The Price of Sin: The Effects of Social Norms on Markets
By Harrison G. Hong, Marcin T. Kacperczyk. 2009
2,083 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Accounting, Finance
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ce85cde43fe41fe47272a33ee1964f271a0d2c7e
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Accounting
- Omrane Guedhami
- M. Benlemlih
- Sadok El Ghoul
- H. Jo
- George Serafeim
- Philipp Krueger
- Bert Scholtens
- Alok Kumar
In Finance
- M. Benlemlih
- George Serafeim
- Alok Kumar
- Sadok El Ghoul
- Bert Scholtens
- Philipp Krueger
- Omrane Guedhami
- Harrison G. Hong
Citations in the corpus
- European Green Mutual Fund Performance: A Comparative Analysis with their Conventional and Black Peers (2015, positive): “Specifically, Hong and Kacperczyk (2009) show higher book-to-market ratios and higher excess returns for the disgraced stocks.”
- The ESG-Innovation Disconnect: Evidence from Green Patenting (2020, positive): “In addition to the above-mentioned studies, recent empirical work investigating the implications of socially responsible investing on firms includes Teoh et al. (1999), Hong and Kacperczyk (2009), and Geczy et al. (2005), among others.”
- Get Real! Individuals Prefer More Sustainable Investments (2018, neutral): “Several studies show that sustainable investments outperform conventional investments (Derwall et al., 2005; Edmans, 2011), but other studies rather find an underperformance (Hong and Kacperczyk, 2009; Barber et al., 2018; Riedl and Smeets, 2017; Hartzmark and Sussman, 2018).”
- Are Sin Stocks Paying the Price for Accounting Sins? (2011, background): “Hong and Kacperczyk (2009) reduce the possibility of litigation risk as an explanation for the superior returns using multiple tests.”
- Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Value: Disaggregating the Effects on Cash Flow, Risk and Growth (2013, background): “Heinkel et al.’s argument is based on the conjecture that if a sufficient number of principled investors do not invest in polluting firms, the reduced investor base raises the cost of capital because the opportunities for diversifying risk are diminished.”
- The Opportunity Cost of Negative Screening in Socially Responsible Investing (2017, methodology): “To test the return differences between controversial stocks and the market portfolio, we estimate zero-investment Carhart regressions (see also Hong and Kacperczyk 2009; Salaber 2009).”
- Fossil Fuel Divestment and Portfolio Performance (2018, methodology): “Accordingly, fossil fuel company stocks may receive additional returns due to high litigation and reputational risks (cf. Hong and Kacperczyk, 2009) and industry and environmental challenges, such as the need for a radical transition towards low- or zero‑carbon sources (Ansar et al., 2013; Busch…”