Bitcoin - $1 Million

Catherine Duddy Wood (born November 26, 1955) is an American investor and the founder, CEO and CIO of ARK Invest, an investment management firm. 

Early life and education

Wood was born in Los Angeles, the eldest child of immigrants from Ireland. Wood's father served in the Irish Army and the United States Air Force as a radar systems engineer. In 1974, Wood graduated from Notre Dame Academy in Los Angeles, an all-girls Catholic high school. In 1981, Wood graduated summa cum laude from the University of Southern California, with a Bachelor of Science degree in finance and economics. One of Wood's professors was economist Arthur Laffer, advisor to Presidents Reagan and Trump, who became Wood's mentor. 

Career

In 1977, via her mentor Arthur Laffer, Wood got a job as an assistant economist at Capital Group, where she worked for three years. In 1980, she moved to New York City to take a job at Jennison Associates as chief economist, analyst, portfolio manager and managing director. She worked there for 18 years. In the early 1980s, she debated Henry Kaufman on why she believed interest rates had peaked. 

In 1998, along with Lulu C. Wang, Wood co-founded Tupelo Capital Management, a hedge fund based in New York City. 

In 2001, she joined AllianceBernstein as chief investment officer of global thematic strategies, where she worked for 12 years, managing $5 billion. She was criticized for performing worse than the overall market during the 2007–2008 financial crisis. 

In 2014, after her idea for actively managed exchange-traded funds based on disruptive innovation was deemed too risky by AllianceBernstein, Wood left the company and founded ARK Invest. The company is named after the Ark of the Covenant; Wood was reading the One-Year Bible at the time. ARK's first four exchange traded funds (ETFs) were seeded with capital from Bill Hwang of Archegos Capital. 

Wood was named the best stock picker of 2020 by Bloomberg News editor-in-chief emeritus Matthew A. Winkler. 

However, her flagship ARK Innovation fund fell 24% in 2021 and, in the first quarter of 2022, it was the worst performer among equity funds covered by Morningstar, Inc. In early 2022, eight other funds managed by Wood, including funds focused on financial technology and space exploration were among the worst performers in their categories. 

Awards and honors

Wood was selected for the inaugural 2021 Forbes 50 Over 50; made up of entrepreneurs, leaders, scientists, and creators who are over the age of 50. 

Personal life

Wood lives in Wilton, Connecticut. She was divorced from Robert Wood, who died in 2018. She has three children. 

Wood is a devout Christian. During the 2020 election, she warned that Joe Biden's plan of taxation and regulation would stifle innovation. 

In 2018, she donated funds to her high school to start the Duddy Innovation Institute, which encourages girls to study disruptive innovation. 

ARK Investment Management LLC is an American investment management firm based in St. Petersburg, Florida, that manages several actively managed exchange-traded funds (ETFs). It was founded by Cathie Wood in 2014. At the height of February 2021, the company had $50 billion in assets under management. By May 2022, assets had dropped to $15.9 billion, after a period of poor performance. 

History

In 2014, after Cathie Wood's idea for actively managed exchange-traded funds based on disruptive innovation was deemed too risky by AllianceBernstein, where she was chief investment officer of global thematic strategies, she left and founded Ark Invest. The company is named after the Ark of the Covenant. Wood, a devout Christian, was reading the One-Year Bible at the time of founding. It is also a backronym for Active Research Knowledge. 

In October 2014, the company launched its first four active funds: the Innovation ETF, the Genomic Revolution ETF, the Next Generation Internet ETF and the Autonomous Technology & Robotics ETF. These were followed by the Fintech Innovation ETF in 2019 and the Space Exploration & Innovation ETF in 2021. 

The company also maintains three index funds: the 3D Printing ETF, launched in 2016, the Israel Innovative Technology ETF, launched in 2017, and the Transparency ETF, launched in 2021. 

In November 2020, Resolute Investment Managers announced it would exercise its option to acquire a majority stake in the company. However, in December 2020, Cathie Wood repurchased the option, maintaining control of the company, while continuing to use Resolute's distribution services, obtaining financing from Eldridge Industries. Resolute Investment remains a minority shareholder. 

In December 2020, the Innovation ETF became the largest actively managed ETF, with $17 billion in assets under management and a 170% return in 2020. On January 11, 2021, the company became one of the top 10 issuers of exchange-traded funds. 

In June 2021, the firm filed to create a bitcoin ETF under the ticker ARKB, pending approval of the SEC, which had yet to approve any ETF based on the asset. 

In October 2021, the firm moved its office from New York City to St. Petersburg, Florida. 

Investment strategy

ARK Invest focuses on investing in disruptive technology. These technologies include artificial intelligence, DNA sequencing, CRISPR gene editing, robotics, electric vehicles, energy storage, fintech, 3D printing and blockchain technology. It has also invested in cryptocurrencies. The company invests in stocks it projects to double in value over a five-year period. 

On November 22, 2022, Cathie Wood stated her $1M Bitcoin price by 2030 during an interview on Bloomberg TV. On that date, November 22, 2022, Bitcoin closed at $16,174; so, Bitcoin's price must increase 61 fold over the next 8 years to reach the $1M price target. 

From 2014 to 2021, the ARK Innovation ETF averaged an annual 39% return on investment, over three times the return of the S&P 500 during that time. Street.com published on December 9, 2022: "Ark innovation ETF has dropped 63% so far in 2022 and is down 78% from its February 2021 peak. Wood has defended her strategy by noting that she has a five year investment horizon." 

As its funds cannot hold cash, the firm also invests in numerous Big Tech stocks it refers to as "cash-like innovation stocks". 

ARK publishes current analyses, transactions and portfolios, and also opens its research reviews to the public. In addition to financial analysts, ARK employs scientists and computer scientists, believing they can better assess the impact of disruptive technologies. Most of the company's analysts are millennials without prior Wall Street experience. 

Risks

Critics such as James Grant and Jason Zweig warn that investors chasing outsized returns by investing in Ark ETFs may be disappointed, as "hot" funds and thematic ETFs generally can't sustain their performance. The flagship ARK Innovation ETF was down 24% for the year 2021. The Short Innovation ETF launched in November 2021 as the first ETF in the United States to provide inverse exposure to another ETF, using swap contracts to provide returns on a single-day basis inverse to the ARK Innovation ETF. 

Morningstar, Inc. noted concerns over ARK's sizable ownership in several of its smaller holdings. 

Funds

ARK Invest manages the following exchange-traded funds: In July 2022, ARK announced that it would shutter its Transparency ETF (CTRU) effective July 31, 2022, after it was notified that Transparency Global would stop calculating the Tranparency Index. 

Fund name Ticker Type Created

Innovation ETF NYSE Arca: ARKK Active 2014

Next Generation Internet ETF NYSE Arca: ARKW Active 2014

Genomic Revolution ETF CBOE: ARKG Active 2014

Autonomous Technology & Robotics ETF CBOE: ARKQ Active 2014

Fintech Innovation ETF NYSE Arca: ARKF Active 2019

Space Exploration & Innovation ETF CBOE: ARKX Active 2021

The 3D Printing ETF CBOE: PRNT Index-based 2016

Israel Innovative Technology ETF CBOE: IZRL Index-based 2017

Transparency ETF CBOE: CTRU Index-based 2021

The Tuttle Capital Short Innovation ETF (SARK) is an American inverse exchange-traded fund (ETF) listed on the Nasdaq. The ETF launched in November 2021 and is designed to provide returns inverse, on a daily basis, of the ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK), an actively managed ETF by Cathie Wood's Ark Invest. It is the first ETF in the United States to provide inverse exposure to another ETF. It uses swap contracts rather than short selling to achieve inverse exposure to ARKK. 

The Short Innovation ETF is unique in seeking inverse performance of ARKK, an actively managed portfolio of stocks, in contrast to other inverse ETFs which bet against a particular stock market index or industry classification. Ben Johnson, director of global ETF research for Morningstar, described such a product as "unprecedented." In January 2022, Mad Money host Jim Cramer highlighted the ETF as seeking to benefit from the weakness in growth-oriented stocks whose performance have struggled in recent months. In a November 2021 interview with Bloomberg News, Wood responded to SARK and short sellers of ARKK, saying "This is what makes a market, right? I never worry about anyone shorting the stocks underlying Ark or with this new ETF," adding that if Ark Invest succeeds, investors betting against ARKK would have to cover their short positions, creating demand for Ark funds. 

Tuttle Capital Management filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to launch its Short Innovation ETF under the stock ticker SARK in August 2021, following a period during which Ark Invest was unable to produce high returns for investors. Amidst the outbreak of COVID-19, ARKK was one of the top-performing ETFs in 2020, but it greatly underperformed the market in 2021 amidst a shift in investor preference away from technology stocks. When SARK launched in November 2021, ARKK had a short interest of 17.3%, up from 2% in early 2021, indicating negative sentiment for the portfolio. Matthew Tuttle, CEO of Tuttle Capital Management, argued that the company's ETF was superior to short selling ARKK because it allows investors to avoid short squeezes and margin calls. 

The ETF had $5 million in assets at inception. It experienced a trading volume of $843,000 on its first day of trading. As of January 2022, the ETF had $234 million in assets, about $200 million of which came from investor inflows. It had returned around 50% since its inception, amidst continued declines in stock performance of high-growth companies associated with rising Treasury yields. 

United States Treasury securities, also called Treasuries or Treasurys, are government debt instruments issued by the United States Department of the Treasury to finance government spending in addition to taxation. Since 2012, U.S. government debt has been managed by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, succeeding the Bureau of the Public Debt.

There are four types of marketable Treasury securities: Treasury bills, Treasury notes, Treasury bonds, and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). The government sells these securities in auctions conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, after which they can be traded in secondary markets. Non-marketable securities include savings bonds, issued to the public and transferable only as gifts; the State and Local Government Series (SLGS), purchaseable only with the proceeds of state and municipal bond sales; and the Government Account Series, purchased by units of the federal government.

Treasury securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, meaning that the government promises to raise money by any legally available means to repay them. Although the United States is a sovereign power and may default without recourse, its strong record of repayment has given Treasury securities a reputation as one of the world's lowest-risk investments. This low risk gives Treasuries a unique place in the financial system, where they are used as cash equivalents by institutions, corporations, and wealthy investors. 

History

To finance the costs of World War I, the U.S. Government increased income taxes (see the War Revenue Act of 1917) and issued government debt, called war bonds. Traditionally, the government borrowed from other countries, but there were no other countries from which to borrow in 1917. 

The Treasury raised funding throughout the war by selling $21.5 billion in 'Liberty bonds.' These bonds were sold at subscription where officials created coupon price and then sold it at par value. At this price, subscriptions could be filled in as little as one day, but usually remained open for several weeks, depending on demand for the bond. 

After the war, the Liberty bonds were reaching maturity, but the Treasury was unable to pay each down fully with only limited budget surpluses. To solve this problem, the Treasury refinanced the debt with variable short and medium-term maturities. Again the Treasury issued debt through fixed-price subscription, where both the coupon and the price of the debt were dictated by the Treasury. 

The problems with debt issuance became apparent in the late 1920s. The system suffered from chronic over-subscription, where interest rates were so attractive that there were more purchasers of debt than required by the government. This indicated that the government was paying too much for debt. As government debt was undervalued, debt purchasers could buy from the government and immediately sell to another market participant at a higher price. 

In 1929, the US Treasury shifted from the fixed-price subscription system to a system of auctioning where Treasury bills would be sold to the highest bidder. Securities were then issued on a pro rata system where securities would be allocated to the highest bidder until their demand was full. If more treasuries were supplied by the government, they would then be allocated to the next highest bidder. This system allowed the market, rather than the government, to set the price. On December 10, 1929, the Treasury issued its first auction. The result was the issuing of $224 million three-month bills. The highest bid was at 99.310 with the lowest bid accepted at 99.152. 

Until the 1970s, the Treasury offered long-term securities at irregular intervals based on market surveys. These irregular offerings created uncertainty in the money market, especially as the federal deficit increased, and by the end of the decade the Treasury had shifted to regular and predictable offerings. During the same period, the Treasury began to offer notes and bonds through an auction process based on that used for bills. 

Marketable securities

Treasury bills (T-bills) are zero-coupon bonds that mature in one year or less. They are bought at a discount of the par value and, instead of paying a coupon interest, are eventually redeemed at that par value to create a positive yield to maturity. 

Regular T-bills are commonly issued with maturity dates of 4, 8, 13, 17, 26 and 52 weeks, each of these approximating a different number of months. Treasury bills are sold by single-price auctions held weekly. Offering amounts for 13-week and 26-week bills are announced each Thursday for auction on the following Monday and settlement, or issuance, on Thursday. Offering amounts for 4-week and 8-week bills are announced on Monday for auction the next day, Tuesday, and issuance on Thursday. Offering amounts for 52-week bills are announced every fourth Thursday for auction the next Tuesday, and issuance on the following Thursday. The minimum purchase is $100; it had been $1,000 prior to April 2008. Mature T-bills are also redeemed on each Thursday. Banks and financial institutions, especially primary dealers, are the largest purchasers of T-bills.

Like other securities, individual issues of T-bills are identified with a unique CUSIP number. The 13-week bill issued three months after a 26-week bill is considered a re-opening of the 26-week bill and is given the same CUSIP number. The 4-week bill issued two months after that and maturing on the same day is also considered a re-opening of the 26-week bill and shares the same CUSIP number. For example, the 26-week bill issued on March 22, 2007, and maturing on September 20, 2007, has the same CUSIP number (912795A27) as the 13-week bill issued on June 21, 2007, and maturing on September 20, 2007, and as the 4-week bill issued on August 23, 2007, that matures on September 20, 2007.

During periods when Treasury cash balances are particularly low, the Treasury may sell cash management bills (CMBs). These are sold through a discount auction process like regular bills, but are irregular in the amount offered, the timing, and the maturity term. CMBs are referred to as "on-cycle" when they mature on the same day as a regular bill issue, and "off-cycle" otherwise. Before the introduction of the four-week bill in 2001, the Treasury sold CMBs routinely to ensure short-term cash availability. Since then CMB auctions have been infrequent except when the Treasury has extraordinary cash needs. 

Treasury notes (T-notes) have maturities of 2, 3, 5, 7, or 10 years, have a coupon payment every six months, and are sold in increments of $100. T-note prices are quoted on the secondary market as a percentage of the par value in thirty-seconds of a dollar. Ordinary Treasury notes pay a fixed interest rate that is set at auction. Current yields on the 10-year Treasury note are widely followed by investors and the public to monitor the performance of the U.S. government bond market and as a proxy for investor expectations of longer-term macroeconomic conditions. 

Another type of Treasury note, known as the floating rate note, pays interest quarterly based on rates set in periodic auctions of 13-week Treasury bills. As with a conventional fixed-rate instrument, holders are paid the par value of the note when it matures at the end of the two-year term. 

Treasury bond

Treasury bonds (T-bonds, also called a long bond) have the longest maturity at twenty or thirty years. They have a coupon payment every six months like T-notes. 

The U.S. federal government suspended issuing 30-year Treasury bonds for four years from February 18, 2002, to February 9, 2006. As the U.S. government used budget surpluses to pay down federal debt in the late 1990s, the 10-year Treasury note began to replace the 30-year Treasury bond as the general, most-followed metric of the U.S. bond market. However, because of demand from pension funds and large, long-term institutional investors, along with a need to diversify the Treasury's liabilities—and also because the flatter yield curve meant that the opportunity cost of selling long-dated debt had dropped—the 30-year Treasury bond was re-introduced in February 2006 and is now issued quarterly. In 2019, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that the Trump administration was considering issuance of 50-year and even 100-year Treasury bonds, a suggestion which did not materialize. 

TIPS

Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) are inflation-indexed bonds issued by the U.S. Treasury. Introduced in 1997, they are currently offered in 5-year, 10-year and 30-year maturities. The coupon rate is fixed at the time of issuance, but the principal is adjusted periodically based on changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the most commonly used measure of inflation. When the CPI rises, the principal is adjusted upward; if the index falls, the principal is adjusted downwards. The adjustments to the principal increase interest income when the CPI rises, thus protecting the holder's purchasing power. This "virtually guarantees" a real return over and above the rate of inflation, according to finance scholar Dr. Annette Thau. 

Finance scholars Martinelli, Priaulet and Priaulet state that inflation-indexed securities in general (including those used in the United Kingdom and France) provide efficient instruments to diversify portfolios and manage risk because they have a weak correlation with stocks, fixed-coupon bonds and cash equivalents. 

A 2014 study found that conventional U.S. Treasury bonds were persistently mispriced relative to TIPS, creating arbitrage opportunities and posing "a major puzzle to classical asset pricing theory." 

Coupon stripping

The secondary market for securities includes T-notes, T-bonds, and TIPS whose interest and principal portions of the security have been separated, or "stripped", in order to sell them separately. The practice derives from the days before computerization, when treasury securities were issued as paper bearer bonds; traders would literally separate the interest coupons from paper securities for separate resale, while the principal would be resold as a zero-coupon bond.

The modern versions are known as Separate Trading of Registered Interest and Principal Securities (STRIPS). The Treasury does not directly issue STRIPS – they are products of investment banks or brokerage firms – but it does register STRIPS in its book-entry system. STRIPS must be purchased through a broker, and cannot be purchased from TreasuryDirect.

Nonmarketable securities

U.S. savings bonds

Savings bonds were created in 1935, and, in the form of Series E bonds, also known as war bonds, were widely sold to finance World War II. Unlike Treasury Bonds, they are not marketable, being redeemable only by the original purchaser (or beneficiary in case of death). They remained popular after the end of WWII, often used for personal savings and given as gifts. In 2002, the Treasury Department started changing the savings bond program by lowering interest rates and closing its marketing offices. As of January 1, 2012, financial institutions no longer sell paper savings bonds. 

Savings bonds are currently offered in two forms, Series EE and Series I bonds. Series EE bonds pay a fixed rate but are guaranteed to pay at least double the purchase price when they reach initial maturity at 20 years; if the compounded interest has not resulted in a doubling of the initial purchase amount, the Treasury makes a one-time adjustment at 20 years to make up the difference. They continue to pay interest until 30 years. 

Series I bonds have a variable interest rate that consists of two components. The first is a fixed rate which will remain constant over the life of the bond; the second component is a variable rate reset every six months from the time the bond is purchased based on the current inflation rate as measured by the Consumer Price Index for urban consumers (CPI-U) from a six-month period ending one month prior to the reset time. New rates are published on May 1 and November 1 of every year. During times of deflation the negative inflation rate can wipe out the return of the fixed portion, but the combined rate cannot go below 0% and the bond will not lose value. Series I bonds are the only ones offered as paper bonds since 2011, and those may only be purchased by using a portion of a federal income tax refund. 

Zero-Percent Certificate of Indebtedness

The "Certificate of Indebtedness" (C of I) is issued only through the TreasuryDirect system. It is an automatically renewed security with one-day maturity that can be purchased in any amount up to $1000, and does not earn interest. An investor can use Certificates of Indebtedness to save funds in a TreasuryDirect account for the purchase of an interest-bearing security. 

Government Account Series

The Government Account Series is the principal form of intragovernmental debt holdings. The government issues GAS securities to federal departments and federally-established entities like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that have excess cash. 

State and Local Government Series

The State and Local Government Series (SLGS) is issued to government entities below the federal level which have excess cash that was obtained through the sale of tax-exempt bonds. The federal tax code generally forbids investment of this cash in securities that offer a higher yield than the original bond, but SLGS securities are exempt from this restriction. The Treasury issues SLGS securities at its discretion and has suspended sales on several occasions to adhere to the federal debt ceiling. 

Holdings

Domestic

In June 2022 approximately $23 trillion of outstanding Treasury securities, representing 75% of the public debt, belonged to domestic holders. Of this amount $6 trillion or 20% of the debt was held by agencies of the federal government itself. These intragovernmental holdings function as time deposits of the agencies' excess and reserve funds to the Treasury. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York was also a significant holder as the market agent of the Federal Reserve system, with $6.2 trillion or roughly 20%. Other domestic holders included mutual funds ($2.8 trillion), state and local governments ($1.9 trillion), banks ($1.8 trillion), private pension funds ($768 billion), insurers ($368 billion) and assorted private entities and individuals ($3 trillion, including $160 billion in Savings Bonds). 

Investment management (sometimes referred to more generally as asset management) is the professional asset management of various securities, including shareholdings, bonds, and other assets, such as real estate, to meet specified investment goals for the benefit of investors. Investors may be institutions, such as insurance companies, pension funds, corporations, charities, educational establishments, or private investors, either directly via investment contracts/mandates or via collective investment schemes like mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, or REITs.

The term investment management is often used to refer to the management of investment funds, most often specializing in private and public equity, real assets, alternative assets, and/or bonds. The more generic term asset management may refer to management of assets not necessarily primarily held for investment purposes.

Most investment management clients can be classified as either institutional or retail/advisory, depending on if the client is an institution or private individual/family trust. Investment managers who specialize in advisory or discretionary management on behalf of (normally wealthy) private investors may often refer to their services as money management or portfolio management within the context of "private banking". Wealth management by financial advisors takes a more holistic view of a client, with allocations to particular asset management strategies.

The term fund manager, or investment adviser in the United States, refers to both a firm that provides investment management services and to the individual who directs fund management decisions. 

According to a Boston Consulting Group study, the assets managed professionally for fees reached a historic high of US$62.4 trillion in 2012, after remaining flat since 2007, and were then expected to reach US$70.2 trillion a year later. 

The five largest asset managers are holding 22.7 percent of the externally held assets. Nevertheless, the market concentration, measured via the Herfindahl-Hirschmann Index, could be estimated at 173.4 in 2018, showing that the industry is not very concentrated. 

Industry scope

The business of investment has several facets, the employment of professional fund managers, research (of individual assets and asset classes), dealing, settlement, marketing, internal auditing, and the preparation of reports for clients. The largest financial fund managers are firms that exhibit all the complexity their size demands. Apart from the people who bring in the money (marketers) and the people who direct investment (the fund managers), there is compliance staff (to ensure accord with legislative and regulatory constraints), internal auditors of various kinds (to examine internal systems and controls), financial controllers (to account for the institutions' own money and costs), computer experts, and "back office" employees (to track and record transactions and fund valuations for up to thousands of clients per institution).

Key problems of running such businesses

Key problems include:

Revenue is directly linked to market valuations, so a major fall in asset prices can cause a precipitous decline in revenues relative to costs.

Above-average fund performance is difficult to sustain, and clients may not be patient during times of poor performance.

Successful fund managers are expensive and may be headhunted by competitors.

Above-average fund performance appears to be dependent on the unique skills of the fund manager; however, clients are loath to stake their investments on the ability of a few individuals- they would rather see firm-wide success, attributable to a single philosophy and internal discipline.

Analysts who generate above-average returns often become sufficiently wealthy that they avoid corporate employment in favor of managing their personal portfolios.

Representing the owners of shares

Institutions often control huge shareholdings. In most cases, they are acting as fiduciary agents rather than principals (direct owners). The owners of shares theoretically have great power to alter the companies via the voting rights the shares carry and the consequent ability to pressure managements, and if necessary out-vote them at annual and other meetings.

In practice, the ultimate owners of shares often do not exercise the power they collectively hold (because the owners are many, each with small holdings); financial institutions (as agents) sometimes do. There is a general belief that shareholders – in this case, the institutions acting as agents—could and should exercise more active influence over the companies in which they hold shares (e.g., to hold managers to account, to ensure Board's effective functioning). Such action would add a pressure group to those (the regulators and the Board) overseeing management.

However, there is the problem of how the institution should exercise this power. One way is for the institution to decide, the other is for the institution to poll its beneficiaries. Assuming that the institution polls, should it then: (i) Vote the entire holding as directed by the majority of votes cast? (ii) Split the vote (where this is allowed) according to the proportions of the vote? (iii) Or respect the abstainers and only vote the respondents' holdings?

The price signals generated by large active managers holding or not holding the stock may contribute to management change. For example, this is the case when a large active manager sells his position in a company, leading to (possibly) a decline in the stock price, but more importantly a loss of confidence by the markets in the management of the company, thus precipitating changes in the management team.

Some institutions have been more vocal and active in pursuing such matters; for instance, some firms believe that there are investment advantages to accumulating substantial minority shareholdings (i.e. 10% or more) and putting pressure on management to implement significant changes in the business. In some cases, institutions with minority holdings work together to force management change. Perhaps more frequent is the sustained pressure that large institutions bring to bear on management teams through persuasive discourse and PR. On the other hand, some of the largest investment managers—such as BlackRock and Vanguard—advocate simply owning every company, reducing the incentive to influence management teams. A reason for this last strategy is that the investment manager prefers a closer, more open, and honest relationship with a company's management team than would exist if they exercised control; allowing them to make a better investment decision.

The national context in which shareholder representation considerations are set is variable and important. The USA is a litigious society and shareholders use the law as a lever to pressure management teams. In Japan, it is traditional for shareholders to be below in the 'pecking order,' which often allows management and labor to ignore the rights of the ultimate owners. Whereas US firms generally cater to shareholders, Japanese businesses generally exhibit a stakeholder mentality, in which they seek consensus amongst all interested parties (against a background of strong unions and labor legislation).

Size of the global fund management industry

Conventional assets under management of the global fund management industry increased by 10% in 2010, to $79.3 trillion. Pension assets accounted for $29.9 trillion of the total, with $24.7 trillion invested in mutual funds and $24.6 trillion in insurance funds. Together with alternative assets (sovereign wealth funds, hedge funds, private equity funds, and exchange-traded funds) and funds of wealthy individuals, assets of the global fund management industry totalled around $117 trillion. Growth in 2010 followed a 14% increase in the previous year and was due both to the recovery in equity markets during the year and an inflow of new funds.

The US remained by far the biggest source of funds, accounting for around a half of conventional assets under management or some $36 trillion. The UK was the second-largest centre in the world and by far the largest in Europe with around 8% of the global total. 

Philosophy, process, and people

The 3-P's (Philosophy, Process, and People) are often used to describe the reasons why the manager can produce above-average results.

Philosophy refers to the overarching beliefs of the investment organization. For example: (i) Does the manager buy growth or value shares, or a combination of the two (and why)? (ii) Do they believe in market timing (and on what evidence)? (iii) Do they rely on external research or do they employ a team of researchers? It is helpful if all of such fundamental beliefs are supported by proof-statements.

Process refers to how the overall philosophy is implemented. For example: (i) Which universe of assets is explored before particular assets are chosen as suitable investments? (ii) How does the manager decide what to buy and when? (iii) How does the manager decide what to sell and when? (iv) Who takes the decisions and are they taken by committee? (v) What controls are in place to ensure that a rogue fund (one very different from others and from what is intended) cannot arise?

People refer to the staff, especially the fund managers. The questions are, Who are they? How are they selected? How old are they? Who reports to whom? How deep is the team (and do all the members understand the philosophy and process they are supposed to be using)? And most important of all, How long has the team been working together? This last question is vital because whatever performance record was presented at the outset of the relationship with the client may or may not relate to (have been produced by) a team that is still in place. If the team has changed greatly (high staff turnover or changes to the team), then arguably the performance record is completely unrelated to the existing team (of fund managers).

Ethical principles

Ethical or religious principles may be used to determine or guide the way in which money is invested. Christians tend to follow the Biblical scripture. Several religions follow Mosaic law which proscribed the charging of interest. The Quakers forbade involvement in the slave trade and so started the concept of ethical investment.

Investment managers and portfolio structures

At the heart of the investment management industry are the managers who invest and divest client investments.

A certified company investment advisor should conduct an assessment of each client's individual needs and risk profile. The advisor then recommends appropriate investments.

Asset allocation

The different asset class definitions are widely debated, but four common divisions are stocks, bonds, real estate, and commodities. The exercise of allocating funds among these assets (and among individual securities within each asset class) is what investment management firms are paid for. Asset classes exhibit different market dynamics, and different interaction effects; thus, the allocation of money among asset classes will have a significant effect on the performance of the fund. Some research suggests that allocation among asset classes has more predictive power than the choice of individual holdings in determining portfolio return. Arguably, the skill of a successful investment manager resides in constructing the asset allocation, and separating individual holdings, to outperform certain benchmarks (e.g., the peer group of competing funds, bonds, and stock indices).

