An ongoing debate in the economic literature is if portfolios of companies with a high CSR rating outperform conventional portfolios. An argument for why this should be the case is that companies with high CSR rating are companies that provide quality products, i.e. CRS is seen as a signal of a firm¿s trustworthiness in providing quality products (see e.g. Managi et al (2012) and references in here). Another argument in favor of SRI investing is that employees of socially responsible companies perform better than their peers in less social responsible companies, making investors more willing to invest in CSR portfolios (see e.g. Sun, Yun, 2015). Hence, in the long run, portfolios based on companies with high CSR rating are expected to outperform conventional portfolios. On the other hand, imposing CSR-screening restrict the investment universe, and hence one would expect conventional portfolios to outperform portfolios with companies with high CSR ratings. Using the latest screening standards for CSR we want to investigate if we can design a portfolio that outperforms a conventional portfolio. That is, can an investor make moral correct investments and still make money? Secondly, we want to test if an investor, on the other hand, can make immoral investments and make even more money on that. The latter is based on the paper by Hong and Kacperczyk (2009) who shows that sin stocks (i.e. publicly traded companies involved in producing alcohol, tobacco, and gaming) outperforms their comparables. Thus, our overall research question is whether it pays out the most to be a moral or an immoral investor.
Imprint 7: 36 traces that "Jesus attempted to keep some Miracle stories secretive, advising the beneficiaries to stifle same. (Jesus instructed them not to tell anybody. Be that as it may, the more he did as such, the more they kept talking). Imprint 9:9 frameworks as pursued "as they were descending the mountain, Jesus scolded them not to tell anybody what they had seen until the Son of Man had ascended from the dead". There are numerous who may contend that God made us impeccable in His sight and called us His perfect work of art, yes God can do that and the sky is the limit from there. Be that as it may, the book of scriptures was composed by man and accordingly can't be viewed as trustworthy. The possibility that the Bible is dependable is only a false notion, an unfit and hurried speculation. As indicated by Sire, W James, (Why Good Arguments fail),"The Bible is loaded with logical inconsistencies, we can't confide in it to come clean."  How about we take a gander at a portion of the Contradictions in the Bible The account of the Last Supper as recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke for all intents and purposes reflects each other as noted here, "On the primary day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was standard to forfeit the Passover sheep, Jesus' supporters asked him, "Where do you need us to proceed to get ready for you to eat the Passover?" This can be found in Matthew, Mark and Luke despite the fact that with various wording and time spans about what occurred straightaway. In an article duplicated from www.Gotquestions.org, coming up next was noticed: "The Bible does not unequivocally state on which day of the week Jesus was killed. The two most broadly held perspectives are Friday and Wednesday. A few, in any case, utilizing a combination of both the Friday and Wednesday contentions, contend for Thursday as the day".  Matthew guaranteed that Jesus was captured and executed that equivalent day (Wednesday) Imprint guaranteed that he was captured and executed the following day. (Thursday)>GET ANSWER