Assessment of Chinese green funds: Performance and industry allocation
Graphical abstract
Introduction
Green economy needs green finance. In light of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and its worsening impacts, China recognizes the urgent needs for the action to meet the challenge. With growing public awareness of environmental issues, government policies and regulations play an important role in stimulating the development of green industries. Consequently, green investment funds emerge to the security markets. China has indicated support for a series of incentives to encourage green investment and financing, including refinancing projects, providing green credit support and a professional guarantee mechanism for fiscal interest discount, and establishing a national green development fund as well as promoting the green financial guidelines1 to support the green financial development in recent years. Green funds invest only in companies that are considered socially conscious in their business dealings or directly promote environmental responsibility. Green funds provide investors with a channel to support businesses for green technology, such as alternative energy, green transport, waste management and waste recycling process as well (Jafari et al., 2017), which support sustainable living and other environmental friendly issues. Green investing strategies consider both financial returns and socially conscious goals in the processes of selection and choice of investment.
As the key for green finance, enterprises' green investment emerges from the socially responsible investing theme, which has been a hot investment niche in recent years. Wang et al. (2014) point out emphatically that it is essential for enterprises to have green investment for reducing greenhouse gases to increase their competitiveness in domestic and international markets. Accordingly, green funds are established with the explicit intention to meet the demand for incorporating green criteria into the investing process. In this context, green funds constitute an attractive response to investors' social concerns, meeting the increasing demand in the sense of sustainable global development. According to different criteria used in the selection of socially responsible investing, socially responsible investing funds (hereinafter, SRI mutual funds) include more specific fund groups, which include green funds (Climent and Soriano, 2011). Munñoz et al. (2014) also consider that green investing could be a subset of socially responsible investment.
Green and smart technology progress determines the green economic development. On the one hand, economic evidence makes it increasingly clear that smart action on climate change can drive innovation and strengthen economic growth. Technical progress is the most important factor to China's productivity growth (Wang and Feng, 2015). R&D expenditure does impact on green’ total factor productivity growth as well. This confirms that technological ability has a positively influence on productivity growth (Chen and Golley, 2014). On the other hand, Bosetti et al. (2011) find that the emergency of the advanced technologies plays an essential role in reducing the costs of climate stabilization. Green investment funds should first focus on financing the green technology.
Taking the above into account, the motivation of this paper is to evaluate the performance of Chinese green funds as well as the industry allocation of Chinese green funds. The considerable growth in green investment within China has motivated intense debate on the implications of incorporating financial performance and green criteria into the portfolio selection process. Our research will provide new points of view and new evidence to enrich the existing literature.
The underlying philosophy behind green funds can be understood from two angles. On the one hand, Friedman (1962) advocates that increased environmental performance will have a negative effect on corporate profitability. This means that additional costs associated with the screening and monitoring process of green funds will contribute to their lower financial performance. The additional costs of monitoring social performance will cause lower returns. On the other hand, green filters enable the identification and selection of firms with a higher quality of responsible management. These types of green funds usually have good records and access to better markets. Hence, green funds generate a good reputation and a superior financial performance. In this circumstance, analyzing the performance of Chinese green funds is necessary. The existing literatures related to SRI mutual funds, which can be classified into two strands. The first one is from a financial perspective to analyze the performance of SRI mutual funds. The second one is from the manager's management ability and behavior point of view to analyze the SRI mutual fund's financial efficiency. This study follows the first strand of the literature. Most of the existing studies focus on comparing the performance of SRI mutual funds with that of conventional mutual funds. They usually take a company perspective and survey the financial performance difference between SRI mutual funds and conventional mutual funds. Those literature focuses on the issue of whether it is possible that the SRI mutual funds can “do well while doing good” (Jo and Statman, 1993), which has attracted the attention of academics and practitioners worldwide, in attempt to provide evidence of SRI mutual funds being different from conventional funds. Why would we expect green fund performance to be different from that of conventional funds? First, green funds' managers pursue both profitable efficiency and sustainable goals. Second, the composition of green fund industry is also a unique factor. Green funds concentrate on investing in clean industry and efficient technology. Some environmental industry funds may be overweighed. Third, green funds focus on investment and take on risk through a reduced diversification. The mainstream of the research is closely related to how SRI funds are empirically evaluated. In general, the majority of empirical results find no significant difference in the performance of SRI and conventional mutual funds. Using an international sample of 103 ethical mutual funds, Bauer et al. (2005) overcome the benchmark problem and find that ethical mutual funds experience a catching-up phase. Similar to prior research, there is no significant difference between ethical and conventional funds. Cortez et al. (2012) provide empirical evidence on the performance, as well as the style, of SRI mutual funds between the European market and the US market. The results show there is no significant difference between these two markets. The investment style of SRI mutual funds is strongly exposed to small cap and growth stocks. By applying a conditional multi-factor, Bauer et al. (2006) investigate three equal sub-periods of Australian ethical funds versus conventional funds, and find that the difference between the performances of ethical funds and conventional funds is statistically insignificant. Australian domestic ethical funds experienced a catching-up phase. There was no financial penalty for Australian ethical fund investors from 1992 to 2003. Cortez et al. (2009) assess the performance of SRI mutual funds from European countries investing globally in comparison to conventional and socially responsible benchmark portfolios. Their results provide evidence that the performances of European SRI mutual funds are comparable to those of conventional or socially responsible benchmarks. SRI mutual funds are more sensitive to conventional indices than to socially responsible indices. However, investors could also benefit from buying an exchange traded socially responsible indices fund without sacrificing their conventional gain.
