Hmm, let's just take a little look at the metrics they chose, shall we? First off, ROE -- return on equity -- varies wildly between different industries. Because of this comparing any company's ROE versus the all company average is really only serves to show how capital intensive its industry group is. If 'women led' companies score higher on this metric it only means that they are concentrated in less capital intensive industries such as retail or tech versus utilities or mining, for example. But the article doesn't seem to mention anything about this. How odd.

A lower weighted cost of capital to women led companies is easily explained by the ESG incentives themselves where governments or private entities give preference (lower borrowing rates) to such companies.

Similarly, stock valuation of women led companies are likely to outperform under an ESG regime that directly incentivizes investment in such companies or discourages investment in their competitors. For example, under this regime many large investment funds such as government pensions may ONLY invest in companies with 'appropriate' ESG scores. On top of this there are now many active and passive investment instruments which track high ESG score companies and as such serve to buoy their stock prices.

So in summary what we've got here is some simple 'how to lie with statistics' combined with predictable effects of the ESG movement itself. What a surprise.

And then there's this little gem at the end:

In Asia, meanwhile, companies with a greater proportion of women in management outperformed those with a lesser proportion by 29% over a five-year period, according to BofA’s analysis. Since 2010, these companies have, on average, had higher ROE, better environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, rankings, and a lower weighted average cost of capital.

Soooo... companies that have more female leadership (thus bumping up their ESG score) have a higher ESG score! Shocking, right?