The Innovest Ratings of Chinese Organizations

A Benchmarked Analysis
  • Edward J. Lusk


We selected performance relationships of 14 Chinese companies listed on the Hong Kong and Shanghai Stock Exchange s and compared them to three benchmarked comparison groups, all of which were rated by Innovest iRatings. Twelve of 14 Chinese organizations were given the lowest Innovest rating that would usually constitute a clear “Sell/Do Not Buy” market signal. These Chinese companies were compared to industry- and size-matched non-Chinese firms which were organised into three category groupings: top-, average-, and low-ranked based upon their Innovest iRatings. We compared the Chinese organizations to these three benchmarked groups on the following three measures: the firm’s period beta (β) from the one-factor capital asset pricing model (CAPM), market capitalization (MCAP), and net operating income (NOI). We found no support for the low ratings given to the Chinese companies by Innovest, in that the performance profiles of these Chinese firms on MCAP and NOI were not statistically significantly different from any of the benchmarked firm groupings. Further, with respect to β, we found strong support for upside and downside--that is, symmetric volatility, counter to the downside and limited-upside volatility suggested by the low Innovest iRatings ratings.


Market Capitalization Chinese Company Chinese Firm Capital Asset Price Model Profit Opportunity 



The authors wish to thank Professors Kameliia Petrova and Karyn Neuhauser, SUNY: Plattsburgh, NY USA for their careful reading and helpful suggestions. Also, we wish to thank Ms. Ellen Slack of the Lippincott Library of the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, for her expert editorial assistance.


  1. Arnold G (2005) Handbook of corporate finance: A business companion to financial market, decision and techniques, 2nd edition. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  2. Asia Pulse (June 18 2007) China’s bull-run may be back despite recent bear-hug. Via Factiva docs.html?pc=CN&pub_id=ASIAPULSEHK&sv=EMIS Accessed October 2007Google Scholar
  3. Barber B, Lehavy R, McNichols M, et al (2006) Buys, holds, and sells: The distribution of investment banks' stock ratings and the implications for the profitability of analysts' recommendations. J Account & Economics 41:87-117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. The Economist. (March 25 2006) Balancing act: A survey of China [Special Section]. 378, 8470: 3-20Google Scholar
  5. Derwall J, Guenster N, Bauer R, et al (2005) The eco-efficiency premium puzzle. Financial Analysts J 61:51-63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Innovest iRatings Accessed October 2007
  7. OSIRIS BVD Suite. Accessed October 2007
  8. Sall J, Lehman A, Creighton L (2005) JMP Start Statistics--Version 5, 2nd edn. Duxbury Press, Belmont, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. Shanghai Daily, (15 June 2007). Only 80 to 100 SOEs to remain by 2008. Via Factiva docs.html?pc=CN&pub_id=SHDAILYDAILY&sv=EMIS Accessed October 2007Google Scholar
  10. Sharpe W (1964) Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. J Finance 19:425-442Google Scholar
  11. Whittaker M (2000) Global climate change: Uncovering hidden investment risk and opportunity. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance 25:619-628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Williamson O (1996) The mechanisms of governance. Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Willis A (2003) The role of the global reporting initiative’s sustainability reporting guidelines in the social screening of investments. J Bus Ethics 43:233-237Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward J. Lusk
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Professor of AccountingState University of New York (SUNY)New York
  2. 2.College at Plattsburgh, School of Business and EconomicsUSA
  3. 3.Emeritus,Department of Statistics, the Wharton School, University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations