Search results

This study examines the long-term link between fair valuation uncertainty and discounts/premia in closed-end funds. This study argues that, in exploring the close-end funds puzzle, prior research generally omits to consider the uncertainty surrounding the measurement of funds' financial disclosure, as reflected in the fair value hierarchy, when investment specialty differs across funds.

Regressions were employed to explore how the fair value hierarchy affects closed-end funds' discounts/premia when investment specialty differs. The authors also examine the effects pre- and post-2012 to explore if that relationship changes due to the additional disclosure requirements enacted at the end of 2011.

The authors find that the three levels of the fair value hierarchy have effects that vary according to a fund's specialty. For equity specialized funds, Level 3 significantly increases discounts and decreases premia, suggesting the impact of valuation uncertainty that underlies Level 3 estimates; this relationship disappears (decreases in severity) for premia (discount) experiencing funds post-2012. In contrast, Level 1 and Level 2 do not have any significant effect on discounts or premia except that post-2012, Level 2 begins to display discount decreasing effects. For bond specialized funds, no significant association was noted between premia and any of the fair value levels except that post-2012, Level 3 begins to display premium increasing effects. However, results are different for discounts. The authors note that Level 1 valuations significantly increase discounts, but only post-2012; Level 2 valuations significantly decrease discounts (pre- and post-2012), consistent with such estimates incorporating unique and relevant information; and Level 3 valuations do not have a significant effect on discounts.

The results of this study revisit prior evidence and indicate that results about the effects of fair value measurement and the closed-end funds' puzzle are sensitive to the period length being considered and the investment specialty of the fund. The authors also note that additional disclosure regarding Level 3 valuation inputs decreases market concern for valuation uncertainty and increases the liquidity benefits of investing in Level 3 carrying funds.

Modern portfolio theory demonstrates that a well‐diversified portfolio will minimize unsystematic risk. It may be impractical to achieve a well‐diversified portfolio of venture capital (VC) investments due to market imperfections, leading to the decision to specialize. The purpose of this paper is to determine the implications of choosing a strategy of specialization versus diversification in venture investing.

Using a dataset of US VC funds across a 20‐year time period, this paper verifies that there has been a tendency for venture capitalists to pursue a specialization strategy in both industry and stage of development of portfolio firms. A multivariate two‐limit tobit model is constructed to determine the effects of these decisions on venture success rates.

It is found that venture capitalists that diversify across portfolio company stage of development have greater success in bringing companies public and exiting their investments via acquisition. Industry specialization has no significant impact on venture fund success rates.

Success rates may be less important than returns to investors in VC. Future research should examine the effects of specialization on investor returns.

It may be beneficial to increase the level of diversification of VC investments across portfolio company stage of development. The lack of diversification across industry has not significantly affected success rates across funds, thus the tendency to specialize in particular industries over the sample period is not necessarily a poor decision.

Prior research demonstrates a tendency for specialization in VC investing. This paper examines the implications of adopting this strategy.

The vast global unit trust/mutual fund industry was worth more than $16 trillion by the end of June 2005. Over time, investors’ interests seem to have shifted from individual shares to share funds. The unit trust industry in South Africa is no exception. Over the 40‐year period from its inception in 1965 to 2005, the industry has grown from only one fund to 567 different funds, worth more than R345 billion. This study highlights some of the most important changes that have occurred in the South African unit trust industry over the last 40 years. These shifts are compared to changes that the USA mutual fund industry has experienced in the 60 years of its existence. An attempt is then made to answer the question whether South African investors are better off with these changes or not.

This study analyzes the role of regional cooperative banks in identifying and financing small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from a proximity perspective. Access to finance is a major challenge for SMEs. Regional cooperative banks can remove this barrier based on cooperative bank's characteristics and geographic proximity to SMEs. Understanding the interplay between these financial actors and firms can contribute to a better support of SMEs development.