Long-term returns

It is important to look at the evidence on the long-term returns to different assets, and to holding period returns (the returns that accrue on average over different lengths of investment). For example, over very long holding periods (e.g. 10+ years) in most countries, equities have generated higher returns than bonds, and bonds have generated higher returns than cash. According to financial theory, this is because equities are riskier (more volatile) than bonds which are themselves riskier than cash.

Diversification

Against the background of the asset allocation, fund managers consider the degree of diversification that makes sense for a given client (given its risk preferences) and construct a list of planned holdings accordingly. The list will indicate what percentage of the fund should be invested in each particular stock or bond. The theory of portfolio diversification was originated by Markowitz (and many others). Effective diversification requires management of the correlation between the asset returns and the liability returns, issues internal to the portfolio (individual holdings volatility), and cross-correlations between the returns.

Investment styles

There is a range of different styles of fund management that the institution can implement. For example, growth, value, growth at a reasonable price (GARP), market neutral, small capitalisation, indexed, etc. Each of these approaches has its distinctive features, adherents, and in any particular financial environment, distinctive risk characteristics. For example, there is evidence that growth styles (buying rapidly growing earnings) are especially effective when the companies able to generate such growth are scarce; conversely, when such growth is plentiful, then there is evidence that value styles tend to outperform the indices particularly successfully.

Large asset managers are increasingly profiling their equity portfolio managers to trade their orders more effectively. While this strategy is less effective with small-cap trades, it has been effective for portfolios with large-cap companies.

Performance measurement

Fund performance is often thought to be the acid test of fund management, and in the institutional context, accurate measurement is a necessity. For that purpose, institutions measure the performance of each fund (and usually for internal purposes components of each fund) under their management, and performance is also measured by external firms that specialize in performance measurement. The leading performance measurement firms (e.g. Russell Investment Group in the US or BI-SAM in Europe) compile aggregate industry data, e.g., showing how funds in general performed against given performance indices and peer groups over various periods.

In a typical case (let us say an equity fund), the calculation would be made (as far as the client is concerned) every quarter and would show a percentage change compared with the prior quarter (e.g., +4.6% total return in US dollars). This figure would be compared with other similar funds managed within the institution (for purposes of monitoring internal controls), with performance data for peer group funds, and with relevant indices (where available) or tailor-made performance benchmarks where appropriate. The specialist performance measurement firms calculate quartile and decile data and close attention would be paid to the (percentile) ranking of any fund.

It is probably appropriate for an investment firm to persuade its clients to assess performance over longer periods (e.g., 3 to 5 years) to smooth out very short-term fluctuations in performance and the influence of the business cycle. This can be difficult however and, industry-wide, there is a serious preoccupation with short-term numbers and the effect on the relationship with clients (and resultant business risks for the institutions). One effective solution to this problem is to include a minimum evaluation period in the investment management agreement, whereby the minimum evaluation period equals the investment manager's investment horizon. 

An enduring problem is whether to measure before-tax or after-tax performance. After-tax measurement represents the benefit to the investor, but investors' tax positions may vary. Before-tax measurement can be misleading, especially in regimens that tax realised capital gains (and not unrealised). It is thus possible that successful active managers (measured before tax) may produce miserable after-tax results. One possible solution is to report the after-tax position of some standard taxpayer.

Risk-adjusted performance measurement

Performance measurement should not be reduced to the evaluation of fund returns alone, but must also integrate other fund elements that would be of interest to investors, such as the measure of risk taken. Several other aspects are also part of performance measurement: evaluating if managers have succeeded in reaching their objective, i.e. if their return was sufficiently high to reward the risks taken; how they compare to their peers; and finally, whether the portfolio management results were due to luck or the manager's skill. The need to answer all these questions has led to the development of more sophisticated performance measures, many of which originate in modern portfolio theory. Modern portfolio theory established the quantitative link that exists between portfolio risk and returns. The capital asset pricing model (CAPM) developed by Sharpe (1964) highlighted the notion of rewarding risk and produced the first performance indicators, be they risk-adjusted ratios (Sharpe ratio, information ratio) or differential returns compared to benchmarks (alphas). The Sharpe ratio is the simplest and best-known performance measure. It measures the return of a portfolio over above the risk-free rate, compared to the total risk of the portfolio. This measure is said to be absolute, as it does not refer to any benchmark, avoiding drawbacks related to a poor choice of benchmark. Meanwhile, it does not allow the separation of the performance of the market in which the portfolio is invested from that of the manager. The information ratio is a more general form of the Sharpe ratio in which the risk-free asset is replaced by a benchmark portfolio. This measure is relative, as it evaluates portfolio performance about a benchmark, making the result strongly dependent on this benchmark choice.

Portfolio alpha is obtained by measuring the difference between the return of the portfolio and that of a benchmark portfolio. This measure appears to be the only reliable performance measure to evaluate active management. we have to distinguish between normal returns, provided by the fair reward for portfolio exposure to different risks, and obtained through passive management, from abnormal performance (or outperformance) due to the manager's skill (or luck), whether through market timing, stock picking, or good fortune. The first component is related to allocation and style investment choices, which may not be under the sole control of the manager, and depends on the economic context, while the second component is an evaluation of the success of the manager's decisions. Only the latter, measured by alpha, allows the evaluation of the manager's true performance (but then, only if you assume that any outperformance is due to the skill and not luck).

Portfolio returns may be evaluated using factor models. The first model, proposed by Jensen (1968), relies on the CAPM and explains portfolio returns with the market index as the only factor. It quickly becomes clear, however, that one factor is not enough to explain the returns very well and that other factors have to be considered. Multi-factor models were developed as an alternative to the CAPM, allowing a better description of portfolio risks and a more accurate evaluation of a portfolio's performance. For example, Fama and French(1993) have highlighted two important factors that characterize a company's risk in addition to market risk. These factors are the book-to-market ratio and the company's size as measured by its market capitalization. Fama and French-, therefore proposed a three-factor model to describe portfolio normal returns (Fama–French three-factor model). Carhart (1997) proposed adding momentum as a fourth factor to allow the short-term persistence of returns to be taken into account. Also of interest for performance measurement is Sharpe's (1992) style analysis model, in which factors are style indices. This model allows a custom benchmark for each portfolio to be developed, using the linear combination of style indices that best replicate portfolio style allocation, and leads to an accurate evaluation of portfolio alpha.

Education or certification

At the undergraduate level, several business schools and universities internationally offer "Investments" as a subject within their degree; further, some universities, in fact, confer a specialist bachelor's degree, with title in "Investment Management" or in "Asset Management" or in "Financial Markets". 

Increasingly, those with aspirations to work as an investment manager, require further education beyond a bachelor's degree in business, finance, or economics.

Designations such as the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA), internationally, or the more local Chartered Investment Manager (CIM) in Canada, and the Certified International Investment Analyst (CIIA) in Europe and Asia, are increasingly required for advancement; even to gain entry-level positions in the industry, enrollment / partial completion of exams is often helpful.

Further, a graduate degree - typically the MBA or MSF, or the more specialized Masters in Investment Management - may also be required for advancement to senior roles; and lately for entry-level roles.

In this book, Grinold and Kahn discuss the various factors that can affect the performance of an investment manager, including the manager's qualifications. They conclude that there is no evidence that any particular qualification enhances the manager's ability to select investments that result in above-average returns.

Money management

Money management is the process of expense tracking, investing, budgeting, banking and evaluating taxes of one's money, which includes investment management and wealth management.

Money management is a strategic technique to make money yield

the highest interest-output value for any amount spent. Spending money to satisfy cravings (regardless of whether they can justifiably be included in a budget) is a natural human phenomenon. The idea of money management techniques has been developed to reduce the amount that individuals, firms, and institutions spend on items that add no significant value to their living standards, long-term portfolios, and assets. Warren Buffett, in one of his documentaries, admonished prospective investors to embrace his highly esteemed "frugality" ideology. This involves making every financial transaction worth the expense:

1. avoid any expense that appeals to vanity or snobbery

2. always go for the most cost-effective alternative (establishing small quality-variance benchmarks, if any)

3. favor expenditures on interest-bearing items over all others

4. establish the expected benefits of every desired expenditure using the canon of plus/minus/nil to the standard of living value system.

These techniques are investment-boosting and portfolio-multiplying. There are certain companies as well that offer services, provide counseling and different models for managing money. These are designed to manage grace assets and make them grow. 

Comparison to wealth management

Wealth management, where financial advisors perform financial planning for clients, has traditionally served as an intermediary to investment managers in the United States and less so in Europe. However, as of 2019, the lines were becoming blurred. 

Trading and investment

Money management is used in investment management and deals with the question of how much risk a decision maker should take in situations where uncertainty is present. More precisely what percentage or what part of the decision maker's wealth should be put into risk in order to maximize the decision maker's utility function. 

Money management can mean gaining greater control over outgoings and incomings, both in a personal and business perspective. Greater money management can be achieved by establishing budgets and analyzing costs and income etc.

In stock and futures trading, money management plays an important role in every success of a trading system. This is closely related with trading expectancy:

“Expectancy” which is the average amount you can expect to win or lose per dollar at risk. Mathematically:

Expectancy = (Trading system Winning probability * Average Win) – (Trading system losing probability * Average Loss)

So for example even if a trading system has 60% losing probability and only 40% winning of all trades, using money management a trader can set his average win substantially higher compared to his average loss in order to produce a profitable trading system. If he set his average win at around $400 per trade (this can be done using proper exit strategy) and managing/limiting the losses to around $100 per trade; the expectancy is around:

Expectancy = (Trading system Winning probability * Average Win) – (Trading system losing probability * Average Loss) Expectancy = (0.4 x 400) - (0.6 x 100)=$160 - $60 = $100 net average profit per trade (of course commissions are not included in the computations).

Therefore the key to successful money management is maximizing every winning trades and minimizing losses (regardless whether you have a winning or losing trading system, such as %Loss probability > %Win probability). 

Capital Group is an American financial services company. It ranks among the world's oldest and largest investment management organizations, with over $2.6 trillion in assets under management. Founded in Los Angeles, California in 1931, it is privately held and has offices around the globe in the Americas, Asia, Australia and Europe.

Capital offers a range of products focused on active management, including more than 40 mutual funds through its subsidiary, American Funds Distributors, as well as separately managed accounts (or collective investment trusts), private equity, investment services for high net worth investors in the U.S., and a range of other offerings for institutional clients and individual investors globally. 

History

In 1931, Jonathan Bell Lovelace founded the investment firm, Lovelace, Dennis & Renfrew, which would eventually become Capital Group. Lovelace had previously been a partner in the stock brokerage firm E.E. MacCrone, where he explored the concept of developing an open-end mutual fund. He eventually sold his stake in that company, just before the Wall Street Crash of 1929. 

In 1933, Lovelace's firm took over management of The Investment Company of America, which he had launched at E.E. MacCrone in 1927. For the next 20 years, his firm enjoyed modest success. As mutual funds gained in popularity in the 1950s, Capital's roster of mutual funds grew. 

The International Resources Fund, established in 1954, was Capital's first foray into international investing. A year earlier, Lovelace had established an international investment staff at the urging of his son, Jon Lovelace Jr. The establishment of the firm's first overseas research office in Geneva followed in 1962. 

In 1958, Jon Lovelace Jr. introduced a new system of managing the firm's mutual funds and accounts. Rather than assign a portfolio to a single manager, he divided each portfolio among several managers. Each manager would share ideas with peers but have total discretion over a section of the portfolio. Known today as The Capital System, it avoids the phenomenon of creating single-manager "stars," who can impact a fund's results should they leave. In the mid-1960s, Capital began to include research analysts in the management of the portfolios, reserving a portion of each to allow analysts to pursue their highest conviction investment ideas. 

Capital Group's long-term approach has helped it avoid some of the pitfalls that have plagued other firms. In the late 1990s, the firm was criticized for not offering then-popular tech funds. But when the tech bubble burst, Capital was praised for not jumping on the bandwagon. 

Former British PM Theresa May's husband Philip May has worked as a relationship manager for the Capital Group. 

Investments

As of 2019, Capital Group held 5% of BAE Systems, 9% of British American Tobacco, and 15.28% of ASML Holding. 

Leadership

The chairman Chanuka Dilshan Kumarasinghe chief executive is Tim Armour, who took over in 2015 after the death of James Rothenberg. 

Strategies

Funds typically have between three and 13 managers, each managing a portion of the portfolio independently to reduce key person risk and provide diversity of thought. In addition to financial research, the managers may do on-the-ground due diligence, and in 2018 logged 12,400 to facilities such as factories. It has three independent divisions focused on equities: Capital World Investors, Capital Research Global Investors and Capital International Investors, as well as one focused on bonds, Capital Fixed Income Investors. 

Funds

As of 2019, Capital Group had 36 mutual funds, which operate under their American Funds banner and had about US$1.9 trillion under management. Growth Fund of America, founded in 1973, was the largest actively-managed fund as of 2020 with around $150 billion. 

In 2022, Capital Group introduced a suite of six exchange traded funds, five focused on equities and one focused on bonds and other fixed income. 

Ownership

As of 2019, the company is owned by 450 partners. 

Offices

Capital Group employs more than 7,500 associates worldwide. North American locations include Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Antonio, Indianapolis, New York, San Francisco, Toronto and Washington, D.C. As part of expansion plans in Europe, Capital Group established a presence in Frankfurt, Madrid, Milan and Zurich, adding to its offices in Geneva, London and Luxembourg. Its Asia offices include Beijing, Hong Kong, Mumbai, Singapore and Tokyo. Capital Group also has a growing presence in Sydney. 

List of mutual-fund families in the United States

The following is a limited list of mutual-fund families in the United States. A family of mutual funds is a group of funds that are marketed under one or more brand names, usually having the same distributor (the company which handles selling and redeeming shares of the fund in transactions with investors), and investment advisor (which is usually a corporate cousin of the distributor).

There are several hundred families of registered mutual funds in the United States, some with a single fund and others offering dozens. Many fund families are units of a larger financial services company such as an asset manager, bank, stock brokerage, or insurance company. Additionally, multiple funds in a family can be part of the same corporate structure; that is, one underlying corporation or business trust may divide itself into more than one fund, each of which issues shares separately.

