The preferences of retail investors for sustainable investments over traditional investments are well documented. Investors are even willing to accept lower returns or higher costs for the benefit of owning sustainable investments. And in the past, it was justifiable for advisers to charge higher fees for managing portfolios that are sustainable compared to traditional portfolios. After all, with a lack of sustainability information and a sustainable products, it required considerably more effort to build a sustainable portfolio than a traditional one.
It is yet another in a series of excuses for the industry to extract higher fees from clients. Smart beta also comes to mind. Sadly a lot of it comes down to marketing with no real benefit to the end client.
It is yet another in a series of excuses for the industry to extract higher fees from clients. Smart beta also comes to mind. Sadly a lot of it comes down to marketing with no real benefit to the end client.
People pay to not do things alone :)
I’d guess there is back office work required for the added compliance of documenting the sustainability initiatives
Great piece. Good timing, so I included in my piece for InvestorPlace. Thanks! https://investorplace.com/2021/09/what-a-trillion-dollar-investor-groups-climate-warning-means-for-esg-stocks/