Why Allocators Do Badly When Selling Stocks

Placing too much emphasis on buying assets results in leaving money on the table once they divest, says strategist Ervolini.



Institutional investors buy equities much better than they sell them. That is due to a lack of care in the selling process—and results in lower returns on the divestments, according to Michael Ervolini, former CEO of Cabot Investment Technology, now a subsidiary of FactSet Research Systems Inc.

These investors could gain 100 basis points annually for their portfolios, in 85% of the cases studied by Cabot, if they were wiser about selling. The study by Cabot, which advises institutions, found that only 29% describe their selling procedure as highly disciplined, using research and backtesting to track how they did.

For investors, fixing loose selling practices is more important than ever because actively managed mutual and exchange-traded funds—which stand in as a proxy for the entire investing field—are dwindling in importance as passive continues to outperform active. This outperformance has gone on for 20 years, with the performance gap growing.

Making the problem even more acute now: Assets held by passive funds moved ahead of actives’ holdings in 2023, by $13.3 trillion versus $13.2 trillion, according to a Morningstar study. Hence, this returns-lag subject is top of mind lately among active managers.

Want the latest institutional investment industry
news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters.

Ervolini, author of a book that explored the subject, “Managing Equity Portfolios,” notes that often investors hold onto a stock well past its peak, so by the time that they sell it, the asset fetches far less than it could have. FactSet bought Cabot in 2021, and until recently Ervolini served as a “distinguished fellow” at the company.

Psychologically, buying is more enticing than selling, states Ervolini, quoting Terrance Odean, an economist at the Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley. Odean told him: “Buys have no baggage. A manager picks a buy in terms of what it can deliver in future performance.”

By contrast, old stocks may disappoint. Investors “hold onto winners longer than they should,” Ervolini says. And sometimes they chuck out more recent purchases before it’s clear how they will do over time. “Selling too quickly or too late can cost the portfolio as much or more alpha than what is generated from buys,” he warns.

Often, failure to assess what went wrong and what went right with long-term holdings steers investors into a ditch full of regrets, in Ervolini’s estimation. Academic journals seldom cover selling, with buying receiving the bulk of consideration, he laments.

How should investors go about selling? First, look at the record to see what worked, Ervolini advises. Next, before an upcoming sale, he says, “slowing down and thinking twice” helps avoid a rash move. Afterward, he adds, get “timely feedback” from others.

Of course, allocators always are selling, whether they have strong active trading programs, or concentrate on following indexes—they still have to rebalance to synch up with index shifts.

Asset allocators tend to be passive investors, although their approaches vary. For passive, the exemplar is the largest U.S. pension program, California Public Employees Retirement System. Some 70% of CalPERS’s liquid securities are passively managed.

On the other hand, the Florida State Board of Administration has the opposite method for its asset management of liquid securities. College and university endowments are more likely to pursue active management than pension funds do.

Regardless of the type of institutional strategy, the lack of attention devoted to selling, Ervolini says, leaves “this important skill difficult to appropriately understand and improve.”

Related Stories:

Why Bother With Active Management When Mechanistic Passive Does Best Historically?

How SWIB’s New Actively Managed Portfolio Aims to Be ‘Different’

ICPM Gives Top Research Award to Paper Exploring Active vs. Passive Investing

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Norges Bank Reports Early Signs of Success in 1st Year of Climate Action Plan

A growing number of portfolio companies held by Norway’s $1.5 trillion sovereign wealth fund are adopting net-zero targets.



The manager of Norway’s $1.5 trillion Government Pension Fund Global said it has seen early signs of success in the first full year of its climate action plan as an increasing number of its portfolio companies are adopting goals to become net-zero of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Norges Bank Investment Management, which addressed climate risk at more than 800 company meetings in 2023, said in its 10th annual responsible investment report that it has seen a growing number of companies setting net zero targets across all regions, with the highest increase in the Pacific region.

NBIM launched its “engage-to-change approach” with its portfolio companies in 2023, and while it said it is still early to evaluate the results the firm is “observing encouraging changes.” NBIM said that 2,385 portfolio companies had set science-based net-zero-2050 targets at the end of 2023, 790 more than in 2022. It also said that 68% of its financed emissions – a key metric defined in its climate action plan – are covered by net-zero 2050 targets, up from 56% the previous year.

“An increasing number of companies have targets and transition plans. However, there is still a way to go before we reach our goal of net-zero targets and transition plans for all the companies in the portfolio,” Carine Smith Ihenacho, NBIM’s chief governance and compliance officer, said in a release. “We want to support the companies, but we also want to be clear voice and actively address current issues concerning the companies we invest in.”

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

Financed emissions measurements seek to provide comparable metrics for financial institutions’ reporting on aggregate emissions weighted by their “financed share” of the companies’ total value.

NBIM calculates financed emissions by dividing the net asset value of all of its equity and bond investments in a company by its enterprise value including cash, and then multiplying that by the sum of the company’s scope 1 and 2 emissions. The firm said the financed scope 1 and 2 emissions in its equity and corporate bond portfolio totaled 59 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2023, which is 12% lower than in its benchmark index.

The firm also said its financed emissions were lower in the portfolio than in the equity benchmark index in all industry sectors except real estate and telecommunications. NBIM attributed the lowering of the portfolio’s financed emissions from its investments in the industrials, basic materials, and utilities sectors.

“Our ambition is for our portfolio companies to reach net-zero emissions by 2050,” NBIM said in its report. “We expect large emitters to set net-zero targets with urgency and all companies to set targets by 2040. We also have a net-zero-2050 target for our unlisted real estate investments and aim to reduce their emissions intensity by 40% by 2030.”

Related Stories:

Norway’s Pension Giant Calls for Improved ESG Metrics

Norway’s SWF: Stop Talking, Take Action on Climate Transition

Norges Bank Investment Management Launches Climate Advisory Board

 

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

«