View more on these topics

Profile: Unbiased award winner on how to make money from ethical investing

Some might be wedded to the view that you cannot make money through ethical or socially responsible investing; that to profit you have to at least be prepared to compromise your principles.

Not surprisingly, Castlefield partner, financial advice, John Ditchfield – winner of the Responsible Investment Adviser category at this year’s Unbiased Media Awards – strongly disagrees.

He says: “To say that an ethically screened approach won’t make money is ridiculous. It could be a route for advisers who can’t provide advice in that area to close down the conversation.”

Ditchfield believes there is considerable un-met demand for advice on ethical and responsible investments, and points to evidence which shows responsible investment can deliver a compet-itive financial return. For example, FE data shows the Kames Ethical Equity fund outperformed the FTSE All Share by 15.3 per cent in the five years to 28 February.

Over the years Ditchfield has seen interest in ethical investment increase. However, he does not consider it to be mainstream.

“Responsible investment has been established long enough in the UK for people to be more than aware of it. The market is growing and becoming more sophisticated as new types of funds and products emerge. Some of the principles around governance issues and environmental impact have found their way in to the mainstream but I don’t think it is mainstream in itself. Many managers are still wary of the idea of ethical screening.”

Picking the right funds for the right clients

The responsible investment market covers a wide range of approaches from negative screening to engagement and impact investment. With around 90 investment funds that have an ethical or socially responsible objective, the skill of advisers like Ditchfield is to find which one works for each client.

“There is no one model for how an ethical or responsible fund should work; there are subtle differences between every one of them. We have a wide ranging discussion with the managers about their values and concerns. We have conversations about armaments, cigarettes and other areas that are likely to be excluded.

But we also look at positive criteria – investing in energy efficiency, renewal energy and other areas the client likes to support – and impact investing. There is evidence that engagement with businesses on environmental, social and governance issues can have a positive effect.”

Ditchfield’s interest in the responsible investment arena has its roots in his university days. As a student he was involved in environmental groups and campaigns to end third world debt. He then worked in the development of credit unions – co-operatives that provide loans and savings accounts to their members.

“I found this work interesting but wanted to be involved in something a little more entrepreneurial. As co-operatives, the ownership of credit unions are with the members; it is not possible to own a credit union or have a significant share in one.”

“There is no one model for how an ethical or responsible fund should work; there are subtle differences between every one of them.”

Breaking the mould

Ditchfield decided to become an IFA but found himself a square peg in a round hole.

“I was with a small advice firm based in Wimbledon but I struggled with the organisation’s sales culture, as there was no commitment to ongoing client service. This seemed wasteful as the firm needed to continually search for new clients.”

The experience was frustrating for Ditchfield, as he could see the transactional model the firm operated was broken and unlikely to last, but was unable to do anything about changing it as the senior managers had no interest in doing so.

It took a move to Barchester Green – an advice firm specialising in ethical investment – for Ditchfield to feel comfortable.

“Barchester Green was a good place to be an adviser. It had a bias towards responsible investment and its culture allowed for ongoing client service.”

In 2014 Barchester Green was acquired by Castlefield Capital, which already owned ethical advice firm Gaeia. “At the time of the merger, Barchester was doing well and had grown quite rapidly in terms of adviser numbers and assets under advice. It had managed to attract a high profile client list. But the board lacked the experience and depth of knowledge to really lift the business any further.”

After the merger Barchester Green and Gaeia rebranded and now fall under the Castlefield name.

A small pot solution?

Outside his day job, Ditchfield maintains an active interest in the ethical investment arena, and is currently co-chair of the Ethical Investment Association.

“I have been a board member with the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association, I continue to support the Ethical Investment Association and most recently I have been involved with the development of the Social Stock Exchange.”

At Castlefield, Ditchfield is focused on client work, keen to help with the development of a review process that meets clients’ expectations of ongoing service. It looks set to be a busy year for both Ditchfield and the firm as it focuses on its authorised corporate director service, as well as plans to launch a best of breed ethical fund and hitting a growth target of £1bn in assets under advice.

Mindful of the industry debate about robo-advice helping to plug the advice gap where cost is an issue, Castlefield is also busy with its telephone-based Investment Advice Service for individuals with smaller investments.

“We are resigned to the fact that some clients are priced out of the market with fees and the cost of onboarding clients. The firm launched the offering in response to the fact that we get a lot of enquiries from people with smaller pots. We want to be able to offer them advice via over-the-phone services.”

Five questions 

What is the best bit of advice you’ve been given in your career? 

Failing to plan is, in effect, planning to fail.

What keeps you awake at night? 

My dog has a habit of getting into barking contests with the local foxes – other than that I sleep very well.

What has had the most significant impact on financial advice in the last year? 

Pensions and retirement planning continue to be very complex areas for most clients, in particular; tapering of the annual allowance and the reduction in the lifetime allowance.

If I was in charge of the FCA for a day I would… 

Work to make the advice process less costly to deliver. I believe there is a very significant advice gap where individuals are deterred from taking advice because they feel it is too costly. Often it is those individuals who have most to gain from taking advice.

Any advice for new advisers? 

Look after your clients.

CV 

2014-present: Partner, Castlefield (formerly Barchester Green) 

2013-present: Admissions panel member, Social Stock Exchange 

2012-present: Co-chair, Ethical Investment Association 

2012-2015: Director/board member, UK Sustainable & Investment Finance Association 

2003-2014: Director, Barchester Green 

1995-2003: Credit union development manager, Single Regeneration Budget 

Recommended

Aviva Investors aims to promote sustainable investments

Aviva Investors has commissioned a report which proposes environmentally hostile activities result in higher insurance premiums for companies. Forum for the Future this week launched the ’Sustainable economy in 2040; a roadmap for capital markets’ report, which calls for the prioritisation of environmentally sustainable investments. The report outlines a series of actions, including issuing penalties […]

An open door for scammers?

Recent reports highlight that the Work and Pensions Select Committee of MPs are concerned about the potential for scams following the introduction of Pension Freedoms this year. This is a subject that we have already featured several times on the Jelf Blog, and one that we think is really important for employers (and of course […]

Navigating volatility

The making of any fund can be seen in how it responds to crises and opportunities. In this short video, Head of Multi Asset at Royal London Asset Management Trevor Greetham outlines how the Royal London Global Multi Asset Portfolios or GMAPs navigated through Brexit and the US election cycle. He also highlights the importance […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Investing successfully is difficult enough without trying to do it with one arm tied behind your back. Sure some ethical investments can make money, but it’s a dog eat dog world, so why restrict your choices? As long as it’s legal. If you have a conscience then find another outlet. You can always give some of your profits to charity.

    I wonder how you can invest in an ‘ordinary’ tracker with this impediment. And practically all funds will be denied you. Even then some ‘ethical’ funds might not tick all the boxes.

    Personally I don’t think any of these type of funds have a proper place. You may as well have gender specific funds as well. One for women, one for Gays and one for Lesbians. Whatever it is, it isn’t investing.

    • I concur on only one part with one small alteration, investing can be difficult enough and there are many theories or thoughts on this alone: what is best, active or passive management, the use of asset allocation or other portfolio theory? The point in this instance is that there is a choice, should you wish your values be taken into account in your investments you can. If you don’t, no one is dictating that this should be carried out or saying that is wrong not to, nor is anyone suggesting that one strategy or theory is the correct one. Understanding the client and their wants and needs, including whether or not they want their values to be taken into account is paramount in our industry and this cannot just be dismissed by “its a dog eat dog world”. If that was the case I’m not so sure the regulator would take such a strong stance on knowing your client and understanding their objectives.
      Giving to charity, sure, that is genuinely a great thing to do, but what is the route to the needs required by charities to fulfil, could it be the need to reverse actions of environmental degradation or the exploitation of humans and human rights potentially caused by the organisations that may be invested in to make a quick buck.
      Admittedly, there are some difficulties faced in some instances when trying to take values into account, but there are options available, that is the whole point. You are correct there may be some funds that wont tick all the boxes but there will be a strategy that best matches the clients objectives, most likely through a thought out and carefully selected diversified portfolio; perhaps where there is some engagement with the companies and funds invested within. Again, this isn’t for everyone, but there is definitely a growing proportion of society who are interested in where their money is invested and want to have a say.
      I’m not sure how this “isn’t investing”. A great portfolio to one person might be one with through the roof performance (of course not taking into account the risk taken to achieve this) and to someone else might be that they are receiving good returns on investments that are inline with their values and objectives. Who are we to say what is wrong or right? We are there to offer advice and support the best outcomes for the client.
      I appreciate your opinion, if you feel there is no place for these type of funds that is your prerogative. I happen to disagree and would hope to take a more understanding and more wide arching view that if that is a clients overriding goal or what they want to achieve why can we not support and understand that? I think as pointed out in the article there is a general misunderstanding of the area which is unfortunate as there is definitely an un-serviced demand for this type of investment strategy. I wonder if this is because of some of the attitudes portrayed above and the common misconceptions and misunderstanding people have with the space, who knows..
      Finally, I am not sure what the aspersion or relevance of gender specific or sexual orientation has to do with it. Regardless of this and within the society we live in this bares no relevance, whether male, female, transgender, bisexual, straight or gay, we as human beings have our own individual values and opinions, as of course do you, so I cant see why we wouldn’t want to cater for that rather than just dismissing it, as a matter of opinion, as nonsensical.

    • John Ditchfield 22nd April 2017 at 5:30 pm

      Thanks for your comments Harry. Unfortunately I can’t agree that investing responsibly will always impair returns, over the twenty year plus history of UK responsible investment it’s simply not the case. There are numerous examples of strong investment funds with market leading returns and ethical principles; take a look at the 15 year performance of Kames Ethical Equity if you want an example of this.

      The fact of the matter is that some companies have an extremely negative impact on the environment and on society as a result of their products and services. And quite reasonably many people don’t want their capital to be employed in a way which is damaging to society. My own view is that if they are given the choice people generally opt for an option which is less damaging. But the industry frustrates this desire but that’s perhaps for another time..

      Your final paragraph is something of a puzzle to me I have to confess. The fact is that 16bn is now invested in the UK and hundreds of billions are invested with a sustainability bias; Norway’s pension scheme is rapidly moving to a low-carbon strategy on environmental grounds, that is they are seeking to mitigate climate change. So I would strongly disagree as there is a large and growing market for responsible, ethical and impact investing.

Leave a comment