Socially responsible investing (SRI) has grown to represent approximately one quarter of all managed assets in the world. Given this scale, it is important to understand the financial implications when financial planners offer an SRI product to a client. One of the biggest questions to ask is: does adding non-financial criteria to the investment process help or hurt risk-adjusted returns? While most academic studies in the past have compared all SRI funds to unrestricted funds, this has been problematic because of the heterogeneous nature of SRI funds. This study will narrow the focus to Evangelical, Charismatic and Pentecostal Christians (approximately 870 million people in the world). This sample group has the potential to request a portfolio that includes a negative screen for certain moral criteria consistent with fundamental Biblical principles. If these Christian investors were to restrict their portfolios (i.e., engage in negative screening) according to fundamental Biblical principles, would the resulting restricted portfolio have risk-adjusted returns that are significantly different than an unrestricted portfolio? Modern portfolio theory (MPT) argues for an underperformance hypothesis, since restricting an investment universe because of individual preferences will necessarily reduce diversification efficiencies. Stakeholder theory has the potential to argue for an outperformance hypothesis, since Christians believe that screening out certain corporate behaviors will lead to a portfolio that avoids companies that will have higher costs, lower revenue, and decreased human capital because of their un-Biblical behavior. This study will test 7 moral criteria that are consistent with fundamental Biblical principles: abortion, alcohol, entertainment, gambling, LGBTQ lobbying, human rights, and tobacco. The mapping of the 7 criteria to the investable universe has been conducted by the screening service, eValueator. eValueator carefully proscribes to fundamental Biblical principles within each moral criterion. Each Biblical principle will be tested using the Carhart 4 factor model to determine the potential cost, or benefit, when using each ethical negative screen. This study will also test whether risk-adjusted returns have a curvilinear relationship relative to screening intensity (which has been shown in other SRI studies of ethical screens). In addition, this study will test whether results are significantly different before-and-after the global financial crisis of 2008. This will be an important study for financial planners as more and more clients seek to incorporate their Christian values into their investment portfolios. Full transparency of potential costs and benefits is greatly needed for the financial planner to be able to discern the best solution for their client.
{"title":"How Negative Screening According to Christian Principles Influence Stock Returns","authors":"Shane Enete, E. Kiss","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3036608","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3036608","url":null,"abstract":"Socially responsible investing (SRI) has grown to represent approximately one quarter of all managed assets in the world. Given this scale, it is important to understand the financial implications when financial planners offer an SRI product to a client. One of the biggest questions to ask is: does adding non-financial criteria to the investment process help or hurt risk-adjusted returns? While most academic studies in the past have compared all SRI funds to unrestricted funds, this has been problematic because of the heterogeneous nature of SRI funds. This study will narrow the focus to Evangelical, Charismatic and Pentecostal Christians (approximately 870 million people in the world). This sample group has the potential to request a portfolio that includes a negative screen for certain moral criteria consistent with fundamental Biblical principles. If these Christian investors were to restrict their portfolios (i.e., engage in negative screening) according to fundamental Biblical principles, would the resulting restricted portfolio have risk-adjusted returns that are significantly different than an unrestricted portfolio? Modern portfolio theory (MPT) argues for an underperformance hypothesis, since restricting an investment universe because of individual preferences will necessarily reduce diversification efficiencies. Stakeholder theory has the potential to argue for an outperformance hypothesis, since Christians believe that screening out certain corporate behaviors will lead to a portfolio that avoids companies that will have higher costs, lower revenue, and decreased human capital because of their un-Biblical behavior. This study will test 7 moral criteria that are consistent with fundamental Biblical principles: abortion, alcohol, entertainment, gambling, LGBTQ lobbying, human rights, and tobacco. The mapping of the 7 criteria to the investable universe has been conducted by the screening service, eValueator. eValueator carefully proscribes to fundamental Biblical principles within each