Dataset Information

Performance measurement of ESG-themed megatrend investments in global equity markets using pure factor portfolios methodology.

ABSTRACT: ESG factors are becoming mainstream in portfolio investment strategies, attracting increasing fund inflows from investors who are aligning their investment values to Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) declared by the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investments. Do investors sacrifice return for pursuing ESG-aligned megatrend goals? The study analyses the risk-adjusted financial performance of ESG-themed megatrend investment strategies in global equity markets. The analysis covers nine themes for the period 2015-2019: environmental megatrends covering energy efficiency, food security, and water scarcity; social megatrends covering ageing, millennials, and urbanisation; governance megatrends covered by cybersecurity, disruptive technologies, and robotics. We construct megatrend factor portfolios based on signalling theory and formulate a novel measure for stock megatrend exposure (MTE), based on the relative fund flows into the corresponding thematic ETFs. We apply pure factor portfolios methodology based on constrained WLS cross-sectional regressions to calculate Fama-French factor returns. Time-series regression rests on the generalised method of moments estimator (GMM) that uses robust distance instruments. Our findings show that each environmental megatrend, as well as the disruptive technologies megatrend, yielded positive and significant alphas relative to the passive strategy, although this outperformance becomes statistically insignificant in the Fama-French 5-factor model context. The important result is that most of the megatrend factor portfolios yielded significant non-negative alphas; which supports our assumption that megatrend investing strategy promotes SDGs while not sacrificing returns, even when accounting for transaction costs up to 50bps/annum. Higher transaction costs, as is the case for some of these ETFs with expense ratios reaching 80-100bps, may be an indication of two things: ESG-themed megatrend investors were willing to sacrifice ca. 30-50bps of annual return to remain aligned with sustainability targets, or that expense ratio may well decline in the future.

SUBMITTER: Naffa H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7755284 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Performance measurement of ESG-themed megatrend investments in global equity markets using pure factor portfolios methodology.

Naffa Helena H Fain Máté M

PloS one 20201222 12

ESG factors are becoming mainstream in portfolio investment strategies, attracting increasing fund inflows from investors who are aligning their investment values to Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) declared by the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investments. Do investors sacrifice return for pursuing ESG-aligned megatrend goals? The study analyses the risk-adjusted financial performance of ESG-themed megatrend investment strategies in global equity markets. The analysis covers nine ...[more]

PMID: 33351834

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMillions of dollars are invested annually under the umbrella of national health systems strengthening. Global health initiatives provide funding for low- and middle-income countries through disease-oriented programmes while maintaining that the interventions simultaneously strengthen systems. However, it is as yet unclear which, and to what extent, system-level interventions are being funded by these initiatives, nor is it clear how much funding they allocate to disease-specific activities - through conventional 'vertical-programming' approach. Such funding can be channelled to one or more of the health system building blocks while targeting disease(s) or explicitly to system-wide activities.MethodsWe operationalized the World Health Organization health system framework of the six building blocks to conduct a detailed assessment of Global Fund health system investments. Our application of this framework framework provides a comprehensive quantification of system-level interventions. We applied this systematically to a random subset of 52 of the 139 grants funded in Round 8 of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (totalling approximately US$1 billion).ResultsAccording to the analysis, 37% (US$ 362 million) of the Global Fund Round 8 funding was allocated to health systems strengthening. Of that, 38% (US$ 139 million) was for generic system-level interventions, rather than disease-specific system support. Around 82% of health systems strengthening funding (US$ 296 million) was allocated to service delivery, human resources, and medicines & technology, and within each of these to two to three interventions. Governance, financing, and information building blocks received relatively low funding.ConclusionsThis study shows that a substantial portion of Global Fund's Round 8 funds was devoted to health systems strengthening. Dramatic skewing among the health system building blocks suggests opportunities for more balanced investments with regard to governance, financing, and information system related interventions. There is also a need for agreement, by researchers, recipients, and donors, on keystone interventions that have the greatest system-level impacts for the cost-effective use of funds. Effective health system strengthening depends on inter-agency collaboration and country commitment along with concerted partnership among all the stakeholders working in the health system.

Project description:While widespread lip service is given in the UK to the social determinants of health (SDoH), there are few published comparisons of how the UK's devolved jurisdictions 'stack up', in terms of implementing SDoH-based policies and programmes, to improve health equity over the life-course. Based on recent SDoH publications, seven key societal-level investments are suggested, across the life-course, for increasing health equity by socioeconomic position (SEP). We present hard-to-find comparable analyses of routinely collected data to gauge the relative extent to which these investments have been pursued and achieved expected goals in Scotland, as compared with England and Wales, in recent decades. Despite Scotland's longstanding explicit goal of reducing health inequalities, it has recently been doing slightly better than England and Wales on only one broad indicator of health-equity-related investments: childhood poverty. However, on the following indicators of other 'best investments for health equity', Scotland has not achieved demonstrably more equitable outcomes by SEP than the rest of the UK: infant mortality and teenage pregnancy rates; early childhood education implementation; standardised educational attainment after primary/secondary school; health care system access and performance; protection of the population from potentially hazardous patterns of food, drink and gambling use; unemployment. Although Scotland did not choose independence on September 18th, 2014, it could still (under the planned increased devolution of powers from Westminster) choose to increase investments in the underperforming categories of interventions for health equity listed above. However, such discussion is largely absent from the current post-referendum debate. Without further significant investments in such policies and programmes, Scotland is unlikely to achieve the 'healthier, fairer society' referred to in the current Scottish Government's official aspirations for the nation.

Project description:International collaborations have become the standard model for global health research and often include researchers and institutions from high income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While such collaborations are important for generating new knowledge that will help address global health inequities, there is evidence to suggest that current forms of collaboration may reproduce unequal power relations. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study with scientists, researchers and those involved in research management, working in international health collaborations. Interviews were conducted between October 2019 and March 2020. We conducted 13 interviews with 15 participants. From our findings, we derive three major themes. First, our results reflect characteristics of equitable, collaborative research relationships. Here we find both relational features, specifically trust and belonging, and structural features, including clear contractual agreements, capacity building, inclusive divisions of labour, and the involvement of local communities. Second, we discuss obstacles to develop equitable collaborations. These include exclusionary labour practices, donor-driven research agendas, overall research culture, lack of accountability and finally, the inadequate financing of indirect costs for LMIC institutions. Third, we discuss the responsibilities for promoting science equity of funders, LMIC researchers, LMIC institutions, and LMIC governments. While other empirical studies have suggested similar features of equity, our findings extend these features to include local communities as collaborators in research projects and not only as beneficiaries. We also suggest the importance of funders paying for indirect costs, without which the capacity of LMIC institutions will continually erode. And finally, our study shows the responsibilities of LMIC actors in developing equitable collaborations, which have largely been absent from the literature.

Dataset Information

Performance measurement of ESG-themed megatrend investments in global equity markets using pure factor portfolios methodology.

Publications

Performance measurement of ESG-themed megatrend investments in global equity markets using pure factor portfolios methodology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure