ESG Integration in Investment Management: Myths and Realities

The number of public companies reporting ESG information grew from fewer than 20 in the early 1990s to 8,500 by 2014. Moreover, by the end of 2014, over 1,400 institutional investors that manage some $60 trillion in assets had signed the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI). Nevertheless, companies with high ESG “scores” have continued to be viewed by mainstream investors as unlikely to produce competitive shareholder returns, in part because of the findings of older studies showing low returns from the social responsibility investing of the 1990s. But studies of more recent periods suggest that companies with significant ESG programs have actually outperformed their competitors in a number of important ways. The authors’ aim in this article is to set the record straight on the financial performance of sustainable investing while also correcting a number of other widespread misconceptions about this rapidly growing set of principles and methods: Myth Number 1: ESG programs reduce returns on capital and long‐run shareholder value. Reality: Companies committed to ESG are finding competitive advantages in product, labor, and capital markets; and portfolios that have integrated “material” ESG metrics have provided average returns to their investors that are superior to those of conventional portfolios, while exhibiting lower risk. Myth Number 2: ESG is already well integrated into mainstream investment management. Reality: The UNPRI signatories have committed themselves only to adhering to a set of principles for responsible investment, a standard that falls well short of integrating ESG considerations into their investment decisions. Myth Number 3: Companies cannot influence the kind of shareholders who buy their shares, and corporate managers must often sacrifice sustainability goals to meet the quarterly earnings targets of increasingly short‐term‐oriented investors. Reality: Companies that pursue major sustainability initiatives, and publicize them in integrated reports and other communications with investors, have also generally succeeded in attracting disproportionate numbers of longer‐term shareholders. Myth Number 4: ESG data for fundamental analysis is scarce and unreliable. Reality: Thanks to the efforts of reporting and investor organizations such as SASB and Ceres, and of CDP data providers like Bloomberg and MSCI, much more “value‐relevant” ESG data on companies has become available in the past ten years. Myth Number 5: ESG adds value almost entirely by limiting risks. Reality: Along with lower risk and a lower cost of capital, companies with high ESG scores have also experienced increases in operating efficiency and expansions into new markets. Myth Number 6: Consideration of ESG factors might create a conflict with fiduciary duty for some investors. Reality: Many ESG factors have been shown to have positive correlations with corporate financial performance and value, prompting ERISA in 2015 to reverse its earlier instructions to pension funds about the legitimacy of taking account of “non‐financial” considerations when investing in companies.     

How to Integrate ESG into Investment Decision‐Making: Results of a Global Survey of Institutional Investors

The authors review the findings of their global survey of 582 institutional investors that were either practicing or planning to practice some degree of integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into their investment decision‐making process. The investors were evenly split between asset owners and asset managers, equity and fixed income, and across the three regions of the Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe, Middle East, and Africa. The survey explored reasons for ESG investing; the barriers to such investing and investor approaches to overcoming them; and the time frames used for making investment decisions, evaluating the performance of managers, and awarding compensation. The authors report finding that the commonly perceived barriers to ESG integration—the belief that ESG integration requires sacrificing returns, that fiduciary duty prevents one from doing so, and unrealistically short‐term expectations for ESG to deliver outperformance—were not as great as commonly believed. The biggest barrier is the lack of high quality data about the performance of companies on their material ESG factors—a scarcity that the authors attribute to the lack of standards for measuring ESG performance and the lack of ESG performance data reported by companies. The results were very similar between asset owners and asset managers, equity and fixed income, and across regions. However, the investment horizons of asset owners were notably longer than those of asset managers, and the same was true of equity vs. fixed income investors. Investors in the Americas were more patient about time frames for seeing outperformance from ESG, while those in Asia Pacific were the least patient. There were also differences across regions in how to overcome the barriers to ESG integration.     

ESG Investing in Graham & Doddsville

The author describes how and why the world's best “business value investors” have long incorporated environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations into their investment decision‐making. As the main source of value in companies has increasingly shifted from tangible to intangible assets, many followers of Graham & Dodd have delivered exceptional investment results by taking an “earnings‐power” approach to identifying high‐quality businesses—businesses with enduring competitive advantages that are sustained through significant ongoing investment in their core capabilities and, increasingly, their important non‐investor “stakeholders.” While the ESG framework may be relatively new, it can be thought of as providing a lens through which to view the age‐old issue of “quality.” Graham & Dodd's 1934 classic guide to investing, Security Analysis, and Phil Fisher's 1958 bestseller, Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits, both identify a number of areas of analysis that would today be characterized as ESG. Regardless of whether they use the labels “E,” “S,” and “G,” investors who make judgments about earnings power and sustainable competitive advantage are routinely incorporating ESG considerations into their decision‐making. The challenge of assessing a company's sustainable competitive advantage requires analysis based on concepts such as customer franchise value, as well as intangibles like brands and intellectual property. For corporate managers communicating ESG priorities, and for investors analyzing ESG issues, the key is to focus on their relevance to the business. In this sense, corporate reporting on sustainability issues should be viewed as analogous to and an integral part of financial reporting, with a management focus on materiality and relevance (while avoiding a “promotional” approach) that is critical to credibility.     

Sustainability and Capital Markets—Are We There Yet?

The High Meadows Institute issued a report in 2016 called ‘Charting the Future of Capital Markets’ that surveyed the mainstream capital market ecosystem by soliciting the views and practices of its key stakeholders around the issue of long‐term value creation. In this follow‐up report, the authors report that much has changed during the past three years. The role of investors in proactively shaping corporate practices is gaining more attention as ESG issues and responsible investment have become mainstream concerns, as new responsible investment regulations and frameworks have been implemented, and as shifting demographics continue to pressure capital market participants and stakeholders to change their practices. At the same time, the report notes significant remaining challenges. The lack of a standard industry definition and framework for ESG data and reporting on ESG continues to be a significant impediment, as does the shortage of qualified ESG analysts and infrastructure to support true ESG integration. Surveys also suggest most corporate boards have yet to recognize the full significance of ESG integration or its value to the firm.     

Analysts' Roundtable on Integrating ESG into Investment Decision‐Making

In this third of the three discussions that took place at the SASB 2016 Symposium, practitioners of a broad range of investment approaches—active as well as passive in both equities and fixed‐income—explain how and why they use ESG information when evaluating companies and making their investment decisions. There was general agreement that successful ESG investing depends on integrating ESG factors with the methods and data of traditional “fundamental” financial statement analysis. And in support of this claim, a number of the panelists noted that some of the world's best “business value investors,” including Warren Buffett, have long incorporated environmental, social, and governance considerations into their investment decision‐making. In the analysis of such active fundamental investors, ESG concerns tend to show up as risk factors that can translate into higher costs of capital and lower values. And companies' effectiveness in managing such factors, as ref lected in high ESG scores and rankings, is viewed by many fundamental investors as an indicator of management “quality,” a reliable demonstration of the corporate commitment to investing in the company's future. Moreover, some fixed‐income investors are equally if not more concerned than equity investors about ESG exposures. ESG factors can have pronounced effects on performance by generating “tail risks” that can materialize in both going‐concern and default scenarios. And the rating agencies have long attempted to reflect some of these risks in their analysis, though with mixed success. What is relatively new, however, is the frequency with which fixed income investors are engaging companies on ESG topics. And even large institutional investors with heavily indexed portfolios have become more aggressive in engaging their portfolio companies on ESG issues. Although the traditional ESG filters used by such investors were designed mainly just to screen out tobacco, firearms, and other “sin” shares from equity portfolios, investors' interest in “tilting” their portfolios toward positive sustainability factors, in the form of lowcarbon and gender‐balanced ETFs and other kinds of “smart beta” portfolios, has gained considerable momentum.     

The Next Wave of ESG Integration: Lessons from Institutional Investors

In this panel that also took place at the recent SASB Symposium, senior representatives of four leading institutional investors—BlackRock, Ca lPERS, Ca lSTRS, and Wells Fargo—emphasize the relevance of ESG data for “mainstream” investors and the importance of integrating it with traditional fundamental analysis rather than viewing it as a separate set of reporting responsibilities. Moreover, the logical place for integrating ESG information is in the most forwardlooking section of financial reports, the “Management Discussion and Analysis,” or “MD&A,” which would be strengthened by including more and better information about the companies' ESG risks and initiatives. Some panelists noted that ESG information is likely to be valued by investors because of its ability to shed light on “idiosyncratic” risks that are not captured by the traditional risk factors that have long dominated asset pricing models. Others described ESG information as helpful in evaluating and comparing the “quality” of management in portfolio companies. But all agreed that efforts like the SASB's to standardize ESG data are essential to successful integration of that data into the decision‐making process of large mainstream investors. And as the panelists also made clear, there is an important generational component to the growing movement to integrate ESG into mainstream investing, with Millenials—and particularly Millenial women—showing especially strong support.     

