A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Sustainable Funds’ Performance Evaluation
The purpose of this research is to consider if the growing popularity of sustainable investment does not create additional risks in investing. Different views on sustainable investments were analyzed to identify different approaches to the main risks. A quantitative analysis was carried out to investigate the possible benefits and advantages of sustainable investment. Without taking into account the social perks of investing in sustainable funds, this study evaluates the performance and economic returns of both sustainable and traditional funds. The research was carried out in two parts by comparing samples of 30 sustainable and 30 traditional funds. Firstly, such methods as annual returns, standard deviations, Sharpe ratios, skewness, and kurtosis were calculated and analyzed. The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), Fama–French three-factor model and Carhart four-factor model were used to value different market portfolios. The findings of this study suggest that sustainable funds are less risky than traditional funds. However, at the same time, we want to point to pay attention to the period of our analysis and to have in mind that an increasing demand of social responsible assets increases risks as well. However, no clear evidence was found to confirm that sustainable funds can generate higher returns compared to traditional piers or benchmark index. Moreover, after studying different methods the study reveals that the Fama–French three-factor model was the most suitable for explaining the traditional and sustainable funds’ results.
Sustainable Funds’ Performance Evaluation
The purpose of this research is to consider if the growing popularity of sustainable investment does not create additional risks in investing. Different views on sustainable investments were analyzed to identify different approaches to the main risks. A quantitative analysis was carried out to investigate the possible benefits and advantages of sustainable investment. Without taking into account the social perks of investing in sustainable funds, this study evaluates the performance and economic returns of both sustainable and traditional funds. The research was carried out in two parts by comparing samples of 30 sustainable and 30 traditional funds. Firstly, such methods as annual returns, standard deviations, Sharpe ratios, skewness, and kurtosis were calculated and analyzed. The Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), Fama–French three-factor model and Carhart four-factor model were used to value different market portfolios. The findings of this study suggest that sustainable funds are less risky than traditional funds. However, at the same time, we want to point to pay attention to the period of our analysis and to have in mind that an increasing demand of social responsible assets increases risks as well. However, no clear evidence was found to confirm that sustainable funds can generate higher returns compared to traditional piers or benchmark index. Moreover, after studying different methods the study reveals that the Fama–French three-factor model was the most suitable for explaining the traditional and sustainable funds’ results.
Sustainable Funds’ Performance Evaluation
Xiao-Guang Yue (author) / Yan Han (author) / Deimante Teresiene (author) / Justina Merkyte (author) / Wei Liu (author)
2020
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
Unknown
Metadata by DOAJ is licensed under CC BY-SA 1.0
Sustainable and Governance Investment Funds in Brazil: A Performance Evaluation
| DOAJ | 2023
Structural Funds for sustainable development
| British Library Online Contents | 2000
Sustainable project risk and stakeholder management for pension funds projects performance in Kenya
| BASE | 2022
Alternative framework for assessing sustainable building funds: Green Building Fund
| Online Contents | 2015