An Analysis of Ethics-augmented Meanvariance Efficient Portfolios

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：27

、訪客IP：18.217.152.233

姓名

黃子芮(Zi-Ruei Huang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

財務金融學系

論文名稱

(An Analysis of Ethics-augmented Meanvariance Efficient Portfolios)

相關論文

★ 避險基金之績效評估	★ 展望理論與共同基金績效
★ 生命週期基金 :行為財務學觀點	★ 行為特性與投資績效相關性之研究
★ 專業投資人行為特性探討	★ 中小型企業融資缺口與資訊不對稱之探討
★ 九型人格特質與理財偏誤行為之相關性研究	★ 銀行通路轉型策略個案研究
★ 銀行財富管理行銷策略分析-以兩家在台外商銀行為例	★ 羅盤玫瑰可預測型態之探討
★ 巢式與非巢式資產定價理論之比較與檢定	★ 投資者情緒與市場報酬
★ 資產定價模型樣本外績效之檢定	★ 規模效果和元月效應之微觀
★ 因子或特徵:全球觀點	★ 特徵與因子：日本證據

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

隨著全球對環境、社會和治理（ESG）問題的關注不斷增長，永續投資已成為
許多投資策略的重中之重。企業在財務決策中納入 ESG 考量，對投資組合回報的
影響變得極為重要。本研究旨在探討優先考慮 ESG因素是否會影響投資組合績效，
從而幫助投資者構建更高效的永續投資組合。我們通過在傳統的平均數－變異數
投資組合模型中引入 ESG 因子，推導出平均數-變異數-ESG 最佳投資組合的分析
結果。利用真實數據進行情境分析後，我們發現，ESG評分越高的投資組合可以帶
來更高的報酬，但也伴隨著更高的波動性。因此，這並未帶來更高效的投資績效。
換言之，當投資策略中優先考慮道德因素時，會增加投資組合的績效不穩定性。

摘要(英)

With the growing global focus on environmental, social, and governance (ESG)
issues, sustainable investing is becoming a key strategy for many investors. As companies incorporate ESG considerations into their financial decisions, it is critical to understand the impact of these factors on portfolio returns. This study examines whether prioritizing ESG factors leads to better or worse portfolio performance, thereby helping investors construct effective green portfolios. By extending the traditional mean-variance portfolio model with an ESG dimension, we derive analytical results for the mean-variance ESG optimal portfolio. Our results show that the optimal portfolio is a mixture of the conventional tangent portfolio and an ESG-focused tangent portfolio. We validate these results through scenario analysis using real world data, and show that portfolios with higher ESG scores can generate higher returns, but also exhibit higher volatility

關鍵字(中)

★ 效率前緣
★ 投資組合優化
★ 永續投資策略
★ ESG 評等
★ 投組績效評估

關鍵字(英)

★ augmented efficient frontier
★ portfolio optimization
★ sustainable investment strategy
★ ESG rating score
★ performance evaluation

論文目次

摘要 ii
Abstract iii
Acknowledgments iv
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
1 Introduction 1
2 The mean-ESG-variance mathematics 4
3 Data 7
3.1 Historical constituents list of S&P 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 ESG Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3 Stock price and factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4 Numerical research design 10
4.1 Data preprocessing and filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2 Asset pricing models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.1 Market model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.2 Two-factor model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.3 Shrinkage of covariance matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3 Optimal portfolio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5 Results 17
5.1 Number of assets picked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2 Portfolio performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2.1 In-sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2.2 Out-sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
ii
Abstract iii
Acknowledgements iv
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
1 Introduction 1
2 The mean-ESG-variance mathematics 4
3 Data 7
3.1 Historical constituents list of S&P 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 ESG Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3 Stock price and factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4 Numerical research design 10
4.1 Data preprocessing and filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2 Asset pricing models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.1 Market model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.2 Two-factor model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.3 Shrinkage of covariance matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3 Optimal portfolio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5 Results 17
5.1 Number of assets picked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2 Portfolio performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2.1 In-sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2.2 Out-sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
ii
Abstract iii
Acknowledgements iv
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
1 Introduction 1
2 The mean-ESG-variance mathematics 4
3 Data 7
3.1 Historical constituents list of S&P 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 ESG Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3 Stock price and factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4 Numerical research design 10
4.1 Data preprocessing and filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2 Asset pricing models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.1 Market model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.2 Two-factor model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.3 Shrinkage of covariance matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3 Optimal portfolio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5 Results 17
5.1 Number of assets picked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2 Portfolio performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2.1 In-sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2.2 Out-sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix A: Proof of the mean-ESG-variance mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

參考文獻

Auer, B. R. (2014). Do socially responsible investment policies add or destroy european stock portfolio value? Journal of Business Ethics, 123(3), 397–413.

Ballestero, E., Bravo, M., Pérez-Gladish, B., Arenas-Parra, M., & Plá-Santamaria,
D. (2012). Socially responsible investment: A multicriteria approach to portfolio selection combining ethical and financial objectives. European Journal of Operational Research, 216(2), 487–494.

Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of esg ratings. Review of Finance, 26(3), 407–462.

Bilbao-Terol, A., Arenas-Parra, M., & Cañal-Fernández, V. (2012). Selection of socially responsible portfolios using goal programming and fuzzy technology.
Information Sciences, 189, 110–125.

Bilbao-Terol, A.-P. M. C.-F. V., A., & Bilbao-Terol, C. (2013). Selection of socially responsible portfolios using hedonic prices. Journal of Business Ethics,
115(3), 515–529.
Carhart, M. M. (1997). On persistence in mutual fund performance. The Journal of
Finance, 52(1), 57–82.
Cesarone, F., Martino, M. L., & Carleo, A. (2020). Does esg impact really enhance
portfolio profitability? Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 10(4),
386–412.

Chatterji, A. K., Durand, R., Levine, D. I., & Touboul, S. (2016). Do ratings of
firms converge? implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers.
Strategic Management Journal, 37(8), 1597–1614.

Chou, P.-H. (2024). The esg-augmented efficient frontier [Working paper], Department of Finance, National Central University.

Derwall, J., Guenster, N., Bauer, R., & Koedijk, K. (2005). The eco-efficiency premium puzzle. Financial Analysts Journal, 61(2), 51–63.

Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857.

Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3–56.

Gasser, S. M., Rammerstorfer, M., & Weinmayer, K. (2017). Markowitz revisited: Social portfolio engineering. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(3),
1181–1190.

Halbritter, G., & Dorfleitner, G. (2015). The wages of social responsibilitywhere are they? a critical review of esg investing. Review of Financial Economics, 26,
25–35.

Ingersoll, J. E. J. (1987). Theory of financial decision making. Rowman; Littlefield.

Kempf, A., & Osthoff, P. (2007). The effect of socially responsible investing on
portfolio performance. European Financial Management, 13(5), 908–922.

Ledoit, O., & Wolf, M. (2004). Honey, i shrunk the sample covariance matrix. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 30(4), 110–119.

Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77–91.
Pástor, L., Stambaugh, R. F., & Taylor, L. A. (2021). Sustainable investing in equilibrium. Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 550–571.

Pedersen, L. H., Fitzgibbons, S., & Pomorski, L. (2021). Responsible investing: The esg-efficient frontier. Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 572–597.

Roman, R. A., & co authors. (2007). The role of financial reporting and transparency in corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 85(2), 234–256.

Statman, M., & Glushkov, D. (2009). The performance of socially responsible mutual funds. Financial Analysts Journal, 65(4), 33–46.

Steurer, R., & Utz, S. (2022). Esg integration in investment management: Myths
and realities. Financial Analysts Journal, 78(2), 45–58.

Varmaz, A., Predovic, M., & Predovic, N. (2022). Does esg affect syndicated loan spread and risk? evidence from german firms. SSRN Electronic Journal.

Verheyden, T., Eccles, R. G., & Feiner, A. (2016). ESG for All? The Impact of ESG
Screening on Return, Risk and Diversification. Journal of Applied Corporate
Finance, 28(2), 47–55.

指導教授

周賓凰(Pin-Huang Chou)

審核日期

2024-7-29

推文