Can company-fund manager meetings convey informational benefits? Exploring the rationalisation of equity investment decision making by UK fund managers

Conventional economic theory, applied to information released by listed companies, equates ‘useful’ with ‘price-sensitive’. Stock exchange rules accordingly prohibit the selec- tive, private communication of price-sensitive information. Yet, even in the absence of such communication, UK equity fund managers routinely meet privately with the senior execu- tives of the companies in which they invest. Moreover, they consider these brief, formal and formulaic meetings to be their most important sources of investment information. In this paper we ask how that can be. Drawing on interview and observation data with fund managers and CFOs, we find evidence for three, non-mutually exclusive explanations: that the characterisation of information in conventional economic theory is too restricted, that fund managers fail to act with the rationality that conventional economic theory assumes, and/or that the primary value of the meetings for fund managers is not related to their investment decision making but to the claims of superior knowledge made to clients in marketing their active fund management expertise. Our findings suggest a disconnect between economic theory and economic policy based on that theory, as well as a corre- sponding limitation in research studies that test information-usefulness by assuming it to be synonymous with price-sensitivity. We draw implications for further research into the role of tacit knowledge in equity investment decision-making, and also into the effects of the principal–agent relationship between fund managers and their clients.

Delivering sustainability therapy in Sustainable Development projects

This paper explores the apparent contradiction between the 'linearity' of most Sustainable Development projects, with time-bound and defined outputs achieved at a fixed cost, and an implied 'circularity' of the theory whereby there is no 'end'. Projects usually have clear parameters within which they are implemented, and the inclusion of elements such as the need for accountability, measurable impact and,value for money' have grown in importance. It could be argued that we live in a 'projectified' and therefore linear world. The paper explores the potential contradiction between 'linearity' and 'circularity', and suggests that one way around this is to frame the project within a form of the Kolb Learning Cycle heuristic. This will facilitate a rationalisation from those implementing the sustainable development project as to why decisions are being made and for whom. If these questions are opened up to the project stakeholders, including beneficiaries, then the Kolb cycle could encourage learning and understanding by all involved. It could also provide Sustainability Therapy to those trapped in processes, which they find orthogonal to their own perceptions. It is suggested that such learning, therapy and reflective practice should be a valid output of the sustainable development project, although typically the focus is only upon the final outputs and how they feed into policy. Ironically funders would be well advised to take a broader perspective in order to achieve true 'value for money' within such projects, even if learning is not an easily measurable or tangible outcome. These points are explored within the context of the wider literature and experience with a sustainable development project undertaken in Malta. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.