoren- und Projektimpact trennen. Die Finanzierung eines neuen Windparks ist aus Anlegersicht dann nicht zusätzlich, wenn andere Anleger den Windpark auch alleine finanzieren würden. Das ist durchaus nicht untypisch. Für Infrastruktur- und Private Equity Investments gibt es oft einen sogenannten Kapitalüberhang. Das bedeutet, dass über Fonds sehr viel Geld eingesammelt wurde und um Anlagen in solche Projekte konkurriert.
Selbst wenn nur ein Fonds zur Finanzierung eines nachhaltgien Projektes bereit ist, wäre die Beteiligung an einem solchen Fonds aus Anlegersicht dann nicht additional, wenn alternativ andere Anleger diese Fondsbeteiligung kaufen würden. Nicht nur Fonds renommierter Anbieter haben oft mehr Anfragen von potenziellen Anlegern als sie akzeptieren wollen. Investments in solche Fonds kann man nicht unbedingt als additional ansehen. Klare Additionalität gibt es dagegen für Investments, die kein anderer machen will. Ob solche Investments aber attraktive Performances versprechen, ist fragwürdig.
Illiquide Investments sind zudem längst nicht für alle Anleger geeignet, denn sie erfordern meistens relativ hohe Mindestinvestments. Hinzu kommt, dass man bei illiquiden Investments in der Regel erst nach und nach investiert und Liquidität in Bezug auf Zeitpunkt und Höhe unsichere Kapitalabrufe bereithalten muss. Außerdem sind illiquide meistens erheblich teurer als vergleichbare liquide Investments. Insgesamt haben damit illiquide Investments kaum höhere Renditepotenziale als liquide Investments. Durch die Art ihrer Bewertungen zeigen sie zwar geringe Schwankungen. Sie sind durch ihre hohen Mindestinvestments und vor allem Illiquidität aber teilweise hochriskant.
Hinzu kommt, dass illiquiden Investments ein wichtiger sogenannter Wirkungskanal fehlt, nämlich individuelle Divestmentmöglichkeiten. Während liquide Investments jederzeit verkauft werden können wenn Nachhaltigkeitsanforderungen nicht mehr erfüllt werden, muss man bei illiquiden Investments teilweise sehr lange weiter investiert bleiben. Divestmentmöglichkeiten sind sehr wichtig für mich: Ich habe in den letzten Jahren jeweils ungefähr die Hälfte meiner Wertpapiere verkauft, weil sich ihre Nachhaltigkeit verschlechtert hat (vgl. Divestments: 49 bei 30 Aktien meines Artikel 9 Fonds – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)).
Nachhaltigkeitsvorteile für (Unternehmens-)Anleihen gegenüber Aktien?
Auch liquide Anlagesegmente können sich in Bezug auf Impactmöglichkeiten unterscheiden. Für Aktien kann man Stimmrechte ausüben (Voting), für Anleihen und andere Anlagesegmente nicht. Allerdings finden nur selten Aktionärsversammlungen statt, zu denen man Stimmrechte ausüben kann. Zudem stehen nur selten umfassende Nachhaltigkeitsveränderungen zur Abstimmung. Falls das dennoch der Fall ist, werden sie meistens abgelehnt (vgl. 2023 Proxy Season Review – Minerva-Manifest).
Ich bin überzeugt, dass Engagement im engeren Sinn wirkungsvoller sein kann als Stimmrechtsausübung. Und direkte Diskussionen mit Unternehmen und Organisationen, um diese nachhaltiger zu machen, sind auch für Käufer von Anleihen möglich.
Unabhängig von der Frage der Liquidität bzw. Börsennotiz könnten nachhaltige Anleger Kredite gegenüber Eigenkapital bevorzugen, weil Kredite speziell für soziale und ökologische Projekte vergeben werden können. Außerdem können Auszahlungen von der Erreichung von nachhaltigen Meilensteinen abhängig gemacht werden können. Letzteres kann bei Private Equity Investments aber ebenfalls gemacht werden, nicht jedoch bei börsennotierten Aktieninvestments. Wenn ökologische und soziale Projekte aber auch ohne diese Kredite durchgeführt würden und nur traditionelle Kredite ersetzen, relativiert sich der potenzielle Nachhaltigkeitsvorteil von Krediten gegenüber Eigenkapital.
Allerdings werden Kredite meist mit konkreten Rückzahlungszeiten vergeben. Kurz laufende Kredite haben dabei den Vorteil, dass man öfter über die Wiederholung von Kreditvergaben entscheiden kann als bei langlaufenden Krediten, sofern man sie nicht vorzeitig zurückbezahlt bekommen kann. Damit kann man aus einer als nicht nachhaltig genug erkannter Kreditvergabe meistens eher aussteigen als aus einer privaten Eigenkapitalvergabe. Das ist ein Nachhaltigkeitsvorteil. Außerdem kann man kleinere Kreditnehmer und Unternehmen wohl besser nachhaltig beeinflussen, so dass zum Beispiel Staatsanleihen weniger Nachhaltigkeitspotential als Unternehmenskredite haben, vor allem wenn es sich dabei um relativ kleine Unternehmen handelt.
In Bezug auf Immobilien könnte man annehmen, dass Kredite oder Eigenkapital für oft dringend benötigte Wohn- oder Sozialimmobilien als nachhaltiger gelten können als für Gewerbeimmobilien. Ähnliches gilt für Sozialinfrastruktur gegenüber manch anderen Infrastruktursegmenten. Andererseits kritisieren manche Marktbeobachter die sogenannte Finanzialisierung zum Beispiel von Wohnimmobilien (vgl. Neue Studie von Finanzwende Recherche: Rendite mit der Miete) und plädieren grundsätzlich für öffentliche statt private Investments. Selbst Sozialkredite wie Mikrofinanz im ursprünglichen Sinn wird zumindest dann kritisiert, wenn kommerzielle (Zins-)Interessen zu stark werden und private Verschuldungen zu stark steigen.
Während nachwachsende Rohstoffe nachhaltig sein können, gelten nicht industriell genutzte Edelmetalle aufgrund der Abbaubedingungen meistens als nicht nachhaltig. Kryptoinvestments werden aufgrund fehlender Substanz und hoher Energieverbräuche meistens als nicht nachhaltig beurteilt.
Bei der Annahme von potenzieller Additionalität für illiquide Investments und Wirkung vor allem über Investments mit ökologischem bzw. sozialem Bezug kann man zu der folgenden vereinfachten Anlagesegmentbeurteilung aus Nachhaltigkeitssicht kommen:
Nachhaltige Geldanlage: Potenzielle Gewichtung von Anlagesegmenten bei Annahme von Additionalität für illiquide Investmentsund meine Allokation
Quelle: Eigene Darstellung
Anleger sollten sich ihre eigene derartige Klassifikation erstellen, weil diese entscheidend für ihre jeweilige nachhaltige Asset Allokation ist. Unter Berücksichtigung von Mindestkapitaleinsatz und Kosten sowie Divestment- und Engagementmöglichkeiten investiere ich zum Beispiel nur in börsennotierte Investments. Bei einem Multi-Milliarden Vermögen mit direkten Nachhaltigkeits-Einflussmöglichkeiten auf Beteiligungen würde ich zusätzliche illiquide Investments aber in Erwägung ziehen. Insgesamt kann strenge Nachhaltigkeit also auch zu wesentlich geringerer Diversifikation über Anlageklassen führen.
Nachhaltige Geldanlage und Manager-/Fondsselektion: Wieder mehr aktive Investments?
Wissenschaftliche Forschung zeigt, dass aktives Portfoliomanagement meistens geringe Renditen und oft auch höhere Risiken als passive Investments einbringt. Mit sehr günstigen ETFs kann man in tausende von Wertpapieren investieren. Es ist deshalb kein Wunder, dass in den letzten Jahren sogenannte passive Investments immer beliebter geworden sind.
Diversifikation gilt oft als der einzige „Free Lunch“ der Kapitalanlage. Aber Diversifikation hat oft keinen nennenswerten Einfluss auf Renditen oder Risiken. Anders ausgedrückt: Mit mehr als 20 bis 30 Wertpapieren aus unterschiedlichen Ländern und Branchen sind keine besseren Renditen und auch kaum niedrigere Risiken zu erwarten als mit hunderten von Wertpapieren. Anders ausgedrückt: Der Grenznutzen zusätzlicher Diversifikation nimmt sehr schnell ab.
Aber wenn man aber mit den nachhaltigsten 10 bis 20 Wertpapiern startet und weiter diversifiziert, kann die durchschnittliche Nachhaltigkeit erheblich sinken. Das bedeutet, dass konsequent nachhaltige Geldanlageportfolios eher konzentriert als diversifiziert sein sollten. Konzentration hat auch den Vorteil, dass Stimmrechtsausübungen und andere Formen von Engagement einfacher und kostengünstiger werden. Divestment-Androhungen können zudem wirkungsvoller sein, wenn viel Anlegergeld in nur wenige Wertpapiere investiert wird.
Nachhaltigkeitspolitiken können sehr unterschiedlich ausfallen. Das zeigt sich unter anderem bei den vielen möglichen Ausschlüssen von potenziellen Investments. So kann man zum Beispiel Tierversuche in juristisch vorgeschriebene, medizinisch nötige, kosmetische und andere unterscheiden. Manche Anleger möchten alle Tierversuche konsequent ausschließen. Andere wollen weiterhin in Pharmaunternehmen investieren und schließen deshalb vielleicht nur „andere“ Tierversuche aus. Und Anleger, welche die Transition von wenig nachhaltigen Unternehmen zum Beispiel der Ölbranche zu mehr Nachhaltigkeit fördern wollen, werden explizit in Ölunternehmen investieren (vgl. ESG Transition Bullshit? – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)).
Indizes enthalten oft sehr viele Wertpapiere. Konsequente Nachhaltigkeit spricht aber für Investments in konzentrierte, individuelle und damit meist indexabweichende aktiv gemanagte Portfolios. Dabei ist aktiv nicht im Sinne von viel Handel gemeint. Um über Stimmrechtsausübungen und andere Engagementformen Einfluss ausüben zu können, sind eher längere als kürzere Haltedauern von Investments sinnvoll.
Immer noch nicht genug konsequent nachhaltige ETF-Angebote
Bei der Gründung meines eigenen Unternehmens Anfang 2016 war ich wahrscheinlich weltweit der erste Anbieter eines Portfolios aus möglichst konsequent nachhaltigen ETFs. Aber auch die nachhaltigsten ETFs waren mir nicht nachhaltig genug. Grund waren vor allem unzureichende Ausschlüsse und die fast ausschließliche Nutzung von aggregierten Best-in-Class ESG-Ratings. Ich habe aber hohe Mindestanforderungen an E, S und G separat (vgl. Glorreiche 7: Sind sie unsozial? – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com). Ich interessiere mich auch nicht für die am besten geraten Unternehmen innerhalb aus Nachhaltigkeitssicht unattraktiven Branchen (Best-in-Class). Ich möchte branchenunabhängig in die am besten geraten Aktien investieren (Best-in-Universe). Dafür gibt es aber auch heute noch keine ETFs. Außerdem gibt es sehr wenige ETFs, die strikte ESG-Kriterien nutzen und zusätzlich SDG-Vereinbarkeit anstreben.
Auch in den in besonders konsequent nachhaltigen globalen Socially Responsible Paris Aligned Benchmarks befinden sich noch mehrere hundert Aktien aus sehr vielen Branchen und Ländern. Aktive globale nachhaltige Fonds gibt es dagegen schon mit nur 30 Aktien, also potenziell erheblich nachhaltiger (vgl. 30 stocks, if responsible, are all I need – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)).
Emittenten nachhaltiger ETFs üben oft nachhaltige Stimmrechtsausübungen und sogar Engagement aus, wenn auch nur in geringem Umfang. Das machen die meisten Anbieter aktiver Investments aber auch nicht besser (vgl. z.B. 2023 Proxy Season Review – Minerva-Manifest). Indexfolgende Investments nutzen aber typischerweise den Impactkanal Divestments nicht, weil sie Indizes möglichst direkt nachbilden wollen.
Nachhaltige Geldanlage und Wertpapierselektion: Weniger Standardprodukte und mehr individuelle Mandate oder Direct Indexing?
Wenn es keine ETFs gibt, die nachhaltig genug sind, sollte man sich aktiv gemanagte Fonds suchen, nachhaltige Mandate an Vermögensverwalter vergeben oder seine Portfolios selbst entwickeln. Aktiv gemanagte konzentrierte Fonds mit strengem ESG plus Impactansatz sind aber noch sehr selten. Das gilt auch für Vermögensverwalter, die solche Mandate umsetzen könnten. Außerdem werden für maßgeschneiderte Mandate oft hohe Mindestanlagen verlangt. Individuelle nachhaltige Portfolioentwicklungen werden dagegen zunehmend einfacher.
Basis-Nachhaltigkeitsdaten werden aktuell von zahlreichen Anbietern für Privatanleger kostengünstig oder sogar kostenlos angeboten. Finanztechnische Entwicklungen wie Discount-(Online-)Broker, Direct Indexing und Handel mit Bruchstücken von Wertpapieren sowie Stimmrechtsausübungstools helfen bei der effizienten und nachhaltigen Umsetzung von individuellen Portfolios. Schwierigkeiten bereiten dabei eher die Vielfalt an Investmentmöglichkeiten und mangelnde bzw. schwer zu beurteilende Datenqualität.
Ideal wäre, wenn Anleger auf Basis eines kuratierten Universums von besonders nachhaltigen Wertpapieren zusätzlich eigene Nachhaltigkeitsanforderungen berücksichtigen können und dann automatisiert in ihren Depots implementieren und rebalanzieren lassen (vgl. Custom ESG Indexing Can Challenge Popularity Of ETFs (asiafinancial.com). Zusätzlich könnten sie mit Hilfe moderner Tools ihre Stimmrechte nach individuellen Nachhaltigkeitsvorstellungen ausüben. Direkte Nachhaltigkeitskommunikation mit den Wertpapieremittenten kann durch den Plattformanbieter erfolgen.
Risikomanagement: Viel mehr Tracking-Error und ESG-Risikomonitoring?
Für nachhaltige Geldanlagen kommen zusätzlich zu traditionellen Risikokennzahlen Nachhaltigkeitskennzahlen hinzu, zum Beispiel ESG-Ratings, Emissionswerte, Principal Adverse Indicators, Do-No-Significant-Harm-Informationen, EU-Taxonomievereinbarkeit oder, wie in meinem Fall, SDG-Vereinbarkeiten und Engagementerfolge.
Nachhaltige Anleger müssen sich entscheiden, wie wichtig die jeweiligen Kriterien für sie sind. Ich nutze Nachhaltigkeitskriterien nicht nur für das Reporting, sondern auch für mein regelgebundenes Risikomanagement. Das heißt, dass ich Wertpapiere verkaufe, wenn ESG- oder SDG-Anforderungen nicht mehr erfüllt werden.
Die von mir genutzten ESG-Ratings messen Umwelt-, Sozial- und Unternehmensführungsrisiken. Diese Risiken sind heute schon wichtig und werden künftig noch wichtiger, wie man zum Beispiel an Greenwashing- und Reputationsrisiken sehen kann. Deshalb sollten sie in keinem Risikomanagement fehlen. SDG-Anforderungserfüllung ist hingegen nur für Anleger relevant, denen wichtig ist, wie nachhaltig die Produkte und Services ihrer Investments sind.
Stimmrechtsausübungen und Engagement wurden bisher meistens nicht für das Risikomanagement genutzt. Das kann sich künftig jedoch ändern. Ich prüfe zum Beispiel, ob ich Aktien bei unzureichender Reaktion auf mein Engagement verkaufen sollte. Eine unzureichende Engagementreaktion von Unternehmen weist möglicherweise darauf hin, dass Unternehmen nicht auf gute Vorschläge hören und damit unnötige Risiken eingehen, die man durch Divestments vermeiden kann.
Traditionelle Geldanleger messen Risiko oft mit der Abweichung von der Soll-Allokation bzw. Benchmark. Wenn die Abweichung einen vorher definierten Grad überschreitet, müssen viele Portfolios wieder benchmarknäher ausgerichtet werden. Für nachhaltige Portfolios werden dafür auch nachhaltige Indizes als Benchmark genutzt. Wie oben erläutert, können Nachhaltigkeitsanforderungen aber sehr individuell sein und es gibt meiner Ansicht nach viel zu wenige strenge nachhaltige Benchmarks. Wenn man besonders nachhaltig anlegen möchte, muss man dementsprechend höhere statt niedrigere Benchmarkabweichungen (Tracking Error) haben bzw. sollte ganz auf Tracking Error Kennzahlen verzichten.
Nachhaltigkeit kann also sowohl zu neuen Risikokennzahlen führen als auch alte in Frage stellen und damit auch zu einem erheblich anderen Risikomanagement führen.
Nachhaltige Geldanlage – Zusammenfassung und Ausblick: Viel mehr Individualität?
Individuelle Nachhaltigkeitsanforderungen spielen eine sehr wichtige Rolle für die Allokation auf Anlagesegmente, die Manager- bzw. Fondsselektion, die Positionsselektion und auch das Risikomanagement. Strenge Nachhaltigkeit kann zu stärkeren Unterschieden zwischen Geldanlagemandaten und radikalen Änderungen gegenüber traditionellen Mandaten führen: Geringere Diversifikation über Anlageklassen, mehr illiquide Investments für Großanleger, mehr Projektfinanzierungen, mehr aktive statt passive Mandate, erheblich höhere Konzentration innerhalb der Anlagesegmente und ein anderes Risikomanagement mit zusätzlichen Kennzahlen und erheblich geringerer Benchmarkorientierung.
Manche Analysten meinen, nachhaltige Geldanlage führt zu höheren Risiken, höheren Kosten und niedrigeren Renditen. Andere erwarten zukünftig überproportional hohe Anlagen in nachhaltige Investments. Das sollte zu einer besseren Performance solcher Investments führen. Meine Einstellung: Ich versuche so nachhaltig wie möglich zu investieren und erwarte dafür mittelfristig eine marktübliche Rendite mit niedrigeren Risiken im Vergleich zu traditionellen Investments.
