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.     

The end of ESG

ESG is both extremely important and nothing special. It's extremely important because it's critical to long-term value, and so any academic or practitioner should take it seriously, not just those with “ESG” in their research interests or job title. Thus, ESG doesn't need a specialized term, as that implies it's niche—considering long-term factors isn't ESG investing; it's investing. It's nothing special since it's no better or worse than other intangible assets that create long-term financial and social returns, such as management quality, corporate culture, and innovative capability. Companies shouldn't be praised more for improving their ESG performance than these other intangibles; investor engagement on ESG factors shouldn't be put on a pedestal compared to engagement on other value drivers. We want great companies, not just companies that are great at ESG.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

Market Interest in Nonfinancial Information

During the past two decades, more and more companies have volunteered to provide “corporate social responsibility” or “sustainability” reports that include information about their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies and performance. Such reporting has come about largely in response to demands by a wide range of stakeholders for information about how the company's operations are affecting society in a number of different ways. But do investors really care about companies' ESG performance and policies? Using data from Bloomberg, the authors provide the first broadly based empirical evidence of investors' interest in ESG data. More specifically, the authors show how interest in the top 20 ESG metrics varies with geographical location (European vs. American), asset class (fixed income vs. equity), and firm type. At the aggregate market level, there is greater interest in environmental and governance information than in “social” information. U.S. investors are more interested than their European counterparts in governance and less interested in environmental information. Equity investors are interested in a wider range of nonfinancial information than are fixed income investors. And whereas sell‐side analysts are primarily interested in greenhouse gas emissions, money managers tend to focus on a broader set of metrics. Similarly, pension funds and hedge funds have shown interest in more nonfinancial metrics than insurance companies. The authors' bottom line: Companies need to recognize the growing market interest in nonfinancial information and ensure that they are providing it according to the specific information needs of market users.     

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.     

ESG preferences,risk and return

There are two primary factors that affect expected returns for companies with high ESG (environmental, social and governance) ratings—investor preferences and risk. Although investor preferences for highly rated ESG companies can lower the cost of capital, the flip side of the coin is lower expected returns for investors. Regarding risk, the jury remains out on whether there is an ESG-related risk factor. However, to the extent, ESG is a risk factor it also points towards lower expected returns for investments in highly rated companies. Though ESG investing may have social benefits, higher expected returns for investors are not among them.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The Early Returns to International Hedge Fund Activism: 2000–2010

In this summary of their recent article in the Review of Financial Studies, the authors provide an overview of the methods and findings of the first comprehensive study of worldwide hedge fund activism—one that examined the effectiveness of some 1,740 separate “engagements” of public companies by 330 different hedge funds operating in 23 countries in Asia, Europe, and North America during the period 2000‐2010. The study reports, first of all, that the incidence of shareholder activism is greatest in companies and countries with high institutional ownership, particularly U.S. institutions. In virtually all countries, with the possible exception of Japan, large holdings by institutional investors increased the probability that companies would be targeted by activists. Nevertheless, in all countries (except for the United States), foreign institutions—especially U.S. funds investing in non‐U.S. companies—have played a more important role than domestic institutional investors in supporting activism. The authors also report that those engagements that succeeded in producing “outcomes” were accompanied by positive and significant abnormal stock returns, not only upon the announcement of the activist's block purchase, but throughout the entire holding period. “Outcomes” were identified as taking one of four forms: (1) increases in dividends or stock buybacks; (2) replacement of board members; (3) corporate restructurings such as sales or spinoffs of businesses; and (4) takeover (or sale) of the entire company. But if such outcomes were associated with high shareholder returns, in the many cases where there were no such outcomes, the eventual, holding‐period returns to shareholders, even after taking account of the initially positive market reaction to news of the engagement, were indistinguishable from zero. The authors found that activists succeeded in achieving at least one of their proposed outcomes in roughly one out of two (53%) of the 1,740 engagements. But this success rate varied considerably across countries, ranging from a high of 61% for North American companies, to 50% for European companies, but only 18% engagements of Asian companies—with Japan, again, a country of high disclosure returns but unfulfilled expectations and disappointing outcomes. Outcomes also tended to be strongly associated with the roughly 25% of the total engagements that involved two or more activists (referred to as “wolfpacks”) and produced very high returns.     

Re‐equitizing Corporate Balance Sheets: Choosing Among the Alternatives

Companies are generally reluctant to issue new equity because it can be expensive capital. Among the largest costs of an equity offering are so‐called “market‐impact” costs. To the extent the typically negative market reaction to a stock offering causes an issue to be underpriced, such underpricing dilutes the value of current shareholders. Despite such costs, many companies—particularly financial institutions—are raising equity capital to “delever” balance sheets that have been squeezed by the credit crunch and economic slowdown. And far from transferring value from existing shareholders, these offerings can preserve and even increase the value of highly leveraged companies by shoring up their capital bases and providing the flexibility to get through a difficult period. According to recent studies, announcements of equity offerings by distressed companies have been accompanied by positive stock returns in excess of 5 %. The challenge for CFOs is to determine why and when issuing equity is the value‐maximizing strategy. The kinds of companies that are most likely to benefit from equity offerings are those that score low on credit metrics, have experienced cyclical declines in operating performance, and have growth opportunities as part of their recovery. There are a number of options for raising equity capital, but no set rules for identifying the optimal one. Nevertheless, the author offers a number of suggestions designed to help CFOs make smarter decisions: Communicate clearly to investors the intended uses of the proceeds from the equity offering and how they are expected to create value; Consider judicious cuts to the dividend to preserve capital; Involve current shareholders to minimize dilution, perhaps by considering a rights offering, and strengthen their commitment; Seek out “smart money” such as private equity or SWFs as long‐term investors; Get the offer size right the first time so a second offering can be avoided; and Monetize volatility in uncertain markets by issuing convertible securities.     

Integrating Sustainability Into Capital Markets: Bloomberg LP And ESG's Quantitative Legitimacy

The rise in prominence of environmental, social, and governance data has been driven in large part by a growing interest among investors who seek to gain an edge through the incorporation of such data in their investment decision‐making. There are, however, several significant obstacles to the integration of ESG data into mainstream investing analysis. Perhaps most important, while finance today is a fundamentally quantitative discipline, ESG is often qualitative. Moreover, the ESG data that is available is incomplete and inconsistent, due largely to a reliance on voluntary reporting by individual companies. In short, ESG has not yet earned its quantitative legitimacy in the eyes of the investor community. Nevertheless, recent work in the area of stranded asset values has provided Bloomberg LP, a leading provider of financial data and analytics, an opportunity to “bridge theory and practice” by translating the stranded assets framework into a first‐cut valuation tool designed for mainstream financial analysts. The tool offers a quantitative introduction to an ESG issue that the authors believe will eventually become an important focus of many investment decision‐makers' analysis. While the tool continues to evolve in analytical sophistication, the authors “preview” it here in its early form as one step towards Bloomberg's broader vision of “sustainable finance,” and the company's role in supporting the quantitative maturation of ESG through the twin engines of standardization and disclosure.     

Four Things No One Will Tell You About ESG Data

As the ESG finance field and the use of ESG data in investment decision‐making continue to grow, the authors seek to shed light on several important aspects of ESG measurement and data. This article is intended to provide a useful guide for the rapidly rising number of people entering the field. The authors focus on the following:

1. The sheer variety, and inconsistency, of the data and measures, and of how companies report them. Listing more than 20 different ways companies report their employee health and safety data, the authors show how such inconsistencies lead to significantly different results when looking at the same group of companies.
2. ‘Benchmarking,’ or how data providers define companies' peer groups, can be crucial in determining the performance ranking of a company. The lack of transparency among data providers about peer group components and observed ranges for ESG metrics creates market‐wide inconsistencies and undermines their reliability.
3. The differences in the imputation methods used by ESG researchers and analysts to deal with vast ‘data gaps’ that span ranges of companies and time periods for different ESG metrics can cause large ‘disagreements’ among the providers, with different gap‐filling approaches leading to big discrepancies.
4. The disagreements among ESG data providers are not only large, but actually increase with the quantity of publicly available information. Citing a recent study showing that companies that provide more ESG disclosure tend to have more variation in their ESG ratings, the authors interpret this finding as clear evidence of the need for ‘a clearer understanding of what different ESG metrics might tell us and how they might best be institutionalized for assessing corporate performance.’

What can be done to address these problems with ESG data? Companies should ‘take control of the ESG data narrative’ by proactively shaping disclosure instead of being overwhelmed by survey requests. To that end, companies should ‘customize’ their metrics to some extent, while at the same time seeking to self‐regulate by reaching agreement with industry peers on a ‘reasonable baseline’ of standardized ESG metrics designed to achieve comparability. Investors are urged to push for more meaningful ESG disclosure by narrowing the demand for ESG data into somewhat more standardized, but still manageable metrics. Stock exchanges should consider issuing—and perhaps even mandating—guidelines for ESG disclosures designed in collaboration with companies, investors, and regulators. And data providers should come to agreement on best practices and become as transparent as possible about their methodologies and the reliability of their data.     

BOOK REVIEWS

Book reviewed in this article: Financial Institution Management: Text and Cases. By FREDERICK YEAGER & NEIL LEITZ. Efficiency in the Municipal Bond Market: The Use of Tax Exempt Financing for “Private” Purposes. The Prime: Myth and Reality. By GERALD C. FISCHER. Interest Rate Futures. By ROBERT W. KOLB. Richmond The Speculator: Bernard M. Baruch in Washington, 1917–1965. By JORDAN A. SCHWARZ.     

Are Performance Shares Shareholder Friendly?

Performance shares, or PSUs, have become the largest element of pay for top executives in corporate America. Their spread was ignited by institutional investors looking for more “shareholder‐friendly” equity awards—as opposed to restricted stock and stock options, which have been characterized as “non‐performance” equity. Although that characterization has been challenged by many directors and compensation professionals, proxy advisers like Institutional Shareholder Services have continued to insist that the majority of stock be granted based on performance, compelling public companies to conform to that standard. With over a decade of experience with PSUs, the evidence is in regarding their net effect:

• PSUs greatly complicate long‐term incentives. Pay disclosures are dominated by discussion of PSUs, including metrics, goals, performance and vesting, and any differences in one grant year versus the next over three overlapping periods.
• PSUs may be contributing to the increase in pay. Companies issuing a significant portion of their long‐term incentives in the form of PSUs have been granting about 35% more in value than companies granting only restricted stock and stock options.
• Shareholders don't appear to be getting anything for that added complexity and cost. S&P 500 companies using PSUs have underperformed their sector peers, and companies using solely “non‐performance” equity have significantly outperformed their sector peers, and in every single year over the last decade.

Given these findings on PSUs, it is time for institutional investors and their proxy advisors to reconsider their view of these vehicles as “shareholder‐friendly,” and rethink their unqualified promotion of their use by the companies they invest in.     

Environmental,social and governance reporting in annual reports: A textual analysis

Considering environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors becomes increasingly important for companies and investors. However, “ESG” is not clearly defined so far and, therefore, it is difficult to measure the ESG activity of companies. We analyze the extent and changes in 10‐K reports and proxy statements on ESG, using a textual analysis and creating an ESG dictionary. The results show an average of 4.0 % ESG words on total words in the reports. The ESG word list with 482 items can be used to quantitatively examine the extent of ESG reporting, which will be helpful especially for SRI investors. Our classification of 40 subcategories allows a highly granular analysis of different ESG related aspects. Moreover, indications for a relation between changes in reporting and real events, especially negative media presence, are detected. Regulatory bodies have to be aware of the use of such words and how they are used.     

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.