However, some studies do find that SRI mutual funds perform better than conventional funds. This difference may result from sample size, time period and benchmarks. Kreander et al. (2002) analyze the financial performance of 40 European ethical funds from 1996 to 1998. After being adjusted for risk, they conclude that a few ethical funds significantly outperform the benchmark and none of those funds have positive market timing ability. The results suggest that fund size and Jensen alphas may have a significant positive relationship. Kempf and Osthoff (2007) study the implementation of a strategy based on buying high socially responsible stocks and selling low socially responsible stocks. This strategy can obtain an abnormal return of up to 8.7% per year. This research also begs a question, “Does it result from a temporary mispricing in the market, or does it compensate for an additional risk factor?” Renneboog et al. (2008) provide an overview of the literature on SRI and raise the open questions in term of corporate finance, how does corporate social responsibility (hereinafter, CSR) influence the cost of capital and the investment decisions? It also addresses the issue to examine the incentive structures in the SRI industry.
Although SRI mutual funds' financial performance has been widely studied, there are few academic papers that have addressed newly-emerged green funds' performance. White (1995) is the first to analyze and compare the financial performance of green funds between the German and US markets. The results show that German green funds fare better than US green funds. In general, German green funds do not perform differently from the German stock market. Climent and Soriano (2011), by using a matched-pair, analyze the performance of US green funds and conventional mutual funds from 1987 to 2009, but demonstrate that US green funds underperform their matched peers. However, if switching to the more recent period of from 2001 to 2009, there is no significant difference between green funds and conventional mutual funds. Compared to traditional mutual funds in the US, Chang et al. (2012) find green mutual funds have generated lower returns. In contrast, considering both time-varying performance and risk measures, Silva and Cortez (2016) document that the performance of US and European green funds performed better during the crisis period.
The contribution of this paper to the literature is twofold. First, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to have evaluated the performance of an emerging economy's, such as China's, green funds during a transfer time period (2010–2016). To pursue the social objective, green funds generally support energy-saving, environmentally friendly, high tech with a decent return projects. This setup allows us to examine the function of China green funds in the process of structure transformation. We find that China green funds are more exposed to small cap and value stocks because of the guidelines for establishing a green financial system policy for the purpose of reducing financing costs of small firms. Under the guidance of a government, the establishment of Public-Private-Partnership cooperation improves the degree of small companies' participation in the environmental protection industry. The Public-Private-Partnership pattern merges the environmental protection industry with the financial target, effectively guiding private investment in green development. It is a major path for promoting the progress of green funds. At the same time, green funds are in accordance with the market mechanism, which are advantageous to the sustainable development of the green industry. This paper also investigates if China green funds change their investing styles and how their performance determinants are changed in the new normal period. Therefore, we consider the new normal bias (2013) and re-examine the performance of China green funds before and after the beginning of the new normal. El-Erian (2010) points out that lower output growth post 2008 financial crisis for advanced economies is the new normal. Candelon et al. (2016) further interpret that the decline in output growth following a crisis is a new normal accompanied by strong structural reforms. China also meets its new normal of the economy with more prefunded reforms in supply side, in which firms need more technological innovation. It will not come as a surprise that we also find that China green funds are less sensitive to value stocks during the new normal period. Because value stocks usually invest in traditional industries. This shows that China's economic structure is in the process of being upgraded. Second, we find a high degree concentration in industry composition of China green funds. We test whether there exist differences in the industry allocation of China green funds, and their unique performance as well. We contribute to this line of research and examine the performance of green portfolios by tracking the actual asset allocation decisions of individual green funds. The industrial sector has a significantly higher relation to green fund performance compared to other industries. We find that China green funds have a characteristic of industry concentration rather than one of diversification. Green funds employ a set of investment screens that restrict their investment opportunities. Compared with the US and the EU, the scale of the Chinese manufacturing industry ranks first worldwide. In 2013, China's manufacturing output accounted for 20.8%, making it the largest in the world. With the rapid development of China's manufacturing industries and unceasing strengthening of environmental resource constraints, we are still faced with the task of reducing carbon emissions. The Public-Private-Partnership patterns of green funds have the potential to be conducive to the environmental governance of the market.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the data we use. Section 3 describes the methodology used to assess green fund performance and industry composition. Section 4 provides the empirical results. Section 5 presents the robust test and Section 6 discusses the main results of our study and concludes.
Section snippets
Data
Our primary data on green funds are from Wind database, which spans the period of January 2010 to September 2016. We focus on this period because Chinese traditional industries were under the pressure of restructuring and upgrading during this time. According to the Bloomberg definition of green funds, our sample includes 96 China green funds, which are defined as “A mutual fund or other investment vehicle that will only invest in companies that are deemed socially conscious in their business
Multi-factor model
The empirical analysis begins with an examination of green fund performance. The prior literature widely employs the CAPM-based single factor model. Fama and French (1993) illustrate that CAPM is inefficient in explaining the fund manager investment strategy style and derive the three factors model, which includes the excess market return, SMB and HML. Furthermore, to capture the momentum anomaly, Carhart (1997) extends the Fama-French model results in the following model:
Performance results
Table 2 summarizes the performance of green funds by using the Carhart (1997) four-factor model for the full sample period. Three conclusions can be drawn from Table 2. First, all green funds exhibit significant market exposure. Second, green funds exhibit more exposure to small caps. The small cap bias was also observed by Bauer et al., 2006, Climent and Soriano, 2011 and Silva and Cortez (2016). Third, green funds are more value weighted. Fourth, the momentum factor of green fund is also
Robustness test: alternative index test portfolios
Recall that our MKT factor uses the CSI 300 index, which comprehensively represents China's stock market. We investigate whether the identified CSI 300 index could be biased because of any important omitted green factors in the green funds' performance measurement. For robustness, we therefore use the SSE social responsibility index. The SSE social responsibility index indicates shares of those companies that fulfill good company standards in terms of social responsibility standards. The SSE
Discussion and conclusion
In this study, we take a close look at China green fund performance before and after the beginning of the new normal period. This paper contributes to the evaluation of the performance of China's green funds during the reforming period (2010–2016) by using a Carhart four-factor model as well as investigating China green funds' industry allocation differences.
The empirical results of this study find that China green funds are more exposed to small cap and value stocks during the full period.
Acknowledgements
The research is financially support by National Natural Sciences Foundation of China (Grant No. 71673020; 71173008; 71690244). Great thanks to anonymous reviewers, whose suggestive comments help us improve the paper a great deal.
References (36)
- et al.
Time varying betas and the unconditional distribution of asset returns
Quant. Financ.
(2012) - et al.(2004)
- et al.
International evidence on ethical mutual fund performance and investment style
J. Bank. Financ.
(2005) - et al.
Ethical investing in Australia: is there a financial penalty?
Pac. Basin Financ. J.
(2006) - et al.
Do socially responsible fund managers really invest differently?
J. Bus. Ethics
(2006) - et al.
What should we expect from innovation? A model-based assessment of the environmental and mitigation cost implications of climate-related R&D
Energy Econ.
(2011) On persistence in mutual fund performance
J. Financ.
(1997)- et al.
Revisiting the new normal hypothesis
J. Int. Money Financ.
(2016) - et al.
Do green mutual funds perform well?
Manag. Res. Rev.
(2012) - et al.
Does fund size erode mutual fund performance? The role of liquidity and organization
Am. Econ. Rev.
(2004)
‘Green’ productivity growth in China's industrial economy
Energy Econ.
Green and good? The investment performance of US environmental mutual fund
J. Bus. Ethics
Socially responsible investment in the global market: the performance of US and European funds
Int. J. Financ. Econ.
The performance of European socially responsible funds
J. Bus. Ethics
Navigating the New Normal in Industrial Countries
Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds
J. Financ. Econ.
Analysis of energy efficiency and energy savings potential in China's provincial industrial sectors
J. Clean. Prod.
Capitalism and Freedom
Cited by (62)
Impact of environmental policy on the innovation of SMEs: Chinese evidence
2023, Economic Analysis and PolicyRole of information technology in the development of e-tourism marketing: A contextual suggestion
2023, Economic Analysis and PolicyImpacts of green energy finance on eco-friendly environments
2022, Resources PolicyCitation Excerpt :Green financing regulations built on rigorous emission principles frequently result in a win-win situation intended for both suppliers plus producers (An et al., 2021). Policies related to green finance are also beneficial to the manufacturing business (Jin and Han, 2018). Ng (2018) said global financial markets' greater scrutiny of green bonds is helping the formation of a much more competitive green finance ecosystem in China.
Green finance policy and enterprise energy consumption intensity: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China
2022, Energy EconomicsCitation Excerpt :One is to study the role of green financial products and services. Many scholars have analyzed the impact of green credit, green bonds, green funds, green insurance and other financial products and services on the development of enterprises (Wang et al., 2017; Jin and Han, 2018; Zhou et al., 2019; Kanamura, 2020; Liu et al., 2021a; Liu et al., 2021b; Luo et al., 2021). The second is the study of the relationship between green finance and economic development.