Incorporating carbon taxes into a Value strategy at a stock level is equivalent to imposing carbon footprint constraints on the overall portfolio. Our new research explores this mathematical relationship and provides more clarity on the implicit assumptions behind decarbonizing investment portfolios.
Given the growing impetus to tackle climate change, it is seems inevitable that carbon emissions will be penalized more heavily in the future. While various emissions mitigating measures already exist, including fuel excise duties and emissions trading systems, the scope and effectiveness of these methods is currently limited. Thus, one can expect an increasing focus on carbon taxation as a mechanism to curb emissions.
From a corporate perspective, the cost implications of carbon taxes will likely become more punitive going forward. And in terms of investments, traditional valuation metrics – such as price-to-earnings (P/E) ratios – do not yet reflect the costs of carbon emissions. In anticipation of likely future developments, we examined the impact of incorporating a hypothetical carbon tax in valuation ratios.1
Factoring in carbon pricing results in downward adjustments in valuations to account for unrecognized liabilities
Our research is related to a recent stream of literature that modifies traditional valuation metrics by incorporating intangibles, such as knowledge capital, organizational capital and brand value.2 However, whereas these studies adjust valuations upwards by identifying unrecognized assets, factoring in carbon pricing results in downward adjustments in valuations to account for unrecognized liabilities.
Our research demonstrates that applying a carbon footprint reduction constraint to a value portfolio is mathematically the same as following a carbon-tax-adjusted value strategy. This means that a certain percentage of carbon footprint reduction corresponds to a specific level of carbon tax, and vice versa. This insight provides more clarity on the implicit assumptions behind decarbonizing investment portfolios, while it also gives us an economic interpretation to portfolio footprint reduction targets.
In our investigation, we analyzed a sample of developed market stocks for the period December 1985 to August 2021. We first compared a carbon-tax-adjusted value strategy and a value portfolio optimized with a carbon budget constraint, to illustrate the equivalence between the two approaches.
For the carbon-tax-adjusted value approach, we sorted stocks into five quintile portfolios based on their carbon-tax-adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization/enterprise value (EBITDA/EV) ratios. For solving the optimization problem with a carbon budget constraint, we used the SciPy linear programming functionality, where portfolio weights were restricted between 0 and 5/N, with N being the total number of available stocks.
Figure 1 displays the weighted average EBITDA/EV and CO2/EV levels of top quintile carbon-tax-adjusted value portfolios at different carbon tax levels, along with portfolios optimized with various carbon budgets (as a percentage of market carbon footprint), as at end August 2021. The dots, which represent optimal portfolios given a specific carbon tax and carbon constraint, lie on exactly the same curve. This illustrates that the maximum exposure to EBITDA/EV for a certain carbon footprint can be achieved by using either a tax or a portfolio constraint. This curve can be seen as the value-carbon efficient frontier.
We also examined the long-term characteristics of carbon-tax-adjusted value strategies. In one of our analyses, we evaluated how carbon taxes reduce the carbon footprint of a value portfolio. Figure 2 shows the percentage reduction in the carbon footprint of the top quintile portfolio, measured against the base case top quintile portfolio without a carbon tax, as well as the equally-weighted universe of all stocks.
We observed that the largest carbon tax effect occurred in the USD 10-100 range. For the top quintile portfolio, a carbon tax of USD 10 led to an 18% lower carbon footprint compared to the base case; a USD 50 tax resulted in a 39% lower carbon footprint; and a USD 100 tax amounted to a 49% lower carbon footprint. We also noted that carbon tax levels below USD 10 did not have a significant impact, while those above USD 100 had a progressively smaller effect on the portfolios.
In our research paper, we also scrutinized the impact of carbon taxes on the portfolios’ value exposure. We observed that the EBITDA/EV exposure of the top quintile portfolio was virtually unaffected by carbon taxes up to USD 50, and slowly began to decay after that. Even at a carbon tax level of USD 1,000, a large part of the base case EBITDA/EV exposure still remained.
