Social Responsible Investments : PROs and CONs

Ex Pat

Member
Hey

As I continue to better understand the investment world, I've found out about the concept of Social Responsible Investments (SRI). From the prospectus of iShares MSCI USA SRI UCITS ETF:

> Firstly, companies are excluded if they are identified by the index provider, MSCI, to have any tie to controversialweapons, to be manufacturers of nuclear weapons or related equipment or providers of services auxiliary to nuclearweapons, or to be producers of civilian firearms or tobacco. Companies which are identified by MSCI as engagingin the following activities are excluded if their revenues from such activities (or related activities) exceed thebusiness involvement thresholds set by MSCI for: alcohol, gambling, tobacco, or civilian firearm distribution,nuclear power, adult entertainment, conventional weapons, genetically modified organisms, thermal coal, oil sands,unconventional oil and gas extraction and fossil fuel reserves ownership.

And then, the index keeps only the top 25% of companies that meet the criteria ("best in class").

The SRI effects:
  • much less companies in the index (less theoretical diversification)
  • the magnificent 7 are not included in the SRI index
The obvious downsides:
  • 3-4x bigger TER than plain index funds
  • the funds are much smaller, being less liquid.
  • some markets are excluded: there are no big enough SRI ETF equivalents that would include Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore
  • the top 10 concentration problems becomes worse with SRI funds (even if the holdings are capped at 5%)

Does anyone here have experience with SRI funds? If so, which one(s) did you pick and why?

I was looking at regional SRI ETFs to be able to limit US exposure to 50%, but there are no VXUS equivalents in the SRI world. It's pretty difficult to limit US exposure with the SRI offering.

Below are some LLM-made tables.

Table 1 — The Vanguard "plain market" stack​


VT (World)VTI (US)VXUS (ex-US)
Stocks10,118 per holdings file~3,500 (profile)~8,860 (holdings file)
Top-10 concentration~25%~35%~14%
US concentration~65%100%0%
AUM~$70bn~$690bn (Vanguard)~$900bn+
TER0.06%0.03%0.05%
CAGR 2018–25~11.0%~13.0%~6.0%
Volatility (ann.)~16.5%~18.5%~14.0%

Table 2 — The SRI equivalents​


World SRI (VT-equiv)USA SRI (VTI-equiv)"ex-US SRI basket" (VXUS-equiv)
Fund(s)iShares MSCI World SRI (IE00BYX2JD69)iShares MSCI USA SRI (IE00BYVJRR92)Europe SRI IE00B52VJ196 +
Japan SRI LU1230561679 +
EM SRI IE00BYVJRP78 (56/24/20)
Stocks~373~150~390 (122+60+207)
Top-10 concentration~30%~40%~20% (blend)
US concentration~68%100%0%
AUM€7.0bn€2.8bn€3.0bn + €0.29bn + €2.8bn
TER0.20%0.20%~0.22% blended
CAGR 2018–2511.3%13.6%6.3%
Volatility (ann.)17.5%18.3%13.0%

​

 
Last edited:
the magnificent 7 are not included in the SRI index
That's not accurate, I believe. If you take iShares MSCI USA SRI UCITS ETF, NVDA and TSLA are included.

Also, this could be both a downside and an upside:
* Some people really do not want to invest in huge multinational companies.
* But a lot of the returns are driven by these 7 stocks.
Does anyone here have experience with SRI funds? If so, which one(s) did you pick and why?
I have looked at them and considered them but never used them.

The problem for me is actually the balance between returns and sustainability. Very strict funds often have low returns because they have taken out big performers. On the other hand, funds that are not very strict are still including companies that are all but sustainable in my opinion (very subjective). Nvidia, for instance, included in the SRI example, is senselessly pushing AI for profits only without any regard for sustainability. And taking the ESG USA fund from Vanguard, it's even worse; they include Meta, which is pushing hard for social media on teens and causing mental harm, and Amazon, which is simply encouraging very high consumption, which is not sustainable.
 
Nvidia, for instance, included in the SRI example, is senselessly pushing AI for profits only without any regard for sustainability. And taking the ESG USA fund from Vanguard, it's even worse; they include Meta, which is pushing hard for social media on teens and causing mental harm, and Amazon, which is simply encouraging very high consumption, which is not sustainable.
As you mentioned, these judgements are subjective. I agree with you on your assessment of Meta (though I use Whatsapp every day :) ). But Nvidia brought us the AI revolution. Amazon is a two edged sword. It has it cheap shopping aspect. But it also powers a large part of the earth's cloud internet, enabling many more kinds of businesses or the transformation of existing businesses.

In general, my view on SRI is similar to ESG: it's a money making scheme that does not benefit the end investor.
 
In general, my view on SRI is similar to ESG: it's a money making scheme that does not benefit the end investor.

Yea, the way I see it is that if I can easily avoid industries that are not according to my moral values, I would. For example, I would like not to invest in gambling, tobacco and adult entertainment. And I would also like not to invest in large conglomerates that destroy local communities in poor countries for mining.

That's not accurate, I believe. If you take iShares MSCI USA SRI UCITS ETF, NVDA and TSLA are included.
Indeed. I should have said "most of ...".

But it also powers a large part of the earth's cloud internet, enabling many more kinds of businesses or the transformation of existing businesses.
Like in the old days, the Roman Empire would build roads and infrastructure and the rule of law. But it would also crush its opponents.
 
Congratulations on your position. I find it great when people think about how to invest their money. I also highly salute if profit is not the only goal of investing.
I would like not to invest in gambling, tobacco and adult entertainment. And I would also like not to invest in large conglomerates that destroy local communities in poor countries for mining.
Not sure I fully understand your exact goals. But I have the impression that these guidelines rule out quite a lot of companies. Would you still consider Coca Cola or Nestle in such a strategy? They don't use mining in the traditional sense but are also accuses of NGOs of depriving local communities from their natural resources. Just thinking aloud that an actively managed social responsibility fund might be better to meet your criteria.
 
Back
Top