Sustainable-Investing Exam Dumps - Sustainable Investing Certificate(CFA-SIC) Exam

Information for use in ESG tools can be collected directly via company communications. This includes sustainability reports, financial disclosures, press releases, and other direct communications from the company. Such sources provide primary data that are essential for accurate ESG analysis and assessment​​.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

=================

Evaluating Emission Reduction Commitments:

A company's emission reduction commitments can be evaluated using various methods, but science-based targets provide the most robust framework for assessing these commitments.

1. Scope 3 Emissions: Scope 3 emissions include all indirect emissions that occur in a company's value chain, such as emissions from purchased goods and services, business travel, and waste disposal. While important, focusing solely on Scope 3 emissions does not provide a complete picture of a company's overall emission reduction strategy.

2. Science-Based Targets: Science-based targets (SBTs) are emission reduction targets that are aligned with the level of decarbonization required to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. SBTs provide a clear and scientifically validated pathway for companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in line with global climate goals.

3. Financial Modelling of Material Environmental Factors: Financial modelling of material environmental factors can provide insights into the financial impacts of environmental risks and opportunities. However, it is not as directly linked to evaluating the specific commitments and pathways for emission reduction as science-based targets are.

References from CFA ESG Investing:

Science-Based Targets: The CFA Institute highlights the importance of science-based targets in providing a credible and transparent framework for companies to set and achieve their emission reduction commitments. SBTs ensure that companies' goals are aligned with global climate science and policy objectives.

Emission Reduction Strategies: Understanding and evaluating emission reduction strategies through the lens of science-based targets allows investors to assess the credibility and effectiveness of a company's commitments.

In conclusion, a company’s emission reduction commitments are best evaluated using science-based targets, making option B the verified answer.

=================

Applying ESG screens to quantitative strategies typically directs the portfolio on a top-down basis. This approach involves integrating ESG factors into the overall portfolio construction and management process, rather than evaluating individual issuers or assets in isolation. This method ensures that ESG considerations are systematically incorporated into the investment strategy, aligning with broader portfolio goals​​​​.

=================

The UK Stewardship Code and the European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA) Code both aim to enhance the quality of stewardship and engagement by institutional investors. However, there are some differences in the principles they address.

1. UK Stewardship Code Principles: The UK Stewardship Code outlines several principles for institutional investors, including monitoring investee companies, managing conflicts of interest, and reporting on stewardship and voting activities.

2. EFAMA Code Principles: The EFAMA Code, while similar in many respects, does not explicitly address all the principles covered by the UK Stewardship Code. One of the key differences is the requirement for institutional investors to report periodically on their stewardship and voting activities.

3. Reporting on Stewardship and Voting Activities: The UK Stewardship Code emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability by requiring institutional investors to report periodically on their stewardship and voting activities. This principle is not explicitly addressed in the EFAMA Code, making it a notable difference between the two frameworks.

References from CFA ESG Investing:

Stewardship Codes: The CFA Institute highlights the importance of stewardship codes in promoting responsible investment practices. While both the UK Stewardship Code and the EFAMA Code encourage active engagement and monitoring of investee companies, the UK code places a stronger emphasis on reporting and transparency in stewardship activities.

Transparency in Stewardship: Reporting on stewardship and voting activities is crucial for ensuring that institutional investors are accountable to their beneficiaries and stakeholders. The UK Stewardship Code's focus on this principle underscores its commitment to enhancing the quality and transparency of stewardship practices.

In conclusion, the principle that institutional investors should report periodically on their stewardship and voting activities is not addressed in the EFAMA Code, making option B the verified answer.

=================

An unfavorable corporate governance assessment would most likely be incorporated in valuation through increased risk premia in the cost of capital. Poor governance practices can increase the perceived risk of a company, leading investors to demand higher returns for taking on that risk. This results in a higher cost of capital for the company, which can negatively affect its valuation. Adjusting the discount rate to reflect governance risks is a common practice in valuation models​​​​​​.

=================

The LEAP assessment framework developed by the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) consists of four phases: Locate, Evaluate, Assess, and Prepare. This framework is designed to help organizations understand and address nature-related risks and opportunities.

Locate: This phase involves identifying and mapping the interface of the organization with nature. It includes understanding the dependencies and impacts of the organization's activities on nature.

Evaluate: In this phase, organizations evaluate the material risks and opportunities that arise from their interactions with nature. This includes assessing how these risks and opportunities could affect their operations, value chains, and financial performance.

Assess: Organizations conduct detailed assessments of the material risks and opportunities identified in the Evaluate phase. This involves deeper analysis to quantify and prioritize the risks and opportunities.

Prepare: The final phase involves preparing strategic responses to mitigate risks and capitalize on opportunities. Organizations develop plans and actions to manage nature-related risks and enhance resilience.

Option C, "Evaluate material risks and opportunities for their operations," aligns with the Evaluate phase of the LEAP framework, making it the correct answer.

Step 1: Understanding EU Paris-Aligned and Climate Transition Benchmarks

The EU Paris-Aligned Benchmarks (PAB) and EU Climate Transition Benchmarks (CTB) were established to help investors align their portfolios with the Paris Agreement goals. They aim to guide investments towards a low-carbon economy and provide standards for climate-related financial products.

Step 2: Key Characteristics of the Benchmarks

Paris-Aligned Benchmark (PAB): Designed to align with a 1.5°C temperature rise scenario.

Climate Transition Benchmark (CTB): Allows for a broader alignment with climate transition objectives, aiming for a less stringent pathway than the PAB.

Step 3: Common Features

Both benchmarks:

Require reductions in carbon intensity compared to a standard benchmark.

Aim to support the transition towards a low-carbon economy.

Use a sector-relative approach, meaning companies’ performances are compared to their sector averages to account for differences in sectoral emission profiles.

Step 4: Verification with ESG Investing References

Both the EU PAB and CTB use a relative approach to compare a company's performance to its sector average, ensuring that high-emission sectors still contribute to the transition: "These benchmarks use sector-relative decarbonization approaches, comparing companies within the same sector to ensure fair and achievable targets across different industries"​​​​.

Conclusion: The EU Paris-Aligned Benchmarks and EU Climate Transition Benchmarks both use a relative approach by comparing a company's performance to its sector average.

=================

Regime switching models are used in finance to account for changes in the behavior of financial variables under different regimes or states. These models help in capturing the effects of abrupt shifts due to various factors, including economic changes, policy shifts, or market conditions.

Step 2: Key Characteristics

Historical Data: While historical data may be used, these models are not typically based solely on it.

Usage by Practitioners: Although useful, they are not the most widely used models among practitioners.

Abrupt Changes: They are specifically designed to model abrupt changes in financial variables, which can result from shifts in regulations, policies, or other macroeconomic changes.

Step 3: Verification with ESG Investing References

Regime switching models are crucial for understanding and modeling the impact of sudden regulatory or policy changes on financial variables: "These models are effective in capturing the shifts in market dynamics caused by changes in regulations and policies, providing a robust framework for strategic asset allocation"​​​​.

Conclusion: Regime switching strategic asset allocation models are used to model abrupt changes in financial variables due to shifts in regulations and policies.

=================