Conducting Business in Eastern Europe:: Risk–Return Perspectives of Senior Financial Executives

European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 224–230, 2004 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Pergamon

Printed in Great Britain0263-2373 $30.00doi:10.1016/j.emj.2004.01.010

Conducting Business inEastern Europe:Risk–Return Perspectivesof Senior FinancialExecutivesJONATHAN WELCH, Northeastern University, BostonCETIN CINER, Northeastern University, Boston

Ten years ago we published an article that docu-mented the views of chief financial officers aboutdoing business in Eastern Europe. Since then therehas been progress toward economic stabilizationand the development of market economies in theregion. These changes and other significant eventsin the last decade have affected the conduct of busi-ness in Eastern Europe. In this present paper, weupdate the findings of our earlier study and addnew perspectives. A mail survey targeting seniorUS financial executives and follow up interviewswere utilized. It appears the risk–return tradeoff forUS firms of investment in Eastern Europe haschanged. The classic tradeoff now seems to exist inproduct and service markets: for a variety of reasonsrisk is perceived to be lower than a decade ago, butso are returns. However, the same does not appearto hold true for financial markets in Eastern Europewhere financial executives still perceive marketinefficiencies and ineffectiveness. EU accession andadoption of the Euro by Eastern European countriesare viewed very positively by US financial execu-tives, and these events may serve to improve thefunctioning of financial markets there as well. 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Investing in Eastern Europe, Risk-returntradeoff in Eastern Europe, US financial executives’view of Eastern European investments

European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 224–230, April 2004224

Introduction

Ten years ago we published an article that docu-mented the views of chief financial officers aboutdoing business in Eastern Europe (Welch, 1993).Since then there has been progress toward economicstabilization and the development of market econom-ies in the region. These changes and other significantevents in the last decade have affected the conductof business in Eastern Europe. In this present paper,we update the findings of our earlier study and addnew perspectives. A mail survey targeting seniorfinancial executives and follow up interviews wereutilized. It appears the risk-return tradeoff for USfirms for investment in Eastern Europe has changed.

Related Literature Review

Countries such as the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hun-gary, Poland and Slovenia have been able to achievesingle digit inflation rates following hyperinflation in1990–1991 in the aftermath of the fall of the BerlinWall. Larosiere (2000) observes that productivityrates, with favorable growth especially in the secondhalf of the decade, have increased in Eastern Europe.For example, Hungary had a 13 per cent annual aver-age increase in productivity in the decade since 1993,followed by Poland (12 per cent) and the CzechRepublic (11 per cent).

EASTERN EUROPE

Privatization also gained strength in this era. WhileState owned entities controlled 75–90 per cent ofthose economies 10 years ago, the private sector nowaccounts for 60–85 per cent of their GDPs. Theincrease in foreign direct investment has also beensignificant. On a per capital basis, Hungary, forexample, increased its net inflow by $1700 on a percapita basis during the 1990s, while the Czech Repub-lic experienced a $1400 increase and Poland $500(Larosiere, 2000). The standard of living in generalhas increased significantly as a result of these devel-opments.

These economic developments are likely to generatechanges in the behavior of firms in the region. Someearlier evidence on this point include Shama (1995),who reported that international companies in EasternEurope experienced growing consumer and indus-trial demand for their products and services, andconsequently, increased their commitments. Healey(1994) and Lorinc (1995) discussed the attractivelong-term prospects in Eastern European economies,although these studies also mention that fear ofchange and the high debt of some countries chal-lenged the optimistic picture.

In more recent research, Filatotchev et al. (2003)focused on corporate governance and restructuringfollowing the privatization process in Central andEastern Europe. They suggest that privatizationshave not generated substantial restructuringsbecause of managerial entrenchment caused byextensive use of non-market incentives such as toomuch managerial equity ownership. Puffer andMcCarthy (2003) focus solely on Russia, which is ofimportance among the Central and Eastern Europeaneconomies because of its population of 150 millionpeople and rich natural resources. They discuss theissues of nondisclosure and non transparency thatincrease risk for investments in this country. In anearlier article, McCarthy et al. (2000) investigatedmajor economic and political developments in Russiain the 1990s with the objective of understanding busi-ness in Russia’s economy. Their analysis providesseveral insights. For example, they note that, despiteseveral problems in the aggregate economy as wellas at the firm-level, multinationals plan to stay inRussia. They report on major investment plans byfirms such as Danone of France, Nestle of Switzer-land and Cadbury of the UK among others.

