Category: Guest Articles

By Seb Beloe, Partner, Head of Research at WHEB Asset Management

‘Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man’. So said Saint Ignatius of Loyola the principal founder of the Jesuit order, underlining that much of our character is formed at an early age and once formed is difficult to change.  Today psychologists call this ‘cultural cognition’; a tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs to values that define their cultural identifies.  People don’t change their minds much because what they believe is often connected to who they think they are.

How people think about ethical investment also tends to be rigidly set. For most financial professionals who normally pride themselves on their objectivity, ethical investment is a synonym for under performance. For them, the mere act of introducing moral considerations into investment decisions mean that you would be inevitably accepting that your portfolio as a whole will underperform.

This may or may not be true when such decisions are taken on a purely moral basis. But the key point is that for certain issues, including many environmental issues, decisions are no longer primarily about morality. Addressing issues like climate change, water scarcity and air pollution, are today much less about ethics, and much more about commercial, regulatory and technological considerations. Investing in a company that makes cleaner powertrain technology for cars clearly has a positive impact in helping to reduce air pollution. But the investment rationale for investing in such a business is that demand for these technologies is growing rapidly as regulators around the world force the car industry to clean up its act.

WHEB Sustainable Investment Themes

WHEB is an investment firm focused on investing in ‘positive impact’ businesses. We have found that companies that are exposed to key sustainability themes such as resource efficiency, sustainable transport, health and education have enjoyed much higher rates of growth than the market as a whole. Over the last five years, our research shows historical sales growth has been between 8-9% per annum for companies that fit these themes, while the rest of the market (as measured by the MSCI World) has delivered less than 5% sales growth.  In a world that isn’t growing very much, this is a part of the market that is enjoying substantial and sustained growth.

So where does this leave ethical investment? Ethical investment emerged in response to specific moral concerns about certain industries. It was defined by what it didn’t invest in. But the world has moved on. The critical problems that society faces are around ageing, urbanisation and environmental issues. Free markets have responded with businesses developing new technologies and new business models that help solve these issues.  Is this ethical investment? You could call it that. But it is also just good investment.

John Longworth sits on the Hottinger Group’s Advisory Board, was Director-General of the British Chambers of Commerce, and is a leading Brexiteer. Here, John writes in a personal capacity, and all views expressed in this piece are his alone.

If the latest reports from Berlin are to be believed the Germans are insisting on substantial payments in order that the City banks have “access” to the EU market.

It is not clear whether “access” means equivalence, in which case UK based banks are being discriminated against versus US or Japanese banks, which is outrageous; or something better, in which case it would be unprecedented for the EU and completely undermine Barnier’s position. It is clear that Barnier is being instructed to take a hard line in order that the Germans can mug us, if the reports are true.

We should bear in mind that while financial services contribute to the treasury they represent 8% of the economy, less than manufacturing. In addition to this, only 9% of financial services is subject to passporting; there is a Single Market of sorts in these services which represents just 0.7% of GDP. Of course there are additional professional services supporting this activity but we should not let the tail wag the dog and it is only worth so much. As for the rest of financial services or indeed Services in general, there is no single market in the EU do why should we expect to have “access”?

The government need to wake up to what is in the country’s interests and start to bat for Britain.

Meeting with Barnier.

It may have come as a surprise to some of my colleagues at the meeting with Barnier, but not to me, that the EU is determined to put the “EU project” ahead of the employment prospects and wealth of its citizens and, as a consequence, take a very hard line with the UK in the upcoming negotiations. The Gaullist Mr Barnier accepted my compliment that he had successfully won the first round of negotiations, albeit against a weak adversary in the form of the UK government. It was clear that he and his EPP (European Peoples Party) colleagues, who control all the major EU institutions, are determined that the UK should be shackled as much as possible in respect of our newly won economic freedoms in order that we may not compete with the EU.

The position of the Chief Negotiator is entirely rational and internally consistent if the “project” is key to the interests of the EU (and certainly to the chief EU paymaster, Germany) and it is vital that our government grasps this.

Britain has the prospect of prospering with or without an EU trade deal, provided we retain our newly won freedoms and are prepared to leverage these. The chances of a special arrangement for the UK are limited, so an early resolution of the likely outcome is essential if business on both sides of the channel is to have time to plan and implement necessary measures. Certainty on the direction of travel is more important than the outcome itself. I made these things clear to Mr Barnier and also that there is an increasing majority in the UK in favour of getting on and leaving the EU. Brexit is happening and Britain is determined to see it through.

Crucially, the meeting made it clear to me that the British government needs to adopt an equally tough line in the interests of our country, equal to that of the EU 27, and that will include an early view on whether a trade deal is likely to be forthcoming, with serious preparation for a no trade deal scenario. In any event the government must be prepared to leverage our economic freedoms to boost business and the economy, with or without a trade deal, rather than trying to preserve a poorer version of what we have now. which can only result in our being worse off. Preparations for this must start now.

If you are feeling disillusioned with modern capitalism and would like to influence how corporations behave there are, essentially, four ways in which you can make a difference:

1. Vote for political representatives who will create and maintain adequate regulatory environments and boundaries for companies to operate within.
2. Vote with your wallet and consume only products and services that do not have unmitigated negative impacts on the environment or society.
3. Control the flow of your excess capital through the banking system to fund only companies who behave appropriately.
4. Invest only in companies that have positive impact and avoid investing in companies that have negative impact.

The influence of voting decisions and consumer choice is well understood, but investment is probably the most overlooked method of influencing a firm and may have the potential to be the most powerful.

Each time an investor decides to buy a share in a company, she is deciding to provide capital to that company. Companies thrive when their ‘access to capital’ is unconstrained and boards often focus more on this than anything else. From their perspective, while politicians are a nuisance and customers a necessary evil, capital is the king that can make their day.

In a wider context, every company has an impact on its stakeholders and surroundings. Some can be large. Most people are aware of the negative impacts. Large companies use significant chunks of the world’s natural resources and create massive amounts of waste. They use ‘tax minimisation strategies’, mislead their stakeholders with disingenuous PR, and use their capital to sway political processes in their favour. Companies that have a negative impact on society and the environment also create long-term legal, regulatory and financial risk for themselves, their shareholders, employees, partners, neighbours and others.

But companies can act as tremendous forces for good. They employ tens of millions of people, buy billions of dollars of local produce and provide basic services for the poorest people on the planet. They build infrastructure and develop innovative solutions that have the world-changing potential that we so desperately need. This potentially positive impact of large companies materialises only with flows of capital, which are influenced by each investment decision. These decisions may have a small impact individually but, when many investors act together, great changes can be achieved.

In recent times, many fund managers have ‘branded’ their funds as responsible, sustainable or ethical, without much external assessment or oversight. This has led to confusion amongst investors and a lack of consistency across peer groups. Impact-Cubed recently conducted an internal assessment of the ‘impact’ of 30 well known sustainable portfolios in UK using a proprietary methodology based on publicly available environment, social and governance data. Disturbingly, for the three poorest performers, the ‘impact’ score was actually negative. About 60% showed quite dismal results. Only ten funds were really delivering the impact they promise in their marketing.

In order for your own investments to have a more positive impact, we recommend focusing on three simple things:

• Consider the current impact of your investments.
  

The way you invest your wealth and assets that you control impacts the flow of capital to companies. Your long-term investment plan will not only influence the risk and return of your portfolio but your decisions impact on the wider stakeholder group affected by these companies.

• Ask your wealth manager to measure the impact of your portfolio
  

Look at your existing portfolio of funds and listed equities. Is it aligned to your view of the world? Are you knowledgeable of and comfortable with the impact it has? Do you feel sufficiently compensated for the additional risk that negative impact potentially has if you own companies which may be causing harm, such as tobacco or fast food companies? Could you perhaps set some targets together with your wealth manager to ensure you reduce that risk over time?

• Adjust accordingly
  

If you decided to reduce ‘sustainability’ risk in your current portfolio and it is not sufficiently aligned, some positions in your portfolio may need to be adjusted. While this might seem difficult and tiresome, after the adjustment you can rest assured. It is possible that you will have ‘future-proofed’ your investments’ risk and return. Furthermore, you did the right thing. Every investment decision towards positive impact makes the world a better place, even when you are seeking returns through listed equities and funds alone.

Guest contributors Larry Abele, Arleta Majoch and Antti Savilaakso are hedge fund managers who have been investing with impact for over 10 years. They recently launched an Investment Impact Measurement tool, Impact-Cubed, which enables investors to measure and manage the impact of their investment portfolios. An account manager can use the tool to help you understand the role of impact in your investment portfolio and to set targets for the future, if you desire. Details of costs can be found out on request.

By Anthony Russell, Managing Director at Quantum Vintners

When looking at high-performing wines from an investment perspective, there is a strong leaning to Bordeaux, followed by Burgundy and Champagne, more recently Tuscany and lastly to certain ‘trophy’ wines of the New World. But when and why did these wines become an asset class of their own, with their own performance charts and pricing indices?

To answer this question it is firstly important to review the history of the most prestigious wine-producing regions in France right back to the 12^th century. This insight gives us a greater understanding of how they are defined, and the factors which have and will continue to influence their impact on the global wine market.

Bordeaux has a long trading history with England. Its wines were given ‘royal approval’ when Eleanor of Aquitaine married Henry Plantagenet in 1152. The wine producers benefitted from proximity to Bordeaux as a key port and nexus for international trade for many centuries. Tradesmen were attracted to the cosmopolitan city and its wines became well known on a global platform. Over time, the region benefited from significant foreign investment and many of the chateaux founders have English, Irish and Dutch origins. The area became closely associated with success and entrepreneurialism.

During this period, although Bordeaux wines became increasingly popular in England, a preference for burgundies was maintained amongst the French aristocracy. Up until the French Revolution it was Burgundy, known as ‘the wine of kings’ that graced the royal courts at Paris and Versailles. The region was thrown into turmoil with the execution of Louis XVI in 1793 and the withdrawal of the Church from France. When the Church sold off its land to peasants as its members fled, the nobility saw right to do the same.

To understand the development of wine as an asset class it is also worth remembering that investing in wine has always been more to do with the enjoyment of continued consumption of quality than straight financial gain. The landed gentry would buy ten cases from a leading chateau, keep them for ten years, sell five and buy another ten with the profits. In this way, the family would constantly improve their cellar. This practice of ‘laying down’ and selling off continued well into the 1980s.

Thirty years ago, Bordeaux was not the mighty financial force it is today. Its winemakers lacked cash, the infrastructure found in the chateaux was old and, in many cases, broken. The sea change towards wine as an asset class came about primarily because the chateaux required funds for renovations. Viniculture relied heavily on signals from the weather and growers had none of the expertise that now allows them to protect their vineyards and produce very drinkable wine, even when they are regarded as poor vintages. Today the true value for money is to be found in these ‘off vintages’. The top chateaux hardly produce any poor wine these days so investing in the wines from 2002 or 2007 will yield not only some great drinking wines but, hopefully, profit as well.

A further reason for the development of the investable wine market has been the introduction of buying wine ‘en primeur’, the opportunity to buy wines still in barrel. This trend began in the 1970s, providing the chateaux with healthier cash flows and offered the consumer an opportunity to buy at a price that would increase considerably once the wines were bottled and available in the market. This process, whilst still in place, no longer offers investment benefits to the consumer. If anything it has been reversed and wines are often cheaper when available for delivery than when produced.

Why should this be? As the Bordelaise turned a financial corner and found new markets, they started to invest in upgrading their infrastructure and, more recently, in technology. Quality and prices quickly increased, especially for top vintages. There was a general belief that the chateaux could sell as much wine as they liked, due to popularity of consumption. This was, of course, wishful thinking and many ‘negociants’ in Bordeaux still have cellars crammed full of unsold wine.

The golden rule of wine investment is simple; buy a great wine with limited production, ensure that your investment is stored in a reputable bond and watch the price appreciate as others consume it and thus reduce the supply. Buying Bordeaux no longer affords us this luxury. Burgundy, however, is a different story. Production levels are considerably lower and the finest Grand Crus such as Romanée-Conti, Musigny, Richebourg and Clos Vougeot produce as little as 450 cases compared to over 25,000 cases of Chateau Latour each year. For some white wine in Burgundy, such as Montrachet, a single grower’s production can be as little as two barrels – just fifty cases for the global market!

We hope you will be lucky enough to secure something this special for your own cellar.

Buying wine as an investment: Our advice

• Buy from a reputable merchant
• Purchase Burgundy at opening offer prices. Prices vary considerably; opening offers are usually made around December and January for the most recently released vintage
• Buy finest growers Grand Cru and Premier Cru wines from Burgundy
  • Domaine Romanée-Conti, Armand Rousseau, Domaine Leflaive, Domaine Dujac
  • Clos du Tart, Domaine Ponsot, Domaine des Lambrays
• Store wines in bond
  • London City Bond, Octavian, Vinothèque