Strategi Perdagangan Global Nj

Commodity Trading Advisors (CTAs) memberikan saran dan layanan yang terkait dengan strategi perdagangan dan investasi yang memanfaatkan kontrak berjangka dan opsi kontrak berjangka untuk berbagai jenis barang fisik seperti produk pertanian, hasil hutan, logam, dan energi, ditambah kontrak derivatif instrumen keuangan. Seperti indeks, obligasi, dan mata uang. Setiap CTA ditandai oleh strategi perdagangan masing-masing dan pasar yang diperdagangkan. CTA diatur oleh pemerintah federal Amerika Serikat melalui pendaftaran dengan Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) dan keanggotaan di National Futures Association (NFA). Informasi kinerja CTA yang disajikan pada ctaperformance disiapkan oleh Equinox Fund Management, LLC, berdasarkan informasi yang diberikan oleh masing-masing pengelola komoditi berjangka dan program perdagangan mata uang asing yang dilacak oleh Equinox Fund Management dan afiliasinya. Informasi kinerja CTA tidak mengandung opini atau analisis Equinox Fund Management atau afiliasinya, dan kelengkapan dan ketepatan informasi kinerja yang dilaporkan ke Equinox Fund Management tidak dapat diverifikasi secara independen. Harap dicatat bahwa kinerja CTA mungkin tidak mencerminkan kinerja dana aktual. Pilih manajer Horizon Horizon Horizon Horizon program (Komposit) BH-DG Perdagangan Sistematik Program LLP Systematic Trading Campbell Company Managed Futures Portfolio Chesapeake Capital Corporation Program diversifikasi Crabel Capital Management, LLC Program Multi-Product Doherty Advisors, LLC Nilai Relatif - Moderat Emil van Essen , LLC Program Strategi Multi Emil van Essen, LLC Program Perdagangan Spread FORT, Program Pertukaran Global LP FORT, Program Global Diversifikasi LP Pasukan Manajemen Aset H2O 10 JE Moody Company, LLC Program Nilai Relatif Komoditi KeyQuant SAS Tren Utama program Quantica Capital AG Managed Futures program Manajemen Investasi Kuantitatif Program Global QuantMetrics Manajemen Modal, LLP Quantmetrics Multi Strategy Fund Quest Partners, LLC Program Pelacak Indeks Red Oak Commodity Advisors, Inc. Program Perdagangan Fundamental Rosetta Capital Management, LLC Program Perdagangan Rosetta Program Tren Diversifikasi Transtrend BV - Enhanced Risk (USD) Winton Capital Ma Nagement, Ltd. Futures Program Securities ditawarkan melalui Equinox Group Distributors, LLC, Member FINRA. 47 Hulfish Street, Suite 510, Princeton, NJ 08542 1.877.837.0600 Ada risiko besar dan potensi konflik kepentingan terkait dengan program berjangka yang dikelola. Keberhasilan investasi dalam program semacam itu bergantung pada kemampuan penasihat perdagangan komoditas (commodity trade advisor / CTA) untuk mengidentifikasi peluang investasi yang menguntungkan dan berhasil melakukan perdagangan. Identifikasi peluang perdagangan yang menarik itu sulit, membutuhkan ketrampilan, dan melibatkan tingkat ketidakpastian yang signifikan. Tingkat leverage yang tinggi yang sering didapat dalam perdagangan berjangka dapat bekerja melawan Anda dan juga untuk Anda, dan dapat menyebabkan kerugian besar. Pengembalian yang dihasilkan dari perdagangan CTA, jika ada, mungkin tidak cukup mengkompensasi Anda atas risiko bisnis dan finansial yang Anda duga. Anda bisa kehilangan semua atau sejumlah besar investasi Anda. Akun berjangka terkelola mungkin dikenakan biaya substansial untuk biaya pengelolaan dan konsultasi. Mungkin diperlukan akun yang dikenai biaya ini untuk menghasilkan keuntungan perdagangan yang substansial agar tidak terjadi penipisan atau keletihan aset mereka. CTA dapat menukar pasar yang sangat tidak likuid, atau di pasar luar negeri, dan mungkin tidak dapat menutup atau mengimbangi posisi segera setelah permintaan. Anda mungkin memiliki eksposur pasar bahkan setelah CTA meminta penutupan atau likuidasi. KINERJA PASTI TIDAK TERTENTU INDIKATIF HASIL MASA DEPAN. ADA RISIKO KERUGIAN. ANDA DAPAT MENGHARGAI UANG DALAM PROGRAM FUTUR TERKAIT. Hak Cipta 2017, Equinox Fund Management. Semua hak dilindungi undang-undang. Daftar Perusahaan Perdagangan Efek Akuntabel Perusahaan Akuisisi Akuna Capital Akuna Capital adalah rumah dagang butik dengan pertumbuhan cepat yang mengkhususkan diri dalam pembuatan dan arbitrase pasar derivatif. (Chicago) Aldersgate Trading Aldersgate Trading Ltd adalah perusahaan dagang eksklusif yang mengkhususkan diri dalam pengembangan, fasilitasi dan pengelolaan pedagang derivatif keuangan. (London) Allston Trading Allston Trading, LLC, adalah pembuat pasar utama di bursa keuangan dunia. Kami menukar ratusan saham, obligasi, futures, opsi dan instrumen keuangan lainnya yang berbeda di lebih dari 30 bursa. (Chicago) Altrion Trading Group Altrion Trading didirikan oleh trader profesional untuk mengisi kekosongan yang serius di pasar dalam memberikan pelatihan dan bimbingan kepada calon trader yang mereka butuhkan agar sukses serta teknologi, biaya rendah, dan modal untuk menjaga para profesional di Atas permainan mereka (Amplified Trading Memperkuat Trading adalah perusahaan dagang berpemilik yang mengkhususkan diri dalam pengembangan bakat perdagangan baru yang menawarkan pengalaman langsung di pasar keuangan. Archelon Group Archelon LLC adalah pembuat pasar opsi dan pedagang saham opsi yang terdaftar, futures dan ekuitas di AS, Eropa, dan Korea. (Chicago, Frankfurt) Assent Assent adalah perusahaan perdagangan ekuitas nasional yang saat ini melayani ratusan pedagang di seluruh negeri. Avatar Securities Avatar Securities, LLC adalah perusahaan dagang eksklusif yang menyediakan layanan perdagangan untuk pedagang perorangan dan kelompok perdagangan besar. Avatar mengkhususkan diri pada akses pasar langsung, sistematis, dan perdagangan algoritmik di ekuitas dan opsi tukar yang terdaftar dengan lantai perdagangan yang kuat di Manhattan, Chicago dan kehadiran nasional. (New York, Chicago). (New York, Chicago) Blue Point Trading Blue Point Trading adalah perusahaan perdagangan eksklusif butik unik yang memberikan hasil perdagangan rata-rata di atas untuk para investornya melalui dana kelolaannya. (Toulon, Perancis) Bluefin Trading Bluefin Holdings, LLC adalah perusahaan perdagangan eksklusif yang berfokus pada pembuatan pasar dalam produk derivatif yang diperdagangkan di bursa. (New York, London, Chicago, Hong Kong) Blueprint Capital Blueprint Capital adalah perusahaan dagang eksklusif yang mengkhususkan diri dalam pengembangan bakat perdagangan baru dan fasilitasi para pedagang berpengalaman. Kami adalah inovator terkemuka dalam perdagangan elektronik dan algoritmik. (London) Belvedere Trading Belvedere Trading adalah perusahaan dagang eksklusif yang mengkhususkan diri pada opsi indeks ekuitas. (Chicago) Blue Capital Group Blue Capital Group adalah perusahaan perdagangan berjangka dan pilihan swasta yang berbasis di Deerfield, Illinois. (Chicago, Chapel Hill) Breakwater Trading Breakwater adalah organisasi tangkas, fokus, proaktif yang berusaha mengintegrasikan teknologi dengan kecerdasan dan visi pasar. (Chicago) Bright Trading Bright Trading, LLC adalah perusahaan perdagangan saham profesional dan profesional. Kami memiliki ratusan pedagang independen yang melakukan perdagangan dari puluhan lokasi di seluruh Amerika Serikat. Selain itu, pedagang 8220Bright-At-Home8221 kami menikmati keuntungan dari perdagangan eksklusif dari kenyamanan rumah mereka. (Las Vegas) Broad Street Trading Broad Street Securities Group (Dahulu Broad Street Trading) adalah perusahaan perdagangan multi-strategi yang menyediakan teknologi canggih dan akses ke modal perusahaan. Kami adalah Agen Pialang yang terdaftar, Member CBSX. (New York) Kelompok Pedagang Modal Grup Capital Traders Group adalah perusahaan perdagangan berjangka yang menyediakan akses anggotanya ke modal perusahaan, perangkat lunak perdagangan eksklusif, pelatihan di tempat jauh, dan kantor virtual untuk remote anggota. Capstone Trades, ekuitas, komoditas, pendapatan tetap dan pasar uang di seluruh dunia. Chicago Trading Company Chicago Trading Company (CTC) adalah perusahaan pembuat pasar berpemilik dan diakui secara internasional sebagai penyedia harga dan likuiditas terkemuka di semua bursa derivatif A. S.. Chicago-New York, Chicago) WTS Chicago-WTS adalah grup perdagangan eksklusif yang berbasis di Chicago, sebuah divisi dari WTS Proprietary Trading Group LLC. WTS adalah anggota CBSX dan SEC terdaftar. Chopper Trading Didorong oleh teknologi perintis dan penelitian, tim pedagang dan analis multidisiplin Chopper Trading LLC8217s dengan cepat mengidentifikasi dan memanfaatkan peluang yang muncul. (Chicago, London, New York, Washington DC) Cube Capital Management Corp. Perusahaan dagang berpemilik Chicago. Sistem Diskrit Perusahaan perdagangan proprietary yang berbasis di Quebec, Kanada. Pedagang kami menukar modal perusahaan di beberapa pasar saham AS: NYSE, NASDAQ dan AMEX. DRW Trading Group DRW Trading Group adalah organisasi yang agresif dan berdedikasi tinggi yang bergerak dalam berbagai aspek industri perdagangan, termasuk pembuatan pasar dan perdagangan eksklusif. Kantor di Chicago, New York dan London. Dubai Professional Trading Group DPTG didirikan pada tahun 2007 sebagai lantai perdagangan profesional pertama di Timur Tengah dan terus menjadi pemimpin industri di wilayah ini. DV Trading DV Trading adalah perusahaan dagang eksklusif yang menjalankan semua bursa berjangka Amerika Utara dan Eropa di berbagai kelas aset. EchoTrade ECHOtrade adalah perusahaan perdagangan profesional yang berdedikasi pada kebutuhan para pedagang di luar negeri yang serius. Eagle 7 Trading Eagle 7 Trading adalah perusahaan perdagangan milik pribadi yang berlokasi di Chicago Board of Trade di pusat kota Chicago. Eldorado Trading 8211 Eldorado Trading, LLC, adalah perusahaan dagang eksklusif yang memanfaatkan pasar pendapatan tetap global CME Eurodolar, Treasury CBOT, LIFFE Euriborby sebagai inovator terkemuka dunia perdagangan elektronik. Pendiri Eldorado telah melakukan perdagangan secara elektronik sejak dimulainya perdagangan layar di awal tahun 1990an, memberi perusahaan keunggulan karena transaksi bermigrasi dari protes terbuka di lubang perdagangan ke perdagangan elektronik di layar. (Chicago) Epoch Trading Group Epoch adalah perusahaan perdagangan otomatis yang sepenuhnya otomatis dengan 50 karyawan dan didirikan pada tahun 2008. Kantor pusat kami berlokasi di Sydney, Australia. EUROPROP Trading Pemimpin dalam memfasilitasi, melatih dan mendukung pedagang di pasar elektronik global. Perusahaan ini berbasis di Madrid, Spanyol dan bagian dari Alhambra Capital. EUROPROP menyediakan DMA dan tingkat kliring rendah ke ekuitas global dan futures. Arus Pedagang Penyedia likuiditas berteknologi global terdepan yang mengkhususkan diri pada Exchange Traded Products (ETPs). Frontline Capital Frontline Capital adalah perusahaan dagang eksklusif yang mengkhususkan diri pada ekuitas, produk berjangka, dan mata uang di seluruh bursa Amerika Utara dan Eropa. (Toronto) Fusionary Trading Fusionary menggunakan sintesis kebijaksanaan zaman dan alat yang telah teruji waktu untuk membantu Anda menghasilkan lebih banyak uang dalam waktu yang lebih singkat. Futex Trading 8211 Futex didirikan oleh pedagang yang telah melakukan perdagangan terbuka di lantai LIFFE sejak tahun 1990. Pada tahun 1998 ketika lantai LIFFE bermigrasi ke layar komputer, pedagang Futex adalah salah satu yang pertama membangun lantai perdagangan berbasis komputer profesional. Gambit Trading Gambit Trading, LLC adalah grup perdagangan