It is noteworthy that positive trends in the regionwere accompanied by a serious financial crisis experi-enced in Russia along with other markets in the fallof 1998 (see, for example, Shama (2000) amongothers). Russia’s economic collapse resulted in a 183per cent devaluation of the ruble in two months andan unemployment rate of 11.5 per cent. McMahon(2000) and Lyles (1998), however, report that netcapital flows, including bank lending, foreign directand equity as well as portfolio investment havepicked up after the crisis. These authors indicate that

European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 224–230, April 2004 225

Eastern European access to global capital marketswas not overly impaired by the Asian financial crisiseither. Furthermore, it should be mentioned that theimpact of the crisis on the overall investment stra-tegies of international firms could be limited. In fact,Tappan (1998) reports that 97 per cent of the foreignexecutives he interviewed said they planned to stayin Russia after its crisis. Some of them even statedthey viewed the crisis as a window of opportunity.

As a further development, several Eastern Europeancountries, such as Poland, Hungary and the CzechRepublic, are accepted as accession countries to jointhe European Union (EU), which is likely to impactbusiness decisions. One view is that the EU accessionwill make Eastern Europe an oasis of economicgrowth over the next few years (Sormani, 2003). Fol-lowing the EU accession, individual countries willenjoy an elevated profile, and the attractiveness ofthe countries will become more transparent. Consist-ent with these observations, all accession countriesreported positive GDP growth recently. Growth isexpected to continue and with upgrades of several ofthe countries’ credit ratings; the mood is optimistic.

With this background, our main goal in this articleis to report and interpret the perspectives of seniorfinancial executives on investment in Eastern Europe.Whereas the earlier research in 1993 covered a broadrange of factors that influenced the decision to investin Eastern Europe, this article focuses more on fin-ance issues that affect risk and return in the rapidlychanging environment.

The Survey

A six-page mail survey questionnaire was developedby the authors and approved by the President andBoard of Directors of the Boston Chapter of FinancialExecutives International (FEI) and targeted its mem-bership during the winter of 2003. FEI is the pro-fessional association of the most senior financialexecutives representing several hundred organiza-tions in the Boston area.

Agreeing that only composite results would be pub-lished assured respondents’ confidentiality. Allrespondents were promised a copy of the final article.To encourage participation, prior to sending the sur-vey, the President of the Boston Chapter e-mailed allmembers to alert them and encouraged their partici-pation. A few weeks prior to the due date, he sentthem an e-mail reminder.

After adjusting for multiple memberships at severalorganizations there were 39 responses representing5.2 per cent of the 748 companies solicited. This rep-resents a significant number of responses for a mailsurvey, especially for a group of professionals knownfor their reticence. There does not appear to be a dif-

EASTERN EUROPE

ference between the characteristics of the respon-dents and the larger population of FEI members.

Furthermore, the quality of the responses was evi-dent and noteworthy. For example, one of the largestglobal sporting goods companies located in the Bos-ton area sent copies of the survey to its financial man-agers operating in Eastern Europe and asked for theirinput. The completed questionnaire we received wasa composite reflecting all those responses. Similarly,the completed questionnaire we received from one ofthe world’s largest consumer products firms head-quartered in Boston contained the views of severalof its international financial managers with experi-ence in Eastern Europe.

Nevertheless, caution needs to be exercised whenmaking generalizations based on a modest size anda geographically limited sample that could contain aresponse bias. Furthermore, not all respondentsanswered all questions. Consequently, totalresponses to some questions total less than 39.

Subsequent to receiving and consolidating surveyresponses, the authors conducted several follow upinterviews with respondents to clarify their responsesand sharpen our interpretation. The Case Studymethod is considered especially effective when newissues are raised in periods of transition (Bolton,1985).

The survey questionnaire was divided into six maintopic areas: Current International Activities in East-ern Europe; Future Business and Profit Opportunitiesin Eastern Europe; Eastern European Currencies;Massachusetts and US Climate for Eastern EuropeanBusiness Ventures; Financing in Eastern Europe; andPolitical Risk. The key findings are as follows.

Current International Activities

Of the 39 respondents, 16 (41 per cent) indicated theywere currently conducting business in Eastern Eur-ope; 59 per cent were not. All who respondedaffirmatively had substantial experience. The averagenumber of years they had been conducting businessin Eastern Europe was over 6.5. No respondent hadless than 3 years experience. Of the 21 countriesincluded in the survey questionnaire, respondentswere active in all countries. Countries where the mostrespondents were conducting business, starting withthe highest participation included Russia (12), Poland(10), Hungary (9), Czech Republic (9), Turkey (7),Ukraine (6), Romania (5) and Latvia (5). All othershad less than 4. Responses exceeded 39 because mostcompanies operating in Eastern Europe wereoperating in multiple countries.

