Get Indexology® Blog updates via email.

In This List

ESG Investment – A Strategy for Long-Term Value Creation

SRI Community Stands Together

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Base Metals Beat Precious Metals By Most In 26 Years

The Turning Point

ESG Investment – A Strategy for Long-Term Value Creation

Contributor Image
Ved Malla

Associate Director, Client Coverage

S&P Dow Jones Indices

In the past few years, there has been a paradigm shift in the investment strategy adopted by market participants, wherein they are shifting from a strategy of short-term gain to one of long-term value creation.  Traditionally, market participants have considered publically available records like balance sheets, income statements, and annual reports to analyze the long-term value proposition of companies.  However, they have started to give importance to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) aspects when assessing companies’ long-term strategy for wealth creation.  Globally, ESG factors are considered a mainstream investment strategy.  Market participants now believe that the long-term financial sustainability and value creation of a company are dependent on how a company manages its ESG aspects in the long run.

Let us now discuss the components of ESG individually.

  • Environmental criteria analyze companies based on their policy on green technologies, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, renewable or alternate energy sources, waste management, pollution control, water management, natural resource conservation, deforestation, Risks associated with these environmental aspects are looked into, and the company’s management of these risks is assessed.
  • Social criteria look at company policies regarding social factors like consumer protection, human rights, working conditions, health and safety measures, employee relations and diversity, etc. The nature of the business is also considered, as many market participants avoid businesses involved in alcohol, tobacco products, gambling, pornography, military, weapons, fossil fuels, and other industries they may not consider socially acceptable.
  • Governance criteria look at transparency in accounting methods, board independence, bribery, corruption, political party donations, executive compensation, disclosures under various regulations, rights of minority shareholders, etc.

ESG investments have matured globally, and many fund managers are tracking various ESG indices like the S&P 500® ESG Index, S&P Global 1200 ESG Index, etc.  Passive fund managers use ETFs or structured products that track an ESG index.  On the other hand, active fund managers depend on ESG scores to make active investment bets.  S&P Dow Jones Indices has partnered with RobecoSAM, a global specialist in sustainability investing, to provide ESG scores.

ESG investing in India is a new concept.  Some banks have issued green bonds that have been well received by market participants.  In the equity space, S&P BSE Indices has two indices in the sustainable investment space—the S&P BSE CARBONEX and S&P BSE GREENEX.  Traditionally, Indian companies have poor ESG disclosures compared with their global peers.  In recent years, some global market participants have pulled their investment from Indian companies because they did not comply with the international ESG standard benchmark.  However, this is undergoing a change, and both corporates and market participants have started to accept the importance of ESG factors in doing business.

ESG investing in India is expected to evolve and align itself with global market trends.  This shift is expected to gain momentum in the next few years in India, and more market participants will likely integrate ESG aspects into mainstream investment decisions, with the ultimate goal of long-term value creation.

The posts on this blog are opinions, not advice. Please read our Disclaimers.

SRI Community Stands Together

Contributor Image
Kelly Tang

Former Director

Global Research & Design

The SRI (Sustainable, Responsible, Impact Investing) conference took place recently in Denver, and it is a three-day conference that brings together asset owners, asset managers, and other investment professionals in the ESG, shareowner advocacy, and impact investing space. The conference is in its 27th year, and given that the conference took place in mid-November—right after the U.S. election results—a great deal of discussion centered on what will become of U.S. climate change policy under a Trump presidency.

The greatest concern was targeted on what the new administration will do in regard to the U.S. climate pledge made by the Obama administration at the COP 21 Paris agreement in December 2015 (see Exhibit 1). During his campaign, President-elect Trump had labeled climate change to be a hoax and vowed to undo the Paris agreement and back out of the USD 100 billion global climate fund to help poorer nations with climate change transition. However, in recent, post-election interviews, he has conceded that there is some connection between human activity and climate change and pledged to have an open mind toward the Paris agreement.

capture

Should the Trump administration ultimately decide to withdraw from the Paris agreement, there are a few different avenues to do so, and they can be pursued simultaneously. While the president cannot unilaterally cancel the Paris deal, he could begin the lengthy process of officially withdrawing the U.S. from the agreement, which is officially already in effect. The lengthiest option is the official withdrawal, which mandates that a country must wait three years to pull out, and once it makes that decision, it must wait another year to actually do so.

Option two would be to withdraw from the parent agreement, called the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which has been in effect for 22 years. That agreement allows countries to withdraw with one year’s notice, automatically withdrawing them from any deals that are a subset of the UNFCCC, including the Paris accord. Option three would be easier and faster, but it would require the issuance of an executive order requesting the U.S. Senate to ratify the deal, which it is unlikely to do so.

Given that the new president-elect is moderating his viewpoints from some of the more controversial and polemic comments made during the campaign, what the new administration’s energy policy will shape up to be is a guessing game. For me, the lasting and most salient takeaway from the SRI conference was that the SRI community and its participants represent a formidable proponent who will continue to take action on climate change regardless of government administrations and differing policies. Some of the large asset managers have already joined the 360+ signatories of a new letter at lowcarbonusa.org calling on Trump for continued participation in the Paris agreement. In my next post, I will discuss how the SRI community has mobilized and become a powerful force to reckon with.

The posts on this blog are opinions, not advice. Please read our Disclaimers.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Contributor Image
Fei Mei Chan

Director, Index Investment Strategy

S&P Dow Jones Indices

This coming Sunday, December 4, 2016, a constitutional referendum will take place and the citizens of Italy will decide on a proposal by Prime Minister Matteo Renzi that, if passed, would mean major changes to Italy’s legislative system. The Prime Minister has stated his intent to resign if the “No” camp triumphs. The political stakes were nicely outlined in an article that appeared in today’s Wall Street Journal. On the same day, Austria will also be electing a new president. That it’s a presidential election rerun is only one indication of the political polarity there as well.

Political turmoil has been common in 2016 and we’ve seen how it has played out in market dynamics when the Brexit referendum and the U.S. presidential election took place. More elections are coming for countries in the Eurozone following those in Austria and Italy, notably the French presidential election. We often look at dispersion to understand better the dynamics of market volatility. The graph below charts the ratio of dispersion at the country level versus dispersion at the sector level for the S&P Eurozone BMI.

More often than not, country dispersion has been lower than sector dispersion, i.e., what you do matters more than where you are…and that continues to be the case for companies in the S&P Eurozone BMI. Despite all the heightened geopolitical drama in the Eurozone it has not translated to heightened risk levels in equity markets. This is corroborated by the muted volatility as indicated by the Euro STOXX 50® Volatility index. It seems the market, at least, doesn’t anticipate traumatic results.

plus-ca-change-plus-cest-la-meme-chose

plus-ca-change-plus-cest-la-meme-chose2

The posts on this blog are opinions, not advice. Please read our Disclaimers.

Base Metals Beat Precious Metals By Most In 26 Years

Contributor Image
Jodie Gunzberg

Former Managing Director, Head of U.S. Equities

S&P Dow Jones Indices

November was sandwiched between two eventful surprises, starting with the election and ending with OPEC’s agreement to cut output, that resulted in a month filled with big moves, mostly positive.  The Dow Jones Commodity Index (DJCI) Total Return for the month was 2.3%, bringing its year-to-date (YTD) total return to 11.8%.  The S&P GSCI Total Return for the month was 2.6%, bringing its YTD total return to 6.4%, on pace for its best year since 2009 and its first positive year since 2012.

Inside the S&P GSCI Total Return, 14 of 24 commodities were positive in November with the S&P GSCI Copper Total Return gaining 20.0%, its 7th best month in history since 1977 and its best month since April 2006.  One more single commodity that had a remarkably strong month is the S&P GSCI Feeder Cattle Total Return gaining 10.8%, marking its 3rd best month in history since 2002 and its best month since June 2011.   Also, the S&P GSCI Crude Oil Total Return gained 9.3% on the last day of November, posting its 14th best day ever since Jan. 2, 1987 and best day since Feb. 12, 2016. The S&P GSCI Cocoa Total Return lost 11.9% in November, making it the worst single commodity for the month.  Though gold was not the worst single commodity in November, the S&P GSCI Gold Total Return lost 8.0% that was its 18th worst month and worst month since June 2013.  

