Finance & economics
财经板块
Green investing: Uncle Sham
绿色投资：伪“善”姆大叔
Dubious green funds are rampant in America
可疑的绿色基金在美国十分猖獗
It is not easy being green.
绿色环保并非易事。
In November Amundi, Europe’s largest investment manager, downgraded most of its 45bn euros ($47bn) of funds ranked Article 9, the highest grade in the EU’s sustainability disclosures, to Article 8, or “light green”.
欧洲最大的投资管理公司Amundi有450亿欧元(合470亿美元)的基金被评级为“第9条产品”基金，这是欧盟《可持续金融披露条例》中最高的评级。11月份，Amundi将这些基金中的大部分降级至“第8条产品”基金，也称为“浅绿色”基金。
New regulations are forcing many others to recast their wares in less virtuous colours.
新的法规正迫使许多其他公司将自己的产品换成不那么道德的颜色对应的评级。
Nearly one-tenth of all Article 9 funds have left the category since the European Commission tightened its criteria, in July.
自从欧盟委员会在7月份收紧标准，所有“第9条产品”基金中有近十分之一已退出该类别。
That has exposed European fund managers to accusations of greenwashing, and for some the label is deserved.
这让欧洲基金管理公司受到了漂绿的指责，对一些公司来说，有这个标签也不冤枉。
But new research published this week in the Review of Finance, an academic journal, suggests American firms are doing worse.
但本周发表在学术期刊《金融评论》上的一项新研究表明，美国公司的情况更糟。
When it comes to sustainable investing, Wall Street stalwarts appear to run a fully fledged laundromat of exaggerated sales pitches and bogus claims.
在谈到可持续投资时，华尔街的中坚力量看起来就像是在经营一家成熟的自助洗衣店，里面充斥着夸大的销售宣传和虚假声明。
To gauge this the authors examined funds that have signed up to the UN-sponsored principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), a scheme that investment managers can sign up to certify they take account of environmental, social and governance (ESG) principles when making investment decisions.
为了判定这一点，这篇研究的作者考察了签署联合国支持的负责任投资原则(PRI)的基金，投资管理公司可以签署该计划，以证明自己在做出投资决策时考虑了环境、社会和公司治理(ESG)原则。
On the face of it, that is a promisingly large sample: 2,000 investors, overseeing $135trn of assets, now say they will obey the PRI.
从表面上看，签署方这么多，看起来很有希望：管理着135万亿美元资产的2000名投资者现在表示他们会遵循PRI。
The problem is that such pledges can mean little.
问题是，这样的承诺意义不大。
Looking at the period from 2003 to 2017, researchers found no sign that the portfolios of PRI signatories in America had higher ESG scores, across a range of metrics, than non-signatories.
从2003年到2017年，研究人员没有发现任何迹象表明，在一系列指标上，PRI美国签署方的投资组合ESG得分高于非签署方。
Their peers across the pond scored much higher.
而大西洋彼岸的PRI签署方得分要高得多。
“There could be a couple of bad apples in Europe. But it’s not the entire cart that’s rotten,” points out Alex Edmans, a finance professor at London Business School and the editor of the study.
编写该研究报告的伦敦商学院金融学教授亚历克斯·埃德曼斯指出：“欧洲可能会有几颗老鼠屎，但不能说整锅粥都是坏的”。
American fund managers might argue, in their defence, that they are trying to help dirty companies get greener rather than simply dumping their shares as European funds might do, and are being penalised for this.
美国基金管理公司可能会辩称，他们不像欧洲基金可能做的那样简单地抛售股票，而是在试图帮助污染严重的公司变得更环保，并因此受到惩罚。
But the researchers find little evidence of that.
但研究人员几乎没有发现这方面的证据。
Instead they report that American PRI signatories were less likely to engage, as shareholders, with the companies they owned than their European counterparts.
相反，他们报告称，与欧洲同行相比，PRI美国签署方作为股东与他们拥有的公司接触的可能性较小。
Three years after the initial investment, ESG scores at those investee firms were found to be no better.
在接到初始投资的三年后，这些被投资公司的ESG得分也好不到哪里去。
Higher grades may not be the answer anyway.
无论如何，更高的分数可能并不是答案。
ESG ratings are themselves often flaky and may be a poor proxy for emissions.
ESG评分本身往往不可靠，可能无法很好地反映排放。
The transatlantic divide, the paper suggests, may stem from a divergence in regulation.
这篇论文认为，大西洋两岸的分歧可能源于监管方面的分歧。
Europe’s rules are tedious and sometimes misguided.
欧洲的规则单调乏味，有时还会让人误入歧途。
But at least they provide detailed guidance on what counts as sustainable and how green mandates should fit with fund managers’ fiduciary duties.
但至少，它们提供了详细的指导，说明了什么是可持续的，以及绿色授权应该如何与基金管理公司的受托责任相适应。
By contrast American firms seem to be defining their own rules; some simply sign up to the PRI in the sole hope of attracting green-conscious investors, with little to show for their claims.
相比之下，美国公司似乎正在定义自己的规则；一些公司只是简单地签署了PRI，不过是希望吸引有环保意识的投资者，而他们的主张几乎没有什么成果。
Sometimes greenery is even used to keep assets under management growing even as managers post sub-par returns.
有时，绿色环保甚至被用来保持管理下的资产不断增长，即使管理公司的回报低于平均水平。
The authors find that poorly performing American funds are more likely to join the PRI than higher-flying peers.
研究作者发现，表现不佳的美国基金比表现出色的同行更有可能签署PRI。
来源：经济学人
参与评论