BetterIR_July_2013

N e w s l e t t e r
R
Better
T h e
Viewing Investor Behavior through a P&L Lens
Emerging Europe Liquidity
Corporate Access is Changing; Is it Improving?
Ipreo Corporate Access Survey 2013 Highlights
Firm Snapshot -
Eagle Asset Management
Fund Snapshot -
RidgeWorth Large Cap Value Equity Fund
Metro Area Targeting Focus -
South Florida, USA
CONTENTS:
N e w s l e t t e r
Volume 6, Issue 3
July 2013

2
J u l y 2 0 1 3
Copyright ® 2013 Ipreo. All rights reserved. Articles are published without any responsibility for any loss resulting from any action or decision
by any person as a result of any information contained herein.
When meeting with institutional investors, it is imperative that an Investor Relations team is equipped with a deep understanding of
the thought process of managers with whom it will be interacting. There are many resources at an IRO’s disposal that can help put into
perspective the drivers of individual institutions’ share movements within the stock. While it is true that all firms are united in their goal to
maximize returns on their portfolio, investors have very distinct trading styles in terms of how they buy and sell their holdings to achieve
that goal. Much of the variation in investors’ buying and selling profiles has to do with the performance of individual holdings. Regardless
of investors’ original rationale for buying a certain security, their decisions to hold, sell, or buy more of that security depends in large part
on how that security has fared since it was acquired.
One useful tool to analyze this aspect of investors’ decision-making is estimating the initial purchase price, or cost basis, of each security
in the portfolio. Cost basis analysis can be an effective tool in analyzing investor sentiment regarding your stock and, at the portfolio level,
can explain a great deal about individual managers’ tendencies when it comes to profit-taking or exiting positions at a loss.
Luckily, publicly disclosed ownership information can give any IRO some of the tools needed to estimate the purchase price at which
each investor entered the stock. One common calculation for average cost basis for a particular security is calculated by measuring an
institution’s quarterly share change in terms of the security’s volume-weighted average price (VWAP) over the period. This average cost
basis is then weighted relative to the firm’s previous position and cost basis. For example, if a firm holds 1,000 shares of XYZ at an average
cost basis of $100 and adds 500 shares at a VWAP of $90, the adjusted cost basis would be calculated as follows:
[(1,000*$100) + (500*$90)] / (1000 + 500) = $96.67
Cost basis can be calculated at the fund level as well, and given the frequency with which funds file relative to firms (typically monthly vs.
quarterly), fund-level cost basis data can provide a more current view of an entity’s cost basis exposure. Of course, while this method is
by no means perfect (an investor can be buying or selling shares at the highest or lowest prices in a period, not the VWAP), for longer-term
holdings, it can give a rough idea of the valuation when the manager entered the stock.
Knowing your investor’s initial cost basis intuitively gives you a number of useful takeaways to keep in mind during your communication.
An investor that entered the stock at a far different price (either higher or lower) made decisions justifying the valuation at that price;
unless the manager believes the company has changed fundamentally, it’s always more likely for an investor to pull back on the position.
If the P&L position in your stock is far below or above the manager’s overall return (either on a holding period or on an annualized basis),
you may already be seen as an outlier in the portfolio. Also, a taxable investor around an annual reporting period may be more averse
to selling a stock and booking a large gain, or more likely to harvest tax losses to obscure gains, and the reverse maybe true for pension
funds and other non-taxable investors.
Cost Basis at the Broad Portfolio Level
Thus far, we have primarily focused on individual firms’ cost basis exposure to a particular security. While this can be informative, it is
also beneficial for an IRO to understand the way each institutional investor approaches portfolio construction. For example, if investor
A is currently sitting on a 6% gain in its position in company XYZ and investor B is sitting on a 28% gain, it seems reasonable to assume
that investor B’s position is more in jeopardy of being trimmed as the firm takes profits. However, depending on the type of investor, the
opposite may be the case – a 6% gain can be seen as far underperforming the rest of the portfolio. This is where portfolio-level analysis
can be invaluable, as institutional investors often display distinct preferences and tolerances when it comes to unbooked gains and losses.
The firms in Table 1, for example, have a tendency to liquidate their positions before gains or losses exceed 10%, with the vast majority of
their portfolio sitting between -10% to +10% P&L.
Table 1
% of Port. in Each Return Band
Investor Name <-25%
-25% to -
10%
-10% to
10%
10% to
25% >25%
Carlson Capital, L.P. 2% 3% 57% 22% 16%
Highbridge Capital Management, LLC 1% 8% 54% 17% 21%
DePrince, Race & Zollo, Inc. 3% 10% 49% 24% 13%
Global Thematic Partners, LLC 3% 10% 46% 23% 19%
Millennium Management, LLC 1% 4% 40% 34% 20%
Viewing Investor Behavior through a P&L Lens
Source: Ipreo Research

