Search results

This paper aims to explore how fund managers (FMs) deal with major problems of ignorance and uncertainty in stock selection and in asset allocation decisions.

Interviews were conducted with 40 fund managers in the period October 1997 to January 2000. A seven stage approach was adopted to sift through and process the large volumes of case data. The interview case data formed the basis for identifying common patterns and themes across the cases.

The case data revealed the nature of this private information agenda concerning intellectual capital or intangibles and the dynamic connections between these variables in the value creation process. The case data provided insight into how the book value and market value gap arose and the special role of information on intangibles and intellectual capital in valuing the company.

The fund management behaviour has important implications for regulatory policy issues on insider information, on corporate disclosure, the corporate governance role of financial institutions, and for the governance of financial institutions.

The paper focuses on issues of importance in an increasingly concentrated and global FM industry.

This paper aims to focus on the performance of private equity real estate funds. Since many institutional investors have special programs to invest with first time managers, or emerging fund managers, it also seeks further evidence on how persistent the performance of real estate funds is and how the growth in fund size affects the realised returns of a fund.

The analyses performed are based on a large global sample of value‐added and opportunistic private real estate funds. Different model specifications are used to study the fund and sponsor‐related factors' correlation with fund performance.

It is shown that the realised performance is positively correlated with fund size but negatively correlated with the sequence number of the fund supporting the fact that emerging managers are likelier to achieve good returns. The data also reveal trends in fund performance and the growth of the fund size. Evidence from private equity buy‐out funds has also shown that better performing fund managers are likely to raise follow‐on funds and often larger funds than poorly performing fund managers which is also confirmed by the findings of this paper. There is also an evidence that top‐performing funds do not grow proportionally as much as the average funds.

Actual datasets used in the regression models are often limited by exclusion of immature funds to enhance reliability of results.

This paper expands the recent studies on private equity to private real estate, an area that has experienced substantial growth during the past ten years.

To explain recent regulatory guidance for different types of stakeholders, including asset managers, fund complexes, and institutional investors.

Summary of recent regulatory guidance and explanation for different types of stakeholders, including asset managers, fund complexes, and institutional investors.

While the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) letter does not open the door to direct access to Private Market Investments by 401(k) plan participants, it does provide a framework for the expanded use of private equity and, we believe, other types of Private Market Investments in managed asset allocation funds such as target date funds.

Practical guidance from experienced asset management and investment funds and ERISA lawyers.

This chapter discusses the current landscape for digital asset investing and the many operational risks facing cryptocurrency investors. It also discusses the ongoing progress in the institutionalization of digital asset investment and the risks inherent when investing in cryptocurrencies and blockchain opportunities. Investors considering investing in a public or private fund that invests in digital assets must be aware of the operational risks that may directly impact their investments, including risks from portfolio concentration, illiquidity, hacking, digital asset custody, and digital asset valuations. Operational due diligence reviews of funds and fund managers are critical in assessing operational risks for digital asset investment.

To explain the key amendments to China’s rules governing fund custody business and highlight the implications for private fund managers.

The article analyses, from the perspective of private fund managers, the key amendments to the rules governing fund the custody business in China in terms of custody of fund assets, the fund settlement and clearing process, valuation, disclosure and reports, investment supervision, review of distributions and governance.

The revised rules governing the fund custody business allow private fund managers to use their global custodian in China locally and leave room for managers and custodians to agree on their responsibilities and risk allocation in the fund contract.

The article offers practical guidance on how private fund managers may contractually allocate responsibilities and risks between themselves and fund custodians in the fund contract.

The aim of this paper is to provide hedge fund and other private fund managers with a brief recap of regulatory changes in 2010 and a reminder of certain “best practices” they should consider as they prepare for 2011.

The paper provides 2010 regulatory highlights, including relevant provisions of the Dodd‐Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Pay‐to‐Play Rule, and amendments to Form ADV. It outlines issues for consideration in 2011, including preparation for SEC registration (if applicable), review of compliance policies and procedures, updating Form ADV, Form D and Blue Sky Filings, “custody rule” (Rule 206(4)‐2 under the Advisers Act) compliance, other regulatory filings that may be required (including Form 13F, Schedule 13D/13G, and Forms 3, 4, and 5), CFTC regulatory requirements for investment managers who trade or advise others on trading commodity futures contracts, certain tax considerations (including foreign bank, brokerage and other financial account (FBAR) reporting requirements), the Foreign Tax Compliance Act of 2009 (FACTA)), ERISA and Department of Labor considerations, fee deferral arrangements, and offering document updates.

This summary is not intended to provide a complete list of an investment manager's obligations relating to its compliance with applicable rules and regulations or to serve as legal advice. It does not address any non‐US or state law requirements and has not been tailored to the specific needs of a particular investment manager's business.

This paper provides useful summary practical guidance from experienced financial institutions lawyers.

To discuss possible disadvantages and other implications for private investment fund managers of issuing side letters to certain investors.

Discusses the relatively common practice of issuing side letters; issues surrounding side letters that relate to private equity funds and hedge funds; recent SEC pronouncements regarding side letters; industry practices, including disclosure issues and corporate‐related issues; and ERISA consequences.

Side letters (i.e. agreements that afford investors of a private investment fund with rights and/or benefits that are different, and often superior, to those granted to such investors under the governing documents of the fund) have been utilized for years by sponsors of private investment funds. In fact, in many cases, it has been impossible for sponsors of private investment funds to close on subscriptions from large and/or strategic investors unless they agree to provide such investors with side letters. In light of the recent focus of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on the use of side letters by hedge fund managers, fund managers should consider what affect certain side letter provisions may have on the fund and its investors, in particular, the consequences such side letters will have under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).

Useful reference for fund managers that describes the potential issues related to side letters.

This article examines the recent phenomenon of investment advisors' and mutual fund complexes' creation of alternative investment products such as private investment funds. It explores the reasons behind the popularity of these investment vehicles.

The purpose of this paper is to explain certain SEC and state registration, disclosure, and recordkeeping requirements for US and non‐US investment advisers and fund managers as defined in the Dodd‐Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

The paper explains SEC and US state registration requirements; the elimination of the “private adviser” exemption; the creation of new, narrower adviser registration exemptions; reporting and recordkeeping requirements relating to private funds; information and confidentiality provisions for private funds; the SEC's authority to make rules and regulations defining technical, trade, and other terms used in the amendments set forth in the Act; provisions of the “Volcker Rule” concerning banking entities' ownership interests in hedge funds and private equity funds; the adjustment of the “qualified client” test for inflation; the definition of an “accredited investor”; and disqualifications from using Regulation D.

The Act will require many US and non‐US investment advisers and fund managers to register with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, particularly those advisers that have previously relied on the “private adviser” exemption from SEC registration, which has been eliminated by the Act. The Act will also impose new disclosure and recordkeeping requirements on many investment advisers, including some who are not required to register with the SEC.

The paper provides expert guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

This paper aims to provide evidence to suggest that private social and environmental reporting (i.e. one-on-one meetings between institutional investors and investees on social and environmental issues) is beginning to merge with private financial reporting and that, as a result, integrated private reporting is emerging.

In this paper, 19 FTSE100 companies and 20 UK institutional investors were interviewed to discover trends in private integrated reporting and to gauge whether private reporting is genuinely becoming integrated. The emergence of integrated private reporting through the lens of institutional logics was interpreted. The emergence of integrated private reporting as a merging of two hitherto separate and possibly rival institutional logics was framed.

It was found that specialist socially responsible investment managers are starting to attend private financial reporting meetings, while mainstream fund managers are starting to attend private meetings on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. Further, senior company directors are becoming increasingly conversant with ESG issues.

The findings were interpreted as two possible scenarios: there is a genuine hybridisation occurring in the UK institutional investment such that integrated private reporting is emerging or the financial logic is absorbing and effectively neutralising the responsible investment logic.

These findings provide evidence of emergent integrated private reporting which are useful to both the corporate and institutional investment communities as they plan their engagement meetings.

No study has hitherto examined private social and environmental reporting through interview research from the perspective of emergent integrated private reporting. This is the first paper to discuss integrated reporting in the private reporting context.