HIP Analyzer

Research Dashboard

Comprehensive overview of HIP score impact on M&A performance across 754 Chinese firms

1

High-HIP firms outperformed early (2016-2020) but the pattern reversed after 2021, creating a structural crossover.

2

A long-short strategy (long High HIP, short Low HIP) returned -14.20%, challenging the ESG alpha hypothesis.

3

8 out of 11 years show statistically significant differences between HIP groups (ANOVA, p<0.05).

Total Firms

0

Years Analyzed

0

Best R²

0.000

Model 3

Significant Variables

0

M&A Transactions

0

Significant ANOVA

8/11

years p<0.05

Annual Returns by HIP Group
HIP Group Distribution
High HIP
193 firmsAvg: 41.32
Medium HIP
295 firmsAvg: 28.9
Low HIP
266 firmsAvg: 21.2
193/754 (26%)295/754 (39%)266/754 (35%)
ANOVA Significance by Year
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

8/11 years show significant differences between HIP groups (p<0.05)

Regression Summary

OLS regression results across three model specifications

VariableModel 1Model 2Model 3
Intercept-0.032-0.032-0.089***
HIPRating0.089**--
Health--0.036-
Wealth--0.275***-
Earth-0.011-
Equality-0.033-
Trust-0.084-
ManagementPractices--0.652***
Accountability---0.478***
R-squared0.0450.0290.056
F-statistic8.924.518.96
* p < 0.05** p < 0.01*** p < 0.001
The Structural Reversal

High HIP firms outperformed in early years (2016-2020) but underperform in recent years (2022-2026). The crossover occurred around 2021-2022.

2016-2020

High HIP Leads

2022-2026

Low HIP Leads

Long-Short Portfolio: -14.20%

Long High HIP / Short Low HIP

-14.20%

Cumulative return providing direct evidence of the structural reversal. Challenges the idea that ESG investing generates excess returns.

ANOVA Significance
8/11

years show significant group differences (p<0.05), confirming that HIP group membership meaningfully separates firm performance in most years.