This paper examines investment allocations in emerging markets by actively-managed U.S. mutual funds. We analyze both country- and firm-level characteristics and policies that influence these investment allocations. At the country-level, we find that U.S. funds invest more in open emerging markets with stronger shareholder rights, legal frameworks and accounting policies. After controlling for country characteristics, U.S. funds are found to invest more in large growing firms with high analyst following and policies such as ADR listing and more transparent accounting policies. The impact of ADR listing and better accounting policies is most pronounced in countries with weaker investor protection. Our results suggest that steps can be taken both at the country- and the firm-level to create an environment conducive to foreign institutional investment.

Since the 1990s, one of the major forces changing the face and structure of international capital markets has been the flow of cross-border portfolio investments, especially by Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) from developed countries to the developing economies. Portfolio investors provide institutional character to the capital markets, flavored by highly intensive research and diversified investments. FIIs are specialized financial intermediaries managing savings collectively on behalf of investors, especially small investors, towards specific objectives in terms of risks, returns, and maturity of claims. FIIs make investments in various countries to provide a measure of portfolio diversification and hedging to their assets. The forces driving the recent change in the investment portfolio of FIIs - as reflected in the growing emphasis on equities of emerging market economies - include, inter alia: (a) increased accessibility of these markets after liberalization, (b) improved marketability, (c) fewer problems relating to thin trading, and (d) improved macroeconomic fundamentals of recipient countries. This book provides a detailed account and examination of various dimensions, determinants, deterrents, and other aspects of investment flows into India through FIIs.

Major institutional investors in five industrial countries invest cautiously, and very little, in emerging market securities. But only in Germany are regulations on foreign investment a significant constraint.

This thesis investigates the investment preferences of institutional investors in the United States (US). In the second chapter, I analyse the impact of both firm and country-level determinants of foreign institutional investment. I find that the governance quality in a foreign institutional investor's (FII) home country is a determinant of their decision to invest in the US market. My findings indicate that investors who come from countries with governance setups similar to that of the US invest more in the United States. The investment levels though, are more pronounced for countries with governance setups just below that of the US. My results are consistent with both the 'flight to quality' and 'familiarity' arguments, and help reconcile prior contradictory empirical evidence. At the firm level, I present unequivocal evidence in favour of the familiarity argument. FII domiciled in countries with high governance quality prefer to invest in US firms with high corporate governance quality. In the third chapter, I investigate the impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) on foreign institutional investment in the United States. I find that, post-SOX, FII increase their equity holdings in US listed firms. This result is mainly driven by passive, non-monitoring FII, who have the most to gain from the SOX-led reduction in firm information asymmetry, and the consequent reduction in the value of private information. The enactment of SOX appears to have changed the firm-level investment preferences of FII towards firms that would not be their traditional investment targets based on prudent man rules, e.g., smaller and riskier firms. In contrast to the extant literature, which mostly documents a negative SOX effect for the US markets, my chapter provides evidence of a positive SOX effect, namely the increase in foreign investment. In the fourth chapter, I examine the effect of SOX on the relation between firm innovation and institutional ownership. I find that US firms investing in innovation attract more institutional capital post-SOX. Prior literature highlights two SOX effects that could cause this result: a decreased level of information asymmetry (direct effect) and increased market liquidity (indirect effect). My findings support the direct effect, as I find that the positive relation between innovation and institutional ownership is driven by passive and dedicated institutional investors. A reduction in firms' information asymmetry is beneficial for these investors while they gain less from increased market liquidity. Overall, my results indicate that SOX is an important policy that has strengthened the institutional investor's support for firm innovation.

Using complete semi-annual stock holdings of seven different types of institutional investors: mutual funds, insurance companies, qualified foreign institutional investors (QFIIs), social security funds, proprietary trading portfolio of securities companies, asset management portfolio of securities companies, and trust funds, we investigate those heterogeneous institutional investors' preferences and informativeness in the China's A-shares market from 2005 to 2017. We find that although those institutional investors in aggregate prefer to hold growth, larger size, higher share price, lower turnover, lower volatility, higher leverage, and past winner stocks, insurance companies and trust funds like to hold value and past loser stocks, suggesting that insurance companies and trust funds are more conservative than other institutions. In addition, we find that stock holdings of QFIIs and holding changes of mutual funds and social security funds account for the explanatory power of total institutional ownership on stock returns in the following six months, suggesting that mutual funds, QFIIs, and social security funds are more informed than other institutions. Furthermore, our trading portfolio analysis shows that social security funds demonstrate a superior stock picking ability while insurance companies' trading portfolio exhibits a loss in the following six months. Collectively, because social security funds have a higher than average churn rate and insurance companies exhibit a lower than average churn rate during our sample period, our evidence suggests that more informed institutions also trade more often in the China's A-shares market.