moral criterion. Each Biblical principle will be tested using the Carhart 4 factor model to determine the potential cost, or benefit, when using each ethical negative screen. This study will also test whether risk-adjusted returns have a curvilinear relationship relative to screening intensity (which has been shown in other SRI studies of ethical screens). In addition, this study will test whether results are significantly different before-and-after the global financial crisis of 2008. This will be an important study for financial planners as more and more clients seek to incorporate their Christian values into their investment portfolios. Full transparency of potential costs and benefits is greatly needed for the financial planner to be able to discern the best solution for their client.","PeriodicalId":136308,"journal":{"name":"CHR: Christian Culture (Topic) - Forthcoming","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122757198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Archbishop Chaput's book, Render Unto Caesar, signifies the continuation of an impressive and persistent debate about what it means to be Catholic and how Catholics should live out the teachings of the Church in political life in our postmodern society. Render Unto Caesar provides evidence that America's identity and future are endangered by trends reifying radical human autonomy and choice. New threats surface in the form of legislation and judicial interpretations permitting choices that were once considered criminal to be accepted. This trend has been accompanied, if not facilitated, by U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have contributed greatly to the privatization of religion. In light of the emergence of such trends, and given the likelihood that some Catholics, guided by an ongoing process of assimilation, have failed to contest adequately these developments, Archbishop Chaput offers a splendid reply to Aristotle and Professors Scaperlanda and Collett's dense interrogation: how ought we to live together. Such questions are complex because the acceleration of trends favoring individual singularity in our own age signals that many humans prefer to distance themselves from a community and a tradition representing shared values. Instead of accepting the real world of human history they see themselves as an abstract instance of the human species, an autonomous being that remains the epicenter of the universe.Against this inclination, and venturing to engage a nation that is exemplified by a diversity of incommensurable values and world-views, Charles Chaput stresses the special responsibility of Catholic public officials in sorting out the good and calls upon all Catholics to refrain from self-censorship regarding issues that ought to concern them. But in a postmodern society, the inevitable effect of modern liberalism is that some will view religion as "a private eccentricity" rather than as a central and formative element of the nation. This viewpoint is commonplace because giving religious voices space in the public square as a singularly important aspect of a believer's life locks in both society and individuality to the past from which modern liberalism seeks to deliver us. While Render Unto Caesar provides a laudable foundation that might enable Catholics to properly influence America's ongoing debate about public policy, the common good and the nation's identity, such a foundation must confront the insistent demands of modern liberalism, and the likelihood that Catholics themselves have been incubated in, and have accepted as normative, a process of equivocation and self-censorship. Given this outcome, the likelihood that American Catholics will surrender to Archbishop Chaput's persuasive intuition is remote.
查普特大主教的书《献给凯撒》(Render to Caesar)标志着一场令人印象深刻的持续辩论的继续，这场辩论的主题是:作为天主教徒意味着什么，以及天主教徒应该如何在我们后现代社会的政治生活中践行教会的教义。《向凯撒呈递》证明，美国的身份和未来正受到人类激进自主和选择的物化趋势的威胁。新的威胁以立法和司法解释的形式出现，允许曾经被认为是犯罪的选择被接受。美国最高法院的判决对宗教私有化做出了巨大贡献，这一趋势即使没有得到促进，也一直伴随着这一趋势。鉴于这种趋势的出现，并且考虑到一些天主教徒在持续的同化过程的指导下，未能充分地对这些发展提出质疑的可能性，大主教查普特对亚里士多德和斯卡帕兰达教授和科莱特教授的密集询问提供了一个精彩的回答:我们应该如何共同生活。这些问题是复杂的，因为在我们这个时代，倾向于个人独特性的趋势的加速表明，许多人更愿意与代表共同价值观的社区和传统保持距离。他们不接受人类历史的真实世界，而是把自己视为人类物种的一个抽象实例，一个仍然是宇宙中心的自主存在。查尔斯·查普特(Charles Chaput)反对这种倾向，并冒险与一个以不可比较的价值观和世界观的多样性为例的国家接触，他强调天主教公职人员在整理善行方面的特殊责任，并呼吁所有天主教徒不要对应该与他们有关的问题进行自我审查。但在后现代社会，现代自由主义不可避免的影响是，一些人将把宗教视为“私人怪癖”，而不是国家的中心和形成因素。这种观点很常见，因为在公共广场上给予宗教声音空间，作为信徒生活中一个特别重要的方面，将社会和个性锁在过去，而现代自由主义试图将我们从过去中解脱出来。虽然“归凯撒”提供了一个值得称赞的基础，可能使天主教徒能够适当地影响美国正在进行的关于公共政策、共同利益和国家身份的辩论，但这样一个基础必须面对现代自由主义的坚持要求，以及天主教徒本身在一个模棱两可和自我审查的过程中孵化并被接受为规范的可能性。鉴于这一结果，美国天主教徒向查普特大主教有说服力的直觉屈服的可能性微乎其微。
{"title":"Putting the World Back Together? Recovering Faithful Citizenship in a Postmodern Age","authors":"H. Hutchison","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1368433","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1368433","url":null,"abstract":"Archbishop Chaput's book, Render Unto Caesar, signifies the continuation of an impressive and persistent debate about what it means to be Catholic and how Catholics should live out the teachings of the Church in political life in our postmodern society. Render Unto Caesar provides evidence that America's identity and future are endangered by trends reifying radical human autonomy and choice. New threats surface in the form of legislation and judicial interpretations permitting choices that were once considered criminal to be accepted. This trend has been accompanied, if not facilitated, by U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have contributed greatly to the privatization of religion. In light of the emergence of such trends, and given the likelihood that some Catholics, guided by an ongoing process of assimilation, have failed to contest adequately these developments, Archbishop Chaput offers a splendid reply to Aristotle and Professors Scaperlanda and Collett's dense interrogation: how ought we to live together. Such questions are complex because the acceleration of trends favoring individual singularity in our own age signals that many humans prefer to distance themselves from a community and a tradition representing shared values. Instead of accepting the real world of human history they see themselves as an abstract instance of the human species, an autonomous being that remains the epicenter of the universe.Against this inclination, and venturing to engage a nation that is exemplified by a diversity of incommensurable values and world-views, Charles Chaput stresses the special responsibility of Catholic public officials in sorting out the good and calls upon all Catholics to refrain from self-censorship regarding issues that ought to concern them. But in a postmodern society, the inevitable effect of modern liberalism is that some will view religion as \"a private eccentricity\" rather than as a central and formative element of the nation. This viewpoint is commonplace because giving religious voices space in the public square as a singularly important aspect of a believer's life locks in both society and individuality to the past from which modern liberalism seeks to deliver us. While Render Unto Caesar provides a laudable foundation that might enable Catholics to properly influence America's ongoing debate about public policy, the common good and the nation's identity, such a foundation must confront the insistent demands of modern liberalism, and the likelihood that Catholics themselves have been incubated in, and have accepted as normative, a process of equivocation and self-censorship. Given this outcome, the likelihood that American Catholics will surrender to Archbishop Chaput's persuasive intuition is remote.","PeriodicalId":136308,"journal":{"name":"CHR: Christian Culture (Topic) - Forthcoming","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115012050","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The legal position of an ecclesial body is fraught with inherent tensions. The Anglican Church in New Zealand (officially the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia), may be taken to illustrate this. The Church operates under its own laws, yet is also subject to the laws of the land. But both sets of laws reflect the special position of a church. In New Zealand the executive, legislative and judicial branches of Church government of the Anglican Church depend for their authority, at least in part, upon legislation enacted by Parliament (usually private, rather than public, Acts of Parliament), but the influence of secular law extends beyond this formal law (see, for instance, Noel Cox, "Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Church of the Province of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia" (2001) 6(2) Deakin Law Review 266-284). Although in recent years there has been a conscious reduction in the influence of the secular judiciary (compare, for instance, the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 (UK) and the Constitution of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia ("Const."), and the Canons made thereunder (as revised), afterwards "Cans."), it remains to be seen whether this will be effective in distancing the Church tribunals from the influence of the common law. The authority of the Church remains primarily dependent upon secular statutes, and its procedures remain legalistic. Attempts to develop more theologically-based decision-making risks "correction" by secular courts on judicial review (see, for instance, Noel Cox, "The Symbiosis of Secular and Spiritual Influences upon the Judiciary of the Anglican Church in New Zealand" (2004) 9(1) Deakin Law Review 145-182). The origins of legislative power within the Church are both secular and religious, yet both may be seen as reflections of the will of God. Legislative competence, or the legal power to alter and amend laws, may be conferred by the secular power, recognised by the secular power, or independent of the secular power. This depends upon the particular church's relationship with the State. If certain laws affect property, or where the church wishes to avail itself of powers additional to those enjoyed by other voluntary associations, recourse may be made to the State (Gregory v Bishop of Waiapu [1975] 1 NZLR 705). Powers may be conferred by the legislative organs of the State (as by Acts of Parliament, such as the Church of England Empowering Act 1928; Sir Robert Phillimore, The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England (2nd ed, 1895) vol II, 1786). As generally with any legal system, it is also possible to dispense with certain laws, in special cases and within certain bounds (Noel Cox, 'Dispensation, Privileges, and the Conferment of Graduate Status: With Special Reference to Lambeth Degrees' (2002-2003) 18(1) Journal of Law and Religion 101-126). The regular legislative authority in the Anglican Church in New Zealand is, however, vested in the General S
教会机构的法律地位充满了内在的紧张关系。新西兰的圣公会(正式名称为新西兰和波利尼西亚的奥特罗阿圣公会)可以用来说明这一点。教会在自己的法律下运作，但也要服从国家的法律。但这两套法律都反映了教会的特殊地位。在新西兰，圣公会教会政府的行政、立法和司法部门的权威，至少部分依赖于议会颁布的立法(通常是私人的，而不是公共的议会法案)，但世俗法的影响超出了这种正式法律(例如，见诺埃尔·考克斯，“新西兰和波利尼西亚省教会的教会管辖权”(2001)6(2)迪肯法律评论266-284)。尽管近年来有意减少了世俗司法机构的影响(例如，比较1963年《教会管辖权措施》(联合王国)和新西兰、奥特罗阿和波利尼西亚的圣公会宪法("Const.")，以及根据该宪法制定的《教规》(修订后的《教规》)，但这是否能有效地使教会法庭远离普通法的影响，仍有待观察。教会的权威仍然主要依赖于世俗法规，其程序仍然是法律主义的。试图发展更多以神学为基础的决策可能会受到世俗法院对司法审查的“纠正”(例如，见Noel Cox，“世俗和精神对新西兰圣公会司法的共生影响”(2004年)9(1)Deakin Law review 145-182)。教会内立法权的起源既有世俗的，也有宗教的，但两者都可以被视为上帝意志的反映。立法权限，或修改法律的法定权力，可以由世俗权力授予，由世俗权力承认，或独立于世俗权力。这取决于特定教会与国家的关系。如果某些法律影响到财产，或者教会希望利用自己在其他自愿协会享有的权力之外的权力，可以向国家求助(Gregory v Bishop of Waiapu [1975] 1 NZLR 705)。权力可由国家立法机关授予(如议会法案，如《1928年英国国教授权法》;罗伯特·菲利莫尔爵士，《英国教会的教会法》(1895年第二版)第二卷，1786年)。与任何法律体系一样，在特殊情况下，在一定范围内，也有可能免除某些法律(诺埃尔·考克斯，《豁免、特权和研究生身份的授予:特别参考兰贝斯学位》(2002-2003)18(1)，《法律与宗教杂志》101-126)。然而，新西兰圣公会的常规立法权属于总主教(Const.)。在教会法和适用的议会法规中均有规定。
{"title":"The Anglican Church and its Decision-Making Structures","authors":"N. Cox","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1140465","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1140465","url":null,"abstract":"The legal position of an ecclesial body is fraught with inherent tensions. The Anglican Church in New Zealand (officially the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia), may be taken to illustrate this. The Church operates under its own laws, yet is also subject to the laws of the land. But both sets of laws reflect the special position of a church. In New Zealand the executive, legislative and judicial branches of Church government of the Anglican Church depend for their authority, at least in part, upon legislation enacted by Parliament (usually private, rather than public, Acts of Parliament), but the influence of secular law extends beyond this formal law (see, for instance, Noel Cox, \"Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Church of the Province of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia\" (2001) 6(2) Deakin Law Review 266-284). Although in recent years there has been a conscious reduction in the influence of the secular judiciary (compare, for instance, the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 (UK) and the Constitution of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia (\"Const.\"), and the Canons made thereunder (as revised), afterwards \"Cans.\"), it remains to be seen whether this will be effective in distancing the Church tribunals from the influence of the common law. The authority of the Church remains primarily dependent upon secular statutes, and its procedures remain legalistic. Attempts to develop more theologically-based decision-making risks \"correction\" by secular courts on judicial review (see, for instance, Noel Cox, \"The Symbiosis of Secular and Spiritual Influences upon the Judiciary of the Anglican Church in New Zealand\" (2004) 9(1) Deakin Law Review 145-182). The origins of legislative power within the Church are both secular and religious, yet both may be seen as reflections of the will of God. Legislative competence, or the legal power to alter and amend laws, may be conferred by the secular power, recognised by the secular power, or independent of the secular power. This depends upon the particular church's relationship with the State. If certain laws affect property, or where the church wishes to avail itself of powers additional to those enjoyed by other voluntary associations, recourse may be made to the State (Gregory v Bishop of Waiapu [1975] 1 NZLR 705). Powers may be conferred by the legislative organs of the State (as by Acts of Parliament, such as the Church of England Empowering Act 1928; Sir Robert Phillimore, The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England (2nd ed, 1895) vol II, 1786). As generally with any legal system, it is also possible to dispense with certain laws, in special cases and within certain bounds (Noel Cox, 'Dispensation, Privileges, and the Conferment of Graduate Status: With Special Reference to Lambeth Degrees' (2002-2003) 18(1) Journal of Law and Religion 101-126). The regular legislative authority in the Anglican Church in New Zealand is, however, vested in the General S","PeriodicalId":136308,"journal":{"name":"CHR: Christian Culture (Topic) - Forthcoming","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124201491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：