Search results

Purpose – Run a comparative analysis between investments of sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) and mutual funds, focusing on firm-level, country-level, and institutional variables.

Methodology/approach – We use a hand-collected sample of 1,845 acquisitions around the world over the last 25 years (251 for SWFs and 1,594 for mutual funds). We then run univariate parametric and nonparametric tests to assess the differences in the investments of both subsamples.

Findings – We review the literature on the determinants of SWFs' investment decisions. Our analysis adds to the scarce available literature on the investment decisions of SWFs and their comparison with other institutional investors. Our results show that, compared to mutual funds, SWFs indeed exhibit different preferences: for instance, SWFs prefer to acquire stakes in larger, less liquid companies which are financially distressed but which also have a higher level of growth opportunities. They also prefer less innovative firms with more concentrated ownership, which are located in less developed but geographically closer countries with whom they do not necessarily share cultural and religious backgrounds.

Social implications – Our results are important for practitioners and firms seeking to attract a given type of institutional investment. They also add insights to the debate on the “hidden” political objectives behind SWF investments in the Western world.

Originality/value of paper – This is the first attempt to empirically assess the differences in the investment choices of SWFs and mutual funds.

Purpose – To study the allocation in equity markets of sovereign wealth funds’ (SWF) investments with respect to other institutional investors. To analyze the role of political regimes in the sending and recipient countries as a determinant of the allocation of SWF investments.

Methodology/approach – We use mutual funds’ investments as a benchmark for SWF investment allocations. We collect data of SWF and mutual fund equity investments at the firm level and analyse them on a geographical and sector basis. We compare target investments for these two groups by looking at the political regime in the sending and recipient country, using different political indicators (Polity IV, Bertelsmann). We provide a comparison of SWFs and pension funds based on governance features related to investment.

Findings – We find that the fear that sovereigns with political motivations use their financial power to secure large stakes in OECD countries is not confirmed by the data. SWF investment decisions do not differ greatly from those of other wealth managers. Although there can be differences in the allocation, political regimes in the recipient countries do not play a role in explaining the allocation of sovereign wealth funds.

Social implications – Investment from public institutions, such as sovereign wealth funds, can have significant implications at the economic and social level. Sovereign funds are potential sources of capital for emerging economies, and therefore can enchance economic growth. It is important to understand to what extent public institutional investors behave differently from private investors. The “political bias” is not a relevant factor for sovereign funds, or for other institutional investors, for allocating their capital. More often than not, their asset allocation strategies converge with other large investors, these being driven by financial and not political bias.

Originality/value of the chapter – The chapter is an original contribution providing a firm-level analysis of equity holdings for two groups of institutional investors. Moreover, it emphasizes the political dimension of institutional investments, highlighting the priorities and constraints of public investors participating in financial markets. The chapter suggests that SWFs do not discriminate by the political regime of the recipient country in their asset allocation.

This study groups mutual funds using k-means clustering analysis and compares the k-means clustering process with existing clustering techniques using mutual fund data for equity funds, general fixed-income funds, and balanced open-end mutual funds rated by the Association of Investment Management Companies. Data are from January 2016 to December 2020 for 60 months and includes information on prices, risks, and investment policies. The sample for this study comprises 173 funds from 10 asset management companies with the highest net assets. The tool used for analysis is the k-means technique using a statistical package set for k = 3. The funds can be divided into three groups: Group 1 has 5 mutual funds (2.89%), Group 2 has 24 mutual funds (13.87%), and Group 3 has a total of 144 mutual funds (83.24%). In Group 1, four of the five mutual funds are equity funds with a track record of beating the market, and fund managers have good market timing skills. Moreover, the efficiency of fund grouping using the k-means technique was compared with the existing grouping with close results at 57.23%. This work provides a methodology to obtain a better categorization of mutual funds by using k-means clustering, allowing the investors to know how mutual funds are. This categorization is very useful for improving the formulation of mutual funds, with the goal of further optimizing investment.

Purpose: Ethical investing is considered to be the pinnacle of embedding environmental considerations in investing. Environmental considerations form a major part of corporate social responsibility (CSR), and CSR is considered to have a positive effect on investment returns. The purpose of this chapter is to assess the degree of environmental considerations embedded in faith-based funds investment criteria. The comparative analysis between principles and practice through faith-based investing is undertaken.

Design/Methodology: Prospectuses of selected faith-based mutual funds and other information around investment strategies provided on the Funds’ websites have been analyzed in detail. Content analysis has been undertaken in order to evaluate the existence and types of environmental related criteria demonstrated by the Funds. The criteria are compared to the faith principles on environmental responsibility.

Findings: It is generally assumed that CSR requirements form the premise of socially responsible investing. The authors find that faith-based investing criteria are narrowly defined and that they represent biases which do not promote environmentally responsible investing.

Implications: The major implication is that inspite of the availability of faith-based environmental responsibility principles, faith-based funds represent a case of economic returns prioritization over environmental considerations. Environment accountability principles that exist need to be promoted regularly so that they become an essential element of every day decision-making including faith-based economic decision-making.

Originality: This study contributes to the debate on ethical investing from the perspective of faith-based mutual funds.

We develop our theoretical framework from the viewpoint of the information asymmetry and the agency theory that the Chinese mutual funds exhibit herd behaviour, and provide empirical evidence by using cross-sectional data of all the Chinese mutual funds between 1999 and 2003. We find that the Chinese mutual funds show overall herding, buy herding and sell herding, and the degree of sell herding is higher than that of buy herding. The degree of Chinese herding is higher than their US counterpart from all the three perspectives. This may be largely due to the institutional factors rather than those firm-specific factors that influence the US mutual funds investment decision.