3
J u l y 2 0 1 3
Unlike the firms displayed in Table 1, those in Table 2A have demonstrated a willingness to sit on large gains, while the institutions in Table
2B are willing to hold onto positions that are largely “in the red”. Note that market conditions must be considered when analyzing this
type of data, as significant institutional gains/losses are not always consistent with current market activity.
Table 2A
Investor Name <-10%
-10% to
10%
10% to
25%
25% to
50% >50%
Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb, Inc. 0% 3% 10% 3% 84%
Riverbridge Partners, LLC 8% 2% 9% 9% 80%
D.F. Dent & Company, Inc. 3% 2% 14% 7% 77%
Brown Capital Management, LLC 3% 6% 15% 6% 73%
Geneva Investment Management of Chicago, LLC 3% 2% 10% 17% 72%
Table 2B
Investor Name <-25%
-25% to -
10%
-10% to
10%
10% to
25% >25%
Tradewinds Global Investors, LLC 25% 15% 31% 13% 16%
Van Eck Associates Corporation 20% 16% 23% 15% 25%
WHV Investment Management, Inc. 16% 5% 10% 11% 58%
Deutsche Investment Management Americas, Inc. 16% 5% 17% 21% 41%
Dodge & Cox 11% 10% 21% 12% 45%
One factor that can help to explain disparity between the preferences of the firms in Tables 1 and 2 is portfolio turnover. The following
table (Table 3) displays the average cost basis in each return band for a group of U.S.-domiciled hedge funds. One common attribute
between these institutions is that they all have a very high rate of portfolio turnover relative to the average institutional investor. As you
can see below, these firms’ portfolios are most heavily concentrated in the cost basis bands between -10% and 10%, while the lower-
turnover institutions displayed in the accompanying table (Table 4) have more diverse portfolios and are more positively skewed with
respect to gains and losses.
Table 3
Investor Name
Portfolio
Turnover <-10%
-10% to
10%
10% to
25% >25%
Balyasny Asset Management, L.P. (U.S.) 2% 4% 61% 14% 20%
Graham Capital Management, L.P. 2% 17% 60% 20% 4%
Sigma Capital Management, LLC 1% 2% 59% 15% 23%
Carlson Capital, L.P. 2% 5% 57% 22% 16%
Highbridge Capital Management, LLC 1% 9% 54% 17% 21%
Table 4
Investor Name
Portfolio
Turnover <-10%
-10% to
10%
10% to
25% >25%
Fidelity Management & Research Company 1% 3% 12% 16% 69%
Neuberger Berman Management, LLC 1% 4% 12% 19% 65%
Cooke & Bieler, L.P. 4% 14% 11% 30% 44%
Columbia Wanger Asset Management, LLC 3% 9% 11% 14% 67%
Eagle Boston Investment Management, Inc. 8% 13% 10% 14% 65%

4
J u l y 2 0 1 3
Portfolio-Level Cost Basis View
As is mentioned above, fund-level cost basis analysis can be a useful tool to assess investor momentum between firm-level public filings,
as funds disclose their positions more frequently than their parent institutions. This type of analysis also allows us to engage in a more
detailed assessment of fund-level buying and selling activity, which we have found to have a very high correlation to the distribution of
the fund’s holdings across cost basis bands. Further, mutual fund managers, which typically calculate and report NAV on a daily basis
and typically report holdings more often than hedge funds, private equity firms, and institutional investors, may not have the ability to
hold onto positions long enough for a turnaround in investments that have fallen in value. Viewing a manager’s portfolio on a P&L basis
can also give much more insight into the manager’s thought process. Managers concerned with minimizing distributions to taxable
clients may be careful to maintain large holding period gains, while managers facing redemptions might be under pressure to liquidate
holdings and pull from positions in which valuations are far different from the initial investment thesis and deeply “in the red” or “in the
green”.
Alternative investors, which typically tend to have set schedules for investor redemption requests and payments, may not be as
pressured to sell out of losing investments as they typically have a longer time frame to plan out equity sales to fulfill distributions.
Further, as PE firms tend to have very long holding periods it is not as surprising that 48% of portfolio holdings, on average, are held in
losing positions. Similarly, when analyzing activist investors, which look to split up a company or have a longer-term turnaround plan,
we can see that approximately 31% of investors’ public portfolios are currently in losses. By comparison, the average mutual fund has
less than 17% of its portfolio in negative positions.
Table 5
% of Portfolio in Each Return Band
Investor Name
Portfolio
Turnover <-50% -50%-25% -25%-10% -10%-0% 0%-10% 10%-25% 25%-50% 50%-100% >100%
All Institutions 71% 5.2% 4.9% 6.0% 9.1% 14.0% 20.1% 20.4% 13.7% 6.6%
All Mutual Funds 76% 1.1% 2.5% 4.4% 8.7% 16.5% 23.3% 23.4% 14.3% 5.6%
Deep Value 61% 0.6% 2.3% 4.4% 8.3% 17.5% 24.5% 24.8% 13.6% 4.0%
Yield 72% 0.6% 2.9% 5.4% 10.0% 19.5% 22.9% 22.7% 11.0% 4.9%
Value 67% 0.8% 2.6% 4.6% 8.4% 16.0% 23.1% 24.6% 14.7% 5.1%
Specialty 72% 1.0% 3.1% 4.3% 9.9% 17.4% 25.7% 22.3% 12.0% 4.4%
GARP 82% 0.6% 2.0% 4.1% 9.0% 16.8% 23.5% 23.2% 15.0% 5.6%
Growth 77% 0.4% 2.0% 3.9% 8.1% 15.5% 22.2% 25.0% 16.0% 6.9%
Agg. Growth 87% 0.7% 1.8% 3.7% 7.9% 15.6% 20.5% 23.4% 17.7% 8.5%
Alternative 117% 6.0% 5.7% 6.6% 11.9% 15.7% 20.4% 16.8% 11.2% 5.6%
Investor Name
Portfolio
Turnover <-50% -50%-25% -25%-10% -10%-0% 0%-10% 10%-25% 25%-50% 50%-100% >100%
Activists 81% 5.6% 7.7% 7.1% 10.1% 12.7% 18.0% 16.2% 15.0% 7.4%
It is worth mentioning that average portfolio turnover and investment style do not always tell the whole story, as certain firms may be
willing to hold their ‘core positions’ fairly long-term while rapidly turning over their smaller positions. Some firms that are generally
regarded as having high rates of portfolio turnover will restrict the majority of their liquidations and initiations to less significant positions.
If a prospective firm deems your stock to be a core holding, it is likely that the firm will be more patient when it comes to booking gains
or losses than their broad portfolio return band distribution would indicate.
When approaching institutional investors, it is important to understand both the distribution of their holdings across different cost basis
classes as well as the likelihood that they will make investment decisions based on the position of those holdings. Many firms will be quick
to turn over a winning or losing position, choosing to concentrate their holdings in the -10% to 10% cost basis bands, while others may
see the upside in a poor performer or recent windfall. Funds that have a more uniform distribution among cost basis bands, or that are
skewed towards winners or losers, can be inferred to tolerate, or even prefer, holdings that have experienced significant gains or losses.