Fund families

Aberdeen Asset Management

AIM (Invesco)

AllianceBernstein

Allianz

AlphaCentric Funds

Amana Mutual Funds Trust

American Beacon

American Century

American Funds (The Capital Group Companies)

Ariel Investments

Ave Maria Mutual Funds

Barclays Global Investors

Baron Funds

BlackRock

BNY Mellon (The Bank of New York Mellon)

Calamos

Calvert Investments

Columbia (Ameriprise Financial)

Credit Suisse

Dimensional Fund Advisors

Delaware Investments

Dodge & Cox

Dreyfus

Eaton Vance

Federated

Fidelity

First Eagle Funds

Franklin Templeton

Gabelli & GAMCO Funds

Goldman Sachs

Invesco (AMVESCAP)

Janus Henderson Investors

John Hancock

JPMorgan

Legg Mason

MainStay Investments

Mellon Funds

MetLife

MFS

Morgan Stanley

Natixis Global Asset Management

Northern

Old Mutual

PIMCO (Pacific Investment Management)

Pax World

Putnam

Schwab

State Farm

State Street

Thrivent Financial for Lutherans

TIAA-CREF

T. Rowe Price

Truist Financial

Tweedy, Browne

USAA

Value Line

Vanguard

Van Kampen

Virtus Investment Partners

Waddell and Reed

Wells Fargo Funds

Wilshire Associates

List of asset management firms

An asset management company (AMC) is an asset management / investment management company/firm that invests the pooled funds of retail investors in securities in line with the stated investment objectives. For a fee, the company/firm provides more diversification, liquidity, and professional management consulting service than is normally available to individual investors. The diversification of portfolio is done by investing in such securities which are inversely correlated to each other. Money is collected from investors by way of floating various collective investment schemes, e.g. mutual fund schemes. In general, an AMC is a company that is engaged primarily in the business of investing in, and managing, portfolios of securities. A study by consulting firm Casey Quirk, which is owned by Deloitte, found that asset management firms ended 2020 with record highs in both revenue and assets under management. 

Largest companies

The following is a list of the top 20 asset managers in the world (as of 2022), ranked by total assets under management (AUM): 

Rank Firm/company Country AUM (billion USD)

1 United States BlackRock United States 9,570

2 United States Vanguard Group United States 8,100

3 United States Fidelity Investments United States 4,283

4 Switzerland UBS Switzerland 4,380

5 United States State Street Global Advisors United States 4,020

6 United States Morgan Stanley United States 3,230

7 United States JPMorgan Chase United States 2,960

8 France Cr?dit Agricole France 2,875

9 Germany Allianz Germany 2,760

10 United States Capital Group United States 2,700

11 United States Goldman Sachs United States 2,394

12 United States BNY Mellon United States 2,266

13 France Amundi France 2,251

14 United States PIMCO United States 2,000

15 United Kingdom Legal & General United Kingdom 1,866

16 United States Edward Jones Investments United States 1,700

17 United States PGIM United States 1,620

18 Germany Deutsche Bank Germany 1,615

19 United States Bank of America United States 1,571

20 United States Invesco United States 1,556

Asset management firms worldwide

Africa and Middle East

South Africa Allan Gray

Israel Clarity Capital

South Africa Coronation Fund Managers

Egypt EFG Hermes

Israel eToro

Nigeria First City Monument Bank

Nigeria Heirs Holdings

Bahrain Investcorp

Saudi Arabia Kingdom Holding Company

Kuwait NBK Capital

South Africa Ninety One ltd

South Africa Old Mutual

South Africa Public Investment Corporation

South Africa Sanlam

South Africa STANLIB

Kenya UAP Old Mutual Holdings

Americas

United States Acadian Asset Management

United States AdvisorShares

United States Affiliated Managers Group

United States AllianceBernstein

United States Allspring Global Investments

United States American Century Investments

United States Ameriprise Financial

United States AQR Capital

United States Barings LLC

United States BlackRock

United States Blackstone

United States BNY Mellon Investment Management

United States Bridgewater Associates

Canada Brookfield Asset Management

Brazil BTG Pactual

United States Calamos Investments

United States Cambridge Associates

United States Cambridge Investment Research

United States Capital Group Companies

United States Charles Schwab Corporation

Canada CI Financial

United States Cohen & Steers

United States Columbia Threadneedle Investments

United States Conning

United States Dimensional Fund Advisors

United States Dodge & Cox

United States DoubleLine Capital

United States Dreyfus Corporation

United States Eaton Vance

United States Edward Jones Investments

United States Federated Hermes

United States Fidelity Investments

United States Fisher Investments

United States Franklin Templeton Investments

United States GAMCO Investors

Canada GBC Asset Management

United States Geode Capital Management

Canada Gluskin Sheff

United States GMO LLC

Canada Guardian Capital Group

United States Harbert Management Corporation

United States Harris Associates

United States Hartford

United States Invesco

Brazil Ita? Unibanco

United States J. & W. Seligman & Co.

United States Janus Capital Group

United States Knight Vinke Asset Management

United States Legg Mason

United States Loomis, Sayles & Company

United States Lord Abbett

United States LSV Asset Management

Canada Mackenzie Investments

Canada Manulife Investment Management

United States Merrill

United States MFS Investment Management

United States Natixis Investment Managers

United States Neuberger Berman

United States NISA Investment Advisors

United States Northern Trust

United States Nuveen Investments

United States Oaktree Capital Management

United States Payden & Rygel

United States PGIM

United States PIMCO

United States PineBridge Investments

Canada Power Financial

United States Principal Financial Group

United States Putnam Investments

United States Pzena Investment Management

United States RLJ Companies

United States Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb

United States Russell Investments

United States SEI Investments Company

Canada Sprucegrove Investment Management

United States State Street Global Advisors

Canada Sun Life Financial

United States T. Rowe Price

United States TCW Group

United States TIAA

United States Tsai Capital

United States The Vanguard Group

United States Virtus Investment Partners

United States Waddell & Reed

United States Walden Asset Management

United States Wellington Management Company

United States Wilshire Associates

United States WisdomTree Investments

Brazil XP Inc.

Asia-Pacific

Malaysia Affin Hwang Capital

Australia AMP Capital

Singapore Artradis

Hong Kong Asia Frontier Capital

Japan Asset Management One

Australia Australian Ethical Investment

India Axis Mutual Fund

Australia BetaShares

China Bosera Asset Management

India Aditya Birla Sun Life Asset Management

Australia BT

Malaysia Capital Dynamics

China China Asset Management

China China Southern Asset Management

Australia Colonial First State

China E Fund Management

Singapore Eastspring Investments

Australia First Sentier Investors

China Harvest Fund Management

India ICICI Prudential Mutual Fund

India IDFC Project Equity

Australia IFM Investors

Australia Investors Mutual Limited

India Kotak Mutual Fund

India L&T Mutual Fund

Australia Macquarie Asset Management

Australia Magellan Financial Group

South Korea Mirae Asset Financial Group

Japan Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corporation

Australia Perpetual Limited

Australia Platinum Asset Management

Australia Plenary Group

South Korea Samsung Asset Management

India SBI Mutual Fund

South Korea Shinhan Asset Management

Japan SPARX Group

Japan Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings

China Tianhong Asset Management

India UTI Asset Management

Hong Kong Value Partners

Europe

United Kingdom Abrdn

Netherlands Aegon N.V.

United Kingdom Alliance Trust

Germany Allianz Global Investors

France Amundi

Netherlands APG

United Kingdom Ashmore Group

United Kingdom Aviva Investors

France AXA Investment Managers

Italy Azimut Holding

United Kingdom Baillie Gifford

United Kingdom Bluebay Asset Management

France BNP Paribas Asset Management

United Kingdom Brewin Dolphin

Luxembourg Candriam Investors Group

France Capital Fund Management

United Kingdom The Children's Mutual

United Kingdom Climate Change Capital

Germany DekaBank

Germany DWS Group

United Kingdom Edinburgh Partners

Italy Eurizon Capital

United Kingdom F&C Asset Management

United Kingdom Fidelity International

Switzerland Genevalor Benbassat & Cie

Italy Generali Investments

United Kingdom Generation Investment Management

United Kingdom Henderson Group

United Kingdom Henderson New Star

United Kingdom HSBC

United Kingdom Insight Investment

United Kingdom Invesco Perpetual

United Kingdom Intelligent Money

United Kingdom Janus Henderson

United Kingdom Jupiter Fund Management

Netherlands Van Lanschot Kempen

France La Fran?aise Group

United Kingdom Legal & General

Liechtenstein LGT Group

United Kingdom Liongate Capital Management

United Kingdom M&G Investments

United Kingdom Mercury Asset Management

Switzerland Mirabaud Group

France Natixis Investment Managers

United Kingdom Newton Investment Management

Netherlands NN Investment Partners

United Kingdom Old Mutual

United Kingdom Rathbones

Switzerland Lombard Odier

Netherlands Robeco

United Kingdom Royal London Asset Management

United Kingdom Schroders

United Kingdom Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust

United Kingdom Scottish Widows

United Kingdom Skagen Funds

Iceland Stodir

Austria Superfund Group

United Kingdom Tilney Ltd.

Switzerland UBS

Germany Union Investment

List of venture capital firms

Assets under management

Shown below are the largest venture capital firms ranked by Assets Under Management. 

Rank Firm Headquarters Assets under management

1. United States Andreessen Horowitz Menlo Park, CA $35.9B

2. United States Sequoia Capital Menlo Park, CA $28.3B

3. United States Dragoneer Investment Group San Francisco, CA $24.9B

4. United States New Enterprise Associates Chevy Chase, MD $17.8B

5. United States Deerfield Management New York City, NY $16.2B

6. United States Greenspring Associates Owings Mills, MD $15.3B

7. United States Khosla Ventures Menlo Park, CA $14.0B

8. China Legend Capital Beijing $9.5B

8. United States Lightspeed Venture Partners Menlo Park, CA $7.7B

10. United States Industry Ventures San Francisco, CA $6.8B

Capital raised

Data is for capital raised between January 1, 2017, and June 30, 2022. Data is from Venture Capital Journal in 2022. 

Rank Firm Headquarters Capital raised ($bn)

1. United States Insight Partners New York City, NY $38.7

2. United States Tiger Global Management New York City, NY $26.76

3. United States Sequoia Capital Menlo Park, CA $24.45

4. United States Andreessen Horowitz Menlo Park, CA $20.84

5. United States Lightspeed Venture Partners Menlo Park, CA $15.04

6. United Arab Emirates Chimera Capital Abu Dhabi $10.08

7. United States New Enterprise Associates Chevy Chase, MD $10.01

8. United States Bessemer Venture Partners Menlo Park, CA $9.52

9. United States General Catalyst Partners Cambridge, MA $8.92

10. United States Founders Fund San Francisco, CA $8.57

Deal flow

Shown below are the largest venture capital firms by deal flow at different growth stages in 2022. 

Angel and seed

Rank Firm Headquarters Number of Deals

1. Singapore Antler Singapore 262

2. United States Plug and Play Tech Center Sunnyvale, CA 199

3. United States SOSV Princeton, NJ 177

4. United States Y Combinator Mountain View, CA 174

5. United States 10X Capital New York City, NY 143

6. United States Soma Capital San Francisco, CA 141

7. United States Alumni Ventures Manchester, NH 138

8. United States Techstars Boulder, CO 134

9. United States FJ Labs New York City, NY 119

10. United States Global Founders Capital San Francisco, CA 109

Early stage

Rank Firm Headquarters Number of Deals

1. United States Soma Capital San Francisco, CA 186

2. United States FJ Labs New York City, NY 130

3. United States 500 Global Mountain View, CA 128

4. United States Tiger Global Management New York City, NY 117

5. China Sequoia Capital China Beijing 113

6. United States Y Combinator Mountain View, CA 102

6. United States Andreessen Horowitz Menlo Park, CA 102

8. United States Pioneer Fund San Francisco, CA 101

9. United States Alumni Ventures Manchester, NH 83

10. United States Insight Partners New York City, NY 82

Late stage

Rank Firm Headquarters Number of Deals

1. United States Tiger Global Management New York City, NY 151

2. United States Gaingels Burlington, VT 98

3. United States Alumni Ventures Manchester, NH 95

4. United States Insight Partners New York City, NY 93

5. United States Keiretsu Forum San Francisco, CA 89

6. United States FJ Labs New York City, NY 80

7. United States SOSV Princeton, NJ 76

8. United States Accel Palo Alto, CA 70

9. United Kingdom SoftBank Investment Advisers London 67

9. United States Andreessen Horowitz Menlo Park, CA 67

List

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.

