Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 365

Wirecard shows not all ethical ETFs pass the smell test

Last week, German payments giant Wirecard filed for insolvency, owing creditors almost $5.8 billion. The company’s collapse came a week after its auditor, Ernst and Young (EY), found a massive $3.1 billion hole in its books. EY refused to sign off on the company’s 2019 accounts, saying there were indications of an “elaborate and sophisticated fraud involving multiple parties around the world”.

Markus Braun, the firm’s CEO, resigned and was subsequently arrested on suspicion of misrepresenting the firm’s finances.

Wirecard’s implosion is a stunning fall from grace for a company that was once seen as a champion of the European technology industry. So how is the demise of a German fintech company relevant to Australian investors?

While it’s likely that relatively few Australian investors will have had direct exposure to Wirecard, it’s possible that significantly more had exposure via a managed fund or ETF. The holders of broad sharemarket funds may be relatively sanguine about an event such as this, accepting that broad sharemarket exposure inevitably involves ‘taking the bad with the good’.

However, for one rapidly-growing class of people, investing their money in businesses whose environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards are beyond reproach is non-negotiable. For these investors, a true-to-label ethical exposure is one of the most important factors to be considered in their investment choices.

What do we know about Wirecard?

Wirecard offers products and services in the areas of mobile payments, e-commerce, digitisation and finance technology. It is also one of the popular options consumers can use to gamble online. Once an account is set up with Wirecard, it can be loaded with funds from a credit or debit card, or from a bank account. Account holders can use Wirecard to move money to and from online casinos, without having to disclose their banking information.

In a report by the Financial Times, Wirecard acknowledged that up to 10% of its payment volumes “relate to lottery, gambling, dating, adult entertainment and associated business models”.

In its Responsible Investment Benchmark Report 2019, the Responsible Investment Association Australasia (RIAA) found that 82% of the responsible investment managers surveyed said they screened investments for gambling (see figure below).

Source: Responsible Investment Benchmark Report 2019, RIAA.

True-to-label ethical exposure?

For investors who are concerned about the true-to-label exposure of their ethical investments, it’s essential to have confidence that an ethical fund is screening out investments that do not align with their values.

Our global equities-focused ethical ETF (ASX:ETHI) aims to track an index that applies limits to the percentage of a company’s revenue that can be derived from activities deemed inconsistent with responsible investment considerations. These exposure limit guidelines include a limit of 0% for casinos and manufacture of gaming products and 5% for distribution of gambling products.

Due to its involvement in gambling, Wirecard did not pass ETHI’s index screening process and was not included in its portfolio. It was estimated that well over 5% of Wirecard’s revenue was derived from providing payment services to online gambling, poker tournaments, and sports betting platforms.

Wirecard was also excluded from other ASX-traded ethical ETFs, but not all.

The performance of a number of ethical equity-focused ETFs has been strong, inclduing ETHI. However, we believe that one of the primary reasons that investors (both institutional and individual) have favoured our ethical funds is the integrity and quality of the investment methodology our funds employ.

In addition, the Betashares Responsible Investment Committee may, applying the ESG-related screening criteria, exclude a company exposed to significant ESG-related reputational risk or controversy, if it considers that its inclusion would be inconsistent with the values of the underlying index.

The strictness of screening processes can vary between ethical ETFs, and many ethical ETFs rely on off-the-shelf indices without additional oversight. This can result in stock inclusions that may not pass the ethical ‘smell test’ and would be out of place for many investors seeking an ethical exposure.

For example, the French beauty giant L’Oréal is currently a constituent in some ethical ETFs trading on the ASX. This company conducts animal testing for cosmetic purposes and has received a “Fail” grade from the influential Ethical Consumer Guide. L’Oréal was screened out of ETHI’s portfolio based upon its record on animal welfare.

