To date, research into socially responsible investment (SRI), and in particular the socially responsible investment funds industry, has focused on whether investing in SRI assets has any differential impact on investor returns. Prior findings generally suggest that, on a risk-adjusted basis, there is no difference in performance between SRI and conventional funds. This result has led to questions about whether SRI funds are really any different from conventional funds. This paper examines whether the portfolio allocation across industry sectors and the stock-picking ability of SRI managers are different when compared to conventional fund managers. The study finds that SRI funds exhibit different industry betas consistent with different portfolio positions, but that these differences vary from year to year. It is also found that there is little difference in stock-picking ability between the two groups of fund managers. Copyright Springer 2006socially responsible investment, managed funds, portfolio composition, ethical investment,

Perhaps the most common criticism of socially responsible investment funds is that imposing non-financial screens restricts investment opportunities, reduces diversification efficiencies and thereby adversely impacts performance. In this study we investigate this proposition and test whether the "number" of screens employed has a linear or curvilinear relation with return. Moreover, we analyse the link between screening intensity and risk. Screening intensity has no effect on unadjusted (raw) returns or idiosyncratic risk. However, we find a significant reduction in "&agr;" of 70 basis points per screen using the Carhart performance model. Increased screening results in lower systematic risk - in line with managers choosing lower "&bgr;" stocks to minimize overall risk. Copyright (c) The Authors. Journal compilation (c) 2010 AFAANZ.

No abstract

No abstract

In this paper, we review scholarly accounting research published within the Asia Pacific Region by analysing nine of the main accounting journals within the region along five dimensions. The nine journals we focus on are: Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal; Australian Accounting Review; Abacus; Accounting and Finance; Australian Journal of Management; Accounting Research Journal; Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics; Managerial Auditing Journal; and Pacific Accounting Review. The five dimensions we consider are: the most frequently cited papers; topical coverage; impact on practice; research method; and noted authors. Our review leads us to conclude that the accounting journals published within the Asia Pacific region make a significant contribution to research and practice both within the region and internationally.