Fintechs & SDG

Klimatools im Test und neues ESG- und Impactresearch

Klimatools sind nötig: Die Umwelt

Gute Luft kann Leben verlängern: Luftverschmutzung senkt weltweite Lebenserwartung um zwei Jahre von Agence France-Press vom 29. Juli ins CSR News: „In den USA, Europa und Japan habe sich die Luftqualität dagegen verbessert, schrieben die Forscher. Im weltweiten Durchschnitt reduziere sie die Lebenserwartung aber weiterhin um fast zwei Jahre“.

Corona-Hilfspakete schaden der Umwelt: Green Stimulus Index: An assessment of the orientation of COVID-19 stimulus in relation to climate change, biodiversity and other environmental impacts von VividEconomics und Finance for Biodiversity Initiative vom 12. Mai 2020. “The Green Stimulus Index (GSI) assesses the effectiveness of the COVID-19 stimulus efforts in ensuring an economic recovery that takes advantage of sustainable growth opportunities, and builds resilience through the protection of the climate and biodiversity” (S. 2). … “In 14 of the 17 countries considered, potentially damaging flows outweigh those supporting nature. Of the more developed countries, the United States stands out as the largest scale risk” (S. 3). …”The ‘Next Generation EU’ recovery package is the most environmentally friendly stimulus package to date. Of the €750 billion (US$830bn) package, 30% will be directed towards ‘green’ initiatives, including targeted measures to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, enhance energy efficiency, invest in preserving and restoring natural capital, among others. Furthermore, all recovery loans and grants to member states will be attached to ‘do no harm’ environmental safeguards” (S. 3). “The German government has bailed out three airlines, TUI Fly (US$1.98 billion), Lufthansa (US$9.9 billion) and Condor (US$600 million) without environmental conditions” (S. 26).

Gigantische Risiken und Chancen von Biodiversität: New Nature Economy Report II The Future Of Nature And Business vom World Econoic Forum vom 14. Juli 2020: „The first report of the World Economic Forum’s New Nature Economy Report (NNER) series, Nature Risk Rising, highlighted that $44 trillion of economic value generation – over half the world’s total GDP – is potentially at risk as a result of the dependence of business on nature and its services. Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse ranked as one of the top five threats humanity will face in the next 10 years in the World Economic Forum’s 2020 Global Risks Report” (s. 7). … “a fundamental transformation is needed across three socioeconomic systems: food, land and ocean use; infrastructure and the built environment; and energy and extractives. 80% of threatened and near-threatened species are endangered by the three systems … 15 systemic transitions with annual business opportunities worth $10 trillion that could create 395 million jobs by 2030 have been identified” (S. 8).

Klimatools: Tests und Anforderungen

11 Klimatools im Test: The Alignment Cookbook – A Technical Review of Methodologies Assessing a Portfolio’s Alignment with Low-Carbon Trajectories or Temperature Goal von Julie Raynaud u.a. vom Institut Louis Bachelier vom Juli 2020: “Aligning a portfolio “with a temperature trajectory”, “with the temperature objective of the Paris Agreement” and “with the Paris Agreement” are not equivalent and require methodologies that rely on different principles” (S. 6). “Temperature alignment methods …. can be seen as a one of the multiple tools available to investors today to set up and monitor the results of an alignment strategy, amongst a range of other approaches such as green-brown metrics and scores” (S. 6).  “The main tradeoffs identified relate to: 1. What value chain perimeter to include in the assessment, 2. How to forecast the future climate performance of companies, 3. What scenarios to choose considering practical and conceptual implications, 4. How to derive temperature benchmarks“ (S. 7). … “Currently available temperature alignment methods show little consistency in terms of results” (S. 7). “Multiple layers of uncertainties compound themselves at each step of a temperature alignment methodology” (S. 8). … “Eleven methods were tested in this report on two indices“ (S. 8): “Arabesque S-Ray Temperature Score (p.145); Carbon4 Finance 2° alignment (p.147); CDP-WWF Temperature Rating (p149); EcoAct ClimFIT temperature (p151); Urgentem (p.153); I Care & Consult SB2A (p.155); ISS (p.157); MSCI Carbon Delta Global Warming Potential (p.159); right. based on science XDC model (p.161); S&P Trucost SDA-GEVA (p.163); 2° Investing Initiative PACTA (p.165)” (S. 9).

