Investors
in sentence
4087 examples of Investors in a sentence
While individual
investors
cannot be expected to invest in lobbying for stronger investor protection, it might be hoped that institutional
investors
– mutual funds, banks, insurance companies, and so forth – will do so.
Institutional
investors
receive funds from individuals and invest them in publicly traded companies.
Because institutional
investors
invest substantial amounts in such companies, they should be well informed about corporate governance issues.
But institutional
investors
usually do not provide a sufficient counter-weight to lobbying by corporate insiders.
In contrast to corporate insiders, institutional
investors
cannot charge the costs of lobbying to the publicly traded companies whose investor protection is at stake.
In addition, depending on their relationship with their own investors, some institutional
investors
(for example, mutual fund managers) may capture only a limited fraction of the increase in value of their portfolios as a result of governance reforms.
This reduces the willingness of institutional
investors
to invest in counteracting insider lobbying.
Moreover, those who make decisions for institutional
investors
often have interests that discourage lobbying for stronger constraints on corporate insiders.
Some institutional
investors
are part of publicly traded firms, and are consequently under the control of corporate insiders whose interests are not served by new constraints.
And even those institutional
investors
that are not affiliated with publicly traded companies may have an interest in getting business from such companies, making these institutional
investors
reluctant to push for reforms that corporate insiders oppose.
And the preferential treatment received by the ECB on its Greek bonds will discourage other
investors
from holding sovereign debt.
The 40 largest firms listed in the Johannesburg Stock Exchange are predominantly “owned” by foreign institutional
investors.
From this perspective, the fact that individual black investors, according to Zuma, already own 10% of the stock market is impressive, given the predominance of institutional, not individual,
investors.
Principals, be they
investors
or voters, determine the incentives of agents, be they asset managers or elected officials and policymakers.
And yet,
investors
may be more rational than they appear when it comes to pricing in political risks.
Political crises, however sensational they may be, are not likely to change investors’ economic calculus.
Central banks and finance ministries will almost always rush to offset rising risk premia by adjusting interest rates or fiscal policies, and
investors
bid assets back to their pre-crisis values.
But even when a crisis, like a cyber attack or an epidemic, erupts unexpectedly, the ensuing market disruption usually lasts only as long as it takes for
investors
to reassess discount rates and future profit streams.
By contrast, changes in broadly shared economic assumptions are far more likely to trigger a sell-off, by prompting
investors
to reassess the likelihood of actually realizing projected cash flows.
There might be a dawning awareness among
investors
that growth rates are slowing, or that central banks have missed the emergence of inflation once again.
As emerging-market
investors
well know, political changes can affect economic assumptions.
But, again, the risk stems less from unpredictable shocks than from the slow erosion of institutions that
investors
trust to make an uncertain world more predictable.
For example,
investors
in Turkey know that the country’s turn away from democracy has distanced it from Europe and introduced new risks for future returns.
On the other hand, in Brazil, despite an ongoing corruption scandal that has toppled one president and could topple another,
investors
recognize that the country’s institutions are working – albeit in their own cumbersome way – and they have priced risks accordingly.
Unless other economic cycles intervene before investors’ expectations shift, that will be the end of the current market boom.
It counts influential Silicon Valley firms such as Sequoia Capital, Northgate Capital, and Comcast Ventures as
investors.
But international innovators are increasingly recognizing that, as valuations in Silicon Valley soar, the real bargains for tech-savvy
investors
may be found outside of the US.
Officially, North Korea began opening up to foreign
investors
in 1984, when the government enacted the Foreign Joint Venture Law, following the success of a similar law in China.
But these initiatives have yet to yield significant results, with foreign
investors
wary of operating in a country that lacks both economic-policy credibility and the physical and institutional infrastructure needed to support large-scale projects.
There is a large constituency of domestic and international
investors
who will respond positively and rapidly to any steady improvement in India’s institutional environment, which should be an ongoing process.
Back
Next
Related words
Their
Foreign
Would
Financial
Markets
Which
Market
Companies
Private
Assets
Capital
Rates
Other
About
Interest
Government
Institutional
Countries
Global
Economic