Does Sustainable Investing Really Help the Environment?
Kanebridge News
    HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $1,526,212 (+1.41%)       Melbourne $950,600 (-0.81%)       Brisbane $848,079 (+0.39%)       Adelaide $783,680 (+0.69%)       Perth $722,301 (+0.42%)       Hobart $727,777 (-0.40%)       Darwin $644,340 (-0.88%)       Canberra $873,193 (-2.75%)       National $960,316 (+0.31%)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $711,149 (+0.79%)       Melbourne $480,050 (-0.07%)       Brisbane $471,869 (+1.52%)       Adelaide $395,455 (-0.79%)       Perth $396,215 (+0.44%)       Hobart $535,914 (-1.67%)       Darwin $365,715 (+0.11%)       Canberra $487,485 (+1.06%)       National $502,310 (+0.25%)                HOUSES FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 8,985 (+170)       Melbourne 11,869 (-124)       Brisbane 8,074 (+47)       Adelaide 2,298 (-22)       Perth 6,070 (+20)       Hobart 993 (+24)       Darwin 282 (-4)       Canberra 809 (+43)       National 39,380 (+154)                UNITS FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 7,927 (+125)       Melbourne 6,997 (+50)       Brisbane 1,822 (+3)       Adelaide 488 (+5)       Perth 1,915 (-1)       Hobart 151 (+3)       Darwin 391 (-9)       Canberra 680 (+5)       National 20,371 (+181)                HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $750 (-$20)       Melbourne $580 ($0)       Brisbane $590 (+$10)       Adelaide $570 (-$5)       Perth $600 ($0)       Hobart $550 ($0)       Darwin $700 (+$5)       Canberra $670 (+$10)       National $633 (-$1)                    UNIT MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $700 (-$20)       Melbourne $558 (+$8)       Brisbane $590 ($0)       Adelaide $458 (-$3)       Perth $550 ($0)       Hobart $450 ($0)       Darwin $550 ($0)       Canberra $540 (-$10)       National $559 (-$4)                HOUSES FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 5,224 (-134)       Melbourne 5,097 (+90)       Brisbane 3,713 (-84)       Adelaide 1,027 (-3)       Perth 1,568 (-46)       Hobart 471 (-3)       Darwin 127 (+13)       Canberra 658 (-32)       National 17,885 (-199)                UNITS FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 8,171 (-343)       Melbourne 5,447 (-170)       Brisbane 1,682 (-22)       Adelaide 329 (+3)       Perth 561 (-11)       Hobart 159 (-6)       Darwin 176 (+16)       Canberra 597 (-12)       National 17,122 (-545)                HOUSE ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND         Sydney 2.56% (↓)       Melbourne 3.17% (↓)     Brisbane 3.62% (↑)        Adelaide 3.78% (↓)       Perth 4.32% (↓)     Hobart 3.93% (↑)      Darwin 5.65% (↑)      Canberra 3.99% (↑)        National 3.43% (↓)            UNIT ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND         Sydney 5.12% (↓)       Melbourne 6.04% (↓)       Brisbane 6.50% (↓)     Adelaide 6.02% (↑)        Perth 7.22% (↓)     Hobart 4.37% (↑)      Darwin 7.82% (↑)        Canberra 5.76% (↓)       National 5.79% (↓)            HOUSE RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 1.0% (↑)      Melbourne 0.7% (↑)      Brisbane 0.8% (↑)      Adelaide 0.4% (↑)        Perth 0.4% (↓)       Hobart 1.2% (↓)     Darwin 0.5% (↑)      Canberra 1.5% (↑)      National 0.8% (↑)             UNIT RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND         Sydney 1.3% (↓)     Melbourne 1.6% (↑)      Brisbane 0.9% (↑)      Adelaide 0.5% (↑)      Perth 0.7% (↑)      Hobart 2.2% 2.0% (↑)      Darwin 1.0% (↑)        Canberra 1.7% (↓)     National 1.3% (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL HOUSES AND TREND       Sydney 27.0 (↑)        Melbourne 28.3 (↓)     Brisbane 32.3 (↑)      Adelaide 26.3 (↑)      Perth 34.9 (↑)        Hobart 33.4 (↓)     Darwin 48.7 (↑)        Canberra 27.6 (↓)     National 32.3 (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL UNITS AND TREND         Sydney 27.0 (↓)       Melbourne 29.0 (↓)     Brisbane 33.0 (↑)        Adelaide 27.5 (↓)     Perth 38.2 (↑)      Hobart 33.4 (↑)      Darwin 48.3 (↑)      Canberra 33.2 (↑)      National 33.7 (↑)            
Share Button

Does Sustainable Investing Really Help the Environment?

