ESG schafft Ren­dite für jene, die sich nicht da­ran halten (müssen)

Vorletzte Woche habe ich mich in meinem Podcast kritisch mit der Geldanlage nach ESG-Kriterien ausgesprochen. Wie üblich gab es dazu auch einiges Feedback, auf das ich morgen eingehen werde. Ein Aspekt in dem Zusammenhang ist die Frage nach der Wirkung der Maßnahme. Die gute Nachricht: Wer sich nicht an die Regeln halten muss, wird dafür belohnt. Meint auch die FINANCIAL TIMES (FT):

• “A single phrase sums up the appeal of environmental, social and governance investing: ‘doing well by doing good’. ESG strategies, we are told, promote the greater good and provide superior long-term financial performance.” – bto: Und dabei wird dann gern vergessen, dass in den ESG-Indizes die FAANGs dominieren.
• “There are good reasons for investors to own portfolios that align with their values. This supposed win-win proposition is not one of them however. Not only is the evidence that ESG outperforms over long periods inconclusive; the win-win argument doesn’t even make sense.” – bto: Und wieso sollte es auch? Es ist doch so, dass durch eine bewusste Manipulation der Preise Opportunitäten entstehen für jene, die sich nicht daran halten müssen.
• “It is true that at some point in the indefinite future, the social good and financial interests must converge. (…) But that is not the time horizon individual investors operate over (they might have just 20 years between acquiring significant assets to invest and retiring). And it is far beyond any corporation’s planning horizon.” – bto: Hier ist die Lösung einfach. Man muss darin investieren, was auf den Zeithorizont outperformed.
• “There are two ways investments outperform: either they generate greater than expected cash flows over time (growth), or they are bought at a cheap price (value). Putting aside the question of growth, to argue that (say) a carbon, tobacco, and gun-heavy portfolio cannot outperform over the long term is to argue that it will never be bought cheap.” – bto: Und hier wird es interessant. Die Befürworter von ESG-Investment sagen, dass die negativen Cashflow-Wirkungen so erheblich sein werden, dass die heutigen Preise viel zu hoch sind und es deshalb der ESG-Regeln braucht, damit Investoren sich nicht irren.
• “But of course it is the goal of the ESG movement to push investors away from ‘wicked’ portfolios — making their prices cheap, and setting them up to outperform ‘virtuous’ portfolios over time! The win-win pitch is a fallacy. Sometimes investors have to choose between their values and their pocket books.” – bto: Genauso ist es.
• “Since its inception in late 2018, for example, Vanguard’s US ESG exchange traded fund return of 28 per cent has whipped its broad-market ETF’s 17 per cent. Look, however, at the holdings of the ESG fund. The top seven holdings, accounting for a quarter of the funds’ value, are Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Google and Tesla. Tech has led the market this year. But has ESG, really? And if tech stocks become overpriced and their prices crash, does that mean ESG is suddenly a bad strategy?” – bto: Es würde zumindest einige Fragen aufwerfen.
• “At best, companies with strong ESG credentials represent a certain set of investment attributes — a ‘factor’ similar to company size, stock momentum, or profit growth. (…) a rigid commitment to any such factor is a formula for weak returns. I learnt this to my sorrow in the years following the great financial crisis. In the years leading up to 2009 I worked at a value-driven investment fund. It bought cheap stocks, followed tight risk controls, and did well — especially, in relative terms, during the crisis itself. So for years thereafter I avoided expensive growth stocks and kept my exposure low. But while my approach stayed the same, the market had shifted to favour growth. I made terrible returns and am poorer for it.” – bto: Seit nunmehr 20 Jahren underperformen die billigen Aktien. Wobei es da – wie immer – auch Rechnungen gibt, die zeigen, dass das so absolut nicht stimmt und es nur daran liegt, dass Growth durch das billige Geld und die natürlichen Monopole, die die FAANGs (zum Teil) ausgebildet haben, ungewöhnlich stark gelaufen ist).
• “(…) there is no particular reason, logical or factual, to expect that the strong relative performance currently enjoyed by the ESG “factor” should be a permanent feature of the market. (…) It means only that they should not think of this as a wealth maximising strategy. Indeed, accepting the possibility of lower returns in return for the promise of positive social outcomes, such as a healthier environment or less poverty, can make a positive impact by putting resources to work where an ‘efficient’ market would not, providing subsidised capital to projects that are very risky but could have a big upside for society.” – bto: Das entspricht aber irgendwie nicht dem, was die Befürworter der ESG-Logik sagen. Denn die werben mit besseren Returns, weil man Schäden verhindert bzw. von diesen nicht überrascht wird.
• Womit wir zum Fazit kommen: “It only helps fund managers sell products and companies (…).”

→ ft.com (Anmeldung erforderlich): „The fallacy of ESG investing“, 23. Oktober 2020