Capital-weighted Asset Allocation Illustration based on Soehnholz ESG und SDG Portfoliobuch page 79
9x new research on ESG disclosure profits, ESG credit risks, environmental versus social scores, developing country ESG, capital weighted asset allocation, asset allocation glidepaths, social media mania, robo advisor tuning, and venture biases (#shows the number of SSRN full paper downloads as of August 29th, 2024)
ESG investment research
“Good bank” ESG risks: ESG Relevance in Credit Risk of Development Banks by Jan Porenta and Vasja Rant as of August 21st, 2024 (#12): “… multilateral development banks exhibit elevated ESG risk relevance, primarily stemming from S risk and G risk. The mandate-oriented engagement of multilateral development banks in financing regions and countries marked by challenges such as deficient labor practices, human rights violations, inadequate supply chain oversight, and occasional insolvency issues may accentuate the relevance of social risk. Additionally, risks associated with the rule of law, institutional robustness, regulatory quality, and internal governance challenges could contribute to the heightened governance risk for multilateral development banks“ (p. 24). My comment: Instead of Government bond ETFs I use ETFs for multilateral development bank bonds since several years because they are much better SDG-aligned. Credit and other risks of these bonds have been satisfactory, so far.
Ecological or social? Return trade-offs between environmental and social pillars of ESG scores by Leyla Yusifzada, Igor Loncarski, Gergely Czupy and Helena Naffa as of Aug. 21st, 2024 (#17): “We analyse the trade-offs between the environmental (E) and social (S) pillars of ESG scores and their implications for equity market performance using data from the MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI) over the period from 2013 to 2022. We find a persistent negative correlation between the E and S scores across most industries. For example, the correlation between E and S scores for the overall sample reached as low as -0.56 in 2018, indicating a significant inverse relationship where firms that excel in environmental performance often lag in social performance and vice versa“ (p. 9). My comment: Since 2016, I require high minimum standards for E, S and G scores at the same time to avoid too negative tradeoffs and I have been happy with the resulting ESG and financial performances
ESG disclosure profits: The Role of Catering Incentives in ESG Disclosure by King Fuei Lee from Schroder Investment Management as of June 12th, 2024 (#16): “… The study examines 2,207 US-listed firms from 2005-2022, and finds a significant positive relationship between the ESG disclosure premium and firm ESG reporting. Managers respond to prevailing investor demand for ESG data by disclosing more when investors place a stock price premium on companies with high disclosure levels …” (abstract).
Developing ESG deficits: Are Developing Country Firms Facing a Downward Bias in ESG Scores? by Jairaj Gupta, R. Shruti, and Xia Li as of Aug. 26th, 2024 (#31): “Using panel regression analysis on a comprehensive cross-country sample of 7,904 listed firms from 2002 to 2022 across 50 countries, we find that corporate ESG scores in developing economies are significantly lower – 57% lower for raw ESG scores and 23% lower for standardized ESG scores – than those in developed economies. Further analysis indicates that this disparity is linked to institutional bias and measurement issues within ESG scoring firms, stemming from information asymmetry. Our empirical evidence also suggests that ESG scoring firms can mitigate these information problems by incorporating analyst coverage and experience into their algorithms” (abstract). My comment: Companies in all (including developing) countries can and should provide high (ESG) transparency and then will receive appropriate ratings and ESG investments without such artificial rating adjustments
Other investment research (in: Capital-weighted Asset Allocation)
Capital-weighted Asset Allocation: The Risk and Reward of Investing by Ronald Doeswijk and Laurens Swinkels as of Aug. 28th,2024 (#283): “This is the first study documenting the historical risks and rewards of the aggregate investor in global financial markets by studying monthly returns. Our sample period runs from January 1970 to December 2022. The breadth of asset classes in this study is unmatched as it basically covers all accessible financial investments of investors across the world. … Despite its diversification across all globally invested assets, the global market portfolio does not have the highest Sharpe ratio compared to the five asset categories over our 53-year sample period. Its Sharpe ratio is only slightly higher than that of equities broad, but lower than that of nongovernment bonds. However, … The stability of the Sharpe ratio over rolling decade samples is substantially greater than that of individual