Again and again all through my profession I’ve ranted concerning the nonsense of benchmarking in all its kinds. By now I’ve given up on the hope that enterprise and investing will ever depart the observe behind, so I don’t count on this put up to vary something besides to make me really feel higher.

So, indulge me for a minute or come again tomorrow . . .

I spoke not too long ago with a good friend about a company that we’re each intimately acquainted with and that has modified considerably over the past couple of years. For my part, one mistake the group made was to rent a strategic consulting agency to benchmark the group to its friends.

Alas, the result of that train was the dedication that the group needed to be extra like its friends to achieve success. In consequence, the group engaged in a cost-cutting and streamlining train in an effort to extend “effectivity.”

And guess what? Due to these measures, many individuals now assume that what made that group particular has been misplaced and are desirous about not being its buyer.

The issue with benchmarking an organization in opposition to its friends is that it tends to be the quickest path to mediocrity. Technique consultants evaluate corporations with distinctive cultures and enterprise fashions to their friends and inform them to undertake the identical strategies and processes that made their friends profitable previously.

However benchmarking an organization that’s about to vary the world is outright foolishness. In 2001 and 2002, Amazon’s share value dropped 80% or so. If Jeff Bezos had requested the Huge Three consultants what he ought to do, they’d have advised him to be extra like Barnes & Noble.

Identify a single firm that went from loser to star performer and even modified its trade based mostly on the recommendation of strategic consultants . . .

Or as Howard Marks, CFA, put it so clearly: “You possibly can’t do the identical factor as others do and count on to outperform.”

Which brings me to investing, the place pension fund consultants and different corporations have launched benchmarking as a key methodology to evaluate the standard of a fund’s efficiency.

In fact, fund supervisor efficiency must be evaluated in some way. However why does it must be in opposition to a benchmark set by a selected market index?

Once they’re benchmarked in opposition to a selected index, fund managers cease considering independently. A portfolio that strays too removed from the composition of the reference benchmark creates profession threat for the fund supervisor. If the portfolio underperforms by an excessive amount of or for too lengthy, the supervisor will get fired. So over time, fund managers spend money on increasingly of the identical shares and turn into much less and fewer lively. And that creates herding, significantly within the largest shares in an index. Why? As a result of fund managers can not afford to not be invested in these shares.

Paradoxically, the entire benchmarking pattern has turned round. Benchmarks are actually designed to trace different benchmarks as intently as doable. In different phrases, benchmarks are actually benchmarked in opposition to different benchmarks.

Take as an illustration the world of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing. Theoretically, ESG buyers ought to be pushed not simply by monetary objectives but in addition by ESG-specific targets. So their portfolios ought to look materially completely different from a conventional index just like the MSCI World. In actual fact, in a great world, ESG buyers would allocate capital in a different way than conventional buyers and thus assist steer capital to extra sustainable makes use of.

So, I went to the web site of a serious exchange-traded-fund (ETF) supplier and in contrast the portfolio weights of the businesses in its MSCI World ETF with the weights in its completely different ESG ETFs. The chart under reveals that there’s basically no distinction between these ETFs, sustainable or not.

Portfolio Weights (%) of the Largest Firms: Sustainable vs. Standard ETFs

The benefit of that is that buyers can simply swap from a traditional benchmark to an ESG benchmark with out a lot concern about dropping efficiency. That helps persuade institutional buyers to make the transfer.

However the draw back is that there’s little distinction between conventional and sustainable investments. If each firm qualifies for inclusion in an ESG benchmark after which has roughly the identical weight in that benchmark as in a traditional one, then what’s the purpose of the ESG benchmark? The place is the profit for the investor? Why ought to corporations change their enterprise practices when they are going to be included in an ESG benchmark with minimal effort anyway and gained’t threat dropping any of their buyers?

Benchmarking ESG benchmarks in opposition to typical benchmarks is like benchmarking Amazon in opposition to different retail corporations. It’s going to kill Amazon’s progress and switch it into one other Barnes & Noble.

For extra from Joachim Klement, CFA, don’t miss 7 Errors Each Investor Makes (And How one can Keep away from Them), and Threat Profiling and Tolerance, and join his Klement on Investing commentary.

If you happen to favored this put up, don’t neglect to subscribe to the Enterprising Investor.

All posts are the opinion of the writer. As such, they shouldn’t be construed as funding recommendation, nor do the opinions expressed essentially replicate the views of CFA Institute or the writer’s employer.

Picture credit score: ©Getty Pictures / Mike Watson Pictures

Skilled Studying for CFA Institute Members

CFA Institute members are empowered to self-determine and self-report skilled studying (PL) credit earned, together with content material on Enterprising Investor. Members can document credit simply utilizing their on-line PL tracker.