Americas

United States Accel

United States Addition

United States Advanced Technology Ventures

United States Almaz Capital

United States Andreessen Horowitz

United States ARCH Venture Partners

United States Atlas Venture

United States August Capital

United States Austin Ventures

United States Azure Capital Partners

United States Bain Capital Ventures

United States Battery Ventures

United States Benchmark Capital

United States Bessemer Venture Partners

United States Binary Capital

United States Blumberg Capital

United States CapitalG

United States Canaan Partners

United States Charles River Ventures

United States Clearstone Venture Partners

United States Columbus Nova

United States Contrary

United States Cottonwood Technology Fund

United States Crosslink Capital

United States CrunchFund

United States DAG Ventures

United States DCM Ventures

United States Draper Fisher Jurvetson

United States Founders Circle Capital

United States ff Venture Capital

United States First Round Capital

United States FirstMark Capital

United States Foundation Capital

United States Founders Fund

United States Gaingels

United States Galen Partners

United States GE Ventures

United States GGV Capital

United States Granite Ventures

United States Greycroft

United States Greylock Partners

Canada Growthworks

United States GV

United States Harris & Harris Group

United States Highland Capital Partners

United States IDG Ventures

United States Index Ventures

United States Initialized Capital

United States In-Q-Tel

United States Insight Partners

United States Institutional Venture Partners

United States Intel Capital

United States Intellectual Ventures

United States Khosla Ventures

United States Kleiner Perkins

United States Lightbank

United States Lighter Capital

United States Lightspeed Venture Partners

United States Lux Capital

United States Matrix Partners

United States Maveron

United States Mayfield Fund

United States Menlo Ventures

United States Meritech Capital Partners

United States Morgenthaler Ventures

United States New Enterprise Associates

United States Norwest Venture Partners

United States Oak Investment Partners

Canada Optimize Capital Markets

United States Polaris Partners

United States Qualcomm Ventures

United States Radius Ventures

United States Redpoint Ventures

Canada Renewal2

United States Revolution LLC

United States Rho Ventures

United States Rothenberg Ventures

United States RRE Ventures

United States Scale Venture Partners

United States Sequoia Capital

United States Sevin Rosen Funds

United States Social Capital

United States Sofinnova Ventures

United States SoftTech VC

United States SOSV

United States Spark Capital

United States TCV

United States Tenaya Capital

United States Third Rock Ventures

United States Thrive Capital

United States Tiger Global Management

United States U.S. Venture Partners

United States Union Square Ventures

United States Venrock

United States Versant Ventures

United States Vivo Capital

Brazil Votorantim Novos Neg?cios

EMEA

United Kingdom Abingworth

United Kingdom Atomico Ventures

United Kingdom Balderton Capital

United Kingdom BGF

Netherlands Cottonwood Technology Fund

United Kingdom DN Capital

United Kingdom Draper Esprit

Sweden EQT Ventures

Israel Genesis Partners

Germany German Startups Group

Sweden HealthCap

Germany High-Tech Gr?nderfonds

Germany Hydra Ventures

United Kingdom Impact X

Sweden Industrifonden

Israel Infinity Group

Russia IIDF

United Kingdom Iona Capital

France Iris Capital

Israel Israel Cleantech Ventures

Israel Jerusalem Venture Partners

United Kingdom Mercia Fund Management

France Newfund

United Kingdom Nova Founders Capital

United Kingdom Oxford Sciences Innovation

Israel Pitango

Emirate of Dubai Porton Group

United Kingdom Seedcamp

United Kingdom SyndicateRoom

Germany Target Partners

Switzerland TBG AG

Israel Terra Venture Partners

United Kingdom The Craftory

Israel Viola Ventures

Germany Wellington Partners Venture Capital

Israel YL Ventures

Asia

China 5Y Capital

China Addor Capital

Singapore Antler

Singapore BANSEA

China China State-owned Asset Venture Capital Investment Fund

India Chiratae Ventures

Indonesia Convergence Ventures

China Cowin Capital

Hong Kong DST Global

China Fortune Venture Capital

China Gaorong Capital

Hong Kong Horizons Ventures

China IDG Capital

Japan JAFCO

Japan Mizuho Capital

China Northern Light Venture Capital

China Oriza Holdings

China Qiming Venture Partners

Singapore Quest Ventures

China Shanghai Venture Capital Co.

China Shenzhen Capital Group

China Shenzhen HTI Group

China Shunwei Capital

China Sinovation Ventures

Japan SoftBank Vision Fund

China Source Code Capital

South Korea STIC Investments

Singapore Vertex Holdings

China ZhenFund

List of investment banks

The following list catalogues the largest, most profitable, and otherwise notable investment banks. This list of investment banks notes full-service banks, financial conglomerates, independent investment banks, private placement firms and notable acquired, merged, or bankrupt investment banks. As an industry it is broken up into the Bulge Bracket (upper tier), Middle Market (mid-level businesses), and boutique market (specialized businesses). 

Largest full-service investment banks

The following are the largest full-service global investment banks; full-service investment banks usually provide both advisory and financing banking services, as well as sales, market making, and research on a broad array of financial products, including equities, credit, rates, currency, commodities, and their derivatives. The largest investment banks are noted with the following: 

United States JPMorgan Chase

United States Goldman Sachs

United States BofA Securities

United States Morgan Stanley

United States Citigroup

Switzerland UBS

Germany Deutsche Bank

United Kingdom HSBC

United Kingdom Barclays

Canada RBC Capital Markets

United States Wells Fargo Securities

United States Jefferies Group

France BNP Paribas

Japan Mizuho

United States Lazard

Japan Nomura

United States Evercore Partners

Canada BMO Capital Markets

Japan Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group

Many of the largest investment banks are considered among the "bulge bracket banks" and as such underwrite the majority of financial transactions in the world. Additionally, banks seeking more deal flow with smaller-sized deals with comparable profitability are known as "middle market investment banks" (known as boutique or independent investment banks). 

Financial conglomerates

Large financial-services conglomerates combine commercial banking, investment banking, and sometimes insurance. Such combinations were common in Europe but illegal in the United States prior to the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The following are large investment banking firms (not listed above) that are affiliated with large financial institutions: 

Netherlands ABN AMRO 

Italy Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena (MPS Capital Services)

Brazil Banco Bradesco

Spain Banco Santander

China Bank of China (BOC International Holdings)

China Bank of Communications (BOCOM International Holdings)

Spain BBVA

Germany Berenberg Bank

Canada Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC World Markets)

China China CITIC Bank

China China Construction Bank (CCB International Holdings)

Malaysia CIMB

Germany Commerzbank

France Cr?dit Agricole

Japan Daiwa Securities

Singapore DBS Bank (Capital Markets Group)

Canada Desjardins Group (Desjardins Capital Markets)

Sweden Handelsbanken

India ICICI Bank

China Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC International Holdings)

Netherlands ING Group

Italy Intesa Sanpaolo (Banca IMI)

Turkey ?? Bankas? (Is Investment)

Brazil Ita? Unibanco (Ita? BBA)

Brazil BTG Pactual

Belgium KBC Bank

United States KeyCorp (KeyBanc Capital Markets)

India Kotak Mahindra Bank

Canada Laurentian Bank of Canada (Laurentian Bank Securities)

United Kingdom Lloyds Banking Group (Lloyds Bank Wholesale Banking & Markets)

United States M&T Bank

Australia Macquarie Group

Malaysia Maybank

Italy Mediobanca

Japan Mizuho Financial Group

Canada National Bank of Canada (National Bank Financial Markets)

France Natixis

Finland Nordea

United States PNC Financial Services (Harris Williams & Company)

Netherlands Rabobank

Malaysia RHB Bank

United Kingdom/France Rothschild & Co

South Africa Sanlam

Russia Sberbank

Canada Scotiabank (Scotia Capital)

Sweden SEB

France Soci?t? G?n?rale

South Africa Standard Bank

United Kingdom Standard Chartered Bank

India State Bank of India (SBI Capital Markets)

United States Stifel Financial (Stifel Nicolaus)

Japan Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group

United States SunTrust (Robinson Humphrey)

Canada TD Securities

United States Truist Financial

Italy UniCredit (UBM)

Russia VTB Bank (VTB Capital)

Private placement companies

Private placement agents, including companies that specialize in fundraising for private equity funds: 

United States Atlantic-Pacific Capital

United Kingdom Campbell Lutyens

United States Cogent Partners

United States Helix Associates

United States J.P. Morgan Cazenove

United States Park Hill Group

United States Probitas Partners

Other notable advisory and capital markets firms

The following is a list of other boutique advisory firms and capital markets firms that have some notability: 

Belgium BDO International (BDO Capital Advisors)

United States Berkery, Noyes & Co

Ukraine BG Capital

United States BGR Capital & Trade

United Kingdom Brewin Dolphin

United States Capital One (Capital One Securities)

United Kingdom Deloitte (Deloitte Corporate Finance)

United States Duff & Phelps

United Kingdom Ernst & Young (Ernst & Young Capital Advisors)

Netherlands KPMG (KPMG Corporate Finance)

United States Marlin & Associates

United Kingdom PwC (PwC Corporate Finance)

United States Roth MKM

United States Sheshunoff Management Services

Notable former investment banks and brokerages

The following are notable investment banking and brokerage firms that have been liquidated, acquired or merged and no longer operate under the same name.

Firm Fate

A.G. Becker & Co. acquired by Merrill Lynch in 1984

A.G. Edwards acquired by Wachovia in 2007

Alex. Brown & Sons ultimately part of Deutsche Bank, survives as minor business unit

The Argosy Group acquired by Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in 1995

Babcock & Brown collapsed 2009, liquidation of its assets

BancAmerica Robertson Stephens acquired by NationsBank in 1998 and integrated into NationsBanc Montgomery Securities to form Banc of America Securities

Barings collapsed 1995; assets acquired by ING Bank

Bear Stearns collapsed 2008; assets acquired by JPMorgan Chase

Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co. merged with Paine Webber in 1979

Bowles Hollowell Connor & Co. acquired by First Union in 1998

Brown Bros. & Co. merged with Harriman Brothers & Company in 1931 to form Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.

BT Alex. Brown acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999 to form Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown

C.E. Unterberg, Towbin acquired by Collins Stewart in 2007

Commodities Corporation acquired by Goldman Sachs in 1997 and renamed Goldman Sachs Princeton

Dain Rauscher Wessels bought by Royal Bank of Canada in 2000

Dean Witter Reynolds merged with Morgan Stanley to form Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, subsequently the Dean Witter name was eliminated

Dillon, Read & Company acquired by Swiss Bank Corporation in 1997, and is ultimately part of UBS AG

Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette acquired by Credit Suisse in 2001

Drexel Burnham Lambert liquidated 1990

E.F. Hutton & Co. acquired by Shearson Lehman/American Express in 1988, ultimately part of Lehman Brothers

First Boston Corporation merged with Credit Suisse in 1988 to form CS First Boston, renamed "Credit Suisse First Boston" in 1996 and "Credit Suisse" in 2006

First Union Securities acquired by Wachovia in 2002 to form Wachovia Securities

G.H. Walker & Co. acquired by White Weld & Co in 1974 and ultimately part of Merrill Lynch

Giuliani Capital Advisors the investment banking division of Giuliani Partners was sold to Macquarie Group in 2007

Goodbody & Co. merged into Merrill Lynch in 1970

Gruntal & Co. acquired by Ryan Beck & Co. in 2002

H.B. Hollins & Co. liquidated in 1913

Halsey, Stuart & Co. ultimately part of Wachovia

Hambrecht & Quist acquired by Chase Manhattan Bank in 1999 and ultimately part of JPMorgan Chase; H&Q name continues as investment advisor

Hambros Bank acquired by Soci?t? G?n?rale in 1998

Harriman Brothers & Company merged with Brown Bros. & Co. in 1931 to form Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.

Hayden, Stone & Co. acquired Shearson Hammill & Co. in 1974 and assumed the Shearson name; ultimately acquired by American Express in 1981.

HBOS acquired by Lloyds TSB to form the Lloyds Banking Group in 2009

Hill Samuel acquired by Trustee Savings Bank (TSB) in 1987 later Lloyds TSB

Hornblower & Weeks investment bank acquired by Loeb, Rhoades & Co. in 1977 and ultimately part of Shearson/American Express

J.&W. Seligman & Co. investment bank ultimately part of UBS AG; continues as asset manager

J.C. Bradford & Co. acquired by PaineWebber in 2000, ultimately part of UBS AG

John Nuveen & Co. IBD acquired by Piper Jaffray in 1999; company continues as asset management house under Nuveen Investments, which is controlled by private equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners

Keefe, Bruyette & Woods acquired by Stifel in 2012, still maintain independent branding

Kidder, Peabody & Co. acquired by General Electric Corporation in 1986, subsequently resold to PaineWebber in 1994 and ultimately part of UBS AG

Kleinwort Benson acquired by Dresdner Bank in 1995

Kuhn, Loeb & Co. ultimately part of Lehman Brothers

L.F. Rothschild ultimately part of C.E. Unterberg, Towbin, with parts sold to Oppenheimer; not to be confused with Rothschild & Co (the result of a merger of the British N.M. Rothschild & Sons with the French Rothschild & Cie); see Rothschild family

Lee, Higginson & Co. liquidated 1932

Lehman Brothers bankrupt in 2008, asset sold to Barclays Capital and Nomura Holdings

Llama Company ultimately defunct in 1998 after departure of Alice Walton

Loeb, Rhoades & Co. acquired by Shearson Hammill & Co. to form Shearson Loeb Rhoades in 1979 which was later acquired by American Express in 1981 to form Shearson/American Express

McColl Partners acquired by Deloitte in 2013 to form Deloitte Corporate Finance

Mendelssohn & Co. aryanized by the Nazis in 1938, sold in parts to Deutsche Bank

Merrill Lynch & Co. acquired by Bank of America in 2008 and integrated into Banc of America Securities to form Bank of America Merrill Lynch

Miller Buckfire & Co. acquired by Stifel in 2012, still maintains independent branding

Montgomery Securities acquired by NationsBank in 1997 and integrated into NationsBanc Capital Markets to form NationsBanc Montgomery Securities

Morgan & Cie acquired by Morgan Stanley in 1967 and incorporated as Morgan et Compagnie International in Morgan Stanley International Incorporated in 1975

Monnet, Murnane & Co. liquidated 1945

Morgan Grenfell acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1990

Morgan, Harjes & Co. renamed Morgan & Cie in 1926 and acquired by Morgan Stanley in 1926

Paine Webber acquired by UBS AG in 2000.

Park Ryan liquidated 1979

Prudential Securities acquired by Wachovia in 2003

Reynolds Securities merged with Dean Witter & Co. in 1978 to form Dean Witter Reynolds, subsequently merged with Morgan Stanley

Robert Fleming & Co. acquired by JPMorgan Chase in 2000.

Robertson Stephens acquired by BankAmerica in 1997 and integrated into BancAmerica Securities to form BancAmerica Robertson Stephens. Sold again in 1998 to BankBoston (later FleetBoston Financial and would operate as Robertson Stephens from 1998–2002, when the firm was shuttered after the collapse of the Internet bubble

Roosevelt & Son Broken up into three firms in 1934: Roosevelt & Son (liquidated), Roosevelt & Weigold (today operates as Roosevelt & Cross); and Dick & Merle Smith

Ryan Beck & Co. acquired by Stifel in 2007

S. G. Warburg & Co ultimately part of UBS AG; not to be confused with M.M. Warburg or Warburg Pincus; see Warburg family

Salomon Brothers acquired by Travelers Group in 1997, ultimately part of Citigroup

Schroders investment bank bought by Citigroup in 2000; continues as asset manager

Shearson/American Express acquired Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb in 1984 to form Shearson Lehman/American Express, later Shearson Lehman Hutton and Shearson Lehman Brothers

Shearson, Hammill & Co. renamed Shearson Loeb Rhoades after the 1979 acquisition of Loeb, Rhoades & Co. in 1979; acquired by American Express in 1981 to form Shearson/American Express

Shearson Lehman Hutton renamed Shearson Lehman Brothers in 1990 and split up in 1993 with the IPO of Lehman Brothers and the sale of the retail and brokerage operations to Primerica

Soundview Technology Group Acquired by Charles Schwab in 2003.

Swiss Bank Corporation merged with Union Bank of Switzerland to form UBS AG

Union Bank of Switzerland merged with Swiss Bank Corporation to form UBS AG

Wachovia Securities acquired by Wells Fargo in 2008 and renamed Wells Fargo Securities

Wasserstein Perella & Co. bought by Dresdner Bank in 2000.

Wertheim & Co. acquired by Schroders, and ultimately by Salomon Smith Barney

White Weld & Co. bought by Merrill Lynch in 1978.

Wood Gundy acquired by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in 1987, operating as CIBC Wood Gundy before becoming CIBC World Markets in 1997

Sovereign wealth fund

A sovereign wealth fund (SWF), sovereign investment fund, or social wealth fund is a state-owned investment fund that invests in real and financial assets such as stocks, bonds, real estate, precious metals, or in alternative investments such as private equity fund or hedge funds. Sovereign wealth funds invest globally. Most SWFs are funded by revenues from commodity exports or from foreign-exchange reserves held by the central bank.

Some sovereign wealth funds may be held by a central bank, which accumulates the funds in the course of its management of a nation's banking system; this type of fund is usually of major economic and fiscal importance. Other sovereign wealth funds are simply the state savings that are invested by various entities for investment return, and that may not have a significant role in fiscal management.

The accumulated funds may have their origin in, or may represent, foreign currency deposits, gold, special drawing rights (SDRs) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) reserve positions held by central banks and monetary authorities, along with other national assets such as pension investments, oil funds, or other industrial and financial holdings. These are assets of the sovereign nations that are typically held in domestic and different reserve currencies (such as the dollar, euro, pound, and yen). Such investment management entities may be set up as official investment companies, state pension funds, or sovereign funds, among others.

There have been attempts to distinguish funds held by sovereign entities from foreign-exchange reserves held by central banks. Sovereign wealth funds can be characterized as maximizing long-term return, with foreign exchange reserves serving short-term "currency stabilization", and liquidity management. Many central banks in recent years possess reserves massively in excess of needs for liquidity or foreign exchange management. Moreover, it is widely believed most have diversified hugely into assets other than short-term, highly liquid monetary ones, though almost no data is publicly available to back up this assertion.

History

The term "sovereign wealth fund" was first used in 2005 by Andrew Rozanov in an article entitled, "Who holds the wealth of nations?" in the Central Banking Journal. The previous edition of the journal described the shift from traditional reserve management to sovereign wealth management; subsequently the term gained widespread use as the spending power of global officialdom has rocketed upward.

China's sovereign wealth funds entered global markets in 2007. :?4? Since then, their scale and scope have expanded significantly. :?4?

SWFs were the first institutions to use sovereign capital in an effort to contain the financial damage in the early stages of the 2007-2008 global financial crisis. :?1–2? SWFs are able to react quickly in such circumstances because unlike regulators, SWFs actively participate in the market. :?2?

SWFs grew rapidly between 2008 and 2021, with global assets under management by these funds increasing from approximately $4 trillion to more than $10 trillion. :?3?

SWFs invest in a variety of asset classes such as stocks, bonds, real estate, private equity and hedge funds. Many sovereign funds are directly investing in institutional real estate. According to the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute's transaction database around US$9.26 billion in direct sovereign wealth fund transactions were recorded in institutional real estate for the last half of 2012. In the first half of 2014, global sovereign wealth fund direct deals amounted to $50.02 billion according to the SWFI. 

Early SWFs

Sovereign wealth funds have existed for more than a century, but since 2000, the number of sovereign wealth funds has increased dramatically. The first SWFs were non-federal U.S. state funds established in the mid-19th century to fund specific public services. The U.S. state of Texas was thus the first to establish such a scheme, to fund public education. The Permanent School Fund (PSF) was created in 1854 to benefit primary and secondary schools, with the Permanent University Fund (PUF) following in 1876 to benefit universities. The PUF was endowed with public lands, the ownership of which the state retained by terms of the 1845 annexation treaty between the Republic of Texas and the United States. While the PSF was first funded by an appropriation from the state legislature, it also received public lands at the same time that the PUF was created. The first SWF established for a sovereign state is the Kuwait Investment Authority, a commodity SWF created in 1953 from oil revenues before Kuwait gained independence from the United Kingdom. As of July 2023, Kuwait's Sovereign Wealth Fund, or locally known as Ajyal Fund, is now worth $853 billion 

Another early registered SWFs is the Revenue Equalization Reserve Fund of Kiribati. Created in 1956, when the British administration of the Gilbert Islands in Micronesia put a levy on the export of phosphates used in fertilizer, the fund has since then grown to $520 million. 

Nature and purpose

SWFs are typically created when governments have budgetary surpluses and have little or no international debt. It is not always possible or desirable to hold this excess liquidity as money or to channel it into immediate consumption. This is especially the case when a nation depends on raw material exports like oil, copper or diamonds. In such countries, the main reason for creating a SWF is because of the properties of resource revenue: high volatility of resource prices, unpredictability of extraction, and exhaustibility of resources.

SWFs are primarily commodity-based and many have been established by oil-rich states. :?5? SWFs of China are a notable exception to this more typical model. :?5?

Stabilization SWFs are created to reduce the volatility of government revenues, to counter the boom-bust cycles' adverse effect on government spending and the national economy.

Savings SWFs build up savings for future generations. One such fund is the Government Pension Fund of Norway. It is believed that SWFs in resource-rich countries can help avoid resource curse, but the literature on this question is controversial. Governments may be able to spend the money immediately, but risk causing the economy to overheat, e.g., in Hugo Ch?vez's Venezuela or Shah-era Iran. In such circumstances, saving money to spend during a period of low inflation is often desirable.

Other reasons for creating SWFs may be economic, or strategic, such as war chests for uncertain times. For example, the Kuwait Investment Authority during the Gulf War managed excess reserves above the level needed for currency reserves (although many central banks do that now). The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation and Temasek Holdings are partially the expression of a desire to bolster Singapore's standing as an international financial centre. The Korea Investment Corporation has since been similarly managed. Sovereign wealth funds invest in all types of companies and assets, including startups like Xiaomi and renewable energy companies like Bloom Energy. 

According to a 2014 study, SWFs are not created for reasons related to reserve accumulation and commodity-export specialization. Rather, the diffusion of SWF can best be understood as a fad whereby certain governments consider it fashionable to create SWFs and are influenced by what their peers are doing. 

As market participants, SWFs influence other institutional investors, who may see investments made alongside SWFs as inherently safer. :?9? This effect can be seen with increasing frequency, especially with regard to investments made by the Government Pension Fund of Norway, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, and Temasek Holdings, and China Investment Corporation. :?9? SLFs help facilitate a state's ability to use its selective equity investments to promote its industrial policies and strategic interests. :?9?

Concerns about SWFs

The growth of sovereign wealth funds is attracting close attention because:

As this asset pool continues to expand in size and importance, so does its potential impact on various asset markets.

Some countries, like the United States, which passed the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007, worry that foreign investment by SWFs raises national security concerns because the purpose of the investment might be to secure control of strategically important industries for political rather than financial gain.

Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers has argued that the U.S. could potentially lose control of assets to wealthier foreign funds whose emergence "shake[s] [the] capitalist logic". These concerns have led the European Union (EU) to reconsider whether to allow its members to use "golden shares" to block certain foreign acquisitions. This strategy has largely been excluded as a viable option by the EU, for fear it would give rise to a resurgence in international protectionism. In the United States, these concerns are addressed by the Exon–Florio Amendment to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-418, § 5021, 102 Stat. 1107, 1426 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. app. § 2170 (2000)), as administered by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

Their inadequate transparency is a concern for investors and regulators: for example, size and source of funds, investment goals, internal checks and balances, disclosure of relationships, and holdings in private equity funds.

SWFs are not nearly as homogeneous as central banks or public pension funds.

A lack of transparency and hence an increase in risk to the financial system, perhaps becoming the "new hedge funds". 

The governments of SWF's commit to follow certain rules:

Accumulation rule (what portion of revenue can be spent/saved)

Withdraw rule (when the Government can withdraw from the fund)

Investment (where revenue can be invested in foreign or domestic assets) 

Governmental interest in 2008

On 5 March 2008, a joint sub-committee of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee held a hearing to discuss the role of "Foreign Government Investment in the U.S. Economy and Financial Sector". The hearing was attended by representatives of the U.S. Department of Treasury, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve Board, Norway's Ministry of Finance, Singapore's Temasek Holdings, and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

On 20 August 2008, Germany approved a law that requires parliamentary approval for foreign investments that endanger national interests. Specifically, it affects acquisitions of more than 25% of a German company's voting shares by non-European investors—but the economics minister Michael Glos has pledged that investment reviews would be "extremely rare". The legislation is loosely modeled on a similar one by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investments. Sovereign wealth funds are also increasing their spending. In fact, the Qatar wealth fund plans to spend $35 billion in the US in the next five years.[timeframe?] 

Santiago Principles

A number of transparency indices sprang up before the Santiago Principles, some more stringent than others. To address these concerns, some of the world's main SWFs came together in a summit in Santiago, Chile, on 2–3 September 2008. Under the leadership of the IMF, they formed a temporary International Working Group of Sovereign Wealth Funds. This working group then drafted the 24 Santiago Principles, to set out a common global set of international standards regarding transparency, independence, and accountability in the way that SWFs operate. These were published after being presented to the IMF International Monetary Financial Committee on 11 October 2008. They also considered a standing committee to represent them, and so a new organisation, the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds (IFSWF) was set up to maintain the new standards going forward and represent them in international policy debates. 

As of 2016, 30 funds have formally signed up to the Principles, representing collectively 80% of the assets managed by sovereign funds globally or US$5.5 trillion. 

Size of SWFs

Assets under management of SWFs amounted to $7.94 trillion as of 24 December 2020. 

Countries with SWFs funded by oil and gas exports, totaled $5.4 trillion as of 2020. Non-commodity SWFs are typically funded by transfer of assets from official foreign exchange reserves, and in some cases from government budget surpluses and privatization revenues. Middle Eastern and Asian countries account for 77% of all SWFs.

Depletion of SWFs

Numerous SWFs have gone bust throughout history. The most notable ones have been Algeria's FRR, Brazil's FSB, Ecuador's numerous SWF arrangements, Papua New Guinea's MRSF, and Venezuela's FIEM and FONDEN. The main reason why these funds have been exhausted is due to political instability, while economic determinants generally play a less important role. SWFs in unstable countries may provoke risks for recipient states of SWF investments, given that the instability in SWF-sponsor countries makes those investments uncertain and likely to be disinvested to weather political risk in the short-term.

Highly stable countries, such as Denmark, Qatar, China, or Australia are less likely to experience SWF depletion precisely because of their political stability.

Largest sovereign wealth funds

See also: List of countries by sovereign wealth funds and List of countries by foreign-exchange reserves

Country or Region Abbreviation Fund Assets 

billions US$ Inception Origin

France France CDC Caisse des d?p?ts et consignations 1,416 1816 Non-commodity

Norway Norway GPF-G Government Pension Fund Global 1,371 1990 Oil & Gas

China China CIC China Investment Corporation 1,350 2007 Non-commodity

China China SAFE SAFE Investment Company 1,019 1997 Non-commodity

Kuwait Kuwait KIA Kuwait Investment Authority 750 1953 Oil & Gas

United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates ADIA Abu Dhabi Investment Authority 708.750 1967 Oil & Gas

Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia PIF Public Investment Fund 700 1971 Oil & Gas

Singapore Singapore GIC GIC Private Limited 690 1981 Non-commodity

Hong Kong Hong Kong HKMA Exchange Fund (Hong Kong) 585.73 1935 Non-commodity

Singapore Singapore TH Temasek Holdings 496.6 1974 Non-commodity

Qatar Qatar QIA Qatar Investment Authority 475 2005 Oil & Gas

Singapore Singapore CPF Central Provident Fund (Singapore) 381 1980 Non-commodity

Canada Canada CDPQ Caisse de d?p?t et placement du Qu?bec 335 1965 Non-commodity

United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates ICD Investment Corporation of Dubai 320.4 2006 Oil & Gas

United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates MIC Mubadala Investment Company 287.5 1984 Oil & Gas

Turkey Turkey TWF Turkey Wealth Fund 279.3 2017 Non-commodity

South Korea South Korea KIC Korea Investment Corporation 201 2005 Non-commodity

Russia Russia NWF Russian National Wealth Fund 148.4 2008 Oil & Gas

Australia Australia FF Future Fund 135.8 2006 Non-commodity

Kuwait Kuwait PIFSS Public Institution For Social Security Fund 134 1955 Non-commodity

France France BPI Bpifrance 33.5 2008 Non-commodity

United States United States APFC Alaska Permanent Fund 79.4 1976 Oil & Gas

United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates ADQ Abu Dhabi Developmental Holding Company 159 2018 Non-commodity

United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates EIA Emirates Investment Authority 87 2007 Oil & Gas

Brunei Brunei BIA Brunei Investment Agency 73 1983 Oil & Gas

United States United States UTIMCO Texas Permanent University Fund 69.21 1876 Land & Mineral Royalties

Kazakhstan Kazakhstan SK Samruk-Kazyna 68.38 2008 Oil & Gas

Libya Libya LIA Libyan Investment Authority 67 2006 Oil & Gas

Kazakhstan Kazakhstan NF Kazakhstan National Fund 55.7 2012 Oil & Gas

Azerbaijan Azerbaijan SOFAZ State Oil Fund of the Republic of Azerbaijan 43 1999 Oil & Gas

Russia Russia RDIF Russian Direct Investment Fund 25 2011 Non-commodity

Austria Austria ?BAG ?sterreichische Beteiligungs AG 38.4 1967 Non-commodity

Malaysia Malaysia KN Khazanah Nasional 35.8 1993 Non-commodity

New Zealand New Zealand NZSF New Zealand Superannuation Fund 35.1 2003 Non-commodity

United States United States NMSIC New Mexico State Investment Council 34.1 1958 Oil & Gas

Germany Germany NWDF Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund 25 2017 Non-commodity

Iran Iran NDFI National Development Fund 10 2011 Oil & Gas

United States United States PWMTF Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund 23 1974 Minerals

Norway Norway GPF-N Government Pension Fund – Norway 22 2006 Oil & Gas

Papua New Guinea Papua New Guinea PNGSWF Papua New Guinea Sovereign Wealth Fund 22 2011 Oil & Gas

Bahrain Bahrain BMHC Mumtalakat Holding Company 18.3 2006 Oil & Gas

United States United States WVFF West Virginia Future Fund 0.1 2014 Oil & Gas

East Timor Timor Leste TLPF Timor-Leste Petroleum Fund 17 2005 Oil & Gas

Oman Oman OIA Oman Investment Fund 17 1980 Oil & Gas

Canada Canada AHSTF Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund 15 1976 Oil & Gas

Colombia Colombia FAEP Fondo de Ahorro y Estabilizaci?n Petrolera 12 1995 Oil & Gas

Republic of Ireland Ireland ISIF Ireland Strategic Investment Fund 15.7 2014 Non-commodity

Chile Chile ESSF Economic and Social Stabilization Fund 11 2007 Copper

Chile Chile PRF Pension Reserve Fund 11 2006 Copper

Philippines Philippines MIF Maharlika Investment Fund 9.2 2023 Non-commodity

China China CADF China-Africa Development Fund 5 2007 Non-commodity

United States United States NDLF North Dakota Legacy Fund 8.3 2011 Oil & Gas

Mexico Mexico FMP Fondo Mexicano del Petroleo para la Estabilizacion y el Desarrollo 7 2000 Oil & Gas

Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad & Tobago HSF Heritage and Stabilization Fund 5.6 2000 Oil & Gas

Peru Peru FSF Fiscal Stabilization Fund 5 1999 Non-commodity

Indonesia Indonesia INA Indonesia Investment Authority 5.6 2021 Non-commodity

Angola Angola FSDEA Fundo Soberano de Angola 2.2 2012 Oil & Gas

Italy Italy CDP Equity Cassa Depositi e Prestiti Equity 5 2011 Non-commodity

Botswana Botswana PF Pula Fund 4.1 1994 Diamonds

India India NIIF National Investment and Infrastructure Fund 5.3 2015 Non-commodity

United States United States ATF Alabama Trust Fund 3.4 1985 Oil & Gas

Nigeria Nigeria NSIA Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority 2.3 2011 Oil & Gas

United States United States SIFTO Utah-SITFO 2.5 1983 Land & Mineral Royalties

United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates RIA RAKIA 2 2005 Oil & Gas

United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates SAM Sharjah Asset Management Holding 2 2008 Non-Commodity

United States United States IEFIB Idaho Endowment Fund Investment Board 3.2 1969 Land & Mineral Royalties

United States United States CSF Oregon Common School Fund 2 1859 Lands & Mineral Royalties

Kuwait Kuwait AWQAF Awqaf and Islamic Affairs Fund 1.99 1993 Non-commodity

Panama Panama FAP Fondo de Ahorro de Panama 1.4 2012 Non-commodity

United States United States LEQTF Louisiana Education Quality Trust Fund 1.5 1986 Oil & Gas

United States United States BCPL Wisconsin Board of Commissioners of Public Lands 1.4 1848 Land, Timber and Non-commodity

United States United States FMP Colorado Public School Fund Endowment Board 1.2 2016 Lands and Minerals Royalties

Vietnam Vietnam SCIC State Capital Investment Corporation 2.4 2006 Non-commodity

Gabon Gabon FGIS Fonds Gabonais d'Investissements Strategiques 1.0 2012 Oil & Gas

State of Palestine Palestine PIF Palestine Investment Fund 0.9 2003 Non-commodity

Ghana Ghana GPF Ghana Petroleum Funds 0.9 2011 Oil & Gas

Australia Australia WAFF Western Australian Future Fund 0.9 2012 Minerals

Turkmenistan Turkmenistan TSF Turkmenistan Stabilization Fund 0.5 2008 Oil & Gas

Bolivia Bolivia FINPRO Fondo para la Revoluci?n Industrial Productiva 0.4 2015 Non-commodity

Kiribati Kiribati RERF Revenue Equalization Reserve Fund 0.4 1956 Phosphates

Equatorial Guinea Equatorial Guinea FRGF Fonds de R?serves pour G?n?rations Futures 0.2 2002 Oil & Gas

Rwanda Rwanda AGDF Agaciro Development Fund 0.2 2012 Non-commodity

Mauritania Mauritania NFHR National Fund for Hydrocarbon Reserves 0.1 2006 Oil & Gas

Mongolia Mongolia FHF Future Heritage Fund 0.1 2011 Minerals

Nigeria Nigeria BDIC Bayelsa Development and Investment Corporation 0.1 2012 Non-commodity

Senegal Senegal FONSIS Fonds Souverain d'Investissement Strategiques 0.1 2012 Non-commodity

List of private-equity firms

Largest private equity firms by PE capital raised

Each year Private Equity International publishes the PEI 300, a ranking of the largest private-equity firms by how much capital they have raised for private-equity investment in the last five years. In the 2023 ranking, Blackstone Inc. regained top spot back from KKR. 

2023 PEI 300 rank Firm Headquarters Five-year fundraising total ($m)

1 Blackstone Inc. United States New York City 125,612

2 KKR United States New York City 103,713

3 EQT Partners Sweden Stockholm 101,660

4 Thoma Bravo United States Chicago 74,093

5 The Carlyle Group United States Washington D.C. 69,681

6 TPG Inc. United States Fort Worth, Texas 54,965

7 Advent International United States Boston 52,939

8 Hg United Kingdom London 51,046

9 General Atlantic United States New York City 48,696

10 Warburg Pincus United States New York City 48,534

11 Silver Lake United States Menlo Park, California 48,280

12 Goldman Sachs Capital Partners United States New York City 45,358

13 Bain Capital United States Boston 44,347

14 Clearlake Capital United States Santa Monica, California 43,697

15 CVC Capital Partners Luxembourg Luxembourg

France France 41,750

16 Vista Equity Partners United States Austin, Texas 41,500

17 Clayton, Dubilier & Rice United States New York City 41,082

18 Hellman & Friedman United States San Francisco 40,925

19 Insight Partners United States New York City 40,166

20 Leonard Green & Partners United States Los Angeles 39,645

List of investment banking private equity groups

Parent bank Private equity firm Location Year founded Year independent

ABN AMRO AAC Capital Partners Netherlands Amsterdam - 2008

AXA Ardian France Paris 1996 2013

Barclays Capital Equistone Partners Europe United Kingdom London 1979 2011 

Barings Bank ^ Baring Vostok Capital Partners

Baring Private Equity Asia Russia Moscow

Hong Kong Hong Kong 1994

1997 2004

2000

Bear Stearns ^ Kohlberg Kravis Roberts

Irving Place Capital (fka BSMB) United States New York

United States New York 1965

1997 1976

2008

BNP Paribas PAI Partners

BNP Paribas D?veloppement

France Paris

France Paris

1993

2016

1998

-

BT Alex. Brown ^ ABS Capital United States Baltimore 1990 1995

CIBC World Markets Trimaran Capital Partners United States New York 1995 2001

Citigroup Court Square Capital Partners

CVC Capital Partners

Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe

Bruckmann, Rosser, Sherrill & Co. United States New York

Luxembourg Luxembourg

France France

United States New York

United States New York 1968

1981

1979

1995 2006

1993

1979

1995

Cr?dit Agricole / LCL Omnes Capital France Paris 1999 2011

Credit Suisse / Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette ^ DLJ Merchant Banking

Avista Capital Partners

Diamond Castle Holdings

Castle Harlan

CIP Capital United States New York

United States New York

United States New York

United States New York

United States New York

1985

1985

1985

1987

2010 na

2005

2004

1987

2010

Continental Illinois ^ Willis Stein & Partners

CIVC Partners United States Chicago

United States Chicago 1983

1983 1995

1994

Deutsche Bank MidOcean Partners United States New York 2003 2003

First Chicago Bank ^ Madison Dearborn Partners

GTCR United States Chicago

United States Chicago 1992

1980 1992

1980

Goldman Sachs Goldman Sachs Capital Partners

Goldman Sachs Principal Investments Area

United States New York 1986 na

JPMorgan Chase & Co. CCMP Capital (fka JPMorgan Partners)

HPS Investment Partners

One Equity Partners United States New York

United States New York

United States Chicago 1984

2007

2001 2006

2016

na

Lazard Lazard Alternative Investments United States New York - -

Lehman Brothers ^ Blackstone Group

The Cypress Group

Trilantic Capital Partners United States New York

United States New York

United States New York 1985

1994

1986 1985

1994

2009

Lloyds Banking Group Lloyds Development Capital United Kingdom London 1981 na

Macquarie Group Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets Australia Sydney 1994 na

Merrill Lynch Merrill Lynch Global Private Equity United States New York 1996 na

Morgan Stanley Metalmark Capital

Morgan Stanley Capital Partners United States New York

United States New York 1985 2004

National Westminster Bank Bridgepoint Capital United Kingdom London 1984 2000

Nomura Group Terra Firma Capital Partners United Kingdom London 1994 2002

Rothschild & Co Five Arrows Principal Investments 

Five Arrows Capital Partners 

France Paris

United States New York

2010 

2018 

-

-

Soci?t? G?n?rale Soci?t? G?n?rale Capital Partenaires France Paris 1973 -

UBS UBS Capital

Affinity Equity Partners

Capvis

Lightyear Capital United Kingdom London

Hong Kong Hong Kong

Switzerland Zurich

United States New York -

1995

1990

2000 na

2002

2003

2002

Wells Fargo Pamlico Capital United States Charlotte 1988 2010

William Blair & Company William Blair Capital Partners United States Chicago 1982 2004

^ Defunct banking institution

Notable private equity firms

Americas

Brazil 3G Capital

United States ABS Capital

United States Adams Street Partners

United States Advent International

United States AEA Investors

United States American Securities

United States Angelo, Gordon & Co.

United States Apollo Management

United States Ares Management

United States Arlington Capital Partners

United States Auldbrass Partners

United States Avenue Capital Group

United States Avista Capital Partners

United States Bain Capital

United States BDT & MSD Partners

United States Berkshire Partners

United States Blackstone Group

United States Blue Owl Capital

United States Blum Capital

United States Brentwood Associates

United States Brockway Moran & Partners

United States Bruckmann, Rosser, Sherrill & Co.

United States Brynwood Partners

United States Brysam Global Partners

United States CapitalG

United States Carlyle Group

United States Castle Harlan

United States CCMP Capital

United States Centerbridge Partners

United States Cerberus Capital Management

United States Charlesbank Capital Partners

United States Charterhouse Group

United States Chicago Growth Partners

United States CI Capital Partners

United States CIVC Partners

United States Clarity Partners

United States Clayton, Dubilier & Rice

United States Clearlake Capital

United States Colony Capital

United States Court Square Capital Partners

United States Crescent Capital Group

United States CrossHarbor Capital Partners

United States Crossroads Group

United States Cypress Group

United States Defoe Fournier & Cie.

United States Diamond Castle Holdings

United States DLJ Merchant Banking Partners

United States EIG Partners

United States Elevation Partners

United States EnCap Investments

United States Energy Capital Partners

United States Fenway Partners

United States First Reserve Corporation

United States Forstmann Little & Company

United States Fortress Investment Group

United States Founders Circle Capital

United States Fox Paine & Company

United States Francisco Partners

United States Freeman Spogli & Co.

United States Fremont Group

United States Friedman Fleischer & Lowe

United States Frontenac Company

United States General Atlantic

United States Genstar Capital

United States GI Partners

United States Golden Gate Capital Partners

United States Goldman Sachs Capital Partners

United States Gores Group

Brazil GP Investimentos

United States GTCR

United States H.I.G. Capital

United States Hamilton Lane

United States Harbert Management Corporation

United States HarbourVest Partners

United States Harvest Partners

United States Heartland Industrial Partners

United States Hellman & Friedman

United States Highbridge Capital Management

United States Highland Capital Management

United States HM Capital Partners

United States HPS Investment Partners

United States InterMedia Partners

United States Irving Place Capital

United States J.H. Whitney & Company

United States J.W. Childs Associates

United States JC Flowers

United States JLL Partners

United States Jordan Company

United States Kelso & Company

United States Khosla Ventures

United States Kinderhook Industries

United States Kleiner Perkins

United States Kohlberg & Company

United States KPS Capital Partners

United States KRG Capital

United States KSL Capital Partners

United States L Catterton

United States Lake Capital

United States Landmark Partners

United States Lee Equity Partners

United States Leeds Equity Partners

United States Leonard Green & Partners

United States Lexington Partners

United States Lightyear Capital

United States Lincolnshire Management

United States Lindsay Goldberg Bessemer

United States Littlejohn & Co.

United States Lone Star Funds

United States Lovell Minnick Partners

United States LRG Capital Funds

United States Lux Capital

United States Madison Dearborn Partners

United States MatlinPatterson Global Advisors

United States Metalmark Capital

United States MidOcean Partners

United States Morgan Stanley Private Equity

United States Morgenthaler

United States Newbridge Capital

United States NRDC Equity Partners

United States Oak Hill Capital Partners

United States Oak Investment Partners

United States Olympus Partners

United States One Equity Partners

Canada Onex Corporation

United States PAAMCO

United States Pamlico Capital

United States Platinum Equity

Brazil Prolifico Group

United States Providence Equity Partners

United States Quadrangle Group

United States Redpoint Ventures

United States Rh?ne Group

United States Riordan, Lewis & Haden

United States Ripplewood Holdings

United States Riverside Partners

United States Riverstone Holdings

United States Roark Capital Group

United States RPX Corporation

United States Sentinel Capital Partners

United States Silver Lake Partners

United States Stonepeak

United States Summit Partners

United States Sun Capital Partners

United States Sycamore Partners

United States Symphony Technology Group

United States TA Associates

United States Tavistock Group

United States TCV

United States Thayer Hidden Creek

United States Thoma Bravo

United States Thoma Cressey Bravo

United States Thomas H. Lee Partners

United States Tiger Global Management

United States TowerBrook Capital Partners

United States TPG Capital

United States Trilantic Capital Partners

United States Trivest

United States TSG Consumer Partners

United States Veronis Suhler Stevenson

United States Vestar Capital Partners

United States Vista Equity Partners

United States Vivo Capital

United States Vulcan Capital Management

United States Warburg Pincus

United States Warwick Energy Group

United States Wellspring Capital Management

United States Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe

United States Wesray Capital Corporation

United States Weston Presidio

United States Willis Stein & Partners

United States Wind Point Partners

United States WL Ross & Co.