Responsible Investors: Who They Are,What They Want

This article by a long‐time partner in Domini Social Investments, a well‐known socially responsible investment firm, begins by describing four different approaches that institutional investors have currently adopted as they account for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations in their investment decisions: (1) the incorporation of internationally accepted ESG norms and standards (as set forth in, for example, the FTSE4Good Indexes); (2) the use of industry‐specific ESG ratings and rankings (such as those used for the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes); (3) the integration of ESG considerations into stock valuation (as advocated, for example, in the Principles of Responsible Investment); and (4) the identification of companies whose business models successfully address the most pressing societal needs (often referred to as “impact investing”). The article then seeks to answer the question: what corporate ESG programs and policies can be most effectively used by managers seeking to attract institutional investors using these different approaches? The author describes three kinds of corporate ESG programs. In one approach, corporate managers focus on strengthening relations with non‐investor stakeholders, including employees, the environment, and local communities. In the second approach, corporations seek to create “shared value” by emphasizing products and services that help address society's most pressing needs. The third approach focuses on identifying and addressing the firm's industry‐specific ESG performance indicators (KPIs) that are most material to stockholders and other stakeholders. Given institutional investors' growing commitment to the incorporation of ESG concerns, corporate managers should understand the range of investors' approaches to ESG and how to account for them in their strategic planning. At the same time, they are encouraged to develop comprehensive ESG policies and goals, devote adequate resources to their implementation, and communicate efforts effectively to these investors and to the public.     

The Evolution of Integrating ESG Analysis into Wealth Management Decisions

Retail investors rely heavily on the advice of their financial advisors. But relatively few of those advisors have begun to incorporate investment strategies based on environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors for their client's portfolios. The author attributes this lack of interest to the disappointing returns of the “first generation” of ESG retail investment products, which approached the topic through a “socially responsible investing” (SRI) lens with mandates to exclude companies and industries viewed as having negative impact on society. These early “negative screening” directives had the effect of reducing the size of the manager's investable universe, which effectively ensured that SRI portfolio would underperform the overall market. The author, who is himself a practicing financial advisor, proposes that an innovative evolutionary process is underway in which investment managers are shifting away from a penchant for “negative screening” to a more inclusive approach he refers to as “best‐in‐class ESG Factor Integration.” And he identifies three main catalysts for this evolution: (1) greater disclosure of ESG data by public companies; (2) the growing accuracy and accessibility of ESG research, from commercial as well as academic sources; and (3) the inclusion of ESG factors with the traditional value drivers emphasized by the fundamental and quantitative methods used by portfolio managers. Although such integration is yet in its early stages, the author is optimistic that this growing trend will become an important part of an overall sustainable investing movement. No longer confined to large institutional investors, ESG factor integration is now available through a growing number of products and investment platforms.     

“Non‐Financial” Is a Misnomer,but Doesn't Have to Be a Missed Opportunity

With enterprise values now representing increasing multiples of companies' net book assets, investors are clearly looking beyond financial reporting for enhanced insights and understanding of when and how companies are adding value. This shift includes growing attention to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) information. Although ESG data presents its own unique challenges, dismissing it as “non‐financial” can be misleading. When explicitly linked to a company's long‐term value creation strategy, ESG information can serve as a valuable input to more farsighted financial analysis. Market‐driven initiatives, notably that of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), aim to standardize a subset of business‐critical, industry‐specific sustainability data for investors. Research indicates such approaches can generate positive outcomes not only for providers of financial capital, but for their portfolio companies and markets in general. In illustrating these concepts, the authors explore ESG impacts in three sectors and industries, while examining how access to consistent, comparable, reliable sustainability information in those sectors can augment an analysis of traditional business fundamentals. One example focuses on water management in the Oil & Gas Exploration & Production industry, a major environmental issue where geographic considerations can shed light on company‐specific exposures to cost increases, production disruptions, increased CapEx and R&D spending, as well as the potential for asset write‐downs. In the Food & Beverage sector, health and nutrition concerns are shown to be changing consumer preferences, triggering regulatory action, and reshaping companies' product portfolios—with significant implications for the companies' brand values and ability to compete for market share. Finally, in Aerospace & Defense, lapses in business ethics such as bribery of government officials present a governance challenge that comes with the risk of value‐destroying fines and penalties and, even more significant, associated reductions in revenues.     

