Skip to main content
MENU
Subscribe
  • Subscribe
  • Account
  • LOGIN
  • Topics
    • Alternatives
    • Consultants
    • Coronavirus
    • Courts
    • Defined Contribution
    • ESG
    • ETFs
    • Hedge Funds
    • Industry Voices
    • Investing
    • Money Management
    • Opinion
    • Partner Content
    • Pension Funds
    • Private Equity
    • Real Estate
    • Russia-Ukraine War
    • SECURE Act 2.0
    • Special Reports
    • White Papers
  • Rankings & Awards
    • 1,000 Largest Retirement Plans
    • Top-Performing Managers
    • Largest Money Managers
    • DC Money Managers
    • DC Record Keepers
    • Largest Hedge Fund Managers
    • World's Largest Retirement Funds
    • Best Places to Work in Money Management
    • Excellence & Innovation Awards
    • WPS Innovation Awards
    • Eddy Awards
  • ETFs
    • Latest ETF News
    • Fund Screener
    • Education Center
    • Equities
    • Fixed Income
    • Commodities
    • Actively Managed
    • Alternatives
    • ESG Rated
  • ESG
    • Latest ESG News
    • The Institutional Investor’s Guide to ESG Investing
    • ESG Sustainability - Gaining Momentum
    • Climate Change: The Inescapable Opportunity
    • Impact Investing
    • 2022 ESG Investing Conference
    • ESG Rated ETFs
  • Defined Contribution
    • Latest DC News
    • DC Money Manager Rankings
    • DC Record Keeper Rankings
    • Innovations in DC
    • Trends in DC: Focus on Retirement Income
    • 2022 Defined Contribution East Conference
    • 2022 DC Investment Lineup Conference
  • Searches & Hires
    • Latest Searches & Hires News
    • Searches & Hires Database
    • RFPs
  • Performance Data
    • P&I Research Center
    • Earnings Tracker
    • Endowment Returns Tracker
    • Corporate Pension Contribution Tracker
    • Pension Fund Returns Tracker
    • Pension Risk Transfer Database
    • Future of Investments Research Series
    • Charts & Infographics
    • Polls
  • Careers
  • Events
    • View All Conferences
    • View All Webinars
    • 2022 Retirement Income Conference
    • 2022 Managing Pension Risk & Liabilities
    • 2022 WorldPensionSummit
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. Print
September 15, 1997 01:00 AM

PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT: ETIS, SOCIAL INVESTING 2 SIDES OF SAME COIN: VAGUE PROMISES, PAROCHIAL IDEAS CHARACTERIZE BOTH

Michael Devaney
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Reprints Print

    The growth of economically targeted investments and socially screened funds has its basis in the popular perception that the unconstrained maximization of investment returns does not serve the greater good.

    Exactly how much serving the greater good costs investors remains unanswered, but a growing contingent of social investing advocates argue that doing good need not preclude doing well.

    Some even make the counter-intuitive claim that restricting the investment universe, via social screens actually can increase risk-adjusted portfolio performance.

    Statistical studies comparing the risk-adjusted return performance of ETIs and social funds serve a useful purpose. But they also can obscure other relevant questions - do the benefits of social investing exceed the costs? Are there more efficient alternatives to social investing?

    Most empirical studies only examine the "opportunity cost" of social investing (i.e., the risk/return trade-off of social screens vis-a-vis some benchmark) and ignore the social benefits.

    The logic of efficient markets would suggest some socially conscious investors might be willing to forgo higher private returns if investments generate superior social returns. Alternatively, if the net social benefit is zero, fretting over the private risk/return trade-off between social investing and a benchmark is a waste of time.

    If social investing is to be more than an exercise in self-righteous posturing, money managers should attempt to provide investors objective evidence on "social benefits" as well as their "opportunity cost." Some might contend that those who justify substandard private returns on the basis of unsubstantiated social benefit are perpetuating a ruse on their clients. Good intentions, however noble, should not be substitute for performance.

    Much of the ambiguity surrounding social investing springs from the failure to rigorously identify its objectives. Too often, advocates defend social investing with vague homilies on social responsibility, while opponents cynically dismiss the practice even though social investing may play a prominent role in ending morally reprehensible social practices such as apartheid.

    Economic theory can shed a little light on the social investing controversy.

    Two sides of one coin

    Leaving the terminology debate to lawyers and linguists, economic theory interprets ETIs and social screens as different sides of the same social investing coin.

    Socially screened stock funds exclude equities based on a variety of criteria including companies that produce and market alcohol, tobacco, nuclear power, gambling, military hardware and products regarded as potentially harmful to the environment. In the jargon of economics, these industries are believed to generate "negative externalities" because society incurs a substantial portion of the costs associated with their production and consumption. If producers were required to bear all of the costs, these products would sell for a higher price and a smaller quantity would be produced.

    ETIs are the flip side of the coin. ETI projects are thought to generate "positive externalities," meaning a substantial portion of the benefits accrue to society at large. Even though the public benefit might be great, consumers are more concerned with maximizing private welfare. Because consumers are unable to capture public benefits, products that generate positive externalities will tend to be underproduced.

    Assessing 'externalities'

    One strategy to recoup some of the social costs of negative externality products, like tobacco and alcohol, is to impose a tax on their manufacture and sale. Similarly, products perceived to generate positive externalities, like housing and education, can be subsidized via deductions, low interest rate loans or direct cash payments.

    Rather than directly affecting product price, social investing attempts to influence the weighted average cost of capital and increase or decrease real investment opportunities. By denying funds to companies that generate negative externalities, social screens hope to increase the weighted average cost of capital and decrease new investment.

    In contrast, ETIs attempt to increase the availability of capital to projects that generate a positive externality, decrease the weighted average cost of capital, and increase the dollar amount of new investment.

    Are social screens effective? At the margin, firms probably mitigate any increase in the cost of equity by substituting alternative financing. To complicate matters, most economists would take the politically incorrect position that there is a "socially optimal" level of consumption for products like alcohol and tobacco that enhances the greater good and does not result in any negative externality. Social welfare actually would be diminished if responsible consumers were denied the occasional brandy and cigar.

    In an attempt to appeal to the broadest social spectrum, the economic impact of many social screens tends to be diffused.

    Is there any reason to presume that those who wish to avoid investing in nuclear power also abhor alcoholic beverages? Taxes might also play a role. Contributions to non-profit social advocacy groups are generally tax deductible, while the returns to social investing are taxable. Investors might achieve a more efficient social result by maximizing private returns and then donating the difference to specific advocacy groups, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, that are able to document impressive social performance.

    What is significant?

    Proponents of social screens frequently justify substandard performance by arguing the annual return differential between the benchmark and the screened portfolio is "not substantial" or "statistically insignificant."

    In most cases, annual return comparisons have statistical merit because there is the inherent presumption that investors have the option of moving in/out of the higher/lower return asset as the expected trade-off narrows and widens. Because investment screens assume negative externality stocks are forever blocked from the investment universe, they become an irrelevant intermediate alternative.

    Rather than annual returns, differences in terminal values over the investment horizon might be a more appropriate mode of comparison.

    For example, the College Retirement Equities Fund's Social Choice Account had a five-year equity return equivalent to 12.41% vs. the 13.58% return for CREF's Stock Fund equity component for the five years ended Dec. 31.

    A social investing advocate might conclude that on an annual basis, the social screen has "not substantially underperformed" the unscreened equity component (Pensions & Investments, Feb. 17). However, based on five-year averages, the terminal value of $1,000 over 20 years is $10,378 for the screened portfolio and $12,765 for the unscreened.

    Most retirees would consider the 23% difference in the terminal value "substantial."

    One redeeming feature

    Whatever criticism one might direct at social screens, their redeeming feature is that they tend to be voluntary.

    In contrast, ETIs frequently are imposed on public pension programs by a variety of political bonds. Their philosophical origins can be traced to the "industrial policies" programs, termed "lemon capitalism" by cynics, that once plagued many European economies.

    Compared to social screens, evidence documenting the relative risk/return performance of ETIs is even more ambiguous. Not everyone agrees on the benchmark, risk adjustment, or what constitutes an "ETI" because the terminology frequently is altered to keep opponents off-balance.

    Rather than defining ETIs in the context of net social benefits, ETIs have come to mean "local" investing. In many respects, they are motivated by the same parochial anxieties that spawned the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act in banking.

    One method for camouflaging the lower risk-adjusted returns to ETIs is to package them in government guaranteed loan pools and transfer part of the risk to taxpayers.

    While government guarantees might render ETIs more palatable to investors, they resurrect the "moral hazard" problem reminiscent of bank deposit insurance. Because the riskiest ETIs obtain the greatest benefit from guarantees, inferior ETIs might be inclined to gravitate to insured pools, increasing the contingent liability of taxpayers.

    ETI supporters claim the investments fund local projects that otherwise would be ignored, and that promotes market efficiency by filling "gaps" in the financial system.

    Irony of backers' argument

    The cause and effect probably are reversed.

    Technology and efficient markets have reduced investor dependence on the local economy and made it easier to deploy capital in distant regions. Most often, the thrust of both ETI and CRA is to reverse the trend in geographic efficiency and reallocate more capital to the local economy even though the return might be lower and the risk higher.

    Those who assert the risk-adjusted returns to ETIs equals or exceeds other alternatives inadvertently make the most compelling case against the need for targeted investments.

    Even though the net social returns might be negligible, many people still might get a great deal of personal satisfaction from social investing. Like the recycling of household solid waste, social investing makes the most economic sense if investors derive "utility" from the practice and choose to subsidize it because it makes them feel good.

    The operative word is "choice."

    When social investing is imposed on public pension funds because local politicians want to fund new sports stadiums or other "infrastructure," the economic outcome is much more likely to be perverse.

    Michael Devaney is a professor in the department of accounting and finance, Donald L. Harrison College of Business, Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, Mo.

    Recommended for You
    Read the print edition of P&I
    Read the print edition of P&I
    How low is low? Projections say it's not low enough
    How low is low? Projections say it's not low enough
    FINRA honors Wharton's Olivia Mitchell with Ketchum Prize
    FINRA honors Wharton's Olivia Mitchell with Ketchum Prize
    New SEC Rule on Fair Pricing Determination Needs Careful Consideration
    Sponsored Content: New SEC Rule on Fair Pricing Determination Needs Careful Consideration

    Reader Poll

    June 6, 2022
    SEE MORE POLLS >
    Sponsored
    White Papers
    Nearing the finish line: Ideas on end-state investing for corporate DB plans
    The Meaning of "Portfolio Intelligence"
    Credit Indices: Closing the Fixed Income Evolutionary Gap
    Forever in Style: Benchmarking with the Morningstar® Broad Style Indexes℠
    Crossroads: Politics, Inflation, & Bonds
    Is there a mid-cap gap in your DC plan?
    View More
    Sponsored Content
    Partner Content
    The Industrialization of ESG Investment
    For institutional investors, ETFs can make meeting liquidity needs easier
    Gold: the most effective commodity investment
    2021 Investment Outlook | Investing Beyond the Pandemic: A Reset for Portfolios
    Ten ways retirement plan professionals add value to plan sponsors
    Gold: an efficient hedge
    View More
    E-MAIL NEWSLETTERS

    Sign up and get the best of News delivered straight to your email inbox, free of charge. Choose your news – we will deliver.

    Subscribe Today
    June 20, 2022 page one

    Get access to the news, research and analysis of events affecting the retirement and institutional money management businesses from a worldwide network of reporters and editors.

    Subscribe
    Connect With Us
    • RSS
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn

    Our Mission

    To consistently deliver news, research and analysis to the executives who manage the flow of funds in the institutional investment market.

    About Us

    Main Office
    685 Third Avenue
    Tenth Floor
    New York, NY 10017-4036

    Chicago Office
    130 E. Randolph St.
    Suite 3200
    Chicago, IL 60601

    Contact Us

    Careers at Crain

    About Pensions & Investments

     

    Advertising
    • Media Kit
    • P&I Content Solutions
    • P&I Careers | Post a Job
    • Reprints & Permissions
    Resources
    • Subscribe
    • Newsletters
    • FAQ
    • P&I Research Center
    • Site map
    • Staff Directory
    Legal
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Request
    Pensions & Investments
    Copyright © 1996-2022. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • Topics
      • Alternatives
      • Consultants
      • Coronavirus
      • Courts
      • Defined Contribution
      • ESG
      • ETFs
      • Hedge Funds
      • Industry Voices
      • Investing
      • Money Management
      • Opinion
      • Partner Content
      • Pension Funds
      • Private Equity
      • Real Estate
      • Russia-Ukraine War
      • SECURE Act 2.0
      • Special Reports
      • White Papers
    • Rankings & Awards
      • 1,000 Largest Retirement Plans
      • Top-Performing Managers
      • Largest Money Managers
      • DC Money Managers
      • DC Record Keepers
      • Largest Hedge Fund Managers
      • World's Largest Retirement Funds
      • Best Places to Work in Money Management
      • Excellence & Innovation Awards
      • WPS Innovation Awards
      • Eddy Awards
    • ETFs
      • Latest ETF News
      • Fund Screener
      • Education Center
      • Equities
      • Fixed Income
      • Commodities
      • Actively Managed
      • Alternatives
      • ESG Rated
    • ESG
      • Latest ESG News
      • The Institutional Investor’s Guide to ESG Investing
      • ESG Sustainability - Gaining Momentum
      • Climate Change: The Inescapable Opportunity
      • Impact Investing
      • 2022 ESG Investing Conference
      • ESG Rated ETFs
    • Defined Contribution
      • Latest DC News
      • DC Money Manager Rankings
      • DC Record Keeper Rankings
      • Innovations in DC
      • Trends in DC: Focus on Retirement Income
      • 2022 Defined Contribution East Conference
      • 2022 DC Investment Lineup Conference
    • Searches & Hires
      • Latest Searches & Hires News
      • Searches & Hires Database
      • RFPs
    • Performance Data
      • P&I Research Center
      • Earnings Tracker
      • Endowment Returns Tracker
      • Corporate Pension Contribution Tracker
      • Pension Fund Returns Tracker
      • Pension Risk Transfer Database
      • Future of Investments Research Series
      • Charts & Infographics
      • Polls
    • Careers
    • Events
      • View All Conferences
      • View All Webinars
      • 2022 Retirement Income Conference
      • 2022 Managing Pension Risk & Liabilities
      • 2022 WorldPensionSummit