Archiv der Kategorie: Innovation

Nature credits illustration by MW from Pixabay

Nature credits and more: Researchpost 198

Nature credits illustration from Pixabay by MW

14x new research on GHG-data driven innovation, EU taxonomy benefits, diverse green preferences, ESG fund manipulation, ESG rating problems, AI for ESG, Art. 8/9 fund and SDG performance, nature credits, ESG compensation, AI-based financial analysis, retirement surprises and neighbor investment effects („#“ shows SSRN full paper downloads as of Oct. 17th, 2024)

Social and ecological research

GHG-data startup push: Mandatory Carbon Disclosure and New Business Creation by Raphael Duguay, Chenchen Li, and Frank Zhang as of Oct. 14th, 2024 (#36): “Prior work documents that mandatory GHG disclosure causes existing firms to reduce their GHG emissions by curbing economic activities and/or carbon intensity. We posit that such reductions create business opportunities for new firms. In addition, emissions reports contain information about production levels, allowing prospective entrants to estimate demand and identify profitable business opportunities. Consistent with our hypothesis, we find a significant increase in business births following the implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program in affected industries, compared to control industries. This effect is more pronounced in industries in which existing firms actively reduce carbon emissions and face heightened pressure“ (abstract).

Responsible investment research (in: Nature credits)

Good EU taxonomy? Is the EU Taxonomy a Rational Sustainability Tool? by Ibrahim E. Sancak as of Oct. 16th, 2024 (#89): “This paper examines the EU Sustainability Taxonomy (EUST) … As a regulation-based sustainability classification tool, it differs significantly from typical ESG indicators and perspectives by providing net positive-contribution indicators in terms of revenue, capex, and opex key performance indicators for businesses. … We find that the EUST is in the realm of the rational sustainability concept, indicating that the EUST is a rational sustainability tool, and it supports sustainability at heart by definition and design. The EUST is a real sustainability tool that can restore the losses of our planet and answer to challenges. It does not breach the free market realities. Companies decide their own sustainability policies; they can decide to what extent they should be Taxonomy-aligned, they can decide how much they have to invest in sustainability transformation, and they can freely decide which Taxonomy KPIs they have to focus on …“ (p. 21). My comment: I like the focus of the EUST on revenues, opex and capex but it can only provide politically accepted low minimum standards (see discussion about Gas, nuclear energy and defense industry) and it mostly leaves out social and shareholder engagement topics. It may be rational and not good enough, anyhow.

Different green preferences: The Sustainability Preferences of Individual and Institutional Investors by Gosia Ryduchowska and Moqi Groen-Xu as of Oct. 16th, 2024 (#16): “We compare the sustainability preferences of institutional investors to other investors, using the universe of holdings in bonds traded in Norway in the years 2010-20. We identify sustainability investors as those who choose Green Bonds over similar non-green bonds by the same issuers. … individual investors hold riskier portfolios with higher volatility and more defaults, although financial investors do not. Our results suggest that individual Green Bond investors have non-pecuniary green preferences but are not representative of the majority of sustainable investment in the market“ (abstract). My comment: I initiated the DVFA PRISC toll which helps investors to easily determine their sustainable investment policies and use this tool to compare investment options (DVFA_PRISC_Policy_for_Responsible_Investment_Scoring.pdf). A new version will be published soon.

ESG fund pushing? ESG Favoritism in Mutual Fund Families by Anna Zsofia Csiky, Rainer Jankowitsch, Alexander Pasler, and Marti G. Subrahmanyam as of Oct. 15th, 2024 (#34): “We empirically analyze whether mutual fund families favor their ESG funds potentially at the expense of their non-ESG siblings … We use a survivorship bias-free sample obtained from Morningstar Direct, covering domestic US equity open-end funds from 2005 to 2022. … Our approach is built on comparing the performance of ESG with regular funds within and outside the family. Similar to the prior literature, we interpret a higher return differential between ESG and regular funds within the family, compared to outside, as an indication of cross-fund subsidization. We find a significant net-ofstyle return spread of around 2% per year, indicating sizable ESG favoritism within fund families“ (p. 30).

ESG rating problems and improvements: It’s Hard to Hit a Target that Doesn’t Exist: A Novel Conceptual Framework for ESG Ratings by Jorge Cruz-Lopez, Jordan B. Neyland, and  Dasha Smirnow as of Oct. 16th, 2024 (#8): “… Our framework consists of analyzing three different stages in the production of ESG ratings: (1) Data Collection and Disclosure, (2) Measurement, and (3) Dissemination. At each stage, we clearly identify the parties involved, their incentives and limitations, and the noise or bias introduced to ESG ratings due to misaligned incentives, data constraints, or inadequate regulations…  solutions include improving disclosure standards, incentivizing public data access to foster competition as well as transparency of rating methodologies, and relying on regular audits to verify the accuracy of corporate disclosures and ESG ratings“ (abstract).

Readability ESG impact: Evaluating the Impact of Report Readability on ESG Scores: A Generative AI Approach by Takuya Shimamura, Yoshitaka Tanaka, and Shunsuke Managi as of July 8th, 2024 (#46):  “This study explores the relationship between the readability of sustainability reports and ESG scores for U.S. companies using GPT-4, a generative AI tool. The findings reveal a positive correlation between context-dependent readability scores and the average of multiple ESG scores …. Conversely, existing readability scores reflecting word features show no correlation with ESG scores“ (abstract).

AI for ESG: AI in ESG for Financial Institutions: An Industrial Survey by Jun Xu as of Oct. 11th, 2024 (#21): “This paper surveys the industrial landscape to delineate the necessity and impact of AI in bolstering ESG frameworks. … our findings suggest that while AI offers transformative potential for ESG in banking, it also poses significant challenges that necessitate careful consideration. … We conclude with recommendations with a reference architecture for future research and development, advocating for a balanced approach that leverages AI’s strengths while mitigating its risks within the ESG domain“ (abstract).

No Art. 8/9 outperformance: SFDR versus performance classification: a clustering approach by Veronica Distefano, Vincenzo Gentile, Paolo Antonio Cucurachi and Sandra De Iaco as of July 10th, 2024 (#25): EU “… investment companies have to disclose in the key information document the category of each mutual fund. This regulation came into force in March 2021 and the first reaction of the market has been a strong shift of Assets Under Management (AUM) towards art. 8 and art. 9 funds. … This study showed that the expectations of better performances only based on the SFDR (Sö: Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation) classification is biased. … the contingency table show a low correlation of the classifications based on ESG declaration and on performances. … using the SFDR classification to create expectations of better future performance could be misleading“ (p. 8). My comment: I rather heard complaints lower performance expectations for Art. 8/9 funds due to perceived investment limitations. If there are similar returns, why not invest more sustainably?

Impact Investment research

Green cost reduction and SDG performance: The effects of ESG performance and sustainability disclosure on GSS bonds’ yields and spreads: A global analysis by Oliviero Roggi, Luca Bellardini, and Sara Conticelli as of July 10th, 2024 (#30): “Considering a sample of 3,960 green, sustainable, and sustainability-linked (GSS) bonds issued in global capital markets, this study investigates the effects of the issuer’s environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance on both the issue-specific yield spread — defined as the difference in yield-to-maturity between a corporate debt instrument and a sovereign comparable — and its spread vis-à-vis a sovereign comparable. The findings indicate that there is a negative association between ESG performance and bond spreads, implying that a greater commitment to the sustainable transition today is a winning strategy, for a company, to reduce the cost of debt for future projects. … we find that the real enabler of curbing the unexplained portion of risk is a detailed disclosure on the use of proceeds. This is likely to minimise the likelihood of greenwashing” (abstract).

“… With regard to Core yield, the pursuit of Goal 2 (Zero hunger) and Goal 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure) is associated with a reduction in risk, whereas Goal 3 (Good health and well-being) and Goal 12 (Responsible consumption and production) are found to be risk-accruing. With regard to Core spread, Goal 5 (Gender equality), in addition to Goals 2 and 9, is negatively associated with a company’s cost of debt, net of the financial characteristics of the issue. The pursuit of Goal 12 and Goal 8 (Decent work and economic growth) has the opposite effect, but not Goal 3” (p. 6). My comment: This is one of the few studies with SDG-analysis. I hope that more will come.

Nature credits: Advancing Effective and Equitable Crediting: Natural Climate Solutions Crediting Handbook by John Ward, Christine Gerbode, Britta Johnston, and Suzi Kerr as of Oct. 10th, 2024 (#8): “Natural Climate Solutions, or NCS, are activities to protect, restore, or enhance ecosystems in terms of their ability to remove or sequester carbon. They can deliver about one third of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions needed this decade to achieve key climate goals. Implemented well, they also provide benefits for people and nature. Crediting of NCS mitigation is a powerful way to unlock this potential–but it is also controversial. … By clarifying essential terms and concepts underpinning NCS carbon crediting, highlighting solutions to technical challenges, and providing informed framing to help newcomers understand prominent ongoing debates, the NCS Crediting Handbook seeks to provide the reader with a clear introduction to the world of NCS crediting, and an impartial, accessible guide to support their decision making“ (abstract).

ESG compensation challenges: Implicit versus Explicit Contracting in Executive Compensation for Environmental and Social Performance by Roni Michaely, Thomas Schmid, and Menghan Wang as of Oct. 16th, 2024 (#31): “We examine whether linking executive pay to environmental and social targets (ES Pay) can help improve firms’ environmental and social performance. … firms that use explicit contracting for targets that can be precisely and objectively measured, such as emissions and incident rates, demonstrate better ES performance. By contrast, firms with implicit contracting show little improvement in these areas. However, for targets that are hard to measure, such as community engagement, or E/S reporting, implicit contracts are effective and can even outperform explicit contracting. … we observe a positive association between the adoption of ES Pay schemes and total CEO compensation … even when an increase in executive pay is observed, it is also associated with improved firms’ ES conduct. We find no increase in CEO pay among those firms using explicit schemes, or implicit schemes for easily measurable targets“ (p. 28/29). My comment: CEO pay is usually already very high with, quite often, >300x the average employee compensation. Introducing sustainability goals in executive compensation should not lead to a growing gap, in my opinion. One of my 5 shareholder engagement topics therefore is CEO to average employee pay ratio disclosure.

Other investment research (in: Nature Credits)

Financial Analyst AI-Risks: Large Language Models as Financial Analysts by Miquel Noguer i Alonso and Hanane Dupouy as of Oct. 7th, 2024 (#1004): “The ability of … GPT-4o, Gemini Advanced, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet to perform financial analysis highlights their potential as powerful tools for interpreting complex financial data. … When it comes to extrapolation questions that are the core of valuation and stock picking, the level of analysis provided by these LLMs is similar to that of skilled humans” (p. 15). My comment: Given the underperfomance of actively managed funds compared to passive benchmarks, this AI-performance is not enough.

Retirement surprises: Patterns of Consumption and Savings around Retirement by Arna Olafsson and Michaela Pagel as of Oct. 7th, 2024 (#23): “Using a large transaction-level data set from a financial aggregator on income, spending, account balances, and credit limits in Iceland, we document“ (p. 16) … First, many households have barely any savings and hold substantial amounts of consumer debt at the time of retirement. Second, consumption falls at retirement, possibly due to work-related expenses, bargain shopping, or because households face unexpected adverse shocks. Third, liquid savings increase at retirement. Fourth, wealth increases more over the course of retirement for the average household”.

Neighbor investment-effects: Wealth Accumulation: The Role of Others by Michael Haliassos as of Oct. 7th, 2024 (#19): “First, interacting with a larger proportion of neighbors with college-level economics or business education tends to promote retirement saving. … Second, college-educated people exposed to greater local wealth inequality as well as more wealth mobility at the start of their economic lives, tend to take more asset risks later in life and thus accrue greater wealth, leaving the less-educated behind. … Third, the current pattern of access to financial advice, under which the young and less experienced are also less likely to receive financial advice, tends to discourage stock market participation and reduce equity in retirement portfolios, because the peers of the young tend to be more conservative in their recommendations to them than professionals would have been. Professional advisors are more conservative towards the older and wealthier people that they do meet, compared to their peers. Finally, background stressors such as crises and wars, but also personal problems, occupy people’s minds as they make saving decisions” (p. 23/24).

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

Werbehinweis (in: Nature credits)

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).

Zum Vergleich: Globale Gesundheits- bzw. Renewables- oder SDG-Fonds kommen nur auf wesentlich geringere SDG-Umsatzquoten, ESG-Ratings und Engagement-Quoten.

Biodiversity risks illustration with fish from Pixabay by Sergei Belozerov

Biodiversity risks: Researchpost 192

Biodiversity risks illustration by Pixabay by Sergei Belozerov

10x new research regarding ESG disclosure effects, green innovation, food waste reduction, biodiversity models and investments, climate equity risks, AI investment opportunities, listed equity impact, sustainability questionnaires, hedge funds, open-source investment AI (#shows SSRN full paper downloads as of Sept. 5th, 2024)

Social and ecological research

Competitive disclosure effects: Do ESG disclosure mandates affect the competitive position of public and private firms? by Peter Fiechter, Jörg-Markus Hitz, and Nico Lehmann as of May 23rd, 2024 (#202): “… we explore economic effects of mandatory ESG disclosure, specifically the impact of these regulations on the competitive position of public and private suppliers in domestic markets. Using granular data on customer-supplier contracts, we find that the staggered adoption of ESG disclosure mandates in different economies around the globe has an economically meaningful impact on competition in these domestic markets, as private suppliers gain contracts at the expense of public suppliers. Our cross-sectional results provide evidence for two non-mutually exclusive mechanisms that help explain this finding: (i) ESG regulated corporate customers shift contracts from public to private suppliers, consistent with a preference for ESG opaque over ESG transparent supply chains, and (ii) adverse price competition effects for treated suppliers due to incremental direct and indirect costs associated with the ESG disclosure mandate. We also show that treatment effects are concentrated in contractual relations with suppliers of low importance to their corporate customers“ (p. 27/28).

Disclosure innovation push: Mandatory Disclosure and Corporate Green Innovation by Brian Bratten, Sung-Yuan (Mark) Cheng, and Tyler Kleppe as of May 29th, 2024 (#69): “Adopting a difference-in-differences research design surrounding the adoption of state-level greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions disclosure mandates, we find that disclosure mandates are associated with an increase in the quantity of patents related to climate change mitigation/adaptation technologies (i.e., “green innovations”). This increase is stronger among firms with more social investors …. We also document a positive association between GHG emissions disclosure mandates and future environmental performance ratings … However, we find that these mandates are associated with a reduction in future financial performance for some firms, suggesting a potential negative effect on shareholder welfare“ (abstract).

Good food AI: Using Artificial Intelligence To Reduce Food Waste by Yu Nu, Elena Belavina, and Karan Girotra as of June 3rd, 2024 (#219): “Technology companies … have launched (AI-powered) granular food waste information gathering systems that can easily measure and stratify food waste in an automated manner … The quasi-experimental … implementation at almost 900 commercial kitchens … reduces food waste, on average, by 29% three months post-adoption. … In addition, we estimate that upgrading to the computer-vision-based automatic recognition system induces a further 30% average reduction in food waste level one year post-upgrade“ (p. 38).

Biodiversity risks of models: Assessing Integrated Assessment Models for Building Global Nature-Economy Scenarios by Mathilde Salin, Katie Kedward, and Nepomuk Dunz as of August 22nd, 2024: “… we review how different ecosystem services, drivers of nature loss, and mitigation policies are represented in global integrated assessment models (Sö: IAM) that incorporate aspects of nature loss. … First, we find that applied global IAMs represent economic dependencies on only a subset of ecosystem services (mostly provisioning services, in particular food and water) and capture selected drivers of biodiversity loss (mainly climate and land use–related). Only a few models represent regulating and maintenance ecosystem services (focusing mainly on pollination and climate) albeit with only partial connections to the economy. … Second, we find that the representation of nature/policy dimensions in applied models is linked to macroeconomic variables by limited and in some cases indirect mechanisms. Important nature-to-economy transmission mechanisms are missing, such as those involving the role of critical ecosystem services to production … and human health and nutrition. … As a result, applied global models are likely to underestimate the economic impacts stemming from nature-related shocks“ (p. 17).

ESG investment research (in: Biodiversity risks)

Biodiversity risks of investments: Biodiversity Risk and Dividend Policy by Md Noman Hossain, Md Rajib Kamal, and Monika K. Rabarison as of Aug. 6th, 2024 (#33): “… we examine whether the increased corporate awareness of the potential loss of biodiversity affects dividend policy in relation to biodiversity risk. Using ,,, a sample of 26,811 firm-year observations in the United States, we found strong evidence that firms that are exposed to high-biodiversity risk pay lower dividends than those that are less exposed to biodiversity risk. … Additionally, we observe that financially constrained firms experience significantly lower dividend payouts when exposed to biodiversity risk. … The aforementioned negative association is more pronounced for firms with higher … biodiversity scores, and firms that get more public attention about their biodiversity risk“ (p. 32).

Climate equity risks: How Does Climate Risk Affect Global Equity Valuations? A Novel Approach by Ricardo Rebonato, Dherminder Kainth, and Lionel Melin from EDHEC as of July 10th, 2024: “1. A robust abatement policy, i.e., roughly speaking, a policy consistent with the 2°C Paris-Agreement target, can limit downward equity revaluation to 5-to-10%. 2. Conversely, the correction to global equity valuation can be as large as 40% if abatement remains at historic rates, even in the absence of tipping points. … 3. Tipping points exacerbate equity valuation shocks but are not required for substantial equity losses to be incurred. … 4. When state-dependent discounting is used for valuation, physical damages, even if ‘back-loaded’, are not fully ‘discounted away’, and contribute significantly to the equity valuation“ (p. 6).

Wrong sustainability questions? Explaining the Attitude-Behavior Gap for Sustainable Investors: Open vs. Closed-Ended Questions by Tobias Wekhof as of May 23rd, 2024 (#39): “We analyzed the attitude-behavior gap in sustainable investing … with open- and closed-ended questions. Our results indicate that open-ended responses have several advantages that can help to narrow the “gap.” Respondents tend to focus on fewer topics, making ranking topics across the entire sample more distinct. The written answers also allowed the expression of topics not included in the closed-ended options. However, respondents would often select a topic among the closed-ended options but not write about it. … the open-ended responses showed a higher predictive power“ (p. 18).

Other investment research

Listed equity impact? Who Clears the Market When Passive Investors Trade? by Marco Sammon and John J. Shim as of April 15th, 2024 (#832): “Over the past 20 years across all stocks, firms are the largest providers of shares to passive investors on average and on the margin: For every 1 percentage point (pp) change in ownership by index funds, firms take the other side at a rate of 0.64 pp. When restricting to stock-quarters where index funds are net buyers, firms issue at a rate of 0.95 pp. … firms, through adjustments in the supply of shares, are the single-most responsive group to inelastic demand. More than half of the adjustment comes through stock compensation, stock options, and restricted stock units …“ (abstract). My comment: Investing in “responsible” ETFs may therefore have more impact by providing additional capital (like private equity investments) than previously thought.

Hedge fund AI benefits: Generative AI and Asset Management by Jinfei Sheng, Zheng Sun, Baozhong Yang, and Alan Zhang as of April 8th, 2024 (#236): “… we develop a novel measure of the usage or reliance on generative AI (RAI) of investment companies based on their portfolio holdings and AI-predicted information. We study the adoption and implications of generative AI in hedge funds and 28 other asset management companies. … Hedge fund companies with higher RAI produce superior returns, both unadjusted and risk-adjusted. … we find hedge fund companies generate more returns from using AI-predicted firm-specific information related to firm policies and performance than from macroeconomic and sectorwise information. … Non-hedge fund companies do not produce significant returns. Furthermore, large and more active hedge fund companies adopt the technology early and perform better than others” (p. 28/29). My comment see AI: Wie können nachhaltige AnlegerInnen profitieren? or How can sustainable investors benefit from artificial intelligence?

Free Investment-AI: FinRobot: An Open-Source AI Agent Platform for Financial Applications using Large Language Models by Hongyang (Bruce) Yang et al. as of May 29th, 2024 (#54): “… we introduce FinRobot, a novel open-source AI agent platform supporting multiple financially specialized AI agents, each powered by LLM. Specifically, the platform consists of four major layers: 1) the Financial AI Agents layer that formulates Financial Chain-of-Thought (CoT) by breaking sophisticated financial problems down into logical sequences; 2) the Financial LLM Algorithms layer dynamically configures appropriate model application strategies for specific tasks; 3) the LLMOps and DataOps layer produces accurate models by applying training/finetuning techniques and using task-relevant data; 4) the Multi-source LLM Foundation Models layer that integrates various LLMs and enables the above layers to access them directly. Finally, FinRobot provides hands-on for both professional-grade analysts and laypersons to utilize powerful AI techniques for advanced financial analysis. We open-source FinRobot at https://github. com/AI4Finance-Foundation/FinRobot“ (abstract).

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

Werbehinweis (in: Biodiversity risks)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in meinen globalen Smallcap-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 93% 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).

Nachhaltigster diversifizierter Fonds?

3 Jahre nachhaltigster diversifizierter Fonds?

Nachhaltigster diversifizierter Fonds? Der von mir konzipierte und beratene FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals Fonds R (vgl.  DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T und  My fund) ist am 16. August 2021 aufgelegt worden. Das sehr ähnliche Global Equities ESG SDG Modellportfolio biete ich seit Ende 2017 an (vgl. Das-Soehnholz-ESG-und-SDG-Portfoliobuch mit den detaillierten Regeln auch für den Fonds). Ich hatte gar keinen Fonds geplant. Kunden haben mich aber überzeugt, einen Fonds zu starten. Hier sind meine bisherigen Erfahrungen:

1.       Einfache (verrückte) Idee für das nachhaltigste diversifizierte Portfolio?

Ich habe mich 2015 selbständig gemacht, um besonders diversifizierte und nachhaltige Geldanlageportfolios anzubieten. Das hatte ich vorher bei einem traditionellen Anbieter vergeblich versucht, obwohl ich Sprecher der Geschäftsführung war.

Meines Wissens war die von mir gegründete Soehnholz ESG GmbH weltweit der erste Anbieter, der öffentlich ein ESG ETF-Portfolio angeboten hat. Allerdings beinhalten selbst meine konsequentesten ESG-ETFs zahlreiche Wertpapiere, die ich nicht für besonders nachhaltig halte. Deshalb biete ich seit Ende 2016 zusätzlich Portfolios aus einzelnen Aktien an. Weil ich fast nur Nachhaltigkeitskriterien für die Aktienselektion nutze, können diese besonders streng sein. Meine Regeln lassen zum Beispiel nur Aktien zu, die anspruchsvolle Best-in-Universe E-, S und G-Mindestkriterien und zahlreiche 100% Ausschlusskriterien erfüllen. Zum Vergleich: Der nachhaltigste Weltaktien-ETF enthält ungefähr 350 Aktien, während meine globalen Portfolios nur die 30 nachhaltigsten Aktien nutzen.

Allerdings waren in dem Ende 2016 gestarteten Global Equities ESG Portfolio immer noch Aktien mit Aktivitäten vertreten, die nicht gut mit den nachhaltigen Entwicklungszielen der Vereinten Nationen (SDG) vereinbar waren. Deshalb habe ich Ende 2017 das Global Equities ESG SDG Portfolio gestartet. Alle 30 Aktien des Portfolios mussten zusätzlich zu den strengen Ausschluss- und  E-, S- und G-Kriterien auch möglichst gut mit den SDG vereinbar sein. Daraus entstand ein Portfolio mit Aktien aus vor allem europäischen und nordamerikanischen Ländern überwiegend aus den Marktsegmenten Gesundheit, Ressourceneffizienz, öffentlicher Transport und erneuerbare Energien.

Der Vorteil gegenüber geschlossen Impactfonds ist eine nennenswert höhere Liquidität und Diversifikation. Auch liquide „Impact“-Nachhaltigkeitsfonds waren zu dem Zeitpunkt meist auf erneuerbare Energien fokussiert.

2.       Warum ein Fonds statt eines Modellportfolios oder eines ETFs?

Um Modellportfolios erfolgreich an Endkunden verkaufen zu können, braucht man ein sehr hohes Marketingbudget. Weil ich meine Portfolios aus schlechter Erfahrung heraus nicht mehr fremdbestimmen lassen wollte und deshalb nur mein eigenes limitiertes Budget eingesetzt habe, entschied ich mich 2015 für ein Business-to-Business-Modell. Das bedeutet, dass meine Zielkunden Vermögensverwalter sind.

Anders als in den USA und Großbritannien mögen deutsche Vermögensverwalter aber bisher fremde Modellportfolios nicht besonders. Eine Bank hat mich deshalb gefragt, ob ich nicht zusätzlich einen Investmentfonds anbieten möchte (Impact+ESG: Innovatives Mischfondsprojekt der von der Heydt Bank).

Ich habe darin eine Möglichkeit gesehen, öffentlichkeitswirksamer als mit einem Modellportfolio zu zeigen, dass sehr konsequent nachhaltige Portfolios durchaus marktübliche Performances erreichen können. Und ich wünsche mir, dass mehr Geld in die aus meiner Sicht nachhaltigsten Unternehmen angelegt wird, was mit einem Fonds einfacher ist als mit einem Modellportfolio.

Am liebsten hätte ich einen ETF gestartet. Weil mein Portfolio regelbasiert ist, wäre das technisch einfach möglich gewesen. Allerdings verlangen ETF-Dienstleister ein schnell erreichbares Anlagevolumen von etwa 50 Millionen Euro. Auch Dienstleister für traditionelle Fonds erwarten in der Regel mindestens 20 Millionen Euro. Mein erstes Fondsprojekt wurde nach einem sogenannten Pre-Marketing gestoppt, weil 2019 nicht genug Erstinvestoren gefunden wurden und die Bank zudem ihre Geschäftsstrategie geändert hat.

Einige Zeit danach hat mein erster großer Modellportfoliokunde mich gefragt, ob ich zusätzlich einen Fonds anbieten möchte. Zum Glück hat dieser Fondsinitiator eine sehr gute Geschäftsverbindung zu Fondsverwaltungsgesellschaften (KVGen), so dass mein Fonds mit nur 3 Millionen Euro starten konnte.

3.       Vom Artikel 9 Pionier zum Impactfonds (in: Nachhaltigster diversifizierter Fonds)

Der Start zum 16. August 2021 erfolgte trotz der großen Erfahrung des Initiators später als geplant. Ich wollte unbedingt einen Fonds nach der nachhaltigsten Kategorie 9 der Offenlegungsverordnung umsetzen. Außerdem wollte ich meine Aktienselektion mit den Nachhaltigkeitsdaten des von mir präferierten Anbieters umsetzen.

Zuerst habe ich die Soehnholz Asset Management GmbH mit dem ausschließlichen Fokus der Fondsberatung gegründet, die unter dem Haftungsdach des Initiators tätig ist. Parallel dazu haben wir eine Service-Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft (KVG) für den Fonds gesucht. Die zuerst angesprochene Gesellschaft war leider nicht in der Lage, auf unsere Nachhaltigkeitswünsche einzugehen. Durch die Diskussionen mit ihr haben wir viel Zeit verloren.

Nachdem wir die Monega kontaktiert hatten, ging aber alles sehr schnell voran. Der FutureVest Equity SDG R genannte Fonds konnte sehr schnell als erster Artikel 9 Fonds der Monega aufgelegt werden. Einer der großen Vorteile aus meiner Sicht: Ich kann meine Aktienselektion mit den von mir genutzten Nachhaltigkeitsdaten von Clarity.ai umsetzen und die Monega prüft und berichtet mit Daten des von ihr präferierten Nachhaltigkeitsdatenanbieters.

Anfangs habe ich den Fonds noch nicht als Impactfonds bezeichnet, obwohl nur in Aktien von Unternehmen investiert wird, deren Produkte und Services möglichst komplett im Einklang mit den SDG stehen, also zum Beispiel Gesundheitsunternehmen.  So soll ein positiver Unternehmensimpact erfolgen.

Die Regeln für den Fonds unterscheiden sich auf den ersten Blick nur wenig von denen des 2017 gestarteten Modellportfolios. Weil für den Fonds zusätzlich medizinische Tierversuche und die Nutzung genetisch modifizierter Organismen ausgeschlossen werden, enthält der Fonds aber zum Beispiel keine großen Pharmaunternehmen.

Auf Anregung eines unabhängigen deutschen Engagementstartups habe ich Mitte 2022 mit meinem Shareholder Engagement begonnen. Dazu habe ich eine umfassende Stakeholder Engagementpolitik entwickelt und aktuell bin ich mit 29 der 30 Portfoliounternehmen in einem Engagementdialog (siehe „Engagementreport“ auf DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T). Damit kann ich versuchen, Investor Impact auszuüben. Allerdings ist das ein sehr mühsamer und langwieriger Prozess.

Ich kenne keinen anderen liquiden Fonds, der so umfassend auf Impact ausgerichtet ist (vgl. Impactfonds im Nachhaltigkeitsvergleich).

4.       Wie man mit wenigen Ländern und Branchen gut diversifizieren kann

Weltaktien-ETFs können über tausend Aktien enthalten. Obwohl mein Fonds nur 30 Aktien umfasst, ist er gut diversifiziert. Das betrifft zunächst die Länder- bzw. Währungsdiversifikation: Mit aktuell 35% US-Dollaranteil ist die wichtigste Währung am stärksten vertreten, liegt aber weit unter den über 60% von Allcap-Weltaktien-ETFs. Hinzu kommen beim Fonds aktuell ungefähr je 15% Euro und Australische Dollar, 10% Schweizer Franken, 10% Schwedische Kronen und 15% aus 4 weiteren Ländern. Bei den Branchen dominiert aktuell Gesundheit mit etwa 50% und danach folgen Industrie mit gut 20%, Energie mit 10% und vier andere Branchen mit zusammen fast 20%.

Nur für die USA sind zwei direkte Wettbewerber aus einem Marktsegment erlaubt. Und die Gesundheitsunternehmen gehören sehr unterschiedlichen Segmenten an, die oft national ausgerichtet sind. So haben Krankenhäuser in den USA meist nicht viel mit Krankenhausentwicklungen in Australien gemein. Die Aktien werden jährlich gleichgewichtet und unterjährig antizyklisch adjustiert,

Fokussierte und damit typischerweise eher kleinere Unternehmen können einfacher erreichen, dass ein möglichst hoher Anteil ihrer Umsätze mit den SDG vereinbar ist als diversifizierte, eher größere Unternehmen. Es ist deshalb kein Wunder, dass vor allem Smallcaps in dem von mir beraten Fonds vertreten sind. Die durchschnittliche Marktkapitalisierung beträgt etwa 4 Milliarden Euro. Bei MSCI Welt Smallcap-ETFs sind es ebenfalls knapp 4 Milliarden Euro während es bei einem MSCI Allcap-ETF über 150 Milliarden Euro sind.

Die Risikokennzahlen des Fonds sind bisher gut: So liegt die Volatilität seit der Fondsauflage bis zum Ende des Geschäftsjahres am 31.7.2024 bei 12,8%. Das entspricht ziemlich genau der Volatilität von Allcap-Weltaktienindizes von MSCI und liegt erheblich unter der Volatilität von knapp 20% des globalen Smallcap-Indizes von MSCI.

5.       Aktiv oder passiv, Kern- oder Satelliteninvestment? (in: Nachhaltigster diversifizierter Fonds)

Mein Fonds ist regelbasiert, die möglichst einfachen Regeln sind prognosefrei und jährlich soll eine annähernde Gleichgewichtung erfolgen. Damit kann mein Fonds als passiv gelten. Andererseits liegt der Portfolioumschlag mit 350% bis Juni 2023 und knapp 200% im Jahr danach ziemlich hoch. Das liegt einerseits daran, dass sich Umwelt- und Sozialratings unterjährig verschlechtert haben und ich die entsprechenden Aktien deshalb ausgetauscht habe. Außerdem konnte ich die Nachhaltigkeitsregeln im Laufe der Jahre verschärfen und habe immer noch genug gute Investments gefunden. Im Nachhinein bin ich deshalb froh, eine aktive Fonds- und keine relativ unflexible ETF-Struktur gewählt zu haben.

Auch die Active Share, d.h. die Abweichung von globalen Smallcap Benchmarks bzw. ETFs ist sehr hoch. Das heißt, dass die Portfolioüberschneidung mit diesen wie auch mit allen mir bekannten aktiven Fonds niedrig ist. Das spricht ebenfalls dafür, dass der Fonds aktiv und nicht passiv ist.

Ich habe fast mein ganzes Vermögen in den Fonds investiert. Für mich ist der Fonds also mein Core-Investment und so bin ich höchstmöglich nachhaltig angelegt.  Andere Anleger werden wohl nicht so weit gehen wollen. Sie können den Fonds mit seinem Smallcapfokus aber als Portfolioergänzung (Satellit) nutzen, weil sie bisher oft nur wenige Smallcaps im Portfolio haben.

6.       Der Fonds hat teilweise besser als traditionelle Fonds performt

Mit der Gründung meiner Gesellschaft habe ich mir das Ziel gesetzt, möglichst nachhaltige Portfolios anzubieten. Mit diesen möchte ich marktübliche Performances erreichen. Ein Grund dafür ist, dass es mir unseriös erscheint, künftige Outperformance zu suggerieren. Schließlich zeigen Statistiken eindeutig, dass aktive Fonds regelbasierte Benchmarks bzw. Indexbasierte ETFs nur selten dauerhaft schlagen können. Wenn ich aber nur eine marktübliche Performances erreichen kann, dann soll das so nachhaltig wie möglich geschehen.

Wissenschaftliche Studien zeigen, dass nachhaltige Investments typischerweise keine Renditenachteile gegenüber traditionellen Investments haben. Dafür kann sogar mit etwas geringeren Risiken gerechnet werden. Das ist plausibel, denn Nachhaltigkeitsrisiken machen einen zunehmend wichtigeren Teil der Gesamtrisiken aus. Wenn man also die Wahl zwischen traditionellen Investments mit marktüblicher Performance und nachhaltigen Investments mit ebensolcher Performance hat, spricht alles für nachhaltige Investments.

Meine Modellportfolios und auch der Fonds zeigen das bisher auch. Die Rendite des Fonds war aufgrund des bewusst fehlenden BigTech („Glorreiche 7“) Anteils (vgl. Glorreiche 7: Sind sie unsozial?) zumindest zeitweise erheblich schlechter als Allcap-Indizes. Gegenüber Allcap-Fondspeergroups ist aber insgesamt bisher kein Performancenachteil erkennbar.

Im Vergleich zu Smallcap-Indizes war die Volatilität bisher erheblich geringer bei ähnlicher Rendite. Und gegenüber Smallcap-Peergroups war auch die Rendite besser. Das heißt aber nicht, dass es auch unterdurchschnittliche Zeiten geben kann wie 2021 und 2023. 2022 und 2024 liefen dagegen sehr gut. Damit habe ich bisher meine Performanceziele grundsätzlich erreicht.

7.       Ausblick: Es geht noch mehr (in: Nachhaltigster diversifizierter Fonds)

Der Fonds ist mit etwa 8,5 Mio. Volumen noch klein. Das liegt daran, dass neue Fonds es in Deutschland sehr schwer haben, wenn sie nicht von großen Vertriebsorganisationen  in Anlegerportfolios hineinverkauft werden. Selbst viele kleine Fondsvermittler und Vermögensverwalter nutzen lieber schon lange etablierte und hochvolumige Fonds von Anbietern mit bekannten Namen. Diese Fonds haben ihre besten Zeiten zwar oft schon hinter sich, aber das Risiko, dass ihren Verkäufern Vorwürfe wegen der Selektion neuer Fonds nicht so bekannter Anbieter gemacht wird, ist gering. Außerdem können große Fonds bzw. Anbieter oft höhere Vertriebsprovisionen zahlen.

Hinzu kommt, dass nachhaltige Fonds in den letzten Jahren nicht mehr sehr populär waren. Das liegt auch daran, dass viele dieser Fonds stark auf erneuerbare Energieaktien fokussiert sind, die zeitweise sehr schlecht performt haben.

Anleger des Fonds haben aber keine Nachteile durch die geringe Größe des von mir beratenen Fonds. Die Kosten des Fonds sind gecapt. Das heißt, dass auch im schlechtesten Fall nicht nennenswert mehr als 2 Prozent laufende Kosten pro Jahr anfallen, weil Mehrkosten von den Fondsinitiatoren übernommen werden. Außerdem sind die Unternehmen des Fonds zwar nicht sehr groß, aber ihre Aktien sind ziemlich liquide. So können auch hohe Ein- oder Auszahlungen einfach umgesetzt werden.

Wenn potenzielle neue Großanleger bzw. Vertriebspartner es wünschen, wird zusätzlich eine Clean-Share ohne Vertriebsprovisionen aufgelegt und soll der Fonds auch in Österreich zum öffentlichen Vertrieb zugelassen werden.

Der FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals ist meiner Meinung nach der nachhaltigste diversifizierte Fonds am deutschen Markt. Und die Nachhaltigkeit soll künftig noch steigen. So soll die (netto) Umsatzvereinbarkeit von aktuell 92% (vgl. „Nachhaltigkeitsreport“ auf  DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T) bis zum Jahresende auf über 95% steigen.

Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Shaming: Illustration from Nina Garman from Pixabay

Climate shaming: Researchpost 171

Ilustration from Pixabay by Nina Garman

Climate shaming: 11x new research on green technology, sustainable fund labels, sustainable advice, carbon premium, brown profits, green bonds, green growth, green shareholder engagement, climate shaming, optimizations and investment timing (# shows number of SSRN full paper downloads as of April 11th, 2024)

Ecological and social research

Green technology benefits: Economic Impact of Natural Disasters Under the New Normal of Climate Change: The Role of Green Technologies by Nikos Fatouros as of March 18th, 2024 (#9):” In our model of the world economy, raising temperatures are expected to negatively affect consumption as well as increase debt. The most frequently proposed possible solution to climate change, is the de-carbonization of production, by using more “green” technologies. Under “green” technology adaptation, countries would be projected to achieve higher levels of consumption and welfare. This positive effect of more environmentally friendly means of production, tends to be stronger for more developed countries. However, under the assumption of greater technological progress of the “green” sector, our results show that even developing countries would be projected to follow the same path of higher and more sustainable levels of consumption and welfare” (p. 10).

ESG investment research (in: Climate Shaming)

Attractive labels: In labels we trust? The influence of sustainability labels in mutual fund flows by Sofia Brito-Ramos, Maria Céu Cortze Nipe, Svetoslav Covachev, and Florinda Silva as of April 2nd, 2024 (#29): “In Europe, investors can resort to different types of sustainable labels such as GNPO-sponsored labels and ESG ratings from commercial data vendors that assess funds’ sustainability risks. In addition, funds can communicate their sustainability features by including ESG-related designations in the name or self-classifying themselves as article 8 or 9 of the SFDR. … Drawing on a dataset of equity funds sold in Europe … Our initial results document investors‘ preferences for sustainability labels, with GNPO labels (Sö: Government and non-profit organizations) standing out as salient signals. … we find that GNPO labels have an effect on fund flows … Furthermore, this impact is stronger for funds holding other sustainability signals, such as Morningstar top globes, the LCD (Sö: Low Carbon Designation) and an ESG name, suggesting a complementary effect of labels … our results show that the effect of funds being awarded a GNPO label is stronger for the institutional invest segment. The findings show that GNPO labels and SFDR classification are influential for investors’ decisions (p. 23/24). My comment: Maybe I should consider paying for labels for my Article 9 fund. A more detailed comment can be found here Nachhaltigkeitssiegel beim Verkauf von Investmentfonds | CAPinside

(Un-)Sustainable advice? Investing Responsibly: What Drives Preferences for Sustainability and Do Investors Receive Appropriate Investments? by Chris Brooks and Louis Williams as of April 8th, 2024 (#21): „ While investors with stronger desires for sustainability do hold more highly ESG-rated funds on average, the relationship is weaker than might have been expected. Perhaps surprisingly, a majority of clients for whom responsible investing is very important hold some unrated funds, while those for whom it is unimportant nonetheless hold the highly ESG-rated funds in their portfolios. We therefore conclude that more focus on sustainability preferences is required to ensure that retail investors get the portfolios they want” (abstract). My comment: Advisor should develop detailed sustainability policies at least for larger investors, see e.g. DVFA_PRISC_Policy_for_Responsible_Investment_Scoring.pdf (English version available upon demand)

No carbon premium: Carbon Returns Across the Globe by Shaojun Zhang as of April 5th, 2024 (#272): ” Emissions are a weighted sum of firm sales scaled by emission factors and grow almost linearly with firm sales. However, emission data are released at significant lags relative to accounting variables, including sales. After accounting for the data release lag, more carbon-intensive firms underperform relative to less carbon-intensive ones in the U.S. in recent years. International evidence on carbon or green premium is largely absent. The carbon premium documented in previous studies stems from forward-looking bias instead of a true risk premium in ex-ante expected returns” (p. 23).

Profitable brown greening? Paying or Being Paid to be Green? by Rupali Vashisht, Hector Calvo-Pardo, and Jose Olmo as of March 31st, 2024 (#70): “… firms in the S&P 500 index are divided into brown (heavily polluting) and green (less polluting) sectors. In clear contrast with the literature, (i) brown firms pay to be green (i.e.better financial performance translates into higher environmental scores) but green firms appear not to. In addition, (ii) neither brown nor green firms with higher environmental scores perform better financially” (abstract). My comment: If brown and green firms perform the same, why not invest only in green firms?

Resilient green bonds: “My Name Is Bond. Green Bond.” Informational Efficiency of Climate Finance Markets by Marc Gronwald and Sania Wadud as of April 4th, 2024 (#15): “… the degree of informational inefficiency of the green bond market is generally found to be very similar to that of benchmark bond markets such as treasury bond markets. … the degree of inefficiency of the green bond market during the Covid outbreak in 2020 and the inflation shock in 2022/2023 is lower than that of the treasury bond market“ (abstract).

Green growth: Investing in the green economy 2023 – Entering the next phase of growth by Lily Dai, Lee Clements, Edmund Bourne, and Jaakko Kooroshy from FTSE Russell as of Sep. 19th, 2023: “After a downturn in 2022 … Green revenues for listed companies are on track to exceed US$5 trillion by 2025 — doubling in size since the conclusion of the Paris Agreement in 2015 — with market capitalisation of the green economy approaching 10% of the equity market. However, to shift the global economy onto a 1.5°C trajectory, green growth would have to further substantially accelerate with green market capitalisation approximating 20% of global equity markets by 2030” (p. 3).

Impact investment research (in: Climate Shaming)

Short-term impact: The Value Impact of Climate and Non-climate Environmental Shareholder Proposals by Henk Berkman, Jonathan Jona, Joshua Lodge, and Joshua Shemesh as of April 3rd, 2024 (#19): “In this paper, we investigate the value impact of environmental shareholder proposals (ESPs) for a large sample of Russell 3000 firms from 2006 to 2021 … We find that both withdrawn and non-withdrawn climate ESPs have positive CARs (Sö: Cumulative abnormal returns), indicating that management screens value-enhancing climate proposals and rejects value-destroying climate proposals. For non-climate ESPs we find insignificant CARs, suggesting that management does not have an ability to screen non-climate proposals. However, we find that close-call non-climate ESPs that are passed have negative abnormal returns, implying that for non-climate ESPs the original decision by managers not to agree with the activists is supported by the share market” (p. 26).

Climate shaming: Fighting Climate Change Through Shaming by Sharon Yadin as of April 4th, 2024 (#13): “This Book contends that regulators can and should shame companies into climate-responsible behavior by publicizing information on corporate contribution to climate change. Drawing on theories of regulatory shaming and environmental disclosure, the book introduces a “regulatory climate shaming” framework, which utilizes corporate reputational sensitivities and the willingness of stakeholders to hold firms accountable for their actions in the climate crisis context. The book explores the developing landscape of climate shaming practices employed by governmental regulators in various jurisdictions via rankings, ratings, labeling, company reporting, lists, online databases, and other forms of information-sharing regarding corporate climate performance and compliance” (abstract). My comment: Responsilbe Naming and Climate Shaming are adequate investor impact tools in my opinion (my “climate shaming” activities see Engagement report” here FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R – DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T)

Other investment research

(Pseudo-)Optimization? Markowitz Portfolio Construction at Seventy by Stephen Boyd, Kasper Johansson, Ronald Kahn, Philipp Schiele, and Thomas Schmelzer as of Feb. 13th, 2024 (#50): “More than seventy years ago Harry Markowitz formulated portfolio construction as an optimization problem that trades off expected return and risk, defined as the standard deviation of the portfolio returns. Since then the method has been extended to include many practical constraints and objective terms, such as transaction cost or leverage limits. Despite several criticisms of Markowitz’s method, for example its sensitivity to poor forecasts of the return statistics, it has become the dominant quantitative method for portfolio construction in practice. In this article we describe an extension of Markowitz’s method that addresses many practical effects and gracefully handles the uncertainty inherent in return statistics forecasting” (abstract). My comment:  Extensions of Markowitz methods create complexity but still contain many assumptions/forecasts and are far from solving all potential problems. I prefer very simple optimization and forecast-free approaches, see Das-Soehnholz-ESG-und-SDG-Portfoliobuch.pdf (soehnholzesg.com)

Bad timing? Another Look at Timing the Equity Premiums by Wei Dai and Audrey Dong from Dimensional Fund Advisors as of Nov. 2nd, 2023 (#1642): “We examine strategies that time the market, size, value, and profitability premiums in the US, developed ex US, and emerging markets …. Out of the 720 timing strategies we simulated, the vast majority underperformed relative to staying invested in the long side of the premiums. While 30 strategies delivered promising outperformance at first glance, further analysis shows that their outperformance is very sensitive to specific time periods and parameters for strategy construction”(abstract).

………………………………………………………………………………..

Advert for German investors:

Sponsor my research by investing in and/or recommending my global small cap mutual fund (SFDR Art. 9). The fund focuses on the Sustainable Development Goals and uses separate E, S and G best-in-universe minimum ratings and broad shareholder engagement with currently 27 of 30 companies: FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R – DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T or My fund (prof-soehnholz.com).

Greeniums: Picture from Sergio Cerrato from Pixabay

Greeniums and more: Researchpost #170

Picture from Sergio Cerrato from Pixabay

Greeniums: 15x new research on transition risk, emissions assurance, biodiversity risks, materiality, climate commitments, investment consultants, green innovation, biodiversity premium, sustainable fund flows, brown home bias, greenwashing, retail governance, and private debt performance

Ecological research

Transition or not? How you measure transition risk matters: Comparing and evaluating climate transition risk metrics by Philip Fliegel as of March 28th, 2024: “We employ a new dataset containing for the first-time reported EU taxonomy alignment of both capex and revenues as a proxy for companies transition risk. … We find a strong divergence in transition risk metrics for similar companies. … We find that only taxonomy and TRBC (Sö: Refinitiv Business Classification) based portfolios are able to measure green firms’ climate transition risk. … notably, emission based green portfolios are highly invested in service, technology and finance, not typical green sectors enabling the transition …” (abstract).

CO2-Negative assurance? On the Importance of Assurance in Carbon Accounting by Florian Berg, Jaime Oliver Huidobro, and Roberto Rigobon as of March 25th, 2024: “Firms that obtain assurance for their carbon emissions report on average a 9.5% higher carbon intensity than their peers without assurance. When controlling for assurance, we do not find evidence that SBTi target-setters reduce their future emissions. Instead, firms that audit reduce their future carbon intensity by 3.3%. This has implications for portfolio managers and ESG raters as taking disclosed carbon emissions at face value would lead to penalizing firms that are more serious about their carbon reductions …“ (p. 12).

Biodiversity risk details: Study for a methodological framework and assessment of potential financial risks associated with biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, Final Report by Maha Cziesielski, Cosima Dekker-Hufler, Timea Pal, Graeme Nicholls, Foivos Petsinaris, Lisa Korteweg (Trinomics) Michael Obersteiner, Nikolay Khabarov for the European Commission as of February 2024: “Biodiversity and nature loss pose multifaceted risk, … Reviewing best-practices and existing frameworks, the study covers the key definitions and steps in determining risk drivers, types, transmission channels, and exposure assessments. An assessment of the EU’s sectoral exposure furthermore reveals that agriculture, real estate and construction, and healthcare sectors as most susceptible” (p. 5).

Scarce materiality? European corporate sustainability reporting – The Financial Materiality Compass as an auxiliary tool by Christina Bannier and Henry Flach as of Feb. 8th, 2024: “European companies in scope of the new Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) will have to report on all sustainability topics that are either financially-material or impact-material (or both) to them. Determining materiality in an extensive individual analysis, however, proves to be an expensive undertaking that will encumber resource-constrained and smaller companies in particular. To offer an easily applicable auxiliary tool, we create a comprehensive sector-specific Financial Materiality Compass (FMC) along the lines of the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). … We find that for companies in the consumer staples and energy sector nine out of 10 ESRS categories are financially material, but only one, respectively two, of these categories show a strong materiality. For companies in the health care, information technologies and real estate sector, in contrast, we report the lowest number of financially material ESRS categories in total“ (abstract).

Net-zero bullshit? Business as usual: bank climate commitments, lending, and engagement by Parinitha (Pari) Sastry, Emil Verner, David Marques-Ibanez from the European Central Bank as of March 26th, 2024 (2x): “A prominent initiative is the Net Zero Banking Alliance, which constitutes an agreement to set voluntary net zero targets and decrease financed emissions in targeted sectors over the medium-term (2030) and long-term (2050). This paper is the first attempt to quantify whether banks have met their stated goals using administrative data that allows for a comprehensive examination of net zero lending commitments. We find that climate-aligned lenders reduce lending to targeted sectors, both in absolute terms and relative to other sectors. However, once we compare climate-aligned lenders to other lenders, we find that climate-aligned lenders have not differentially divested from emissions-intensive firms, in mining or in the sectors for which they have set targets. … Further, we do not find evidence for engagement. Firms connected to climate-aligned banks are no more likely to themselves set decarbonization targets“ (p. 36/37).

ESG investment research (in: Greeniums)

Dangerous pension consultants? Loading the DICE against pension funds – Flawed economic thinking on climate has put your pension at risk by Steve Keen for Carbon Tracker as of July 27th, 2023: “Investment consultants to pension funds have relied upon peer-reviewed economic research to provide advice to pension funds on the damages to pensions that will be caused by global warming. Following the advice of investment consultants, pension funds have informed their members that global warming of 2 – 4.3oC will have only a minimal impact upon their portfolios. … Economists have claimed, in refereed economics papers, that 6oC of global warming will reduce future global GDP by less than 10%, compared to what GDP would have been in the complete absence of climate change. In contrast, scientists have claimed, in refereed science papers, that 5oC of global warming implies damages that are “beyond catastrophic, including existential threats,” while even 1oC of warming—which we have already passed—could trigger dangerous climate tipping points“ (p. 6).

