Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Psychic dividends of socially responsible investment portfolios

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Asset Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We provide a measure for the value of the non-financial satisfaction that accrues to individuals from investing in a socially responsible manner. This non-financial benefit is referred to as the ‘psychic dividend’ of socially responsible investing (SRI). Using constant relative risk aversion and loss aversion utility functions, we estimate that investors only need to earn a non-financial benefit of two to six basis points per month for them to be indifferent between investing in SRI and non-SRI portfolios. The estimates are similar in both the USA and the UK. The findings show that more investors are likely to benefit from investing in SRI given the decline in the lower bound on the psychic dividend that we observe over time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The broadest definition of psychic return covers any asset whereby there is a stream of positive (or negative) benefits conferred by ownership of a non-material kind.

  2. Ken French: http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/ and Bank of England: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/Pages/default.aspx.

References

  • Adler, T., and M. Kritzman. 2008. The cost of socially responsible investing. The Journal of Portfolio Management 35: 52–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang, A., G. Bekaert, and J. Liu. 2005. Why stocks may disappoint. Journal of Financial Economics 76: 471–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K.J. 1971. Insurance, risk and resource allocation. In Essays in the theory of risk-bearing, 134–143. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co.

  • Barberis, N., and M. Huang. 2001. Mental accounting, loss aversion, and individual stock returns. The Journal of Finance 56: 1247–1292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beal, D., M. Goyen, and P.J. Phillips. 2005. Why do we invest ethically? The Journal of Investing 14: 66–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becchetti, L., and R. Ciciretti. 2009. Corporate social responsibility and stock market performance. Applied Financial Economics 19: 1283–1293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, D. 1996. Efficiency, risk aversion and portfolio insurance: An analysis of financial asset portfolios held by investors in the United Kingdom. The Economic Journal 106: 1175–1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, N.P.B. 2007. Mutual fund attributes and investor behavior. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 42: 683–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brav, A., G. Constantinides, and C. Geczy. 2002. Asset pricing with heterogeneous consumers and limited participation: Empirical evidence. Journal of Political Economy 110: 793–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brzeszczyński, J., and G. McIntosh. 2014. Performance of portfolios composed of British SRI stocks. Journal of Business Ethics 120: 335–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J.Y. 1996. Consumption and the stock market: Interpreting international experience. Working paper, NBER no. 5610.

  • Carhart, M.M. 1997. On persistence in mutual fund performance. The Journal of Finance 52: 57–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C.M., and M. Delmas. 2011. Measuring corporate social performance: An efficiency perspective. Production and Operations Management 20: 789–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derwall, J., N. Guenster, R. Bauer, and K. Koedijk. 2005. The eco-efficiency premium puzzle. Financial Analysts Journal 65: 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, L.G., and S.E. Zin. 1991. Substitution, risk aversion, and the temporal behavior of consumption and asset returns: An empirical analysis. Journal of Political Economy 99: 263–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazzini, A., and L.H. Pedersen. 2014. Betting against beta. Journal of Financial Economics 111: 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friend, I., and M.E. Blume. 1975. The demand for risky assets. The American Economic Review 65: 900–922.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galema, R., A. Plantinga, and B. Scholtens. 2008. The stocks at stake: Return and risk in socially responsible investment. Journal of Banking and Finance 32: 2646–2654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geczy, C., R.F. Stambaugh, and D. Levin. 2005. Investing in socially responsible mutual funds. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Giovannini, A., and P. Weil. 1989. Risk aversion and intertemporal substitution in the capital asset pricing model. Working paper, NBER no. 2824.

  • Gollier, C. 2001. The economics of risk and time. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, M.S., and J.A. List. 2005. Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. The Journal of Finance 60: 523–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, C.R., Y. Liu, and H. Zhu. 2015. … and the cross-section of expected returns. The Review of Financial Studies 29: 5–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, H., and M. Kacperczyk. 2009. The price of sin: The effects of social norms on markets. Journal of Financial Economics 93: 15–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, J.E., and D.D. Lee. 2011. Australian socially responsible funds: Performance, risk and screening intensity. Journal of Business Ethics 102: 519–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, J.E., D.D. Lee, and Y. Shen. 2012. Does it cost to be sustainable? Journal of Corporate Finance 18: 626–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibikunle, G., and T. Steffen. 2017. European green mutual fund performance: A comparative analysis with their conventional and black peers. Journal of Business Ethics 145: 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kandel, S., and R.F. Stambaugh. 1991. Asset returns and intertemporal preferences. Journal of Monetary Economics 27: 39–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplow, L. 2005. The value of a statistical life and the coefficient of relative risk aversion. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 31: 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kempf, A., and P. Osthoff. 2007. The effect of socially responsible investing on portfolio performance. European Financial Management 13: 908–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kocherlakota, N.R. 1996. The equity premium: It’s still a puzzle. Journal of Economic Literature 34: 42–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kydland, F.E., and E.C. Prescott. 1982. Time to build and aggregate fluctuations. Econometrica 50: 1345–1370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D.D., R.W. Faff, and K. Langfield-Smith. 2009. Revisiting the vexing question: Does superior corporate social performance lead to improved financial performance? Australian Journal of Management 34: 21–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levene, H. 1960. Robust tests for equality of variances. Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling 2: 278–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, A., and C. Mackenzie. 2000. Morals, money, ethical investing and economic psychology. Human Relations 53: 179–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lins, K.V., P. Volpin, and H.F. Wagner. 2013. Does family control matter? International evidence from the 2008–2009 financial crisis. Review of Financial Studies 26: 2583–2619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maital, S. 1973. Public goods and income distribution: Some further results. Econometrica 41: 561–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehra, R., and E.C. Prescott. 1985. The equity premium: A puzzle. Journal of Monetary Economics 15: 145–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neilson, W., and J. Stowe. 2002. A further examination of cumulative prospect theory parameterizations. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 24: 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelling, E., and E. Webb. 2009. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: The “virtuous circle” revisited. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 32: 197–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pålsson, A.-M. 1996. Does the degree of relative risk aversion vary with household characteristics? Journal of Economic Psychology 17: 771–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revelli, C., and J.L. Viviani. 2015. Financial performance of socially responsible investing (SRI): What have we learned? A meta-analysis. Business Ethics: A European Review 24: 158–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schröder, M. 2007. Is there a difference? The performance characteristics of SRI equity indices. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 34: 331–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schueth, S. 2003. Socially responsible investing in the United States. Journal of Business Ethics 43: 189–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A. 2001. Corporate environmental policy and abnormal stock price returns: An empirical investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment 10: 125–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trinks, P.J., and B. Scholtens. 2017. The opportunity cost of negative screening in socially responsible investing. Journal of Business Ethics 140: 193–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US SIF. 2014. Report on sustainable and responsible investing trends in the United States. The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment.

  • Webley, P., A. Lewis, and C. Mackenzie. 2001. Commitment among ethical investors: An experimental approach. Journal of Economic Psychology 22: 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. 2007. Some determinants of the socially responsible investment decision: A cross-country study. The Journal of Behavioral Finance 8: 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, A., M. Schröder, and K. Rennings. 2007. The effect of environmental and social performance on the stock performance of European corporations. Environmental and Resource Economics 37: 661–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Karen Benson, Robert Durand, Terry Walter and seminar participants at the University of Sydney for helpful feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Finance Discipline, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

    Andrew Ainsworth, Adam Corbett & Steve Satchell

  2. Trinity College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Steve Satchell

Authors
  1. Andrew Ainsworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adam Corbett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steve Satchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Ainsworth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ainsworth, A., Corbett, A. & Satchell, S. Psychic dividends of socially responsible investment portfolios. J Asset Manag 19, 179–190 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41260-017-0073-4

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41260-017-0073-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation