Renewable Energy Stocks’ Performance and Climate Risk: An Empirical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article studies the relationship between renewable energy stocks’ performance and climate risk. It shows that publicly held renewable energy stocks underperform as a reaction to climate policy information releases, modeled by feed-in tariff (FIT) legislation announcements. The study examined stock price behaviors 2 days before and 30 days after FIT policy announcements. The stock sample used in the study has 3702 firm-day combinations, which included 180 cleantech firms and 32 events from 2007 to 2017. Based on the residual analysis of the sample’s abnormal return, it indicated that the FIT announcements are associated with significant declines in returns. The cumulative abnormal return until Day 18 was a significant −0.83%, while the average abnormal return on the day was −0.16% at normal levels. The study partially excluded the likelihood of a transitory result by varying the measurement horizon. It also adopted both the market model and the Fama–French three-factor models to rule out model misspecification when estimating abnormal returns and thus increased the robustness. In fact, the results were stable to changes in estimating the model’s specifications. In addition, the study compared the portfolio’s performance with mimicking portfolios in terms of size, book-to-market equity (BE/ME), and the firms’ geographic location. It demonstrated that the documented anomaly of the portfolio of renewable energy companies is robust.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".