Why The Sustainable Investment Craze Is Flawed
Kanebridge News
    HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $1,638,545 (+0.82%)       Melbourne $1,023,679 (+1.75%)       Brisbane $1,038,818 (+0.18%)       Adelaide $951,068 (+0.69%)       Perth $923,390 (-0.21%)       Hobart $759,192 (-0.42%)       Darwin $769,355 (-0.10%)       Canberra $964,485 (-0.83%)       National $1,074,245 (+0.50%)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $777,604 (+1.00%)       Melbourne $478,404 (+0.18%)       Brisbane $668,589 (+0.89%)       Adelaide $498,047 (-0.58%)       Perth $519,492 (+1.90%)       Hobart $528,197 (-0.03%)       Darwin $378,865 (-1.17%)       Canberra $494,950 (+0.08%)       National $567,655 (+0.60%)                HOUSES FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 11,855 (+190)       Melbourne 14,114 (-991)       Brisbane 8,271 (+242)       Adelaide 2,797 (+147)       Perth 7,549 (+147)       Hobart 1,213 (+7)       Darwin 181 (-4)       Canberra 1,228 (+25)       National 47,208 (-237)                UNITS FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 9,100 (+118)       Melbourne 6,842 (-31)       Brisbane 1,703 (+24)       Adelaide 418 (+32)       Perth 1,696 (+19)       Hobart 245 (+15)       Darwin 279 (+8)       Canberra 1,140 (-4)       National 21,423 (+181)                HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $800 ($0)       Melbourne $590 ($0)       Brisbane $650 ($0)       Adelaide $620 ($0)       Perth $695 (-$5)       Hobart $555 (-$15)       Darwin $780 (+$20)       Canberra $700 ($0)       National $684 (+$1)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $750 ($0)       Melbourne $600 ($0)       Brisbane $650 (+$5)       Adelaide $525 (+$25)       Perth $650 ($0)       Hobart $480 (-$13)       Darwin $570 (+$5)       Canberra $570 (-$10)       National $610 (+$1)                HOUSES FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 6,415 (-92)       Melbourne 8,122 (-49)       Brisbane 4,023 (-50)       Adelaide 1,424 (-45)       Perth 2,128 (-99)       Hobart 232 (+21)       Darwin 103 (-17)       Canberra 559 (-41)       National 23,006 (-372)                UNITS FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 9,115 (-492)       Melbourne 6,656 (-238)       Brisbane 2,047 (-142)       Adelaide 349 (-56)       Perth 639 (-48)       Hobart 107 (+5)       Darwin 178 (-21)       Canberra 550 (-3)       National 19,641 (-995)                HOUSE ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND         Sydney 2.54% (↓)       Melbourne 3.00% (↓)       Brisbane 3.25% (↓)       Adelaide 3.39% (↓)       Perth 3.91% (↓)       Hobart 3.80% (↓)     Darwin 5.27% (↑)      Canberra 3.77% (↑)        National 3.31% (↓)            UNIT ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND         Sydney 5.02% (↓)       Melbourne 6.52% (↓)       Brisbane 5.06% (↓)     Adelaide 5.48% (↑)        Perth 6.51% (↓)       Hobart 4.73% (↓)     Darwin 7.82% (↑)        Canberra 5.99% (↓)       National 5.58% (↓)            HOUSE RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 2.0% (↑)      Melbourne 1.9% (↑)      Brisbane 1.4% (↑)      Adelaide 1.3% (↑)      Perth 1.2% (↑)      Hobart 1.0% (↑)      Darwin 1.6% (↑)      Canberra 2.7% (↑)      National 1.7% (↑)             UNIT RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 2.4% (↑)      Melbourne 3.8% (↑)      Brisbane 2.0% (↑)      Adelaide 1.1% (↑)      Perth 0.9% (↑)      Hobart 1.4% (↑)      Darwin 2.8% (↑)      Canberra 2.9% (↑)      National 2.2% (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL HOUSES AND TREND         Sydney 29.5 (↓)       Melbourne 31.6 (↓)       Brisbane 31.5 (↓)       Adelaide 26.2 (↓)       Perth 41.1 (↓)       Hobart 33.2 (↓)       Darwin 24.8 (↓)       Canberra 32.7 (↓)       National 31.3 (↓)            AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL UNITS AND TREND         Sydney 25.4 (↓)       Melbourne 31.6 (↓)       Brisbane 27.4 (↓)       Adelaide 23.7 (↓)       Perth 41.0 (↓)       Hobart 26.8 (↓)       Darwin 45.2 (↓)       Canberra 43.3 (↓)       National 33.0 (↓)           
Share Button

Why The Sustainable Investment Craze Is Flawed

The failed promise of funds guided by environmental, social and governance principles.

By JAMES MACKINTOSH
Mon, Jan 24, 2022 10:32amGrey Clock 5 min

The financial industry has spotted an opportunity to make money by helping people feel good about themselves. Despite claims to the contrary, these investments don’t do much to make the world a better place.

ESG funds, as they are known, promise to invest in companies with better environmental, social and governance attributes, to save the planet, improve worker conditions or, in the case of the U.S. Vegan Climate ETF, prevent animals from being eaten.

Money has poured into ESG funds as noisy lobby groups push pension funds, university endowments and some central banks to shift their investments. The United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment says signatories have $121 trillion of assets under management; even assuming lots of double-counting, that is most of the world’s managed money.

Over the next few weeks, Streetwise will explore the explosion of ESG investing and why I think it is mostly—but not completely—a waste of time. I will also offer up some solutions and discuss how to use your money to make a difference, while understanding the inevitable trade-offs.

ESG supporters can point to what look like successes: Their pressure has encouraged many companies to sell off dirty power plants, mines and, in the case of Anglo-Australian miner BHP, its oil business. It has even forced board changes at Exxon Mobil.

Sadly, selling off assets or shares by itself does nothing to save the planet, because someone else bought them. Just as much oil and coal is dug up and burned as before, under different ownership. And there are plenty of people out there to buy the assets, because never before in history has there been so much private capital operating without the public reporting requirements brought by stock markets.

Rich people who want to make the world greener could make a difference, by buying and closing dirty businesses even when they are profitable. So far, though, this hasn’t happened in any significant way. The pitch from Wall Street fund managers is the exact opposite—that by going green investors can change the world and make more money, not less.

“A lot of [clients] only really get enthusiastic if they get comfortable that they are not sacrificing return,” says Valentijn van Nieuwenhuijzen, chief investment officer at fund manager NN IP, which is being bought by Goldman Sachs.

Someone has to take a loss somewhere if fossil fuels are going to be left in the ground rather than extracted and sold. ESG investors’ hope is that the losses will fall on other people. The problem is that less environmentally-minded investors buying those shares, oil wells or power plants are absolutely not going to shut them down unless they stop being profitable.

It might make sense for an investor or company to sell out of fossil fuels early if they think the retreat from coal and oil is inevitable—indeed, that was the pitch by the activist who took on Exxon—but that is simply to invest according to a political prediction, not a way to fight climate change.

Some of the biggest sources of fossil fuels are immune to shareholder pressure anyway. Much of the world’s oil is pumped by government-controlled companies, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia. Exxon can be forced to change its approach, but the global supply of oil is still determined by OPEC, as President Biden’s appeal to the cartel to pump more to keep fuel prices down has demonstrated.

There are three big pro-ESG arguments, which sound reasonable, but have major flaws.

First, if companies treat the environment, workers, suppliers and customers better, it will be better for business. This could work where companies have missed something to boost profits, such as add solar panels on a sunny roof or create a better employee retention program. Early ESG activists plucked the low-hanging fruit here, but management has become painfully aware of changing customer and employee expectations, so there is less opportunity ahead.

Adding costs to reduce a company’s carbon footprint, or paying staff more, should only help the stock price if it also raises revenue or reduces other costs, by say generating more loyalty from carbon-conscious consumers, lowering staff turnover or improving relations with regulators.

Otherwise profits can only be maintained by passing the higher costs through into higher prices, and—unless the firm has monopoly power—eventually customers who don’t care will go elsewhere. The alternative is to reduce profits, but ESG investors are almost universally against this.

The second ESG point is that by shunning stocks or bonds of dirty companies, and embracing those of clean companies, it will direct capital away from bad things and toward good ones. After all, a lower stock price or higher borrowing cost in the bond market should make it less attractive for dirty companies to expand, and vice versa for clean companies.

In practice, there has been a very weak link between the cost of capital and overall corporate investment for at least a couple of decades. Small changes in the cost of capital pale in comparison to the risk and return projections of a new project.

That is not to say there is no link. Tesla, with extremely expensive shares, has repeatedly taken advantage of its ability to issue new stock to invest in factories and research. The high prices early last year for clean-energy stocks might have encouraged similar corporate investment. The flip side of course is that buying wildly overpriced shares isn’t a good way to make money, as losses of a third or more from this year’s peaks for clean-energy stocks shows. Shifting the cost of capital just might help save the planet, but after the short-term shift in valuations is over, it should lead to underperformance.

