A new report by Mercer, COVID-19 – Investment Governance and Strategy to Navigate a Pandemic-Driven Market Crisis, examines how large asset owners are finding ways to pursue attractive risk-adjusted investment returns while also taking investment actions to help mitigate and address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic through investment governance.

COVID-19 has had one of the most significant impacts on the global economy in the last century, affecting liquidity, market volatility, valuation adjustments across asset classes and significant changes to forward-looking return expectations for many asset classes.

It has also driven down nominal and real interest rates and lowered oil prices, and it has damaged the fiscal solvency of some governments and the private sector.

The report is linked to Mercer’s ongoing, multi-year “Transformational Investment” collaboration with The World Economic Forum (WEF), which explores investment and governance practices for global systemic risks.

These global system risks confront the global economy, society and the planet, and include climate change, water security, geopolitical stability, technological evolution, demographic shifts and zero or negative real long-term interest rates.

Related to this effort, the WEF recently issued “Transformational Investment: Converting Global Systemic Risks into Sustainable Returns,” which provides new insights to help asset owners address the long-term impact of non-traditional investment risks and opportunities.

Through this collaboration, the WEF and Mercer provide institutional investors with a six-step governance and decision-making framework to pursue attractive risk-adjusted returns. Mercer’s white paper demonstrates how the framework is applied to the pandemic.

In this context, Mercer’s paper has two objectives for institutional investors:

  1. Evaluate governance strategies developed to address systemic risks, in terms of addressing the COVID-19 pandemic-driven market crisis, and
  2. Consider practical investment actions by long-term investors that support economic recovery and generate attractive risk-adjusted returns. Investments that support economic recovery and resurgence are considered “transformational.”

The report can be accessed below

Navigating a pandemic-driven market crisis 

Unemployment is a policy choice, according to Professor Bill Mitchell, the father of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). He says there is no reason that unemployment should be at the current levels.

This is after the jobless rate in the US spiked to 14.7 per cent in April, after hovering around 3.5 per cent for much of the previous year. For context, the highest unemployment rate during the global financial crisis was 10 per cent in October, 2009. In Australia, the Reserve Bank said it expects unemployment to be at 10 per cent until next year.

“That’s a policy failure,” says Mitchell in an interview, who is Australian. “There are plenty of things that can be done.”
Mitchell, who is Chair in Economics and director of the centre of full employment and equity at the University of Newcastle and a visiting professor at Maastricht University, says government stimulus packages around the world are about half as much as what is currently required. He says that the fear of debt should not drive policy.

One of the core beliefs of MMT economists is that the fiscal position should be a floating position, and not the ongoing focus of attention.
“We need to ask what the purpose of fiscal policy is,” he says. “It’s not ever to achieve a particular number, that type of statement is meaningless because its context free. Fiscal policy is to make sure that total spending is sufficient to provide enough demand for the productive resources to be employed and we can enjoy material prosperity in a sustainable way.”

He adds that if non-government spending falls or collapses, like what is happening now, then the government deficit needs to float upwards.  “There’s nothing to it,” he says. “The fiscal deficit shouldn’t be the focus of our attention, it should just float.”

Mitchell does, however, acknowledge that this crisis sparked by the pandemic is different to the past because of the supply shock.

“Typically a recession needs demand stimulus to support growth, but in this crisis there is a peculiarity because the lockdown is causing the unemployment and output contraction,” he said. “Generalised fiscal stimulus could be dangerous because it will hit a supply chain bottleneck quite quickly. Governments have to be cautious about how to stimulate the jobs and output recovery. We need the productive system to respond so we don’t get inflation.”

The bottom line, according to Mitchell, is that governments need to be smart and creative about the solutions, and that there are many ways to put the unemployed back to work, and also avoid supply chain issues.

“They need to think through the problem and not create secondary problems as a consequence of not dealing with the initial problem properly,” he says.
Instead of a wage subsidy, and keeping people idle in unemployment, he says the government could cover employee wages and put them to work in other areas such as infrastructure rebuilding.

“I would have preferred the government to cover wages fully, which is fair wage distribution and everyone gets protected for the time being,” he says.  “In this country we have had bushfire devastation that means we need infrastructure rebuilt.”

Mitchell says the government could  then tell people who can’t work in hospitality, for example, that they will pay them to do that work.

“Most workers would agree as part of a national emergency,” he says. “Similarly most of our food harvest is done by backpackers, which is low skilled work. We’ve closed our borders so that is causing a supply chain problem. Already we are starting to see food prices rise, and farmers digging food into the ground because they can’t harvest or sell it.”

Importantly, history has proven that if people are unemployed for more than a year it is very difficult to get back into work.

