Corporate socially responsible investments: CEO altruism,reputation, and shareholder interests

Corporate managers often invest in activities that are deemed to be socially responsible. In some instances, these investments enhance shareholder value. However, in other cases, altruistic managers or managers who privately benefit from the positive attention arising from these activities may choose to make socially responsible investments even if they are not value enhancing. Given this backdrop, we investigate the various factors that motivate firm managers to make socially responsible investments. We find that larger firms, firms with greater free cash flow, and higher advertising outlays demonstrate higher levels of corporate social responsibility (CSR). We also find that companies with stronger institutional ownership are less likely to invest in CSR — which casts doubt on the argument that these investments are designed to promote shareholder value. Consistent with the literature that explores how CEO personal attributes influence corporate decision making, we find that female CEOs, younger CEOs, and managers who donate to both Republican and Democratic parties are significantly more likely to invest in CSR. This latter result suggests that CSR investments may not be driven solely for altruistic reasons, but instead may be part of a broader strategy to create goodwill and/or help maintain good political relations. Finally, we find a strong positive connection between the level of media scrutiny surrounding the firm and its CEO, and the level of CSR investment. This finding suggests that media attention helps induce firms to make socially responsible investments.     

Making sense of corporate venture capital

Large companies have long sensed the potential value of investing in external start-ups, but more often than not, they fail to get it right. Remember the dash to invest in new ventures in the late 1990s and the hasty retreat when the economy turned? This article presents a framework that will help a company decide whether it should invest in a particular start-up by first understanding what kind of benefit might be realized from the investment. The framework--illustrated with examples from Intel, Lucent, and others--explains why certain types of corporate VC investments proliferate only when financial returns are high, why other types persist in good times and in bad, and why still others make little sense in any phase of the business cycle. The framework describes four types of corporate VC investments, each defined by its primary goal--strategic and financial--and by the degree of operational linkage between the start-up and the investing company. Driving investments are characterized by a strong strategic rationale and tight operational links. Enabling investments are also made primarily for strategic reasons, but the operational links are loose. Emergent investments, which are characterized by tight operational links, have little current--but significant potential--strategic value. Passive investments, offering few potential strategic benefits and only loose operational links, are made primarily for financial reasons. Passive corporate VC investments dry up in a down economy, but enabling and driving investments usually have more staying power. That's because their potential returns are primarily strategic, not financial. In other words, they can foster business growth. Emergent investments may make sense even in a weak market because of their potential strategic value--that is, their ability to help companies identify and spark the growth of future businesses.     

Does social capital foster sustainable investment?

How do country-level societal norms affect financial investments? We provide evidence that mutual funds managed in high social capital countries are inclined to consider environmental, social and governance filters in their portfolios, especially when acquiring new stocks and investing abroad. We argue that social capital nurtures the investment preferences of retail investors, whose demand incentivizes fund managers to respond in kind. Such impact is more pronounced in individualistic and high–power distance societies, suggesting that the social cohesion benefit of social capital complements altruistic inclinations in the former and provides mechanisms to punish unsustainable investment behaviour in the latter.     

Speculative trading preferences of retail investor birth cohorts

This study examines the effect of investor birth cohorts on speculative investment preferences. Using retail trading and portfolio data from Finland over two decades, we find that individuals who have experienced desirable macro-economic and social conditions during adolescence, such as high gross domestic product (GDP) growth and low divorce rates, are more likely to invest in speculative stocks. A positive relation is found between the proportion of speculative-prone cohorts in the stock market and returns of stocks of lottery nature. We provide new evidence on the adverse effect of speculative investments, finding that cohorts with higher speculative investment weights on their portfolios achieve lower absolute and risk-adjusted returns. We also provide support for earlier research that identifies a positive association between recent portfolio performance and the propensity to invest in speculative stocks.     

Does it pay to be ethical? Evidence from the FTSE4Good

The empirical mean–variance evidence comparing the performance of Socially Responsible Investments (SRI) and conventional investments suggests that there is no significant difference between the two. This paper re-examines the problem in the context of Marginal Conditional Stochastic Dominance (MCSD), which can accommodate any return distribution or concave utility function. Our results provide strong evidence that there is a financial price to be paid for socially responsible investing. Indices composed of socially responsible firms are MCSD dominated by trademarked indices composed of conventional firms as well as by indices carefully matched by size and industry with the firms in the SRI indices. Zero cost portfolios created by shorting the SRI index and using the proceeds to invest in the conventional index generate higher average returns, lower variance and higher skewness than either of the two indices standing alone. They also MCSD dominate the SRI and conventional indices standing alone.     

Socially responsible investment funds: Investor reaction to current and past returns

This paper investigates and compares the determinants of fund flows for socially responsible investment (SRI) funds and conventional funds. We consider the impact of current and past measures of monthly and annual return on fund flow. The results suggest SRI fund flows are less sensitive to returns than conventional funds. Our model also shows that flow is persistent and SRI investors are more likely to invest in a fund they already own relative to conventional investors. These results reflect the difficulty SRI investors face in finding alternative investments that meet their non-financial goals.     