Variable greeniums: The Monetary Channel of the Green Premium by Xinwei Li as of March 26th, 2024: „I document .. novel empirical facts about the green premium, which refers to the average return of the Green-Minus-Brown (GMB) portfolio. First, I show that the green premium varies substantially over time, where greenness can be measured ether by Trucost carbon emission intensities or by MSCI environmental scores. The green premium ranges from -53 bps to 76 bps on a monthly basis …. Second, I find that the … green premium is positive and significant during periods of expansionary monetary policy and turns zero or even negative during periods of contractionary monetary policy …“ (p. 26).

True greeniums? In Search of the True Greenium by Marc Eskildsen, Markus Ibert, Theis Ingerslev Jensen, and Lasse Heje Pedersen as of March 1st, 2024: “We find widespread robustness problems with the ESG literature that estimates the greenium based on realized returns combined with a variety of greenness measures. … the true greenium … is negative across countries and asset classes. In equities, the estimated annual greenium is −25 bps per standard deviation increase in the robust green score. This greenium corresponds to a −50 bps expected return spread between the top- and bottom third of firms by greenness. Looking at more extreme differences, the greenium corresponds to a near −100 bps expected return spread between the top- and bottom deciles. Further, the greenium becomes more negative over time and is more negative in greener countries“ (p. 45/46).

Greeniums and innovation: Funding the Fittest? Pricing of Climate Transition Risk in the Corporate Bond Market by Martijn A. Boermans, Maurice J. G. Bun, and Yasmine van der Straten as of Jan. 17th, 2024: “We focus on the amount of green patents relative to the total amount of patents of a given company, and assess whether the interaction between emission intensity and the green patent ratio affects bond yield spreads. Our empirical results provide evidence that a firm’s carbon emission intensity positively affects the bond yield spread. At the same time we find that investors reward those emission-intensive companies engaging in green innovation. … we assess whether green patenting is associated with a decline in future emission intensity. We document substantial heterogeneity in the effect over time and across industries. … our results suggest that investors should exercise caution when accommodating emission intensive companies with a smaller bond yield spreads once they innovate in the green space. Finally, our results reveal that European investors, and particularly institutional investors, are more inclined to price exposures to climate transition risk …“ (p. 35).

Biodiversity premium? Biodiversity Risk Premium by Helena Naffaa and Gergely Janos Czupya as of March 27th, 2024: “By analysing almost 3,000 constituents of the MSCI All Country World Index over a decade, spanning from 2013 to 2023 … we observed decreases of 0.9%, 1.5%, and 3.6% in the maximum attainable Sharpe ratio in the universe for low, moderate, and high levels of biodiversity risk mitigation, respectively. … Moreover, there is an additional cost associated with the reduction in portfolio diversification due to the screening process, further diminishing the Sharpe ratio by 1.1%, 2.3%, and 3.5% for the respective risk mitigation levels. Our study also highlights the added benefit of biodiversity alignment on ESG scores, revealing unintended consequences resulting in improvements in the environmental, social and governance pillar metrics, in addition to the incurred reduction in the Sharpe ratio“ (p. 30/31).

Sustainable flows? Sustainability or Performance? Ratings and Fund Managers’ Incentives by Nickolay Gantchev, Mariassunta Giannetti, and Rachel Li as of March 9th, 2024: “Following the introduction of Morningstar’s sustainability ratings (the “globe” ratings), mutual funds increased their holdings of sustainable stocks to attract flows. Such sustainability-driven trades, however, underperformed, impairing the funds’ overall performance. Consequently, a tradeoff between sustainability and performance emerged. In the new equilibrium, the globe ratings do not affect investor flows and funds no longer trade to improve their globe ratings” (abstract). My comment: If there is similar performance, I would select the more sustainable investment (for the most recent performance of my sustainable portfolios see Q1 Renditen der Soehnholz ESG Portfolios – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)

Pollution home bias: Carbon Home Bias by Patrick Bolton, Marc Eskildsen, and Marcin Kacperczyk as of Feb. 18th, 2024: “We undertake a global analysis of institutional investor portfolios and find widespread underweighting of companies with higher carbon emissions. This underweighting is largely driven by underinvestment in foreign companies with high carbon emissions … Similar domestic firms are overweighted but by a smaller magnitude. Further, the divestment of foreign polluters has increased since 2015“ (abstract).

Beyond Greenwashing: Crosswashing in Sustainable Investing: Unveiling Strategic Practices Impacting ESG Scores by Bertrand Kian Hassani and Yacoub Bahini as of March 26th, 2024: “… cross-washing involves companies strategically investing in sustainable activities to boost Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) scores while preserving non-sustainable core operations. The study emphasizes that this specific form of greenwashing is not currently considered in existing ESG assessments, potentially leading to an inflated perception of corporate ethical practices “ (abstract). … “The findings derived from the case study indicate a notable overestimation in current ESG notations. This overestimation, however, is contingent upon the specific industry sectors and the size of the companies involved” (p. 19). My comment: For a detailed comment see Nur ESG-Ratings für Nachhaltigkeitsbeurteilungen? | CAPinside

Retail governance: Corporate Governance Through Social Media by Christina M. Sautter as of March 20th, 2024: “Retail investors are vigorously and loudly taking positions regarding corporate governance issues on social media. … Retail investors have opened tens of millions of new brokerage accounts since 2020. … These wireless investors are taking advantage of social media platforms like YouTube, Reddit, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), WhatsApp, Telegram, and Discourse, among other venues to transform corporate governance engagement. … Although structural barriers do impede engagement and reforms to the system are necessary … a case study of one particularly illustrious event involving AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. .. show(s) that retail investors are anything but silent” (abstract). My comment: Shareholder engagement is not that difficult, see “Engagementresport” at FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R – DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T

Other investment research (in: Greeniums)

Unattractive debt investments? Risk-Adjusting the Returns to Private Debt Funds by Isil Erel, Thomas Flanagan, Michael Weisbach as of March 26th, 2024: “Private debt funds are the fastest growing segment of the private capital market. … Using both equity and debt benchmarks to measure risk, a typical private debt fund produces an insignificant abnormal return to its investors. However, gross-of-fee abnormal returns are positive, and using only debt benchmarks also leads to positive abnormal returns as funds contain equity risks. The rates at which private debt funds lend appear to be high enough to offset the funds’ fees and risks, but not high enough to exceed both their fees and investors’ risk-adjusted rates of return” (abstract).

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

Advert for German investors:

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

Houseowner risks illustrated by flooding foto from Pixabay

Houseowner risks: Researchpost #157

Houseowner risks: 13x new research on houseowner and job risks, migration, good lobbying, online altruism, criminal lawyers, rule of law, biodiversity, green bank risks, climate votes, private equity and innovation (“#” shows the number of SSRN full paper downloads as of Jan. 4th, 2023)

Social and ecological research: Houseowner risks

Houseowner risks (1): Feeling Rich, Feeling Poor: Housing Wealth Effects and Consumption in Europe by Serhan Cevik and Sadhna Naik from the International Monetary Fund as of Dec. 13th, 2023 (#24): “Residential property accounts for, on average, about 55 percent of aggregate household wealth in Europe, but exhibits significant variation across countries. This paper provides a dynamic analysis of housing wealth effects on consumer spending in a panel of quarterly observations on 20 European countries during the period 1980–2023…. Estimation results confirm that household consumption responds strongly to house price movements and disposable income growth in real terms. … Our seasonally-adjusted quarter-on-quarter estimations imply that the average decline of 1.96 percent in real house prices in the first quarter of 2023 could dampen consumer spending by about -0.51 percentage points in our sample of European countries on a cumulative basis over a horizon of eight quarters” (p. 11/12).

Houseowner risks (2): Who Bears Climate-Related Physical Risk? by Natee Amornsiripanitch and David Wylie as of Dec. 1st, 2023 (#74): “This paper combines data on current and future property-level physical risk from major climate-related perils (storms, floods, hurricanes, and wildfires) that owner-occupied single-family residences face in the contiguous United States. Current expected damage from climate-related perils is approximately $19 billion per year. Severe convective storms and inland floods account for almost half of the expected damage. The central and southern parts of the U.S. are most exposed to climate-related physical risk, with hurricane-exposed areas on the Gulf and South Atlantic coasts being the riskiest areas. Relative to currently low-risk areas, currently high-risk areas have lower household incomes, lower labor market participation rates, and lower education atainment, suggesting that the distribution of climate-related physical risk is correlated with economic inequality” (abstract).

Job climate risks: Do firms mitigate climate impact on employment? Evidence from US heat shocks by Viral V Acharya, Abhishek Bhardwaj, and Tuomas Tomunen as of Dec. 20th, 2023 (#32): “… we studied how firms respond to extreme temperature shocks … We found that firms operating in multiple counties respond to these shocks by reducing employment in the affected county and increasing it in unaffected ones, … Single location firms simply scale down their employment. We found that the effect is stronger for firms that are more profitable, less levered and financially constrained … We also found that the effect is stronger for firms that are more concerned about their climate change exposure and that have a larger fraction of ESG funds as their owners … We also found that counties experiencing heat shocks experience employment shift from small to large firms within the county” (p. 27).

Positive immigration: The Macroeconomic Effects of Large Immigration Waves by Philipp Engler, Margaux MacDonald, Roberto Piazza, and Galen Sher of the International Monetary Fund as of Dec. 28th, 2023 (#9): “In OECD, large immigration waves raise domestic output and productivity in both the short and the medium term, pointing to significant dynamic gains for the host economy. We find no evidence of negative effects on aggregate employment of the native-born population. In contrast, our analysis of large refugee flows into emerging and developing countries does not find clear evidence of macroeconomic effects on the host country …”.

Pro lobbying: The Lobbying for Good Movement by Alberto Alemanno as of Dec. 13th, 2023 (#735): “Lobbying is about providing ideas and sharing concerns with policymakers to make them—and the whole policy process—more responsive. … lobbying is one of the most effective ways to enact political, economic, and social change … Only a handful of nonprofits lobby …. “ (abstract).

Online Altruism: What it is and how it Differs from Other Kinds of Altruism by Katherine Lou and Luciano Floridi as of Nov. 10th, 2023 (#80): “Online altruism often contrasts with the ideals of Effective Altruism. Altruistic acts online are often not particularly planned by the giver in advance, they are not the most effective uses of a certain amount of money, and they definitely do not aim toward a long-term vision that solves humanity’s most pressing problems. That is because participants in online altruism tend to focus on the experience and immediate effects on another human being, enabled through online platform mechanisms. … creating a more altruistic society and meeting the needs of people in the present, regardless of whether such altruism is maximally effective or in pursuit of any larger vision, seems just as crucial to be able to build a better world. … It is complementary to other forms of altruism, not an alternative” (p. 23/24).

Criminal lawyers? Lawyers and the Abuse of Government Power by Margaret Tarkington as of Nov. 29th, 2023 (#16): “The legal profession needs to amend the rules of professional conduct to protect our constitutional system of government from those most likely to effectively undermine it: lawyers. The historic federal indictment against former President Donald Trump for conspiring to stay in power after losing the 2020 presidential election included five attorney co-conspirators: … Eight lawyers were indicted in Georgia on similar charges. …. Lawyers weren’t just involved in Trump’s plot; they devised and enabled it. Rather than accurately advise Trump that he had lost and needed to concede, lawyers crafted a plan to circumvent court losses and subvert States’ certified electors—effectively disenfranchising seven entire States to enable Trump to win with only 232 electoral votes. To accomplish this end, lawyers recreated a faux version of the 1876 constitutional crisis by fabricating false electoral slates—manipulating law and fact to enable a coup and give it the trappings of legality and thus legitimacy. Only lawyers could have performed these services” (abstract).

Responsible investment research

Rule of law: Does Rule of Law Matter For Firms? Evidence From Shifting Political Control in Hong Kong by Jonathan S. Hartley as of Dec. 12th, 2023 (#58): “This paper analyzes Hong Kong’s 2020 National Security Law as introduced and imposed by the Communist Party of China as a natural experiment in diminishing the rule of law in a trade-financial hub …. this paper presents evidence that the National Security Law caused significant uncertainty in the rule of law, emigration of residents and foreign firms, and declines in the valuations of Hong Kong firms and residential real estate as well as a decline in real GDP per capita. … stock prices were most particularly sensitive in the real estate, air travel, and financial/banking sectors while less sensitive in the power and utility, hospital/gaming, and multinational/other industry categories“ (p. 11). My comment: I replaced my minimum country selection requirements for “Human Rights” with demanding minimum requirements for “Rule of Law” a few years ago, because rule of law is a broader “responsibility” measurement criterion. Therefore, I exclude e.g. investments in companies headquartered in BRICS countries.

Biodiversity premium: Do Investors Care About Biodiversity? by Alexandre Garel, Arthur Romec, Zacharias Sautner and Alexander F. Wagner as of Dec. 28th, 2023 (#2210): “… biodiversity preservation can clash with actions taken to address climate change. For example, renewable energy and electric cars require lithium, cobalt, magnesium, and nickel, the mining of which comes with severe impacts on biodiversity (and on the human communities that rely on biodiversity). … Examining a large sample of international stocks, we find that over our sample period, investors did not care about the impact of firms on biodiversity, on average. However, things appear to be changing, as we document the emergence of a biodiversity footprint premium following the Kunming Declaration (the first part of the COP15). Consistent with this effect, we document negative stock price reactions for firms with large biodiversity footprints in the days following the Kunming Declaration. Stock prices of firms with large biodiversity footprints further dropped after the Montreal Agreement (the second part of the COP15). Our results indicate that investors start to ask for a return premium in light of the uncertainty associated with future biodiversity regulation“ (p. 29/30).

Unknown climate risks: The effects of climate change-related risks on banks: A literature review by Olivier de Bandt, Laura-Chloé Kuntz, Nora Pankratz, Fulvio Pegoraro, Haakon Solheim, Greg Sutton, Azusa Takeyama and Dora Xia as of Dec. 6th, 2023: “The survey acknowledges the great number of new research papers that have very recently been made available … Apart from a few outliers … the microeconomic impacts of climate change on particular portfolios are relatively small, below 50 bp on loan and bond spreads. … several authors conclude that realized returns on climate change-related risks are below expected return, providing evidence of an underestimation of risk. … Liquidity issues arising from climate change-related shocks are still insufficiently researched. … The overall impact of climate change, which becomes multifaceted and affects various portfolios at the same time and in a correlated fashion, may therefore be more significant. In particular, the difficulty to model possible non-linear effects related to climate change and to capture tipping points might lead to an underestimation of risks. … There are still data issues, notably in terms of granularity, as well as methodological issues, which prevent a definite assessment of the situation, both for physical risks (lack of exact location of the exposures in many instances) and transition risks (notably lack of evaluation for SMEs)” (p. 28/29). My comment: I try to invest in listed stocks with low ESG-risks and high SDG-alignments which should reduce risks, see Divestments: 49 bei 30 Aktien meines Artikel 9 Fonds – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)

Voting deficits: Climate Votes: The Great Deception: An assessment of asset managers’ climate votes in 2023 by Agathe Masson from Reclaim Finance as of December 2023: “… the assessment of 2023 voting reveals that asset managers are encouraging fossil fuel companies to pursue expansion plans, exacerbating the global warming crisis. They therefore fail their responsibility to make long-term investment decisions integrating climate-related risks, and are at real risk of being accused of greenwashing“ (p. 4). My comment: For my direct equity portfolios, I only accept 0% fossil energy production. Unfortunately, many of the strictest “sustainable” ETFs still include such production so that I cannot make sure that my responbile ETF-Portfolios have 0% exposure to fossil energy production. Regarding my opinion on “transition investments” see ESG Transition Bullshit? – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)

ESG affects PE: ESG Incidents and Fundraising in Private Equity by Teodor Duevski, Chhavi Rastogi, and Tianhao Yao as of Dec. 14th, 2023 (#55): “Using a sample of global buyout investments, we find that experiencing an environvimental and social (E&S) incident in its portfolio companies … Affected PE firms are less likely to raise a subsequent fund and the subsequent funds are smaller. The relative size of subsequent funds are 7.6% smaller for PE firms experiencing higher-than-median number of E&S incidents, compared to those with no incidents. The effect is stronger for less reputable PE firms” (abstract).

Other investment research (in: Houseowner risks)

Innovative VC: How Resilient is Venture-Backed Innovation? Evidence from Four Decades of U.S. Patenting by Sabrina T. Howell, Josh Lerner, Ramana Nanda, and Richard Townsend as of Oct. 5th, 2023 (#742): “This paper shows that while patents filed by VC-backed firms are of significantly higher quality than the average patent, VC-backed innovation is substantially more procyclical. We trace this to changes in innovation by early-stage VC-backed startups“ (p. 22).

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

Advert for German investors

Sponsor my research by investing in and/or recommending my global small/midcap mutual fund (SFDR Art. 9). The fund focuses on social SDGs and uses separate E, S and G best-in-universe minimum ratings and broad shareholder engagement with currently 27 of 30 companies: FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R – DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T or Noch eine Fondsboutique? – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)

Alternatives (green) and SDG (blue) ETF Portfolios

Alternatives: Thematic replace alternative investments

Alternatives: Thematic investments can take up (part) of the allocation which alternative investments should have had in the past. The main reason is a stricter focus on responsible investments. Here I explain, why I support this development:

Extensive alternative and responsible investment experience

I started my financial services career trying to select the best private equity funds worldwide. Soon, I also covered hedge funds, real estate funds and infrastructure funds. In my current multi-asset portfolios, alternatives have a share between a quarter and a third of the portfolios.

In 2015, I developed three innovative ETF-Portfolios. One passively diversified multi-asset portfolio, one pure alternative investment portfolio and one ESG portfolio. The multi-asset ETF-portfolio and the ESG ETF-portfolio will be continued whereas I decided to stop the active offer of my alternatives ETF-Portfolio and will focus on my (multi-theme) SDG ETF-portfolio, instead. I follow a similar approach by replacing my direct listed alternatives ESG-portfolios with SDG-aligend investments.

My traditional multi-asset allocations will not change

My rather large allocation to alternatives is based on scientific studies of aggregated asset allocations of investors worldwide. I use ETFs not only for traditional equity and bond allocations but also for alternative investments. I have documented this most-passive asset allocation approach in detail in my Soehnholz ESG and SDG portfolio book. This approach is and will be applied to my traditional (non-ESG) Weltmarkt ETF-Portfolio and to my multi asset ESG ETF-Portfolio also in the years to come.

Stand-alone alternatives portfolios scrapped from my offering

There are two reasons for my decision to stop offering stand-alone alternatives portfolios: First, I want to focus on even stricter responsible investing and second, I could not find many investors for my “alternatives” portfolios.

The alternatives portfolios were offered to diversify traditional and ESG investment portfolios and I still think that this makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the returns of most alternatives market segments lagged the ones of traditional large-cap equities more or less since the start of my portfolios in 2016/2017. And low returns have not been good for sales.

It may well be that the timing of my decision is bad and that market segments such as listed (ESG) infrastructure and (ESG) real estate will perform especially well in the (near) future. But SDG-aligned investments did not perform well, either (see ESG gemischt, SDG schlecht: 9-Monatsperformance 2023 – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com). I expect that they may recover soon. Performance, therefore, did not play a role in my decision.

The reason is, that I want to focus even more than in the past on responsible investments. Therefore, stopping the active offer of my „non-ESG“ alternatives ETF-portfolio should be obvious. But I will also stop to actively offer my direct listed real estate ESG and my listed infrastructure ESG portfolio.

I started similar portfolios at my previous employer in 2013 when there were no such products available in Germany. In 2016, with my own company, I began to offer such portfolios with much stricter ESG-criteria. I could find enough REITs and listed real estate stocks. For listed infrastructure, even though I extended my ideal definition from core infrastructure to also include social infrastructure and infrastructure related companies, I struggled to find 30 companies worldwide which fulfilled my responsibility requirements.

Thematic SDG-aligned portfolios can fill the “alternatives” allocation

But I will not give up on allocations to alternative investments. In the future, most of my actively offered portfolios will be SDG-aligned. I also use ESG-selection criteria in addition to SDG-alignment for all of these portfolios. And my SDG-aligned portfolios have significant exposures to “alternative” investment segments including green and social real estate and infrastructure.

My SDG ETF-Portfolio, for example, currently includes 10 Article 9 ETFs (see Drittes SDG ETF-Portfolio: Konform mit Art. 9 SFDR – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)). Several of these ETFs invest in  infrastructure (e.g. the Clean Water, Clean Energy and Smart City Infrastructure ETF). Two others are purely real estate focused. In addition, my SDG-ETFs are selected as portfolio-diversifiers and typically include a significant number of small cap investments which often have “private equity like” characteristics. Also, SDG-aligned ETF are only admitted for my portfolios if they have a low country- and company-overlap with traditional indices.

And my direct Global Equities ESG SDG portfolios and my mutual fund include about 20% “responsible” infrastructure and 7% social (healthcare and senior housing) real estate stocks in September 2023. In addition, almost half of the stocks in the portfolio are small cap investments (compare Active or impact investing? – (prof-soehnholz.com)).

Both ETF- and direct SDG-aligned portfolios thus can diversify most traditional (large-cap) portfolios. In addition, I will offer investors the ability to easily create bespoke SDG-aligned ESG-portfolios which may well focus on “alternatives”.  

Even the performance of my Alternatives ETF- (green in the chart above) and the SDG-ETF portfolio (blue) have been similar for quite some time.

Grüner Chip als Bild von Chenspec von Pixabay für nachhaltige AI

AI: Wie können nachhaltige AnlegerInnen profitieren?

AI (Artificial Intelligence oder KI für künstliche Intelligenz) kann theoretisch helfen, mehr, bessere, aktuellere und kostengünstigere Informationen für nachhaltige Investments zu generieren. Die Frage ist, wie das erreicht werden kann. Hier sind meine Ideen:

………. ….. Hinweise: Ich nutze Daten von Clarity.ai und ESGBook und berate Allindex, die auch Search4Stocks anbieten. Der Text basiert auf einem Beitrag für GitexIMpact (siehe How can sustainable investors benefit from artificial intelligence? – GITEX Impact – Leading ESG Event 2023), der mit Hilfe von Deepl übersetzt wurde und auf LinkedIn als Artikel veröffentlicht wurde. Das Foto des zugehörigen Blogbeitrags stammt von Pixabay. …………………………………..……

KI ist nicht klar definiert. In diesem Artikel unterscheide ich nicht zwischen maschinellem Lernen, Deep Learning und KI. Vereinfachend unterscheide ich auch nicht zwischen Umwelt-, Sozial- und Governance-Investitionen (ESG) sowie Impact Investing oder anderen nachhaltigen Investitionsansätzen.

Gleiche Renditen mit geringeren Risiken durch AI?

Die wichtigste Frage aus AnlegerInnensicht ist meistens, ob KI dazu beitragen kann, die Renditen zu verbessern. In der Vergangenheit wurden enorme Mengen an Gehirn- und Computerleistung und Geld investiert, um höhere Renditen als die Märkte zu erzielen. Viele quantitative traditionelle Investoren mit teilweise tiefen Taschen haben meistens vergeblich versucht, passive Benchmarks zu übertreffen (vgl. Kapitalanlage – Kann man den Markt schlagen? Teil 5 (roboadvisor-portal.com)). Ich erwarte nicht, dass die KI daran etwas ändern wird.

Aber KI kann dazu beitragen, Geldanlagerisiken zu verringern, insbesondere Nachhaltigkeitsrisiken. Diese Risiken können zum Beispiel mit Umwelt-, Sozial- und Governance-Ratings gemessen werden. ESG-Ratings beruhen oft auf einer Vielzahl von Daten und unstrukturierten Informationen aus allen möglichen Formaten, wie z. B. Videokonferenzen von Unternehmen mit Aktienanalysten. Mit KI ist es einfacher, mehr Emittenten von Anlageprodukten und mehr ratingrelevante Daten pro Emittent zu erfassen sowie die Ratings häufiger zu aktualisieren. ESG Book und Clarity.ai sind frühe Anbieter solcher KI-basierten ESG-Ratings.

Wenn KI dazu beiträgt, Anlagerisiken zu verringern, können die risikobereinigten Anlegerrenditen besser werden. Ich bezweifle jedoch, dass das (Overlay-)Risikomanagement von Portfolios durch KI wesentlich verbessert werden kann. In der Vergangenheit haben häufigere oder komplexere Risikosignale zur Änderung von Portfolios in der Regel nicht zu einer höheren Portfolioperformance geführt (vgl. Abschnitt Risiko-Overlay in Asset Allocation, Risiko-Overlay und Manager-Selektion: Das Diversifikationsbuch | SpringerLink).

AI ermöglicht andere Portfolios und zielgerichteteres Marketing

Durch die Nutzung der KI-basierten ESG-Daten von Clarity kann ich mein Portfolio aus etwa zwanzigtausend Aktien mit umfassenden ESG-Daten zusammenstellen (vgl. Noch eine Fondsboutique? – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)). So kann ich Portfolios aus Aktien mit geringen Kapitalisierungen (Small Caps) zusammenstellen, für die traditionelle ESG-Rater typischerweise keine Daten liefern. Durch die KI-basierte häufige Aktualisierung der ESG-Daten kann ich zudem schneller reagieren als es bei traditionellen ESG-Ratings mit jährlichen Aktualisierungen der Fall ist. KI kann natürlich auch mit nicht-Nachhaltigkeitsinformationen helfen.

Mehr Auswahlmöglichkeiten bedeutet auch mehr Individualisierungsmöglichkeiten. Es ist bekannt, dass Kunden länger in maßgeschneiderte Anlagen investiert bleiben als in Standard-Anlagen. Insgesamt kann deshalb eine auf KI basierende individuelle Portfolioanpassung für Anleger und Anbieter gleichermaßen attraktiv.

Es liegt auf der Hand, dass KI dazu beitragen kann, Marketingaktivitäten besser auf individuelle Bedürfnisse, auch die von nachhaltigen Investoren, abzustimmen. Maßgeschneidertes Marketing könnte durch KI so billiger und inhaltlich besser und damit überzeugender werden.

KI kann wahrscheinlich auch dazu beitragen, die Finanzbildung und Anlageberatung zu verbessern. Mit Hilfe von KI sollte es für AnlegerInnen einfacher werden, die vielen verschiedenen Facetten nachhaltiger Anlagen besser zu verstehen. Dies könnte zum Beispiel durch KI-basierte Antworten auf Anlegerfragen erreicht werden. Large Language Modelle (LLM) wie Bing, ChatGPT oder Google Bard sollten für solche Themen gut geeignet sein. Einfachen Fragen wie „Kann man mit ESG-Investments Outperformance erreichen“ können mit Standard-Antworten auf häufig geäußerte Fragen (FAQ) beantwortet werden. AI kann aber helfen, wenn es darum geht, zum Beispiel SRI- mit ESG- oder SDG-Fonds zu vergleichen.

Außerdem kann KI dazu beitragen, häufigere und detailliertere Berichte über nachhaltige Anlagen für Kunden zu erstellen. Auch das könnte dazu beitragen, den Umsatz zu steigern und Kunden zu binden. Aber mehr und häufigere Informationen können auch ein Verkaufsrisiko darstellen. In der Regel gibt es zu jeder Anlage auch negative Informationen. Wenn Anleger zusätzliche (KI-basierte) Negativinformationen über mehrere Portfoliobestandteile erhalten, werden sie möglicherweise ganz auf den Versuch verzichten, nachhaltig zu investieren. Meine Empfehlung für solche Fälle ist: Versuchen Sie, so nachhaltig zu investieren, wie Sie können. Auch wenn dies nicht perfekt ist, so ist es doch nachhaltiger als traditionelles Investieren.

Direkte AI-basierte ESG-Indexierung und Portfolio-Selbstanpassung

Meiner Meinung nach gibt es ein noch attraktiveres Angebot als die anbieterbasierte Portfolioindividualisierung, nämlich Portfolioanpassungen durch Anleger selbst. Ich plädiere für die Selbstanpassung besonders für nachhaltige Geldanlagen (vgl. „Custom ESG Indexing Can Challenge Popularity Of ETFs”).

Portfolios auf der grünen Wiese zu erstellen, dürfte für die meisten Anleger schwierig sein. Doch auch dafür gibt es schon KI-Angebote. Search4Stocks von Allindex.com ist ein Beispiel für ein entsprechendes kostenloses KI-basiertes Tool. Alternativ können Standard-Portfolios als Ausgangsbasis für Individualisierungen genutzt werden.

Direkte bzw. benutzerdefinierte ESG-Indizierung ermöglicht es Anlegern, ein regelbasiertes nachhaltiges Startportfolio („Index“) individuell anzupassen. Man könnte zwar auch mit nicht-regelbasierten Portfolios starten, aber die sind für Anleger meistens schwieriger nachvollziehbar. Auch eine starke Vorselektion der Ausgangsportfolios ist sinnvoll, damit Anleger ihre Anpassungen auf Basis von wenigen Dutzend und nicht einigen hundert Investments starten.

Für die Selbstanpassung können Nachhaltigkeitsinformationen genutzt werden. Portfolioanbieter können (KI-basierte) aktuelle Informationen zu ESG-Ratings oder Kontroversen in Bezug auf Portfoliobestandteile zur Verfügung stellen. Basierend auf solchen Informationen sollte es auch ohne detaillierte Finanzbildung einfach sein, Aktien aus den Startportfolio auszuschließen. KI kann auch eingesetzt werden, um Stimmrechtsausübungen und individuelle Engagements von Anlegern oder Aktionären bei Zielunternehmen zu unterstützen.

Selbst-angepasste nachhaltige Portfolios können wahrscheinlich sogar noch „klebriger“ sein als maßgeschneiderte Angebote von Anbietern und deshalb trotz des zusätzlichen Aufwands auch für Anbieter attraktiv sein.

Künstliche Intelligenz mit Nachteilen, aber positive Aspekte überwiegen

Da es nicht genügend gut ausgebildete ExpertInnen für nachhaltiges Investieren gibt, kann KI helfen, Lücken zu füllen und so zu mehr nachhaltigen Investments führen. Arbeitsplätze bei traditionellen Finanzunternehmen könnten durch KI jedoch gefährdet sein. Negativ sind auch Daten- und Knowhow-Sicherheitsprobleme und dass KI-Anwendungen viel Energie verbrauchen können, insbesondere wenn sie Bilder und Videos erstellen. Aber insgesamt könnte KI für nachhaltige Investitionen mehr Vorteile als Nachteile bringen.

Technology risk illustration with nuclear risk picture from Pixabay by clkr free vector images

Technology risks: Researchpost #139

Technology risks: 17x new research on SDGs, nuclear, blockchain and AI risks, innovation, climate, carbon offsets, ESG ratings, treasuries, backtests and trading, big data, forensic finance, private equity and other alternatives by Patrick Behr, Richard Ennis, Christian von Hirschhausen, Thierry Roncalli, Bernhard Schwetzler and many more (# shows SSRN downloads on August 17th, 2023):

Social and ecological research (Technology risks)

SDG or green? Take a Deep Breath! The Role of Meeting SDGs With Regard to Air Pollution in EU and ASEAN Countries by Huynh Truong Thi Ngoc, Florian Horky, and Chi Le Quoc as of July 10th, 2023 (#26): “First, the results show that in ASEAN countries, Goal 10 (Reduced Inequalities) has a negative correlation with most other SDGs while in the EU it shows a broadly positive correlation. … air pollution, particularly SO2 and CO emissions, is positively connected to most SDGs in ASEAN while the trend in the EU is not clear. This could be due to the rapid economic development in ASEAN nations as well …” (p. 19).

Nuclear risks: The Potential of Nuclear Power in the Context of Climate Change Mitigation -A Techno-Economic Reactor Technology Assessment by Fanny Böse, Alexander Wimmers, Björn Steigerwald, and Christian von Hirschhausen as of July 27th, 2023 (#17): “… we synthesize techno-economic aspects of potential new nuclear power plants differentiating between three different reactor technology types: light-water cooled reactors with high capacities (in the range or above 1,000 MWel), so-called SMRs (“small modular reactor”), i.e., light-water cooled reactors of lower power rating (< 300 MWel) (pursued, e.g., in the US, Canada, and the UK), and non-light water cooled reactors (“so-called new reactor” (SNR) concepts), focusing on sodium-cooled fast neutron reactors as well as high-temperature reactors. … Actual development .. shows an industry in decline and, if commercially available, lacking economic competitiveness in low-carbon energy markets for all reactor types. Literature shows that other reactor technologies are in the coming decades unlikely to be available on a scale that could impact climate change mitigation efforts. The techno-economic feasibility of nuclear power should thus be assessed more critically in future energy system scenarios“ (abstract).

Blockchain risks: On the Security of Optimistic Blockchain Mechanisms by Jiasun Li as of August 15th, 2023 (#68): “Many new blockchain applications … adopt an “optimistic” design, that is, the system proceeds as if all participants are well-behaving … We point out that such protocols cannot be secure if all participants are rational” (abstract). “Given that alternative solutions are still technically immature, … the community either has to deviate from its pursuit of decentralization and accept a system that relies on trusted entities, or accept that fact their systems cannot be 100% secure” (p. 33).

AI chains: Determining Our Future: How Artificial Intelligence Creates a Deterministic World by Yuval Goldfus and Niklas Eder as of Aug. 9th, 2023 (#22): “… we demonstrate that AI relies on a deterministic worldview, which contradicts our most fundamental cultural narratives. AI-based decision making systems turn predictions into self-fulfilling prophecies; not simply revealing the patterns underlying our world, but creating and enforcing them, to the detriment of the underprivileged, the exceptional, the unlikely. The widespread utilisation of AI dramatically aggravates the tension between the constraints of environment, society, and past behavior, and individuals’ ability to alter the course of their lives, and to be masters of their own fate. Exposing hidden costs of the economic exploitation of AI, the article facilitates a philosophical discussion on responsible uses. It provides foundations of an ethical principle which allows us to shape the employment of AI in a way which aligns with our narratives and values” (abstract). My comment: My opinion regarding AI for sustainable investments see How can sustainable investors benefit from artificial intelligence? – GITEX Impact – Leading ESG Event 2023

Musical therapy? The Value of Openness by Joshua Della Vedova, Stephan Siegel, and Mitch Warachka as of July 5th (#48): “We construct a novel proxy for openness using MSA-level data (Sö: US Metropolitan Statistical Areas) from radio station playlists. This proxy is based on the adoption of new music and varies significantly across MSAs. Empirically, we find a robust positive association between openness and proxies of value creation such as the number of new ventures funded by venture capital, the number of successful exits by new ventures, the proportion of growth firms, and Tobin’s q. … An instrumental variables procedure confirms that openness is highly persistent with variation across MSAs being evident more than a century before the start of our sample period. … our results are especially strong for young firms that are more likely to depend on new products“ (p. 26/27).

ESG and impact investing research

Climate stress: From Climate Stress Testing to Climate Value-at-Risk: A Stochastic Approach by Baptiste Desnos, Théo Le Guenedal, Philippe Morais, and Thierry Roncalli from Amundi as of July 5th, 2023 (697): „This paper proposes a comprehensive climate stress testing approach to measure the impact of transition risk on investment portfolios. … our framework considers a bottom-up approach and is mainly relevant for the asset management industry. … we model the distribution function of the carbon tax, provide an explicit specification of indirect carbon emissions in the supply chain, introduce pass-through mechanisms of carbon prices, and compute the probability distribution of potential (economic and financial) impacts in a Monte Carlo setting. Rather than using a single or limited set of scenarios, we use a probabilistic approach to generate thousands of simulated pathways” (abstract).

Disaster flows: Flight to climatic safety: local natural disasters and global portfolio flows by Fabrizio Ferriani,  Andrea Gazzani, and Filippo Natoli from the Bank of Italy as of July 5th, 2023 (#35): “… we find that local natural disasters have significant effects on global portfolio flows. First, when disasters strike, international investors reduce their net flows to equity mutual funds exposed to affected countries. This only happens when disasters occur in the emerging economies that are more exposed to climate risk. Second, natural disasters lead investors to reduce their portfolio flows into unaffected, high-climate-risk countries in the same region as well. Third, disasters in high-climate-risk emerging economies spur investment flows into advanced countries that are relatively safer from a climate risk standpoint“ (abstract).

Carbon offsets: Portfolio Allocation and Optimization with Carbon Offsets: Is it Worth the While? by Patrick Behr, Carsten Mueller, and Papa Orge as of Aug. 10th, 2023: “We explore whether the integration of carbon offsets into investment portfolios improves performance. … our results show that investment strategies that include such offsets broadly achieve higher Sharpe Ratios than the diversified benchmark, with the long-short strategy performing best”.

Useless ratings? ESG Ratings Management by Jess Cornaggia and Kimberly Cornaggia as of July 27th, 2023 (#92): “We use data from an ESG rater that incorporates feedback from firms during the rating process and produces ratings at a monthly frequency. We … find that when the rater changes the weight it applies to certain criteria in the creation of its ESG ratings, firms respond by adjusting their reported ESG behavior in the same month. … we do not observe real changes in the likelihood that firms are embroiled in ESG controversies, or that they reduce their release of toxic chemicals because of these adjustments. Rather, it appears firms “manage” their ESG ratings for the benefit of ESG-conscious investors and customers” (p. 26/27). My comment: I do not use market leading MSCI or ISS or Sustainalytics ratings and also because of my custom rating profile (Best-in-Universe with specific approach to treat missing data) the risk of such ratings management should be low, see Noch eine Fondsboutique? – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)

AI and other investment research (Technology risks)

ETFs effect Treasuries: ETF Dividend Cycles by Pekka Honkanen, Yapei Zhang, and Tong Zhou as of Aug. 10th, 2023 (#340): “… in the “ETF dividend cycle,” ETFs accumulate incoming corporate dividends in MMFs (Sö: Money Market Funds)  gradually but withdraw them abruptly in large amounts when they themselves have to pay dividends to investors. … This … leads to large, sudden outflows from MMFs, forcing these funds to liquidate some of their underlying assets. We find that these liquidations are concentrated in short-term Treasury bonds. … in the aggregate time series, an ETF dividend distribution event of average size leads to increases in short-term Treasury yields by approximately 0.38-0.58 basis points. … The total value fluctuation in the Treasury market could be considerable, as ETFs distribute dividends on 205 trading days in 2019, for example” (p. 9/10).

Backtest-problems: Market Returns Are Estimated with Error. How Much Error? by Edward F. McQuarrie as of July 24th, 2023 (#30): “For periods beginning 1926, it is conventional to suppose that historical market returns are known with reasonable accuracy. This paper challenges that comfortable certainty. Multiple indexes of market return are examined to show that return estimates do not closely agree across indexes and are unstable within index over time. The paper concludes that two-decimal precision—to the whole percentage point, with an error band of plus or minus one percentage point—would better reflect the accuracy of historical estimates of annual market return” (abstract).

Easy profits: Intraday Stock Predictability Everywhere by Fred Liu, and Lars Stentoft as of July 5th, 2023 (#1167): “First, we demonstrate that the market and sector portfolios are highly predictable. … we show that portfolio profitability mostly remains high after accounting for transaction costs, and is largely orthogonal to common risk factors. … we further exploit machine learning forecasts of individual stocks by constructing machine learning intraday portfolios, and demonstrate that a long-short portfolio achieves a Sharpe ratio of up to 4 after transaction costs. … demonstrate that less liquid firms are more predictable and firms which are more actively traded and volatile tend to be more profitable … intraday predictability and profitability generally decrease as the time horizon increases” (p. 28/29). My comment: If this is so easy, why do Quant funds typically disappoint? The information is important for stock trading, though (for my trading approach see Artikel 9 Fonds: Sind 50% Turnover ok? – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)).

Satellite vs. people: Displaced by Big Data: Evidence from Active Fund Managers by Maxime Bonelli and Thierry Foucault as of Aug. 2nd, 2023 (#325): “We test whether the availability of satellite imagery data tracking retailer firms’ parking lots affects the stock picking abilities of active mutual fund managers in stocks covered by this data. … we find that active mutual funds’ stock picking ability declines in covered stocks after the introduction of satellite imagery data for these stocks. This decline is particularly pronounced for funds that heavily rely on traditional sources of expertise, indicating that these managers are at a higher risk of being displaced by new data sources“ (p. 29/30).

AI bubble? Artificial Intelligence in Finance: Valuations and Opportunities by Yosef Bonaparte as of August 15th, 2023 (#65): “First, we display the current and projected AI revenue by sector, technology type, and geography. Second, present valuation model to AI stocks and ETFs that accounts for AI sentiment as well as fundamental analyses. Our findings demonstrate that the AI revenue will pass $2.7 trillion in the next 10 years, where the service AI technology stack will contain 75% of the market share (as of 2023 it is 50% of the market share). As for AI stock valuation, we present two main models to adopt when we value stocks“ (abstract).

Bad finance: What is Forensic Finance? by John M. Griffin and Samuel Kruger as of Aug. 10th, 2023 (#467): “We survey a growing field studying aspects of finance that are potentially illegal, illicit, or immoral. Some of the literature is investigative in nature to uncover malfeasance that is recent and possibly ongoing. … The work spans newer areas such as cryptocurrencies, financial advisor and broker misconduct, and greenwashing; and newer research in established fields that are still developing, such as insider trading, structured finance, market manipulation, political connections, public finance, and corporate fraud. We highlight investigative forensic finance, common economic questions, common empirical methods, industry and political opposition, censoring, and the importance of avoiding publication biases“ (abstract).

Specialist PE: Specialization in Private Equity and Corporate Financial Distress by Benjamin Hammer, Robert Loos, Lukas Andreas Oswald, and Bernhard Schwetzler as of Aug. 7th, 2023 (#384): “We investigate the impact of industry specialization of private equity firms on financial distress risk of portfolio companies … Difference-in-differences estimates suggest an increase in distress risk through private equity backing. The effect is stronger for specialist-backed firms than for generalist-backed firms relative to a carefully matched control group. However, specialist-backed firms can afford the increase in distress risk because they are less risky than generalist-backed firms before the buyout. Overall, our findings are consistent with the idea that greater idiosyncratic risk in specialized PE portfolios induces more risk-averse target selection” (abstract).

Costly diversification: Have Alternative Investments Helped or Hurt? by Richard M. Ennis as of August 3rd, 2023 (#135): “This paper shows that since the GFC (Sö: Global Financial Crisis in 2007/2008), US public-sector pension funds’ exposure to alternative investments is strongly associated with a reduction in alpha of approximately 1.2 percentage points per year relative to passive investment. While exposure to private equity has arguably neither helped nor hurt, both real estate and hedge fund exposures have detracted significantly from performance. Institutional investors should consider whether continuing to invest in alts warrants the time, expense and reduced liquidity associated with them” (p. 11).

………………………………………………………………………………….

Advert for German investors:

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

Noch eine Fondsboutique mit Bild von Pixabay von Thomas G.

Noch eine Fondsboutique?

(„Noch eine Fondsboutique“ ist am 15. August 2023 zuerst auf LinkedIn veröffentlicht worden).

Es gibt schon so viele Fonds und Fondsboutiquen. Noch eine Fondsboutique zu gründen, scheint wenig Sinn zu machen. Trotzdem habe ich das im August 2021 auf Wunsch eines Geschäftspartners gemacht, nachdem ich ursprünglich nur Modellportfolios anbieten wollte. Ziel war es einen Fonds zu starten, der sowohl besonders gut auf ökologische aber auch auf soziale Entwicklungsziele der Vereinten Nationen (SDG) ausgerichtet ist und der zudem besonders geringe Umwelt-, Sozial- und Unternehmensführungsrisiken aufweist.

Nachhaltigkeit wichtiger als Überrendite

Ich habe viele Jahre als Fondsselekteur gearbeitet und weiß, wie schwer es ist, passive Benchmarks zu schlagen. Ich werbe auch bewusst nicht damit, Outperformance liefern zu können. Mein Ziel ist es, so nachhaltig wie möglich zu investieren. Damit strebe ich eine aktienmarkttypische Performance an. Das Modellportfolio, auf dem der Fonds basiert, hat das seit dem Start Ende 2017 weitgehend erreicht. Im Vergleich zu aktiv gemanagten Fonds funktioniert das trotz einer relativ schlechten Rendite im ersten Halbjahr 2023 durch das gute Jahr 2022 bisher auch für den Fonds.

Mein Ansatz ist sehr untypisch: Ich selektiere meine Aktien fast nur anhand von Nachhaltigkeitsinformationen. Die Diversifikation beschränke ich bewusst auf 30 Aktien, weil eine höhere Diversifikation meine Nachhaltigkeitsanforderungen verwässern würde. Trotzdem sind die Risikokennzahlen des Fonds gut.

Konsequente Nachhaltigkeit ist leichter von Small- und Midcaps erfüllbar (noch eine Fondsboutique)

Mein Fonds ist auf Unternehmen fokussiert, deren Produkte und Services möglichst gut mit mindestens einem SDG vereinbar sind. Das trifft eher auf kleinere als auf größere Unternehmen zu. Auch meine zahlreichen konsequenten Ausschüsse sind eher von spezialisierteren als von diversifizierten Unternehmen erfüllbar, so dass der Fonds überwiegend Small- und Midcaps enthält.

Unternehmen mit Hauptsitz in Ländern, die meinen Anforderungen an Gesetzmäßigkeit nicht entsprechen, bleiben unberücksichtigt. In meinem Fonds haben die USA aktuell einen Anteil von leicht über 50%. Der Eurolandanteil liegt ebenso wie der Australien-Anteil derzeit bei etwa 10%. Gesundheits- und Industrieunternehmen machen den Hauptbestandteil aus und auch (Sozial-) Immobilien und (nachhaltige) Infrastruktur sind überdurchschnittlich vertreten. Technologieunternehmen sind dagegen unterrepräsentiert im Vergleich zu traditionellen Aktienbenchmarks.

Große Unterschiede zu anderen Fonds

In Deutschland werden nur wenige global investierende Fonds mit Small- und/oder Midcap-Fokus angeboten. Im Juni habe ich mir die Portfolios potenzieller Wettbewerber angesehen und maximal vier Aktien Überscheidung gefunden.

Unterschiede zu anderen Fonds gibt es vor allem in Bezug auf das Nachhaltigkeitskonzept. Ich kenne keinen anderen Fonds mit so strengen und so vielen Ausschlüssen. Ich kenne auch keinen anderen branchendiversifizierten Fonds, der strenge Best-in-Universe ESG-Ratings nutzt. Dabei werden nur Unternehmen mit besonders geringen absoluten ESG-Risiken ausgewählt. Fast alle anderen Fonds nutzen einen laxeren Best-in-Class ESG-Ratingansatz, bei dem – abhängig vom jeweiligen Marktsegment – relativ gute ESG-Risiken ausreichen.

Viele Fonds haben zudem nur Mindestanforderungen an aggregierte ESG-Ratings und nicht explizit separate Mindestanforderungen an Umwelt-, Sozial- und Unternehmensführungsratings, wie es bei meinem Fonds der Fall ist. Auf Basis eines detaillierten Nachhaltigkeits-Engagementkonzeptes, das auch auf andere Stakeholder wie Mitarbeiter einbezieht, bin ich zudem aktuell mit 28 von 30 Unternehmen in einem aktiven Dialog.

Für die meisten Fondsselekteure ist mein Fonds aber noch zu jung und mit knapp über 10 Millionen Fondsvermögen noch zu klein. Durch meinen regelbasieren Ansatz kann ich aber auch als Ein-Personen Fondsboutique gemeinsam mit meinen Fondspartnern Deutsche Wertpapiertreuhand und Monega sowie mit meinem Beratungs- und IT-Partner QAP Analytic Solutions und meinem Datenlieferanten Clarity.ai alle Anforderungen gut erfüllen.

Ich bin sehr zuversichtlich, dass mein Fonds eine gute Zukunft hat und möchte dauerhaft in großem Umfang im Fonds investiert bleiben.

Weiterführende Informationen siehe www.futurevest.fund und z.B. Active or impact investing? – (prof-soehnholz.com)

Disclaimer zu „Noch eine Fondsboutique)

Dieser Beitrag ist von der Soehnholz ESG GmbH erstellt worden. Die Erstellerin übernimmt keine Gewähr für die Richtigkeit, Vollständigkeit und/oder Aktualität der zur Verfügung gestellten Inhalte. Die Informationen unterliegen deutschem Recht und richten sich ausschließlich an Investoren, die ihren Wohnsitz in Deutschland haben. Sie sind nicht als Verkaufsangebot oder Aufforderung zur Abgabe eines Kauf- oder Zeichnungsangebots für Anteile des in dieser Unterlage dargestellten Fonds zu verstehen und ersetzen nicht eine anleger- und anlagegerechte Beratung. Anlageentscheidungen sollten nur auf der Grundlage der aktuellen gesetzlichen Verkaufsunterlagen (Wesentliche Anlegerinformationen, Verkaufsprospekt und – sofern verfügbar – Jahres- und Halbjahresbericht) getroffen werden, die auch die allein maßgeblichen Anlagebedingungen enthalten. Die Verkaufsunterlagen werden bei der Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft (Monega Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH), der Verwahrstelle (Kreissparkasse Köln) und den Vertriebspartnern zur kostenlosen Ausgabe bereitgehalten. Die Verkaufsunterlagen sind zudem im Internet unter www.monega.de erhältlich. Die in dieser Unterlage zur Verfügung gestellten Inhalte dienen lediglich der allgemeinen Information und stellen keine Beratung oder sonstige Empfehlung dar. Die Kapitalanlage ist stets mit Risiken verbunden und kann zum Verlust des eingesetzten Kapitals führen. Vor einer etwaigen Anlageentscheidung sollten Sie eingehend prüfen, ob die Anlage für Ihre individuelle Situation und Ihre persönlichen Ziele geeignet ist. Diese Unterlage enthält ggf. Informationen, die aus öffentlichen Quellen stammen, die die Erstellerin für verlässlich hält. Die dargestellten Inhalte, insbesondere die Darstellung von Strategien sowie deren Chancen und Risiken, können sich im Zeitverlauf ändern. Einschätzungen und Bewertungen reflektieren die Meinung der Erstellerin zum Zeitpunkt der Erstellung und können sich jederzeit ändern. Es ist nicht beabsichtigt, diese Unterlage laufend oder überhaupt zu aktualisieren. Sie stellt nur eine unverbindliche Momentaufnahme dar. Die Unterlage ist ausschließlich zur Information und zum persönlichen Gebrauch bestimmt. Jegliche nicht autorisierte Vervielfältigung und Weiterverbreitung ist untersagt.