Thesis (MBA (Business Management))--University of Stellenbosch, 2010.

The last decades have seen a rapid increase of sustainable investing, also known as ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) investing. There has also been an increasing body of academic literature devoted to whether investors can gain any financial benefits from taking ESG under consideration. Previous literature of portfolio performance in terms of risk-adjusted returns has given much of its attention to best-in-class approaches, which is a strategy that selects top performers in ESG within a sector or industry. The purpose of this study is foremost to investigate a best-effort approach to ESG investing, which is a strategy that focuses on the top improvers in ESG. The purpose is further to compare this with a best-in-class approach, since the findings from earlier studies of this strategy still are inconsistent. The region chosen to perform this study in is the Eurozone. Several theories that have implications for portfolio studies and abnormal returns are taken under consideration in relation to the study and its findings. This includes the efficient market hypothesis, the adaptive market hypothesis and modern portfolio theory. The theoretical framework also cover asset-pricing models and the notions of risk-adjusted returns. A quantitative study with a deductive approach are used to form portfolios, with a Eurozone index as the investable universe. Best-effort and best-in-class portfolios as well as difference portfolios of the two approaches are created, based on ESG data and different cut-off rates for portfolio inclusion. As for risk-adjusted performance measure, the Carhart four-factor model are used. The overall results are mostly insignificant findings in terms of abnormal returns. However, three best-effort portfolios based on the top ESG improvers show significant positive abnormal returns. These findings are strongest for the environmental and social factor. As for the best-in-class approach, only the governance portfolios provided weakly significant results in terms of abnormal returns. Further, the study is not able to significantly distinguish between a best-effort and a best-in-class approach when it comes to risk-adjusted performance. The exception is the environmental factor based on the top performers in each approach, where the best-effort portfolio outperforms the best-in-class portfolio. Finally, none of the portfolios provided significant negative risk-adjusted returns. This can at least be considered as good news for ESG investing, since it indicates that investors do not have to sacrifice risk-adjusted returns in order to invest in a more sustainable way.

This paper analyses the difference in risk-adjusted returns between Sin-stocks and SRI-investing for the period 2001-2021. The analysis was conducted by creating two optimally risky portfolios according to the Modern Portfolio Theory, one comprised of only Sin-stocks and one with only high ESG scoring companies. The Sin-stocks contained stocks from four different sectors, alcohol, gambling, tobacco and weapons while the companies for the SRI-portfolio was chosen from the FTSE4Good index. The regression models were chosen to follow both the CAPM, and the Fama & French three factor model and the regressions were in the end conducted with the GARCH model which showed results that both the SRI-portfolio and the Sin-portfolio had a general excess return over the market. The two portfolios were also compared with the help of Sharpe Ratio and Jensen’s Alpha. The Sharpe ratio as well as the Jensen’s Alpha showed that the Sin-portfolio had the highest risk-adjusted returns. In conclusion, the SRI-portfolio as well as the Sin-portfolio both outperformed the market during the time period 2001-2021 and they were both less volatile than the market.

Thesis (MBA)--Stellenbosch University, 2002. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Every investor that invests in JSE Securities Exchange listed shares wants to achieve optimum profits. Numerous tools are used to help investors and analysts to analyse buy signals, standard deviations, risk-adjusted returns and every possible piece of information that may lead to perfect recommendations. Despite all the problems and issues involved to make perfect recommendations, it seems as if some individuals achieve well above average results. There are no obvious reasons for the success they achieve. Often it may be ascribed to a combination of detailed technical analysis, market intelligence as well as gut-feel. This study evaluates the recommendations made by the analysts and quantifies the accuracy. Different scoring systems are used to evaluate the accuracy of the recommendations and a ranking of the analysts is compiled. Risk-adjusted returns are investigated in detail and are used in the calculations. The results of this study show that some analysts outperformed the rest by substantial margins. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Elke belegger wat in aandele op die JSE Sekuriteitebeurs belê, wil die maksimum moontlike wins maak. Verskeie modelle word gebruik om beleggers te help om koopseine, standaardafwykings, risiko-aangepaste winste en enige andere moontlike inligting te ontleed om sodoende betroubare aanbevelings te maak. Ten spyte van al die probleme wat dit moeilik maak om akkurate vooruitskatlings te maak, wil dit voorkom asof sekere individue heelwat beter vaar as die gemiddeld. Die sukses kan nie aan ooglopende aspekte toegeskryf word nie en dit berus meestal by 'n kombinasie van gedetaileerde tegniese analise, markintelligensie en "gut-feel". Hierdie studie is daarop toegespits om vooruitskattings van analiste te evalueer en die akkuraatheid van die aanbevelings te kwantifiseer. Verskeie punte stelsels word gebruik om die akkuraatheid van die aanbevelings te evalueer en 'n ranglys word opgestel na aanleiding van die resullate. Risiko aangepaste resultate word in detail ondersoek en word gebruik in die berekeninge. Die resultate van die navorsing dui daarop dat sekere ontleders aansienlik beter vaar as ander.

Background: In Sweden one of the most common ways of saving money is through funds and investors have many options to choose between. It depends on the risks you are willing to take, the expected return and size of management fees. The fees charged by the management company varies a lot depending on if the funds are managed actively or passively. During the recent years there have been discussions about which type of fund management will be the most profitable in relation to the fee. Actively managed funds are in general more expensive than passively managed. Object: The purpose of this study is to analyze if there is any relationship between the fee and the return while considering the risk. Furthermore, it will be analyzed if actively or passively managed funds generate higher return considering the fees, and if the actively managed funds succeedtheir benchmark index or not. The aim is to find out which type of fund management is the most appropriate to receive the highest return on the investment. Delimitation: The study is limited to Swedish funds that have been on the Stockholm Stock Exchange for at least 10 years and at least 90 % of the fund’s holdings must be invested in Swedish companies. Actively managed funds and index funds are analyzed and the other funds are excluded. Method: The study extends between the years 2011-2015. A correlation analysis has been made to see if there is a relationship between management fees and the return on investment. To get the best possible result,calculations and analysis have been made on both risk and performance measurements. Conclusion: It is more profitable to invest in index funds than actively managed funds. Actively managed funds does not generate a higher return on investment than indexfunds but they have a higher management fee. There is no relationship between the fee charged by the mangementcompanies and what return you get in the funds. / Bakgrund:Fonder ären vanlig sparmetod i Sverige och vid val av fond finns det många möjligheter för investerare. Detta beroende på vilken risk man är villig att ta, hur hög avkastning man förväntar sig samt hur hög fondens avgift är. Förvaltningsavgiften är den kostnad som betalas till fondbolagen för det förvaltningsarbete som utförs. Avgiften varierar beroende på om fonden förvaltas aktivt eller passivt. Under de senaste åren har det förekommit diskussioner kring vilken fondförvaltning som är bäst att välja i förhållande till avkastning och avgift, eftersom priserna för de aktivt och passivt förvaltade fonderna ofta skiljer sig åt. Syfte: Syftet med studien är att undersöka om det finns något samband mellan avgift och avkastning i förhållande till tagen risk för de aktivt och passivt förvaltade fonderna. Vidare kommer undersökas om aktiv eller passiv fondförvaltning genererar högre avkastning i förhållande till avgift, samt om de aktivt förvaltade fonderna överträffar sitt jämförelseindex eller inte. Avsikten är att få svar på vilken fondförvaltning som ger bättre resultat och därmed är bäst att investera i. Avgränsning: Studien avgränsas till svenska fonder som funnits på Stockholmsbörsen i minst 10 år och har minst 90 % av innehavet i svenska företag. Aktiv förvaltade aktiefonder och indexfonder undersöks, övriga fonder exkluderas. Metod: Tidsperioden som undersöks är fem år, 2011-2015. En korrelationsanalys utförs för att se samband mellan avgift och avkastning. Även relevanta risk-och prestationsmått räknas på och analyseras för att få svar på vilken fondförvaltning som är bäst att välja för bästa resultat. Slutsats: Det är mer lönsamt att investera i indexfonder med lägre avgift än att betala en hög fondavgift för aktiv fondförvaltning. Aktivt förvaltade fonder lyckas oftast inte slå sitt jämförelseindex och genererar inte en högre avkastning i genomsnitt än indexfonder, som har lägre avgift. Det finns inget samband mellan avgift och avkastning för de undersökta fonderna.

Många svenska hushåll fondsparar och 2018 uppgick fondsparandet i genomsnitt till 434 000 kronor per person. Nobelpristagaren Fama (1970) påvisade att det inte är möjligt att generera en högre riskjusterad avkastning än marknadens. Samtidigt finns det fortfarande mängder av aktivt förvaltade fonder som utlovar högre avkastning än marknaden. Därmed är det alltjämt otydligt för småsparare om passivt eller aktivt förvaltade fonder genererar störst avkastning. Till skillnad från liknande tidigare studier, har denna studie ett större urval av fonder. Syftet är att undersöka vilket fondalternativ som mest gynnar investerares avkastning på den svenska marknaden. Syftet uppfylls genom att prestationsmåtten Sharpekvot och Jensens Alfa, för utvärdering av fondernas avkastning, undersöks. Resultaten visade att det inte är möjligt att generera en högre riskjusterad avkastning över den valda tidsperioden. Generellt hade indexfonderna bland de högre riskjusterade avkastningarna, jämfört med de aktivt förvaltade fonderna. Vilket även tyder på att en högre fondavgift är omotiverad. / Many Swedish households are investors, in 2018 investments in funds reached an average of 434 000 Swedish Crowns per person. The Nobel laureate Fama showed that yielding a higher risk-adjusted return than the market is not possible. Simultaneously, a great amount of actively conducted funds that pledges a higher return than the market is still launched today. Which arises a disorientation among small savers if passive or active conducted funds generate higher returns. Unlike previous studies, the range of funds were increased in this study. The purpose is to examine the returns of the funds with the performance measures Sharpe-ratio and Jensen’s Alpha. The results indicate that it is not possible to outperform a higher risk-adjusted yield than the market for the chosen time period. Overall, the passive funds had higher risk-adjusted returns compared to the active funds, which indicates that a higher fee for the funds is unjustified.