Experts argue whether green investing is benefitting Wall Street or the planet.

Thu, Nov 11, 2021 11:59amGrey Clock 6 min

Sustainable investing has been a wild success. For Wall Street, at least.

Mutual funds and exchange-traded funds that focus on ESG (environmental, social, and governance issues) have made a lot of money for investment firms. Investors worried about climate change, in particular, have poured money into such funds, even though the funds charge higher fees than standard funds. More money is expected to flow in. The Labor Department has proposed a rule that would make it easier for investors to buy ESG funds in their 401(k) plans.

For some investors, it is purely a financial bet on a popular sector. Many others are hoping that the billions of dollars flowing into ESG will create positive change for the environment and other causes. But whether Wall Street or Mother Nature will be the ultimate beneficiary of all of these ESG dollars is a difficult question to answer.

We asked two experts to weigh in.

Tariq Fancy, chief executive officer of the Rumie Initiative, an education-technology nonprofit, has been a critic of ESG investing since leaving his job as chief investment officer for sustainable investing at BlackRock. Mr. Fancy says that much needs to be done to address climate change and prevent environmental disasters in the future. He says he doesn’t believe that ESG investing and financial products associated with it are a real help in achieving those goals. In his writings, including an online essay in August, “The Secret Diary of a Sustainable Investor,” he argues that funds that focus on ESG issues are profitable for Wall Street—but amount to a “dangerous placebo” that doesn’t cure the planet’s problems.

Alex Edmans, professor of finance at London Business School and an adviser on responsible investing to Royal London Asset Management and other investment firms, disagrees that the investing efforts represented by ESG funds and other private-investment-based strategies are as pointless as Mr. Fancy says. Dr. Edmans says that while he sees merit in some of Mr. Fancy’s criticisms, they are more sweeping and blanket than justified.

Here are edited excerpts of their discussion, conducted by email:

WSJ:You both have been advocates of sustainable investing, though you disagree about Wall Street’s role. Overall, do you feel better about the fate of the planet now that Wall Street has carved a niche for ESG?

MR. FANCY: Unfortunately, I feel worse about it. Is ESG good for the industry? Undoubtedly yes. It presents a lucrative new opportunity to raise funds and fees. And as an added bonus, it keeps government regulation to address the climate crisis at bay through feeding us yet another narrative in which our answers are solved by the “free market” magically self-correcting.

But good for the planet? I think even Alex would agree that there is no compelling empirical evidence that ESG investing mitigates climate change. Outside of a very small minority of private, long-term funds, such as venture-capital funds that back promising technological solutions to the climate crisis, the vast majority of funds marketed as ESG and sustainable funds today—as well as the nonbinding practice of ESG integration into existing investment processes—can’t point to any real-world impact that would not have otherwise occurred.

DR. EDMANS: I feel modestly better about it. Only modestly better, because Tariq is right that divestment has a negligible effect on company behaviour. But still better, because Tariq’s essay in August ignored the key mechanism through which sustainable investing has impact—engaging with companies on ESG issues. We’ve seen such impact with upstart hedge fund Engine No. 1 getting three climate-conscious directors appointed to Exxon’s board, and this isn’t just an isolated case. Indeed, careful research shows that engagement by index fundshedge funds and investor collective-action groups creates shared value for both shareholders and society. In particular, activism on ESG issues creates shareholder value as a byproduct, and activism to enhance long-term shareholder value ends up improving ESG.

MR. FANCY: Given the scale of the challenge presented by the climate crisis, we need to stay focused on the bigger picture: The ESG industry may be developing data sets, standards, and ushering in a wave of talented young people to work with them, but these tools are clearly not being combined in the right way right now—given that ESG assets and marketing spin are increasing rapidly alongside carbon emissions, inequality and a host of problems they’re meant to do something about. Are there a few isolated areas where ESG can create win-wins? Sure. But overall, the ESG industry today consists of products that have higher fees but little or no impact and narratives that mislead the public and delay the government reforms we need.

The small wins that Alex highlights, insofar as they exist, are nowhere near sufficient to rapidly decarbonize our economy on the timeline required, which only governments can catalyze through rapidly adjusting the incentives of all the players in the system, for example through a price on carbon. I refer to ESG’s small, mainly marketing wins as “giving wheatgrass to a cancer patient.” And there is now evidence emerging that they may be a giant societal placebo that lowers the likelihood of us following expert recommendations to address the climate crisis. In that sense, the wheatgrass isn’t harmless; it’s delaying the chemotherapy that science tells us we need immediately.

If you sell people a win-win fantasy, they’re less likely to accept the truth: Fighting climate change is going to require an economic transformation that will of course 100% involve the private sector, but must be sparked by government, including through taxes and regulation, and is going to be very difficult and cost us a lot of money.

WSJ:Dr. Edmans, you seem to have more faith than Mr. Fancy in the role of investors in helping the planet.

DR. EDMANS: Tariq is correct that government intervention is key. However, it’s not either/or. Investors launching sustainable funds does not prevent government action; in contrast, doing so encourages action by shifting the so-called Overton window—the range of ideas that is currently acceptable in the political mainstream. Moreover, many investors directly call for government action. In July, investors representing over $6 trillion in assets called for a global carbon price.

MR. FANCY: The only people shifting the Overton window toward a robust response to the climate crisis are brave activists, climate scientists, climate economists and other experts who are telling us that saving the planet will involve taking sacrifices, and needs to happen quickly. The Overton window wasn’t shifted by the ESG industry; on the contrary, today it’s unfortunately being wasted by it by diverting the growing momentum for climate action into yet another dodgy free-markets-self-correct fable.

WSJ: Mr. Fancy in his August essay made the analogy that capitalism is like a basketball game: Each is a competition to score (whether points or profits), and sportsmanship happens only when it’s required under the rules. The implication is that Wall Street doesn’t really have its heart in helping the planet.

DR. EDMANS: Many ESG advocates immediately got on the defensive and started arguing why Tariq’s essay is wrong. But we should first consider the possibility that it might be right. Relying on companies/investors to do the right thing without government action is as naive as having a professional basketball league without rules or referees, but clubs writing glossy purpose statements promising to play fair.

However, the analogy is imperfect in two ways. First, basketball is a zero-sum game. One team can only win if the other loses, and so instances of sportsmanship will be limited. But, in many cases, business is a positive-sum game. Rigorous evidence shows that “sportsmanship” to your stakeholders can also benefit shareholders, so it’s in investors’ own interest to take stakeholders seriously. For example, companies that treat their employees well outperformed their peers in total shareholder returns by a range of 2.3 to 3.8 percentage points a year over a 28-year period—that’s 89 points to 184 compounded. Similar results hold for companies that deliver value to customers, the environment and material stakeholders. Second, many key ESG dimensions can’t be regulated, such as corporate culture—hence the role for investors to hold companies to account.

There are certainly institutional investors who claim that their sustainability actions are a substitute for government action, and who launch ESG products with bold claims of impact to dupe unsuspecting clients to pay fat fees for them. Tariq’s essay has a lot of value in calling them out. However, most true ESG investors don’t do this. They don’t make unsupported claims of impact; their marketing argues that ESG’s main effect is to improve long-term returns rather than change company behaviour. Investors who are late to the ESG game are suddenly jumping on the bandwagon and making a lot of noise in a desperate attempt to play catch-up. Tariq is right to expose them, just like those who promote faddish weight-loss programs should be exposed—but this doesn’t mean the entire weight-loss industry is a ruse.