The results are based on a case study of eight SMEs located in southwestern France. Interviews were conducted with two regional cooperative funds and eight SMEs. The interview guide included questions related to the company, the projects financed and how financing was accessed.

Results reveal that a combination of three forms of proximity allows regional cooperative banks and SMEs to establish effective financing operations. They show that regional cooperative banks are key players in the existing financing mechanisms for SMEs. Such financing is often used to gain access to larger players at a later stage. The findings suggest the need for public policies that promote the integration of financing actors in regional ecosystems to advance SMEs' development.

This article examines how SMEs access financing, with a focus on regional cooperative banks, which have received little attention in the literature. Moreover, the relationships between these actors are studied through the lens of proximity. Regional cooperative banks are able to finance projects that may have been overlooked by traditional banks due to trust-building local dynamics.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the use of financial information and valuation methods among private equity funds in Europe and India. The authors analyze differences in the choice of valuation methods and how the use of financial information differs among funds in the UK, Pan Europe and India.

A survey approach was utilized in collecting proprietary data from European and Indian private equity funds. The data were classified according to fund type, country grouping, size, risk profile, labor cost and industry structure and analyzed using MANOVA and ANOVA.

The results show that the use of valuation models is relatively homogeneous across countries and that the use of financial information appears to be driven to a large extent by fund type and fund focus. The use of audited financial statements appears to increase as firms mature. Significant differences were found in standard financial adjustments between the two fund types and between the country groupings. Results based on labor cost are weakly significant whereas industry structure does not appear to have an impact on how fund managers evaluate investments.

The results indicate that fund managers adapt their decision‐making behavior according to investment type and risk. The authors argue that understanding asymmetrical and structural issues may potentially improve investment decision‐making processes. The main conclusion for researchers is that buy‐out and venture capital funds should not be combined as one asset class. Since a survey approach was used, the study is subject to the belief that fund managers do not internalize decisions well, which could reduce the effectiveness of the research design.

There are few studies in the areas covered by this paper due to the proprietary nature of the private equity industry. The results are important because they help in understanding how fund managers use decision aids such as financial statements and valuation techniques. A better understanding of current practices will help fund managers and fund sponsors in devising improved decision aids and processes, which ultimately may lead to fewer non‐performing investments. This is especially important in private equity since investment decisions are often irreversible and binary.

The funding of innovation is explained by typical cost-based financial approaches. This paper breaks away from such tradition, and the purpose of this paper is to propose an alternative view where innovation funding decisions are strategic and concern interactions between actors – each with their own characteristics and strategic intentions – project features, and traits of the setting in which interactions take place.

This paper builds up an alternative framework to understand how innovation is financed by considering the interplay of innovation characteristics, the strategic reasons of project owners and funders, and the role of the matching environment and conditions. This proposal includes explanatory elements overlooked by extant theories. An illustrative case is presented to support the need for this proposal.

The framework proposed proves useful to better understand innovation funding cases where the traditional financial theory does not suffice.

Innovative companies may improve decision making about resource allocation to innovation; innovation funders may refine their decision-making criteria and implementation; and policy makers and practitioners need to devise better supporting strategies for innovative companies.

This proposal considers a continuum of funding options where supply/demand will match on the grounds of strategic decisions made during the interaction itself, under certain contextual conditions. Hence, it enriches the understanding of strategic decisions regarding firm capital structure and investment theory when it comes to funding innovation.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically assess the investment performance of mutual fund managers who operate in the Polish market.

The paper uses monthly mutual fund returns over the period 2000‐2007 to investigate the manager's selectivity and market timing skills. It analyzes three investment mutual fund investment categories: equity, balanced, and bond mutual funds. The paper investigates several performance evaluation models, and shows that the findings are robust with respect to the model choice.

For each of the three categories, equity, balanced, and bond funds, the paper positive, but insignificant selectivity skill of the mutual fund managers. No evidence is found of bond or equity market timing skills in the sample.

