本研究目的欲探討實施費率自由化第一及第二階段後之情形，即在2006年第二階段實施後，台灣產物保險公司及各險種個別之資金成本，以檢視兩階段自由化實施後是否顯著影響國內產險業。而資金成本為公司每段期間內應支付資金提供者之期望報酬，故以此可做為日後公司經營之參考指標。研究期間為2002年至2008年，分別由一因子模型及多因子模型解釋台灣產物保險業之資金成本，及系統風險(β)的變化是否會影響其資金成本之變動。利用資本資產定價模型(Capital Asset Pricing Model, CAPM)及Fama-French三因子模型(Fama-French Three-Factor Model, FF3F)求得公司資金成本，再透過完備資訊方法(The Full-information Industry Beta Method, FIB)了解不同險種間之系統風險及資金成本。實證結果顯示： 1. 無論在整體產險公司或是不同險種間，由FF3F模型所估計之資金成本均高於由CAPM模型所估計之資金成本。說明CAPM模型無法反映公司規模及財務危機因子(淨值市價比因子)之溢酬，而造成資金成本之低估。 2. 經CAPM模型及FF3F模型之估計，顯示台灣產險業之資金成本均低於國外產險業之資金成本，如美國。說明台灣產險業於資本市場之融資成本較低，造成其資本效率偏低，投資人變相縱容產險公司從事高風險性資產之投資。 本研究由台灣實證資料，顯示現行產險業資金取得成本低，導致其資本效率偏低，且投資人無法由市場資訊檢視其保險本業是否根據成本之考量來定價，故主管機關應於費用完全自由化後，加強產險業經營之監理，導正產險市場經營模式，避免因核保循環(underwriting cycle)而影響公司財務穩健。 關鍵詞：費率自由化、資金成本、資本資產定價模型、Fama-French三因子模型、完備資訊方法。

Using three different models, we examine the determinants of average stock returns on the Stockholm Stock Exchange during 2012-2016. By using time-series data, we find that a Fama-French three-factor model (directed at capturing size and book-to-market ratio) functions quite well in the Swedish stock market and is able to explain the variation in returns better than the traditional CAPM. Additionally, we investigated if the addition of a Price/Earning variable to the Fama-French model would increase the explanatory power of the expected returns of the different dependent variables portfolios. We conclude that the P/E ratio does not influence the expected returns in the sample we used.

Background: The Swedish fund savings have developed strongly over the past two decades. Together with this development, the knowledge that the earth's population is facing an extensive climate challenge has also increased. For many people today, living sustainably has become a central aspect of everyday life, and when it comes to investing their savings, the majority of Sweden's fund savers state that sustainability is something that is taken into account when choosing an investment. Investments in funds that based on measuring tools, show a high degree of sustainability have thus increased. This raises the question of whether these sustainable funds can generate a higher alpha and thus a better risk-adjusted return than the less sustainable alternatives available on the market. Previous studies have shown differences of opinion, which means that it is relevant to examine how these different types of funds perform against each other in the Swedish market.   Purpose: The aim of this study is to analyze whether fund savers that are investing in sustainable funds can generate a higher alpha and thereby a better risk adjusted return than fund savers that invests in less sustainable alternatives.   Methodology: The study was conducted with a quantitative method and a deductive approach. Sustainability ratings have been collected for 253 funds from a measuring institute. For these 253 funds, data in the form of net asset value have been collected between the period 2016 - 2020 monthly. These funds have then been evaluated based on risk-adjusted returns where regression analysis has been the groundwork for finding answers to whether alpha has been achieved compared to the market or not. Results obtained have then been statistically examined through various tests.   Conclusion: After completed study, there were no signs that studied sustainable funds have given rise to a better risk-adjusted return than the less sustainable alternatives available on the market. Of the 253 funds included in the study, only five funds showed a risk-adjusted return statistically different from zero, where three had a negative return and two a positive return. When the 253 funds were divided into four different quartiles based on sustainability ratings, it appeared that the funds with a positive risk-adjusted return were placed in quartile four, which was the one with the highest sustainability rating. However, this may be based on chance and a result of two in a sample of 253 gives clear indications that efficiency prevails in the market.