The content displayed on this website is exclusively directed at qualified investors, as defined in the swiss collective investment schemes act of 23 june 2006 ("cisa") and its implementing ordinance, or at “independent asset managers” which meet additional requirements as set out below. Qualified investors are in particular regulated financial intermediaries such as banks, securities dealers, fund management companies and asset managers of collective investment schemes and central banks, regulated insurance companies, public entities and retirement benefits institutions with professional treasury or companies with professional treasury.
The contents, however, are not intended for non-qualified investors. By clicking "I agree" below, you confirm and acknowledge that you act in your capacity as qualified investor pursuant to CISA or as an “independent asset manager” who meets the additional requirements set out hereafter. In the event that you are an "independent asset manager" who meets all the requirements set out in Art. 3 para. 2 let. c) CISA in conjunction with Art. 3 CISO, by clicking "I Agree" below you confirm that you will use the content of this website only for those of your clients which are qualified investors pursuant to CISA.
Representative in Switzerland of the foreign funds registered with the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority ("FINMA") for distribution in or from Switzerland to non-qualified investors is Robeco Switzerland AG, Josefstrasse 218, 8005 Zürich, and the paying agent is UBS Switzerland AG, Bahnhofstrasse 45, 8001 Zürich. Please consult www.finma.ch for a list of FINMA registered funds.
Neither information nor any opinion expressed on the website constitutes a solicitation, an offer or a recommendation to buy, sell or dispose of any investment, to engage in any other transaction or to provide any investment advice or service. An investment in a Robeco/Robeco Switzerland product should only be made after reading the related legal documents such as management regulations, articles of association, prospectuses, key investor information documents and annual and semi-annual reports, which can be all be obtained free of charge at this website, at the registered seat of the representative in Switzerland, as well as at the Robeco/Robeco Switzerland offices in each country where Robeco has a presence. In respect of the funds distributed in Switzerland, the place of performance and jurisdiction is the registered office of the representative in Switzerland.
This website is not directed to any person in any jurisdiction where, by reason of that person's nationality, residence or otherwise, the publication or availability of this website is prohibited. Persons in respect of whom such prohibitions apply must not access this website.
Monthly column from Global Equities on sustainability investing. Global Equities team analyst Masja Zandbergen asks whether the rally in value equities is coming at the expense of sustainability.
Investors will have noticed that best-in-class ESG funds underperformed the wider indices in 2016. As an ESG integration expert, I am often asked why this occurred if sustainability is such a good idea?
First of all, looking at one-year performance for a strategy which is truly meant to be long term does not make sense to me at all. Second, as an ESG integration specialist, I am not involved in ESG best-in-class strategies. ESG integration is about how financially material ESG issues affect companies’ strategies, policies, and in turn, their financial performance. Nonetheless, our global fundamental strategy, which invests in companies with good free cash flow and the potential to reinvest at high returns on invested capital – and for which the analysts incorporate ESG in their analysis – experienced some of the same issues. I think that it was not because ESG as a ‘factor’ performed badly: it was because the long-since established ‘value’ factor performed extremely well.
And what companies were deemed to offer ‘value’ in the beginning of 2016? Energy, metals & mining and financials would have been very well represented in the value basket. And it is precisely these sectors that are under-represented in your typical sustainable fund because of the ESG risks that they pose. In 2016, however, the global metals & mining index outperformed the world index by almost 50%, and the energy index outperformed by almost 20% in US dollar terms. So does that mean ESG risks are off the table? By no means: the main driver behind this rally was coal, iron ore and oil prices all recovering from their lows, and from companies in these sectors having rigorously cut capex spending and using the cash to deleverage their balance sheets. Furthermore, valuations were pretty much bombed out.
Incorporating ESG into our investment process in global equities in 2014 led to the conclusion that for these companies with a low return on invested capital and low free cash flow profiles, having high ESG risks also increases their cost of capital, and therefore led to a lower valuation estimate by our analysts. So from all sides, these names were deemed to be of no interest for investment. And that decision turned out to be a good one from a longer-term perspective, because over the period 2014 to end 2016, these names have still underperformed dramatically (by 44% and 35% respectively).
As this rally seems to have stalled a bit this year, the million-dollar question is of course whether it can continue going forward. As the names in these sectors have become more investable (as free cash flow generation has improved), we would now consider researching them more closely. But in our analysis, ESG risks will certainly be taken into account, and this will influence our valuation on those names.
So taking into account sustainability in your investment process (one way or the other) can make an impact on your performance from year to year, just like having a rigorous and strict investment approach does. I am convinced that in the long run, both should enhance investment decision making and investment performance.