Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Arbeitspapier (3)
Sprache
- Englisch (3)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (3) (entfernen)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (3) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Sustainable Investments (3) (entfernen)
Institut
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (3) (entfernen)
This paper analyzes the current implementation status of sustainability and taxonomy-aligned disclosure under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) as well as the development of the SFDR categorization of funds offered via banks in Germany. Examining data provided by WM Group, which consists of more than 10,000 investment funds and 2,000 index funds between September 2022 and March 2023, we have observed a significant proportion of Article 9 (dark green) funds transitioning to Article 8 (light green) funds, particularly among index funds. As a consequence of this process, the profile of the SFDR classes has sharpened, which reflects an increased share of sustainable investments in the group of Article 9 funds. When differentiating between environmental and social investments, the share of environmental investments increased, but the share of social investments decreased in the group of Article 9 funds at the beginning of 2023. The share of taxonomy-aligned investments is very low, but slightly increasing for Article 9 funds. However, by March 2023 only around 1,000 funds have reported their sustainability proportions and this picture might change due to legal changes which require all funds in the scope of the SFDR to report these proportions in their annual reports being published after 1 January 2023.
The salience of ESG ratings for stock pricing: evidence from (potentially) confused investors
(2021)
We exploit the a modification to Sustainanlytics’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) rating methodology, which is subsequently adopted by Morningstar, to study whether ESG ratings are salient for stock pricing. We show that the inversion of the rating scale but not new information leads some investors to make incorrect assessments about the meaning of the change in ESG ratings. They buy (sell) stocks they misconceive as ESG upgraded (downgraded) even when the opposite is true. This trading behavior exerts transitory price pressure on affected stocks. Our paper highlights the importance of ESG ratings for investors and consequently for asset prices.
We analyze the ESG rating criteria used by prominent agencies and show that there is a lack of a commonality in the definition of ESG (i) characteristics, (ii) attributes and (iii) standards in defining E, S and G components. We provide evidence that heterogeneity in rating criteria can lead agencies to have opposite opinions on the same evaluated companies and that agreement across those providers is substantially low. Those alternative definitions of ESG also a↵ect sustainable investments leading to the identification of di↵erent investment universes and consequently to the creation of di↵erent benchmarks. This implies that in the asset management industry it is extremely dicult to measure the ability of a fund manager if financial performances are strongly conditioned by the chosen ESG benchmark. Finally, we find that the disagreement in the scores provided by the rating agencies disperses the e↵ect of preferences of ESG investors on asset prices, to the point that even when there is agreement, it has no impact on financial performances.