Orientation: Investors are increasingly weighing up the cost of investing in companies with adverse impacts on society and the natural environment.Research purpose: In light of the shift to responsible investing, this study compared the risk-adjusted performance of a portfolio of morally questionable shares listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) to a portfolio consisting of morally acceptable (responsible) ones.Motivation for the study: Although previous research suggests that investors can perform well by investing in morally questionable shares (such as alcohol and tobacco), sentiment is rapidly moving towards a more responsible approach to selecting shares.Research approach/design and method: The historic returns of equity portfolios were evaluated over the period July 2004 to April 2019. Two equally weighted portfolios were constructed: one for morally questionable shares and the other for morally acceptable shares. These portfolios’ risk-adjusted returns were compared to the JSE Responsible Investment Composite Index, the Financial Times Stock Exchange/JSE Shareholder Weighted Index and an equally weighted benchmark. In addition, the analysis was divided into two distinct sub-periods, covering the financial crisis and the subsequent recovery period. Morally questionable companies included those with exposure to alcohol, tobacco, gambling, oil, gas and coal.Main findings: Morally questionable investing in South Africa does not produce risk-adjusted outperformance. No evidence was found to support the theories predicting the outperformance of morally questionable shares on the JSE.Practical/managerial implications: Socially and environmentally conscious investors can achieve risk-adjusted returns comparable to those of investors who opt to invest in morally questionable shares and conventional benchmarks.Contribution/value-add: The study provides insights for investors who are concerned about the opportunity costs of adopting a responsible investment approach.

No abstract

Orientation: It is rational for investors to expect additional compensation for an increased risk exposure. This positive risk–return relationship is in line with traditional financial theory; however, this relationship does not always hold in empirical research.Research purpose: The aim of this article was to investigate the prevalence of the low-risk anomaly in the South African equity market.Motivation for the study: If there is evidence of a low-risk anomaly, where low-risk shares outperform high-risk shares, then the additional return expectation of investors may be misplaced.Research design/approach and method: A unique sampling procedure and an extended time frame were employed in a quintile portfolio analysis methodology.Main findings: The article presents evidence that South African listed shares with low historical volatility earned higher risk-adjusted returns over the period July 2004 to September 2018. Low-volatility shares delivered a Sharpe ratio of 1.10 compared to 0.65 produced by the Financial Times Stock Exchange / Johannesburg Stock Exchange Shareholder Weighted Index over the same period.Practical/managerial implications: The assumption that return in an investment portfolio could be enhanced by taking on more risk could be wrong. It seems that fund managers could potentially enhance returns and decrease risk in their portfolios by focussing on shares with low historical volatility.Contribution/value-add: The negative relationship observed between volatility and return is inconsistent with theoretical expectations. Therefore, the results of this article suggest that investors are not rewarded for assuming higher levels of risk.