This paper provides a perspective on the effect of IFRS adoption on the tendency of investors to under-invest in foreign equities. We consider explanations for the home equity bias described in prior research and discuss research relevant to the informational consequences of global adoption of IFRS. Specifically, we evaluate whether IFRS adoption reduces information processing costs or decreases investor uncertainty about either the quality of financial reporting or the distribution of future cash flows. We predict that the effect of any reduction in information processing costs from the adoption of IFRS is likely to be small relative to the effects of other determinants of home bias such as the strength of investor protection mechanisms in foreign countries, behavioral biases toward familiar equities, and informational advantages related to geographical proximity. We conclude that global IFRS adoption is unlikely to reduce home bias and propose avenues for future research.
Home bias - the empirical phenomenon that investors assign anomalously high weights to their own domestic assets - has puzzled academics for decades: financial theory predicts that an internationally well diversified portfolio of stocks and short-term bonds can reduce risk significantly without affecting expected return. Although the globalization of international equity markets has increased international investments, equity portfolios remain severely home biased today, and no single explanation seems to solve the puzzle completely. In this paper, we first provide a thorough description of the equity home bias phenomenon by defining, discussing, and applying the competing measures and presenting some estimates of the costs of under-diversification. Second, we evaluate the explanations for the equity home bias proposed in the literature such as information asymmetries, behavioral aspects, barriers to foreign investment, and governance issues, and conclude that each explanation on its own falls short, suggesting that the equity home bias probably reflects a combination of factors. Lastly, we review the implications of international under-diversification for portfolio formation and the cost of capital of companies.
This book provides a comprehensive and critical analysis of research outcomes on the equity home bias puzzle – that people overinvest in domestic stocks relative to the theoretically optimal investment portfolio. It introduces place attachment – the bonding that occurs between individuals and their meaningful environments – as a new explanation for equity home bias, and presents a philosophically multi-paradigmatic view of place attachment. For the first time, a comprehensive and up-to-date review of the extant literature is provided, demonstrating that place attachment is a contributing factor to 22 different topics in which variations of home bias are present. The author also analyses the social-psychological underpinnings of place attachment, and considers the effect of multi-culturalism on the future of equity home bias. The book’s unique approach discusses the issues in conceptual terms rather than through data and statistical methods. This multi- and inter-disciplinary book is an invaluable resource for graduate students and researchers interested in economics, finance, philosophy, and/or methodology, introducing them to a new line of research.
This paper examines the well-known equity home bias puzzle in international macroeconomics by exploiting the cross-sector variation. Combining unique financial datasets, I introduce a novel sectoral home bias index that covers 27 industries in 43 countries, which enables empirical and theoretical analysis of the puzzle in unprecedented detail. I uncover two stylized facts (1) sectoral home bias is stronger for nontradable sectors and in countries with a higher degree of capital restrictions, and (2) investors tilt portfolios more towards domestic assets for the sectors in which their countries reveal a comparative advantage. Motivated by these findings, I build a multi-sector model that incorporates transaction costs, information asymmetry, and risk-hedging motives in investors' portfolio choice. Moreover, I quantify the effects of these frictions on both sector- and country-level home bias in a calibrated DSGE model. This framework sheds light on the patterns and determinants of international financial investment.
Why do investors excessively tilt their portfolio towards domestic assets? Recent studies suggest asymmetric information plays a significant role in the home equity bias puzzle. A key assumption in theoretical models is that agents invest in assets and process information on their own. However, most international investments are executed by managers in financial institutions. These institutions allocate significant resources to processing information, making the asymmetric information assumption less appealing. In this paper, we explain home bias at the fund level by showing how information asymmetry at the individual level has relevant implications at the portfolio management level. Agents delegate their investment decisions to portfolio managers of different and uncertain ability. Investors are better informed about the performance of domestic markets; and therefore, are more able to evaluate the ability of managers operating in these markets. This, in turn, makes investing in domestic markets less risky and attracts more managers. Additionally, highly skilled managers benefit more from higher transparency, and this is why they are more likely to choose to operate in the domestic market. Therefore, a small information asymmetry of individual investors generates home bias due to highly skilled managers in the domestic market (higher than in the foreign market) and diversification (a higher number of managers in the domestic market). We simulate the model and find that on average 69.2% of investment is in the domestic market.
Inhaltsangabe:Introduction: Every investor faces the challenge of making the right investment decisions. Upon analysing the allocation of wealth among countries, it becomes evident that investors do not invest their financial wealth internationally, but tend to invest the majority of their wealth in domestic equity. Financial theory deems this behaviour irrational, since holding a domestic portfolio is considered to be suboptimal due to the foregone benefits of international diversification. Assuming that the financial theory is right in this prediction, the question as to what are the causes for this irrational behaviour comes to mind and forms the focal point of this work. One the one hand, investors may be well aware of the costs connected with holding a domestic portfolio. Market restrictions, however, do not allow investors to attain the optimal international portfolio. On the other hand, investors may be unaware of the benefits of international diversification, and instead have a preference for domestic equity and fail to perceive the domestic portfolio as suboptimal. The traditional financial theory for this behaviour provides the institutional explanations with the focus on market imperfections and the behavioural financial theory provides explanations with the focus on investor irrationality. Following this classification of both theories, this work briefly reviews institutional explanations, as many of them lack empirical evidence and concentrates mainly on the behavioural explanations, as they are the focal point of current research and find wide empirical support. After defining equity home bias and related concepts in Chapter 2, the costs of equity home bias are discussed in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, institutional explanations are considered. Section 4.1 reviews briefly a number of older institutional explanations, such as direct investment barriers, transactions costs and taxes, as they do not find much empirical support. Section 4.2 explores in more detail an explanation based on information asymmetry, as it may at least partially contribute to the solution of the home bias problem. With the emergence and acceptance of behavioural finance new explanations based on irrationality of investors were advanced and are presented in Chapter 5. Section 5.1 explores optimistic expectations about domestic markets as one of the early behavioural explanations. Section 5.2 deals with the competence hypothesis and creates a foundation for the [...]
The sharp realities of financial globalization become clear during crises, when winners and losers emerge. Crises usher in short- and long-term changes to the status quo, and everyone agrees that learning from crises is a top priority. The Evidence and Impact of Financial Globalization devotes separate articles to specific crises, the conditions that cause them, and the longstanding arrangements devised to address them. While other books and journal articles treat these subjects in isolation, this volume presents a wide-ranging, consistent, yet varied specificity. Substantial, authoritative, and useful, these articles provide material unavailable elsewhere. Substantial articles by top scholars sets this volume apart from other information sources Rapidly developing subjects will interest readers well into the future Reader demand and lack of competitors underline the high value of these reference works
This book provides a comprehensive and critical analysis of research outcomes on the equity home bias puzzle – that people overinvest in domestic stocks relative to the theoretically optimal investment portfolio. It introduces place attachment – the bonding that occurs between individuals and their meaningful environments – as a new explanation for equity home bias, and presents a philosophically multi-paradigmatic view of place attachment. For the first time, a comprehensive and up-to-date review of the extant literature is provided, demonstrating that place attachment is a contributing factor to 22 different topics in which variations of home bias are present. The author also analyses the social-psychological underpinnings of place attachment, and considers the effect of multi-culturalism on the future of equity home bias. The book’s unique approach discusses the issues in conceptual terms rather than through data and statistical methods. This multi- and inter-disciplinary book is an invaluable resource for graduate students and researchers interested in economics, finance, philosophy, and/or methodology, introducing them to a new line of research.
This paper documents the available evidence on international portfolio investment in five GECD countries. We draw three conclusions from the data. First. there is strong evidence of a home bias in national investment portfolios despite the potential gains from international diversification. Second, to the extent investors hold international securities, the composition of the portfolio of foreign securities seems to reflect factors other than diversification of risk. Third, the high volume of cross-border capital flows and the high turnover rate on foreign equity investments relative to domestic equity markets suggests that transactions costs and incomplete information are unlikely to be important deterrents to international investment. These observations suggest that a richer set of models is required to account for international investment behavior.
American investors tilt to overinvest domestically, well-known as a home bias puzzle. Hedging various types of domestic risks, differences in taxes and transaction costs, informational frictions and behavioral effects are commonly employed in an attempt to explain the home bias puzzle. We show in this study that even abstracting from the above factors, nowadays there is a simple rationalization for the home bias, let alone when these factors are also accounted for. We define economic home bias (EHB) to distinguish it from investment home bias (IHB), where the IHB measures investment weights and the EHB measures economic cost. We find that for reasonable degrees of risk aversion and with 25 years multivariate distribution, that the annual EHB loss is merely 0.1%, despite the large domestic overinvestment of about 40% in the US. Thus, with market globalization and high correlations, overinvesting domestically is not irrational implying that the home bias puzzle has vanished.
