History has been made.
After last week's primary victories in California, New Jersey and New Mexico, Hillary Clinton has all but clinched a history-making presidential nomination from a major political party when Democrats convene next month.
On a smaller scale, Clinton's journey from her first widely known role as First Lady 20 years ago to seeking the Oval Office for herself is remarkable enough. Yet Clinton was quick to place her success in historical context, telling her supporters last week: "we all owe so much to those who came before, and tonight belongs to all of you."1
It's also significant considering that women have only had the right to vote for fewer than 100 years - and that broad support for a female candidate is a relatively new development. In 1937, for example, Gallup polled U.S. citizens on the question of whether people would vote for a female candidate for president if she was qualified in every other respect. Sixty-four percent said no.2
Amazingly, the first poll that finally saw majority support for a theoretical female candidate didn't come until 1971, when the women's rights moment had been growing in strength for several years.
Are women in high places delivering results?
What politics has been slow in accomplishing, though, has not been the case in the culture and hiring practices of large U.S. businesses, where female CEOs are more common than in politics. In fact, two companies in the Dow Jones Industrial Average -DuPont (NYSE:DD) and IBM (NYSE:IBM) - are led by women, and perhaps it's some sign of progress that former HP (NYSE:HPQ) CEO and presidential candidate Carly Fiorina faced some criticism for her HP tenure rather than being subject to a politically correct "kid gloves" evaluation that is often perceived to be given to female executives.
For investors, an occasional question with female-led companies has been whether there's any reason to think that owning these stocks is a good move on its face. That is, do stocks of companies led by women outperform those led by men?
It's a tricky question, one that is limited by the unfortunate small sample size of women CEOs, as well as the eventual rabbit hole of trying to suss out any causal relationships. That said, a study by Fortune two years ago showed that Fortune 1000 companies with female CEOs record better stock market returns than those with male CEOs. Only 51 of the Fortune 1000 companies are run by women.3
Other investments in female-led companies have also shown periods of outperformance. The No Glass Ceilings motif, for example, has increased 6.1 percent in the past 12 months. In that same time frame, the S&P 500 has gained 0.1 percent.
In the past month, the motif is up 0.1 percent; the S&P 500 is up 1.6 percent.
Other measures of the impact of having a woman in the top job are less murky. One study of 1,000 U.S. corporate boardrooms released last week showed that when women hold key leadership posts like chief executive officer or board chairman, more than 27 percent of director seats are held by women, compared with less than 18 percent when men are in charge.4
Yet a recent study by Morgan Stanley scored companies on a gender-diversity ranking - not just by how many women were in leadership roles (of all kinds), but also whether it had created progressive policies on things like day care.5 The study found that American and European companies with the most generous policies gender-diversity not only offered slightly higher returns in the stock market, but did so with lower volatility. The highest-ranked North American stocks beat the lowest by 2.3 percent on a monthly annualized basis in the past five years, and when adjusted for volatility, the advantage was greater.
Once again, causality is hard to pinpoint. Do stocks of diverse companies swing less because they're more friendly towards women, or do more successful companies have progressive policies to begin with?
For investors in companies with women CEOs, it may be enough to never figure it out and continue hoping for long-term outperformance.
1Patrick Healy and Jonathan Martin, "After Victory in California, Hillary Clinton Turns Toward Donald Trump," nytimes.com, June 7, 2016 (accessed June 12, 2016).
2Clare Malone, "From 1937 to Hillary Clinton, How Americans Have Felt About a Woman President," fivethirtyeight.com, June 9, 2016 (accessed June 12, 2016).
3Alanna Vagianos, "Women CEOs Are Good For Business, Says Study," huffingtonpost.com, July 15, 2014 (accessed June 12, 2016).
4Jeff Green, "Who's the Best at Finding Women for Company Boards? Women," Bloomberg.com, June 6, 2016 (accessed June 12, 2016).
5Oliver Renick, "Want Less Volatility? Morgan Stanley Urges Gender-Diverse Stocks," Bloomberg.com, May 25, 2016 (accessed June 12, 2016).
Investing in securities involves risks, you should be aware of prior to making an investment decision, including the possible loss of principal. An investment in individual stocks, or a collection of stocks focused on a particular theme or idea, such as a motif, may be subject to increased risk of price fluctuation over more diversified holdings due to adverse developments which can affect a particular industry or sector. Investments in ETFs can include those with a narrow or targeted investment strategy and can be subject to similar sector risks than more broadly diversified investments. Motif makes no representation regarding the suitability of a particular investment or investment strategy. You are responsible for all investment decisions you make including understanding the risks involved with your investment strategy.
Performance returns, including 1-month Return/Return Since Inception/1-year returns indicates the performance of this particular motif over that stated period of time as of the date provided. Performance is quoted for informational purposes only, however, there is no guarantee those returns will continue.