Connect with us

Finance

Where Does The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation Go From Here?

Published

on

Where Does The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation Go From Here?

Confusion has reigned since the EU’s “Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR)” legislation went into force in March 2021. SFDR had highly ambitious objectives—not only preventing fund “greenwashing” but also shifting capital in support of the EU’s “Green Deal” to become carbon neutral by 2050. Three years later, it is worth asking whether SFDR has achieved those objectives. Or whether it has simply become a complex and ever-changing labeling exercise.

As a starting point, it is still unclear exactly how to categorize a sustainable fund under SFDR. There has been much discussion about what exactly constitutes an Article 8 fund (so-called “light green” since they “promote environmental or social characteristics”) and an Article 9 fund (“dark green” since it goes further and “has sustainable investment as its objective”). The language here is highly ambiguous, particularly since the term “sustainable investment” is used to cover both types of funds, as discussed below. This has created a bonanza for lawyers hired by fund managers to help them substantiate how they are categorizing their funds.

The lack of clarity has created significant confusion in the market. Fund managers have “downgraded” Article 9 funds to Article 8. They have “upgraded” Article 6 funds, which are not claiming any sustainability benefits but still have to report on sustainability risks, to Article 8 and even Article 9. According to Morningstar, in the past quarter 220 funds changed their classification, 190 of these being Article 6 to Article 8.

Advertisement

Very sensibly, on September 14, 2023 Mairead McGuinness, Commissioner for Financial Services, Financial Stability and Capital Markets Union announced “an in-depth three month consultation for stakeholders” to determine “if our rules meet their needs and expectations, and if it is fit for purpose.”

On May 3, 2024 the EU published a Summary Report of this Consultation. It found “Widespread support for the broad objectives of the SFDR but divided opinions regarding the extent to which the regulation has achieved these objectives during its first years of implementation.” Here are some of the key findings:

· “89% of respondents consider that the objective to strengthen transparency through sustainability-related disclosures in the financial services sector is still relevant today.”

· “94% of respondents agree that opting for a disclosure framework at the EU level is more effective than national measures at Member State level.”

Advertisement

· “77% of respondents also highlighted key limitations of the framework such as lack of legal clarity regarding key concepts, limited relevance of certain disclosure requirements and issues linked to data availability.”

· 84% felt “ that the disclosures required by the SFDR are not sufficiently useful to investors.”

· 58% don’t feel the costs “to be proportionate to the benefits generated.”

· 82% felt “that some of its requirements and concepts, such as ‘sustainable investment ’are not sufficiently clear.”

It also found that 83% of respondents felt that “the SFDR is currently not being used solely as a disclosure framework as intended, but is also being used as a labelling and marketing tool (in particular Article 8 and 9).” That said, there was no consensus on whether to split the categories in a different way than Articles 8 and 9 or to convert them into formal product categories by clarifying and adding criteria to the underlying concepts.

Advertisement

While the Consultation was clearly useful, it is telling that there is no clear path forward. It is also telling that there is substantial tension around the issue of transparency. The Consultation found strong support for it but that the current amount was insufficient, yet what there is has a questionable cost/benefit ratio. Squaring that circle will be hard, especially since transparency is seen as the key driver of capital allocation. The brutal fact of the matter is that this complex legislation has been overly ambitious in terms of allocating capital. It is time for some soul searching. Among other things, this involves addressing three underlying fundamental issues: (1) the purpose of the legislation, (2) the impacts it is intended to achieve, and (3) how it addresses the need for financial returns.

In terms of purpose, the original legislation is clearly aimed at using fund disclosure as a lever to reallocate capital to address important environmental and social issues. Here the legislative text states, “As the Union is increasingly faced with the catastrophic and unpredictable consequences of climate change, resource depletion and other sustainability‐related issues, urgent action is needed to mobilise capital not only through public policies but also by the financial services sector. Therefore, financial market participants and financial advisers should be required to disclose specific information regarding their approaches to the integration of sustainability risks and the consideration of adverse sustainability impacts.”

The language here is telling in the word “impact(s).” It appears 39 times in the 16-page directive. At the same time, the term sustainability risk(s) appears 33 times. “A sustainability risk means an environmental, social or governance event or condition that, if it occurs, could cause a negative material impact on the value of the investment.” There is a fundamental tension here that is not addressed since these are independent variables. A company can be doing a good job of managing its sustainability risks for shareholder value creation, now called “single” or “financial” materiality, while still creating negative impacts on the world, or “impact” materiality. The two combined, as is the case with the European Sinancial Reporting Standards (ESRS) developed by the Sustainability Reporting Board (SRB) of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) for the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), are “double materiality.” As with the CSRD, the EU is expecting a great deal from reporting.

Advertisement

This begs the question of what is a “sustainable investment?,” as noted above. The term is used 11 times in the directive. It is only defined on the eighth time, halfway through on p. 8:

“‘’sustainable investment’ means an investment in an economic activity that contributes to an environmental objective, as measured, for example, by key resource efficiency indicators on the use of energy, renewable energy, raw materials, water and land, on the production of waste, and greenhouse gas emissions, or on its impact on biodiversity and the circular economy, or an investment in an economic activity that contributes to a social objective, in particular an investment that contributes to tackling inequality or that fosters social cohesion, social integration and labour relations, or an investment in human capital or economically or socially disadvantaged communities, provided that such investments do not significantly harm any of those objectives and that the investee companies follow good governance practices, in particular with respect to sound management structures, employee relations, remuneration of staff and tax compliance.”

This definition makes clear that SFDR is primarily aimed at directing capital to address environmental and social issues, and many are named.

Advertisement

At the same time, there is an added layer—not only must these investments create positive impact, but they must also “not significantly harm any of those [environmental or social] objectives.” This ignores the fact that every company, no matter how well intended, produces negative externalities even when it is diligently operating according to existing laws and regulations. It’s a kind of “have your cake and eat it too” desire. Thrown in at the end is a caveat about good governance which is mentioned three times but never defined. I suspect that most boards of directors, even in Europe, would consider shareholder value creation at the core of good governance. The essence of the message from SFDR is that fund managers should invest in companies that do good, don’t do bad, and have good corporate governance.

The essential question, then, is whether SFDR has had any real world impact. Has there been a massive reallocation of capital in line with SFDR’s very laudable policy objectives? Although Article 8 funds now account for 55% of European fund assets, Article 9 funds only account for 3.4%. It is safe to say that the increase of Article 8 fund assets has not driven a massive shift in corporate activity to meet the EU’s environmental and social sustainability goals. So is it fair to say that SFDR has not achieved the real world impact that the legislation originally intended? In fact, it’s unclear whether there have been any efforts to actually assess whether SFDR has met the EU’s policy objectives of capital reallocation in service of achieving a more sustainable economy. As the EU revisits SFDR, it will be important to be clear about how to assess the success of any policy objective and what data would be used to measure this.

There is also the important question of how financial returns fit into the SFDR. The answer is “not much.” The term is used exactly one time: “In order to comply with their duties under those rules, financial market participants and financial advisers should integrate in their processes, including in their due diligence processes, and should assess on a continuous basis not only all relevant financial risks but also including all relevant sustainability risks that might have a relevant material negative impact on the financial return of an investment or advice.” So financial return is only discussed in the context of single materiality and completely ignored in the context of impact materiality. It’s as if the legislation assumes no tradeoffs exist. Similarly, the term “value creation” is never used. “Value” is used three times. Twice about sustainability risks and once about insurance products.

Advertisement

So what should be done? Easy to say but hard to do given the political and economic capital that has been invested in the SFDR. The EU needs to carefully consider what the policy objective of the legislation is, ensure the intended impact is something that is actually achievable through fund disclosure, carefully tailor the legislation to achieve those intended impacts, consider the cost-benefit ratio, and determine how they will measure and assess whether it’s achieving the intended impact. There’s also the important missing piece of returns. Whatever politicians wish capital would do, what it does do is go to where there is the right risk-adjusted return.

Oh, and while disclosure is very important, it’s equally important to not expect too much from it alone.