In the years since the now-classic Pioneering Portfolio Management was first published, the global investment landscape has changed dramatically -- but the results of David Swensen's investment strategy for the Yale University endowment have remained as impressive as ever. Year after year, Yale's portfolio has trumped the marketplace by a wide margin, and, with over $20 billion added to the endowment under his twenty-three-year tenure, Swensen has contributed more to Yale's finances than anyone ever has to any university in the country. What may have seemed like one among many success stories in the era before the Internet bubble burst emerges now as a completely unprecedented institutional investment achievement. In this fully revised and updated edition, Swensen, author of the bestselling personal finance guide Unconventional Success, describes the investment process that underpins Yale's endowment. He provides lucid and penetrating insight into the world of institutional funds management, illuminating topics ranging from asset-allocation structures to active fund management. Swensen employs an array of vivid real-world examples, many drawn from his own formidable experience, to address critical concepts such as handling risk, selecting advisors, and weathering market pitfalls. Swensen offers clear and incisive advice, especially when describing a counterintuitive path. Conventional investing too often leads to buying high and selling low. Trust is more important than flash-in-the-pan success. Expertise, fortitude, and the long view produce positive results where gimmicks and trend following do not. The original Pioneering Portfolio Management outlined a commonsense template for structuring a well-diversified equity-oriented portfolio. This new edition provides fund managers and students of the market an up-to-date guide for actively managed investment portfolios.

Examines various issues concerning the strategies of institutional investors, the role of institutional investors in corporate governance, their impact on local and international capital markets, as well as the emergence of sovereign and other asset management funds and their interactions with micro and macro economic and market environments.

This survey examines the vibrant academic literature on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing. While there is no consensus on the exact list of ESG issues, responsible investors increasingly assess stocks in their portfolios based on nonfinancial data on environmental impact (e.g., carbon emissions), social impact (e.g., employee satisfaction), and governance attributes (e.g., board structure). The objective is to reduce exposure to investments that pose greater ESG risks or to influence companies to become more sustainable. One active area of research at present involves assessing portfolio risk exposure to climate change. This literature review focuses on institutional investors, which have grown in importance such that they have now become the largest holders of shares in public companies globally. Historically, institutional investors tended to concentrate their ESG efforts mostly on corporate governance (the “G” in ESG). These efforts included seeking to eliminate provisions that restrict shareholder rights and enhance managerial power, such as staggered boards, supermajority rules, golden parachutes, and poison pills. Highlights from this section: · There is no consensus on the exact list of ESG issues and their materiality. · The ESG issue that gets the most attention from institutional investors is climate change, in particular their portfolio companies’ exposure to carbon risk and “stranded assets.” · Investors should be positioning themselves for increased regulation, with the regulatory agenda being more ambitious in the European Union than in the United States. Readers might come away from this survey skeptical about the potential for ESG investing to affect positive change. I prefer to characterize the current state of the literature as having a “healthy dose of skepticism,” with much more remaining to be explored. Here, I hope the reader comes away with a call to action. For the industry practitioner, I believe that the investment industry should strive to achieve positive societal goals. CFA Institute provides an exemplary case in its Future of Finance series (www.cfainstitute.org/research/future-finance). For the academic community, I suggest we ramp up research aimed at tackling some of the open questions around the pressing societal goals of ESG investing. I am optimistic that practitioners and academics will identify meaningful ways to better harness the power of global financial markets for addressing the pressing ESG issues facing our society.

It is an established fact that investors favor the familiar%u2014be it domestic securities or, within a country, the securities of nearby firms%u2014and avoid investments that would provide the greatest diversification benefits. While we do not rule out familiarity as an important driver of portfolio allocations, we provide new evidence of investors%u2019 international diversification motive. In particular, our analysis of the security-level U.S. equity holdings of foreign and domestic institutional investors indicates that institutional investors reveal a preference for domestic multinationals (MNCs), even after controlling for familiarity factors. We attribute this revealed preference to the desire to obtain %u201Csafe%u201D international diversification. We then show that holdings of domestic MNCs are substantial and, after accounting for this home-grown foreign exposure, that the share of %u201Cforeign%u201D equities in investors%u2019 portfolios roughly doubles, reducing (but not eliminating) the observed home bias.