Russell Investments

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Russell Investments RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION DOCUMENT ON THE REGULATION OF INDICES Frank Russell Company (d/b/a “Russell Investments” or “Russell”) is a leader in constructing and maintaining securities indices and is the publisher of the Russell Indices (indices are also referred to herein as “benchmarks” pursuant to Section 1.5 of the Consultation, although Russell believes that there are differences between benchmarks and indices). Russell operates through subsidiaries worldwide and is a subsidiary of The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company. The Russell Indices are constructed to provide a comprehensive and unbiased barometer of the market segment they represent. All of the Russell Indices are reconstituted periodically, but not less frequently than annually nor more frequently than monthly, to ensure new and growing equities and fixed income securities are reflected. Over the past 25 years, Russell's innovative methodology has helped the Russell Indices become the benchmarks most used by U.S. institutional investors. Investment professionals use Russell Indices as benchmarks for over $3.9 trillion in portfolio assets. Russell Indices represent over 99% and 98% of the investable U.S. and global equity universes, respectively. Our modular index construction allows users to track current and historical market performance by specific market segment supporting a broad spectrum of sub-indices based on country, region, sector and capitalization size covering over 10,000 securities in 50 countries. Russell Indices are objective, comprehensive, and built according to transparent rules. Industries and sectors are represented by a wide variety of securities, rather than samples found in other indexes. Russell Indices are rigorously maintained. Rules dictate additions to the Russell Indices every quarter, ensuring constant coverage. Member securities are not selected by panels, surveys or committees. Russell owns the Russell Indices and develops each Russell Index based on its own proprietary model employing its intellectual property (patented property as well as trade secrets and other intellectual property) and industry expertise. Russell Indices may be based on the intellectual property of certain third parties under contractual arrangements with Russell. In establishing each Russell Index, Russell has developed a set of clearly defined inclusion/exclusion criteria for determining when a security should be included or excluded from an Index. Certain Russell personnel use this proprietary, rules-based methodology to determine, amongst other things, the composition of each Russell Index, the policies and procedures to be followed by Russell personnel in calculating and maintaining each Russell Index, the method and frequency of reconstitution and the daily treatment of corporate actions. Russell’s response to the Consultation follows: In order to assist us in evaluating your contributions, we would appreciate if you could maintain the structure and numbering of this questionnaire in your replies and indicate clearly the question you are responding to. In replying to these questions, please indicate the expected impact described in each section of this paper on your activities or the activities of firms in your jurisdiction, including estimates of administrative or compliance costs. Please also state the reasoning behind your answers and any evidence supporting your views. It is possible to request that a submission remains confidential. In this case, the contributor should explicitly indicate on the first page of their response that they do not want their contribution to be published. You are invited to send your contributions until 29 November 2012 to: MARKT- [email protected]. Responses will be published on the following website unless requested otherwise: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations. Box 1 (1) Which benchmarks does your organisation produce or contribute data to? Russell calculates thousands of indices using modular index construction that allows users to track current and historical market performance by specific market segment supporting a broad spectrum of sub-indices based on country, region, sector and capitalization size covering over 10,000 securities in 50 countries. (2) Which benchmarks does your organisation use? What do you use each of these benchmarks for? Has your organisation adopted different benchmarks recently and if so why? Russell is an investment manager as well as an independent index provider. As an investment manager Russell uses benchmarks for portfolio construction and performance attribution; formulation of investment strategies and portfolio implementation; creation of investment products; capital markets research; and investment manager research. Unless otherwise required due to the facts and circumstances of an investment management assignment Russell uses the Russell Indices for its investment management activities. (3) Have you recently launched a new benchmark or discontinued existing ones? Russell invests heavily in continuous benchmark research and innovation. Russell calculates thousands of indices daily, but our most frequently used indices and their construction methodology is attached to this Response as Exhibit A. (4) How many contracts are referenced to benchmarks in your sector? Which persons or entities use these contracts? And for which purposes? Investors and financial professionals worldwide trade thousands of investment products linked to Russell’s benchmarks including passive investment funds, structured products, futures and options. They also use Russell’s benchmarks to judge the performance of their investment portfolios. However, Russell’s position as an independent benchmark provider and the excellence of its governance and production processes virtually eliminate conflicts of interest that could (as they have in the case of LIBOR) harm investors, consumers and financial markets. As an independent benchmark provider Russell constructs and maintains its benchmarks according to objective rules. Russell’s personnel implement these rules 2 in an unbiased, systematic process that assures the integrity and accuracy of each benchmark Russell publishes. The integrity and accuracy of Russell’s benchmarks helps assure investors, consumers, financial professionals and regulatory authorities that investment products linked to Russell’s benchmarks are unaffected by conflicts of interest, illegal or unethical behaviour. This is in stark contrast to other benchmarks and the financial products that incorporate those benchmarks where the benchmarks themselves and the relationships between the benchmark provider and the financial product creator are subject to conflicts of interests that can result in, and in the case of LIBOR have resulted in, fraud, market manipulation and grave ethical failures of certain organizations and the people that operate those organizations. Russell and its processes are a model for objective and ethical benchmark design, development, construction, production and publication. (5) To what extent are these benchmarks used to price financial instruments? Please provide a list of benchmarks which are used for pricing financial instruments and if possible estimates of the notional value of financial instruments referenced to them. See answer to Question (4). (6) How are benchmarks in your sector set? Are they based on real transactions, offered rates or quotes, tradable prices, panel submissions, samples? Please provide a description of the benchmark setting methodology. Russell’s benchmarks utilise actual transaction data (end of day and real time for benchmarks requiring real time calculation). Russell sources this data direct from securities exchanges as well as their authorized data distributors. Russell thinks that actual transaction data is a fundamental input to accurate, objective benchmarks and a key feature in mitigating potential conflicts of interest in the production and publication of benchmarks. (7) What factors do you consider to be the most important in choosing a reliable benchmark? Russell believes that benchmarks should be set using methodologies that are 100% rules based and completely transparent. We believe that using prices based on actual transactions is the best way to provide investors the most accurate information possible on the holdings of an index. Box 2 (8) What kinds of data are used for the construction of the main indices used in your sector? Which benchmarks use actual data and which use a mixture of actual and estimated data? Russell utilises securities pricing data as well as security level statistical data that we source direct from securities exchanges, their authorized data distributors and other reputable data distributors. (9) Do you consider that indices that do not use actual data have particular informational or other advantages over indices based on actual data? 3 No, Russell thinks the use of data other than actual data negatively impacts the integrity and accuracy of benchmarks and the financial products build upon them and increases the likelihood for conflicts of interest that can harm investors and consumers. (10) What do you consider are the advantages and disadvantages of using a mixture of actual transaction data and other data in a tiered approach? As stated above, Russell prefers the use of actual transaction data as the input to an objective, accurate and reliable benchmark. However, Russell acknowledges that certain data critical to the production of a benchmark might not be readily
Recommended publications
  • Monthly Economic Update
    In this month’s recap: Stocks moved higher as investors looked past accelerating inflation and the Fed’s pivot on monetary policy. Monthly Economic Update Presented by Ray Lazcano, July 2021 U.S. Markets Stocks moved higher last month as investors looked past accelerating inflation and the Fed’s pivot on monetary policy. The Dow Jones Industrial Average slipped 0.07 percent, but the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index rose 2.22 percent. The Nasdaq Composite led, gaining 5.49 percent.1 Inflation Report The May Consumer Price Index came in above expectations. Prices increased by 5 percent for the year-over-year period—the fastest rate in nearly 13 years. Despite the surprise, markets rallied on the news, sending the S&P 500 to a new record close and the technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite higher.2 Fed Pivot The Fed indicated that two interest rate hikes in 2023 were likely, despite signals as recently as March 2021 that rates would remain unchanged until 2024. The Fed also raised its inflation expectations to 3.4 percent, up from its March projection of 2.4 percent. This news unsettled 3 the markets, but the shock was short-lived. News-Driven Rally In the final full week of trading, stocks rallied on the news of an agreement regarding the $1 trillion infrastructure bill and reports that banks had passed the latest Federal Reserve stress tests. Sector Scorecard 07072021-WR-3766 Industry sector performance was mixed. Gains were realized in Communication Services (+2.96 percent), Consumer Discretionary (+3.22 percent), Energy (+1.92 percent), Health Care (+1.97 percent), Real Estate (+3.28 percent), and Technology (+6.81 percent).
    [Show full text]
  • Russell 2000® Index Measures the Performance of the Small-Cap US Equity Market Segment of the US Equity Universe
    Index factsheet Russell 2000 Index About the index True representation of the The Russell 2000® Index measures the performance of the small-cap US equity market segment of the US equity universe. The Russell 2000® Index is a subset Objective construction methodology of the Russell 3000® Index representing approximately 10% of the total Provides an unbiased, complete view of the US equity market capitalization of that index. It includes approximately 2,000 of the market and underlying market segments smallest securities based on a combination of their market cap and current Modular market segmentation index membership. The Russell 2000® is constructed to provide a Distinct building blocks to provide insight into the comprehensive and unbiased small-cap barometer and is completely current state of the market and inform asset allocation reconstituted annually to ensure larger stocks do not distort the decisions performance and characteristics of the true small-cap opportunity set. Reliable maintenance and governance Disciplined, reliable maintenance process backed by a well-defined, balanced governance system ensures the Index characteristics indexes continue to accurately reflect the market (As of 7/31/2021) Russell 2000® Russell 3000® Tickers Price/Book 2.71 4.46 Russell 2000® Dividend Yield 0.99 1.26 Bloomberg PR RTY P/E Ex-Neg Earnings 19.25 24.71 Bloomberg TR RU20INTR EPS Growth - 5 Years 9.76 17.01 Reuters PR .RUT Number of Holdings 1,975 2,997 Reuters TR .RUTTU Market capitalization (in billions USD) (As of 7/31/2021) For more information, including a list of ETFs based on FTSE Russell Indexes, please call us or visit Russell 2000® Russell 3000® www.ftserussell.com Average Market Cap ($-WTD) $3.274 $478.338 The inception date of the Russell 2000® Index is Median Market Cap $1.193 $2.636 January 1, 1984.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    The Journal of Applied Business Research – September/October 2017 Volume 33, Number 5 The Effect Of Corporate Governance On Unfaithful Disclosure Designation And Unfaithful Disclosure Penalty Points Bo Young Moon, Dankook University, South Korea Soo Yeon Park, Korea University, South Korea ABSTRACT This paper investigates the relation between Unfaithful Disclosure Corporations (“UDC”) and corporate governance using listed firm (KOSPI and KOSDAQ) data in Korea. Prior literature reports that corporate governance has an impact on the level of disclosure and the quality of disclosure provided by companies. However, it is hard to find the studies about corporate governance and UDC at the term of disclosure quality. Compare to some financially advanced countries, Korea established corporate governance in a relatively short period of time; hence concerns have been raised the corporate governance have not played effective role to monitor management. We question how corporate governance affects companies’ unfaithful disclosure by using several corporate governance proxy variables and UDC data which is unique system in Korea. From the empirical tests, we find a negative association between the proportion of outside directors, an indicator of the board’s independence, and UDC designation, among companies listed on both KOSPI and KOSDAQ. On the other hand, there is a significant positive association between the proportion of outside directors and UDCs’ imposed and accumulated penalty points among KOSDAQ-listed companies. This implies that outside director system effectively play a monitoring role however due to different natures of members included in outside directors, the system often fails to control regarding based reasons for penalty points imposition. In addition, we find the percentage of foreign equity ownership showed statistically significant positive association with UDC designation and a significant positive association with the imposed and accumulated penalty points among KOSPI-listed companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Russell 2500 Index
    Product highlights Russell 2500 Index A complete view of the small-to-mid (SMID) A trusted partner Approximately $9 trillion is benchmarked cap segment of the US equity market. to the Russell US Indexes*, which provide A subset of the Russell 3000 Index, the Russell 2500 comprehensive representation of the US Index includes the Russell 2000 Index plus the smallest equity market and its size and style segments. 500 mid-cap companies from the Russell 1000 Index based on a combination of their market cap and current Relevant index membership. The Russell US Indexes are modular and flexible in their design, enabling Russell 2500 Index and Russell US Indexes customizable asset allocation structure. Representative Comprehensive coverage of the SMID cap US market segment, suitable as a benchmark for actively managed investments or as the foundation of index-linked products such as mutual funds and ETFs. Reliable Maintained using transparent, objective rules including annual reconstitution, quarterly eligible IPO additions and daily corporate action adjustments to ensure the index remains accurately representative. *Source: Data as of December 31, 2017 as reported on April 2, 2018 by eVestment for institutional assets, Morningstar for retail mutual funds, insurance products, and ETFs, and additional passive assets directly collected • Initial launch date: June 1, 1990 by FTSE Russell. AUM data includes blended benchmarks • Historical data back to: December 31, 1978 and excludes futures and options. Passive assets directly • Bloomberg Price Return Ticker: R2500 collected by FTSE Russell have been removed from third • Bloomberg Total Return Ticker: RU25INTR party sources to prevent double counting. No assurances • Thomson Reuters RIC: .R25I are given by FTSE Russell as to the accuracy of the data.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Cap Is Active Management's Rightful Home
    SMALL CAP IS ACTIVE MANAGEMENT’S RIGHTFUL HOME Recent trends show a growing willingness among investors to apply indexing’s logic farther down the market-cap ladder. But, when it comes to smaller companies, the indexing argument isn’t very convincing. Maintaining exposure to the small-cap “category” through an index-based product eliminates the chance to benefit in an area that, we contend, offers active managers with fundamentals-based strategies the most consistent and pronounced opportunity to generate excess return. PASSIVE INFLUX: FUNDS FORM THE FOUNDATION WHILE ETFS KEEP PILING ON… The Vanguard Group introduced the first index fund at the end of 1975 as a low-cost way for investors to gain exposure to the companies of the S&P 500 Index, which account for roughly 80 percent of the stock market’s total capitalization. The strategy initially attracted $11 million in assets under management. According to S&P Dow Jones Indices, more than $7.8 trillion is currently benchmarked to the S&P 500 Index, “with index assets comprising approximately $2.2 trillion of this total.” Other estimates put indexing’s reach at more than one out of every three shares outstanding among the index’s component companies. The emergence of exchange-traded funds (ETFs), the first of which was launched in 1993 to track the S&P 500 Index, only adds momentum to passive investing’s growing presence within the equity market. Since 2008, when the SEC broadened the scope of allowable ETF strategies, the number of ETFs more than doubled to 1,594 through the end of 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Does the Market React Differently to Chaebol Firms?
    The Journal of Applied Business Research – September/October 2014 Volume 30, Number 5 Does The Market React Differently To Chaebol Firms? Heejin Park, Hanyang University, South Korea Jinsoo Kim, Hanyang University, South Korea Mihye Ha, Hanyang University, South Korea Sambock Park, Hanyang University, South Korea ABSTRACT Based on a sample of Korean firms listed on the KOSPI and KOSDAQ from 2001 to 2011, we examined whether the affiliation of a firm with a Chaebol group affects the sensitivity of stock prices to earnings surprises. We found that the market response to positive (negative) earnings surprises is more positive (negative) for Chaebol firms than for non-Chaebol firms. In addition, we investigated how intra-group transactions affect the ERCs of Chaebol firms by comparing with those of non-Chaebol firms. Our results show that the intra-group transactions of Chaebol firms are positively related to ERCs under both positive and negative earnings surprises. However, we did not find the same results from the analyses of non-Chaebol firms. Keywords: Chaebol Firms; Earnings Response Coefficient (ERC); Earnings Surprises; KOSPI; KOSDAQ 1. INTRODUCTION he aim of this study is to examine how differently the market reacts to earnings surprises of Chaebol firms compared to those of non-Chaebol firms. Although there is no official definition of Chaebol, T firms are perceived as Chaebol if they consist of a large group and operate in many different industries, maintain substantial business ties with other firms in their group, and are controlled by the largest shareholder as a whole. The definition used to identify Chaebol firms is that of a large business group established by the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) and a group of companies of which more than 30% of the shares are owned by the group’s controlling shareholders and its affiliated companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Calamos Small Cap Market Snapshot
    DATA AS OF 6/30/2021 WHAT’S NEW MARKET PULSE A little early…Last month, I made the bold prediction that the small cap MONTH-TO-DATE RETURNS correction was over. However, in June, they lagged by another 57 basis points R 2000 VALUE RUSSELL 2000 R 2000 GROWTH (Russell 2000 less Russell 1000). Falling 10-year Treasury yields during the last few weeks spooked many investors into rotating away from small caps. -0.61 1.94 4.69 R MICROCAP VALUE RUSSELL MICROCAP R MICROCAP GROWTH Even so, I’m not wavering. Small cap fundamentals continue to be rock-solid -0.63 2.19 6.36 and valuations versus large caps continue to look inexpensive, sitting at the 22nd percentile. In each of the past three small cap cycle peaks, valuations versus YEAR-TO-DATE RETURNS large caps surpassed the 83rd percentile. Small caps have a long way to go. I R 2000 VALUE RUSSELL 2000 R 2000 GROWTH conclude with an amazing small cap fact: since 1989, when small caps were up 26.69 17.54 8.98 more than 10% during the first six months of the year (the Russell 2000 was up R MICROCAP VALUE RUSSELL MICROCAP R MICROCAP GROWTH 17.5% in 1H 21), they continued to rise in the second half of the year, on average by another 12%. Buy the dip! 35.65 29.02 20.57 Brandon M. Nelson, CFA, Calamos Senior Portfolio Manager RUSSELL 2000 GROWTH VS. RUSSELL 1000 GROWTH RUSSELL 2000 GROWTH VS. S&P 500 GROWTH 300-DAY PERFORMANCE GICS SECTOR ALLOCATIONS (NET) 60% 50% Russell 2000 Growth 50% 40% S&P 500 Growth 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Past performance is not indicative of future results.
    [Show full text]
  • Investing in the Marketplace
    Investing in the Marketplace Prudential Retirement When you hear people talk about “the market,” you might think Did you know... we agree on what that means. Truth is, there are many indexes that represent differing segments of the market. And these …there is even indexes don’t always move in tandem. Understanding some of an index that the key ones can help you diversify your investments to better represent the economy as a whole. purports to track The Dow Jones Industrial Average (The Dow) is one of the oldest, most investor anxiety? well-know indexes and is often used to represent the economy as a Dubbed “The Fear whole. Truth is, though, The Dow only includes 30 stocks of the world’s largest, most influential companies. Why is it called an “average?” Index,” the proper Originally, it was computed by adding up the per-share price of its stocks, and dividing by the number of companies. name of the Chicago The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (made up of 500 of the most widely- Board Options traded U.S. stocks) is larger and more diverse than The Dow. Because it represents about 70% of the total value of the U.S. stock market, the Exchange’s index is S&P 500 is a better indication of how the U.S. marketplace is moving as a whole. the VIX Index, Sometimes referred to as the “total stock market index,” the Wilshire and measures the 5000 Index includes about 7,000 of the more than 10,000 publicly traded companies with headquarters in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • PBGC Asset Evaluation for the Delphi Retirement Program for Salaried Employees and the Delphi Hourly Rate Employees' Pension P
    PBGC Asset Evaluation for the Delphi Retirement Program for Salaried Employees and the Delphi Hourly Rate Employees’ Pension Plan Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Asset Evaluation Division Delphi Retirement Program for Salaried Employees Case No. 20637000 Delphi Hourly-Rate Pension Plan Case No. 20637100 Additional Supplemental Plan Asset Evaluation Report December DOPT: July DOTR: August Additional Supplemental Plan Asset Evaluation Report • 2015 CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2. OBJECTIVE 1 3. BACKGROUND 2 4. SUMMARY OF DELPHI SALARIED AND HOURLY PLANS' NET ASSET VALUE 3 5. SUMMARY OF PLAN ASSET EVALUATION WORK PERFORMED BY 7 6. SUMMARY OF PLAN ASSET EVALUATION WORK PERFORMED BY PBGC 9 7. DISCUSSION OF PLAN ASSET EVALUATION WORK PERFORMED BY CONTRACTOR 11 8. PLAN INITIATION SPIN-OFF LETTER PROVIDED BY GMAM, APRIL 2, 2015 15 9. CONCLUSION 16 APPENDIX A- INDEX OF TERMS 18 Additional Supplemental Plan Asset Evaluation Report • December 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Contractor applied procedures in accordance with the Benefits Administration and Payments Department ("BAPD") Manual for Plan Asset Evaluations ("PAE") dated April 2013 ("BAPD PAE Manual") to assess the estimated Fair Market Value ("FMV") of assets and liabilities of the Delphi Retirement Program for Salaried Employees ("Salaried Plan") and the Delphi Hourly-Rate Pension Plan ("Hourly Plan"), collectively the "Plans", "Delphi Salaried and Hourly Plans" or the "Delphi Plans". This Additional Supplemental Plan Asset Evaluation Report the ("Additional Supplemental Report") was prepared at the request of PBGC to summarize information in previously issued reports and other work performed by PBGC and should be read in conjunction with the Contractor's Plan Asset Evaluation Report for the Delphi Retirement Program for Salaried Employees and the Delphi Hourly-Rate Pension Plan dated January (the "Track 1 report"), and the Supplemental Plan Asset Evaluation Report for the Delphi Retirement Program for Salaried Employees and the Delphi Hourly-Rate Pension Plan dated May (the "Track 2 report").
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Market Data for R/Rmetrics
    Financial Market Data for R/Rmetrics Diethelm Würtz Andrew Ellis Yohan Chalabi Rmetrics Association & Finance Online R/Rmetrics eBook Series R/Rmetrics eBooks is a series of electronic books and user guides aimed at students and practitioner who use R/Rmetrics to analyze financial markets. A Discussion of Time Series Objects for R in Finance (2009) Diethelm Würtz, Yohan Chalabi, Andrew Ellis R/Rmetrics Meielisalp 2009 Proceedings of the Meielisalp Workshop 2011 Editor Diethelm Würtz Basic R for Finance (2010), Diethelm Würtz, Yohan Chalabi, Longhow Lam, Andrew Ellis Chronological Objects with Rmetrics (2010), Diethelm Würtz, Yohan Chalabi, Andrew Ellis Portfolio Optimization with R/Rmetrics (2010), Diethelm Würtz, William Chen, Yohan Chalabi, Andrew Ellis Financial Market Data for R/Rmetrics (2010) Diethelm W?rtz, Andrew Ellis, Yohan Chalabi Indian Financial Market Data for R/Rmetrics (2010) Diethelm Würtz, Mahendra Mehta, Andrew Ellis, Yohan Chalabi Asian Option Pricing with R/Rmetrics (2010) Diethelm Würtz R/Rmetrics Singapore 2010 Proceedings of the Singapore Workshop 2010 Editors Diethelm Würtz, Mahendra Mehta, David Scott, Juri Hinz R/Rmetrics Meielisalp 2011 Proceedings of the Meielisalp Summer School and Workshop 2011 Editor Diethelm Würtz III tinn-R Editor (2010) José Cláudio Faria, Philippe Grosjean, Enio Galinkin Jelihovschi and Ri- cardo Pietrobon R/Rmetrics Meielisalp 2011 Proceedings of the Meielisalp Summer Scholl and Workshop 2011 Editor Diethelm Würtz R/Rmetrics Meielisalp 2012 Proceedings of the Meielisalp Summer Scholl and Workshop 2012 Editor Diethelm Würtz Topics in Empirical Finance with R and Rmetrics (2013), Patrick Hénaff FINANCIAL MARKET DATA FOR R/RMETRICS DIETHELM WÜRTZ ANDREW ELLIS YOHAN CHALABI RMETRICS ASSOCIATION &FINANCE ONLINE Series Editors: Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Ready Coller Institute of Venture, • Sources of IP – We Will Awash with Cash
    ISSUE 1a — 2014 WELCOME ISSUE $45 THE VENTURE ECOSYSTEM FRAMEWORK: MESSY, FAST, AND GLOBAL 企业生态系统框架: 凌 乱 、快 速 、全 球 化 Trends Shaping the Venture Ecosystem in 2014 / 06 IS THE VC MODEL ‘BROKEN’? 风险投资模式“破损”了吗? VC Success Definition and Understanding Who Wins and Who Loses / 20 MEASURING SCIENCE PARKS' PERFORMANCE 度量科技园区的业绩 TusPark, Imperial West, and 15 other Parks / 28 time to Impact THE PUBLIC VENTURE POLICY MENU A toolbox of PrOVEN 企业公共政策清单 Policies Public Authorities government policies /36 Can Take / 36 EDITORIAL BOARD Jeremy Coller Eli Talmor Contents Moshe Zviran Yesha Sivan (Editor-in-Chief) Robyn Klingler-Vidra (Associate Editor) COLLER INSTITUTE OF VENTURE 36 Yù (Zöe) Zhái Itai Asaf Odeya Pergament 04 Ann Iveson COPYRIGHT © Coller Institute of Venture at Tel Aviv University 2014 www.collerinstituteofventure.org 05 06 20 28 WHAT IS THE COLLER INSTITUTE MEASURING SCIENCE PARKS' OF VENTURE?—04 PERFORMANCE—28 TusPark, Imperial West, RESEARCH IS AT THE CORE and 15 other Parks OF THE CIV’S VISION—05 How they are designed and managed to T HE VENTURE ECOSYSTEM achieve optimal performance FRAMEWORK: MESSY, FAST, AND GLOBAL—06 Six Trends Shaping the THE PUBLIC VENTURE Venture Ecosystem in 2014 POLICY MENU—36 44 Policies Public Authorities This article presents a generative Can Take framework for the venture ecosystem and highlights the current trends Public policymakers’ tools for fostering affecting the ecosystem local venture ecosystems I S THE VC MODEL ‘BROKEN’?—20 NEWS IN BRIEF—44 VC Success Definition and The News section offers a selection
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report Amending ITS on Main Indices and Recognised Exchanges
    Final Report Amendment to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1646 11 December 2019 | ESMA70-156-1535 Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 4 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5 3 Main indices ................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 General approach ................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Analysis ................................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Conclusions............................................................................................................. 8 4 Recognised exchanges .................................................................................................. 9 4.1 General approach ................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Conclusions............................................................................................................. 9 4.2.1 Treatment of third-country exchanges .............................................................. 9 4.2.2 Impact of Brexit ...............................................................................................10 5 Annexes ........................................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]