asset categories. In other words, confidence in a positive Sharpe ratio for the global market portfolio over a decade is highest. … If we adjust the average returns by drawdowns instead of volatility, the global market portfolio has the highest reward for risk, and the shortest maximum drawdown period. All of the results above have been measured in U.S. dollars. If we change the measurement currency to one of the nine other major currencies, we observe substantial heterogeneity in the risks and rewards of investing. … Overall, our new monthly data on the global market portfolio suggests that the aggregate investor has experienced considerable wealth losses compared to savers who earn a nominal risk-free interest rate. Such losses are usually recovered within five years, but recovery can take substantially longer“ (p. 20/21). My comment: I use such asset allocations since the start of my own company in 2015. I am still – to my knowledge – the only portfolio provider worldwide using it for all of its allocation portfolios. Overall, my experience is good, see the Das-Soehnholz-ESG-und-SDG-Portfoliobuch.pdf (soehnholzesg.com) and recently Halbjahres-Renditen: Divergierende Nachhaltigkeitsperformances
Slippy asset allocation glidepaths: The Glidepath Confusion by Edward Hoyle from AHL Partners as of March 30th, 2024 (#127): “The importance of glidepath choice can be overstated. If a pension saver held a balanced portfolio throughout working life, and then at retirement they find that their investment returns are in the left tail of outcomes, it is likely that they would be similarly placed had they chosen an alternative glidepath. Our examination of contrarian strategies confirmed their outperformance on average. As to their tail properties, we find that they are relatively favourable in historical simulations, but less favourable in bootstrapped simulations. This may clear up some apparent disagreement between previous studies. This also lends credence to the intuition that it is risky to be heavily invested in stocks over short horizons. However, this does not mean that stocks investments should be small as retirement approaches. Holding a balanced portfolio throughout working life and retirement seems entirely sensible if the plan is to generate retirement income by decumulation. In these situations no glidepath is needed“ (p. 18).
Social media mania? Social Media and Finance by J. Anthony Cookson, William Mullins, and Marina Niessner as of May 9th, 2024 (#591): “Social media has become an integral part of the financial information environment, changing the way financial information is produced, consumed and distributed. This article surveys the financial social media literature, distinguishing between research using social media as a lens to shed light on more general financial behavior and research exploring the effects of social media on financial markets. We also review the social media data landscape“ (abstract).
Robo-advisor tuning: In Design and Humans we Trust“? – Drivers of Trust and Advice Discounting for Robo Advice by Claudia Breuer, Wolfgang Breuer, and Thomas Renerken as of April 16th, 2024 (#38): “We compare the acceptance of advice in the context of robo-advised individual portfolio allocation decisions with respect to the impact of certain layout and questionnaire characteristics as well as the involvement of a human. Our data are based on incentivized experiments. The results show that a more emotional design of the advice software leads to a higher level of advice acceptance, whereas a detailed exploration questionnaire reduces the level of acceptance. The presence of a human influences trust levels significantly positive, but leads to a lower acceptance of advice in total“ (abstract).
Venture biases: Biases influencing venture capitalists’ decision-making: A systematic literature review by Moritz Sachs and Matthias Unbescheiden as of May 9th,2023 (#44): “In recent years, researchers have demonstrated that venture capitalists are subject to various biases in their decision-making, but a systematic overview was absent. Our literature review revealed that 15 different biases can influence venture capitalist’s investments. For each of these biases, their effect on venture capitalists’ decisionmaking is explained. We contribute to the research on biased start-up investing by detailing the biases and their expected effects on venture capitalists. Our results will be useful for venture capitalists improving their decision-making” (abstract).
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Werbehinweis (in: Capital-weighted Asset Allocation)
Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in meinen globalen Smallcap-Investmentfonds (SFDR Art. 9, 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 (SDG: Investment impact) und verwendet separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie Aktionärsengagement (Investor impact) bei derzeit 29 von 30 Unternehmen: Vgl. My fund.