No abstract

No abstract

Internet, Banks, Value, Technology, Risk-return,

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Abstract: Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is increasingly a core component of corporate strategy in the global economy. In recent years its importance has become even greater, primarily because of the financial scandals, investors' losses, and reputational damage to listed companies. While corporations are busy adopting and enhancing CSR practices, there is (beyond very few notable exceptions) no established empirical research on CSR's impact and relevance in the capital market. This paper investigates this issue by tracing the market reaction to corporate entry and exit from the Domini 400 Social Index, recognized as a CSR benchmark, between 1990 and 2004. The paper highlights two main findings: a significant upward trend in absolute value abnormal returns, irrespective of the type of event (for example, addition or deletion from the index), and a significant negative effect on abnormal returns after exit announcements from the Domini index. The latter effect persists even after controlling for concurring financial distress shocks and stock market seasonality. Terms of use: Documents inJEL classification: G14, D21, L21

No abstract

We analyse the performance of a large sample of Socially Responsible (SR) stocks relative to a Control Sample (CS) of equivalent size for 14 years. We\ud find that individual SR stocks have on average significantly lower returns and unconditional variance than CS stocks when controlling for industry effects. This result is paralleled by descriptive evidence on the lower (daily return) mean and variance of the buy-and-hold strategies on the SR portfolio with respect to those on the control portfolio. Beyond this first evidence we discover that: (i) individual SR stocks are significantly less risky when controlling for conditional heteroskedasticity; (ii) there are no significant differences in risk-adjusted returns between the two buy-and-hold strategies on (SR and CS) portfolios; (iii) the buyand-hold strategies on the SR portfolio exhibits significantly lower exposition to systematic nondiversifiable risk. These last findings are robust to different – market model, Generalized Autoregressive\ud Conditional Heteroskedasticity (GARCH(1, 1)), Asymmetric Power ARCH (APARCH(1, 1)) – model specifications

We investigate the pererformance of socially responsible funds (SRFs) and conventional funds (CFs) in different market (geographical area and class\ud size) segments during the period 1992–2012. From an unbalanced sample of more than 22 000 funds, we define a matched sample using a betadistance measure to match any SRF with the ‘nearest neighbour’ CF in terms of sensitivity to risk factors. Using this matching approach and a recursive analysis, we identify several switch points in the lead/lag relationship between the two investment styles over time in different market segments. A relevant finding of our analysis is that SRFs played an ‘insurance role’ outperforming CFs during the 2007 global financial crisis

We analyze the performance of a large sample of SR stocks relative to a control sample of equivalent size for 14 years. We find that individual SR stocks have on average significantly lower returns and unconditional variance than control sample stocks when controlling for industry effects. This result is paralleled by descriptive evidence on the lower (daily return) mean and variance of the buy-and-hold strategies on the SR portfolio with respect to those on the control portfolio. Beyond this first evidence we discover that: i) individual SR stocks are significantly less risky when controlling for conditional heteroskedasticity; ii) there are no significant differences in risk adjusted returns between the two buy and hold strategies on (SR and control sample) portfolios; iii) the buy-and-hold strategies on the SR portfolio exhibits significantly lower exposition to systematic nondiversifiable risk. These last findings are robust to different -market model, GARCH(1,1), APARCH(1,1) -model specifications.