16 Klimatools im Test: Taming the Green Swan: How to improve climate-related financial risk assessments von J. A. Bingler und C. Colesanti Senni von der ETH Zürich vom 24. Juli 2020: “First, we identified criteria to assess climate risk tools for financial decision-making. These criteria could serve as a first step towards developing a comprehensive theory of climate transition risk indicators for financial decision-making, which is currently lacking. Furthermore, we assessed the state of the art of currently available climate risk tools by aid of a sample of 16 tools, using descriptive and criteria-based analysis. The results of the meta analysis highlighted strengths, key gaps and areas to improve financial climate risk tools” (S. 56). … “it would be of high importance that public transparency, based on standardised frameworks to ease the understanding of assumptions and key characteristics of scenarios and further modelling, would become a basic requirement for climate risk tool providers” (S. 57).

(Klima-)Szenarioanalysen müssen kritisch hinterfragt werden: PRI Climate Thought Leadership – Pathways to Net Zero: Scenario Architecture for strategic resilience testing and planning von Mark Fulton et al. von Energy Transition Advisors vom Juni 2020: “This approach to choosing scenarios and targets suffers from several challenges: • Temperature outcomes may hide fundamental differences in scenario architecture, and therefore near-term pathways, with dramatic ramifications for the actual ambition. • Long-term net zero targets are important, but could become „time washing“ where long-term goals are set without short-term accountability and the opportunity to verify them. … • These issues can be addressed focusing on the scenario architecture itself, rather than just benchmarking ambition based on the „temperature outcome“ of any given scenario and so importantly setting short-term and more realistic goals” (s. 4). … “This paper primarily seeks to help investors, both Asset Owners and Asset Managers and their service providers, to understand; 1. the background to, and architecture of, key drivers that determine the financial impact of any scenario. These can be used to compare and contrast scenarios; 2. how climate scenarios can be used in risk analysis of their own portfolios and engagement with companies following the Paris Agreement and IPCC SR1.5°C study; 3. how higher probability, in an economic sense, scenarios can become base case forecasts to begin to inform actual business and portfolio planning and decisions through real-world metrics such as production, capex and emissions, culminating in action; 4. that the pathway and detailed metrics to reach an end ambition are key in financial analysis which can be termed the scenario “architecture”” (S. 8).

Traditionelle und alternative Geldanlagen

Mein Reden: Academically Verified Investment Strategies that Failed von Allan Roth vom 30. Juli 2020 auf Advvisor Perspectives: Faktorstrategien, Smart Beta und Alternatives: “All of these strategies were supported by well-known academic researchers and everyone worked in the past. Why did they fail going forward? Most charged high to outrageously high fees and some of the research ignored those fees. Past performance isn’t a good predictor of future performance and back testing merely means you are buying at a high valuation, after outperformance. Finally, no professor from any university is going to get published or get juicy consulting gigs by proving once again that simplicity, diversification, low fees, and rebalancing is superior. They must come up with new insights and it is human nature to want to beat the market” (vgl.

Variable Risikoprämien für Aktien: Equity Risk Premiums (ERP): Determinants, Estimation and Implications – The 2020 Edition von Aswath Damodaran vom 19. März 2020: “The risk premium is a fundamental and critical component in portfolio management, corporate finance and valuation. Given its importance, it is surprising that more attention has not been paid in practical terms to estimation issues. … The premiums that we estimate can vary widely across approaches, and we considered two questions towards the end of the paper. The first is why the numbers vary across approaches and the second is how to choose the “right” number to use in analysis. For the latter question, we argued that the choice of a premium will depend upon the forecast period, whether you believe markets are efficient and whether you are required to be market neutral in your analysis” (S. 130).

Indexinvestments mit Klumpenrisiken: Konzentrationsrisiken bei Indizes – die echten wie die vermeintlichen von Ali Masarwah von Morningstar vom 31. Julie 2020: „der Anteil der zehn größten Aktien im S&P 500 die 25 Prozent-Marke zuletzt im Juni 2000 überschritten hatte. Heute ist der US-Leitindex mit einem Top-10- Anteil von gut 27 Prozent noch kopflastiger geworden“. Mein Kommentar: Meine Portfolios mit meist nur 30 gleichgewichteten Titeln haben geringere Klumpenrisiken.

1/N Gleichgewichtung ist auch nicht perfekt: The Jury is Still Out On the Performance of Naive Diversification (1/N rule) von Redouane Elkamhi und Marco Salerno vom Juni 2020: “Our work provides ample evidence that “fixed weights” naive rules (e.g. 1/N), which are used for the allocation of the policy mix by asset managers and pension funds, can be strongly outperformed by the use of risk-based allocation rules such as risk-parity, inverse variance and inverse volatility” (S. 30). Mein Kommentar: Klassische Optimierungen, für die auch Renditen geschätzt werden müssen, zeigen keine signifikante Outperformance gegenüber 1/N. Meine Erfahrung mit 1/N ist sehr positiv, denn kapitalisierungsbasierte Allokationen und aktive Manager werden damit meistens geschlagen. Wer Risiken gut schätzen kann und das „richtige“ Allokationsmodell wählt, könnte sogar besser als 1/N sein. Aber wer kann das schon richtig?

14 Risk Parity Methoden im Vergleich: Risk Parity: Methods and Measures of Success von Resolve Asset Management vom Juli 2020: “The risk parity asset allocation strategy seeks to build regime-agnostic portfolios designed to achieve financial objectives regardless of the trajectory of future economic environments. …. We examine 14 quantitative risk parity methods and an ensemble of methods applied to a comprehensive universe of global futures markets from 1985 through May 2020. “ (Abstract). “We demonstrated that different risk parity methods exhibit trade-offs between different measures of diversity. Of particular note, we observed …. a large systematic bias toward bonds in the sample period. Given that bonds produced a much higher Sharpe ratio than equities or commodities it is not surprising that these methods achieved the highest in-sample performance. …. The examination period was dominated by deflationary periods, and bond yields fell from very high levels near the start of the period to very low levels today. These dynamics produced a strong tail-wind for bonds in-sample. However, risk parity portfolios should be agnostic to inflation and growth surprises. Therefore, portfolios with a systematic bias toward bonds are unlikely to achieve this objective” (S. 20).

Private Equity Allokationen können kritisch sein: An Inconvenient Fact: Private Equity Returns & The Billionaire Factory von Ludovic Phalippou vom 15. Juli 2020: “Private Equity (PE) funds have returned about the same as public equity indices since at least 2006. … Yet, the estimated total performance fee (Carry) collected by these PE funds is estimated to be $230 billion, most of which goes to a relatively small number of individuals. … Rebuttals from the big four and the main industry lobby body are provided and discussed” (Abstract). … “Most economists think that if “sophisticated investors” want to increase their investment in PE, it must be that returns are good. However, this view implies that fund managers are too generous (or public-spirited) to increase their fees to the point where this free lunch is eliminated. Alternatively, it might be the case that fund managers need to deliver excess returns to compensate for the illiquidity. But if the excess return is a compensation for risk, then it is just a fair return and investors should not be enthusiastically increasing allocations as a result of this excess return. Perhaps investors find it attractive to earn the same in PE as they do in public equity (at least in a bull market) because reported returns in PE are smooth and thus appear to be less volatile. That would mean investors demand a negative liquidity premium. The PE industry is less of a puzzle, however, if one recognises the multiple layers of agency conflicts and the complexity of measuring risk and returns of illiquid assets, whose effect is exacerbated by the lack of knowledge on that particular issue by some of the decision makers “ (S. 32).

Frauen sind für Wealthmanager sehr wichtig: Women as the next wave of growth in US wealth management von Pooneh Baghai et al. von McKinsey & Company vom Juli 2020: “Today, women control a third of total US household financial assets—more than $10 trillion (Exhibit 1). But over the next decade, large sums of money are expected to change hands. The biggest driver of this shift is demographics. ….By 2030, American women are expected to control much of the $30 trillion in financial assets that baby boomers will possess—a potential wealth transfer of such magnitude that it approaches the annual GDP of the United States” (S. 2).