eksklusif yang saat ini berada di Rolling Meadows, IL. GETCO 8211 GETCO adalah perusahaan perdagangan elektronik swasta yang didedikasikan untuk meningkatkan likuiditas dan efisiensi di pasar keuangan dunia. (Chicago, London, New York, Singapura) Gelber Group 8211 Gelber adalah penyedia layanan unik untuk trader profesional perorangan, kelompok perdagangan profesional, atau institusi. Kami memiliki fokus yang tak tergoyahkan pada manajemen dan layanan teknologi, karena kami berusaha memperluas akses kami ke pasar elektronik cair di seluruh dunia. Gelber Group mempertahankan filosofi bahwa komunikasi dan interaksi yang jelas membawa hasil perdagangan yang sukses. Genesis Securities 8211 Genesis menyediakan platform DMA laser yang dapat disesuaikan sepenuhnya untuk Laser yang canggih. Geneva Trading 8211 Geneva Trading adalah perusahaan perdagangan elektronik eksklusif yang berlokasi di Chicago, Illinois USA dan Dublin, Irlandia. Fokusnya adalah pada perdagangan berjangka dan pasar ekuitas yang diperdagangkan secara elektronik di Amerika Serikat dan Eropa. (Chicago, Dublin) GGT Trading Proprietary Equity Options Trading Firm. (Chicago) GHF Group GHF Group mendorong pertumbuhannya yang kuat dengan membangun hubungan lokal yang kuat, merekrut talenta cemerlang, dan mengidentifikasi dan menangkap peluang di depan pasar. Grace Hall Trading Grace Hall Trading adalah perusahaan dagang eksklusif yang mengkhususkan pada arbitrase transaksional, arbitrase volatilitas, dan perdagangan berbasis aktivitas. Berbasis di Chicago dan didirikan pada tahun 2008, perusahaan menggunakan teknologi terdepan saat memperdagangkan opsi berjangka, ekuitas, dan ekuitas. Great Point Capital Great Point Capital adalah firma perdagangan FINRA yang terdaftar, berkantor pusat di Chicago. Group One Trading 8211 Group One adalah salah satu perusahaan perdagangan opsi saham terbesar di negara ini. Hard Eight Trading Hard Eight Futures, LLC dan Hard Eight Trading, LLC adalah perusahaan perdagangan eksklusif yang berkantor pusat di Chicago, Illinois. (Chicago) Heron Futures Heron Futures adalah perusahaan perdagangan independen terkemuka yang mendukung pedagang di pasar berjangka. (London) HTG Capital Partners Misi HTG adalah untuk memungkinkan keberhasilan para pedagangnya. (Chicago, New York) Tahan Brothers 8211 Proprietary Online Stock Trading. Pasar Keuangan IMC 8211 Grup IMC adalah organisasi keuangan global yang hadir di Amsterdam, London, New York, Chicago, Hong Kong, Sydney, dan Zug. Infinium Capital Management 8211 Infinium Capital Management adalah perusahaan manajemen modal berpemilik dengan kantor di Chicago dan New York. Didirikan di Chicago pada tahun 2001, firma kami dibangun oleh tim inti dengan pengalaman puluhan tahun dalam perdagangan, pengembangan perangkat lunak, dan pemodelan keuangan. Para pendiri berbagi masa lalu kewirausahaan, setelah membangun dan menjual berbagai perusahaan dan teknologi baik di dalam maupun di luar pasar keuangan. Integra Capital Integra Capital adalah perusahaan dagang berpemilik New York dan divisi dari T3 Trading Group. Integra adalah rumah bagi pedagang in-house dan remote di seluruh negeri. Mereka menyediakan leverage permodalan, platform perdagangan profesional, dan dukungan layanan suporter luar biasa untuk ekuitas aktif, opsi, dan pedagang forex. Intelligent Market Trading Company 8211 Intelligent Market Trading Company adalah perusahaan dagang berpemilik Chicago dengan fokus utama menerapkan teknologi terdepan, dan teknik perdagangan terhadap masalah efek derivatif yang diperdagangkan dan diperdagangkan secara elektronik. Grup Perdagangan Internasional DE Trading Corporation 8211 Perusahaan perdagangan milik pribadi di pinggiran utara Chicago. Jane Street Capital 8211 Jane Street adalah perusahaan perdagangan eksklusif kuantitatif yang membawa pemahaman mendalam tentang pasar, pendekatan ilmiah, dan teknologi inovatif untuk diperdagangkan secara menguntungkan di pasar keuangan. Jane Street tidak mencari investasi dari luar dan tidak memiliki pelanggan. Didirikan pada tahun 2000, Jane Street adalah 190 orang yang berkomitmen di New York, Chicago, London, dan Tokyo. Perdagangan Langsung 8211 Jump Trading, LLC adalah perusahaan perdagangan eksklusif, yang berfokus pada indeks perdagangan berjangka, opsi, dan ekuitas. Karena kita bukan perusahaan pialang, kita tidak punya klien. Pendapatan berasal semata-mata dari transaksi akun dagang Jump8217. Jump Trading adalah anggota dari Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT), Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE), dan American Stock Exchange (AMEX). Langsung juga merupakan anggota kliring Eropa yang tidak terbuka (Eurex). (Chicago, London, Singapura) Kershner Trading Group 8211 Sejak tahun 1993, Kershner Trading telah dibangun berdasarkan gagasan sukses bersama. Kami adalah bisnis perdagangan eksklusif klasik yang memberikan layanan penuh, dukungan dan modal kepada para pedagang kami, termasuk aplikasi teknologi berpemilik mutakhir dengan akses langsung ke pasar AS. Pedagang kami saat ini berdagang di kantor Austin, Tx kami, namun kami selalu tertarik untuk mendengar dari kelompok pedagang yang sukses di lokasi lain. Anggota NASD, SEC terdaftar. Ketchum Trading Ketchum Trading, LLC adalah perusahaan dagang milik pribadi yang memiliki kantor pusat di Chicago, Illinois. Kingstree Trading 8211 perusahaan perdagangan Chicago prop yang pada suatu waktu konon melakukan sepertiga dari volume di SampP e-mini. (Chicago) Lake Street Trading Lake Street Trading (LST) adalah perusahaan dagang eksklusif dengan kantor pusat di Chicago, Illinois. Liga Trader Terbatas Independen mendukung London berbasis pedagang berjangka keuangan. Berfokus pada pasar berjangka utama keuangan pada LIFFE, EUREX dan CME. L. E.S. Perdagangan Pedagang melakukan perdagangan melalui anggota CBOE Stock Exchange (CBSX) dan agen broker terdaftar SEC. Pedagang ekuitas, pedagang kuantitatif, kotak hitam, aplikasi kotak abu-abu, dan pedagang jarak jauh semuanya diterima. London Global Invetsments London Global Investments ltd adalah perusahaan perdagangan eksklusif yang mengkhususkan diri dalam pelatihan dan pengelolaan produk perdagangan pedagang berpemandangan eksklusif. Mako Group Mako Group adalah perusahaan keuangan terdiversifikasi global yang terdiri dari manajemen penjualan, perdagangan dan investasi. Man Over Market Dipimpin oleh Lewis Borsellino, Man Over Market adalah program baru yang dirancang untuk para profesional muda yang ingin masuk ke dalam permainan investasi. Marex Trading 8211 MAREX Financial adalah Dealer Perantara Independen yang menawarkan cakupan Komoditi, Futures dan Pilihan Futures dan Pasar FX di seluruh dunia. Mitra Marquette 8211 Marquette Partners adalah penyedia likuiditas terkemuka ke bursa derivatif terbesar di dunia. Sebagai pelopor awal perdagangan berjangka elektronik, Marquette telah berhasil mengembangkan individu untuk melakukan perdagangan di bursa di seluruh dunia, termasuk Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the Chicago Board of Trade, Eurex, Euronext-Paris, Euronext-LIFFE dan Borsa Italia. (Chicago) Mercury Financial Futures Sebuah perusahaan perdagangan algoritmik, berbasis di jantung Kota London. MET Traders Rumah perdagangan berjangka finansial terkemuka yang mengkhususkan diri pada perdagangan eksklusif yang menyediakan akses ke bursa derivatif terdepan di dunia, termasuk Euronext. LIFFE, CME, CBOT, Eurex dan ICE Futures. (London) MGB Trading MGB Trading adalah perusahaan perdagangan milik pribadi yang berbasis di Montreal, Kanada. Pedagang di MGB, menukar modal perusahaan di pasar NASDAQ, NYSE amp AMEX. Nico Trading 8211 Nico Holdings LLC adalah perusahaan dagang eksklusif. Kami membuat pasar dan mengambil posisi 24 jam sehari. Kami aktif di bursa-pasar yang diperdagangkan dan over-the-counter, termasuk kontrak spot dan derivatif. Oak Futures Bertempat di Financial Capital of Europe, kantor Oak Futures City of London memiliki posisi ideal untuk memanfaatkan lingkungan kerja keras, profesional dan dinamis yang diciptakan oleh orang-orang yang berpikiran serupa. (London) Optiver 8211 Optiver adalah sebuah rumah perdagangan milik internasional yang menangani terutama derivatif, saham dan obligasi. Perusahaan telah berkembang dari beberapa pembuat pasar berbasis Amsterdam ke grup arbitrase global dengan anak perusahaan di Chicago dan Sydney. Mitra Dagang Patak Patak Trading Partners adalah grup perdagangan eksklusif milik butik yang berbasis di Chicago. Peak6 Trading 8211 Salah satu perusahaan pembuat opsi ekuitas terbesar di AS (Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, New York) Philadelphia Proprietary Trading Group Perusahaan butik yang dipasangkan dengan sumber daya global WTS Proprietary Trading, penyedia likuiditas terkemuka di CBSX. Equity Limited Limited Equity Positif didirikan pada tahun 2008 dan berfokus pada disiplin, kerja keras dan inovasi dalam strategi dan produk untuk kesuksesan. Kami memperdagangkan futures dan ekuitas. Kami mempekerjakan pedagang dan trainer berpengalaman yang siap bekerja keras untuk kesuksesan jangka panjang. Perdagangan Perdana Internasional Pedagang kami tidak sesuai dengan cetakan aslinya. Beberapa sangat besar dan banyak lagi adalah pedagang ceruk. Mereka berkonsentrasi pada peluang pembuatan dan arbitrase pasar dengan imbalan hadiah risiko yang nyata. Pulsar Capital Pulsar Capital adalah Perusahaan Perdagangan Proprietary Internasional, beroperasi secara global di berbagai kelas aset (Ekuitas, Mata Uang, Suku Bunga, Logam, Energi, Peternakan, Lembaran dan Pertanian). Reverb Capital 8211 Reverb Capital membuat dirinya didengar dari pusat Chicagos Financial District. Berfokus pada perdagangan frekuensi tinggi di pasar saham, futures dan pilihan, Reverb adalah perusahaan perdagangan eksklusif yang mengalahkan drum yang berbeda. Ronin Capital 8211 Operasi perdagangan proprietary mencakup berbagai pasar termasuk efek ekuitas, obligasi pemerintah, obligasi korporasi, dan derivatif terkait pada bursa global dan secara elektronik. Savius, LLC Savius, LLC adalah perusahaan perdagangan eksklusif butik dengan kantor pusat di Chicago dan pedagang di AS dan Eropa. SKTY Trading 8211 SKTY Trading didirikan pada tahun 2002 sebagai perusahaan pembuat pasar dalam opsi EuroDollar di Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Sejak awal, SKTY telah memperluas fokusnya untuk memasukkan beberapa produk di beberapa bursa. SMB Capital 8211 SMB Capital, LLC adalah mitra investasi swasta yang bergerak dalam perdagangan NYSE dan ekuitas NASDAQ. Schneider Group Schneider Group adalah perusahaan pemasok dan pialang global terkemuka di seluruh dunia dengan konektivitas tercepat, teknologi perdagangan terkini dan dukungan IT dan Manajemen Resmi. Grup Schonfeld Schonfeld Securities, LLC mempelopori industri perdagangan jangka pendek ketika mulai beroperasi pada tahun 1988. Ini adalah salah satu perusahaan perdagangan ekuitas eksklusif A. S. yang terbesar dalam hal jumlah pedagang dan volume yang diperdagangkan di NYSE dan NASDAQ. Layanan Perdagangan SFG Sebuah perusahaan jasa perdagangan global memberikan solusi kustom kuantitatif dan otomatis kepada yang berpengalaman. Pedagang dengan volume tinggi dan kelompok perdagangan profesional di seluruh dunia yang mengkhususkan diri di pasar saham AS, Kanada dan Eropa dan pasar berjangka. Investasi Simplex 8211 Perusahaan dagang berpemilik luar negeri berbasis di Chicago berfokus pada pedagang aktif. Spot Trading Spot Trading adalah perusahaan perdagangan di luar ruangan yang mengkhususkan pada pilihan ekuitas. (Chicago) Starmark Prop Trading Starmark adalah perusahaan dagang eksklusif yang didedikasikan untuk memungkinkan pedagang keuangan mengakses pasar global dengan harga yang bersaing, dengan teknologi terbaik yang tersedia. Sun Trading Sun Trading adalah perusahaan milik pribadi yang didedikasikan untuk perdagangan algoritmik berbagai kelas aset di pasar keuangan dunia. Susquehanna International Group (SIG) Susquehanna International Group adalah perusahaan perdagangan kuantitatif global yang telah membangun hampir semua teknologi perdagangan mereka sendiri dari awal. Pedagang SIG bersaing di pasar keuangan dengan memanfaatkan kemampuan kuantitatif mereka untuk mengambil risiko yang diperhitungkan dengan modal milik SIG. Mereka memiliki program pengembangan trader terbaik di kelasnya. Kesuksesan perusahaan terletak pada persimpangan perdagangan, kuantitatif, dan teknologi. Sistem 2 Trading System 2 Trading didirikan untuk pedagang oleh pedagang. Kami tahu apa yang kami inginkan: perdagangan opsi biaya rendah, teknologi eksklusif, dan lantai perdagangan kolaboratif yang santai. Tapi kita tidak bisa menemukannya. Jadi kami membangunnya sendiri. Tibra Capital Perusahaan prop global yang mengkhususkan diri dalam pembuatan pasar dan arbitrase. (Chicago, London, Amsterdam, Hong Kong, Sydney, Wollongong) Judul Perdagangan 8211 Judul Perdagangan adalah perusahaan perdagangan milik pribadi. Pedagang saham memperdagangkan modal perusahaan di beberapa pasar saham AS: NYSE, NASDAQ dan AMEX. (Ville St-Laurent. QC) TopstepTrader TopstepTrader mengundang Anda untuk merasakan kekuatan perdagangan Combine kami. Kami mendukung secara finansial pedagang berjangka yang konsisten, menguntungkan, dan disiplin. Toro Trading Toro Trading LLC adalah perusahaan pembuat pasar derivatif dinamis yang mengkhususkan diri pada pilihan ekuitas, futures, dan ETFs. Toro adalah anggota Chicago Board Options Exchange, Philadelphia Stock Exchange, NYSE Euronext dan New York Biotech Association. (New York) Torus Capital Torus Capital adalah perusahaan dagang eksklusif yang mengkhususkan diri pada opsi dan futures di berbagai spektrum dan produk. (Chicago, Greenwich, New York) Tower Hill Trading Tower Hill Trading adalah perusahaan dagang berpemilik terkemuka yang berbasis di pusat kota Chicago. Kami menawarkan lingkungan kerja yang superior, kesempatan untuk belajar dari yang terbaik, teknologi mutakhir, pembayaran yang sangat kompetitif dan akses ke modal perdagangan yang substansial. (Chicago) Trade Vision Capital Trade Vision Capital menyediakan perangkat lunak entry order dengan urutan tertinggi yang tersedia. Ini adalah satu-satunya perangkat lunak untuk menerima sertifikasi platinum NASD8217s. Tradebot Systems Tradebot Systems menyediakan likuiditas ke pasar saham. (Kansas City, MO) Traditum Group Traditum adalah perusahaan dagang berpemilik diversifikasi yang mengkhususkan diri dalam pembuatan pasar, arbitrasi valuasi, dan strategi perdagangan yang berorientasi pada fundamental di berbagai pasar domestik dan internasional. Transmarket Group TransMarket Group LLC adalah perusahaan perdagangan dan investasi swasta global. Menyediakan modal risiko dan akses pasar kepada individu untuk tujuan perdagangan pasar keuangan global. Karyawan memperdagangkan semua derivat, ekuitas, komoditas, dan pasar tunai yang terdaftar di bursa global. (London, Madrid, Mumbai, New York, Singapura, Sydney) Trillium Trading Trillium Trading L. L.C. Adalah perusahaan dagang terkemuka yang unggul dalam perdagangan ekuitas jangka pendek, dan manajemen portofolio. Twitch LLC Twitch LLC adalah perusahaan dagang eksklusif yang berkantor pusat di gedung Chicago Board of Trade. Vankar Trading 8211 Manajemen profesional sistem perdagangan. Divisi di Amerika Utara, Eropa, dan Australia. Vortex Capital Group Vortex Capital Group Ltd (VCG) adalah perusahaan perdagangan eksklusif yang berfokus pada berbagai strategi perdagangan di beberapa pasar dan kelas aset. (Toronto) WH Trading WH Trading LLC adalah perusahaan perdagangan berjangka, pilihan dan ekuitas berpemilik yang berkantor pusat di Chicago, IL. Didirikan pada tahun 1994, WH Trading saat ini berfungsi sebagai penyedia likuiditas utama di lantai bursa berjangka utama Chicago dan juga sebagai Exchange yang ditunjuk Lead Market Maker untuk produk yang diperdagangkan secara elektronik di berbagai kelas aset. (Chicago, London) Wasserman Capital Di Wasserman Capital gairah kita adalah perdagangan dan melatih orang lain bagaimana berdagang. Wasserman Capital memiliki program magang yang telah terbukti yang memanfaatkan metode historis yang terbukti sama seperti yang telah digunakan oleh trader sukses selama lebih dari 100 tahun. Program pelatihan kami menyediakan keahlian perdagangan dan pembinaan langsung yang diperlukan untuk membantu mengubah semangat Anda menuju pasar keuangan ke dalam karir Anda. (Miami Beach, FL) Wolverine Trading Wolverine berkantor pusat di Chicago dan memiliki kantor di New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia dan London. World Trade Securities WTS Proprietary Trading Group LLC, adalah perusahaan perdagangan milik pribadi yang berbasis di NYC, New York dan anggota CBSX dan SEC terdaftar. (New York) Xerxes Trading Xerxes Trading mewakili Morristown, NJ Kantor Hold Brothers Online Investment Services, LLC (anggota FINRA-SIPC). Lihat Daftar Pekerjaan, Diskusi dan Berita di Grup LinkedIn kami Berlangganan dan Hubungkan Berlangganan Newsletter kamiDari perspektif strategi regional dan global perusahaan multinasional Kutipan artikel ini sebagai: Rugman, A. Verbeke, A. J Int Bus Stud (2004) 35: 3 Perusahaan multinasional (MNE) adalah pendorong utama globalisasi, karena hal tersebut mendorong peningkatan saling ketergantungan ekonomi di antara pasar nasional. Tes akhir untuk menilai apakah MNEs ini adalah global sendiri adalah tingkat penetrasi aktual pasar mereka di seluruh dunia, terutama di pasar triad NAFTA, Uni Eropa dan Asia yang luas. Namun, data tentang aktivitas 500 perusahaan multinasional terbesar menunjukkan bahwa sangat sedikit yang berhasil di seluruh dunia. Untuk 320 dari 380 perusahaan yang data penjualan geografisnya tersedia, rata-rata 80,3 dari total penjualan berada di wilayah asal mereka dari triad. Ini berarti bahwa banyak perusahaan terbesar di dunia tidak berbasis global namun berbasis regional, dalam hal luas dan kedalaman cakupan pasar. Globalisasi, dalam hal distribusi penjualan geografis yang seimbang di tiga triad, sehingga mencerminkan hasil istimewa dan agak tidak biasa dalam melakukan bisnis internasional (IB). Konsentrasi penjualan regional memiliki implikasi penting untuk berbagai alur penelitian IB arus utama, dan juga untuk debat manajerial yang lebih luas mengenai disain strategi dan struktur tata kelola yang optimal untuk MNE. Keuntungan spesifik perusahaan strategi global lokalisasi strategi regional rantai nilai triad semi-globalisasi Pendahuluan Globalisasi, dalam arti saling ketergantungan ekonomi yang meningkat antar negara, adalah fenomena yang kurang dipahami. Dalam tulisan ini, kami fokus pada pelaku utama dalam proses globalisasi, yaitu perusahaan yang menggerakkan proses ini. Sebuah perusahaan multinasional yang relatif kecil (MNEs) menyumbang sebagian besar perdagangan dan investasi dunia. Memang, 500 terbesar MNE menyumbang lebih dari 90 saham investasi langsung asing (FDI) dunia dan mereka sendiri melakukan sekitar separuh perdagangan dunia (Rugman, 2000). Namun, makalah ini menunjukkan bahwa sebagian besar perusahaan ini bukan perusahaan global, dalam arti memiliki penetrasi pasar luar negeri yang luas dan mendalam di seluruh dunia. Sebaliknya, kebanyakan dari mereka memiliki sebagian besar penjualan mereka di kaki rumah mereka dari triad, yaitu di Amerika Utara, Uni Eropa (UE) atau Asia. Pandangan baru tentang globalisasi ini sangat berbeda dengan perspektif mainstream konvensional. Perspektif yang terakhir berfokus terutama pada pola pertumbuhan tingkat makro dalam perdagangan dan FDI, dan membandingkan data ini dengan tingkat pertumbuhan PDB nasional, namun tanpa pernah menganalisis data pertumbuhan tingkat mikro setara untuk MNE yang bertanggung jawab atas arus perdagangan dan FDI (Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa , 2002). Konsep kekuatan triad hegemoni ekonomi Amerika, ciri khas era pasca Perang Dunia II, berakhir pada awal tahun 1970an. Penutupan jendela emas dan floating dolar pada tahun 1971 dapat dianggap sebagai indikator awal tatanan dunia baru, dengan kekuatan ekonomi lebih tersebar di triad Amerika Utara, Uni Eropa dan Asia. Evolusi saham FDI dunia mengindikasikan penurunan relatif dalam kekuatan ekonomi AS: pada tahun 1967 Amerika Serikat masih mewakili mayoritas (50,4) dari total stok FDI luar pada tahun 1990 saham ini telah menurun menjadi hanya seperempat ( 25.4) (Dunning, 2001). Van Den Bulcke (1995) memberikan laporan tentang evolusi menuju ekonomi dunia triadik. Pada tahun 1985 Kenichi Ohmae, pada tahap itu seorang konsultan McKinsey terkemuka di Jepang, menerbitkan studi penting tentang Triad Power. Bisa dibilang salah satu buku manajemen internasional yang paling mendalam dalam dua dekade terakhir ini. Tiga serangkai, dalam karya Ohmaes, adalah ruang geografis yang terdiri dari Amerika Serikat, Uni Eropa dan Jepang. This geographic space, according to Ohmae, shares a number of commonalities: low macroeconomic growth a similar technological infrastructure the presence of large, both capital - and knowledge-intensive, firms in most industries a relative homogenization of demand (with a convergence of required key product attributes) and protectionist pressures. The triad is home to most innovations in industry, and includes the three largest markets in the world for most new products. A useful indicator of this core triads enduring importance is the concentration of the worlds largest MNEs in the United States, the EU and Japan, as reported in Rugman (2000). In 2000, of the worlds largest 500 MNEs, 430 had their corporate headquarters in these core triad regions. In 1996 it was 443, in 1991 it was 410, and back in 1981 it was 445. The problem faced by many of these MNEs, according to Ohmae, is that they sell engineered commodities . that is, innovative and differentiated products, resulting from high investments in capital-intensive production processes and knowledge development. Unfortunately, these products rapidly lose their monopoly status . In spite of patents and brand names, technology often diffuses more rapidly to rivals than the required distribution capabilities can be built in foreign markets, thereby making it difficult to recoup innovation costs. The dilemma for any company that has developed a new superproduct with large expected demand throughout the triad is thus as follows: setting up an extensive distribution capability for the product ex ante . throughout the triad, may entail high, irreversible, fixed costs, and therefore high risks, if the superproduct somehow does not deliver on its sales expectations. Conversely, if the superproduct is first marketed at home, rival companies in other legs of the triad are expected to rapidly create an equivalent product, capture their home triad region market, and dominate distribution in that market. In this context, Ohmae introduces the concept of global impasse to