ESMA Study Examines Cost and Performance Drivers of ESG Funds
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published an analysis of the potential drivers for lower costs and better performance of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) funds versus the other funds, between April 2019 and September 2021.
The associated study aimed to test whether additional drivers could be identified to explain the cost and performance differential between ESG and non-ESG funds. The goal was to assess the extent to which portfolio characteristics impact the ongoing costs and gross performance of ESG funds, as understanding the cost and performance dynamics may bring insights for the overall fund industry on how to make funds more affordable and profitable for retail investors. The study builds on past analysis that assessed the difference of costs and performance between ESG and non-ESG funds. The results of past analysis show that ESG equity undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), excluding exchange-traded funds, were cheaper and better performers in 2019 and 2020 compared to non-ESG peers.
Additionally, looking at the potential drivers behind lower costs and better performance of ESG funds, the key findings of the current study show that:
- ESG funds are, on aggregate, more exposed to large caps and more oriented toward developed economies and these exposures are correlated with lower ongoing costs. Also, funds targeting institutional clients, passive funds, and more recent funds are associated with lower costs.
- Funds created as ESG funds present, on average, lower fees than funds that were launched as conventional funds and later converted to ESG funds.
- With respect to differences in sectoral allocation between ESG and non-ESG funds, ESG funds are more exposed to the healthcare and technology sectors, but these differences are not the only driver of the ESG funds’ outperformance.
- Higher environmental risk is associated with higher performance. Funds focusing on the S pillar or on the G pillar outperformed when compared to funds focusing on the E pillar between April 2019 and September 2021.
The study also revealed that even after controlling for fund characteristics and differences in portfolio exposures, ESG funds remain statistically cheaper and better performing than non-ESG peers between April 2019 and September 2021. The study further highlighted the need for research to identify other factors driving these cost and performance differences.
Related Links
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Securities, ESG, Climate Change Risk, Sustainable Finance, UCITS, Exchange Traded Funds, Environmental Risk, ESMA
Featured Experts
Michael Denton, PhD, PE
Dr. Denton provides industry leadership in the quantification of sustainability issues, climate risk, trade credit and emerging lending risks. His deep foundations in market and credit risk provide critical perspectives on how climate/sustainability risks can be measured, communicated and used to drive commercial opportunities, policy, strategy, and compliance. He supports corporate clients and financial institutions in leveraging Moody’s tools and capabilities to improve decision-making and compliance capabilities, with particular focus on the energy, agriculture and physical commodities industries.
Previous Article
CBB Launches Fintech Challenge, Issues Open Banking UpdatesRelated Articles
ESAs Issue Multiple Regulatory Updates for Financial Sector Entities
The three European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) issued a letter to inform about delay in the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) mandate, along with a Call for Evidence on greenwashing practices.
ISSB Makes Announcements at COP27; IASB to Propose IFRS 9 Amendments
The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) of the IFRS Foundations made several announcements at COP27 and with respect to its work on the sustainability standards.
IOSCO Prioritizes Green Disclosures, Greenwashing, and Carbon Markets
The International Organization for Securities Commissions (IOSCO), at COP27, outlined the regulatory priorities for sustainability disclosures, mitigation of greenwashing, and promotion of integrity in carbon markets.
EBA Finalizes Methodology for Stress Tests, Issues Other Updates
The European Banking Authority (EBA) issued a statement in the context of COP27, clarified the operationalization of intermediate EU parent undertakings (IPUs) of third-country groups
OSFI Sets Out Work Priorities and Reporting Updates for Banks
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published an annual report on its activities, a report on forward-looking work.
APRA Finalizes Changes to Capital Framework, Issues Other Updates
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) finalized amendments to the capital framework, announced a review of the prudential framework for groups.
BIS Hub and Central Banks Conduct CBDC and DeFI Pilots
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hubs and several central banks are working together on various central bank digital currency (CBDC) pilots.
ECB Sets Deadline for Banks to Meet Its Climate Risk Expectations
The European Central Bank (ECB) published the results of its thematic review, which shows that banks are still far from adequately managing climate and environmental risks.
ESAs, ECB, & EC Issue Multiple Regulatory Updates for Financial Sector
Among its recent publications, the European Banking Authority (EBA) published the final standards and guidelines on interest rate risk arising from non-trading book activities (IRRBB)
EC Adopts Final Rules Under CRR, BRRD, and Crowdfunding Regulation
The European Commission (EC) recently adopted regulations with respect to the calculation of own funds requirements for market risk, the prudential treatment of global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs)
