ESG Still Not a Priority for CIOs

Growing awareness of ESG is not yet reflected in investment decision-making, according to Hermes Investment Management.

Investors are increasingly aware of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues—but that doesn’t mean they’re changing their ways anytime soon.

A new survey by Hermes Investment Management found that 90% of respondents believed fund managers should price in corporate governance risks as a core part of their investment analysis.

Despite this show of ESG awareness, 47% still said pension funds should focus exclusively on maximizing retirement incomes—a goal the majority believed would not be met by focusing on ESG issues.

Just 46% believed ESG-focused investing would produce better long-term returns.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

Additionally, while 79% considered significant ESG risks with financial implications as sufficient reasons to reject an otherwise attractive investment, 58% believed the number of opportunities rejected by pension schemes because of ESG will increase only slightly over the next five years.

“It is clear that ESG has become mainstream,” said Hermes Chief Executive Saker Nusseibeh. “However, the industry’s obsessive focus on measurement leads naturally to more short-term thinking and decisions that often miss the whole point of investment.”

The growing trend toward passive investing strategies may also mean that investors are less engaged in where money is actually going. According to the report, 61% of respondents believed large shareholders are likely to become unaware of the companies they invest in.

“By moving toward index-tracking strategies, investors are giving up their voting rights, and thus, their influence,” Nusseibeh said.

The CEO added that even though institutional investors are beginning to talk the ESG talk, there is a “long road to walk before we see real change.”

“Today’s siloed and short-term investment approach is the antithesis of responsible capitalism,” Nusseibeh said. “Change is necessary, if we are to ensure today’s savers and their children will be able to enjoy a fruitful world in the future.”

Related: Why Your Kids Won’t Know What ‘ESG’ Means & The Multi-Trillion Dollar Impact of Climate Change (and Why ESG Isn’t Enough)

TDFs Take Heat for ‘Risky’ Asset Allocation

A report from Meketa Investment Group calls out target date funds for high levels of public equity exposure.

Some of the largest target date funds (TDFs) are taking on too much risk, according to a report by Meketa Investment Group.

According to the report, the three largest “off-the-shelf” TDF providers maintain “radical levels of public equity exposure.” These TDFs, which collectively account for over 70% of target date fund assets, include Vanguard (Target Retirement), Fidelity (Freedom), and T. Rowe Price (Retirement).

For TDFs intended for investors with a 10-year investment timeframe, Fidelity maintains a 70% stake in public equities, while Vanguard and T. Rowe Price have invested 67% and 69% of their portfolios in the sector, respectively.

The 2035 TDFs for these three providers, meanwhile, average a public equity allocation of nearly 85%—more than twice that of defined benefit (DB) pension plans.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

At the end of 2013, only 42% of DB pension assets were allocated to public equity, according to Towers Watson.

“That the three largest off-the-shelf target date fund managers allocate relatively short term assets more aggressively than pension funds raises concerns,” wrote Marc Fandetti, principal at Meketa. “Either pensions are taking far too little risk, or 2025 target date fund investors far too much.”

Fandetti asserts this level of equity exposure provides little downside protection to investors, noting that the largest funds underperformed the US. stock market on average in 2008 and 2011.

“It is doubtful either that the public equity levels of the largest (and thus most) TDFs are appropriate, or that investors expect 2035 funds to behave like 100% stock investments,” Fandetti wrote.

The root of the problem, Fandetti concludes, is an absence of viable alternative investment vehicles for individual retirement account investors—although this absence does not excuse “unsuitably high allocations to public equities,” he adds.

“Retirement savers need and deserve better choices,” Fandetti wrote.

Related: Target Risk Funds: A Substitute for TDFs?  

«