5
J u l y 2 0 1 3
Back of Napkin
For any communication with existing shareholders, it is always worth the minimal effort necessary to estimate the initial purchase price of
a position. Managers may even quote their initial purchase price directly to you if asked. Beyond this, even without sophisticated tools,
you can get a good idea of the manager’s thought process by looking at the positions the manager reports and their activity over time. Of
the manager’s largest sells, were the positions purchased at far cheaper prices? If so, don’t be surprised if the manager considers your
stock a source of funds after a jump in valuation. Of the manager’s largest buys, are these positions deeper “in the red,” suggesting a
willingness to hold or buy into losses with conviction? Call the manager and tell your investment story after a weak earnings release – an
investor with a high tolerance for holding losses may be a perfect fit in a tough period.
Authors: Alex Weissman, Christopher Stroh, Lucas Wittman
Alex Weissman is a Senior Analyst in Ipreo’s Corporate Analytics Group.
Christopher Stroh is an Associate Director in Ipreo’s Corporate Analytics Group.
Lucas Wittman is a Research Associate in Ipreo’s Corporate Analytics Group.

6
J u l y 2 0 1 3
Introduction
Rarely, or never, do investors have an indefinite investment horizon, so the investor will always look at the risk behind the position
– how easily can I exit my position when the time comes, and how will this affect my profits? For developed markets, this is less of a
concern outside small caps, but in emerging markets, even mega cap stocks can have a free float as low as 10% - effectively trading as a
small to mid cap stock. Aside from concerns over dominant government or strategic holders having the majority of shareholder power-
if a stock has an average daily trading value of $500k, it would be very difficult to justify initiating a position of $5M. At ten times the
average volume to liquidate a position of this size would take several weeks and surely either adversely affect any profits or augment
losses. In this paper we will look at the different measures of liquidity, how emerging Europe fares in these views, and which investors
are taking a bullish view on these markets.
Issuer
How do you define the liquidity of a stock? In this article we will look at three areas:
Each area can be used in isolation to give an idea of the liquidity of a stock, but in conjunction you can get a clearer view of the liquidity
risk of your investment. Issuers should also be looking in the mirror to understand how they are viewed by the investor community, and
to see how they can raise their liquidity profile.
Shareholder Structure
If a company has a market cap of $1B, but strategic holders hold 75% of the company, then the company is effectively trading as a
company with a $250M market cap. The potential daily trade volume is therefore a quarter of a similar size company with 100% free
float. In addition to the physical trading constraints of a smaller free float, there is a lack of shareholder power as voting rights are
dominated by one or few strategic investors whose interests may not be aligned with those of the institutional holders.
Free float sizes vary wildly in emerging markets, where historical ownership trends of large government positions and founding family
holdings continue. The table below outlines the number of companies in Hungary, Poland, Russia, and Turkey where we can see the free
float size – separated into five bands:
Region <10% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Hungary 4 (18%) 4 (18%) 8 (36%) 4 (18%) 2 (9%)
Poland 7 (3%) 25 (12%) 98 (45%) 66 (31%) 20 (9%)
Russia 67 (28%) 85 (35%) 63 (26%) 14 (6%) 11 (5%)
Turkey 43 (11%) 78 (20%) 118 (31%) 35 (9%) 110 (29%)
Free Float Size - Number of Companies (percentage)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
<10% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Hungary
Poland
Russia
Turkey
Emerging Europe Liquidity
• Shareholder structure
• Trading costs
• Trade volume

7
J u l y 2 0 1 3
In Russia, for example, the vast majority of companies have a free float below 25% and a low level of liquidity, and this is a key point of
contention for investors in the region. Below are some responses to the question:
To what extent does liquidity influence your investment decision?
• “Liquidity is a big factor depending on how many assets you have under management. If you have a one hundred dollar fund it is
easy, but if you have a hundred billion dollar fund, it gets much harder. In our emerging markets we have 3 or 4 billion dollars to
invest.”
• “We could double our position if it was more liquid.”
• “This depends on the Portfolio Manager. For some it is crucial, it is a “make or break,” in some cases they can take positions in lower
liquidity companies so it depends within the firm what their restrictions or preferences are.”
• “It is easier to have clarity on the strategy and objectives of the management team when they are independent than when
they’re owned by a larger company. Here we do have people who can invest in low liquidity but when the free float is only a tiny
percentage of the total equity you are really, really a minority investor and that would not be seen as ideal in our minds.”
Trading Costs
Demand and supply is one of the fundamental basics of economics; if a company is performing well, investors want to buy yet few will
be willing to sell, so the share price will continue to rise as investors will demand a premium to part with shares. Conversely, if a stock is
out of favour, then investors will struggle to sell any volume of shares without taking a fiscal hit. The percentage spread between the bid
and ask price is just one of the liquidity risk costs to consider, as are the exchange costs.
Source: Elkins McSherry August 2012
So while in a simplistic view, an investor will be looking to make up the transaction cost plus 0.40% in trading venue cost in the US,
emerging markets investors must find further growth in their investment due to the larger average venue cost of 0.90% and the larger
transaction costs. Looking at the bid-ask spreads by region, we can clearly see the increased costs involved in executing a trade in
emerging regions than in developed markets.
Continued on the next page...

