Factor investing entails the exploitation of academically proven factor premiums such as value, momentum, quality and low-risk. To harvest the long-term premiums associated with this style of investing, sufficient exposure to these factors is required. As investors are increasingly taking sustainability considerations into account, a key question is whether integrating sustainability aspects interferes with a portfolio’s factor tilts, leading to reduced performance.
In the previous two ‘Indices insights’ articles,1 we first analyzed the impact of sustainability integration on a passive, market-cap-weighted investment approach, as well as how this affects the opportunity set for an active investor. We demonstrated that, even after filtering the investment universe on certain sustainability criteria, a passive investor can still enjoy risk-return characteristics similar to those of the market, and that the distribution of stock characteristics does not change materially for an active investor. In this article, we will look into how such sustainability screens influence expected factor premiums.
Factor premiums remain largely unchanged after SDG integration or carbon footprint reduction
In our assessment, we investigated the effects of applying SDG integration or carbon footprint reductions on global value, momentum, quality and low-risk premiums historically. For this purpose, we simulated factor-based portfolios for different investment universes. Specifically, we constructed long-short value, momentum and quality portfolios as well as a long-only low-risk portfolio based on the large and mid-cap segments of the market.
We then built similar factor-based portfolios using an investment universe that either excludes companies that contribute negatively to the SDGs (determined by Robeco’s proprietary SDG framework), or firms that belong to sub-industries with the highest carbon footprints. We then compared the performance of the factor-based portfolios constructed using the unconstrained, full universe with portfolios built using the sustainable universes (which apply either the SDG or carbon screens).
As shown in Figure 1, we found that excluding stocks with negative SDG scores or with high carbon footprints does not have a significant impact on the long-term performance of value, momentum, quality and low-risk portfolios. Across the board, the factor premiums were broadly similar when using the full universe and the sustainable universes.
Figure 1 | Factor premiums are largely the same after SDG or carbon screens are applied
Source: Robeco, FactSet. Global factor premiums over the period 1986 – 2021.
For instance, the average value premium for the full universe was 1.9% per annum over the sample period. This was similar to the SDG-aligned universe, which also led to an annualized average value premium of 1.9%. Meanwhile, for the low-carbon universe, the average value premium was somewhat lower at 1.5% on an annual basis. In terms of momentum, the low-carbon universe had a higher average premium compared to the full universe, while it was slightly lower for the SDG-aligned universe. Interestingly, the average quality premium was higher for both sustainable universes versus the full universe. Regarding low risk, the average premium was virtually identical for all three universes.
Data and methodology
For our analysis, we used the monthly US dollar returns of FTSE World Developed Index constituents before January 2001, and of MSCI World Index constituents thereafter. The full sample period of our investigation spanned from January 1986 to December 2021. For each month, we constructed market-cap-weighted portfolios based on the value, momentum, quality and low-risk factors for three different universes: the full universe (unconstrained) and two sustainable universes (using either SDG or carbon screens to filter out stocks).
Robeco’s proprietary SDG framework is used to assign SDG scores to companies. The framework provides a clear, consistent and replicable approach to measuring the contributions that firms make to the 17 SDGs. To create historical proxies for these SDG scores, we allocated SDG scores to companies based on their sub-industries. Therefore, our method resulted in a baseline sub-industry assessment of the goods produced and/or services provided by a company and how these contribute to the SDGs.
Sub-industries that make a positive impact receive SDG scores of +1 to +3 (low positive to high positive), depending on the strength and quality of their contributions. For example, positive contributions can be related to healthcare, medicine and water. Similarly, sub-industries that have a negative impact attain SDG scores of -1 to -3 (low negative to high negative), depending on the severity of their adverse impact.
For instance, negative contributions can be linked to gambling, fast food and shale gas. In our analysis, we assumed the SDG scores are fixed over the full sample period. For the SDG-aligned universe, we excluded all companies with negative SDG scores, which resulted in a reduction of between 20% and 25% in terms of total market cap as well as the number of stocks over the entire sample period.