Großanleger haben besonders viel Verantwortung: Universal ownership in practice – A practical positive investment framework for asset owners von Ellen Quigley vom 22. Juli 2020.: “Universal owners such as pension funds, insurance companies, university endowments, and sovereign wealth funds have an interest in the long-term health of the financial system as a whole (Hawley and Williams 2000; Dimson et al. 2013; Quigley 2019). These asset owners cannot diversify away from systemic risks such as climate change, inequality, and pandemics, and can only mitigate whole-system threats by effecting change in the real economy” (S. 1). … “A new framework for universal owners, then, is clearly required. Such a framework operates from a lens of real-world risk mitigation, and therefore treats the primary and secondary markets differently, with a particular focus on the allocation of new capital within investor portfolios and in company spending; insists on “ungameable” and absolute metrics; supports complementary public policy and standard-setting; and engages in forward signalling to reduce wastage, infrastructure lock-in, and stranded assets. ESG is manifestly incapable of effecting the widespread changes required in the coming decade alone” (S. 15/16). Mein Kommentar: Diese Kritik an ESG basiert auf einer falschen Diversifikationserwartung. Auch Großanleger müssen nicht in alle Wertpapiere investieren, sondern können durchaus tausende schlechte Investments meiden (vgl.

Trendfolge ist ein prognosefreier natürlicher Investmentansatz: The philosophy of trend following von Andreas Aigner und Walter Schrabmair vom 7. Juli 2020: “Trend Following is not predictive in any way, except judging the future by measuring the past and ascertaining that whatever worked in the past should continue working as long as a break-level is not reached. …. It is simply a manifestation of what hundreds of years of trend followers have already practiced unconsciously or subconsciously in the social, religious or economical/financial context” (S. 5; vgl.

Mehr als Klimatools: ESG Investmentumsetzung

Momentum- und ESG-Investments können kompatibel sein: ESG Scores and Price Momentum Are More Than Compatible von Markus Padysak vom 16. Juli 2020 von Quantpedia: “the algorithm chooses high ESG stocks that are less volatile and at the same time, have a large momentum. …. The strategy …. leads to more consistent returns, lower volatility and drawdowns. Overall, the results are in line with literature about ESG and the connection of momentum and volatility. Results are also supported by rolling regressions that estimate the relationship between ESG scores and volatility or maximal drawdown”.

Bald mehr Anbieter mit Rinderprodukten als Ausschlußkriterium? Butchering the planet – The big-name financiers bankrolling livestock corporations and climate change von Feedback vom 8. Juli 2020: “From farm to fork, the food system generates 25–30% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but while capital markets are starting to wake up to the risks of climate change and taking steps to tackle these emissions from fossil fuels, emissions from food and agriculture remain largely unaddressed” (S. 5). “Loans totalling $167 billion flowed from over 200 banks to the world’s thirty‑five largest meat and dairy corporations, which together emit more than the economies of Germany, Canada or the UK” (S. 6). … “Banks and investors that promote their sustainability policies, wearing commitments to end deforestation and combat climate change with pride, are deeply implicated in the financial support offered to the global livestock industry” (S. 6). .” The most common ask among investors when ‘engaging with companies’ isn’t for concrete emissions reduction or to stop driving deforestation but for ‘more reporting’” (S. 6). … “Within 10 years, the livestock sector will account for almost half (49%) of the world’s emissions budget for 1.5°C by 2030” (S. 7). Nestlé (Rang 13), DKM Deutsches Michkontor (21) und Tönnies (24) gehören zu den Top 25 „meat and diary producers“ weltweit (S. 16). Mein Kommentar: Diversifikator schliesst Rinderprodukte aus diesem Grund seit einiger Zeit aus, ich kenne aber keinen anderen anbieter, der das macht.

Anlageprofis müssen ESG Integration noch erheblich verbessern:  ESG Integration in Europe, the Middle East and Africa: Markets, Practices, and Data vom CFA Institute und den Principles for Responsible Investments vom März 2019: “ 2. Governance is the ESG factor most investors are integrating into their process. 3. Environmental and social factors are gaining acceptance, but from a low base. … 5. Portfolio managers and analysts are more frequently integrating ESG into the investment process, but rarely adjusting their models based on ESG data, 6. The main drivers of ESG integration are risk management and client demand. 7. The main barriers to ESG integration are a limited understanding of ESG issues and a lack of comparable ESG data. …. 10. Many workshop participants were concerned that ESG mutual funds and ETFs offered to investors may be driven by marketing decisions and may not be true ESG investment products” (S. 1 und 2). …  “Germany 1. Respondents see the impact of ESG issues on the prices of equities and bond yields as lower in Germany than in the other EMEA markets we visited, although these numbers increase substantially when we asked survey respondents how they feel ESG issues will affect share prices and bond yields by 2022. 2. Many firms in Germany are at the start of ESG integration. They have a relatively low level of ESG integration, but it is likely to grow. German firms often use screening as a form of integration. 3. The main barriers to ESG integration in Germany are a lack of comparable and historical data and a limited understanding of ESG issues” (S. 3).

Sehr unterschiedliche ESG-Scores nach Branchen: ESG scores and beyond (Part 1) Factor control: isolating specific biases in ESG ratings von Kevin Ratsimiveh et al. von FTSE Russell vom Juli 2020: “According to our study, almost half of the information contained in the ESG ratings is explained by three factors: size, activity, and country” (S. 3). Interessant finde ich unter anderem Chart 8 auf Seite 14 zu den ESG Scores nach Branchen. Mein Kommentar: Selbst für das hier schlechteste Segment Real Estate gibt es ein attraktives Portfolio, das meine strengen E, S und G Mindestratinganforderungen erfüllt.

ESG Investmentperformance und -Nachfrage

Braucht man mehrere Dekaden, um Faktoren zu identifizieren? Is ESG a Factor? Von John West und Ari Polychronopoulos von Research Affiilaites vom Juli 2020: “ESG is not an equity return factor in the traditional, academic sense. We have shown that, unlike vetted factors such as value, low beta, quality, or momentum, ESG strategies lack sufficient historical data, impeding our ability to make a similar conclusion of robustness. Nevertheless, ESG can be a very powerful theme in the portfolio management process in the years ahead” (S. 10). “Only after several decades of quality ESG data will it be possible to accurately test the claim that ESG is a robust factor” (S. 5). Mein Kommentar: Man muss keine ESG Outperfomance beweisen. Es reicht, wenn gute ESG-Investments marktkonforme Renditen und Risiken einbringen.

Europäer haben von High-Carbon Investments profitiert: Carbon home bias of European investors von Martijn Adriaan Boermans und Rients Galema vom 22. Juli 2020: “Investors from countries with more carbon-intensive domestic firms tend to have portfolios that are also more exposed to carbon-intensive stocks. Moreover, next to the domestic portfolio, also the EU-home market portfolio of home-biased investors is allocated disproportionately towards more carbon-intensive stocks. …. stocks from the domestic and EU-home market have a ‘carbon premium’, although this premium is relatively small. By contrast, for all stocks combined we find evidence for a carbon discount in our sample period 2013-2019. However, because euro area investors have such a strong bias to domestic and EU-home market stocks, at the portfolio level we find a strong positive relationship between the stock portfolios’ carbon exposure and excess returns” (S. 24). “Future EU carbon regulations could affect consumers in the EU twice: once via its effect on the domestic and EU economy and once because of a failure to diversify carbon risk internationally by investors. Investors mostly at risk are those with high home bias and relatively carbon-intensive domestic stock markets” (S. 25).

Gute ESG Performance im ersten Halbjahr: Mutual Fund Performance and Flows During the COVID-19 Crisis von Ľuboš Pástor und Blair Vorsatz vom 10. Juli 2020: “We analyze the performance and flows of U.S. active equity mutual funds during the COVID19 crisis. We find that most active funds underperform passive benchmarks during the crisis …. Funds with high sustainability ratings and high star ratings outperform those with low sustainability ratings and low star ratings, respectively. When reallocating capital across funds, investors favor funds with high sustainability ratings and funds that apply exclusion criteria. That investors retain their focus on sustainability during a major crisis indicates that sustainability is not just a luxury good” (S. 18; vgl.

Nachhaltige Investments gewinnen weiter an Fahrt: Morningstar European Sustainable Fund Flows: Q2 2020 in Review von Hortense Bioy und Elizabeth Stuart von Morningstar vom Juli 2020: “European sustainable funds attracted record inflows of EUR 54.6 billion in the second quarter of 2020, double the inflows registered in the tumultuous first quarter of the year. Sustainable fund flows accounted for almost a third of overall European fund flows, while sustainable equity funds continued to outpace their traditional equivalents. … Product development showed a continued rise consistent with previous quarters, with the launch of 107 new funds focused on environmental, social, and governance factors, including 27 passive products. … Asset managers continued „greening“ their offerings by converting 40 traditional funds into sustainable funds” (S. 1).

Ziemlich wenig Shareholder Engagement: Review of Shareholder Activism – H1 2020 von Lazard’s Shareholder Advisory Group vom Juli 2020. Mein Kommentar: Interessante Zahlen, aber ich finde es erschreckend, wie wenig weltweite Aktionärsaktivitäten es gibt und wie wenig diese wenigen Aktivitäten jeweils zu bewirken scheinen. Den Marketingaktivitäten aktiver Fondmanager zufolge müssten diese Zahlen viel eindrucksvoller sein.


Kritik an 4 geplanten grünen Fintechs: FinTech à la française von Ralf Breuer von Investabel vom 4. August 2020: „Aktuell sind gleich vier FinTech mit dem Kernthema Klimaschutz projektiert. Die Starts sind für den Herbst 2020 bzw. den Winter 2020/21 geplant. Die Angebote folgen ähnlichen Grundlinien: Grün, klimafreundlich, transparent und ehrlich. Einige Anbieter möchten eine „Wirkungsmessung“ (meist „CO2-Fußabdruck“) für die geleisteten Zahlungen anbieten, die allerdings auch schon bei etablierten Anbietern wie BNP Paribas verfügbar ist“. … „Die Messung von Umweltwirkungen von Konsumausgaben über geleistete (Karten-)Zahlungen ist eine auf den ersten Blick nahe liegende Idee. ….Allerdings enthalten die Zahlungsdaten nur rudimentäre Informationen der übermittelten Daten nur zu sehr vagen Ergebnissen führen.“ …. „Für die französischen Angebote nutzt BNP Paribas das Angebot von Greenly (EN) (hps:// Greenly bietet sehr interessante und hilfreiche Informationen zu den Umweltwirkungen privater Konsumausgaben. Greenly vermittelt (in französischer Sprache) einen sehr guten Eindruck von dem verwendeten Ansa und seinen Schwächen bzw. Grenzen.“

Umfassende Wealthtech Apps: Swiss Private Banking – schlappe Apps von Samuel Gerber vom 4. August 2020 auf Interessant finde ich vor allem die vielen Dimensionen/Spalten des App-Überblicks von Morgan Stanley Research und Oliver Wyman.

Billiger Robo-Advisor von Vanguard USA: Ten months after it signaled it would, Vanguard Group unleashes its advice robot with analysts sure that 15 basis points and no-nonsense brand will net billions in no time von Liza Shidler von vom 1. August 2020: “Its first advice product, Personal Advisor Services (VPAS), launched in 2015, today manages more than $167 billion, a feat largely achieved by upselling existing clients…. VPAS charges 30 basis points and uses 700 human advisors“….. “VPAS, which charges a 30-basis-point fee, is aimed at those closer to retirement, reflected in its $50,000 minimum and its clients‘ average age of 57”. ….“Vanguard has a significant advantage in its huge scale, which includes $1.8 trillion in managed retail assets and $1.5 trillion in managed retirement assets — not to mention its ultra-cheap 15-basis-point* fee that undercuts competitors by about 50%”. Mein Kommentar: Ich erwarte, dass ETF-Anbieter künftig Robo-Services in Deutschland für ca. 0,3% p.a. anbieten werden. Unabhängige Robos sollten besser Mehrwert bringen, um ihre höheren Gebühren zu rechtfertigen.

Modellportfolios vom ETF-Anbieter: WisdomTree Adds Model Portfolios to Five Fintech Platforms von Samuel Steinberger vom 27. Juli 2020 auf Mein Kommentar: Wealthtech hilft Asset Managern, ihr Direktgeschäft auszubauen (vgl.

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.

I accept that my given data and my IP address is sent to a server in the USA only for the purpose of spam prevention through the Akismet program.More information on Akismet and GDPR.

Diese Website verwendet Akismet, um Spam zu reduzieren. Erfahre mehr darüber, wie deine Kommentardaten verarbeitet werden.