Since not many mutual funds exist over a long period, the sample used is relatively small with 38 mutual funds, while in April 2007 more than 300 funds are listed in the Polish market.

Private investors in Poland are not worse off by investing in mutual funds compared to passive market indices. Based on this research, they should select mutual funds that focus on selectivity rather than market timing.

The research on mutual fund manager skill in emerging economies is scarce. In addition, little is known on the performance of balanced and bond mutual funds, even in developed mutual fund markets. This paper contributes by filling both these gaps in the academic literature.

This paper considers efficient venture capital investment duration for different types of entrepreneurial firms so that on exit information asymmetries between the venture capitalist (as seller) and the new owners of the investment are minimized, and capital gains maximized. We hypothesize that a number of factors are likely to affect investment duration, and our empirical tests confirm the statistical significance of some of these variables (stage of firm at first investment, capital available to the venture capital industry, whether the exit was preplanned, and whether the exit was made in response to an unsolicited offer). However, the fit between our theoretical model and the data is stronger in the United States than in Canada, offering evidence in support of the view that institutional factors have distorted investment duration in Canada.

To compare the key EU regimes regulating direct lending by private funds.

Provides a summary of the key factors to be examined when looking at the provision of direct loans by private funds in the key jurisdictions, followed by a summary of existing pan-European regulations, followed by a focus regulations in on the UK, Germany, France and Italy.

The liberalisation of the national regimes for loan origination by funds in many European Union jurisdictions is a welcome development for both credit fund sponsors wishing to access investment opportunities in these jurisdictions and the borrowers unable to secure adequate financing from traditional sources such as banks. At the same time, the creation of a pan-European regulatory regime, with a passport for lending activities, would further facilitate market access by loan originating funds, as long as such regime does not impose onerous burdens or unnecessary restrictions on the funds and their managers.

The article gives an insight on the relative opportunities for direct lending funds in the EU, and how best to structure to take advantage of them.

Practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers

This paper investigates the performance of locally focused equity mutual funds (LFEFs) in Saudi Arabia as compared with the performance of benchmark funds. More specifically, the focal question pertains to whether Shariah-compliant mutual funds (SMFs) and conventional mutual funds (CMFs) outperform their respective benchmarks. Undertaken in the context of Saudi Arabia's economic planning under Vision 2030, the study offers a foundation for determining whether and the extent to which Shariah-compliant investment strategies are competitive—a matter of considerable importance across 57 Muslim countries.

The Carhart four-factor model is applied to a sample of 39 Saudi Arabian mutual funds (MFs) using the monthly net asset value (NAV) per share. The sample period, April 2007 to October 2016, is considered in its entirety and as three sub-periods, i.e. low-, medium- and high-volatility.

The results show that the locally focused equity mutual funds (LFEFs) significantly outperformed their benchmark, i.e. the Tadawul All Share Index (TASI), during the full sample period and the low-volatility period. According to the empirical comparison, the CMFs also outperformed their TASI benchmark for the full sample period and the low-volatility period. However, the SMFs neither outperformed nor underperformed their S&P Saudi Arabia Domestic Shariah Index benchmark. That is, for each of the SMFs included in the sample, the Jensen's alpha was insignificant for both the full sample and all three volatility sub-periods.

In this paper, the four-factor model is used in the context of a single country. The results, therefore, may not be generalizable to the multi-country level in the Gulf Council Cooperation (GCC) region given differences between the member countries in terms of financial structure and economic focus.

The results reported constitute a useful guide for policymakers and faith-based-sensitive investors concerned about the Shariah compliancy of their portfolios given that there is very little difference between how CMFs and SMFs performed in the focal period. This research can be extended to include other Islamic countries in the GCC region as a basis for identifying optimal investment vehicles, i.e. those most likely to produce high returns at low risk.

The work reported in this paper is original and constitutes a valuable asset for ethnoreligious-sensitive investors. The research has not been published in any capacity and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.