MR. FANCY: There are indeed areas where small win-wins exist, and where shareholder value can be enhanced by serving all stakeholders. I used to eagerly trumpet these areas in my previous role in sustainable investing. I’ve received an avalanche of messages from people thanking me for saying something they also felt needed to be said. Yet few want to say that out loud themselves, which I understand: I couldn’t have said the same things while I was still in the industry.

I think the ESG industry has the potential to move from serving as a dangerous placebo to playing a leading role in this change, but that requires us having an open and honest debate about how to arrive at a more rigorous and honest ESG 2.0.


Chris Dixon, a partner who led the charge, says he has a ‘very long-term horizon’

Americans now think they need at least $1.25 million for retirement, a 20% increase from a year ago, according to a survey by Northwestern Mutual

Related Stories
Is China’s Economy Stabilising? Why September’s Data May Disappoint.
By RESHMA KAPADIA 29/09/2023
Frank Stella’s ‘Abra I’ to Lead at Christie’s Post-War to Present Sale
By Casey Farmer 29/09/2023
Your Online Account May Have Been Breached? Don’t Just Sit There. Do Something.
Is China’s Economy Stabilising? Why September’s Data May Disappoint.
Fri, Sep 29, 2023 2 min

China’s economic recovery isn’t gaining the momentum money managers are awaiting.

Data from China Beige Book show that the economic green shoots glimpsed in August didn’t sprout further in September. Job growth and consumer spending faltered, while orders for exports came in at the lowest level since March, according to a monthly flash survey of more than 1,300 companies the independent research firm released Thursday evening.

Consumers’ initial revenge spending after Covid restrictions eased could be waning, the results indicate, with the biggest pullbacks in food and luxury items. While travel remains a bright spot ahead of the country’s Mid-Autumn Festival, hospitality firms and chain restaurants saw a sharp decline in sales, according to the survey.

And although policy makers have shown their willingness to stabilise the property market, the data showed another month of slower sales and lower prices in both the residential and commercial sectors.

Even more troubling are the continued problems at Evergrande Group, which has scuttled a plan to restructure itself, raising the risk of a liquidation that could further destabilise the property market and hit confidence about the economy. The embattled developer said it was notified that the company’s chairman Hui Ka Yan, who is under police watch, is suspected of committing criminal offences.

Nicole Kornitzer, who manages the $750 million Buffalo International Fund (ticker: BUIIX), worries about a “recession of expectations” as confidence continues to take a hit, discouraging people and businesses from spending. Kornitzer has only a fraction of the fund’s assets in China at the moment.

Before allocating more to China, Kornitzer said, she needs to see at least a couple quarters of improvement in spending, with consumption broadening beyond travel and dining out. Signs of stabilisation in the housing market would be encouraging as well, she said.

She isn’t alone in her concern about spending. Vivian Lin Thurston, manager for William Blair’s emerging markets and China strategies, said confidence among both consumers and small- and medium-enterprises is still suffering.

“Everyone is still out and about but they don’t buy as much or buy lower-priced goods so retail sales aren’t recovering as strongly and lower-income consumers are still under pressure because their employment and income aren’t back to pre-COVID levels,” said Thurston, who just returned from a visit to China.

“A lot of small- and medium- enterprises are struggling to stay afloat and are definitely taking a wait-and-see approach on whether they can expand. A lot went out of business during Covid and aren’t back yet. So far the stimulus measures have been anemic.”

Beijing needs to do more, especially to stabilise the property sector, Thurston said. The view on the ground is that more help could come in the fourth quarter—or once the Federal Reserve is done raising rates.

The fact that the Fed is raising rates while Beijing is cutting them is already putting pressure on the renminbi. If policy makers in China wait until the Fed is done, that would alleviate one source of pressure before their fiscal stimulus adds its own.


Chris Dixon, a partner who led the charge, says he has a ‘very long-term horizon’

Americans now think they need at least $1.25 million for retirement, a 20% increase from a year ago, according to a survey by Northwestern Mutual

Related Stories
The insurance product giving Australian property buyers surety
By Corey Nugent, CEO Resilience Insurance 22/09/2023
Levels of wealth continue to rise for Australians
The Sustainable Living issue
By Kanebridge News Staff 21/09/2023
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop