Az ESG-pontszám hatása a rendszerkockázati kitettségre, amerikai tőzsdei vállalatok hozamainak dinamikus kapcsoltságát vizsgálva
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14267/VEZTUD.2024.01.02Kulcsszavak:
ESG, rendszerkockázat, kockázatkezelés, kapcsoltságAbsztrakt
Az ESG-pontszámok (Environmental (környezeti), Social (társadalmi) és Governance (irányítási)) integrálhatósága a kockázatkezelési gyakorlatokba jelenleg is aktívan kutatott témakör, azonban az empirikus eredmények szerteágazóak. Jelen tanulmány a rendszerkockázattal foglalkozva kívánja bővíteni az akadémiai tudásanyagot. Különböző ESG pontszámú portfóliókon belüli, illetve a portfóliók közötti hozamkapcsolatok számát és a kapcsolatok irányát megfigyelve következtetett a szerző a rendszerkockázat szintjére. A kapcsolatok számát és irányát az időben dinamikusan, egy-egy éves idősort vizsgálva, heti mozgóablakos Granger-oksággal vizsgálta meg 2012 és 2019 között az összes NASDAQ és NYSE tőzsdén jegyzett vállalatot figyelembe véve. Az eredmények alapján elmondható, hogy a magasabb ESG-pontszámú vállalatok gyakrabban hatnak az alacsonyabb pontszámú vállalatokra, mint fordítva. Továbbá, az alacsonyabb pontszámú vállalatok gyakrabban hatnak egymásra is, mint a magas pontszámú cégek, így az alacsony ESG-pontszámú portfólió tartása nagyobb rendszerkockázati kitettséget indikál, a felelős portfóliókezeléssel tehát a rendszerkockázati kitettség is csökkenthető. Az eredmények integrálhatók a releváns szabályozásokba, illetve a befektetők kockázatkezelési és portfólió diverzifikációs gyakorlatába is egyaránt.Letöltések
Hivatkozások
Abdennadher, E., & Hellara, S. (2018). Causality and contagion in emerging stock markets. Borsa Istanbul Review, 18(4), 300-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2018.07.001
Acharya, V.V., Pedersen, L.H., Philippon, T., & Richardson, M. (2017). Measuring systemic risk. The Review of Financial Studies, 30(1), 2-47. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhw088
Akhtaruzzaman, M., Boubaker, S., & Umar, Z. (2021). COVID–19 media coverage and ESG leader indices. Finance Research Letters, 45(March), 102170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2021.102170
Balboa, M., López-Espinosa, G., & Rubia, A. (2015). Granger causality and systemic risk. Finance Research Letters, 15, 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2015.08.003
Barber, B.M., & Lyon, J.D. (1997). Firm size, book‐to‐market ratio, and security returns: A holdout sample of financial firms. The Journal of Finance, 52(2), 875-883. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04826.x
Benoit, S., Colletaz, G., Hurlin, C., & Pérignon, C. (2013). A theoretical and empirical comparison of systemic risk measures. HEC Paris Research Paper No. FIN2014-1030. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1973950
Bianconi, M., Hua, X., & Tan, C.M. (2015). Determinants of systemic risk and information dissemination. International Review of Economics & Finance, 38(July), 352-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2015.03.010
Billio, M., Getmansky, M., Lo, A.W., & Pelizzon, L. (2012). Econometric measures of connectedness and systemic risk in the finance and insurance sectors. Journal of Financial Economics, 104(3), 535-559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.12.010
Bisias, D., Flood, M., Lo, A.W., & Valavanis, S. (2012). A survey of systemic risk analytics. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 4(1), 255-296. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-financial-110311-101754
Bissoondoyal-Bheenick, E., Do, H., Hu, X., & Zhong, A. (2020). Learning from SARS: Return and Volatility Connectedness in COVID-19. Finance Research Letters, 41(July), 101796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101796
Broadstock, D.C., Chan, K., Luis, T.W.C., & Xiaowei W. (2020). The role of ESG performance during times of financial crisis: Evidence from COVID-19 in China. Finance Research Letters, 38(January), 101716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101716
Chen, Y., & Lin, B. (2022). Quantifying the extreme spillovers on worldwide ESG leaders’ equity. International Review of Financial Analysis, 84(Nov), 102425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102425
Crespi, F., & Migliavacca, M. (2020). The determinants of ESG rating in the financial industry: the same old story or a different tale? Sustainability, 12(16), 6398. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166398
Csillag B., & Neszveda G. (2020). A gazdasági várakozások hatása a tőzsdei momentumstratégiára. Közgazdasági Szemle, 67(11), 1093-1111. http://dx.doi.org/10.18414/KSZ.2020.11.1093
De Nicolo, G., & Kwast, M.L. (2002). Systemic risk and financial consolidation: Are they related? Journal of Banking & Finance, 26(5), 861-880. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(02)00211-X
Demers, E., Jurian H., Philip J., & Baruch L. (2021). ESG Didn’t Immunize Stocks During the COVID-19 Crisis, But Investments in Intangible Assets Did. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 48(3-4), 433-462. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12523
Diebold, F.X., & Yilmaz, K (2012). Better to Give to Receive: Forcast Based Measurement of Volatility Spillovers. International Journal of Forecasting, 28(1), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2011.02.006
EBA (2019). EBA action plan on sustainable finance. https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/documents/files/document_library/EBA%20Action%20plan%20on%20sustainable%20finance.pdf
Fama, E.F., & French, K.R. (1992). The cross‐section of expected stock returns. The Journal of Finance, 47(2), 427-465. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1992.tb04398.x
Folger-Laronde, Z., Pashang, S., Feor, L., & ElAlfy, A. (2020). ESG ratings and financial performance of exchange-traded funds during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 12(2), 490-496. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2020.1782814
Granger, C.W.J. (1969). Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods. Econometrica, 37(3), 424-438. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791
Hoepner, A. G. F., Oikonomou, I., Sautner, Z., Starks, L.T., & Zhou, X. (2019). ESG Shareholder Engagement and Downside Risk. Finance Working Paper, 671/2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2874252
Hoje, J., & Haejung, N. (2012). Does CSR Reduce Firm Risk? Evidence from Controversial Industry Sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 441-456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1492-2
Hong, Y., Liu, Y., & Wang, S. (2009). Granger causality in risk and detection of extreme risk spillover between financial markets. Journal of Econometrics, 150(2), 271-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2008.12.013
Hyunjoo, K. (2010). Dynamic causal linkages between the US stock market and the stock market of Eastern Asian economies. Cesis Electronic Working Paper Series. Paper No. 236. https://swopec.hhs.se/cesisp/abs/cesisp0236.htm
Le, T., Martin, F., & Nguyen, D. (2018). Dynamic connectedness of global currencies: A conditional Granger-causality approach. HAL. https://hal.science/hal01806733
Lindner, B., Auret, L., Bauer, M., & Groenewald, J.W. (2019). Comparative analysis of Granger causality and transfer entropy to present a decision flow for the application of oscillation diagnosis. Journal of Process Control, 79, 72-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprocont.2019.04.005
Magyar Nemzeti Bank (2022). A Magyar Nemzeti Bank 10/2022. (VIII.2.) számú ajánlása. https://www.mnb.hu/letoltes/10-2022-zold-ajanlas.pdf
Mérő B., Nagy O., & Neszveda G. (2019). Új faktorok tesztelése az empirikus eszközárazásban. SZIGMA Matematikai-Közgazdasági Folyóirat, 50(4), 263–281. https://journals.lib.pte.hu/index.php/szigma/article/view/3197/3001
Merton, R.C. (2014). Measuring the Connectedness of the Financial System: Implications for Risk Management. Asian Development Review, 31(1), 186–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ADEV_A_00026
MSCI (2022). ESG Investing. https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing
Neszveda G. (2018). A kiszámíthatatlanság fokozatainak szerepe a közgazdaságtanban. Köz-gazdaság – Review of Economic Theory and Policy, 13(4), 103-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.14267/RETP2018.04.18
Neszveda G., & Vágó Á. (2021). A likviditásnyújtás kereskedési stratégiájának hozamvizsgálata a magyar részvénypiacon. Közgazdasági Szemle, 68(7-8), 794-814. http://dx.doi.org/10.18414/Ksz.2021.7-8.794
Peng, Y., Weidong, C., Wei, P., & Guanyi, Y. (2019). Spillover effect and Granger causality investigation between China’s stock market and international oil market: A dynamic multiscale approach. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 367(March), 112460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2019.112460
Perneger, T.V. (1998). What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ, 316(7139), 1236-1238. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1236
Policy Uncertainty (2022). Economic Policy Uncertainty. https://www.policyuncertainty.com/methodology.html
Refinitiv (2022). Environmental, Social and Governance Scores. https://www.refinitiv.com/content/dam/marketing/en_us/documents/methodology/refinitiv-esg-scores-methodology.pdf
Remmer, S., Hinze, A.K., & Hardeck, I. (2016). Impact of ESG factors on firm risk in Europe. Journal of Business Economics, 86(April), 867-904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-016-0819-3
Said, S.E., & Dickey, D.A. (1984). Testing for unit roots in autoregressive-moving average models of unknown order. Biometrika, 71(3), 599-607. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/71.3.599
Shaik, M., & Rehman, M.Z. (2022). The Dynamic Volatility Connectedness of Major Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Stock Indices: Evidence Based on DCC-GARCH Model. Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, 30, 231-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10690-022-09393-5
Shiller, R.J. (2015). Irrational exuberance. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400865536
Shrivastava, P., & Zsolnai, L. (2020). Business and Society in the Anthropocene. In Wasieleski, D.M., & Weber, J. (Eds.), Sustainability (Business and Society 360, Vol. 4) (pp. 3-15). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2514-175920200000004002
Singh, A. (2022). COVID‐19 and ESG preferences: Corporate bonds versus equities. International Review of Finance, 22(2), 298-307. https://doi.org/10.1111/irfi.12351
Singh, A., Patel, R., & Singh, H. (2022). Recalibration of priorities: Investor preference and Russia-Ukraine conflict. Finance Research Letters, 50, 103294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103294
Tetlock, P.C. (2007). Giving content to investor sentiment: The role of media in the stock market. The Journal of Finance, 62(3), 1139-1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2007.01232.x
Umar, Z., Kenourgios, D., & Papathanasiou, S. (2020). The static and dynamic connectedness of environmental, social, and governance investments: International evidence. Economic Modelling, 93(December), 112-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2020.08.007
US SIF. (2021). US SIF: The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment. Report on US Sustainable and Impact Investing Trends 2020. https://www.ussif.org/files/US%20SIF%20Trends%20Report%202020%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
US SIF. (2019). US SIF: The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment. Report on US Sustainable and Impact Investing Trends 2018. https://www.ussif.org/files/US%20SIF%20Trends%20Report%202020%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
US SIF. (2021). US SIF Foundation. 2020 Report on US Sustainable and Impact Investing Trends. https://www.ussif.org/files/Trends/2020_Trends_Highlights_OnePager.pdf
Downloads
Megjelent
Hogyan kell idézni
Folyóirat szám
Rovat
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Vezetéstudomány / Budapest Management Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors assign copyright to Vezetéstudomány / Budapest Management Review. Authors are responsible for permission to reproduce copyright material from other sources.