This study examines whether modern portfolio theory can be used to improve the Magic Formula investment strategy. With the assets picked by the investment strategy we modify the portfolios by weighting the portfolios in accordance with modern portfolio theory. Through the process of creating efficient frontiers and weighting the portfolios differently we create two alternative portfolios each year. One portfolio that aimsfor maximum Sharpe ratio and one that aims for minimum variance. These weighted portfolios produce higher risk-adjusted returns consistently during the examined period of 2010-2020. We conclude that the Magic Formula can be improved by using modern portfolio theory.

Valet mellan aktiv respektive passiv fondförvaltning har sedan länge varit en omdiskuterad fråga inom privata fondsparandet. På senare tid har frågan kommit att återaktualiserat efter att de aktivt förvaltade storfonderna Allemansfond komplett och Kapitalinvest anklagats för vilseledande marknadsföring, då de inte har generat en högre avkastning än den generella marknaden. Inom den akademiska världen har erkända forskare och sedermera pristagare av Sveriges Riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne, påvisat att aktivt förvaltade fonder inte kan generera en högre avkastning med hänsyn till förvaltningsavgifterna. Utifrån förvaltningsavgifterna påvisade betydelse har vi valt att studera effekten av de rabatterade förvaltningsavgifterna, inom Premiepensionssystemet. Studiens syfte är således att under tidsperioden, 1 januari 2004 till 31 december 2013, analysera om aktiv förvaltade fonder har genererat en högre riskjusterad avkastning än passivt förvaltade fonder, då hänsyn tagits till de rabatterade förvaltningsavgifterna. Studien baserades på dagliga marknadsnoteringar av 174 aktivt förvaltade premiepensionsfonder och årliga förvaltningsavgifter.  Vidare använde vi oss av ett globalt aktiemarknadsindex, MSCI World, som utifrån definitionen av passivt förvaltade fonder var synonymt med studiens jämförelseindex. I enlighet med studiens syfte använde vi oss av det riskjusterade avkastningsmåttet Sharpekvot för att kunna besvara studiens frågeställning.  Resultatet av studien påvisade att aktivt förvaltade fonder har genererat en högre avkastning än passivt förvaltade fonder då hänsyn tagits till förvaltningsavgifter. Då även fondernas risktagande togs i anspråk blev resultatet det motsatta och vi kan därigenom konstatera att aktivt förvaltade fonder har generat en lägre riskjusterad avkastning är passivt förvaltade fonder. Vidare har vi även kunnat konstatera att aktivt förvaltade fonder med låga förvaltningsavgifter har generat en högre såväl avkastning som riskjusterad avkastning än aktivt förvaltade fonder med höga förvaltningsavgifter. / The choice between active and passive fund management has long been a contentious issue within the private mutual fund investments. Lately, the issue has been widely discussed since the actively managed funds Allemansfond komplett and Kapitalinvest was accused of misleading marketing, since their performance has not overachieved the return of the general market. In the academic world, recognized scholars and later Laureate of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, has demonstrated that actively managed funds cannot generate a higher return with regard to management fees. Based on the importance of the management fees, we have chosen to study the effect of the discount management fees, within the Premiepensionssystemet. Therefore the study's objective is to analyse whether active managed funds have generated higher risk-adjusted returns than passively managed funds, reduced for the discounted management fees. The study will be limited to analyse the period between the 1st January 2004 to 31th December 20103 The study was based on daily market quotations of 174 actively managed Premiepensionsfonder and annual management fees. Furthermore, we used a global stock market index, MSCI World, by the definition of passively managed funds that was synonymous with the study's benchmark. In accordance with the study’s purpose, we used the risk-adjusted performance measure Sharpe ratio in order to answer the research question. The results of this study demonstrated that actively managed funds have generated higher returns than passively managed funds, reduced for the discounted management fees. When the funds' risk taking was committed, the result is the opposite, and we can thus conclude that actively managed funds have yield a lower risk-adjusted returns than passively managed funds. Furthermore, we also noted that actively managed funds with low management fees has generated higher returns as well as risk-adjusted returns than actively managed funds with high management fees.

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.