Furthermore, we analyzed the impact of carbon taxes on returns. To do this, we sorted stocks into five quintile portfolios on their carbon-tax-adjusted EBITDA/EV ratios at the end of every month, and then computed the return of the five quintiles over the subsequent month. Figure 3 illustrates that the outperformance of the top quintile portfolio was effectively immune to carbon tax levels up to USD 100. At higher tax levels, the performance began to deteriorate, but it took a carbon tax of over USD 20,000 to fully wipe out the performance of the top quintile portfolio.
In conclusion, our research empirically found that carbon taxes up to USD 100, corresponding with a portfolio carbon footprint reduction of about 50%, had little effect on the characteristics and the performance of the long side of an EBITDA/EV value strategy. However, to increase the carbon footprint reduction to 70%, the assumed carbon tax would need to rise from USD 100 to about USD 5,000. Such a level does not seem realistic, and it would also have an adverse effect on the performance of the value strategy.
1 See: Blitz, D., and Hoogteijling, T., November 2021, “Carbon-tax-adjusted value”, working paper.
2 See: Park, H., October 2019, “An intangible-adjusted book-to-market ratio still predicts stock returns”, Critical Finance Review, forthcoming; Lev, B., and Srivastava, A., March 2020, “Explaining the recent failure of value investing”, working paper; and Arnott, R. D., Harvey, C. R., Kalesnik, V., and Linnainmaa, J. T., January 2021, “Reports of value’s death may be greatly exaggerated”, Financial Analysts Journal.
The Robeco Capital Growth Funds have not been registered under the United States Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, nor or the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended. None of the shares may be offered or sold, directly or indirectly in the United States or to any U.S. Person (within the meaning of Regulation S promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”)). Furthermore, Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V. (Robeco) does not provide investment advisory services, or hold itself out as providing investment advisory services, in the United States or to any U.S. Person (within the meaning of Regulation S promulgated under the Securities Act).
This website is intended for use only by non-U.S. Persons outside of the United States (within the meaning of Regulation S promulgated under the Securities Act who are professional investors, or professional fiduciaries representing such non-U.S. Person investors. By clicking “I Agree” on our website disclaimer and accessing the information on this website, including any subdomain thereof, you are certifying and agreeing to the following: (i) you have read, understood and agree to this disclaimer, (ii) you have informed yourself of any applicable legal restrictions and represent that by accessing the information contained on this website, you are not in violation of, and will not be causing Robeco or any of its affiliated entities or issuers to violate, any applicable laws and, as a result, you are legally authorized to access such information on behalf of yourself and any underlying investment advisory client, (iii) you understand and acknowledge that certain information presented herein relates to securities that have not been registered under the Securities Act, and may be offered or sold only outside the United States and only to, or for the account or benefit of, non-U.S. Persons (within the meaning of Regulation S under the Securities Act), (iv) you are, or are a discretionary investment adviser representing, a non-U.S. Person (within the meaning of Regulation S under the Securities Act) located outside of the United States and (v) you are, or are a discretionary investment adviser representing, a professional non-retail investor. Access to this website has been limited so that it shall not constitute directed selling efforts (as defined in Regulation S under the Securities Act) in the United States and so that it shall not be deemed to constitute Robeco holding itself out generally to the public in the U.S. as an investment adviser. Nothing contained herein constitutes an offer to sell securities or solicitation of an offer to purchase any securities in any jurisdiction. We reserve the right to deny access to any visitor, including, but not limited to, those visitors with IP addresses residing in the United States.
This website has been carefully prepared by Robeco. The information contained in this publication is based upon sources of information believed to be reliable. Robeco is not answerable for the accuracy or completeness of the facts, opinions, expectations and results referred to therein. Whilst every care has been taken in the preparation of this website, we do not accept any responsibility for damage of any kind resulting from incorrect or incomplete information. This website is subject to change without notice. The value of the investments may fluctuate. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. If the currency in which the past performance is displayed differs from the currency of the country in which you reside, then you should be aware that due to exchange rate fluctuations the performance shown may increase or decrease if converted into your local currency. For investment professional use only. Not for use by the general public.