8
J u l y 2 0 1 3
Region <10% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Hungary 3.00% 4.20% 11.87% 1.20% 5.63%
Poland 4.56% 2.66% 1.89% 1.86% 2.01%
Russia 22.60% 47.73% 8.27% 28.91% 40.90%
Turkey 0.45% 0.46% 0.49% 0.89% 0.79%
Average Transaction Cost by Free Float Size
In contrast, the average transaction cost in the FTSE100 is 0.11%, while the CAC40 trades even tighter with an average of 0.08%.
Trade Volume
How much trade volume is sufficient for a company to be on the investment radar, and is there a desired maximum exposure? Trade
volume implies liquidity, and one should always look at the monetary value of this daily volume to understand just how liquid a
company is. Many will see $1M of average daily volume as a threshold to begin looking at a potential investment in more detail, and in
emerging markets a maximum exposure is likely to be two times the USD daily traded volume – you do not want to be over-exposed to
a stock where it may take months to liquidate a position once you have met your investment horizon.
Region Less than $1M Between $1M and $5M Over $5M
Hungary 18 2 2
Poland 185 23 8
Russia 209 12 19
Turkey 151 91 42
Average USD Daily Traded - Number of Companies
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Lessthan $1M Between $1M and
$5M
Over $5M
Hungary
Poland
Russia
Turkey
Source: FactSet

9
J u l y 2 0 1 3
Top Three Liquid Companies by Region
Looking at the aforementioned views on liquidity, below are the top three USD daily traded issuers by region:
Company Name Region % FF Share Price Daily Traded Transaction Cost
OTP Bank Nyrt. Hungary 74.51 $19.75 $29,682,611 0.16%
MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Plc Hungary 34.02 $84.70 $6,675,823 0.08%
Chemical Works of Richter Gedeon Plc Hungary 74.48 $171.23 $4,046,461 0.12%
KGHM Polska Miedz S.A. Poland 68.21 $62.27 $55,616,266 0.05%
Powszechna Kasa Oszczednosci Bank Polski S.A. Poland 56.36 $11.77 $26,868,336 0.06%
Powszechny Zaklad Ubezpieczen S.A. Poland 64.81 $132.61 $26,418,159 0.02%
Sberbank of Russia OJSC Russia 39.75 $3.31 $403,358,819 0.03%
Gazprom OAO Russia 47.96 $4.92 $182,810,317 0.02%
Lukoil Holdings Russia 57.48 $66.17 $93,673,807 0.03%
Turkiye Garanti Bankasi A.S. Turkey 50.76 $5.33 $223,589,906 0.21%
Turkiye Is Bankasi A.S. Turkey 31.18 $3.68 $152,675,951 0.31%
Turkiye Vakiflar Bankasi T.A.O. Turkey 25.26 $3.08 $96,779,112 0.37%
0.00%
0.05%
0.10%
0.15%
0.20%
0.25%
0.30%
0.35%
0.40%
Source: FactSet
Aggregate listed companies by region – Largest 50 market cap vs. Rest of region
Looking at the difference between the fifty largest market caps in each region, and the remaining equities, we can see the clear disparity
between the transaction costs – huge in Russia’s case, large in Poland, and relatively small in Turkey.

10
J u l y 2 0 1 3
Region Cut Average % FF Average Daily Traded ($M) Average % transaction cost*
Poland Top 50 47.02 $4.70 0.22%
Poland Rest 46.68 $0.12 1.40%
Russia Top 50 29.62 $21.82 0.13%
Russia Rest 23.31 $0.09 3.26%
Turkey Top 50 27.17 $22.81 0.30%
Turkey Rest 31.79 $1.58 0.43%
* Estimated spread based on median bid-ask spread over one day period
Source: FactSet
In comparison the FTSE Allshare, with 600 constituents, the top 50 market caps have a low average transaction cost of 0.07%, while the
remaining 550 stocks have a far higher average cost of 0.86% - behind that of the same group of Turkish stocks.
Dual / Secondary listing
Is there a liquidity benefit to having a secondary listing? Local currency, time zone, and investment mandates are three factors that can
adversely affect investment in emerging markets. There is a far smaller pool of investors who will invest in emerging markets compared
to investors who can and will invest in UK or US listed issuers. Allocating part of the share capital to a secondary listing will open up a far
larger pool of investment, but there are costs and regulatory implications to be considered. UK Registrars operate Depository Interest
programs, allowing access to the AIM and FTSE Main Market, while Depositary Receipt banks provide a route to US investors.
Key Investors / Funds
The Sovereign Wealth Fund of Norway is the largest holder of emerging European equities, with over $114B of investment in the region,
an increase of $24B since the beginning of 2012. The fund stated in early 2012 that it was beginning to shift their portfolio weightings
towards emerging markets – at the expense of developed European markets. It is encouraging to note the presence of low turnover
investors amongst the largest holders, suggesting some stability to be in the region. While low turnover investors are the major force in
emerging Europe, the presence of higher turnover funds, such as the Market Vectors ETF Trust-Russia ETF, Baring Emerging Europe Plc
and the Deka – ConvergenceAktien fund signals the presence of liquidity within the region as high turnover investors could not invest in
illiquid markets.
Top Ten Funds
Fund Name Investment Advisor Turnover Current ($M) Change ($M)
The Government Pension Fund - Global Norges Bank Investment Management Low $114.11 $24.21
Alecta Pension Alecta Pensionsförsäkring AB Low $77.36 -$4.74
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index Fund BlackRock Fund Advisors Low $49.66 $5.24
Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund The Vanguard Group, Inc. Low $45.26 $0.00
Market Vectors ETF Trust-Russia ETF Van Eck Associates Corporation High $19.34 $0.24
Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP APG Asset Management US, Inc. Low $18.53 $2.33
Russian Prosperity Fund Euro Prosperity Capital Management (RF), LTD High $15.27 $0.10
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund The Vanguard Group, Inc. Low $13.85 $1.80
Evli Russia Evli Investment Management, LTD High $13.24 $1.31
Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company Low $12.05 -$0.52
-$20
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
The Government
Pension Fund -
Global
Alecta Pension iShares MSCI
Emerging
Markets Index
Fund
Vanguard
Emerging
Markets Stock
Index Fund
Market Vectors
ETF Trust-Russia
ETF
Stichting
Pensioenfonds
ABP
Russian
Prosperity Fund
Euro
Vanguard Total
International
Stock Index Fund
Evli Russia Ilmarinen Mutual
Pension
Insurance
Billions
Current Holding Change