“This is one of the reasons governments should do everything they can do to stop the recession,” Mitchell says. “The longer a recession goes on, those workers become very distant to the labour force, their skills start to atrophy including their social skills and their networks shrink. And as the economy starts to grow again the pool of unemployed is so large that the economy has to grow really fast to absorb the short term unemployed, the long term unemployed and new workforce entrants.”

Avoid mainstream economists

When it comes to fiscal deficits, Mitchell advocates that investors should avoid listening to mainstream economists who believe that we will see a massive spike in bond yields and an acceleration of inflation, which would “predicate moves away from long positions in government bonds”.

“During the GFC, traditional economists got investment banks to move to real assets because of predicted inflation, and they lost investment opportunities in government debt,” he says. “None of that happened. They tried to get people to short government bonds thinking they’ll be a price collapse. None of that will happen. There won’t be a massive spike in bond yields in sovereign debt anywhere except in some of the most disadvantaged countries.”

“We need to get away from that narrative that this debt will be a future burden and will require taxes, and bond prices will fall,” he adds.

Instead, Mitchell says the fiscal stimulus should be thought of in the context of rebuilding the economy and creating real opportunities in the future. He points to investment in virtual communication and technology infrastructure, environmental solutions and personal care services.

“This will be the worst economic downturn that we can ever imagine, worse than the Great Depression,” he warns. “The difference is we won’t have a massive financial collapse because central banks are bailing everything out.”

“Central banks are buying all the government debt,” he says,. “Japan paved the way to show the monetary and treasury components of the government sector should operate that way. You don’t have a collapse if you do that, and keep interest rates low and maintain low unemployment. Ultimately at the end of this current stimulus period, the Reserve Bank will hold all the state and federal debt. The right pocket of the government is paying the left pocket. It’s a non-issue.”

MMT, which Mitchell has been advocating for more than 25 years, is new ideology about what governments can do with economic policy.

“MMT is about lifting the veil, it’s a discussion about what it is that governments can do. That is what democracy is about,” he says, arguing that it has been in the best interests of the top end of town to keep the average person in the dark about economics.

“One of the contributions of our work is that once you understand the capacities of the currency issuer are real not financial then the policy space opens up considerably,” he says. “We are not saying that deficits don’t matter, but that the policy space is much wider and there is more flexibility in what governments can do than what we think they can do. There is no reason for unemployment to rise right now, it’s a policy choice. We could redirect all that labour to do functional things.”

The World Health Organisation’s director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has called the Tobacco-Free Finance Pledge the missing piece in the fight against tobacco. Credit Agricole and Amundi Asset Management have become the latest signatories to the pledge, in what is a timely decision ahead of World No Tobacco Day on Sunday.

There are now 137 signatories to the pledge – which is commitment towards a tobacco free portfolio – with combined assets of more than $10 trillion.

Founder of Tobacco Free Portfolios, Dr Bronwyn King hosted a webinar on Wednesday where CEO of Credit Agricole, Philippe and CEO of Amundi, Yves Perrier made comments alongside WHO chief, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and head of the PRI, Fiona Reynolds.

“Sustainable and tobacco do not belong in the same sentence,” King says. “We hope that on World No Tobacco Day that the finance sector will be inspired to put tobacco-free finance on the agenda and consider signing the pledge. The world needs leaders to impact these huge global issues, and if we bring the whole industry along it will be more impactful.”

In a video message, WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called the Tobacco-Free Finance Pledge the missing piece in the fight against tobacco.

“Tobacco is the largest cause of preventable death in the world. One person dies every four seconds and at WHO we are working hard to stop the tobacco epidemic,” he says. “Tobacco costs the global economy $1.4 trillion per year, due to health costs and lost productivity and it proportionally effects people in low and middle income countries. I applaud the leadership of the Tobacco-Free Finance Pledge bringing together some of the largest finance firms.”

In 2017 the Credit Agricole group announced it would cease to insure or invest in tobacco companies, and CEO, Philippe Bassac, said it was logical to sign the pledge.

“We sign the pledge adding a commitment that we shall exit the financing of tobacco companies within three years. We are fully engaged to accompany you to achieve this target,” he said on the webinar.

Yves Perrier who is CEO of Amundi, the largest fund manager in Europe, says cigarette makers are now excluded from its actively managed open-ended funds. The manager typically has a best in class approach to ESG.

WHO forecasts one billion deaths from tobacco this century. And there are so many compelling statistics with regard to the fight against tobacco companies: tobacco is the largest cause of preventable death; tobacco kills eight million people every year; in the UK six times as many people die of tobacco than they do of road accidents; in the US alone tobacco costs $320 billion a year in direct healthcare costs and lost productivity. And then there are the secondary costs of child labour, environmental impacts and supply chain issues.