Similarly, we first ranked all sub-industries on their carbon footprints based on scope 1 and 2 emissions as at the end of our sample period. Thereafter, we excluded the companies that belong to the sub-industries with the highest carbon footprints when we constructed the low-carbon universe. We assumed that present-day high-carbon sub-industries were also high-carbon sub-industries historically. The carbon screen resulted in a reduction of roughly 20% of the total market cap as well as the number of names over time, and a carbon footprint reduction of more than 50% at the end of our sample period.2
Within these three universes, we constructed 5x5 factor portfolios sorted on market cap and book-to-price ratio (value); market cap and past 12-minus-1 month return (momentum); market cap and gross profits-to-assets ratio (quality) and market cap and past 36-month beta (low risk). To control for the size effect, we took the average across the different market-cap-sorted quintiles, resulting in five size-neutral portfolios for each of the four factors.
We constructed a long-short value factor portfolio by taking a long position in high book-to-price stocks and a short position in low book-to-price stocks; a long-short momentum factor portfolio by taking a long position in recent winners and a short position in recent losers; a long-short quality factor portfolio by taking a long position in high profitability stocks and a short position in low profitability stocks. Using these long-short portfolios, we then estimated the historical factor premiums by calculating the average annualized return.
For the low-risk factor premium, we took a slightly different approach and only considered the long leg consisting of low-beta stocks. We then determined the Jensen alpha versus the market-cap-weighted return of all stocks within the unconstrained, full universe.
Given our findings, we conclude that long-term expected factor premiums remain largely the same after sustainability integration (via SDG or carbon screens). As such, we are of the opinion that single-factor or multi-factor strategies that incorporate sustainability considerations (such as SDG integration and/or carbon footprint reduction) are an interesting proposition for investors who want to achieve market-beating returns while following a sustainable approach.
1Sustainable Index Solutions Team, March 2022, “Can passive investors integrate sustainability without sacrificing returns or diversification?”, Robeco article; and Sustainable Index Solutions Team, April 2022, “Does integrating sustainability reduce opportunities for active investors?”, Robeco article.
2 Measured by TruCost Scope 1 and 2 emissions divided by EVIC.
Background to sustainability metrics
In defining sustainability, investors have a multitude of dimensions and metrics they could consider. For example:
ESG scores typically put more focus on the operations of a business, whereas SDG scores also incorporate the impact that the business’ products and/or services have on society.
We see client sustainability objectives increasingly moving towards avoiding controversial businesses (values-based exclusions) and including those that provide sustainable solutions (impact investing). In the first few articles of our Indices Insights series, we will empirically show how the different sustainability metrics (negative screening/exclusions, ESG, SDG) relate to these increasingly impact-oriented client sustainability objectives.
本文由荷宝海外投资基金管理(上海)有限公司(“荷宝上海”)编制, 本文内容仅供参考, 并不构成荷宝上海对任何人的购买或出售任何产品的建议、专业意见、要约、招揽或邀请。本文不应被视为对购买或出售任何投资产品的推荐或采用任何投资策略的建议。本文中的任何内容不得被视为有关法律、税务或投资方面的咨询, 也不表示任何投资或策略适合您的个人情况, 或以其他方式构成对您个人的推荐。 本文中所包含的信息和/或分析系根据荷宝上海所认为的可信渠道而获得的信息准备而成。荷宝上海不就其准确性、正确性、实用性或完整性作出任何陈述, 也不对因使用本文中的信息和/或分析而造成的损失承担任何责任。荷宝上海或其他任何关联机构及其董事、高级管理人员、员工均不对任何人因其依据本文所含信息而造成的任何直接或间接的损失或损害或任何其他后果承担责任或义务。 本文包含一些有关于未来业务、目标、管理纪律或其他方面的前瞻性陈述与预测, 这些陈述含有假设、风险和不确定性, 且是建立在截止到本文编写之日已有的信息之上。基于此, 我们不能保证这些前瞻性情况都会发生, 实际情况可能会与本文中的陈述具有一定的差别。我们不能保证本文中的统计信息在任何特定条件下都是准确、适当和完整的, 亦不能保证这些统计信息以及据以得出这些信息的假设能够反映荷宝上海可能遇到的市场条件或未来表现。本文中的信息是基于当前的市场情况, 这很有可能因随后的市场事件或其他原因而发生变化, 本文内容可能因此未反映最新情况,荷宝上海不负责更新本文, 或对本文中不准确或遗漏之信息进行纠正。