Doing the right thing: ESG and EMD
The Newton Responsible Investment team analyse the importance of sound governance and disciplined ESG analysis when selecting emerging-market government bonds…
- In their view, emerging-market governments that are engaging, transparent, and trying to do the ‘right thing’, are more likely to be treated favourably if they do require assistance from multilateral lenders.
- This hypothesis has proved to be valid, and through Newton’s own research they have been able to find a link between sovereign governance scores and credit spreads.
- Those countries which are trying to do the ‘right thing’ are also being afforded greater flexibility as they seek emergency funding in response to the pandemic.
The team has long held the view that environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations play a crucial role when selecting emerging-market government bonds. Our premise is that improvements in the governance component of the ESG triumvirate will lead to social benefits and, ultimately, environmental improvements.
Improved governance strengthens the social contract between a government and its citizens, thus helping to reduce policy volatility, while environmental prospects should also be enhanced as initiatives such as sanitation and energy efficiency improve over time. In short, they believe that improvements beget further improvements and thus, a virtuous circle is created.
Emerging markets for a reason
When it comes to investing in emerging-market bonds, it makes sense to begin with the premise that emerging markets are emerging markets for a reason, in that they face a number of challenges as they seek to develop their economies. For this reason, Newton place their ESG expectations firmly in the ‘reform’ and ‘ability to move forward’ categories when making investment decisions.
Multilateral assistance is often a crucial backstop for emerging-market governments. It is often the case that many nations (and in particular the lower -credit-rated emerging markets) possess inadequate resources or financial-market depth to manage shocks to the system – especially if they are dependent on a narrow tax base for the bulk of their revenue.
‘Doing the right thing’
In their view, governments that are engaging, transparent, and trying to do the ‘right thing’, are more likely to be treated favourably if they do require assistance from multilateral lenders such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank.
This hypothesis has proved to be valid, and through their own research we have been able to find a link between sovereign governance scores and credit spreads, as illustrated below using five-year credit default swap (CDS) spreads. The higher the governance score, the narrower the spread tends to be, although correlations will change depending on the point reached in the economic cycle.
Source: Newton, July 2020
Over the years, the team has observed one anomaly which has bucked this trend. During periods of relative economic calm, they have seen on several occasions a tendency to factor in geopolitical sensitivity issues ahead of the normal modus operandi of the IMF and other lenders, which is to make lending decisions based on sustainability criteria alone. This seems like a sensible approach – as lenders they need to ensure that they avoid throwing good money after bad.
As fixed-income investors, Newton has always had numerous sources of data at our disposal. Much of this derives from our own industry and responsible investment analysts who assess corporate governance and sustainability, but there is no standard way of extending this to apply to government bonds. They believe that global and emerging-market government bonds, which often play a key role in flexible or unconstrained bond funds, require a bespoke solution.
To this end, it makes sense to align ESG analysis of governments alongside an environmental attribution, screening and scoring process. They have been doing this since 2010, and they feel that it provides the team with a great starting point for discussions over bond selection, as well as acting as an effective screening process for our government-bond picks.
At the time of writing, 102 governments across the globe have applied for emergency IMF funding in response to the global pandemic. Some of the poorer nations are rightly only required to meet much looser criteria to qualify for emergency funding, as without such aid being granted, there are likely to be some major humanitarian crises.
However, among the governments which are issuers of emerging-market bonds, they are now finding that our belief that good governance brings rewards to sovereign issuers and investors is holding true, in that those countries which are trying to do the ‘right thing’ are being afforded greater flexibility. Moreover, approval of more substantial IMF medium-term lending programmes will entail greater conditionality (and a full debt-sustainability assessment) before further funding is granted, highlighting once again the enduring importance of open and transparent political governance.
Newton Investment Management Limited is exempt from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services licence under the Corporations Act 2001 in respect of the financial services; and is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) under UK laws, which differ from Australian laws. This material is for wholesale investors only and is not intended for distribution to, nor should it be relied upon by, retail investors. If this document is used or distributed in Australia, it is issued by BNY Mellon Investment Management Australia Ltd (ABN 56 102 482 815, AFS License No. 227865) located at Level 2, 1 Bligh Street, Sydney, NSW 2000.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION: For sole and exclusive use by Institutional Investors, Accredited Investors and Professional Investors only. Not for further distribution. This is a financial promotion and is not investment advice. Any views and opinions are those of the investment manager, unless otherwise noted. The value of investment can fall. Investors may not get back the amount invested. BNY Mellon is the corporate brand of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and its subsidiaries. In Hong Kong, the issuer of this document is BNY Mellon Investment Management Hong Kong Limited, which is registered with the Securities and Futures Commission (Central Entity Number: AQI762). BNY Mellon Investment Management Hong Kong Limited and any other BNY Mellon entity mentioned are ultimately owned by The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation. BNY Mellon is the corporate brand of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and its subsidiaries. In Singapore this document is issued by BNY Mellon Investment Management Singapore Pte. Limited, Co. Reg. 201230427E. Regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). This advertisement has not been reviewed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. BNY Mellon Investment Management Hong Kong Limited and any other BNY Mellon entity(ies) mentioned are ultimately owned by The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation. BNY Mellon is the corporate brand of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and its subsidiaries. In Australia this material is for wholesale clients only and is not intended for distribution to, nor should it be relied upon by, retail clients. If this document is used or distributed in Australia, it is issued by BNY Mellon Investment Management Australia Ltd (ABN 56 102 482 815, AFS License No. 227865) located at Level 2, 1 Bligh Street, Sydney, NSW 2000. MC468-09-11-2020(6m)