“There is a signifcant supply chain issue, 16 countries use child labour in the tobacco industry,” King says. “But it is not just the health impacts that are important, there is a significant impact on the environment. The number one plastic in the ocean is cigarette filters. We have seen with plastic straws that people will change their behaviour to reduce plastics in the ocean, and this needs to be part of the anti-tobacco crusade. We need to be aware of what it is doing not just to humans but the planet.”

The UK master fund, NEST, which manages around £10 billion, became a signatory to the pledge about a year ago.

CIO Mark Fawcett said the fund had been concerned about tobacco and the related issues such as child labour in the supply chain, and environmental impacts.

“But as a fiduciary it was important to understand the financials,” he says. “We undertook a project on the outlook for the tobacco industry – including the impacts of increased regulation and litigation and declining rates of smoking. We concluded it was an industry that would effectively run into the ground so we divested while we had the chance. As signatories to the PRI part of our responsibilities is to be advocates for it.”

WHO points out that tobacco usage threatens many of the Sustainable Development Goals and Fiona Reynolds, chief executive of PRI, says in fact 14 of 17 SDGs are negatively impacted by tobacco.

“Going tobacco free is one way to demonstrate a commitment to sustainable investment, and driving better ESG outcomes particularly in light of COVID 19,” she says. Tobacco Free Portfolios estimates there more than one billion smokers in the world that are at greater risk during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Long term stewards of capital should be holding companies to account,” Reynolds says. “COVID-19 has taught us that without healthy people and a healthy planet there will not be a healthy economy. We see that now is the time for decisive and collective action. This is an opportunity for the finance sector to shape a response that aligns profit and planet.”

Other speakers on the webinar included Inga Anderson, executive director of the UN Environment Programme; , HRH Princess Dina Mired of Jordan, who is the global ambassador for Tobacco Free Portfolios and president of the Union for International Cancer Control, as well as the mother of a cancer survivor; and Nobel Prize winner, Peter Doherty, an immunologist and pathologist who, won the Nobel Prize for  Medicine in 1996 for the discovery of how the body’s immune system distinguishes virus-infected cells from normal cells.

“It is time to take this cause of morbidity out of the equation. It is time to face the reality, and call it quits on tobacco,” Doherty says.

Tobacco kills eight million people each year, with more than seven million of those from direct tobacco use. But a video message produced by the World Health Organisation says the real secret is it doesn’t stop there. The video says the deaths mean there are eight million new gaps in the market for tobacco each year and the tobacco industry doesn’t care who fills those gaps.

“The tobacco industry is targeting children and adolescents to replace the eight million people their products kill every year,” the video says.

It’s a simple message for a global problem, King says: “No-one wants their kids to smoke. So let’s stop financing the tobacco companies.”

 

 

APG and CalSTRS are leading a collaboration with PRI that provides investors with ESG-related questions to ask investee companies about their responses to COVID-19.

The guidance aims to support investors in their stewardship efforts – in AGMs and in follow-up engagements – and build a collective response to the crisis.

A collaboration among the global investor community, to set expectations for portfolio companies and collectively work towards a sustainable recovery, could be extremely powerful and the guidance aims to bring the industry together.

It recommends that companies are asked questions around three main themes: business continuity for employers, suppliers and communities; employee health and wellbeing to ensure an engaged workforce; and alignment with long-term value creation.

“Every year, investors are presented with a unique opportunity to hold companies to account during AGM season. This year, however, companies are facing unprecedented levels of uncertainty against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic,” PRI chief executive, Fiona Reynolds says.

” Shareholders have an important responsibility to hold companies to account, and to take advantage of their unique roles as agents of change in global markets.  We are seeing strong signals that investor resolve around responsible investment and ESG incorporation will continue to grow – and is more important now than ever before.

“PRI’s joint guidance provides shareholders with questions relating to COVID-19 and ESG to ask companies during AGMs. Responsible investors should feel empowered to ask these questions – however difficult – and use their voices to accelerate our progress towards a sustainable economy,” she says.

While not exhaustive, the recommended questions that investors explore with their investee companies are:

Business continuity – for employers, suppliers and communities

Operations

  1. What are the operational and financial plans to address the effects of COVID-19? Specifically, which business units are continuing to function, and what workforce and community challenges does your company continue to face?
  2. How does the company conform with the World Health Organization and/or federal/state guidelines on enterprise risk management and pandemic planning?
  3. How does the company work with other stakeholders – including unions, workers and the communities in which they operate – in designing and implementing its response to the crisis?

