CFA Institute

Flourish Test Page

Industries worldwide are evolving rapidly amid new technologies and policy shifts, while markets are more interconnected than ever. Information travels almost instantaneously across global networks, meaning a shock in one market can ripple quickly through others. The investment industry must continually adapt to changing economic and market environments, yet traditional financial models — built on assumptions of equilibrium and rational actors — often struggle to capture the unpredictable, networked, and nonlinear behaviors observed in financial markets. This report reconsiders how we understand financial markets, framing them as complex systems and offering alternative approaches to traditional financial models. By applying methods from complex systems sciences, it equips financial professionals with new tools for systemic risk analysis, portfolio management, and system-level investing. Techniques such as agent-based modeling and network theory can be used to understand and capture complex market phenomena such as emergent behavior, nonlinearity, feedback loops, and structural resilience. For portfolio managers and risk analysts, adopting a systems perspective means moving beyond normal distributions and equilibrium-based models to capture investment complexity and better inform scenario planning, portfolio optimization, and risk management. For regulators, it means leveraging new models to strengthen systemic risk oversight and macroprudential policies. source

Flourish Test Page Read More »

Financial Analysts Journal, First Quarter 2026, Vol. 82 No. 1

The Best Defensive Strategies: Two Centuries of Evidence Guido Baltussen, Martin Martens, and Lodewijk van der Linden   Big Data Meets the Turbulent Oil Market Charles W. Calomiris, Nida Çakır Melek, and Harry Mamaysky Financing the Sustainable Development Goals: Exploring the Role of Government Bond Investors Laurens Swinkels, Jan Anton van Zanten, Bruno Rein, and Rikkert Scholten  Mutual Fund Selection When Borrowing Is Restricted: On the Virtues of the Generalized Geometric Mean Moshe Levy  Adjusting for Risk Effects in Fixed Income Portfolios Gunther Hahn, CFA, Lars Rickenberg, and Desislava Vladimirova  The Many Facets of Stock Momentum: Distinguishing Factor and Stock Components Xavier Gérard, CFA, and Laura Jehl ESG Ratings, ESG News Sentiment, and Firm Credit Risk Perception Fangfang Wang, Florina Silaghi, Steven Ongena, and Miguel García-Cestona source

Financial Analysts Journal, First Quarter 2026, Vol. 82 No. 1 Read More »

Unlocking AGMs: From Votes to Voice in Asia-Pacific

Because of their legacy and major differences in organic evolution, the markets in the APAC region present a complex corporate governance landscape. Company ownership structures are often concentrated, legal and regulatory frameworks vary, and language diversity adds layers of complexity. Even though AGMs are essential to investor protection in APAC, they vary widely in terms of access, timeliness and availability of disclosures, and attendance logistics with respect to convenience and cost, creating uneven participation and significant negative impacts on accountability. Investors cannot take for granted basic conditions or hygiene factors when it comes to AGMs: Late or compressed notice periods, limited English‑language disclosures in some markets, and barriers to attending or speaking opportunities at AGMs remain common. The impact varies depending on where shareholders stand with respect to their holding in a company. For example, many institutional investors stay away from AGMs by choice because they prefer to engage behind the scenes. Also, in many markets, retail investors often struggle to be taken seriously. Majority‑shareholder dominance can further dilute minority voice. If voting outcomes are predetermined, investors see little value in participating because of low returns on stewardship efforts. Yet it is not all gloom and doom, and in some markets, reform energy is building. Japan’s decade‑long governance evolution and South Korea’s “value‑up” campaign have intensified scrutiny of capital efficiency, board accountability, and shareholder rights. In India, investors have become vocal on resolutions pertaining to seemingly disproportionate compensation increases for executive directors and senior management. In Malaysia, some nongovernment and not-for-profit entities are doing an excellent job at educating investors on what they should focus on in AGMs. These developments lead to optimism that it is possible to make structural progress and recalibrate AGMs across the region — transforming them from mere “ticking-the-box” compliance exercises into meaningful stewardship touchpoints and deeper, fruitful engagement. In 2013, CFA Institute published the seminal report “Shareowner Rights Across the Markets,” a comprehensive reference guide to help investors understand and compare shareowner rights across 28 global markets, highlighting the importance of active ownership, including the exercise of shareowner rights for the purpose of value protection and creation. This report was followed in 2020 by “Stewardship 2.0,” in which CFA Institute called for outcome‑focused stewardship codes, asset owner leadership, and integration of material environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors. This current research extends the principles of those previous reports into further review and practice. By applying those principles, as well as the most up-to-date practices, to AGMs, we seek to identify where AGM design and conduct either enable or frustrate effective stewardship, and we offer stakeholder‑specific actions to enhance performance and produce balanced outcomes. source

Unlocking AGMs: From Votes to Voice in Asia-Pacific Read More »

Five Financial Eras

During the World Wars and Cold War (1914–1981), real bond returns were often negative, while equities fared better, lifting the realized ERP, according to the report. In the globalization era (1981–2025), both stocks and bonds delivered strong real returns, compressing — but not eliminating — the ERP. The report demonstrates that the differences reflect inflation dynamics, trade openness, and the degree of state intervention. The ERP tends to widen in inflationary regimes, primarily because bonds and bills suffer severe real losses, not because equities boom. When inflation breaks, equities can recover some real value; fixed-income losses are largely permanent. Private vs. public capitalThe monograph tracks the balance between private and public capital via the ratio of equity market capitalization to government debt. It says that peace-and-trade eras allow equity capitalization to outgrow public debt, while war and heavy state direction reverse the balance. For example, in 2024, market cap exceeded government debt in the United States (~156%), United Kingdom (~142%), and France (~142%). Today’s regime: “Technology Wars”Since 2020, governments have used tariffs, sanctions, and controls to secure leadership in AI, chips, biotech, and energy. Pandemic-era stimulus and supply frictions produced the sharpest after-inflation bond losses in modern developed-market history (2021–2023), while equity leadership concentrated in technology, communications, and health care. Investors should expect bond headwinds and a higher realized ERP — largely because fixed income is weak. Growing global synchronizationMarkets around the world now move together much more than they used to. Information travels instantly, so shocks in one country quickly spill into others. As a result, bull and bear markets often start and end at the same time across countries, and regime shifts spread faster. This tighter linkage leaves investors less time to react and makes early recognition of turning points far more important. source

Five Financial Eras Read More »

Next-Gen Investors: A Guide for Wealth Managers and Financial Advisers

Portfolios Reflect Goals and Values Currently, young investors’ portfolios often incorporate both their goals and values. They are more likely than older cohorts to hold cryptocurrencies, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and investment real estate in their portfolios, and they also show strong demand for customized or niche investments not widely available to retail segments, such as private equity, private credit, and sustainability-oriented investments. Values-based Investing Is Becoming Mainstream More than 90% of Gen Z and millennial investors surveyed say it is important to align their investment portfolio with their personal values, and 43% express interest in values-based or impact investments. For many, aligning portfolios with environmental or social priorities is not only a unique preference but also an expectation of modern investing. Decision Making Is Digital, Diverse, and Behavioral Information sources have diversified. Gen Z and millennials learn about finance through advisers, apps, social media and, increasingly, AI tools. About one-third have already used generative AI for financial education. Yet human advisers remain the most trusted source of guidance. The opportunity lies in meeting these clients where they are — online and mobile-friendly platforms — while helping them navigate and verify the growing flood of digital information. Behaviorally, young investors display both confidence and vulnerability. “Many admit to making investments driven by fear of missing out (FOMO), especially in trending assets such as crypto.” Overconfidence in their ability to interpret markets is common. Advisers can add the most value by coaching clients through volatility, emphasizing investment discipline, and grounding decisions in long-term goals rather than online momentum. source

Next-Gen Investors: A Guide for Wealth Managers and Financial Advisers Read More »

Mind the Gender Gap, Edition 3

For sustainable economic growth and the creation of a more equitable society, workforce diversity, wherein people have equitable access to career opportunities regardless of gender, is a critical input. Increasing women’s participation in the workforce tends to accelerate both economic prosperity and social development for a nation. Along with our earlier work on the subject, this report is CFA Institute and CFA Society India’s contribution to raising awareness about gender disparity and encouraging conversations within the industry to bridge this gap. This third edition of “Mind the Gender Gap” (the first edition was published in March 2023 and the second in December 2024) aims to direct attention toward the subject, serving as a resource for generating dialogue among policymakers, regulators, and industry. In this context, while the capital market regulator is responsible for framing regulations such as the Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) framework, it is essential to determine how these measures are being implemented on the ground. In May 2021, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) released the BRSR framework, a comprehensive set of sustainability disclosures covering environmental, social, and governance issues. In this report, we analyze the BRSR disclosure data for 300 companies over three reporting periods: fiscal year (FY) 2022–23, FY 2023–24, and FY 2024–25. Our sample selection methodology is designed to provide comprehensive representation, encompassing approximately 70% of total market capitalization of listed companies in India. This approach ensures that the study includes the most significant companies while covering the broader market across different sectors and industries. This report is designed for both regulators and investors as an input into more effective, evidence-based regulatory decisions and as an effective tool for an investor’s evaluation process. By tracking trends over time and examining how reported data translate into practice, this third edition aims to drive impact toward meaningful gender inclusion. For example, despite strong growth in the total workforce over this period, the representation of women in the workforce for our sample declined between FY 2022–23 and FY 2024–25, indicating that inclusion has not kept pace with expansion. When we analyze gender participation at the senior level in companies, we find that women’s participation at the board of directors (BoD) level remains between 18% and 19% throughout FY 2022–23, FY 2023–24, and FY 2024–25. The weakest representation for women, however, is among Key Managerial Personnel (KMP): For every seven male KMP, we found less than one female KMP. Almost two-thirds of the sample companies have no female KMP. Additionally, female directors earn significantly less than their male counterparts, with male directors’ remuneration being 3.6 times that of female directors. And, this pay gap has widened during the last three years. Some sectors, such as Information Technology, Financials, and Consumer Discretionary, have higher female representation in the workforce, typically ranging between 23% and 34%, compared with other sectors such as Communication Services, Energy, Industrials, Materials, Real Estate, and Utilities, where female representation ranges between 4% and 15%. Lower still are Utilities, Materials, and Energy, with only 4%–6% female participation in the workforce, and they also have some of the widest pay gaps at the senior level. Overall, between FY 2022–23 and FY 2024–25, total employment for our sample companies grew by more than 1 million, but female representation constituted only around 18% of this incremental addition. Several areas have scope for significant improvement. For example, companies must improve disclosures related to remuneration. Additional granularity on data provided pertaining to employees, such as based on hierarchy or roles performed by them along with clear definitions of what those job levels mean, will significantly improve quality analysis and actionable insights. We have observed that the definition of KMP greatly varies from company to company, and this variation may lead to inconsistent results. We recommend that guidelines be issued on classification of KMP and who should be included in that category. This standardization would make the comparison more consistent and useful, both for analysis and for possible corrective measures to reach pay parity. Beyond board diversity, there is a need to improve diversity within senior management. SEBI has already mandated that companies have at least one female independent director on company boards. It is now essential to think and discuss at the board level how to increase women’s representation in KMP, which has been lagging and has the smallest amount of female representation. Additionally, regarding remuneration disclosure, we recommend further granularity within BoD and KMP at job levels to understand the significant difference in remuneration between men and women. In the context of education, a clear gap exists between the number of women enrolled in higher education and the opportunities available for them in the workforce. For example, according to data released by the Indian government in 2024, women now constitute 43% of total enrollment in STEMM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine) streams at the higher education level.[1] Similarly, according to the All India Survey on Higher Education, a 2021–22 report from India’s Ministry of Education, female enrollment in higher education in India reached an all-time high of 20.7 million, with women constituting 48% of total enrollment.[2] The report also highlights that although total (male and female combined) PhD enrollment has increased 81.2% during the period between 2014–15 and 2021–22, female PhD enrollment has more than doubled during the same period. Women now constitute 46% of total new enrollments. Indian companies are making progress in disclosing useful information on gender participation in the workforce through BRSR in their annual reports. We believe such disclosure is the first step, and a critical one, to making real progress on gender parity, where much work remains. Our analysis also suggests that disclosures remain uneven, however—particularly for senior leadership categories such as BoD and KMP, where definitions and methodology vary across firms. The report’s findings highlight the need for more consistent reporting practices to enable meaningful comparison and accountability. In a country where women face significant barriers both inside and outside the workplace, we hope our follow-up report, along with our

Mind the Gender Gap, Edition 3 Read More »

Chapter 7: Natural Language Processing

Brown, Tom B., Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, et al. 2020. “Language Models Are Few-Shot Learners.” In NIPS‘20: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 1877–901. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2005.14165. Chen, Yifei, Bryan T. Kelly, and Dacheng Xiu. 2024. “Expected Returns and Large Language Models.” Working paper (23 August). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4416687. Vaswani, Ashish, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. “Attention Is All You Need.” In NIPS’17: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 6000–10. source

Chapter 7: Natural Language Processing Read More »

Geopolitical Risk and Portfolio Oversight

We used LCTD for this illustration because it offers: A diversified, developed market equity portfolio Sector weights broadly similar to global ex US benchmarks A modest tilt towards lower carbon and transition ready companies The five largest weights are HSBC at 1.9% (Banks), AML at 1.7% (Semiconductors), AstraZeneca at 1.7% (Pharma), Iberdrola at 1.4% (Utilities) and Allianz at 1.3% (Insurance). All issuer-level references that follow use these real names and weights, drawn directly from the public holdings file. Industry Breakdown and Vulnerability Each security is mapped to one of 12 Fed industries (e.g., machinery, computers, depository institutions). For each industry we compute: Portfolio weight (%) Estimated GPR beta (sensitivity to the GPR factor) Impact score for the June 23 spike, translated into basis points of expected effect on the portfolio’s return for that event Based on the sign of the impact score and economic reasoning, industries are classified as: Vulnerable (expected to be hurt by the shock), or Resilient (expected to benefit or provide ballast). For the June 23 spike and the LCTD portfolio, the overlay estimates: Total negative impact: ≈ 33.8 bps Total positive impact: ≈ +15.3 bps Net GPR impact: ≈ 18.4 bps In other words, conditional on a shock of this severity, the portfolio is tilted modestly toward GPR-sensitive industries, with an expected drag of roughly 18 basis points compared with a GPR-neutral configuration. The vulnerability composition is summarized as: 39% of portfolio weight in vulnerable industries 61% in non-vulnerable or resilient industries five of 12 industries classified as vulnerable by the model Exhibit 3: Industry-Level GPR Impact for the June 23, 2025, Spike source

Geopolitical Risk and Portfolio Oversight Read More »

Rethinking Variable Importance in Machine Learning

We study which firm characteristics drive the economic value of machine learning portfolios. Three results stand out. First, in-sample variable importance overfits and provides little reliable guidance, highlighting the need for out-of-sample evaluation using economic criteria. Second, conventional models are dominated by microcaps, which inflate returns and concentrate gains in costly-to-trade stocks; excluding microcaps is essential for meaningful inference. Third, some predictors carry negative importance and consistently degrade performance; removing them improves risk-adjusted returns and clarifies which characteristics matter. These findings show that only with economic restrictions can machine learning deliver robust asset pricing insights. source

Rethinking Variable Importance in Machine Learning Read More »