Which Corporate Social Responsibility Performance Affects the Cost of Equity? Evidence from Korea

This study analyzes the effect of corporate social responsibility activities on the cost of equity in Korea. We find that firms with better corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance generally exhibit cheaper equity financing. Considering three dimensions of CSR separately, we find that a higher “socially responsible management” significantly reduces the cost of equity by 1.13%-1.37% per annum and “Corporate governance” activity also marginally affects the cost of equity, while “environmental management” has no impact. Our result is robust in controlling for systematic risk, size, leverage ratio, and the number of analysts. These results imply that enhancing socially responsible management and corporate governance can increase firm value in Korea, but environmental management is not relevant for firm values. Putting differently, investors tolerate a lower return from firms with more CSR activities, because they expect them to provide sustainable incomes. Future researches can extend our approach to examining the effect on the cost of debt and cost of capital

Institutional Investors’ Trading Response to Stock Market Anomalies: Evidence from Korea

This study examines whether institutions are sophisticated investors that exploit stock characteristics known to predict future returns in Korea, using data from 2000 to 2018. We analyze the institutional demand, measured as a change in institutional ownership, for stocks with eight well-known anomalies as well as the future abnormal returns of institutional trading. We find that, generally, institutions do not trade consistently with stock anomaly predictions because they are reluctant to hold both highly overvalued and highly undervalued stocks. Although they use a few anomalies, they use these characteristics passively to avoid stocks known to underperform rather than to pick stocks known to outperform. Furthermore, the positive returns on long-legs are concentrated on stocks sold by institutions, while the negative returns on short-legs are concentrated on stocks bought by them. Our finding casts doubt on the widely-accepted notion that institutions are skilled investors and that institutional arbitrage trading corrects any mispricing in the market. To the contrary, institutions’ loss-averse trading behaviors cause or magnify mispricing