On a sector level, 3 of 5 were positive in November with the S&P GSCI Industrial Metals Total Return gaining 10.4% and the S&P GSCI Precious Metals Total Return losing 8.0%.  This is the greatest outperformance of industrial metals over precious metals in over 26 years, since March 1990.

Source: S&P SOw Jones Indices.
Source: S&P SOw Jones Indices.

Interestingly, the last time the premium was as big in 1990, oil saw one of its biggest spikes in history that marked a bottom from oil.  While oil had as big as a spike this past Feb. that marked the bottom, these two spikes in the context of history happened relatively close together. While the S&P GSCI Total Return is recovered 26.5% from its bottom earlier this year, past recoveries have had much greater returns. For example the recovery in 1990, returned about 300%.

One concern remains about aggregate demand that would need to drive a true bull market for commodities.  The rise in copper alone does not necessarily indicate an economic recovery, but grains and gas tend to do well with Republican presidencies that can drive inflation.  It is possible that inflation from commodities may not coincide with gdp growth but if there is an increase in infrastructure growth that creates jobs then both copper and growth may rise.  The OPEC cut might mask sluggish demand in its price formation and also many miners have already cut spending that may be behind this spike in industrial metals.  From this it is possible supply is still the driving force in this recovery and whether it continues may hinge on demand in conjunction with macro factors like interest rates and the dollar.

The posts on this blog are opinions, not advice. Please read our Disclaimers.

The Turning Point

Contributor Image
David Blitzer

Former Managing Director and Chairman of the Index Committee

S&P Dow Jones Indices

Thirty-five years ago on September 30, 1981 the 10 Year treasury yield peaked at 15.85%.  With a few bumps it has slid downward ever since – until now. The events of the last few weeks moved interest rates higher and added about 25 bp to the ten year treasury.  Even allowing for some near-term volatility it is increasingly likely that the low yield of 1.36% set on July 8, 2016 is the low.

The chart shows the pattern of yields going back 46 years for the Fed funds rate, T-bills, the ten year Treasury note and long maturity treasury bonds. The long maturity combines the yields on the 20 and 30 year treasuries because the government shifted the maturities of issues over time.

Why It Looks Like Up from Here:

Economic growth increases the demand for credit and puts upward pressure on interest rates. The US economy is growing. Third quarter GDP was 3.2%, the strongest figure in two years.  Major GDP components except for government were significant contributors to growth.  Other economic statistics also point to growth: with an unemployment rate of 5% the economy is close to full employment, housing sales and starts are gathering strength and consumer confidence points to further spending gains.  These trends point to a rise in inflation and interest rates.

The economy will get a boost from the new administration’s widely discussed trillion dollar infrastructure program.  Since current taxes do not cover current spending, the infrastructure program will be funded with debt.  Any tax cuts will add to government borrowing and put further upward pressure on interest rates.

One immediate factor raising interest rates is oil. Follow the announcement yesterday of an agreement within OPEC to lower product, both oil prices and bond yields have jumped. Oil prices drive inflation and bond yields. However, the last few years proved that oil prices are volatile and unpredictable –the OPEC agreement could vanish and send oil back down to the 30s.

Higher inflation would mean higher interest rates. Despite the sense that inflation is almost zero, the numbers say otherwise and could go higher still. The CPI core rate – excluding the volatile food and energy sectors is about 2.2% for 2016 compared to 1.5% in 2013-14.  The headline CPI has been held down by low oil prices; as this reverses due to the OPEC supply reduction agreement, headline inflation will climb above the core rate.

The last reason to expect higher inflation may be the first: The Fed. The central bank’s policy makers – the FOMC – will meet on December 14th.  The committee is expected to raise the fed funds target by 25 bp. Moreover, if the economy continues to grow and government policy stays on track, there will be more Fed actions and higher yields in 2017.

A return to the double digit yields seen in the 1980s is not likely.  Those were caused by high inflation, global oil embargos and wide-spread expectations that neither inflation nor interest rates would ever fall. It took two recessions, a 10.7% unemployment rate and a lot of economic pain to bring interest rates down and give us a 35 year bond rally.

The posts on this blog are opinions, not advice. Please read our Disclaimers.