In the last two years, other stocks screened out of ETHI but included in the portfolios of other ethical ETFs traded on the ASX include Halliburton, Schlumberger, Barrick Gold, Valero and Kering. We believe ethical investors may not be comfortable with these companies for reasons such as environmental degradation, fossil fuel exposure, animal cruelty, junk food, bribery, fraud, tax evasion and breaking trade sanctions.

Not all ethical funds are created equally

The Wirecard episode demonstrates the importance of understanding what lies ‘under the hood’ of an ethical ETF. There can be significant differences between fund methodologies, and as a consequence, in the ability of different funds to deliver on their promise of offering ethically screened portfolios that align with the values of ethical investors.

 

Richard Montgomery is the Marketing Communications Manager at BetaShares, a sponsor of Firstlinks. This article is for general information purposes only and does not address the needs of any individual. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Investment value can go down as well as up.

For more articles and papers from BetaShares, please click here.

*ETHI is certified by RIAA according to the strict operational and disclosure practices required under the Responsible Investment Certification Program. The Responsible Investment Certification Program does not constitute financial product advice. Neither the Certification Symbol nor RIAA recommends to any person that any financial product is a suitable investment or that returns are guaranteed. Appropriate professional advice should be sought prior to making an investment decision. RIAA does not hold an Australian Financial Services Licence. www.responsibleinvestment.org.

 

  •   8 July 2020
  •      
  •   

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

The rise of socially responsible investing

Discovering the good and the bad among ethical ETFs

Four reasons ESG investing continues to grow

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Why spending more in early retirement can improve lifetime income

Conventional wisdom encourages retirees to preserve superannuation. But if those likely to qualify for the Age Pension later in life spend a little more today, it may deliver higher lifetime income and a more stable retirement.

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

Is it time to bail on Australian stocks?

For generations, Australian investors have backed banks, miners and dividends. But has that loyalty come at a cost? A look at the numbers raises an uncomfortable question about where future returns will come from.

Testamentary trusts survived the trust tax. The drafting battle has just begun.

The fight over testamentary trusts looked settled. Then the draft legislation arrived. Hidden in a technical detail is a question that could force many families to rethink wills they thought were already future-proof.

The new capital gains tax trap for your portfolio

Investors have long accepted one portfolio rule without much question. A major tax shift could change that calculation entirely, forcing difficult trade-offs between risk, discipline and an overlooked cost lurking beneath.

The investing rule that explains the next market crash

What if investment success depends less on picking the right assets and more on understanding the decisions of other investors? A principle borrowed from game theory offers a different perspective on markets.

Latest Updates

Fixed interest

Higher yields are creating opportunities in global bonds

Bond markets are adjusting to a new reality, but not in the ways investors expect. With markets repricing and capital competing for attention, investors may need to rethink where resilience and opportunity lie. 

Economy

Are we in a recession?

What if the warning signs are already everywhere? From supermarket aisles to company failures, investors are being bombarded with recession signals. But most face a different risk that can be just as dangerous for portfolios. 

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs - Division 296 actuarial certificates

The tax bill might be yours, but the event that caused it may not be. A key Division 296 calculation can sometimes attribute earnings in ways that many SMSF trustees won't instinctively expect or fully appreciate.

Property

The first impact of negative gearing reform is not the tax bill

Negative gearing changes formally begin in 2027, but the first consequences may already be here. A subtle shift is quietly influencing who can borrow, how much they can access and which property strategies still stack up.

Economy

The oil market is running out of easy answers

The biggest threat to markets may not be what investors are watching. The numbers have stopped adding up and supply is harder to measure, with forecasts becoming simple guesses. A more fragile reality is being masked.

Investment strategies

The state of investor knowledge in Australia

Australians are investing more than ever, yet a surprising divide is emerging between those building wealth effectively and those making costly mistakes. Surprisingly, the gap has little to do with income, age or starting capital.

Taxation

Complexity and capital gains

A case study shows that the ‘30% minimum CGT’ is a poorly conceived tax that adds significant complexity to an already over-complex system. A less complicated model would create a much fairer progressive tax scale.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.