Two worlds are starting to turn

Are women asset managers as good as men? Do assets that pass environmental, social and governance (ESG) tests perform better than, say, shares in a Congolese diamond mine? Anyone inclined to ask these questions can track the ESG Women for Women fund set up in January 2022 by manager DWS, which is 80% owned by Deutsche Bank. The website displays a gallery of 14 women between 25 and 52 who speak 14 languages and have six to 22 years’ experience. Pictures to quell doubts.

How is the fund doing? It is down 5.4% since launch, but up 4.5% in the past 12 months – about the same as many other DWS funds. The wider 3,500-strong investment manager holds €860bn (£745bn) of assets under management, including €71bn (£62bn) of directly held real estate, with €33bn (£29bn) of that stock in Europe, including build-to-rent investments in the UK.

On 25 September, DWS agreed to pay $19m (£16m) to US regulators to settle charges over mis-statements in its 2020 annual report regarding its ESG policies. A similar ‘greenwashing’ probe by German regulator BaFin is ongoing. This may explain two things: one, ESG is a very sensitive subject; and two, DWS is doing what it can to expunge the greenwash stain. For instance, ESG marks on the Women for Women fund are given for company working conditions, equal rights, gender distribution and work-life balance.

I wondered, does DWS have hard evidence of its women-run ESG fund’s under-/over-performance? Don’t ask. How about a statement on the idea gender plays a part in investment decisions? No, look, please, don’t ask. What is the male/female ratio of fund managers?

We can’t say. Reduced to exploring the DWS website, it is clear the organisation is trying hard to become ‘investors for the new now’, as its mission statement puts it.

DWS’s travails have of course roiled the business. Many hirings and firings have been reported. Operations in London are now run by Jessica Hardman, promoted in June to head the 450-strong UK team, as well as running that Europe-wide portfolio.

The 43-year-old studied real estate at Oxford Brookes and cut her teeth at what is fondly remembered as Weatherall Green & Smith, now part of BNP Paribas, joining what was Deutsche Bank in 2003. Next year she becomes president of the BPF and will have a platform to speak on the above-mentioned topics.

Teardown: Comer v Greenwich

On 25 September, a row exposing multiple failings in the planning control system erupted when Greenwich council ordered Comer Homes to tear down 204 rental flats finished last year at Mast Quay. The half-let scheme rises from six to 23 storeys and overlooks the Woolwich ferry terminal. Comer will appeal. For now, the site and all that stands on it is worthless. How did it come to this? Explore the background before making a judgement.

The wider Comer Group has Irish roots. It was founded 30 years ago by Galway-born Brian and Luke Comer. The one-time contract plasterers came to London in 1984 and set about making a fortune from developing, largely unnoticed until now. The Sunday Times Rich List gives them a net worth of £913m. “We encourage the council to meet with us and agree a way forward which will avoid wasting significant sums of taxpayers’ money on litigation,” said Comer, signalling the depth of its pockets.

Greenwich’s year-long investigation lists 26 infractions, including a 6% rise in residential floor areas in one tower, 4.5% in another, different cladding, less glazing and smaller balconies. It is “so substantially different to the scheme permitted it therefore does not have permission”, says the council.

The permission in question was for 218 flats, granted in 2012 to an Irish developer that went bust. That agreement included a £2.4m Section 106 contribution, including £1.5m for Crossrail down to £738 for ‘public art’. Council leader Anthony Okereke calls the teardown order “reasonable and proportionate” as “Mast Quay represents two high-rise buildings that just are not good enough”.

Many have rushed to judgement. Comer defenders ask what building inspectors were doing during construction, wrongly assuming it is their job to police planning conditions. But surely the council has other eyes? Council defenders say the time has come to defend the planning system from abuse. Otherwise, what is the point of anyone else following the rules. Me? I say well done Greenwich for bringing the case. A chat with an eminent planner last week led to the conclusion that local planning officers have had enough of being abused and kicked around for 25 years. The world is starting to turn. On the other hand, the area is full of eyesore towers, freely granted permission. One left standing won’t make much difference.

Peter Bill is a journalist and the author of Planet Property and Broken Homes