Today it's difficult to justify locking that much equity up in a single
potentially illiquid and volatile investment.
The placing was obviously a trade - off: Funding a new growth strategy with an acquisition that could quickly add value, vs. dilution based on
a potentially illiquid & uncertain NAV per share.
Privately placed, restricted (Rule 144A) securities may be more difficult to sell and value than publicly traded securities, thus they may be
potentially illiquid.
«Exchange - traded products introduce self - reflexivity by creating a highly liquid security (listed stock) that tracks
a potentially illiquid underlying instrument (e.g. high - yield bonds, commodity futures)» (again, Cole's «Prisoner's Dilemma»).
Not exact matches
International investments, particularly investments in emerging markets, may carry risks associated with
potentially less stable economies or governments (such as the risk of seizure by a foreign government, the imposition of currency or other restrictions, or high levels of inflation or deflation), and may be or become
illiquid.
Both the
illiquid nature and lockup periods add additional risk to anyone
potentially interested in investing in a hedge fund.
International investments, particularly investments in emerging markets, may carry risks associated with
potentially less stable economies or governments (such as the risk of seizure by a foreign government, the imposition of currency or other restrictions, or high levels of inflation or deflation), and may be or become
illiquid.