Advertisement

Finance

‘Females In Finance’ Collective Marks 1 Year And 1000 Members At NYSE

Published

on

‘Females In Finance’ Collective Marks 1 Year And 1000 Members At NYSE

Muriel Siebert, known as the ‘First Woman of Finance,’ was the first woman ever to own a seat on the New York Stock Exchange in 1967. She was a passionate advocate for gender equality and remembered as a woman who refused to take no for an answer. Known to have famously threatened the NYSE Chairman with the installation of a portable toilet on the trading floor if a women’s restroom was not granted, and her public appearances with her Chihuahua ‘Monster Girl,’ named in tribute to how neither one was intimidated by ‘the big dogs,’ she had an unyielding confidence and determination that cultivated a rare respectability for women of her era. So rare, she remained the only woman in a ratio of 1365:1 at the NYSE for over a decade.

FIF Collective

Fast forward 57 years later, and it seemed like the perfect fit for the ‘Female in Finance Collective (FIF), led by group CEO Meghan McKenna, to gather in the Muriel Siebel room at the NYSE on June 20th to celebrate its one-year birthday and surpassing its 1000 member milestone. The Collective, is described as ‘an invite-only, highly selective group of Founders, CEOs, CFOs, VPs of Finance, VC Partners, and leaders, with a mission to advance the profiles of women through board seats, job opportunities, networking, learning, and great parties around the world.’

McKenna, like Siebert, is described by many as a woman to whom it is impossible to say no. She is known for her brash humor, charming confidence, low tolerance for inequality, and unwavering belief that change is possible. She equates these attributes to her college basketball career and her humble upbringing in the Bronx as the daughter of a New York Police Officer. “I’ve always stayed true to what I know is right and stood up for others around me,” she says, “that hasn’t always been an easy path to take. I have worked in teams where I was told I was ‘tough to manage,’ just for being honest. But I stay true to my values. We owe that to ourselves and other women.”

Advertisement

McKenna, who founded FIF shortly before starting a new role as a Managing Director at Stifel Bank, says that although the idea had floated in her head for many years, it was the pause between roles that gave her the headspace to make it happen. Yet she was not ready to exit a career she loves and was looking for a home to combine her experience, talent, and FIF, which she found at Stifel. “This is an industry that can be more performative than meaningful when it comes to gender equity, but Stifel has walked the walk when it comes to supporting women,” she says. “My network is my net worth and the team at Stifel really understand and support that. They see the broad industry value FIF creates for everyone.”

She says FIF was born after two decades of seeing countless gaps and lost opportunities for women and bottom-line impacts on business. “Women are not progressing at a rate that makes sense for their capabilities and industry needs,” she says. The effect of this is backed by data, such as the 2022 World Economic Forum’s ‘Global Gender Gap Report,’ which revealed females in finance remain one of the most untapped business resources. The share of women in global C-suite roles in the financial services industry worldwide reached 18.4 percent in 2023, and predictions from a recent Statista Study estimate a growth to 21.8 percent by 2031.

Advertisement

For McKenna and the team at FIF, the idea of waiting another near-decade for a mere 3.4 percentage point increase in female representation is not a reality they are willing to accept. Yet the trillion dollar question remains, how can we improve this? While there is no magic bullet solution, they believe the right place to start, is to look to each other and initiate a collective effort for change.

The cost equals the commitment

FIF is not alone in this mission. There has been a widespread proliferation of communities and programs promising to empower women and accelerate their professional success, an approach many consider crucial for women. Yet unlike many of these networks, which incur sizable membership fees and restrict their events to women, FIF takes a different approach. McKenna says she wanted a ‘personally free network for qualifying women. “This is a network of decision-makers and investors who bring merit she says, “I want them to bring their passion to this mission at no cost but their commitment to cultivate change.”

A strategy for sponsors and allies

Instead, the monetization will come via paid talent matching and a sponsorship program for events and seminars open to men and women. This strategy appears to work well for McKenna, who has fostered a growing partner ecosystem of over 30 sponsors in year one, including names like Deloitte, Amazon, KPMG, Samsung Next, Netsuite, Davis Polk, and Ramp, hosted 12 events across the cities of New York, San Francisco, Boston and Washington DC.

Ken Egan, Partner at Cross Country Consulting, shares that he finds this approach effective as it focuses on bottom-line impacts and brings others along on the journey. In doing so, there is an organic allyship, something that critics of female-only networks often highlight as a missing link. “I have attended events and seen the value FIF brings,” he says, “This is a tough industry for women, and businesses in knowing how best to support but often showing up is half the battle. FIF forces people out of their comfort zones in a healthy way and creates a conscious and intentional level of connection.”

The burden of proof over potential

For venture capitalist Marissa Hodgdon, CEO of Sidelines.Vc, the nature of that intent is critical. She shares that a key challenge women in the finance industry face is the burden of ‘proof over potential.’ The ‘you know what you know’ effect that has worked very favorably for white males, who continue to receive more than 90% of annual VC dollars. She believes they will continue to do so unless women create a new wave of intentional change. Hodgdon, who is partnering with FIF to bring investment and advisory opportunities to the Collective, says, ‘we need to be targeted in putting opportunities for advisory roles and investment in front of women. FIF is the perfect forum for us to do this. A high caliber network of well-informed women creating change for themselves.”

The power of possibility

Much of the focus on financial leadership centers on business models—revenues, costs, niches, and leverage. However, what women often need are new mental models. Gaingels CEO Jennifer Jeronimo sees her firm’s partnership with FIF as a catalyst to create a new sense of possibility. Addressing the audience at the NYSE event, she gave the analogy of Roger Bannister, who shocked the world with the power of the possibility by breaking the record for the four-minute mile, once deemed hopelessly impossible, yet achieved by over 1000 runners since. Jeronimo wants to bring that same power of possibility to women in the VC realm and diversify the face of an industry that often looks and sounds the same.

What’s next for FIF?

Seaaoned finance exec and fractional CFO Amy Kux, a founding member of FIF says, “I have been part of many networks over the course of my career, but FIF is one of the only communities that promotes helping one another as its mission, and we cannot waver on that.”

This is an important factor for McKenna and the team at FIF as they look to the future and consider opportunities to grow the collective across new cities in the USA and international . McKenna says they will not put scale above substance and instead stay focused on their core values and strategic objectives by continuing to listen to one another. “We are a group of women who have created this as a labor of love and bootstrapped our way to now. We are not salaried, we do this voluntarily and most of us have full time jobs. Of course we want to grow and monetize to better resource and reinvest, but for now our core focus is not on headline growth but ensuring we maintain a high caliber community. That is what makes FIF so impactful.”

Muriel Siebert once said, “you create opportunities by performing not complaining.” For the women at FIF Collective this is a mantra for the next stage, as they look to build a future for females in finance by proving the power of connection, and collectively challenging the status quo.

Continue Reading

Finance

These 2 Finance Stocks Could Beat Earnings: Why They Should Be on Your Radar

Published

on

These 2 Finance Stocks Could Beat Earnings: Why They Should Be on Your Radar

Wall Street watches a company’s quarterly report closely to understand as much as possible about its recent performance and what to expect going forward. Of course, one figure often stands out among the rest: earnings.

Life and the stock market are both about expectations, and rising above what is expected is often rewarded, while falling short can come with negative consequences. Investors might want to try to capture stronger returns by finding positive earnings surprises.

Hunting for ‘earnings whispers’ or companies poised to beat their quarterly earnings estimates is a somewhat common practice. But that doesn’t make it easy. One way that has been proven to work is by using the Zacks Earnings ESP tool.

The Zacks Earnings ESP, Explained

The Zacks Earnings ESP, or Expected Surprise Prediction, aims to find earnings surprises by focusing on the most recent analyst revisions. The basic premise is that if an analyst reevaluates their earnings estimate ahead of an earnings release, it means they likely have new information that could possibly be more accurate.

Advertisement

Now that we understand the basic idea, let’s look at how the Expected Surprise Prediction works. The ESP is calculated by comparing the Most Accurate Estimate to the Zacks Consensus Estimate, with the percentage difference between the two giving us the Zacks ESP figure.

In fact, when we combined a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) or better and a positive Earnings ESP, stocks produced a positive surprise 70% of the time. Perhaps most importantly, using these parameters has helped produce 28.3% annual returns on average, according to our 10 year backtest.

Stocks with a ranking of #3 (Hold), or 60% of all stocks covered by the Zacks Rank, are expected to perform in-line with the broader market. Stocks with rankings of #2 (Buy) and #1 (Strong Buy), or the top 15% and top 5% of stocks, respectively, should outperform the market; Strong Buy stocks should outperform more than any other rank.

Should You Consider AGNC Investment?

The last thing we will do today, now that we have a grasp on the ESP and how powerful of a tool it can be, is to quickly look at a qualifying stock. AGNC Investment (NASDAQ:AGNC) holds a #3 (Hold) at the moment and its Most Accurate Estimate comes in at $0.56 a share 27 days away from its upcoming earnings release on July 22, 2024.

Advertisement

AGNC has an Earnings ESP figure of +5.66%, which, as explained above, is calculated by taking the percentage difference between the $0.56 Most Accurate Estimate and the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $0.53. AGNC Investment is one of a large database of stocks with positive ESPs.

AGNC is just one of a large group of Finance stocks with a positive ESP figure. Healthpeak (NYSE:DOC) is another qualifying stock you may want to consider.

Healthpeak is a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) stock, and is getting ready to report earnings on July 25, 2024. DOC’s Most Accurate Estimate sits at $0.44 a share 30 days from its next earnings release.

For Healthpeak, the percentage difference between its Most Accurate Estimate and its Zacks Consensus Estimate of $0.44 is +1.15%.

Because both stocks hold a positive Earnings ESP, AGNC and DOC could potentially post earnings beats in their next reports.

Advertisement

To read this article on Zacks.com click here.

Continue Reading

Finance

Sixteen Glasgow students take first steps towards finance careers with Aon

Published

on

Sixteen Glasgow students take first steps towards finance careers with Aon

Professional services firm Aon plc has welcomed 16 Glasgow-area students to its 2024 Work Insights Programme.

The initiative aims to boost social mobility by offering 16 to 17-year-old students from lower socio-economic backgrounds valuable experience in the finance and professional services sector.

The students spent time in the York St office where Aon colleagues delivered the programme which included a real workplace challenge, speed networking where they met with colleagues across a variety of roles, panel discussions around career pathways, and a CV and interview skills workshop.


Advertisement

Schools participating in the initiative included Woodfarm High School, St Ninian’s High School, Lourdes Secondary School, Jordanhill School, Eastwood High School, Holyrood Secondary School, Wallace High School, Hillhead High School, and Our Lady’s High School.

Last year Aon delivered its inaugural Work Insights programme to 600 students across the UK including 12 in Glasgow. On completion of the programme, 82% of students surveyed confirmed that they were likely to consider a career in finance and professional services.

Ross Mackay, head of office at Aon Glasgow, said: “It has never been more important to provide young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds with the opportunity to gain insight into the world of work, particularly the financial and professional services sector, through quality work experience.

“Aon is committed to increasing representation of those from lower socio-economic backgrounds across the business.

“The Work Insights Programme enables young people to develop employability skills, learn more about different career opportunities, and supports the transition from education to employment.”

Advertisement

Mr Mackay added: “I want to thank colleagues from Aon Glasgow who volunteered their time to deliver the programme – without them it wouldn’t be possible. The students were a credit to the schools they represent and enthusiastically engaged in all activities.

“I hope they have a greater understanding of our industry and that the experience supports their future careers.”

Aon employs more than 250 staff across Scotland, providing clients, from SMEs to large corporates, with commercial risk, health, reinsurance and wealth solutions. As part of the programme, Aon partnered with state-funded schools in Glasgow to reach pupils who would benefit most – adopting a selection process based on diversity statistics, such as areas with a high percentage of free school meals.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending