Universal Ownership in Practice: A Practical Positive Investment Framework for Asset Owners

Ellen Quigley
{"title":"Universal Ownership in Practice: A Practical Positive Investment Framework for Asset Owners","authors":"Ellen Quigley","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3638217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Universal owners such as pension funds, insurance companies, university endowments, and sovereign wealth funds have an interest in the long-term health of the financial system as a whole (Hawley and Williams 2000; Dimson et al. 2013; Quigley 2019). These asset owners cannot diversify away from systemic risks such as climate change, inequality, and pandemics, and can only mitigate whole-system threats by effecting change in the real economy. Conversely, traditional socially responsible investment (SRI), responsible investment (RI), or environmental, social, and governance (ESG) frameworks tend to adopt a climate or social risk lens, with a focus on risks to the portfolio from the real economy. These (S)RI or ESG frameworks therefore typically apply wholly or largely to public equity portfolios (Hill 2020a), from which returns and dividends to the portfolio disproportionately flow but which have little to no impact on the real economy from an asset allocation perspective. For universal owners whose goal is to mitigate systemic risks, the focus must instead be on positive investment: the impact of asset owners’ investment decisions on the real economy, not the real economy’s environmental and social risks to these asset owners’ portfolios. A positive investment approach, then, eschews stock-picking in the public markets in favour of a focus on primary market asset allocation – flows of new capital to the companies they own – and forceful stewardship within the secondary market. In essence, (S)RI and ESG aim to protect individual portfolios from systemic risks; universal owners aim to mitigate systemic risks in the real world, which has the effect of internalising externalities and protecting the long-term health of the system as a whole. An (S)RI or ESG framework, then, is not fit for universal owners’ purpose. A new framework is necessary – one that replaces the lens of climate risk with the lens of universal ownership: real-world, real-economy social and environmental impact. The universal ownership framework proposed in this paper includes the following: a more urgent and tactical version of active ownership within public equity (and even within corporate bond holdings); asset allocation within the primary market; a particular focus on assets that make the transition from the primary to the secondary market; “ungameable” metrics linked to real-world effects; strategic engagement with public policy and standard-setting regimes; and forward signalling to reduce wastage and accelerate decarbonisation timelines. Together these elements of the framework have the potential to change the rules of the game, alter company behaviour and fundamental strategy, reallocate capital, and bend the emissions curve permanently downwards – precisely what is required of universal owners in this last crucial decade of climate action.","PeriodicalId":275096,"journal":{"name":"Monetary Economics: Financial System & Institutions eJournal","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monetary Economics: Financial System & Institutions eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3638217","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Universal owners such as pension funds, insurance companies, university endowments, and sovereign wealth funds have an interest in the long-term health of the financial system as a whole (Hawley and Williams 2000; Dimson et al. 2013; Quigley 2019). These asset owners cannot diversify away from systemic risks such as climate change, inequality, and pandemics, and can only mitigate whole-system threats by effecting change in the real economy. Conversely, traditional socially responsible investment (SRI), responsible investment (RI), or environmental, social, and governance (ESG) frameworks tend to adopt a climate or social risk lens, with a focus on risks to the portfolio from the real economy. These (S)RI or ESG frameworks therefore typically apply wholly or largely to public equity portfolios (Hill 2020a), from which returns and dividends to the portfolio disproportionately flow but which have little to no impact on the real economy from an asset allocation perspective. For universal owners whose goal is to mitigate systemic risks, the focus must instead be on positive investment: the impact of asset owners’ investment decisions on the real economy, not the real economy’s environmental and social risks to these asset owners’ portfolios. A positive investment approach, then, eschews stock-picking in the public markets in favour of a focus on primary market asset allocation – flows of new capital to the companies they own – and forceful stewardship within the secondary market. In essence, (S)RI and ESG aim to protect individual portfolios from systemic risks; universal owners aim to mitigate systemic risks in the real world, which has the effect of internalising externalities and protecting the long-term health of the system as a whole. An (S)RI or ESG framework, then, is not fit for universal owners’ purpose. A new framework is necessary – one that replaces the lens of climate risk with the lens of universal ownership: real-world, real-economy social and environmental impact. The universal ownership framework proposed in this paper includes the following: a more urgent and tactical version of active ownership within public equity (and even within corporate bond holdings); asset allocation within the primary market; a particular focus on assets that make the transition from the primary to the secondary market; “ungameable” metrics linked to real-world effects; strategic engagement with public policy and standard-setting regimes; and forward signalling to reduce wastage and accelerate decarbonisation timelines. Together these elements of the framework have the potential to change the rules of the game, alter company behaviour and fundamental strategy, reallocate capital, and bend the emissions curve permanently downwards – precisely what is required of universal owners in this last crucial decade of climate action.
实践中的普遍所有权:资产所有者的实际积极投资框架
养老基金、保险公司、大学捐赠基金和主权财富基金等普遍所有者对整个金融体系的长期健康状况感兴趣(Hawley和Williams 2000;Dimson et al. 2013;奎格利2019)。这些资产所有者无法分散投资,避开气候变化、不平等和流行病等系统性风险,只能通过影响实体经济的变化来减轻整个系统的威胁。相反,传统的社会责任投资(SRI)、责任投资(RI)或环境、社会和治理(ESG)框架倾向于采用气候或社会风险的视角,重点关注实体经济对投资组合的风险。因此,这些(S)RI或ESG框架通常全部或大部分适用于公共股票投资组合(Hill 2020a),从投资组合的回报和股息不成比例地流动,但从资产配置的角度来看,它们对实体经济几乎没有影响。对于以减轻系统性风险为目标的普遍所有者来说,重点必须放在积极投资上:资产所有者的投资决策对实体经济的影响,而不是实体经济对这些资产所有者投资组合的环境和社会风险。因此,积极的投资方式是避免在公开市场选股,而是关注一级市场的资产配置——新资本流向他们所拥有的公司——以及二级市场的有力管理。本质上,(S)RI和ESG旨在保护个人投资组合免受系统性风险的影响;通用所有者的目标是减轻现实世界中的系统性风险,这具有将外部性内部化并保护整个系统长期健康的效果。因此,(S)RI或ESG框架并不适合通用业主的目的。一个新的框架是必要的——一个用普遍所有权的视角取代气候风险的视角:现实世界、实体经济的社会和环境影响。本文提出的普遍所有权框架包括以下内容:在公共股本(甚至是公司债券)中,积极所有权是一种更为紧迫和战术的形式;一级市场内的资产配置;特别关注从一级市场向二级市场过渡的资产;与现实世界效果相关联的“不可游戏”参数;与公共政策和标准制定机制进行战略接触;并向前发出信号,以减少浪费和加快脱碳时间表。框架的这些要素加在一起,有可能改变游戏规则,改变公司行为和基本战略,重新分配资本,并将排放曲线永久地向下弯曲——这正是在气候行动的最后关键十年中对通用所有者的要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信