Investors often face a dilemma when trying to both decarbonize their portfolio and get exposure to the value factor. The reason is that conventional value strategies tend to have high environmental footprints, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and are therefore typically exposed to what we call ‘climate traps’.
Such stocks may look cheap using common valuation metrics, but this is mainly because their environmental footprints are not well reflected in accounting numbers. Also, with the rise of sustainable investing, high-footprint stocks are expected to show structurally lower valuations. These stocks will turn increasingly attractive based on simple value metrics, implying that such metrics may no longer be adequate.
“
Effective value investing requires adjusting valuation models for future carbon costs
Effective value investing therefore requires adjusting valuation models for these future carbon costs. Considering this, we designed an innovative methodology to derive a ‘decarbonized value’ signal in 2019.1 This methodology adjusts the valuations of high-polluting firms, making them less attractive based on their environmental footprints and works, economically speaking, similarly to a pollution tax. 2
Decarbonized value is still value…
Our research shows that this approach would have effectively reduced the carbon footprint of value strategies over the 1986-2023 period, without giving up exposure to the value factor. Indeed, simulations suggest that the adjustments made do not cause major changes in terms of value exposure at portfolio level. As a result, decarbonized value can have a value exposure comparable to the conventional one.
In fact, we see that while some performance differences did appear over shorter periods of time, the correlation between the two value strategies generally remained very high over the past three and a half decades, and both performances tracked each other closely over the long run. Importantly, decarbonized and conventional value exposures offered comparable historical returns.
Moreover, we find that this holds true not just for simulated portfolios, but also in practice for real portfolios. Figure 1 plots these two measures for a set of value managers, including our Robeco QI Global Value Equities strategy, that implements our decarbonized value approach. The x-axis shows the relative carbon intensity, while the y-axis shows the forward price-to-earnings ratio.
Figure 1: Value exposure versus carbon footprint of set of Value
Source: Robeco, Morningstar, Refinitiv, I/B/E/S. The chart shows the forward earnings-to-price ratio (FWD E/P) and the carbon intensity relative to MSCI ACWI Index for a sample of global fundamental and quantitative value managers from Morningstar as of December 2022.
As the chart illustrates, most value managers have a larger or similar carbon footprint compared to the index, while two value managers – including Robeco – have a footprint below the index. At the same time, the value metrics of the portfolio remain high on our portfolio, showing that high value exposure is combined with a low carbon footprint, and low exposure to climate traps.
Value remains very attractive from a valuation perspective
Finally, we find that despite the significant market rotation seen since November 2020 and the related value comeback, both conventional and decarbonized value approaches continue to trade at attractive valuation spreads. More specifically, for both strategies, the valuation spread between value and growth stocks is much wider at the end of March 2023 than at the beginning of the value winter in 2018.
“
Conventional and decarbonized value approaches continue to trade at attractive valuation spreads
In fact, current spreads are still at levels close to those seen at the peak of the dot-com bubble in 2000, meaning that both conventional and decarbonized value continue to trade at very attractive valuation levels, from a historical perspective. Despite the strong rebound of value stocks over the past couple of years, conventional and decarbonized value approaches still have significant upside potential.
Read the full publicationFootnotes
1 Swinkels, L., Ūsaitė K., Zhou, W., and Zwanenburg, M., October 2019, “Decarbonizing the Value factor”, Robeco article.
2 Cf., Blitz, D., and Hoogteijling, T., April 2022, “Carbon-Tax-Adjusted Value”, Journal of Portfolio Management.
探索量化價值
訂閱我們的電子報,獲取尖端的量化策略和見解。
免責聲明
本文由荷宝海外投资基金管理(上海)有限公司(“荷宝上海”)编制, 本文内容仅供参考, 并不构成荷宝上海对任何人的购买或出售任何产品的建议、专业意见、要约、招揽或邀请。本文不应被视为对购买或出售任何投资产品的推荐或采用任何投资策略的建议。本文中的任何内容不得被视为有关法律、税务或投资方面的咨询, 也不表示任何投资或策略适合您的个人情况, 或以其他方式构成对您个人的推荐。 本文中所包含的信息和/或分析系根据荷宝上海所认为的可信渠道而获得的信息准备而成。荷宝上海不就其准确性、正确性、实用性或完整性作出任何陈述, 也不对因使用本文中的信息和/或分析而造成的损失承担任何责任。荷宝上海或其他任何关联机构及其董事、高级管理人员、员工均不对任何人因其依据本文所含信息而造成的任何直接或间接的损失或损害或任何其他后果承担责任或义务。 本文包含一些有关于未来业务、目标、管理纪律或其他方面的前瞻性陈述与预测, 这些陈述含有假设、风险和不确定性, 且是建立在截止到本文编写之日已有的信息之上。基于此, 我们不能保证这些前瞻性情况都会发生, 实际情况可能会与本文中的陈述具有一定的差别。我们不能保证本文中的统计信息在任何特定条件下都是准确、适当和完整的, 亦不能保证这些统计信息以及据以得出这些信息的假设能够反映荷宝上海可能遇到的市场条件或未来表现。本文中的信息是基于当前的市场情况, 这很有可能因随后的市场事件或其他原因而发生变化, 本文内容可能因此未反映最新情况,荷宝上海不负责更新本文, 或对本文中不准确或遗漏之信息进行纠正。