Is ESG outperformance a ripple or a wave?

Equities 8 minutes to read
PG
Peter Garnry

Head of Equity Strategy

Summary:  ESG strategies are expected to consume a third of global assets under management by 2025 and investors are buying the projection with eager, but also underpinned by promises of outperformance from doing good. Passive ESG indices show little outperformance, with the majority being explained by overweight the technology sector, and many active ESG strategies do not offer an unique source of outperformance when adjusting for standard factors and sectors. In addition to these findings ESG is lacking a proper standard and biases towards large companies.


ESG (environmental, social, and governance) is on everyone’s lips these days in financial markets with some analyses expecting assets under ESG mandates to hit $53trn by 2025, a third of global asset under management (AUM), making it a powerful trend. One of the biggest issues of ESG is the lack of an industry standard on how to define it and especially for companies with very long value chains such as an ESG darling such as Tesla. However, the world’s largest index provider on equities, MSCI Inc., is trying to create a rules-based framework for ESG. has In this analysis we take a look at ESG performance to see whether it drives real outperformance or it should be seen more as a hygiene factor for investors and especially large pension funds.

Source: MSCI

A ripple or a wave?

The largest ESG ETF on the MSCI World Index is the iShares MSCI World ESG Enhanced UCITS ETF with $1.77bn in AUM and was launched on 16 April 2019 and tracks the MSCI World ESG Enhanced Focus Index. This index is designed to maximize exposure to positive environmental, social, and governance factors. The chart below shows the difference between this ESG enhanced index and the traditional MSCI World Index. Over this nine year period the ESG enhanced index has delivered 0.4%-pts annualized outperformance which is such a small difference that investors investing in this passive index are not doing it for the returns but for the signaling value to their clients or own conscience.

When we look at the outperformance the majority of the outperformance has come since early 2020, which has coincided with information technology outperforming global equities. Not surprisingly, most ESG indices have an overweight on technology companies because they are estimated to have a lower carbon emission footprint.

In a recent EDHEC Scientific Beta paper Bruno et. al. find no evidence supporting the claims that active ESG strategies generate outperformance. The authors analyze 12 different ESG strategies and as soon as returns are adjusted for standard factors and sectors then the outperformance disappears and can mostly be explained by standard quality factors which can mechanically be derived from balance sheet figures. The authors also show that the increased awareness of ESG and subsequent inflows into ESG funds explain some of the outperformance; in essence the dog chasing its own tail.

The fact that ESG does not deliver a unique source of outperformance does not mean that ESG does not add value to investors. As said it is valid value if it aligns investments more with the general public’s views on ESG and thus this hygiene filter as a business purpose.

Alphabet as an ESG example

One of the stocks that constantly have a high weight in most ESG funds is Alphabet (Google’s parent company) and since Alphabet has done well over the years it has added to performance. When we look at the ESG ratings in the Bloomberg terminal several things stand out. The different ESG scores vary greatly as they all have different methodology and emphasizes different things. The MSCI rating is BBB which means Alphabet is average while S&P Global ESG Rank is 96 (0-100 scale) ranking it at the very top. In other words, if investors rely on a single ESG score they will likely miss something.

Another striking observation is Bloomberg’s GHG/revenue ratio which basically rewards companies for generating the most business activity with the least greenhouse gasses emitted. The problem with this score is that it rewards large companies as these enjoy economics of scale that is larger than smaller companies and thus on average will have a tendency to score better on this metric.

Under governance it is also striking that Alphabet’s dual share class structure is not part of the governance rating. Many technology companies which are overweight in ESG funds come with dual share class (Alphabet, Facebook etc.) to ensure majority control for the founders. But this in effect creates large companies with little opportunity for external pressure and limits the board’s power. Should we prefer single class share companies over dual class in an ESG centric world?

Source: Bloomberg

The AUM capacity dilemma

Another dilemma in ESG investing is that the current methodologies applied by the various rating firms favour large over smaller companies as they rely on ESG reports and other disclosure reports, which are costly and cannot easily be justified by smaller companies. Another intrinsic bias among rating companies to favour large companies over smaller is that it makes it possible to create indices with high liquidity and AUM capacity, which is essential if you want the ESG index mandate from the big asset management firms such as Vanguard and BlackRock. According to MSCI, they recognize the size bias, but also says that it has been declining over the years.

Disclaimer

The Saxo Bank Group entities each provide execution-only service and access to Analysis permitting a person to view and/or use content available on or via the website. This content is not intended to and does not change or expand on the execution-only service. Such access and use are at all times subject to (i) The Terms of Use; (ii) Full Disclaimer; (iii) The Risk Warning; (iv) the Rules of Engagement and (v) Notices applying to Saxo News & Research and/or its content in addition (where relevant) to the terms governing the use of hyperlinks on the website of a member of the Saxo Bank Group by which access to Saxo News & Research is gained. Such content is therefore provided as no more than information. In particular no advice is intended to be provided or to be relied on as provided nor endorsed by any Saxo Bank Group entity; nor is it to be construed as solicitation or an incentive provided to subscribe for or sell or purchase any financial instrument. All trading or investments you make must be pursuant to your own unprompted and informed self-directed decision. As such no Saxo Bank Group entity will have or be liable for any losses that you may sustain as a result of any investment decision made in reliance on information which is available on Saxo News & Research or as a result of the use of the Saxo News & Research. Orders given and trades effected are deemed intended to be given or effected for the account of the customer with the Saxo Bank Group entity operating in the jurisdiction in which the customer resides and/or with whom the customer opened and maintains his/her trading account. Saxo News & Research does not contain (and should not be construed as containing) financial, investment, tax or trading advice or advice of any sort offered, recommended or endorsed by Saxo Bank Group and should not be construed as a record of our trading prices, or as an offer, incentive or solicitation for the subscription, sale or purchase in any financial instrument. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, would be considered as a marketing communication under relevant laws.

Please read our disclaimers:
Notification on Non-Independent Investment Research (https://www.home.saxo/legal/niird/notification)
Full disclaimer (https://www.home.saxo/legal/disclaimer/saxo-disclaimer)
Full disclaimer (https://www.home.saxo/legal/saxoselect-disclaimer/disclaimer)

Saxo Bank (Schweiz) AG
Beethovenstrasse 33
CH-8002
Zurich
Switzerland

Contact Saxo

Select region

Switzerland
Switzerland

All trading carries risk. Losses can exceed deposits on margin products. You should consider whether you understand how our products work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money. To help you understand the risks involved, we have put together a general Risk Warning and a series of Key Information Documents (KIDs) highlighting the risks and rewards related to each product. The KIDs can be accessed here or within the trading platform. Please note that the full prospectus can be obtained free of charge from Saxo Bank (Switzerland) ltd. or the issuer.

This website can be accessed worldwide however the information on the website is related to Saxo Bank (Switzerland) Ltd. All clients will directly engage with Saxo Bank (Switzerland) Ltd. and all client agreements will be entered into with Saxo Bank (Switzerland) Ltd. and thus governed by Swiss Law.

The content of this website represents marketing material and has not been notified or submitted to any supervisory authority.

If you contact Saxo Bank (Switzerland) Ltd. or visit this website, you acknowledge and agree that any data that you transmit to Saxo Bank (Switzerland) Ltd., either through this website, by telephone or by any other means of communication (e.g. e-mail), may be collected or recorded and transferred to other Saxo Bank Group companies or third parties in Switzerland or abroad and may be stored or otherwise processed by them or Saxo Bank (Switzerland) Ltd. You release Saxo Bank (Switzerland) Ltd. from its obligations under Swiss banking and securities dealer secrecies and, to the extent permitted by law, data protection laws as well as other laws and obligations to protect privacy. Saxo Bank (Switzerland) Ltd. has implemented appropriate technical and organizational measures to protect data from unauthorized processing and disclosure and applies appropriate safeguards to guarantee adequate protection of such data.

Apple, iPad and iPhone are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. App Store is a service mark of Apple Inc.