Supply chain management and human rights

  1. How does the company demonstrate responsible purchasing practices and active support of suppliers?
  2. How does the company advocate for social protection from host governments and contribute to emergency funds for vulnerable suppliers?
  3. How does the company ensure that support given to suppliers is used towards ensuring continued operations and strong human capital management?
  4. How does the company assess suppliers’ efforts to ensure health and safety, and payment of staff?

Communication with stakeholders

  1. Is the company communicating comprehensively with all stakeholders to instil confidence and trust over its approach to making its strategy and operations resilient, and how is it doing so?
  2. How is the company ensuring that a virtual/hybrid annual meeting preserves all of the rights and opportunities afforded to all shareholders at a physical meeting?

Employee health and wellbeing – to ensure an engaged workforce

Human capital management

  1. What measures have been implemented to support the social protection of workers, such as: access to health care, unemployment protection, furloughs, layoffs, changes in work schedules, emergency paid leave, sick benefits, family leave and care policies and income support through social assistance?
  2. Can staff anonymously and confidentially report ethical, company policy and health and safety breaches?

Safety and security of employees and customers

  1. What is the company doing to protect the health and well-being of its workforce and its customers?

Alignment with long-term value creation

Financial and strategic resiliency

  1. How does the company expect to adjust its operational and financial affairs to work through the COVID-19 crisis in a way that ensures long-term sustainability?
  2. What has the COVID-19 crisis’s impact been on the company’s liquidity, balance sheet resilience and revenue?
  3. How has the company taken a responsible approach towards capital allocation and executive compensation? How are such decisions linked to the company’s overall mission, strategy and business model?
  4. How has the board overseen, and responded to, emerging ESG risks or risks that have been exacerbated as a result of the crisis?
  5. Has the board identified any skill gaps among its members (as part of regular board evaluations or otherwise), and if so how will these be addressed?
  6. Have all board members been able to attend all emergency and regularly scheduled meetings? Have any members been unable to attend board sessions due to commitments on other companies’ boards?
  7. In companies where the position of Chair and CEO is combined:Has the attendance of board meetings been impacted by the dual Chair/CEO role? If yes: how, and how will this be addressed?

Financial alignment between the company and stakeholders

  1. Companies not in receipt of public funds:Can the company demonstrate that executive remuneration and capital allocation decisions reflect any financial or other losses incurred by shareholders and other stakeholders – such as employees and business partners?
  2. Companies that have received bailouts or stimulus funds:How does the company demonstrate that the funds received will be used to rebuild the long-term value – including ensuring strong environmental and human capital management – of the company, its supply chain and its contract workers? Will receiving such a bailout or stimulus package have an impact on executive compensation?
  3. How does the board ensure that the company’s tax policy preserves stakeholders’ trust in how the company operates, enhances its license to operate and aligns it with responsible tax practices? Can the board justify any involvement in low- or no-tax jurisdictions?

A sustainable, net-zero economy

  1. Longer term, how – as part of its approach to material ESG issues – will the company direct capital to construct a more robust and resilient long-term sustainable business model?
  2. How has the company continued to focus on the transition to a net-zero economy through the COVID-19 crisis?
  3. Has the company undertaken any direct or indirect lobbying on environmental and social policy issues since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis? What governance processes are in place to ensure that lobbying activities are in line with both societal interests and the company’s publicly stated mission and strategy, including its ESG strategy?

This paper evaluates green stimulus packages that were introduced in response to the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2007-08 and draws lessons relevant for greening the recovery from the Coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis. The paper underscores the importance of building in policy evaluation mechanisms into green stimulus measures. It also provides evidence that the implementation of sufficiently large, timely and properly designed green stimulus measures can generate economic growth, create jobs and bring about environmental benefits. However, there are also trade-offs between competing economic, environmental and social policy objectives, which underscores the importance of proper policy design.

The paper also highlights key differences between the GFC and the COVID-19 crises and how these differences might influence the green stimulus in the present context. The public health priority to prevent the COVID-19 crisis from worsening is to severely restrict many economic activities that could escalate virus transmission. In this context, green measures could initially have a “do no harm” orientation by maintaining vigilance against environmental rollbacks and ensuring that any  measures taken to address the crisis do not inadvertently exacerbate environmental impacts. Green stimulus would become more relevant as the recovery begins, but these measures would need to be adapted to current social priorities such as the environment-health nexus, concerns about a “just transition”, as well reflect shifts in social preferences. COVID-19 is also unfolding in a policy context that is very different from 2007-08. Costs of renewable energy have witnessed dramatic
declines, while new environmental issues like resource efficiency and the transition to a circular economy have risen on the policy agenda. These developments offer new impetus and opportunities for greening the recovery in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis.

Click here to read the full paper