• 2024
• Working Paper

We study how a representative sample of the U.S. population evaluates a broad range of corporate actions from a nonpecuniary perspective. Our core findings, based on large-scale online surveys, are that (i) self-reported nonpecuniary concerns are large, both for stock market investors and non-investors; (ii) concerns about the treatment of workers and CEO pay rank highest, higher than concerns about workforce diversity and fossil energy usage; (iii) moral universalism (Enke (2024)) emerges as a key driver of nonpecuniary preferences, explaining substantial variation both across participants as well as across corporate actions. Combined, our findings provide new evidence on the importance of moral concerns as a driver of nonpecuniary preferences in the context of corporate actions.

• January 2025
• Case

In the spring of 2023, Hunter Point Capital faced a pivotal decision that could define its trajectory as a new player in the growing GP stakes business. As the firm neared completion of three high-profile GP stakes investments, consuming nearly a third of its initial fund, an unexpected opportunity emerged to expand into GP Financing Solutions. This new line of business, including Net Asset Value ("NAV") lending and preferred financing, aligned with Hunter Point's long-term strategy but arose earlier than anticipated. Expanding from a GP stakes-focused firm to a multi-product platform could potentially solidify Hunter Point's position within the broader GP capital solutions ecosystem. However, this move also carried significant risks, including operational strain, potential conflicts with existing investors, and concerns about the firm's strategic focus and capacity. Should Hunter Point seize the opportunity to diversify now, or focus on strengthening its position in the GP stakes market first?

• January 2025
• Case

This case explores Vanguard’s strategic decision-making process as it considers entering the growing market for actively managed exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Set in 2024, the case places students in the position of Rodney Comegys, Vanguard’s global head of the Equity Index Group, as he evaluates whether the firm should launch a suite of fundamental active ETFs. Students are asked to analyze the implications of Vanguard’s decision in the context of its dual identity as a leader in both index and active mutual fund investing, with over $9.3 trillion in assets under management (AUM). The case is designed to introduce students to core investment concepts, including the difference between index investing and active investing, the Iron Law of Active Investing, and why an investor would decide to invest in an index versus active strategy. The case, along with the companion teaching note “Technical Note on Mutual Funds and Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs)” Harvard Business School case N9-225-057 (2024) provides a comprehensive examination of the structural differences between ETFs and mutual funds, including transaction prices versus fundamental value, intraday liquidity, tax efficiency, and transparency. Students learn how these differences influence the implementation of active and index investment strategies, and the trade-offs portfolio managers face in choosing one structure over the other. Finally, students are tasked with applying these principles to evaluate whether launching active ETFs aligns with Vanguard’s reputation as a low-cost, investor-centric firm and its long-term strategic goals.