11
J u l y 2 0 1 3
Top Ten Buyers
The Government Pension Fund - Global Norges Bank Investment Management Low $114.11 $24.21
Baring Emerging Europe plc Baring Asset Management, LTD (U.K.) Medium $7.57 $7.38
UBS (Lux) Equity SICAV - Russia (USD) UBS AG (GAM Switzerland) Medium $9.55 $6.57
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index Fund BlackRock Fund Advisors Low $49.66 $5.24
Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec Low $9.69 $4.71
Danske Invest Russia Small Cap Fund (FI) Danske Capital Finland Oy Very High $8.10 $4.52
Deka - ConvergenceAktien Deka Investment GmbH High $8.77 $4.36
Deka-Russland CF Deka Investment GmbH Medium $4.87 $4.20
Danske Invest Arvo Russia Value Fund (FI) Danske Capital Finland Oy Very High $10.40 $2.70
Global Emerging Markets Yield Fund Renaissance Asset Managers (UK), LTD High $2.56 $2.56
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
The Government
Pension Fund -
Global
Baring Emerging
Europe plc
UBS (Lux) Equity
SICAV - Russia (USD)
iShares MSCI
Emerging Markets
Index Fund
Caisse de Dépôt et
Placement du
Québec
Danske Invest Russia
Small Cap Fund (FI)
Deka -
ConvergenceAktien
Deka-Russland CF Danske Invest Arvo
Russia ValueFund
(FI)
Global Emerging
Markets Yield Fund
Billions
Top Ten Sellers
MFS Utilities Fund MFS Investment Management Medium $7.10 -$5.93
Alecta Pension Alecta Pensionsförsäkring AB Low $77.36 -$4.74
East Capital Russian Fund East Capital Asset Management AB Medium $8.79 -$2.62
db x-trackers MSCI Russia Capped Index ETF State Street Global Advisors, LTD Very High $8.74 -$1.84
MFS Variable Insurance Trust-Utilities Series MFS Investment Management High $2.11 -$1.76
HSBC GIF BRIC Markets Equity HSBC Global Asset Management (France) High $0.01 -$0.93
ESPA STOCK EUROPE - EMERGING Erste Sparinvest Kapitalanlage GmbH High $0.17 -$0.88
Swedbank Robur Rysslandsfonden Swedbank Robur Fonder AB Medium $1.46 -$0.80
ESPA Stock Russia Erste Sparinvest Kapitalanlage GmbH Very High $0.20 -$0.78
East Capital Eastern European Fund East Capital Asset Management AB High $2.01 -$0.64
-$20
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
MFS Utilities
Fund
Alecta Pension East Capital
Russian Fund
db x-trackers
MSCI Russia
Capped Index
ETF
MFS Variable
Insurance Trust-
Utilities Series
HSBC GIF BRIC
Markets Equity
ESPA STOCK
EUROPE -
EMERGING
Swedbank Robur
Rysslandsfonden
ESPA Stock
Russia
East Capital
Eastern
European Fund
Billions
Source: Ipreo Flow of Funds
Identified funds in emerging Europe with discernible investment turnover information show a bullish sentiment towards the region
(this is for identified funds and does not necessarily reflect the whole investor universe). Low turnover funds hold near 50% of assets
identified, and also registered the biggest inflows. High and very high turnover funds show a decent level of interest, led by interest in
Turkish equities, showing the increased liquidity coming into the region as emerging markets come more to the fore with developed
European nations still struggling to get back to solid growth.

12
J u l y 2 0 1 3
Turnover Current ($M) Change ($M)
Low $81,482 $2,624
Medium $45,993 $88
High $26,174 $671
Very High $12,432 $415
Source: Ipreo
US-based Grantham Mayo Van Otterloo & Co lead the way amongst the “very high” turnover investors buying Turkish equities, while the
“high” turnover group of investors include OppenheimerFunds (fourth largest investor in the ISE) and T. Rowe Price International, which
was the tenth largest buyer overall in the region over the past two quarters.
Conclusion
While investing in highly liquid stocks is going to be the preference of most investors, there is always going to be a market for stocks
that sit in the lower echelons of the liquidity scale – albeit a smaller pool. A targeted approach to investor outreach for stocks with
lower liquidity is needed, aggressively going after known holders of illiquid stocks such as BlackRock Fund Advisors, and Baring Asset
Management. Targeting firms should be looked at on a fund level to ascertain who the portfolio managers are with funds investing in
said stocks.
If a company’s goal is to increase liquidity and open themselves up to the wider investment community then there are options to issue
more stock to the open market – either local market or look at a secondary listing. Issuing stock from existing capital and increasing
the free float percentage can raise the company’s free float weighting in the index, bringing in more passive money from index funds
and ETF’s. This is not something that should be done on a whim, investors will want to know what the additional funds are going to
be used for, and existing shareholders may question whether the capital raising would have been better served by the debt market.
Fundamental changes and future goals to change the ownership structure should always be carefully vetted in advance and in detail
with the investment community, and when done correctly can raise both the liquidity and investor profile of the company. Ipreo offers
a range of services to assist emerging market companies, such as index analysis, investor targeting, proxy solicitation and perception
studies to understand key issues from the issuer and the investor base.
Author: Mark Robinson
Mark is a Senior Analyst in Ipreo’s Global Markets Intelligence Group

13
J u l y 2 0 1 3
Corporate Access is Changing; Is It Improving?
IROs that have spent over a decade in the business have witnessed the expansion of corporate access from its infancy to taking a
central role in the value proposition a brokerage brings to the table for its buy-side customers. As more and more brokers have built
out dedicated corporate access groups to help differentiate themselves from others, it would seem to follow that greater competition
among corporate access providers would produce a process that generates more value both for the buy-side and for issuers – after all, if
a CEO isn’t happy with the results of corporate access work, or if a portfolio manager isn’t happy with the quality of the meetings he or
she is participating in, there are now plenty of other options for both the PM and the CEO to switch to.
It’s certainly not an easy task to measure the effectiveness of a particular corporate access team from the corporate side, or even from
the buy side. However, seen in aggregate, the opinions of IR teams can give a pretty good estimate of how effective corporate access is
for issuers as a whole, and even further, the areas where IROs have seen improvement or additional concern.
Ipreo has conducted an annual Corporate Access Survey each of the past four years, with the goal of identifying both the process issuers
go through to select a corporate access provider, as well as helping to benchmark investor outreach activity levels across issuers. This
year’s results suggest that satisfaction levels with corporate access are continuing to improve, driven by predominantly by an increase
in satisfaction from small- and mid-cap issuers (often the companies that most need assistance to raise their profile in front of the
investment community). Broadly speaking, Investor Feedback and Market Intelligence are the factors in decision-making that issuers
believe are most lacking from corporate access teams, but again, ratings of IRO’s opinions on these factors have improved year-over-
year.
Satisfaction Levels
Consistent with our 2012 survey, issuers provide their opinion on the corporate access process. Results show issuers are satisfied with
their analyst relationship and meeting logistics, and least satisfied with market intelligence and feedback (Figure 1). Attitudes were
mixed with respect to investor suitability, research quality, and regional or industry expertise, while global presence does not appear
to weigh heavily when broadly evaluating satisfaction. Rankings were mostly consistent across regions and cap sizes, though notable
exceptions included Asian issuers’ elevated satisfaction with market intelligence and feedback, and large-cap issuers’ higher marks on
logistics.
Figure 1- Satisfaction Levels by Service Category
Looking at overall corporate access satisfaction levels over time, Figure 2 (next page) tells a positive story with “Very Satisfied” and
“Somewhat Satisfied” responses rising from 62% in 2011 to 76% of our sample in 2013. Strengthening satisfaction levels were driven
predominantly by small- and mid-cap issuers, while large-cap responses have remained more consistent over time. Large caps have
demonstrated a three-year trending increase in “Somewhat Dissatisfied” responses, but the sentiment remains confined to 13% of the
large-cap sample.

14
J u l y 2 0 1 3
Figure 2- Trends in Overall Satisfaction
To understand what is driving improvement behind the scenes, we present individual satisfaction factors through time in Figure 3.
Across all global regions and cap sizes, analyst relationship quality, meeting logistics, and market intelligence and feedback appear to be
making positive strides in “Very Satisfied” responses.
Figure 3- Trends in “Very Satisfied” by Service Category
What do Issuers Look for in a Corporate Access Sponsor?
“Suitability of Investors in Meetings” continues to be the most highly valued service provided by corporate access sponsors. 77% of
respondents indicated an “Extremely Important” or “Very Important” for this service category, down from 88% in the year-ago survey,
but solidly ahead of “Quality of Research,” which 67% of respondents gave a high priority.

15
J u l y 2 0 1 3
Figure 4- What do Issuers look for in a Sponsor
While investor suitability remains the leading importance factor, the edge appears to be eroding relative to other factors over time.
Figure 5 shows percentages of respondents indicating “Extremely Important” across each survey year where data exists. Key trends
include the rising prominence of research quality, market intelligence and feedback, and logistics as important factors to overall
satisfaction. A market cap breakdown reveals further interesting trends, notably the degree to which small-cap respondents increasingly
rate research quality as “Extremely Important.” In 2010, 7.1% of small-cap respondents ranked research quality highest, compared to
23% in the 2013 survey.
Figure 5 - Trends in “Extremely Important” Responses by Service Category
Looking at trends in “Not Important” responses, one notable finding surfaces: across market caps and global regions, “Presence of
Existing Banking Relations” has steadily declined from 50% citing “Not Important” in 2010 to 32% in 2013 (Figure 11). Broader banking
relationships appear to be gaining relevance in corporate access at a time when declining research coverage can mean fewer touch
points for brokers and issuers.

16
J u l y 2 0 1 3
Figure 6 - Trends in “Not Important” Responses by Service Category
Conclusion
76% of all issuers gave Ipreo a rating of “Very Satisfied” or “Somewhat Satisfied” as to their opinion of corporate access overall in
2013, up from a 62% rating in 2011. While each IRO’s situation may be different from the aggregate, this may indicate that the greater
competition among corporate access-providing brokers is having a positive impact.
Coincident with a shifting focus of sell side coverage in favor of larger issuers, the rise of non-covering brokers as originators appears to
be durable and broad-based. While issuers may regret the lack of fresh research as an output from a marketing event, travelling with
a non-covering broker can have other positive benefits – notably differentiated investor contacts, and always the possibility for future
research pickup in the event the story resonates with the broker’s clients.
Click here to view the entire 2013 Ipreo Corporate Access Study
Author: John Demler & Brian Matt
John is a Product Manager on Ipreo’s Corporate Access Team.
Brian is a Director in Ipreo’s Analytical Services Group.

17
J u l y 2 0 1 3
BetterIR - Firm Snapshot
Targeting Profile:
Eagle Asset management was founded in 1976 and is a
subsidiary of Raymond James Financial, Inc. The company
is also the parent company of Eagle Boston Investment
Management. Eagle manages over $12.6B in equity
assets diversified across 1,006 portfolio holdings. The firm
maintains a moderate equity turnover of about 69%.
Eagle invests 96% of its assets in the U.S. and tends to
be overweight the Technology sector (20%). Within the
Technology space the firm mostly focuses on the Computer
Software and Services industry. The firm’s largest Tech
holdings include Med Assets ($127M) and Coherent
($114M). Eagle is a growth oriented Investor focused on the
small and mid-cap space (85% of EAUM). The firm’s growth
portfolios focus on Technology, Consumer and Industrials
sectors. The company manages a number of active funds,
the biggest being the Eagle Small Cap Growth Fund ($3.5B)
managedbyBertBoksenandEricMintzoutofSt.Petersburg.
Other sizable funds include the JNL/Eagle Small Cap Equity
Series ($1.5B), which has increased its exposure to the Tech
space in Q1 2013, and the AST Small Cap Growth Portfolio
($600M). The firm’s fund family, Eagle Funds, accounts for
about 41% of the total assets that the firm manages. While
Eagle Funds have not experienced noticeable outflows
since Q4 2012, Eagle Asset Management has significantly
decreased its exposure to the equity markets by about
$2B over period. The firm has scaled back its holdings in
almost all industries, however, most of the selling came
from the Energy (-$383M), Consumer Services (-$263M),
and Industrials (-$244M) sectors in names such as Lufkin
Industries (-$139.5M) and Exxon Mobil (-$57M).
How to Approach:
Eagle looks for undervalued companies relative to their
benchmark with growth potential. The firm seeks stock with
earnings growth of 20% or greater. The firm also focuses
on strong management and will look favorably towards
companies with large insider ownership. In addition the
firm will look to identify a future catalyst for growth before
investing, such as a new product line, restructuring efforts
or cost reductions. Small- to mid-cap companies with a
compelling growth story will find it easiest to appeal to the
Eagle Small Cap Growth Fund.
How not to Approach:
With a small- to mid-cap focus, large-cap and mega-cap
stocks will generally have a tougher time getting into Eagle’s
portfolio. As the majority of holdings do not pay a dividend,
generally the firm has a preference for stock appreciation as
opposed to returning capital through a dividend.
Portfolio Fundamentals:
• Forward P/E: 16.9x
• 5 Year Projected Growth Rate: 11.3%
• Dividend Yield: 2.1%
• Price/Book: 4.1x
Average Equity Holding Period: 1.4 Years
Targeted Firm: Eagle Asset Management- St. Petersburg, Florida

18
J u l y 2 0 1 3
Portfolio Manager:
• Mills Riddick
Targeting Profile:
The RidgeWorth Large Cap Value Equity Fund is a member
of the RidgeWorth family of mutual funds. Mills Riddick
of Cereadex Value Advisors, the value arm of RidgeWorth
Investments, is chief investment officer and has served as
the sole fund manager for the past 18 years. As the head of
the value team, Mr. Riddick is responsible for overseeing all
domestic equity portfolios.
During the equity screening process, the $3.4B large-cap
value fund utilizes a bottom-up fundamental approach,
seeking investment exclusively in dividend paying
companies. The fund benchmarks against the Russell 1000
Value Index and invests roughly 90% in large- to mega-cap
companies. The fund’s portfolio manager, in conjunction
with firm analysts, begins the screening process by
searching for companies with financial stability and trade
at depressed valuations. Shortly after, the team seeks to
identify company specific catalysts to drive growth over
a 12 to 24 month time period. Changes in management,
restructurings, and new product lines are all catalysts that
are typically analyzed when considering investment. The
fund seeks to hold between 60-80 stocks and will consider
selling a stock when the company stops paying a dividend
or the identified catalyst is not leading to significant change.
The large-cap value fund invests primarily in U.S. listed
companies with market capitalizations greater than $3B.
The portfolio is comprised of 66 holdings spread across
all macro sectors; the top three being Financials (24%),
Industrials (20%), and Energy (14%). A recent mutual fund
filing shows a $51M increase in the fund’s Industrial sector
allocation, up 17% QoQ. Large position increases in Stanley
Black & Decker (+$18.0M), Caterpillar (+$10.4M), and Fluor
Corporation (+$10.7M) led expansion within the Industrials
portion of the portfolio.
BetterIR - Fund Snapshot
How to Approach:
Since the start of the year, the RidgeWorth family of funds
has seen asset inflows of roughly $880M, leaving portfolio
managers looking to deploy new capital. As the fund is not
sector specific, this presents the opportunity for companies
of all industries to take on a presence in the fund. Financial
companies in particular will have an easier time attracting
the attention of the fund, as this has historically been the
largest sector allocation within the portfolio. When taking
a position the fund typically allocates between 1-5% of its
assets, so with an expanding asset base, the fund could be a
beneficial target for IR.
How not to Approach:
Given the fund’s strong focus on dividend paying companies,
gainingfundinterestcanbeproblematicforissuersthathave
an inconsistent history of paying a dividend. The fund will
remove a company from its portfolio, if and when the issuer
ceases to pay dividends. Furthermore, given the recent
gain in the equities markets, it will not be easy for large-
to mega- cap companies trading at significant premiums
to the market to find their way into the fund. Conveying a
company’s story to investors is that much more important,
and it will take an active IR team to show the company’s
future growth potential.
Portfolio Fundamentals:
• Price/Earnings: 15.9
• Price/Book: 2.0
• Dividend Yield: 2.6%
• Price/Sales: 1.4x
Average Equity Holding Period: 1 to 2 years
Targeted Fund: RidgeWorth Large Cap Value Equity Fund- Orlando, Florida