describe the problems faced by even the largest companies to repeat their home triad base market share performance in the two other triad markets. Only a limited number of firms, such as Coca-Cola and IBM, have, according to Ohmae, succeeded in becoming a triad power . A triad power is defined as a company that has (1) equal penetration and exploitation capabilities, and (2) no blind spots, in each of the triad regions ( Ohmae, 1985: 165 ). In Ohmaes view the deep penetration into each triad market is critical to the recovery of innovation costs. The absence of blind spots is important in order to avoid surprises: that is, unexpected strategic moves by foreign rivals or home country competitors setting up alliances with foreign firms. A triad power is thus an MNE that has been successful in insiderization. The importance of the absence of blind spots was also emphasized by Hamel and Prahalad (1985). who defined a global company as a firm with distribution systems in key foreign markets that permit cross-subsidization, international retaliation, and world-scale volume. These authors focused especially on the importance of strong, worldwide brand positions and distribution channels, and highlighted the limited value to large firms of mere cost advantages through offshore sourcing and rationalized manufacturing. Given the global impasse challenge described above, Ohmae (1985: Chapter 12) suggests the use of consortia and joint ventures to capture the non-home triad markets. In case the MNE wishes to become a triad power on its own, through wholly owned operations, Ohmae prescribes an Anchorage perspective: that is, a corporate center that is mentally located in Anchorage (Alaska), equidistant from the economic and political power bases in the United States, the EU and Japan. This is in line with Perlmutters (1969) prescription of developing a geocentric mentality in MNEs. In practice, such a firm should operate with regional headquarters in each leg of the triad in order to capitalize on commonalities within each region, at a lower cost and with more market knowledge than if corporate headquarters performed those activities. Finally, Ohmae (1985) contains one last important insight, namely that MNEs from each triad region should identify a fourth region . where it should be easy, relative to the rest of the world, to earn an important market share. This fourth region will depend on the industry and firm involved, but for Japan it would typically include Asian markets, for the United States its neighboring trading partners, and for Europe those countries with which much trade or trade potential exists. However, Ohmae (1985) did not actually anticipate the extension of the core triad to the broad triad of today. The broad triad consists of NAFTA, the expanded EU and Asia. In parallel with the introduction of the Canada US Free Trade Agreement in 1989, NAFTA in 1994 and its expansion to the Free Trade Area of the Americas by 2005, the EU will further expand to 25 countries in 2004 (and perhaps more in the future). In Asia, in November 2002, China agreed to a free trade agreement with the 10 members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), signaling a wide trade and investment agreement for Asia. In September 2003, India and the ASEAN members agreed to forge a free trade area by 2012, while Japan and ASEAN agreed to begin negotiations on far-reaching trade and investment liberalization by 2005. Such institutional arrangements represent the agglomeration of attractive, proximate foreign markets (from a geographical, cultural, economic, and administrative perspective) into a broad triad region. This will facilitate even deeper intra-regional market penetration. In contrast, little progress has been achieved in recent years in the realm of more global integration among nations through multilateral negotiations, especially at the level of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This situation is not expected to improve in the near future (for a discussion, see Rugman and Verbeke (2003) ). At present, a majority of trade is intra-regional, and conducted in each part of the broad triad of NAFTA, the EU and Asia ( Rugman, 2000 ). The present paper tests whether the worlds largest firms have been capable of implementing Kenichi Ohmaes visionary strategy and becoming (broad) triad powers during the two decades after his path-breaking book. Our work has three caveats. First, our paper presents data on the distribution of sales across the broad triad regions. This should be considered as a starting point for introducing systematically a regional component in international business (IB) research. Individual MNEs may be faced with specific environmental requirementsopportunities, as well as internal company ones that suggest a different regional delineation, consistent with Ghemawats (2001) framework on the distance between countries. In a similar vein, the subnational level (i. e. regions within a single country) may also be important in the IB context, both for manufacturing location decisions and for the targeting of specific subnational areas for sales and distribution. Second, a balanced distribution of sales across the triad, although likely beneficial to an MNEs sustained performance, is not necessarily critical to all MNEs. For example, firms may attempt to establish a dominant position in their home market, and may have little interest in pursuing a balanced, triad-based distribution of sales. Third, different activities in the value chain may be associated with varying levels of globalization. In this paper we focus primarily on sales, simply because these constitute the ultimate reflection of market success, but we also discuss the issue of downstream vs upstream globalization. Empirical evidence of triad power The 500 largest companies in the world accounted for over 14 trillion of total sales (revenues) in fiscal year 2001. The average revenues for a firm in the top 500 were 28 billion, ranging from Wal-Mart at 220 billion to Takenaka at 10 billion. In this study of the intra-regional sales of these 500 firms, a total of 380 were included with available geographic segment data. These 380 firms account for 79.2 of the total revenues of all the 500 firms. The average sales volume of a firm in the set of 380 is 29.2 billion. Across these 380 large firms the average intra-regional sales represent 71.9. A relative sales dominance in a specific regional market, rather than a very wide and evenly distributed spread of sales, reflects five underlying issues critical to the MNEs functioning. First, if most MNEs sales are unevenly distributed across the globe, and usually concentrated in just one geographic market, this means that the firms products are not really equally accessible andor attractive to consumers all around the world, in spite of many MNEs attempting to adapt their products to local demand. Second, the lack of global market success, although based on aggregate company-level data, could be interpreted as a reflection of the limits to the non-location-bound nature of the MNEs knowledge base that is, their firm-specific advantages (FSAs). Firms may have sophisticated and proprietary technological knowledge, brand names, etc. but there may be severe limits to the joint international transferability of this knowledge, and its acceptance by customers across regions. These limits may exist irrespective of whether the knowledge is embodied in final products and then exported, transferred as an intermediate product through licensing, or utilized in foreign affiliates through FDI. It should be recognized that some examples exist of rapid cross-border integration of sales, as exemplified by the success of Airbus aircraft in the United States, Japanese cars in Europe, and a variety of American consumer goods in Japan and China, but the magnitude of this trend, as compared with overall sales volumes, remains small across the 500 largest companies. Third, the observed lack of market performance across regions may also point to a relative inability to access and deploy the required location-bound FSAs, which would lead to benefits of regional and national responsiveness. Fourth, if the MNEs market position is very different in the various regions of the world this indicates the need for very different competitive strategies: a leadership role in one market may require different patterns of decisions and actions than the role of a (perhaps ambitious) junior player in another market. These differential roles should then be reflected in the deployment of specific combinations of non-location-bound and location-bound FSAs in each region. Unfortunately, in spite of much think global, act local rhetoric in both the academic and popular business press, there appears to be little empirical evidence that this approach has permitted host region market penetration levels similar to those obtained in the home region. Fifth, the four elements above have important implications for MNE governance. It might be incorrect to attribute the present relative lack of overseas market success of many firms to an inappropriate governance structure. The presence of multiple environmental circumstances may also be critical here (powerful foreign rivals in other triad regions government shelter of domestic industries buyer preferences for local products cultural and administrative differences as compared to the home region etc.). However, the need for regional strategies does suggest the parallel introduction of a regional component in the MNEs governance structure to deal appropriately with the distinctive characteristics of each leg of the triad, and with the regions outside it, much in line with Ohmaes (1985) prescriptions. This perspective is developed further in the later sections of the paper. This need for distinct regional strategies should be viewed as a complement to the well-known normative models that advocate simple globalization strategies as a set of purposive decisions and actions instrumental to a broad and deep penetration of foreign markets ( Govindarajan and Gupta, 2001 Jeannet, 2000 Yip, 2002 ). Regionalization should be viewed as an expression of semi-globalization ( Ghemawat, 2003 ). Semi-globalization implies that we observe neither extreme geographical fragmentation of the world in national markets nor complete integration. Incomplete integration means that location specificity, in this case regional specificity, matters. Only in the context of incomplete integration is there scope for international MNE strategy that is conceptually distinct from conventional domestic strategy. Empirical evidence and meaning of regional strategies The majority of the worlds largest 500 companies (the Fortune 500 ) are MNEs: that is, they produce andor distribute products andor services across national borders. Yet, very few MNEs have the ability to sell standardized products and services around the world, a type of globalization originally advocated by Levitt (1983). In the mainstream IB literature it is now widely recognized that benefits of integration resulting from global-scale economies can be reaped only if accompanied by strategies of national responsiveness, guided by both external pressures for local adaptation and internal pressures for requisite variation. What is unfortunately often neglected is that, irrespective of MNEs efforts to augment their alleged non-location-bound FSAs with a location-bound component, no balanced geographical dispersion of sales is achieved in most cases. For 365 of the 380 firms included in our study, data were available that permitted a further decomposition of their foreign sales. It should be noted that many of the remaining 135 Fortune 500 companies are actually operating solely in their home region, with no sales elsewhere, and for others there are insufficient data. Of the 365 with data, only nine MNEs are unambiguously global, with at least 20 of their sales in all three regions of the triad, but less than 50 in any one region. This picture of regionalization, rather than globalization, is shown in Table 1 . Classification of the top 500 MNEs The definitions adopted in Table 1 are as follows: Home region oriented . In all, 320 firms have at least 50 of their sales in their home region of the triad. The threshold of 50 was chosen as we assume that a region representing more than 50 of total sales will systematically both shape and constrain most important decisions and actions taken by the MNE. It also implies a concentration of the MNEs downstream FSAs in that region, as explained in the next section. Bi-regional . In all, 25 MNEs are bi-regional, defined as firms with at least 20 of their sales in each of two regions, but less than 50 in any one region. This set includes 25 firms with sales ranging between 20 and 50 in the home region and 20 or over in a second region. The threshold of 20 was chosen because we assume that having two regional markets, each representing at least one fifth of a large firms sales, reflects impressive market success resulting from extensive downstream FSAs in those two markets. Host region oriented . In all, 11 firms have more than 50 of their sales in a triad market other than their home region. Global . Only nine of the MNEs included are global, defined as having sales of 20 or more in each of the three parts of the triad, but less than 50 in any one region of the triad. The 20 figure is less than the one-third required for an equal triad distribution, and so is biased downwards in favor of finding global MNEs. Conceptually, it implies the successful deployment of downstream FSAs in three distinct markets. The North American and European region of the broad triad are of approximate equal size, as measured by GDP. Asia is smaller than either as measured by GDP, but is nearly equal when taking into account purchasing power parity (PPP). Weighing the three legs of the broad triad by GDP, and even correcting for PPP, will not generate a larger number of global firms. Within each of the groups above, the home triad region sales weighted averages are as follows: home region oriented (320 firms): 80.3 A small set of firms are near miss global MNEs, as they approximate the percentages required to be considered global. One subset includes ExxonMobil, Royal DutchShell and Nestl, which are probably global in terms of geographic spread of their sales, but cannot be so classified due to absent data. Several firms, such as Aventis, are bi-regional and probably would be classified as global if the missing data for Asia were available. Four other MNEs, namely McDonalds, Eastman Kodak, Anglo-American, and 3M, just miss the global firm status. For example, McDonalds has only 14.8 of sales in Asia, Eastman Kodak has only 17.2, Anglo American has 17.8, and 3M has 18.9. Some special cases The two MNEs conventionally regarded as global, indeed as primary agents of globalization, are Coca-Cola and McDonalds. Yet, only Coca-Cola is truly a global MNE. Ranking as 129th in the Fortune 500 list, it has over 20 of its sales across all three parts of the triad: 38.4 in North America, 22.4 in Europe, and 24.9 in Asia. Of Coca-Colas sales in Asia, 74 are in Japan, but the company is attempting to increase its market in China. In contrast, McDonalds, ranked as 340th in the Fortune 500 list, is a bi-regional MNE. It has 36.6 of its sales in North America, 37.1 in Europe, but only 13.8 in Asia. Nike is another interesting case. It is not one of the largest 500 firms, as its sales are under 10 billion. It sources 99 of its products offshore, primarily in China (38) and South East Asia (61), and much of its apparel (86) is produced outside the United States. Yet, Nike is a company with the majority of its sales in the Americas (58.2). Indeed, it has 52.1 of sales in its home market of the United States. Nike also competes in Europe with 29 of its sales there, but not much in Asia with only 12.9 of sales there. In terms of employment, of the 22,000 Nike employees, over half are located in the United States (54.7). If we include other countries in the Americas, this number rises to 60.2. Europe, the Middle East and Africa account for another 24.9. Asia and the Pacific account for about 14.9 (or 3000 employees), but this region is also home to about 660,000 employees of independent contract companies that supply Nike products. These independent contractors are not owned by Nike, but are part of its supply network. Nike is only indirectly responsible for the working conditions of the employees working for these independent firms. Yet, owing to the adverse perceived impact on its brand image of sweatshop conditions in these factories, Nike is now assuming some responsibility for the labor conditions in the factories of its independent suppliers. The Nike case indicates the importance of understanding the precise FSAs of an MNE. Nike is not successful because it outsources most of its production in Asia. Instead, it outperforms other competitors because of its business model, in which its brand name is the dominant FSA. This brand name signifies high-quality, stylish, cool sports shoes and sports apparel. All its competitors also outsource in South East Asia significant portions of production. This access to cheap labor represents a country factor condition, not an FSA by itself. In a similar vein, Wal-Mart outperforms other firms owing to its unique business model, not primarily by outsourcing to China. These firms outsourcing strategies reflect internalization arbitrage more specifically the ability to link attractive (but generally available), host country production factors, used at the upstream end of the value chain with upstream FSAs. However, only in the presence of downstream FSAs (especially branding) do such strategies lead to market success, and this is often restricted to the home triad region. The Nike and Wal-Mart cases illustrate the crucial importance of the sales data used in this paper to assess market success. Implications for emerging research themes In this section, some of the implications of the lack of empirical evidence for globalization are considered across the field of IB research. Five research areas of particular relevance are selected. The first two areas deal with the foundations of MNE competitive advantage, namely FSAs and location advantages, respectively. The next three areas are related to MNE strategy, structure and performance. Implications for the relevance of the internalization and internationalization models of international expansion The internalization model of foreign expansion ( Buckley and Casson, 1976 Rugman, 1981 ), and especially its eclectic paradigm version, has been the dominant conceptual model in IB research during the past two decades. It suggests that firms will establish foreign affiliates in the case of strong ownership advantages, location advantages, and internalization advantages ( Dunning, 1981 ). The model assumes that MNEs systematically engage in a costbenefit calculus of all possible entry modes, namely exports, licensing, and FDI (including, more recently, hybrid modes). Here, FDI may be the preferred mode from the outset if government-imposed and natural market imperfections make exports and licensing impossible or comparatively more expensive, and if the firm has already been operating abroad ( Buckley and Casson, 1981 ). In contrast, the internationalization model of the Scandinavian school argues that firms will incrementally build foreign operations, starting with low resource commitments in culturally proximate countries, and then expanding these commitments and geographic scope. Here experiential learning is critical, and path dependencies can be observed in the growth of the MNEs experiential knowledge base, especially as regards knowledge of the markets involved ( Barkema et al. 1996 Johansson and Vahlne, 1977. 1990 ). Little integration has occurred between the two schools, which have largely flourished on their own without much cross-fertilization, and each has a loyal following of researchers. The internalization school focuses at the outset on market imperfections involving businessusage specificity . whereas the internationalization school starts from imperfections arising from location specificity . in the spirit of Ghemawat (2003). The data presented in this paper suggest that the two approaches may actually be closer to each other than usually thought. The relative lack of market success in host triad regions can be interpreted, at least partly, as a reflection of the limited customer value attributed to home triad region FSAs, whether transferred through exports (FSAs embodied in final products), through licensing (FSAs transferred to foreign licensees), or through FDI (FSAs transferred to foreign affiliates, whether subsidiaries or hybrid units). In such cases the internalization question of optimal entry mode choice becomes redundant. In other words, it is only in locations where the MNEs home region FSAs are valued by customers, as compared with relevant rivals, and for which minimum sales volumes can be expected (at least as far as market-seeking FDI is concerned), that conventional internalization theory is fully relevant. In such case of easy market penetration there is no need for a lengthy learning process, in the sense of an incremental accumulation of host region experience, to compensate for the liability of foreignness. The case of easy market penetration is consistent with Vernons (1966) product life cycle (whereby all innovations with global market potential originate in one country), but with the choice of entry mode contingent upon transaction cost considerations. Paradoxically, internationalization theory identifies the locations where MNEs have the luxury of such an extensive, transaction-cost-driven entry mode selection and where they do not, namely in the case of high location-driven learning requirements. The data suggest that extensive choice options occur mainly in the home triad region, for most companies. Future research should therefore explore in more depth the complementarities, rather than the differences, between the internalization and internationalization perspectives on international expansion. Implications for research on the diamond of international competitiveness Porter (1990) has suggested that international competitiveness at the level of specific industries depends critically on a favorable configuration of home country diamond conditions. Here, four determinants have been viewed as critical: factor conditions (with a focus on created and advanced production factors) demand conditions (with a focus on total demand and sophistication of demand, based on precursor status) related and supporting industries (with a focus on the presence of world-class firms with which cluster type linkages exist) and strategy, structure and rivalry (whereby strong rivalry and benchmarking against the toughest competitors are critical to innovation). Porters perspective has led to several follow-up studies, providing extensions and suggestions to augment his path-breaking model ( Cartwright, 1993 Dunning, 1996 Moon et al. 1998 Rugman and DCruz, 1993 Rugman and Verbeke, 1993 Rugman et al. 1995 ). The data in this paper suggest two important extensions of research building upon the diamond concept. First, the diamond may be useful primarily to expand internationally in the home triad region, meaning that favorable diamond conditions in the home country may be insufficient in most cases to permit a truly global expansion. IB research should focus on the reasons for this lack of relevance of the home country diamond in host triad regions. Second, a limited geographic scope of the national diamonds significance for international competitiveness has asymmetric implications for large economies such as the United States, Japan, and Germany, and small open economies such as Canada, Belgium, and Singapore. For MNEs originating in large countries, it means reassessing the market attractiveness of the so-called small markets in the home triad region. The presence of FSAs instrumental to achieving a high market share in geographically proximate markets, but that are region bound, should refocus these MNEs efforts from assessing foreign market attractiveness through using macroeconomic data toward developing and using data that better indicate the firms real market penetration potential, as illustrated by the Tricon case discussed in Ghemawat (2001). As regards MNEs from small open economies, the data suggest that it makes sense to focus on demand in adjacent, large economies that are part of the home region. This is consistent with the double diamond thinking in IB research that focuses on MNEs in these small open economies, much in line with Moon et al. (1998). Rugman and Verbeke (1993). and Rugman et al. (1995). Here it should be emphasized that regional integration not only benefits MNEs in the form of creating supply side efficiencies, but also improves market integration on the demand side, for example in terms of positively influencing buyers confidence, attitudes and purchase intentions vis--vis products from foreign countries inside the triad region ( Agarwal et al. 2002 ). Here it would appear that, within one triad region, country of origin effects in purchasing decisions are complemented by region of origin preferences. Implications for research adopting a resource-based perspective on the integrationnational responsiveness framework Perhaps the most important implications of the empirical data on triad-based MNE activities are for research adopting a resource-based approach to MNE functioning. The integrationnational responsiveness framework, an application to the IB context of the differentiationintegration approach in organization theory ( Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967 ), was developed by Prahalad (1975). and further extended by Doz (1979). Bartlett (1979). and Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989). The integrationnational responsiveness framework was given a TCE and resource-based interpretation by Rugman and Verbeke (1992. 2001 ). The latter authors have argued that benefits of integration, in the form of scale economies, scope economies, and benefits of exploiting national differences, require non-location-bound FSAs. In contrast, benefits of national responsiveness require location-bound FSAs. In this revised model Bartlett and Ghoshals (1989) transnational solution could be interpreted as a firm that can effectively access and deploy the required dual knowledge bundles (of NLB and LB FSAs) for each activity to be performed, for each product, within each SBU. The data presented in this paper, however, suggest the need for an extension of the framework. The conventional framework needs to be augmented, as operating in the home triad region may be associated with new needs for the development of region-bound FSAs, imposed by regional integration: see for example the nine cases discussed by Rugman and Verbeke (1991). especially the Volvo Trucks case. Hence regional integration creates both a threat and an opportunity for MNEs as they need to complement the conventional bundles of non-location-bound FSAs and location-bound FSAs with a set of region-bound FSAs. The data in this paper suggest that many of the worlds largest and most international MNEs have been quite successful in doing so. In contrast, few of these firms appear capable of developing and deploying the required set of region-bound FSAs in host regions. The few cases where MNEs have been exceptionally successful in a host region (see Table 4 ) merit further attention. Here the focus should not be on those firms that acquired a position merely because of a merger (as in the DaimlerChrysler case), but on those where FSAs have really been built over time, for example by finding ways to access or plug in to pockets of new knowledge ( Doz et al. 2001 ). Many large MNEs do have a strong geographical dispersion of their sourcing and production, both in resource industries and in manufacturing, but appear incapable (or unwilling) of capitalizing on this position to achieve global sales penetration. The observed asymmetry between sourcingmanufacturing and sales has two critical implications. First, it means that the concept of location-bound vs non-location-bound FSAs needs to be extended. The former concept usually implies that profitable deployment is possible only in the home country. The latter concept assumes global transferability. The data suggest that many MNEs have FSAs that are region bound: that is, they can be deployed across national borders, but only in a limited geographic region. Here, value added through aggregation, in the sense of exploiting similarities across countries ( Ghemawat, 2003 ), can be achieved in the home region but appears difficult across regions. Second, the required MNEs FSAs in upstream activities to achieve global sourcing (of RampD outputs, raw materials, intermediate inputs, labor and capital) and production, may be very different from the FSAs required in downstream activities to achieve a global distribution of sales. Here, value added through arbitrage ( Ghemawat, 2003 ) that is, exploiting differences between countries appears to be achievable more often across regions. In this context, Figure 1 shows two hypothetical accumulation patterns over time, of the MNEs FSAs at the upstream end (sourcingproduction) and the downstream end (sales). At either end of the value chain these resource bundles consist of non-location-bound FSAs, location (read country)-bound FSAs and region-bound FSAs. The limited market performance achieved in host triad regions suggests that most firms are not capable of accessing and deploying the required knowledge bundles at the downstream end, because these bundles are likely to be quite different from the knowledge combinations effective in the home triad region, whereas this does not necessarily hold for more upstream activities. In broader terms, national and home region organizing principles adopted by MNEs, and engrained in their FSAs, appear to limit most MNEs repertoire of downstream strategies required to be effective in the host region market. This is particularly interesting given that many markets, especially for commodity products, are characterized by global (uniform) prices, driven by global competition. In contrast, it appears much easier to adopt effective sourcing (and manufacturing) strategies associated with a broad geographical coverage. The liability of foreignness faced by the MNE ( Hymer, 1976 Zaheer, 1995 ) thus needs to be unbundled into downstream and upstream components. Old and new perspectives on the largest 500 companies. The diagonal arrow in Figure 1 shows a hypothetical expansion path over time, whereby the FSAs available for effective global sourcingproduction (here in the sense of broad geographical coverage, but not necessarily limited to a triad context, as the optimal geographical configuration of sourcing and production is firm and industry specific) and those for global market penetration grow in very similar ways. In contrast, the arrow on the left-hand side of the diagonal in Figure 1 reflects a new perspective on the typical large top-500 MNE, which is trapped in its home triad region as far as market penetration is concerned. Here the development of downstream FSAs seriously lags behind the growth in upstream FSAs. It may thus be potentially easy to achieve a global distribution of sourcingproduction, whereas a global distribution of sales may be more difficult to accomplish. To a large extent, much of the recent work on the globalization of particular value chain functions, such as finance, RampD, purchasing and logistics, and production, has focused solely on the upstream portion of the MNEs FSA bundles. This largely reflects an arbitration issue, with the MNE taking advantage of the incomplete integration of factor markets ( Ghemawat, 2003 ). This may reflect a global logic in the minds of managers, but is distinct from a strong global market performance. Implications for research on MNE structure A large body of work has been written on the need for a fit between strategy and structure in MNEs, as a precondition for survival, profitability and growth, much in line with mainstream work in strategy and industrial organization on domestic firms. In this particular case the strategic importance of each triad region, combined with the different market characteristics faced by MNEs in each of these regions, would suggest the introduction of geographic components in the MNEs structure. The data in this paper, suggesting a strong discrepancy between intra-regional and inter-regional sales, may have important implications for MNE structure. In addition, the differentiation between downstream and upstream activities, building upon different sets of FSAs, should be reflected in the MNEs organizational structure, systems and perhaps even culture. Several papers have been written on regional components in MNE organizational structure, such as regional headquarters ( Daniels, 1987 DCruz, 1986 Dunning and Norman, 1987 Grosse, 1981 Heenan, 1979 Lasserre, 1996 Morrison et al. 1991 ). Yeung et al. s (2001) analysis of such regional headquarters in Singapore argues that their roles will depend on a number of parameters, which include geographical distance, familiarity with the host region, commitment to the host region, and regional integration, thus implicitly suggesting the importance of using the regional headquarters to complement in an idiosyncratic way each MNEs existing FSA bundles. More research is needed that links the required knowledge bundles for each critical value-added activity in host triad regions with specific structural elements, which may also include elements of organizational physiology and psychology ( Yeung et al. 2001 ). Here it should be recognized that such regional elements may increase the difficulty of managing multidivisional (M-form) companies, as performance evaluation should be differentiated for units operating in the various regions, even within similar businesses, given the enormous differences in environmental circumstances faced by the affiliates in each region. In other words, even at a single point in time, MNEs may adopt both participative decentralization and administrative centralization simultaneously. These two approaches have traditionally been viewed as inefficient corruptions of the M-form ( Freeland, 1996 Williamson, 1975 ), but may in reality constitute a precondition for the effective governance of MNEs with regional strategies. Here participative decentralization reflects the involvement of regional divisions in corporate strategic planning, and this may be critical for successfully conducting downstream activities in host regions, given both the relative lack of appropriate information at the corporate headquarters level on host regions, and the need to preserve subsidiary commitment and initiative in those host regions. In contrast, administrative centralization may be more appropriate for the management of upstream activities across regions, given the relative availability of information at corporate headquarters on these activities and the possibility of reducing both production and coordination costs through optimally exploiting imperfections in national and regional factor markets. Implications for research on the performance effects of geographical diversification Much of the literature on geographical diversification has attempted to evaluate the impact of diversification on profit performance ( Buckley et al. 1977. 