The third claim from some ESG investors is that they are just trying to make money, and that involves shunning firms that are taking unpriced risks with the environment, workers or customers. Since they call themselves “sustainable” or use “ESG integration,” funds doing this look very like the rest of the ESG industry. The selection principle of the most popular ESG indexes, for instance, those from MSCI, involves identifying only risks that are financially material.

I would say, sure. If you think the government is going to, say, raise fuel taxes, don’t buy manufacturers of gas-guzzlers. If you think the government will impose more restrictions on coal plants, then coal generation will be an even less attractive investment.

Equally, if you think customers will be willing to pay more for brands that cut their carbon use, by all means, bet on their shares. Just don’t fool yourself that you are making much difference to the world with your investment decision. Red-blooded capitalists chase these profits just as much as any green-minded investor. There is no need to try to persuade capitalists to have a conscience; they will do what you want if you make it profitable via customer demands or government intervention (or, if we are lucky, new technology).

There is one way that ESG investing does, sort of, work. Shareholders can push companies to stop lobbying governments in favour of fossil fuels. Conceivably this might help push customers and governments to do the things that would really make a difference.

My big concern about ESG investing is that it distracts everyone from the work that really needs to be done. Rather than vainly try to direct the flow of money to the right causes, it is simpler and far more effective to tax or regulate the things we as a society agree are bad and subsidize the things we think are good. The wonder of capitalism is that the money will then flow by itself.

Reprinted by permission of The Wall Street Journal, Copyright 2021 Dow Jones & Company. Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. Original date of publication: January 23, 2022.



MOST POPULAR
11 ACRES ROAD, KELLYVILLE, NSW

This stylish family home combines a classic palette and finishes with a flexible floorplan

35 North Street Windsor

Just 55 minutes from Sydney, make this your creative getaway located in the majestic Hawkesbury region.

Related Stories
Money
NAB’s Earnings Hit by Higher Business-Loan Impairments
By Stuart Condie 19/02/2025
Money
Tech Giants Double Down on Their Massive AI Spending
By NATE RATTNER AND JASON DEAN 07/02/2025
Money
OpenAI in Talks for Huge Investment Round Valuing It Up to $300 Billion
By BERBER JIN and DEEPA SEETHARAMAN 31/01/2025
NAB’s Earnings Hit by Higher Business-Loan Impairments

The bank posted unaudited cash earnings for the quarter of A$1.7 billion, down 2% on the average of its prior two quarters

By Stuart Condie
Wed, Feb 19, 2025 < 1 min

National Australia Bank said that higher credit impairments against business loans contributed to a small fall in its unaudited December quarter cash earnings.

NAB , which is Australia’s second-largest bank by market capitalization, on Wednesday posted unaudited cash earnings for its fiscal first quarter of 1.74 billion Australian dollars, equivalent to about US$1.11 billion.

That was down 2% on the average of its prior two fiscal quarters. NAB did not give a year-earlier comparison.

The lender said that revenue grew by 3% compared with the average of its prior two fiscal quarters. Underlying profit growth of 4% over the same period was offset by higher credit impairment charges and income tax expenses, it added.

NAB, which posted an unaudited quarterly statutory profit of A$1.70 billion, said the A$267 million credit impairment charge included A$152 million of individually assessed charges. Those were mainly against Australian businesses and unsecured retail portfolios, it said.

The individual charges were up by 54% compared with a year earlier. NAB said that it had not altered its economic assumptions and scenario weightings.

“The economic outlook is improving but cost of living and interest rate challenges persisted,” Chief Executive Andrew Irvine said. “While most customers are proving resilient, we have maintained prudent balance sheet settings.”

NAB said it had seen a small decline in net interest margin due to funding costs, lending competition and deposits, partially offset by the benefit of higher interest rates.

On Tuesday, the Reserve Bank of Australia cut the country’s cash rate for the first time since 2020 but warned against expecting subsequent near-term cuts.

NAB is still targeting full fiscal-year productivity savings of more than A$400 million, and for operating expenses to grow by less than 4.5%, Irvine said.

MOST POPULAR
11 ACRES ROAD, KELLYVILLE, NSW

This stylish family home combines a classic palette and finishes with a flexible floorplan

35 North Street Windsor

Just 55 minutes from Sydney, make this your creative getaway located in the majestic Hawkesbury region.

Related Stories
Lifestyle
Swarovski: The Christmas tradition to last a lifetime
By Robyn Willis 05/12/2024
Money
Top 5 ways to stay safe online — and avoid the holiday horror stories
By KANEBRIDGE NEWS 19/12/2024
Money
Japanese Stocks Are in the Spotlight Again. Hopes Are High for 2025.
By RESHMA KAPADIA 03/01/2025
0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop