Compared to matched conventional mutual funds, socially responsible mutual funds outperform during periods of market crises. This dampening of downside risk comes at the cost of underperforming during non-crisis periods. Investors seeking downside protection would value the asymmetry of these returns. This asymmetric return pattern is driven by the mutual funds that focus on environmental, social, or governance (ESG) attributes and is especially pronounced in ESG funds that use positive screening techniques. Furthermore, the observed patterns are attributed to the funds’ socially responsible attributes and not the differences in fund portfolio management or the characteristics of the companies in fund portfolios.

When determining a stock to buy, Strahilevitz et al. (2011) demonstrate that individual investors often repurchase a stock previously traded for a profit as a learning process. When evaluating a decision, people use the most available information that comes to mind. We posit that the most recently sold stocks are the most salient. Our analysis reveals that the presence of another more recently sold stock decreases a household’s propensity to repurchase a different stock by 23%. This recency effect dominates the impact of prior profitability on the repurchasing decision. The repurchase activity of investors appears to be sub-optimal, partially due to commission costs and under-diversification of portfolios, which is magnified for households repurchasing at higher frequencies. More sophisticated investors demonstrate less of this behavior.

Institutional investors appear to have selective preferences regarding corporate social responsibility. They appear indifferent to the presence of positive environmental (E) and social (S) indicators, but underweight stocks with negative ES indicators. This asymmetric pattern is particularly strong for longer-horizon institutions. Our empirical analyses indicate that this pattern is likely driven by economic incentives as the presence of negative ES indicators reflect downside risks: higher stock return skewness and probability of eventual bankruptcy and/or delisting. Positive ES indicators seem irrelevant in this context. Time-varying economic incentives also drive the dynamic pattern of institutional ownership of stocks with static negative indicators due to their controversial products (e.g., tobacco and firearms).

We investigate the impact of recurring fair value versus amortized cost measurement for accounting recognition purposes on the timeliness of insurers' other-than-temporary (OTT) impairments of non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (NAMBS) around the 2007–2009 financial crisis. Unlike largely predetermined amortized cost measurement, recurring fair value measurement requires firms to invest in information and control systems to assess relevant economic conditions and estimate fair values quarterly. We expect these systems discipline insurers' OTT impairments. Exploiting statutory requirements that PC (life) insurers measure securities with NAIC designations from 3 to 5 at fair value (amortized cost) and disclose security-level accounting information, we predict and find that PC insurers record timelier OTT impairments of the same NAMBS with NAIC designations of 3 to 5 than life insurers. We predict and find weaker evidence of spillover effects to the timeliness of OTT impairments of the same NAMBS with NAIC designations of 1 or 2. JEL Classifications: G22; M41. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources cited in the text.