Small logo Subscribe to leading news on impact investing. Learn More
The Brief Originals Dealflow Signals The Impact Alpha Impact Voices Podcasts Agents of Impact Open
What's Next Measure Better Investing in Racial Equity Beyond Trade-offs Impact en las Americas New Revivalists
Local and Inclusive Climate Finance Catalytic Capital Capital on the Frontier Best Practices Geographies
Slack Conference Calls Events Contribute
The Archive ImpactSpace The Accelerator Selection Tool Network Map
About Us FAQ Calendar Pricing and Payment Policy Privacy Policy Terms of Service Agreement Contact Us
Locavesting Entrepreneurship Gender Smart Return on Inclusion Good Jobs Creative economy Opportunity Zones Investing in place Housing New Schooled Well Being People on the Move Faith and investing Inclusive Fintech
Clean Energy Farmer Finance Soil Wealth Conservation Finance Financing Fish
Innovative Finance
Personal Finance Impact Management
Africa Asia Europe Latin America Middle East Oceania/Australia China Canada India United Kingdom United States
Subscribe Log In

Hedging with Impact Investments?

I was intrigued by a line in the piece in the  Financial Times by Alex Friedman, the chief investment officer at UBS and Patty Stonesifer, the former head of the Gates Foundation that urged investment managers and banks to step up their impact investing activity:

“In today’s low-yield investment climate, impact investing is becoming more attractive because it is relatively uncorrelated to the broader market.”

I hadn’t previously heard the non-correlation point raised in the discussion of impact investing’s risk/reward equation, and it’s particularly salient coming from UBS (since it doesn’t sound like something Stonesifer would have written). UBS is increasing its own impact investing activity under Friedman, who was previously the Gates Foundation’s chief financial officer.

Non-correlation is part of a broader argument gaining currency that impact investments, especially those that focus on basic needs such as food, water, health care and education and on real assets, such as agricultural land, may have lower long-term risks than otherwise comparable investments.  But correlation is important argument in its own right. Turmoil in global stock markets means stock across industries increasingly rise and fall together. I found data from Bloomberg:  The 30-day correlation coefficient between the MSCI World Index and its members in that industry is 0.92, compared with the average since 1995 of 0.73. A reading of 1.0 would indicate total lockstep. (MSCI World, according to Wikipedia, is a stock index of 1,600 world stocks that is a benchmark of global stock funds, but is something of a misnomer as it excludes stocks from emerging and frontier economies).

Post-2008, hedge funds and other “traditional alternative investments” have turned out not to be as uncorrelated to the broader market as previously thought, part of the trigger for the rash of hedge-fund liquidations.

Is it really possible that impact investments are becoming the safe bet for mitigating market risk?

You might also like...