Financial markets are amongst essentially the most powerful tools we’ve got at our disposal to combat climate change, and the transition to net-zero emissions would require trillions of dollars in annual investment by 2050, analysts say. While that is actually a formidable number considering certain mandates related to climate exposure, investors at this stage want to know the chance and return dynamics reflected in an organization’s environmental rating.
So how can investors assess the chance of climate change of their portfolios?
To answer this query and higher understand the connection between stock returns and an organization’s carbon emissions, I conducted a comprehensive evaluation of MSCI Europe returns from 2007 to 2022, which also takes supply chain connections under consideration Scope 3 emissions. The study revealed two interesting results.
1. Time frames are essential
Simply adding a 12 months or two to a sample period can dramatically change the outcomes. Many previous studies on climate finance only checked out bullish market cycles. For example, sustainable investments in Europe performed well between 2010 and 2021. But if we extend the time-frame to the tip of 2022, taking into consideration the energy crisis that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this “green” alpha disappears.
Even before the pandemic, investors had been shifting capital from old economy stocks to latest economy stocks amid disappointing returns within the energy sector. Then, several years of undercapital investment contributed to an energy supply deficit that only manifested itself as the worldwide economy moved into the post-pandemic recovery phase. The war in Ukraine exacerbated this effect and led to an enormous increase in energy prices.
After the worldwide financial crisis, monetary policy dominated the financial landscape. Low and negative rates of interest and quantitative easing (QE) contributed to the creation of bubbles in certain assets. The long-term low rates of interest caused growth stocks – with their longer-term money flow horizons in comparison with value stocks – to overshoot the goal. Glamor stocks – think Tesla – soared because the old economic giants faltered of their tendency to provide higher emissions. To put this into perspective, long-term money flows at the moment are discounted at over 5%. Before 2020, the norm was below 1%.
A possible explanation for that is that other variables are correlated with the GreenMinusBrown (GMB) factor. According to my evaluation, the High Minus Low (HML) factor has a moderate negative correlation with the GMB factor. Because the HML Factor’s style leans toward value relatively than growth, there could also be a stronger correlation between the GMB Factor and growth stocks. This makes intuitive sense: After all, green portfolios are often a mix of technology and healthcare stocks. Such stocks often outperform when rates of interest are low, as was the case from 2010 to 2021 when growth outpaced intrinsic value.
2. Emissions = perceived risks
There can also be evidence of a positive relationship between an organization’s greenhouse gas emissions and the perceived risk related to that company. Brown portfolios are all the time more volatile than their green counterparts, and their absolute risk increases when Scope 3 emissions are included. As a matter of fact, the scope 1, 2, 3 Intensity issue rating portfolios have the widest range of volatility. This signifies that the upper returns generated by brown corporations reflect their higher risk. In Europe, green portfolios have been barely less volatile than brown ones on average over the past 15 years. This is consistent with CAPM forecasts and with research examining how green investments may also help protect client portfolios. If green assets offer, amongst other advantages, a hedge against climate risks and are viewed as less dangerous because of their climate resilience and other positive social impacts, investors could theoretically be willing to just accept lower expected returns to carry them.
Returns for green and brown portfolios with intensity Scope 1, 2, 3
This figure shows the cumulative returns of the green and brown portfolios for the MSCI Europe from 2007 to 2022.
The Scope 3 emissions effect is crucial for understanding environmental impact. Regression evaluation is most meaningful when it takes Scope 3 emissions under consideration. This means the model higher captures the total extent of an organization’s sustainability performance. Scope 3 emissions will only develop into more relevant: latest regulatory developments and reporting standards in Europe would require corporations to reveal these emissions from 2024.
The issue of risk management is at the guts of climate finance and assumes a positive correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and stock returns and a negative correlation between emissions and company valuations. Investors recognize that corporations with strong environmental practices are more likely to be more sustainable in the long run and higher capable of cope with changing regulations, consumer preferences and market dynamics, and subsequently represent attractive investments.
So what is the takeaway?
The distinction between brown and green performance might not be so clear-cut. Why? This is because rates of interest, investment trends and other phenomena can influence industry performance. Additionally, many factor models assume that governments around the globe will make policy changes in the long run. Carbon taxes, amongst other measures, are being discussed as potential tools to resolve climate problems, and lots of models predict they will likely be introduced in some unspecified time in the future in the approaching months and years. However, the impact of such changes in climate policy has yet to take effect or be reflected in financial returns.
Beyond these conclusions, reducing climate risks has several implications for investors. First, conservative investors will seek to cut back their transition risk by hedging their risk, and investors exposed to transition risk will expect higher returns to compensate. If they feel that they are usually not getting enough return from this risk, they are going to contact their corporations and check out to persuade them to hedge this risk.
For corporations, nonetheless, transition risk management has a vital consequence: the more exposed they’re to the chance of climate change, the upper the price of capital. This means each cheaper price multiples for future returns and better break-even rates for brand spanking new investments.
Photo credit: ©Getty Images / peterschreiber.media