19
J u l y 2 0 1 3
Metro Area Targeting Focus - South Florida, USA
Reported Equity Assets ($B): $87.5

Number of Institutions: 75
World Rank: 34/183

Top Sector Weighting: Financials
Financials Weighting: 24.3%

Top Region Weighting: N. America
N. America Weighting: 72.5%
Home Country Weighting: 69.3%

Total Net Buying ($B): $9.2
Total Net Selling ($B): -$11.1
Total Net Activity ($B): -$1.8
Welcome to Hollywood! Hollywood, Florida that is… This year, the National Investor Relations Institute Conference is
set in sunny South Florid, a where Miami and Orlando are home to a host of active investors. Equity assets in Orlando
and Miami total $87.5B combined, making this southern hub 34th of 183 metro regions around the world. Miami by
itself ranks 21st in the U.S. by total equity assets, and has 46 institutions. Not far behind is Orlando, which is home
to 29 institutions with $34.6B in equity assets. Florida investors are most heavily weighted in the Financials (24.3%)
and Consumer Services (17.2%) sectors. Florida investors have been bearish in many sectors, most notably Consumer
Goods and Industrials, where net activity reached a respective -5.8% and -6.3% over the last quarter. Though firms in
South Florida have drastically decreased their exposure to the Consumer Goods space, these firms continue to hold
$5.2B in aggregate exposure to the sector. Excluding hedge funds, Eagle Asset management (-34.7%) has been the
largest net seller in the sector, selling $372.5M worth of Consumer Goods stock.
As the market reaches new record highs, many value funds are redirecting their attention towards defensive stocks,
bracing for a downturn. Though Utilities and Basic Materials make up a small portion of investors’ portfolios in
Florida, both sectors have seen positive net activity to the tune of +2.2% and +9.7%, respectively. In South Florida,
Ceredex Value Advisors is the largest Utilities investor. The firm holds $407.6M in Utilities companies and recorded
net activity of +23.4%. Ceredex is also a large Basic Materials investor with net activity of +3.1%. ICC Capital
Management was one of the largest net buyers in Utilities holding a total value of $111.8M in the space.
South Florida is a prime spot for international investment. Fidelity Management and Research is based in Boston, but
the firm manages many Florida-based funds that invest over $3.7B in securities outside of North America. 69.3% of
Florida Investors’ portfolios are held in the United States, however, net activity in Japanese securities (+8.4%) actually
surpasses net activity in North American securities (+5.5%). A majority of this bullish behavior can be attributed to
Templeton Investment Counsel. Templeton is not only increasing its positions in Japanese securities; the firm is also
the largest foreign investor in South Florida with $19.3B of its $22.5B in equity assets allotted to non-North American
securities.
Most Recent Sector Net Activity (% Change)
Money Center Statistics Summary Notes:
Sector Allocation
Most Recent Regional Net Activity (% Change) Geographic Allocation
Europe
19.5%
Asia/Pac.
Ex. Japan
5.3%
Japan
1.5%
Middle
East/Africa
0.4%
Latin
America
0.9%
United
States
69.3%
North
America
3.2%
Basic
Materials
5.0%
Consumer
Goods
6.1%
Consumer
Services
17.2%
Energy
8.3%
Financials
24.3%
Healthcare
10.1%
Industrials
13.0%
Technology
14.7%
Utilities
1.2%
2.2%
-5.8%
-1.9%
-1.2% -1.3%
0.6%
-6.3%
-2.0%
9.7%
-8.0%
-6.0%
-4.0%
-2.0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
Basic Materials ConsumerGoods ConsumerServices Energy Financials Healthcare Industrials Technology Utilities
2.2%
-5.8%
-1.9%
-1.2% -1.3%
0.6%
-6.3%
-2.0%
9.7%
-10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
Basic Materials Consumer Goods Consumer Services
Energy Financials Healthcare
Industrials Technology Utilities
-0.5%
0.6%
8.4%
-7.3%
-11.4%
-2.9%
5.5%
-15.0%
-10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
Europe Asia/Pac. Ex. Japan Japan Middle East/Africa
Latin America United States North America

BetterIR_July_2013

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to BetterIR_July_2013

Similar to BetterIR_July_2013 (20)

BetterIR_July_2013