Stock Picking, Market Timing and Style Differences between Socially Responsible and Conventional Pension Funds: Evidence from the United Kingdom

IF 4.8 Q1 Economics, Econometrics and Finance Business Ethics-A European Review Pub Date : 2010-10-01 DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2010.01601.x
Luis Ferruz, Fernando Muñoz, María Vargas
{"title":"Stock Picking, Market Timing and Style Differences between Socially Responsible and Conventional Pension Funds: Evidence from the United Kingdom","authors":"Luis Ferruz, Fernando Muñoz, María Vargas","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-8608.2010.01601.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As far as we are aware, this study presents the first comparative analysis of the stock picking and market timing abilities of managers of conventional and socially responsible (SR) pension funds, and of their use of superior information. For the United Kingdom, the results obtained show a slight stock picking ability on the part of SR pension fund managers (although it disappears if multifactorial models are considered), and a negative market timing ability on the part of both SR and conventional pension fund managers (these results hold for multifactorial models controlled by home bias). In relation to the management styles, both conventional and SR pension funds usually invest in small cap and growth values, although it is the SR pension funds that are the most exposed to these styles. We also observed that, while conventional pension fund managers make certain use of superior information to follow stock picking strategies, managers of SR pension funds use superior information to follow market timing strategies.","PeriodicalId":47954,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics-A European Review","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2010-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"27","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business Ethics-A European Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2010.01601.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

Abstract

As far as we are aware, this study presents the first comparative analysis of the stock picking and market timing abilities of managers of conventional and socially responsible (SR) pension funds, and of their use of superior information. For the United Kingdom, the results obtained show a slight stock picking ability on the part of SR pension fund managers (although it disappears if multifactorial models are considered), and a negative market timing ability on the part of both SR and conventional pension fund managers (these results hold for multifactorial models controlled by home bias). In relation to the management styles, both conventional and SR pension funds usually invest in small cap and growth values, although it is the SR pension funds that are the most exposed to these styles. We also observed that, while conventional pension fund managers make certain use of superior information to follow stock picking strategies, managers of SR pension funds use superior information to follow market timing strategies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社会责任型和传统养老基金的选股、市场时机和风格差异:来自英国的证据
据我们所知,本研究首次对传统和社会责任(SR)养老基金经理的选股和择时能力,以及他们对优质信息的使用进行了比较分析。就英国而言,所获得的结果显示SR养老基金经理的选股能力较弱(尽管如果考虑多因素模型则会消失),SR和传统养老基金经理的市场择时能力均为负(这些结果适用于由家乡偏差控制的多因素模型)。就管理风格而言,传统和SR养老基金通常都投资于小盘股和成长型价值,尽管SR养老基金最容易受到这些风格的影响。我们还观察到,传统养老基金经理一定程度上利用优势信息来遵循选股策略,而SR养老基金经理则利用优势信息来遵循市场择时策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: -To offer rigorous and informed analysis of ethical issues and perspectives relevant to organizations and their relationships with society -To promote scholarly research and advance knowledge in relation to business ethics and corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship by providing cutting edge theoretical and empirical analysis of salient issues and developments -To be responsive to changing concerns and emerging issues in the business ethics and business and society sphere, and to seek to reflect these in the balance of contributions -To be the publication outlet of choice for all types of original research relating to business ethics and business-society relationships. Original articles are welcomed. Each issue will normally contain several major articles, and there will be an occasional FOCUS section which will contain articles on an issue of particular importance and topicality. Other regular features will include editorial interviews, book reviews, comments and responses to published articles, research notes and case studies. Business Ethics: A European Review is well established as an academic research journal which is at the same time readable, user-friendly and authoritative. It publishes both fully refereed scholarly papers and special contributions such as speeches and reviews. The range of contributions reflects the variety and scope of ethical issues faced by business and other organisations world-wide, and at the same time seeks to address the interests and concerns of the journals readership.
期刊最新文献
Does voluntary environmental, social, and governance disclosure impact initial public offer withdrawal risk? Communicating CSR relationships in COVID-19: The evolution of cross-sector communication networks on social media How can sustainable business models distribute value more equitably in global value chains? Introducing “value chain profit sharing” as an emerging alternative to fair trade, direct trade, or solidarity trade An examination of the 2012–2022 empirical ethical decision-making literature: A quinary review The consequences of dishonesty—A mediation-moderation praxis of greenwashing, tourists' green trust, and word-of-mouth: The role of connectedness to nature
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1