This study investigates the independent effects of environmental (E), social (S), corporate governance (G), and the composite ESG ratings on stock returns and corporate financing decisions of the largest stocks in the Australian equity market. Firms with high composite ESG ratings tend to increase their leverage. For the individual ratings, we find different inferences: firms with low E and high G ratings tend to raise less debt. Firms with high G ratings hold less cash, while those with low G ratings have lower dividend payouts. S ratings have no impact on corporate financing decisions. There appears to be no significant difference in risk‐adjusted returns for portfolios based on ESG ratings, effectively indicating that there is no cost of ESG investment.

Can Australian equity returns be modelled by 'home-grown' factors? We examine the indigenous capital asset pricing model, the indigenous Fama-French three-factor model, and extensions to the latter, and find them all wanting. We find evidence of domestic market segmentation in Australia. For the smallest firms, all the models we study fail. For the largest Australian firms, we find that the US Fama-French three factors (downloaded from French's website: http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/ ) provide a successful model of Australian returns. It is as if the largest firms in the Australian market are simply part of the larger US market. Copyright (c) The Authors Journal compilation (c) 2006 AFAANZ.

Our note examines the momentum effect in Australia using the J-month/K-month methodology of Jegadeesh and Titman (1993, 2001). Our sample consists of stocks listed on the Australian stock exchange from January 1980 to December 2001. We do not find evidence for a momentum effect in Australia during this period. Rather, we find evidence of significantly positive returns for ‘loser’ portfolios in July-the first month of the Australian financial year.

No abstract

No abstract