The price of ethics and stakeholder governance: The performance of socially responsible mutual funds

Do investors pay a price for investing in socially responsible investments (SRI) funds, or do they obtain superior returns? This paper investigates these under- and overperformance hypotheses for all SRI funds across the world. Consistent with investors paying a price for ethics, SRI funds in the US, the UK, and in many continental European and Asia-Pacific countries underperform their domestic benchmarks by − 2.2% to − 6.5%. However, with the exception of some countries such as France, Japan and Sweden, the risk-adjusted returns of SRI funds are not statistically different from the performance of conventional funds. We also find that the underperformance of SRI funds is not driven by loadings on an ethics style factor. There is mixed evidence of a smart money effect: SRI investors are unable to identify the funds that will outperform in the future, whereas they show some fund-selection ability in identifying funds that will perform poorly. Finally, corporate governance and social screens yield lower risk-adjusted returns.     

Not Every Kind of Outward FDI Increases Parent Firm Performance: The Case of New EU Member States

Using a large firm-level dataset we investigate what kind of firms from new EU member states from Central and Eastern Europe (CEECs) tend to invest abroad (testing of self-selection hypothesis), and what is the impact of outward FDI on their productivity (testing of learning-by-investing hypothesis). We find that the best firms tend to self-select into outward FDI. There is also a positive effect of outward FDI on productivity growth of investing firms from CEECs, the strongest being in the case of Estonia, Romania, Czech Republic, and Slovakia. The positive impact of becoming a first-time foreign investor is relatively long lasting, but comes into effect only in investments in Western European or other CEECs and in the case of manufacturing subsidiaries.     

Hedging,financing, and investment decisions: Theory and empirical tests

In this paper we theoretically and empirically examine the interaction between hedging, financing, and investment decisions. A simple equilibrium model with costly financial distress suggests that as firms become more efficient at risky investments vis a vis low risk investments, they will borrow less, invest more in risky assets, and hedge more. The model also predicts a positive relationship between hedging and leverage – a result consistent with debt capacity arguments. We test the model empirically using a simultaneous equations framework to investigate the determinants of firm-level hedging, financing and investing decisions. The results strongly support the hypothesis that the hedging, financing and investment decisions are jointly determined. In addition, we find strong support for the central hypothesis that firms more efficient investing in risky technologies more aggressively hedge and use less debt financing in order to maximize their comparative advantage.     

Home country bias: Does domestic experience help investors enter foreign markets?

This paper investigates the dynamics of individuals’ investments leading up to their decision to make the first investment abroad. We show that investors first invest in domestic securities and only some time later they invest abroad in foreign securities. We also show that investors who trade more often in the domestic market start to invest abroad earlier. Our findings suggest that the experience investors acquire while they trade in the domestic market is a key reason why active investors enter the foreign market earlier. A reason is that highly educated investors as well as investors with more financial knowledge, arguably those for whom learning by trading is the least important, do not need to trade as much in the domestic market before they start investing in foreign securities. Another reason is that investors who start investing in foreign securities are able to improve on their performance afterwards. This improvement in performance constitutes further evidence that the home country bias is costly.     

中美贸易摩擦对国际贸易板块的冲击--基于事件研究法

中美建交40周年以来,中美经贸关系既有合作又有摩擦。自2018年3月美国向中国部分商品加征关税,中美贸易战正式打响,中美贸易摩擦持续升级,导致国际贸易板块剧烈波动,引发投资者恐慌情绪。本文基于事件研究法,分析"正面"和"负面"中美贸易摩擦新闻事件分别对国际贸易板块的影响,首先通过对"窗口期"平均异常收益率进行分析,为投资者分别提供在中美贸易新闻"正面""负面"事件冲击下利用股市"T+1"交易机制对国际贸易板块进行投资时获利的最佳投资点;其次通过对"窗口期"累计异常收益率的分析,为投资者分别提供在中美贸易"正面""负面"两种新闻事件冲击下对国际贸易板块进行投资的最佳区间,最大化其超额收益。为投资者在中美贸易摩擦时期对国际贸易板块进行投资时,合理的规避风险、最大化其超额收益,同时提升投资者在负面新闻事件发出时的情绪,减少国际贸易公司市值的进一步缩水。     

Managerial risk-reducing incentives and social and exchange capital

This study investigates the impact of managerial risk-reducing incentives on the firm's social and exchange capital. Using CEO inside debt holdings to proxy for the incentives of risk-averse managers, we find that CEOs with more inside debt holdings are likely to invest more in building social capital, which targets broader society and potentially offers anti-risk protection advantages, to shield the value of their inside debt. However, our results further show that managerial risk-reducing incentives have no impact on firms' exchange capital, suggesting the need to recognize the difference between social and exchange capital. These findings corroborate the view that CEOs invest in social capital as a risk management strategy. Furthermore, this paper presents an understanding of the role that institutional investors play in moderating the impact of managerial risk-reducing incentives on social capital. Our results suggest that institutional investors constrain CEOs that have greater inside debt incentives from investing in social capital. However, they are still willing to increase the investment in social capital for risk management purposes when firm risk is high.     

Does religion matter in corporate decision making in America?

We examine how corporate culture influences firm behavior. Prior research suggests a link between individual religiosity and risk aversion. We find that this relationship also influences organizational behavior. Firms located in counties with higher levels of religiosity display lower degrees of risk exposure, as measured by variances in equity returns or returns on assets. They exhibit a lower investment rate and less growth, but generate a more positive market reaction, when they announce new investments. Finally, chief executive officers are more likely to join a firm with a similar religious environment as in their previous firm when they switch employers.     

ESG preferences,risk and return

There are two primary factors that affect expected returns for companies with high ESG (environmental, social and governance) ratings—investor preferences and risk. Although investor preferences for highly rated ESG companies can lower the cost of capital, the flip side of the coin is lower expected returns for investors. Regarding risk, the jury remains out on whether there is an ESG-related risk factor. However, to the extent, ESG is a risk factor it also points towards lower expected returns for investments in highly rated companies. Though ESG investing may have social benefits, higher expected returns for investors are not among them.     

The stocks at stake: Return and risk in socially responsible investment

We relate US portfolio returns, book-to-market values and excess stock returns to different dimensions of socially responsible performance. We find that socially responsible investing (SRI) impacts on stock returns by lowering the book-to-market ratio and not by generating positive alphas. Our result is consistent with the theoretical work suggesting that SRI is reflected in demand differences between SRI and non-SRI stock. It also explains why so few studies are able to establish a link between alpha’s and SRI.     

Why Do Investors Hold Socially Responsible Mutual Funds?

To understand why investors hold socially responsible mutual funds, we link administrative data to survey responses and behavior in incentivized experiments. We find that both social preferences and social signaling explain socially responsible investment (SRI) decisions. Financial motives play less of a role. Socially responsible investors in our sample expect to earn lower returns on SRI funds than on conventional funds and pay higher management fees. This suggests that investors are willing to forgo financial performance in order to invest in accordance with their social preferences.     

Asset Allocation Under Partial and Complete Privatization of Social Security Contributions

Social Security reform has focused on allowing individuals to choose where to invest a portion of their retirement contributions as a means of avoiding insolvency of the retirement system. Chilean reforms in the early 1980s have demonstrated, at least for a developing and immature stock market, that privatization can be an effective way to increase returns on retirement savings. Mature security markets in the United States provide a large variety of potential investments that appear to be attractive alternatives to the Social Security trust fund's implied rate return of 2.3%. These returns have a zero variance, which still makes them a good choice when compared to more volatile alternatives in the event of full or partial privatization of Social Security contributions assuming assets are allocated according to mean variance efficiency analysis.     

Coping with impact investing antagonistic objectives: A multistakeholder approach

Impact investing (II) aims to achieve positive social and environmental impact and create blended value through sustainable value propositions. Building and expanding on a diverse and growing research corpus on socially responsible investing (SRI), social impact bonds (SIB) and social enterprises our study investigates the structuring elements of impact investing, its dynamics and trajectory. A particular emphasis is placed on the complex web of interactions among numerous stakeholders (i.e. banks, institutional investors, portfolio managers, public, for-profit and nonprofit organizations and social enterprises) with opposing objectives and antagonistic assets in sourcing and channeling financial resources. This paper highlights the importance of adopting a multistakeholder approach when examining the financial ecosystem within which II intermediaries operate and collaborate achieve maximum social and environmental impact.     

Style investing,comovement and return predictability

Barberis and Shleifer (2003) argue that style investing generates momentum and reversals in style and individual asset returns, as well as comovement between individual assets and their styles. Consistent with these predictions, in some specifications, past style returns help explain future stock returns after controlling for size, book-to-market and past stock returns. We also use comovement to identify style investing and assess its impact on momentum. High comovement momentum portfolios have significantly higher future returns than low comovement momentum portfolios. Overall, our results suggest that style investing plays a role in the predictability of asset returns.     

Firm values and sovereign wealth fund investments

We analyze the impact of sovereign wealth fund (SWF) investments on firm values and provide evidence consistent with the tradeoff between the monitoring and lobbying benefits versus tunneling and expropriation costs of SWFs as blockholders. The data show significant positive (negative) returns to announcements of SWF investments (divestments). The returns are non-monotonic, first rising (falling) and then falling (rising) with the share sought (sold) for investments (divestments). Moreover, we find that SWFs are often active investors. Slightly more than half of the target firms experience one or more events indicative of SWF monitoring activity or influence.