United States Yucaipa Cos.

United States Zelnick Media Capital

Asia

China Addor Capital

Hong Kong Affinity Equity Partners

Australia Archer Capital

Singapore Axiom Asia

Hong Kong Baring Private Equity Asia

Australia BGH Capital

Hong Kong Boyu Capital

Singapore CBC Group

China China Media Capital

China China Reform Fund Management

China Cowin Capital

Hong Kong DCP Capital

Hong Kong DST Global

Singapore Dymon Asia Private Equity

Malaysia Ekuinas

Hong Kong FountainVest Partners

Hong Kong H&Q Asia Pacific

Singapore Hillhouse Capital Group

China Hony Capital

Japan JAFCO

Cambodia Leopard Capital LP

Vietnam Mekong Capital

South Korea MBK Partners

Singapore Northstar Group

China Oriza Holdings

Australia Pacific Equity Partners

Hong Kong PAG

Hong Kong Primavera Capital Group

Singapore Quadria Capital

Australia Quadrant Private Equity

Hong Kong RRJ Capital

Singapore Seavi Advent

Hong Kong Tybourne Capital Management

Hong Kong Welkin Capital Management

China Yunfeng Capital

China Zhongzhi Capital

EMEA

United Kingdom 3i

United Kingdom Actis

Netherlands AlpInvest Partners

Sweden Altor Equity Partners

United Kingdom Apax Partners

Bahrain Arcapita

France Ardian

Norway Argentum Fondsinvesteringer

Denmark Axcel

Germany Aurelius Group

Russia Baring Vostok Capital Partners

United Kingdom BC Partners

Luxembourg BIP Investment Partners

United Kingdom Bridgepoint Capital

France Butler Capital Partners

Finland CapMan

Switzerland Capital Dynamics

Switzerland Capvis

United Kingdom Charterhouse Capital Partners

United Kingdom Cinven

United Kingdom Close Brothers Group

United Kingdom Coller Capital

Luxembourg Conquest Asset Management

Denmark C.W. Obel

Luxembourg CVC Capital Partners

United Kingdom Doughty Hanson & Co

Emirate of Dubai Dubai International Capital

United Kingdom Duke Street Capital

South Africa EMVest Asset Management

Sweden EQT Partners

France Eurazeo

Norway Ferd

France Fondinvest Capital

Bahrain GFH Capital

Belgium GIMV

United Kingdom Graphite Capital

Switzerland GK Investment

United Kingdom HgCapital

Russia ICT Group

France Idinvest Partners

Russia IFD Kapital Group

United Kingdom IK Investment Partners

Israel Infinity Group

United Kingdom Investindustrial

United Kingdom Intermediate Capital Group

Bahrain Investcorp

Saudi Arabia Jadwa Investment

United Kingdom Kennet Partners

Norway Kistefos

Liechtenstein LGT Capital Partners

United Kingdom Livingbridge

Denmark M. Goldschmidt Holding

Greece Marfin Investment Group

United Kingdom MerchantBridge

United Kingdom Meyer Bergman

Hungary Mid Europa Partners

Germany Mutares

Sweden Nordic Capital

Norway Norfund

United Kingdom OpCapita

France PAI Partners

United Kingdom Pantheon Ventures

Switzerland Partners Group

United Kingdom Permira

United Kingdom Phoenix Equity Partners

Sweden Ratos

South Africa Riovic Capital Group

United Kingdom Silverfleet Capital Partners

United Kingdom SL Capital Partners

United Kingdom SVG Capital

United Kingdom Terra Firma Capital Partners

United Kingdom Unbound Group

United Kingdom Vitruvian Partners

Forbes

Forbes (/f??rbz/) is an American business magazine owned by Integrated Whale Media Investments and the Forbes family. Published eight times a year, it features articles on finance, industry, investing, and marketing topics. Forbes also reports on related subjects such as technology, communications, science, politics, and law. It is based in Jersey City, New Jersey. Competitors in the national business magazine category include Fortune and Bloomberg Businessweek. Forbes has an international edition in Asia as well as editions produced under license in 27 countries and regions worldwide.

The magazine is well known for its lists and rankings, including of the richest Americans (the Forbes 400), the 30 most notable young people under the age of 30 (Forbes 30 under 30), America's Wealthiest Celebrities, the world's top companies (the Forbes Global 2000), Forbes list of the World's Most Powerful People, and The World's Billionaires. The motto of Forbes magazine is "Change the World". Its chair and editor-in-chief is Steve Forbes, and its CEO is Mike Federle. In 2014, it was sold to a Hong Kong-based investment group, Integrated Whale Media Investments. As of July 2023, it has been reported by Fortune that Austin Russell is attempting to acquire 82 percent of the company. Neither Forbes nor Integrated Whale Media Investments have confirmed the report.

Company history

Forbes Building on Fifth Avenue in New York City (now owned by New York University)

B. C. Forbes, a financial columnist for the Hearst papers, and his partner Walter Drey, the general manager of the Magazine of Wall Street, founded Forbes magazine on September 15, 1917. Forbes provided the money and the name and Drey provided the publishing expertise. The original name of the magazine was Forbes: Devoted to Doers and Doings. Drey became vice-president of the B.C. Forbes Publishing Company, while B.C. Forbes became editor-in-chief, a post he held until his death in 1954. B.C. Forbes was assisted in his later years by his two eldest sons, Bruce Charles Forbes (1916–1964) and Malcolm Forbes (1917–1990).

Bruce Forbes took over after his father's death, and his strengths lay in streamlining operations and developing marketing. During his tenure, 1954–1964, the magazine's circulation nearly doubled. 

On Bruce's death, his brother Malcolm Forbes became president and chief executive officer of Forbes, and editor-in-chief of Forbes magazine. Between 1961 and 1999 the magazine was edited by James Michaels. In 1993, under Michaels, Forbes was a finalist for the National Magazine Award. In 2006, an investment group Elevation Partners that includes rock star Bono bought a minority interest in the company with a reorganization, through a new company, Forbes Media LLC, in which Forbes Magazine and Forbes.com, along with other media properties, is now a part. A 2009 New York Times report said: "40 percent of the enterprise was sold... for a reported $300 million, setting the value of the enterprise at $750 million." Three years later, Mark M. Edmiston of AdMedia Partners observed, "It's probably not worth half of that now." It was later revealed that the price had been US$264 million. 

Sale of headquarters

In January 2010, Forbes reached an agreement to sell its headquarters building on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan to New York University; terms of the deal were not publicly reported, but Forbes was to continue to occupy the space under a five-year sale-leaseback arrangement. The company's headquarters moved to the Newport section of downtown Jersey City, New Jersey, in 2014. 

Sale to Integrated Whale Media (51% stake)

In November 2013, Forbes Media, which publishes Forbes magazine, was put up for sale. This was encouraged by minority shareholders Elevation Partners. Sale documents prepared by Deutsche Bank revealed that the publisher's 2012 earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization was US$15 million. Forbes reportedly sought a price of US$400 million. In July 2014, the Forbes family bought out Elevation and then Hong Kong-based investment group Integrated Whale Media Investments purchased a 51 percent majority of the company. 

Isaac Stone Fish wrote in The Washington Post, "Since that purchase, there have been several instances of editorial meddling on stories involving China that raise questions about Forbes magazine's commitment to editorial independence." 

Failed SPAC merger and sale

On August 26, 2021, Forbes announced their plans to go public via a merger with a special-purpose acquisition company called Magnum Opus Acquisition, and starting to trade at the New York Stock Exchange as FRBS. In February 2022, it was announced that Cryptocurrency exchange Binance would acquire a $200 million stake in Forbes as a result of the SPAC floatation. In June 2022, the company terminated its SPAC merger citing unfavorable market conditions. 

In August 2022, the company announced that it was exploring a sale of its business. In May 2023, Austin Russell, the billionaire founder of Luminar Technologies, is under contract to acquire an 82 percent stake in a deal valuing the company at $800 million. As of July 30th 2023 the deal has not closed or been acknowledged by either Forbes or Whale Media. His majority ownership includes the remaining portion of the company owned by Forbes family which was not previously sold to Integrated Whale Media. 

Other publications

Apart from Forbes and its lifestyle supplement, Forbes Life, other titles include Forbes Asia and 45 local language editions, including:

Forbes Africa

Forbes ?frica Lus?fona

Forbes Afrique

Forbes Argentina

Forbes Australia

Forbes Austria

Forbes Baltics

Forbes Brazil

Forbes Bulgaria

Forbes Central America

Forbes Colombia

Forbes Chile

Forbes China

Forbes Czech

Forbes Dominican Republic

Forbes Ecuador

Forbes En Espa?ol

Forbes Estonia

Forbes France

Forbes Georgia

Forbes Greece

Forbes Hungary

Forbes India

Forbes Indonesia

Forbes Israel

Forbes Italy

Forbes Japan

Forbes Kazakhstan

Forbes Korea

Forbes Latvia

Forbes Lithuania

Forbes Lusophone Africa

Forbes Mexico

Forbes Middle East

Forbes Monaco

Forbes New York

Forbes Per?

Forbes Poland

Forbes Portugal

Forbes Romania

Forbes Russia

Forbes Slovakia

Forbes Spain

Forbes Thailand

Forbes Ukraine

Forbes Uruguay

Forbes Vietnam

Steve Forbes and his magazine's writers offer investment advice on the weekly Fox TV show Forbes on Fox and on Forbes on Radio. Other company groups include Forbes Conference Group, Forbes Investment Advisory Group and Forbes Custom Media. From the 2009 Times report: "Steve Forbes recently returned from opening up a Forbes magazine in India, bringing the number of foreign editions to 10." In addition, that year the company began publishing ForbesWoman, a quarterly magazine published by Steve Forbes's daughter, Moira Forbes, with a companion Web site. 

The company formerly published American Legacy magazine as a joint venture, although that magazine separated from Forbes on May 14, 2007. 

The company also formerly published American Heritage and Invention & Technology magazines. After failing to find a buyer, Forbes suspended publication of these two magazines as of May 17, 2007. Both magazines were purchased by the American Heritage Publishing Company and resumed publication as of the spring of 2008. 

Forbes has published the Forbes Travel Guide since 2009.

In 2013, Forbes licensed its brand to Ashford University, and assisted them to launch the Forbes School of Business & Technology. Forbes Media CEO Mike Federle justified the licensing in 2018, stating that "Our licensing business is almost a pure-profit business, because it's an annual annuity." Forbes would launch limited promotions for the school in limited issues. Forbes would never formally endorse the school.

On January 6, 2014, Forbes magazine announced that, in partnership with app creator Maz, it was launching a social networking app called "Stream". Stream allows Forbes readers to save and share visual content with other readers and discover content from Forbes magazine and Forbes.com within the app. 

Forbes.com

Forbes.com is part of Forbes Digital, a division of Forbes Media LLC. Forbes's holdings include a portion of RealClearPolitics. Together these sites reach more than 27 million unique visitors each month. Forbes.com employs the slogan "Home Page for the World's Business Leaders" and claimed, in 2006, to be the world's most widely visited business web site. The 2009 Times report said that, while "one of the top five financial sites by traffic [throwing] off an estimated $70 million to $80 million a year in revenue, [it] never yielded the hoped-for public offering". 

Forbes.com uses a "contributor model" in which a wide network of "contributors" writes and publishes articles directly on the website. Contributors are paid based on traffic to their respective Forbes.com pages; the site has received contributions from over 2,500 individuals, and some contributors have earned over US$100,000, according to the company. The contributor system has been criticized for enabling "pay-to-play journalism" and the repackaging of public relations material as news. Forbes currently allows advertisers to publish blog posts on its website alongside regular editorial content through a program called BrandVoice, which accounts for more than 10 percent of its digital revenue. Forbes.com also publishes subscription investment newsletters, and an online guide to web sites, Best of the Web. In July 2018 Forbes deleted an article by a contributor who argued that libraries should be closed, and Amazon should open bookstores in their place. 

David Churbuck founded Forbes's web site in 1996. The site uncovered Stephen Glass's journalistic fraud in The New Republic in 1998, an article that drew attention to internet journalism. At the peak of media coverage of alleged Toyota sudden unintended acceleration in 2010, it exposed the California "runaway Prius" as a hoax, as well as running five other articles by Michael Fumento challenging the entire media premise of Toyota's cars gone bad. The site, like the magazine, publishes many lists focusing on billionaires and their possessions, especially expensive homes, a critical aspect of the website's popularity. 

Currently, the website also blocks internet users using ad blocking software from accessing articles, demanding that the website be put on the ad blocking software's whitelist before access is granted. Forbes argues that this is done because customers using ad blocking software do not contribute to the site's revenue. Malware attacks have been noted to occur from Forbes site. 

Forbes won the 2020 Webby People's Voice Award for Business Blog/Website. 

Forbes8

In November 2019, Forbes launched its streaming platform Forbes8, an on-demand video network debuting a slate of original content aimed at entrepreneurs. The network currently features thousands of videos and according to Forbes is "a Netflix for entrepreneurs". In 2020, the network announced the release of several documentary series including Forbes Rap Mentors, Driven Against the Odds, Indie Nation and Titans on the Rocks. 

Forbes Business Council

Launched as an invite-only platform, Forbes Business Council is open to SMEs and MSMEs across the globe. There is a fee to join the Councils. The platform helps entrepreneurs and founders connect with like-minded people, collaborate, as well as publish posts on Forbes.com.