The Need for Sector‐Specific Materiality and Sustainability Reporting Standards

The market continues to show growing interest in how well companies are performing across a broad range of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) dimensions. Partly as a result, the companies themselves are paying more attention to these performance dimensions, how they contribute to financial performance, and how to evaluate tradeoffs that arise. One of the greatest challenges facing both investors and companies in using ESG performance information is the absence of standards. Another challenge is knowing which of the many ESG dimensions are most material for a company in terms of creating value for shareholders and stakeholders over the long term. The authors argue that materiality and reporting standards must be developed on a sector‐by‐sector basis, and that failure to do so will result in inconsistent and even misleading disclosures. The authors illustrate this with the case of climate change. The SEC has already issued interpretive guidance on climate change disclosures, making it quite clear that existing regulations require companies to report on material effects of climate change, from both an upside and downside perspective. Based on an analysis of 10K filings in six industries, the authors show that, even within a given industry, there is substantial variation in reporting among companies that ranges from no disclosure, to boilerplate disclosure, industry‐specific interpretation, and the use of quantitative metrics. After providing further detail on this by looking at the airline and utilities industries, the authors conclude by offering a methodology for defining material ESG issues on a sector‐by‐sector basis that could provide the basis for developing key performance indicators.     

Integrated Reporting,Quality of Management,and Financial Performance

Interest in integrated reporting continues to grow as its proponents cite a number of significant benefits to both companies and investors. But given the still‐early stages of development of this new management practice and the relative paucity of data, establishing empirical confirmation of these claims is difficult. Using RobecomSAM's proprietary database of over 2,000 companies surveyed during its annual Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA), the authors discuss the extent and recent growth of integrated reporting, and its likely effects on important indicators of both ESG quality of management and financial performance. The authors begin by reporting that although only 12% of the companies in the survey dataset practiced some form of integrated reporting in 2012, that number represented a 50% increase from 2011. The authors also report a strong relationship between integrated reporting and ESG quality of management, which some studies suggest has become a useful indicator of the overall effectiveness of management in creating value over the long term. This relationship is particularly strong in certain sectors, notably healthcare. At the same time, the authors find a relationship between integrated reporting and financial performance for two sectors—healthcare and information technology—though not for the population as a whole. The authors suggest that this apparent lack of effect may be attributable to a time lag between integrated reporting's contribution to better ESG quality of management, and the eventual reflection of such management in financial performance.     

Loyalty‐Shares: Rewarding Long‐term Investors

In the face of growing concern about investors' excessive focus on quarterly earnings, recent research has found new evidence of the benefits of a committed long‐term shareholder base, whether in terms of higher profitability, R&D investment, greater integration of ESG factors, or a reduced cost of capital. In light of this evidence, this article takes up the challenge of proposing a market solution to this problem. Although much has already been done in the financial industry to lengthen the outlook of executives by imposing longer vesting periods for stock options, a significant fraction of institutional shareholders continues to have a short‐term orientation. The authors propose that companies try to attract a more long‐term‐oriented shareholder base by modifying the form of the common share contract to include a special reward for buy‐and‐hold investors. The type of contract proposed—called a “loyalty share”—is a call‐warrant attached to each share that is exercisable at a specified time‐horizon—say, three years—and exercise price, but is nontransferable and hence has value only if the share is held for the entire length of the specified “loyalty period.” Such a reward is expected to encourage a longer‐term valuation outlook, since those shareholders seeking the loyalty reward are likely to be those who are most confident about the company's ability to increase its value through the expiration of the loyalty period.     

ESG Investing in Emerging and Frontier Markets

The authors discuss the benefits of considering material environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors when investing in emerging and frontier markets. Companies that operate in these markets face a myriad of operating challenges, and management teams that respond to such challenges effectively can achieve superior financial performance over time. They are able to grow faster, achieve higher profitability, reduce their cost of capital, and manage exogenous risks better than their peers. For investment managers, integrating sustainability into the analysis process provides a differentiated lens to identify companies that possess strong competitive advantages that can drive value creation over time. At the same time, it can help investment managers avoid companies that have embedded risks in their business model or operations that may not be entirely visible to the market. Finally, given the early‐stage nature of many of these markets and the sometimes uneven understanding of sustainability issues at a company level, the authors argue that active ownership can be an important driver of alpha generation by fund managers. Engaging constructively with board members and management teams to improve a company's ESG profile can help drive operational improvements, strengthen the risk management function, and upgrade investors’ perception of the quality of the management team.     

ESG disclosure and financial performance: Moderating role of ESG investors

This study discusses the effect of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure on corporate financial performance. This study uses a sample of non-financial listed companies from 2000 to 2020 and applies the staggered difference-in-differences technique to eliminate the endogeneity problem. Findings show that ESG disclosure has a favorable effect on corporate financial performance. This conclusion remains robust after a series of robustness tests, including the parallel trend test, Goodman-Bacon decomposition, replacement of dependent variables, system GMM estimate, the placebo test, etc. ESG disclosure has heterogeneous effects on financial performance. The positive effect of ESG disclosure on corporate financial performance is more pronounced in companies with ESG investors and companies with longer inception, high media attention, and high agency costs. In addition, investors with ESG preferences exert a substantial moderating effect on the link between ESG disclosure and financial performance connection. We arrive at two conclusions in the extended analysis. One is that ESG disclosure attracts ESG investors. Another is that ESG investors also play a positive moderating role in the connection between ESG ratings and financial performance.     

Is it costly to be both shariah compliant and socially responsible?

Positive ethics associated with socially responsible investments (SRI) is challenging the limits of Islamic investments' conservative approach to promote corporate social responsibility. In this study, we test the integration of social performance measures (companies the most virtuous or high-rated in terms of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues) in Islamic portfolios using KLD social ratings. We seek to determine the financial price of complying both to Islamic investment and SRI principles. To do so, we measure the financial performance of self-composed Islamic portfolios with varying ESG scores. The results indicate no adverse effects on returns due to the application of ESG screens on shariah-compliant stocks during the 2007–2011 periods while reporting substantially higher performance for the portfolios with good records in governance, products, diversity, and environment issues. On the opposite, a negative performance is associated with an SRI strategy of disengagement from shariah-compliant stocks with community and human rights controversies. Our performance measures are controlled for market sensitivity, investment style, momentum factor, and sector exposure.     

ESG for All? The Impact of ESG Screening on Return,Risk, and Diversification

A large body of research has documented a positive relationship between different measures of sustainability—such as indicators of employee satisfaction and effective corporate governance—and corporate financial performance. Nevertheless, many investors still struggle to quantify the value of ESG to investment performance. To address this issue, the authors tested the effects of using different ESG filters on an investable universe that serves as the starting point for a fund manager. In this way, they attempted to determine the extent to which ESG data can add value to any investment approach, regardless of preferences towards sustainable investing. The authors report “an unequivocally positive” contribution to risk‐adjusted returns when using a 10% best‐in‐class ESG screening approach (one that effectively removes companies with the lowest 10% of ESG rankings), both on a global and a developed markets universe. More specifically, as a result of such screening, both the global and developed markets portfolios show higher returns, lower (tail) risk, and no significant reduction of diversification potential despite the reduction in the number of companies. Use of a 25% screening filter was also found to add value, especially by reducing tail risks, but with a larger deviation from the unscreened universe. Overall, then, the authors’ finding is that the incorporation of ESG information contributes to better decision‐making in every investment approach, with the optimal configuration depending on a fund manager's preferences and willingness to deviate from an unscreened benchmark.     