1984 Geringer et al. 1989 Hitt et al. 1997 Morck and Yeung, 1991 Rugman, 1976 ). Usually some proxy is adopted for the share of foreign sales in total sales (or in some cases a more upstream end related measure, such as the number of subsidiaries abroad) to assess the degree of geographical diversification. Recent research has established the importance of the home country environment that is, the locus of origin of geographic diversification efforts for the scope and financial performance effects of geographic diversification ( Wan and Hoskisson, 2003 ). In this paper, however, we emphasize the importance of the locus of destination. The relative sales in host triad regions, vis--vis the home triad region, are themselves a critical performance parameter. Perhaps the mixed results in past research on the profit impact of geographical diversification, may be partly explained by (1) a lack of investigation of the locus of destination of the diversification efforts (intra-regional vs inter-regional), and (2) the fact that market share success in non-home triad markets may be at the expense of profit performance. Thus future research on the impacts of geographic diversification should study explicitly the regional patterns and scope of MNE sales growth. In addition, it could include relative sales in host region markets as a performance parameter (dependent variable), rather than as a mere independent variable affecting financial profitability. Recent work by Vermeulen and Barkema (2002) correctly points out that some benefits of international expansion (such as tax benefits, common purchasing, and improved access to inexpensive labor) are easier to realize than other benefits, which require learning. Although these authors do not view host region market penetration performance relative to home region performance as a proxy for international success, their work does suggest that a broader geographic scope of the expansion process negatively moderates the impact of a firms foreign subsidiaries on its profitability. More specifically, they demonstrate that a broader geographic scope strains the MNEs absorptive capacity ( Cohen and Levinthal, 1990 ), particularly in the short run, leading to time compression diseconomies. They also show that foreign expansion is easier to absorb for MNEs if it occurs in related countries, following the classification of countries into clusters developed by Ronen and Shenkar (1985) . Another recent paper by Ruigrok and Warner with a focus on upstream FSAs confirms this perspective. Ruigrok and Wagner (2003) suggest that US firms are usually characterized by an inverted J-curve, in terms of internationalization impact on performance (measured by return on assets). Internationalization is associated with performance improvements, until a threshold is reached, when performance starts to decline. The reason is that US firms usually expand in a first stage to culturally proximate countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. In contrast, German firms face a U-curve in terms of performance effects of internationalization. A low psychic distance is found in only two small economies, namely Austria and Switzerland, which implies that German firms are required to target a much wider and more varied market (the EU) from the outset, thereby incurring higher learning costs. Ruigrok and Wagners (2003) perspective on upstream internationalization suggests that, even there, the linkages between country of origin and country of destination are critical in determining the optimal route of internationalization and organizational learning. This is an important observation, as influential work in IB has argued that the operational flexibility of MNEs, resulting from their internationally dispersed network of affiliates, confers arbitraging advantages, information-related network externalities, etc. ( Kogut, 1983 Kogut and Kulatilaka, 1994 ). However, the analysis above suggests that the locus of destination determines the extent to which such benefits can be earned. More specifically, a lower (cultural, administrative, geographic and economic) distance, although reducing the hypothetical, maximum arbitraging and network externality benefits, will facilitate earning such benefits in practice. Future research should investigate whether the prior existence of a strong internal network in the home region (and the related proven ability to learn and to manage risks) is critical for subsequent positive performance effects of inter-regional expansion. The creation of a strong competitive position in the home region may reflect one step in an evolutionary strategy of resource recombinations, which follows a clear sequential pattern and creates platforms for future investments ( Kogut and Zander, 1993 ). However, it is unclear whether such platforms are themselves truly non-location-bound, or can only be applied in a limited geographic space. Conclusions Most large MNEs have an average of 80 of total sales in their home triad region. Only nine firms among the largest 500 companies are unambiguously global. What are the normative implications of this observation It could be argued that these few examples of global corporate success should be viewed as best practices and benchmarks, to be carefully studied, and emulated by other large MNEs, most of which are characterized by a much more narrow and shallow penetration of host region markets. However, the observed weak market position in host regions, as compared with the home triad market, may also be interpreted as the outcome of a rational preference for regionally based activities, resulting from a careful costbenefit calculation. Here, strategic interactions among large players, taking the form of inter-regional chess, may influence international sales patterns and the selection of target markets. More generally, it could be argued, from a co-evolutionary perspective, that regional strategies of MNEs are embedded in and co-evolve with the broader competitive, organizational and institutional contexts at the regional level, in the spirit of Koza and Lewin (1998). In this situation, MNE regional strategy choices evolve interdependently with changes in prevailing industry practices, legitimate organizational forms, government regulations, etc. It should be recognized that regions themselves may change over time (as with the inclusion of all the Americas in NAFTA and further EU expansion), and therefore provide new opportunities for MNE growth. The triad perspective developed in this paper should therefore be viewed as a starting point for future empirical analyses, recognizing that regionalization is open-ended over time. When globalization does occur, it is restricted to the upstream end of the value chain. Some of the worlds largest MNEs master the art of connecting globally dispersed inputs. These can be in the form of financial capital, human capital, RampD knowledge, components, etc. and can be integrated to better serve home region clients. Hence it appears possible to be global at the upstream end of the value chain, and much can undoubtedly be learned from observing and imitating the routines of global leaders in this portion of the value chain. Does this imply that large MNEs should be complacent as far as the downstream end is concerned and focus solely on their home region of the triad Probably not, but senior MNE management should understand that widespread geographic diversification may well have managerial pitfalls similar to the conventional drawbacks of product diversification. A clear focus is required in terms of scope of geographic expansion, and the economic evaluation of international growth plans must take into account the costs of inter-regional distance and the liability of inter-regional foreignness. Finally, this paper has uncovered two fundamental paradoxes of IB that so far have eluded most, if not all, scholars in the field. First, at the downstream end, national responsiveness and localized adaptation are almost universally advocated as a panacea for penetrating international markets, but in reality most MNEs attempt to add value primarily by capitalizing on similarities across markets. This is an aggregation strategy often met with success in the home region. Second, at the upstream end (including FDI-driven foreign manufacturing), opportunities for scale and scope are usually considered abundant. Yet, in reality, MNEs add value primarily through arbitrage that is, exploiting differences across nations and regions. Successful integration thus reflects locational specificities, and entails a process of internalization arbitrage . it refers essentially to the combination of the MNEs upstream FSAs, deployed in host countries, with these countries location advantages. We live in a world of semi-globalization, where IB research needs to rethink fundamentally the substance of aggregation and arbitrage opportunities. A renewed focus on MNE strategies, distinguishing between home and host triad regions, and between upstream and downstream activities, may be a good starting point for such an endeavor. Acknowledgements An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Duke University JIBS and CIBER Conference on Emerging Frontiers in International Business Research, 69 March 2003. We are pleased to acknowledge the help of Arie Lewin in stimulating this article. Helpful comments on earlier drafts have been provided by Vern Bachor, Paul Beamish, Peter Buckley, Yves Doz, John Dunning, Michael Enright, Stephane Girod, Robert Grosse, Mike Kotabe, Mitchell Koza, Klaus Meyer, John Mezias, Karl Moore, Mona Sellers, Lorn Sheehan, and two anonymous JIBS referees. We also acknowledge the excellent research assistance of Cecilia Brain. Accepted by Arie Lewin, Editor in Chief, 26 November 2003. This paper has been with the author for two revisions. References Agarwal, J. Malhotra, N. and Wu, T. (2002) Does NAFTA influence Mexicos product image A theoretical framework and an empirical investigation in two countries, Management International Review 42(4): 441471. Google Scholar Barkema, H. Bell, J. and Pennings, J. (1996) Foreign entry, cultural barriers and learning, Strategic Management Journal 17(2): 151166. CrossRef Google Scholar Bartlett, C. (1979) Multinational structural evolution: the changing decision environment in international divisions, Doctoral dissertation Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration. Bartlett, C. and Ghoshal, S. (1989) Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution, Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA. Google Scholar Buckley, P. J. and Casson, M. C. (1976) The Future of the Multinational Enterprise, Macmillan: London. CrossRef Google Scholar Buckley, P. J. and Casson, M. C. (1981) The optimal timing of a foreign direct investment, Economic Journal 91(361): 7587. CrossRef Google Scholar Buckley, P. J. Dunning, J. H. and Pearce, R. B. (1977) The influence of firm size, sector, nationality, and degree of multinationality in the growth and profitability of the worlds largest firms, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 114: 243257. CrossRef Google Scholar Buckley, P. J. Dunning, J. H. and Pearce, R. B. (1984) An analysis of the growth and profitability of the worlds largest firms 1972 to 1977, Kyklos 37(1): 327. CrossRef Google Scholar Cartwright, W. R. (1993) Multiple linked diamonds and the international competitiveness of export-dependent industries: the New Zealand experience, Management International Review 33(2): 5570. Google Scholar Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 128152. CrossRef Google Scholar Daniels, J. (1987) Bridging national and global marketing strategies through regional operations, International Marketing Review 4(3): 2944. CrossRef Google Scholar DCruz, J. (1986) Strategic Management of Subsidiaries, in H. Etemad and L. S. Dulude (eds.) Managing the Multinational Subsidiary, Croom Helm: London, pp. 7580. Google Scholar Doz, Y. (1979) Government Control and Multinational Strategic Management: Power Systems and Telecommunications Equipment, Praeger: New York. Google Scholar Doz, Y. Santos, J. and Williamson, P. (2001) From Global to Metanational, Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA. Google Scholar Dunning, J. H. (1981) International Production and the Multinational Enterprise, George Allen amp Unwin: London. Google Scholar Dunning, J. H. (1996) The geographic sources of competitiveness of firms: some results of a new survey, Transnational Corporations 5(3): 130. Google Scholar Dunning, J. H. (2001) The Key Literature on IB Activities: 19602000, in A. M. Rugman and T. L. Brewer (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of International Business, Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp. 3668. CrossRef Google Scholar Dunning, J. and Norman, G. (1987) The location choice of offices of international companies, Environmental Planning A 19: 613631. CrossRef Google Scholar Freeland, R. F. (1996) The myth of the M-Form Governance, consent, and organizational change, American Journal of Sociology 102(2): 483526. CrossRef Google Scholar Geringer, J. M. Beamish, P. and daCosta, R. C. (1989) Diversification strategy and internationalization: implications for MNE performance, Strategic Management Journal 10(2): 109119. CrossRef Google Scholar Ghemawat, P. (2001) Distance still matters: the hard reality of global expansion, Harvard Business Review 79(8): 137147. Google Scholar Ghemawat, P. (2003) Semiglobalization and international business strategy, Journal of International Business Studies 34(2): 138152. CrossRef Google Scholar Govindarajan, V. and Gupta, A. (2001) The Quest for Global Dominance, Jossey-BassWiley: San Francisco. Google Scholar Grosse, R. (1981) Regional offices of MNCs, Management International Review 21: 4855. Google Scholar Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K. (1985) Do you really have a global strategy, Harvard Business Review 63(4): 139148. Google Scholar Heenan, D. A. (1979) The regional headquarters division: a comparative analysis, Academy of Management Journal 22(2): 410415. CrossRef Google Scholar Hitt, M. A. Hoskisson, R. E. and Kim, H. (1997) International diversification: effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms, Academy of Management Journal 40: 767798. CrossRef Google Scholar Hymer, S. (1976) The International Operations of National Firms, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar Jeannet, J. P. (2000) Managing with a Global Mindset, Financial TimesPrentice Hall, Pearson: London. Google Scholar Johansson, J. and Vahlne, J. E. (1977) The internationalization process of the firm: a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments, Journal of International Business Studies 8(1): 2332. CrossRef Google Scholar Johansson, J. and Vahlne, J. E. (1990) The mechanism of internationalization, International Marketing Review 7(4): 124. CrossRef Google Scholar Kogut, B. (1983) Foreign Direct Investment as a Sequential Process, in: C. P. Kindleberger and D. B. Audretsch (eds.) The Multinational Corporation in the 1980s, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, pp. 3856. Google Scholar Kogut, B. and Kulatilaka, N. (1994) Operating flexibility, global manufacturing, and the option value of a multinational network, Management Science 40(1): 123139. CrossRef Google Scholar Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1993) Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational enterprise, Journal of International Business Studies 24(4): 625645. CrossRef Google Scholar Koza, M. P. and Lewin, A. Y. (1998) The co-evolution of strategic alliances, Organization Science 9(3): 255264. CrossRef Google Scholar Lasserre, P. (1996) Regional headquarters: the spearhead for Asia Pacific markets, Long Range Planning 29: 3037. CrossRef Google Scholar Lawrence, P. and Lorsch, J. (1967) Organization and Environment, Harvard Business School, Division of Research: Boston, MA. Google Scholar Levitt, T. (1983) The globalization of markets, Harvard Business Review, MayJune(3): 92102. Moon, C. Rugman, A. M. and Verbeke, A. (1998) A generalized double diamond approach to the global competitiveness of Korea and Singapore, International Business Review 7(2): 135150. CrossRef Google Scholar Morck, R. and Yeung, B. (1991) Why investors value multinationality, Journal of Business 64(2): 165187. CrossRef Google Scholar Morrison, A. J. Ricks, D. A. and Roth, K. (1991) Globalization versus regionalization: which way for the multinational, Organizational Dynamics 19(3): 1729. CrossRef Google Scholar Ohmae, K. (1985) Triad Power: The Coming Shape of Global Competition, The Free Press: New York. Google Scholar Perlmutter, H. (1969) The tortuous evolution of the multinational enterprise, The Columbia Journal of World Business 4(1): 918. Google Scholar Porter, M. E. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations, The Free Press: New York. CrossRef Google Scholar Prahalad, C. K. (1975) The strategic process in a multinational corporation, Doctoral dissertation Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration. Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (1985) Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: a review and syntheses, Academy of Management Review 10: 435454. Google Scholar Rugman, A. M. (1976) Risk reduction by international diversification, Journal of International Business Studies 7(2): 8085. CrossRef Google Scholar Rugman, A. M. (1981) Inside the MultinationalsThe Economics of Internal Markets, Columbia University Press: New York. Google Scholar Rugman, A. M. (2000) The End of Globalization, Random House: LondonAmacomMcGraw-Hill: New York. Google Scholar Rugman, A. M. and Brain, C. (2003) Multinational enterprises are regional, not global, Multinational Business Review 11(1): 312. CrossRef Google Scholar Rugman, A. M. and DCruz, J. R. (1993) The double diamond model of international competitiveness: the Canadian experience, Management International Review 33(Special Issue 19932): 1740. Google Scholar Rugman, A. M. and Girod, S. (2003) Retail multinationals and globalization: the evidence is regional, European Management Review 21(1): 2437. Google Scholar Rugman, A. M. Van den Broeck, J. and Verbeke, A. J. (eds.) (1995) Global Strategic Management: Beyond the Diamond, JAI Press: Greenwich, CN. Google Scholar Rugman, A. M. and Verbeke, A. (1991) Environmental Change and Global Competitive Strategy in Europe, in A. Rugman and A. Verbeke (eds.) Global Competition and the European Community, JAI Press: Greenwich, CN, pp. 328. Google Scholar Rugman, A. M. and Verbeke, A. (1992) A note on the transnational solution and the transaction cost theory of multinational strategic management, Journal of International Business Studies 23(4: 761771. CrossRef Google Scholar Rugman, A. M. and Verbeke, A. (1993) Foreign subsidiaries and multinational strategic management: an extension of Porters single diamond framework, Management International Review 33(2): 7184. Google Scholar Rugman, A. M. and Verbeke, A. (2001) Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises, Strategic Management Journal 22(3): 237250. CrossRef Google Scholar Rugman, A. M. and Verbeke, A. (2003) The World Trade Organization, Multinational Enterprises, and the Civil Society, in M. Fratianni, P. Savona and J. Kirton (eds.) Sustaining Global Growth and Development, Ashgate: Aldershot, pp. 8197. Google Scholar Ruigrok, W. and Wagner, H. (2003) Internationalization and performance: an organizational learning perspective, Management International Review 43(1): 6383. Google Sc holar United Nations (2002) World Investment Report 2002, UN Conference on Trade and Development: New York and Geneva. Van den Bulcke, D. (1995) The Strategic Management of Multinationals in a Triad-based World economy, in A. M. Rugman, J. Van den Broeck and A. Verbeke (eds.) Global Strategic Management: Beyond the Diamond, JAI Press: Greenwich, CN, pp. 2563. CrossRef Google Scholar Vermeulen, F. and Barkema, H. (2002) Pace, rhythm, and scope: process dependence in building a profitable multinational corporation, Strategic Management Journal 23: 637653. CrossRef Google Scholar Vernon, R. (1966) International investment and international trade in the product cycle, Quarterly Journal of Economics 80: 190207. CrossRef Google Scholar Wan, W. P. and Hoskisson, R. E. (2003) Home country environments, corporate diversification strategies and firm performance, Academy of Management Journal 46(1): 2745. CrossRef Google Scholar Williamson, O. E. (1975) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. Free Press: New York. Google Scholar Yeung, H. Wai-chung, P. Martin, J. and Martin, P. (2001) Towards a regional strategy: the role of regional headquarters of foreign firms in Singapore, Urban Studies 38(1): 157183. CrossRef Google Scholar Yip, G. (2002) Total Global Strategy II, Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ. Google Scholar Zaheer, S. (1995) Overcoming the liability of foreignness, Academy of Management Journal 38(2): 341363. CrossRef Google Scholar Copyright information Academy of International Business 2004 Authors and Affiliations Alan M Rugman 1 Email author Alain Verbeke 2 1. Kelley School of Business, Indiana University Bloomington USA 2. Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary Canada About this article