在之前的文章《特斯拉，太阳能，以及这背后的ESG投资》中我们提到，种种迹象表明，大量资金涌入以E.S.G.为投资主题的交易所交易基金。该主题当前火得一塌糊涂，风头一时无两，而这仅仅是一个开始，向绿色投资转型的大趋势才刚刚拉开帷幕。

2020年2月24日的华尔街日报刊登了一篇评论员文章，作者是James Mackintosh，标题为”Sustainable Funds Mostly Track the Market”（即：可持续发展基金的主要市场追踪），文章追踪了美股此类E.S.G.基金的主要持仓情况。令人感到意外的是，根据追踪数据，作者认为Tesla似乎并不受ESG基金追捧，其表现也乏善可陈。到底怎么一回事呢？对照原文做了简单翻译，在此与大家分享学习，兼听则明。

译者  混沌超

文中蓝字部分为原文，黑字部分为译文，下划线部分为译者注释或补充说明。

Funds that promise environmental, social or governance improvements area strange bunch: They hold more in technology stocks than the wider market, butare underweight Apple, Amazon. com and Facebook, three of the biggest.

ESG基金是个奇怪的市场异类：他们重仓科技股，却低配了苹果、亚马逊和Facebook这三家科技巨头。

They hold far less in oil companies than the norm, but are overweightBaker Hughes, a vital supplier of oil-drilling equipment and services.Starbucks, a small fry in the S&P 500, is the fifth-most popular stock withU.S. ESG funds classed as buyers of large companies. Meanwhile, electric-car makerTesla isn’t that popular with ESG managers.

相对市场常态而言，他们很少持有石油公司，然而却重仓了贝克休斯公司——一家石油钻探设备和服务的重要供应商。星巴克在标普500指数中权重很小无足轻重，却被视为大公司买家的美国ESG基金列为第五大受欢迎的股票。同时，电动汽车制造商特斯拉在ESG经理中并不那么受欢迎（当然，也许是因为特斯拉的价格实在是令人无法下手，波动率也让很多人望而生畏）。

Digging into the holdings of ESG funds should help identify where theflood of cash pouring into supposedly sustainable funds is headed and so whichshares might benefit. There is a lot of discussion among investors of whether thenew popularity of ESG funds will pump up the value of tech stocks and hurt oil sharesand the stocks of other carbon-intensive companies. The answer so far seems tobe no, but that could change.

挖掘ESG基金的持股情况有助于确认所谓可持续发展资金的主要流向，从而判断哪些股票可能受益。投资者之间有很多讨论，关于ESG基金的新时尚是否会增加科技股的价值、并损害石油股和其他能源消耗型公司的股票。到目前为止，似乎并没有，但局面可能发生改变。

The detailed holdings mostly show that ESG funds don’t agree on much—except they don’t like oil or Facebook.

ESG基金的持仓明细表明，除了他们都不喜欢石油和Facebook，其他并没达成什么共识。

I examined the positions at the end of last year of 219 U.S. mutualand exchange-traded funds classified by Morningstar as integrating ESG into theirinvestment process or focusing on sustainable themes. They include active,quantitative and index-tracking funds.

我查了一下去年底被晨星（Morningstar，知名财经数据公司）列为ESG主题的219只基金的头寸，包括了主动管理型基金、量化基金和指数基金。

At a sector level, the biggest differences from the S&P 500 amongthe ESG funds classified as buyers of large U.S. stocks—adjusted to exclude theirmany non-S&P holdings— are that on average they hold moretech and less communication services and energy than the index.

在行业领域方面，被归为美国大公司买家的ESG基金与标准普尔500指数最大的不同（经调整后剔除了许多非标普成分股票），是相比指数成分，它持有更多的科技股以及更少的通信服务和能源股。

At 24.7% in tech, the average ESG fund held about 1.6 percentagepoints more than the S&P 500, almost all offset by far smaller positions inFacebook and AT&T, both in the communications sector. In energy, oil majorExxon Mobil is deeply unpopular, while Baker Hughes is the sector’s most widely held, appearingin 44 funds and on average held at three times its (small) weight in theS&P.

ESG基金平均持有24.7％的科技类股票，比标准普尔500指数高出约1.6个百分点，几乎全部被同属通信领域的Facebook和AT＆T所占的极小头寸抵消(意思是说,因为这俩也算科技股,所以科技股权重在ESG基金和标普500其实没差)。在能源领域，石油巨头埃克森美孚（Exxon Mobil）则极不受欢迎，而贝克休斯（Baker Hughes）是该行业中最受待见的股票，共有44只基金持有其股票，平均持股量是标普（小型股）指数的三倍。

The most popular stock is Microsoft, just as it is with non-ESGinvestors. Among the least popular U.S. stocks of any size are tobaccoproducers, gambling stocks and makers of weapons such as Boeing and Textron,excluded by conditions of many of the funds.

最受欢迎的股票是微软，这与非ESG投资者一样。在美国最不受欢迎的股票中，无论规模大小，烟草生产商、赌博股、以及波音和德事隆（Textron）等武器生产商都被许多基金排除在外。

The trouble with working out where inflows will go is that no one buysthe average. Among the 219 funds, half managed under $100 million at the startof the year. Look instead at the aggregate of holdings, so that the choices ofthe biggest funds make the most difference, and they are even more heavilyoverweight tech, again mostly offset by being underweight in Facebook andAT&T.

在追踪资金流向时，平均数并不能够说明问题。219只基金里，按今年初算其实有一半基金管理规模还不到1亿美金。那么我们转而看看累计持股量，这样大基金的影响权重更大，并且他们更偏爱重仓科技股，同样的，大多还是不待见Facebook和AT＆T。

Unlike the average fund, though, the big funds hold much less infinancials than the broad market, due to the near-absence of Warren Buffett's BerkshireHathaway, classified as a financial stock. Mr. Buffett has been scathing aboutESG, and Berkshire operates coal-fired power plants.

然而与普通基金不同的是，由于大基金几乎不买巴菲特的伯克希尔，而伯克希尔又被归为金融股，所以大基金相比大盘则持有更少的金融股。巴菲特严厉抨击ESG，伯克希尔则经营着燃煤电厂业务。

ESG funds in total had only $112 million of Tesla stock at the end of2019, much less than if they merely tracked the Russell 1000 large-stock index.(Tesla is excluded from the S&P 500 due to a lack of profitability.) Tesla'srecent rally hasn't been supercharged by ESG fund buying.

截至2019年底，ESG基金总共只持有1.12亿美金的特斯拉股票，这比仅追踪罗素1000大盘股指数的资金要少得多。（由于缺乏盈利能力，特斯拉被排除在标普500指数之外。）特斯拉最近的涨势并不是因为ESG基金的买盘而带动。

The broad picture is that if new ESG money goes where current ESGmoney is, it should flow disproportionately to tech stocks, while Facebook, oilproducers, tobacco and weapons makers mostly miss out.

大方向上看，如果新的ESG基金资金配置与当前风格一致，那么资金会大幅流入科技股，但是Facebook、石油生产商、烟草公司和武器生产商则大多会错过这一机会。

But so far, the effects are indiscernible. In the energy sector, forexample, there is no relationship at all between how over- or underweight ESG fundsare and performance over the past year, the past three years or the price-to-bookvaluation. The tech sector, likewise, has no relationship between ESG weightsand performance or forward price/ earnings. Other factors are more importantand, along with fees, explain why, on average, ESG funds underperformed theS&P 500 over both one and three years.

但是截至目前，（ESG基金投资的）影响并不明朗。举个例子，在能源板块，就没有任何迹象表明ESG基金重仓或者减仓会影响到板块股票过去一年、三年的账面价值。而科技板块，同样地也没有任何迹象表明ESG基金的权重会影响板块股票的预测市盈率。（相比考虑ESG基金权重）其他因素更重要，这其实也解释了要算上费用的话，这些个ESG基金无论是看一年、看三年，都跑不赢标普500指数。

—▼—

总结一下，作者的意思就是说，股票的价格反映的是其价值，无论是ESG还是什么五花八门的风格基金，对市场的影响力有限，而算上各类费用，长远点看甚至还跑不赢指数基金。虽然文章分析的是美股市场，但是反观A股，今年初也是有一大批风格基金涌现，受到市场疯狂追捧。作者的观点很有借鉴意义，这正是笔者想与大家分享的原因。至于如何选择，相信诸位心中自有答案。也欢迎阅读之前一篇关于指数基金的科普贴：《不会选股与择时，如何投资股市呢？》，希望有所收获。

以上。