Tag Archives: seeking-alpha

Monday Morning Memo: ESG Criteria As A Tool For Stock Selection

By Detlef Glow Stock selection is one of the most critical aspects for equity fund managers, since that is the point where they are supposed to deliver so-called alpha as value added from active management and therefore the justification for their management fee. I have had a number of meetings with portfolio managers over the past 20 years, and most of them told me they try to find high-quality stocks. That said, one can imagine the quality of a stock is defined differently by each manager. Asked how they evaluate quality, most managers told me they have implied quantitative screens for financial data, and they meet with the management of companies to verify future expectations of the companies’ operation. But few of the fund managers told me they use environmental, social, or governance (ESG) criteria for stock selection. Nevertheless, nowadays a number of portfolio managers employ at least one ESG criterion in their screening process. This shows that the integration of ESG criteria has gained ground in the conventional asset management industry. From my point of view it is not surprising that even conventional fund managers have started to use ESG criteria, since these data deliver a unique view of a company that is not dependent on financial data. Fund managers who employ ESG data and criteria in their selection process have an opportunity to gain a competitive edge through the use of information that is not used by their competitors. But, what information can be gathered from ESG criteria? Using ESG criteria the research process should lead to companies that have good policies on environmental and social aspects and a strong management that follows best-practice guidelines and has no conflicts of interest. In more detail ESG data can be used to identify so-called corporate-specific risks, i.e., the risk of fatalities, outages, fraud, or strikes as well as macro risks such as labor intensity or a shortage of skills, weather impacts, data protection, security issues, or possible water shortages. From my perspective the lack of education is a key factor of why ESG criteria will not be used widely in the asset management industry in the short term. But, with the turnover in staff and the educational efforts by industry associations and promoters of advanced education courses, the use of ESG criteria will become more popular over time. There is evidence that investors from Generations X and Y are more demanding with regard to information about how their money is invested. In addition, surveys have shown that investors from these generations are also more tuned to a lifestyle of health and sustainability and want to invest their money in funds that have similar goals in place. This means the demand from investors for products using a sustainable investment approach should increase, since Generations X and Y have just started to become investors. From my point of view this demand will be the main driver for a change in thinking and acting within the wider asset-management industry. Early adaptors might be the winners in this trend, since they can build up a reputation as thought leaders, along with a performance track record, prior to their competitors. The views expressed are the views of the author, not necessarily those of Thomson Reuters.

My Latest Additions To The Portfolio

Summary I’ll take readers through a look at my personal portfolio. My biggest individual company weights are still Freeport-McMoRan and Dynex Capital. The allocation to Freeport-McMoRan continues to shrink as shares drop in value most days. In the first half of August, I used up most of the cash I had piled up. I bought shares of SCHH, SCHB, SCHF, and DX. I have a bias to see a drop in indexes, assume it is a dip (temporary) and buy into it. It’s useful for readers to have a solid disclosure about the investing choices of the analysts they follow. Seeing the choices the analysts have personally made and what plans the analysts have for their future investing choices provide other investors the opportunity to better understand the mindset of the analysts and determine how they feel about the quality of the analysts’ research. The first thing investors are likely to notice is that my holdings include a few tickers with large amounts of overlap. The reason for that is because I focus on allocation by category rather than allocation by ticker. Therefore, I will use the cheapest ticker that adds the desired allocation, which results in buying different tickers at different points and in different accounts. My brokerage accounts are spread out among a few brokerages; therefore, some accounts have free trading on different tickers. For this reason, you will see VTI, FSTVX, and SCHB all in my portfolio even though they are practically identical. Holdings My holdings are: Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (NYSEARCA: VTI ), Fidelity Spartan® Total Market Index Fund – Fidelity Advantage Class (MUTF: FSTVX ) Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF (NYSEARCA: SCHB ) Fidelity Spartan® Real Estate Index Fund – Fidelity Advantage® Class (MUTF: FSRVX ) Schwab U.S. REIT ETF (NYSEARCA: SCHH ) Vanguard REIT Index ETF (NYSEARCA: VNQ ) Vanguard Global ex-U.S. Real Estate ETF (NASDAQ: VNQI ) Schwab International Equity ETF (NYSEARCA: SCHF ) Freeport-McMoRan (NYSE: FCX ) Dynex Capital (NYSE: DX ) ReneSola (NYSE: SOL ) My Strategy By observing my own behavior in hindsight, I find that I display a bias towards buying things that are dipping. When it comes to companies, that strategy can lead me to attempting to catch a “falling knife.” To combat that issue, I try to keep most of my portfolio invested in highly diversified indexes where I feel buying on dips is safer. When I do venture into buying individual companies, I want to keep the purchases to my area of greatest expertise, the mREIT sector. What I Bought During the month, I heavily displayed my bias to buy on sudden drops in price. I purchased SCHH, DX, SCHB, and SCHF. During July, I was working to increase the amount I held in cash so I could look for compelling opportunities. During the first half of August, I spent most of the cash. Let’s go over what I purchased and why. I’ll provide the date of the transaction and the average price. On August 6th, I bought some SCHH on a dip when my limit order activated. The average price was $37.85, and the current price is $39.07. On August 7th, I saw shares of Dynex Capital falling hard. I had just published on DX explaining that the sell-off on the earnings release was overdone and a second day of shares falling hard pushed me to act. I put in a limit order at $6.41, and backed it up with almost all the cash in my portfolio. I only got partial execution on the order and acted as a floor on the price for the day. Current price is $6.95. On August 12th, the markets opened substantially lower. By my calculations, I had a large enough percentage allocation to domestic whole stock market indexes, but seeing SCHB trading under $50.00 was enough for me to buy. I tossed on a limit order for $49.85. It hit in early trading. Shares are currently $50.82. Right after putting in the trade for SCHB, I added another trade for SCHF. My international equity allocation is about where it should be but the major exposure is through VNQI. I have decided I prefer SCHF over VNQI because it offers a lower exposure and the international exposure is to more developed markets. I originally picked up VNQI because I wanted to use international REITs to gain more diversification and was going to pair it with SCHF. As it stands, I may sell off part or all of my position in VNQI and allocate part or all of the funds to SCHF. I did the same thing with SCHF and put in a limit buy order a little under the current price and acquired my shares at $30.03. Current price for SCHF is $30.38. Lessons Learned Sometimes, it is better to be lucky than good. I have a tendency to buy index funds on dips and some day that will bite me when I buy in right at the start of a hard crash. When the market is not crashing, I may be more likely to see small positive returns. When it came to providing a floor on DX, there was much more thorough analysis than simply saying: “Hey that index fund looks cheaper than normal.” With Dynex Capital, I put in some serious time during the day testing my assumptions and looking for any solid justification for the mREIT to fall so hard. After a thorough analysis, I determined that the drop in price was the result of scared investors selling their shares in a panic. To me, that situation reflects the strategy: “Buy when there is blood in the streets.” I had enough cash in my portfolio to double down on my position in Dynex Capital but the share price bounced slightly before closing, and I wasn’t able to buy as many shares as I was trying to acquire. Below are two charts showing my allocation by asset category and my allocation by ticker. The charts lump together several accounts across several brokerages to represent all of the investment accounts owned by either myself or my wife. I have POA (Power of Attorney) on her account and handle all of her investment decisions. (click to enlarge) (click to enlarge) Conclusion In early August, there were a couple dips in the equity indexes, and I decided to unload my cash. My largest purchase by a substantial margin was adding to my position in Dynex Capital. Since I couldn’t get full execution there, I ended up using the cash the following week to buy some SCHB and SCHF when the prices dropped. For the rest of August, I’m not expecting any trades; however, I do plan to deposit more money into the accounts and if I see another big dip in the equity market, I may toss a limit buy order in. All REIT investments are held in tax-advantaged accounts. I consider the current allocation fairly reasonable, but I would like to raise my cash holdings and shift some international equity REITs into international markets (non-REITs). Since I feel very comfortable holding a large allocation to U.S. equity REITs, I may look to push that percentage higher as well. I’m fairly comfortable with that going up to around 30% of total value, so long as it can be done through tax-advantaged accounts. Disclosure: I am/we are long DX, FCX, FSRVX, FSTVX, SCHB, SCHF, SCHH, SOL, VNQ, VNQI, VTI. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Additional disclosure: Information in this article represents the opinion of the analyst. All statements are represented as opinions, rather than facts, and should not be construed as advice to buy or sell a security. Ratings of “outperform” and “underperform” reflect the analyst’s estimation of a divergence between the market value for a security and the price that would be appropriate given the potential for risks and returns relative to other securities. The analyst does not know your particular objectives for returns or constraints upon investing. All investors are encouraged to do their own research before making any investment decision. Information is regularly obtained from Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, and SEC Database. If Yahoo, Google, or the SEC database contained faulty or old information it could be incorporated into my analysis.

What Is Portfolio ‘Risk’?

The idea of risk is a rather confusing and nebulous concept in modern finance. The traditional textbook definition of “risk” is standard deviation or volatility. This is convenient for academic purposes because it allows us to quantify risk in a portfolio. But this is a flawed concept for several reasons: Volatility isn’t always a bad thing. In fact, volatility with a positive skew is a good thing. No one complains about a portfolio allocation that rises 20% per year and falls 5% every once in a while, but this is a volatile position relative to many portfolios. Negative skew can be a good thing in a portfolio. For instance, many forms of insurance have a natural negative skew and detract from returns; however, it would be bizarre to argue that this is always a bad idea even if you don’t have to use the insurance. Investors don’t live in a textbook world and don’t necessarily judge their portfolios by the academic concepts that drive the way many portfolio managers assess their portfolio performance. This can create a conflict of interest between the investor’s perception of risk management and the asset manager’s perception of risk management. For most investors the “risk” of owning financial assets is not having enough financial assets when you need them. This arises primarily from two factors: Purchasing power risk. Permanent loss risk. Permanent loss risk occurs when your savings is declining in value and you’re forced to take a loss for some reason (emergency, behavioral, short-termism, etc.). Purchasing power risk is the potential that your savings does not keep pace with the rate of inflation. In order to visualize how one might protect against these risks in a portfolio, it’s helpful to view this concept on a scale showing how our savings can be allocated across different assets: The investor who wanted to be protected against permanent loss risk would be 100% cash; however, they would risk falling behind in purchasing power by the rate of inflation each year. Likewise, the investor who wanted to be protected against purchasing power risk would be 100% stocks. A balanced portfolio will tend to protect against these risks somewhat evenly and in my experience investors tend to be more worried about protecting their savings from permanent loss than Modern Finance often implies. Viewing the world through the lens of this Savings Portfolio Scale will provide investors with a much more realistic and balanced perspective of how market risk applies to their actual savings. Share this article with a colleague