Pioneering Portfolio Management: An Unconventional Approach to Institutional Investment

By David F. Swensen. 2000

228 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a76b7b9d5d6ad3eef8d5e4613d9c111c8cb598d3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Private Equity and the Culture of Value Extraction (2007, background): “7 per cent.(25) These US studies suggest private equity has not so far generated superior average returns and that these returns come with health warnings about variability and risk.”
Asset Management: A Systematic Approach to Factor Investing (2015, background): “In most cases, these †Swensen writes, ‘Intelligent acceptance of illiquidity and a value orientation constitute a sensible, conservative approach to portfolio management’ (Swensen 2009) (Kindle Locations 1132–1133). are too new for a consensus to have formed.”
Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity (2009, background): “This persistence result explains why limited partners often strive to invest in private equity funds that have been in the top quartile of performers in the past (Swensen, 2000).”
The Price of Wine (2015, unknown): “…status of high-end wines as an investment—and given the debate on the role of alternative investments in portfolio choice more generally (e.g., Swensen, 2000; Ang, Papanikolaou, and Westerfield, 2014)—a study of long-term price trends in this market and a comparison with more traditional…”
Limited Partner Performance and the Maturing of the Private Equity Industry (2014, background): “Further, industry observers (e.g. Swensen, 2000) have historically argued that endowments are much better equipped to assess and evaluate emerging alternative investments, such as private equity, that are relatively unfamiliar and in which asymmetric information problems are especially severe.”
The market for borrowing stock (2002, unknown): “Institional Owners Around Recall Months 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Months from Recall Event N um be r o f 1 3F O w ne rs - 36 -”