Is Financial Reporting Still Useful? Australian Evidence

There has been recent and growing criticism of the usefulness of financial reporting for investors, particularly the annual financial statements. In response, the IASB is pursuing several projects aimed at improving the relevance of financial information. To inform the IASB’s work, we investigate, using a mixed-method approach, the extent and nature of the use of annual financial statements by equity investors. We examine the relevance of financial reporting for equity valuation in Australia across time. We find that financial reporting (specifically, reported net income, shareholders’ equity, and operating cash flows) remains relevant for investment decisions. We further support this finding with evidence from field interviews that provide insight into how and why financial statements are used by equity investors. The field evidence also demonstrates that no one financial statement dominates in investor decision making. Given the increasing availability of more timely, forward-looking information from alternative sources, we examine the relevance of non-GAAP financial information and other non-financial information for investor decision making. We find that non-GAAP financial information (as proxied by EBIT and EBITDA) is more value relevant than statutory measures. We further find a broad range of non-financial information is utilized by investors in making investment decisions both as a ‘screen’ and for valuation purposes. Our findings inform regulators and other stakeholders as we provide evidence of the continuing relevance of financial statements and the complementary role of non-GAAP financial and other information. Our evidence provides a rebuttal to the recent criticism.     

When ESG talks: ESG tone of 10-K reports and its significance to stock markets

Since the ESG topic consistently gains on importance in the investment universe, companies provide investors with information regarding recent and future ESG activities through different reporting channels. The most recent research finds relevance of ESG-related corporate activities for formation of investors' opinion regarding companies' valuations and growth prospects. Based on a sample of more than seventeen thousand unique 10-K reports of US companies filed with SEC in period 2013 to 2019 and the word-power methodology proposed by Jegadeesh and Wu (2013), this study also shows evidence for significant relation of ESG textual tone of 10-K reports to stock market returns of filing companies around the report filing dates. Using the ESG linguistic dictionary recently proposed by Baier, Berninger, and Kiesel (2020), this study shows evidence for significant relation of social and governance-related topics disclosure to stock returns, while environmental narratives being ignored by the markets. When looking at individual words from the ESG lexicon, such words as “community”, “health”, “control” imply positive reaction of markets, while “discrimination”, “embezzlement”, and “crime” are related to negative returns. The robustness analysis based on the inverse document frequency word weightings and actual ESG performance scores confirms the significance of ESG information disclosure of 10-K reports for investors. Thus, this study sheds light on the mechanics of ESG information perception and its influence on capital markets.     

The ESG Integration Paradox

Today, most investment managers have something to say about environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, and written ESG policies are ubiquitous. Yet, a written policy is not a reliable indicator of a firm's commitment. Actual ESG incorporation practices vary greatly, with most investment managers falling well short of full integration. Only a few firms seem to be using ESG factors to deliver alpha, hence, the paradox. If not implemented wholeheartedly, responsible investing can lead to lower financial returns. So, why have so few investment managers gone all the way? The paradox involves a “valley” of lower returns where portfolios first absorb the costs of ESG integration before the promised benefits materialize. In the early days of ethical investing, the focus was on using negative screens to exclude certain companies for moral or ethical reasons but lower financial returns are inherent to exclusionary screening. Hard exclusions force managers to tradeoff certain risks for others. So, for example, if the market discounts tobacco stock prices to account for changing consumer behavior, eventually tobacco stock prices become attractive again as, indeed, has been the case over the last two decades. Exclusionary screening alone is a self‐limiting strategy. By contrast, ESG strategies range from active ownership and engagement, to positive screening (selecting for certain attributes), to relative weighting (sometimes called “best‐in‐class selection”), to risk factor investing, to full integration. Because the relationship between an asset manager's ESG efforts and its risk‐adjusted performance is not classically linear, asset owners should look for managers that are on the upward slope of the ESG intensity curve and are fully committed to advancing up it.     

Voluntary Disclosures,Corporate Control,and Investment

We examine the valuation and capital allocation roles of voluntary disclosure when managers have private information regarding the firm’s investment opportunities, but an efficient market for corporate control influences their investment decisions. For managers with long‐term stakes in the firm, the equilibrium disclosure region is two‐tailed: only extreme good news and extreme bad news is disclosed in equilibrium. Moreover, the market’s stock price and investment responses to bad news disclosures are stronger than the responses to good news disclosures, which is consistent with the empirical evidence. We also find that myopic managers are more likely to withhold bad news in good economic times when markets can independently assess expected investment returns.