The focus was mostly on high technology productsand consumer products. Some consulting, financial


and management services were reported as well. Themodal pre-tax and after-tax ROI was less than 10 percent. Only two of the respondents to the ROI ques-tion earn in the 21–25 per cent range after tax. Nonereported more.

Future Business and ProfitOpportunities

Forty one per cent of the 39 respondents reportedthey are considering new business in Eastern Europe.Most view both short- and long-term profit potentialas being moderate to high. Although all 21 countriesare perceived as presenting future business opport-unities, respondents view Poland, Russia and theCzech Republic as the top markets, followed by Hun-gary, Bulgaria and Turkey, then Romania, Slovenia,Ukraine and Estonia.

Most respondents expect the windows of opport-unity to exist within the next 1–2 and 3–5 years.Many respondents (56 per cent believe that bureau-cratic barriers exist that discourage entrepreneurialactivities. None knew of Eastern European govern-ment programs that encourage investment there.Most (74 per cent) did not know of any legal struc-tures that protect US foreign investment in EasternEurope from confiscation. Only two respondentswere aware of any such legal structures. On thebright side, seventy seven per cent believe EU expan-sion will have a significant, positive impact on East-ern European business opportunities.

Eastern European Currencies

Only a few respondents (13 per cent) have experi-enced restrictions on capital flows into and/or out ofEastern European countries. However, 62 per cent ofrespondents view exchange rate risk in Eastern Eur-ope as significant, 33 per cent do not. Fifty one percent of respondents do not hedge exchange rate risk,31 per cent do. Those that do hedge FX risk use for-ward contracts almost exclusively.

Eighty two per cent of respondents believe that if anEastern European country adopts the Euro it willmean less exchange rate risk, and 69 per cent wouldconsider more investment if an Eastern Europeancountry joins the European Union.

Climate for Business Ventures

The respondents, who answered the question aboutthe climate in the State of Massachusetts for con-ducting business in Eastern Europe, reported it as

EASTERN EUROPE

moderately supportive. Massachusetts State taxesappear to play very little role influencing a com-pany’s desire to conduct business in Eastern Europe.No one reported using a Massachusetts governmentprogram that might encourage or assist with tradewith Eastern Europe.

Respondents also viewed the US federal governmentclimate for conducting business in Eastern Europe asmoderately supportive. Only two viewed US govern-ment taxes as affecting their desire to conduct busi-ness in Eastern Europe. Only one out of the 39respondents utilized a US government program thatencourages or assists with Eastern European trade.This was reported as OPIC financing for a projectin Russia.

Financing in Eastern Europe

Many (54 per cent) reported financing was not avail-able to them from Eastern European sources. Only 13per cent responded yes, 33 per cent had no response.Only one respondent indicated that his companyactually uses financing from Eastern Europe, bankfinancing in Hungary at a 12 per cent cost. Most util-ize funding from the US covering a broad range ofmaturities from 30 days to 22 years, but with mostmaturities being an intermediate term of 2–8 years.The reported cost of capital ranged from 6–12 percent, with most costs around 7 per cent.

Only seven of the 39 respondents (18 per cent) assigna risk premium to their US-based investment ROI forinvestment in Eastern Europe. Ten per cent was themodal risk premium. However, 51 per cent do notassign a risk premium.

Political Risk

Most respondents indicated a moderate level of East-ern European government regulation of their busi-ness activity in Eastern Europe.

Respondents rated the 21 countries on the basis ofpolitical stability. They viewed Hungary and theCzech Republic as the most stable. Albania, Bosnia &Herzegovina, Croatia, FYR of Macedonia, Estoniaand Slovenia were viewed as the least stable. Allothers were assigned a score of 3, in between themost stable (scores of 4–5) and the least stable (scoresof 1–2).

Respondents also rated countries on the basis of theseverity of threats of corruption, terrorism, organizedcrime and health and personal safety. Table 1 sum-marizes the ratings on a scale of 5 (high) to 1 (low).

Corruption is viewed highest in Russia, Albania, and


Table 1 Threats of Corruption, Terrorism,Organized Crime, Health and Personal Safety.Average Ratings

Corrup- Terror- Organized Health andtion ism Crime Safety

Russia 4.17 2.83 3.67 3.00Albania 4.00 2.80 3.53 3.13Bosnia and 4.00 3.50 3.39 3.13HerzegovinaUkraine 3.67 3.00 3.33 2.80Belarus 3.50 2.79 2.86 2.79Bulgaria 3.50 2.57 2.86 2.93Romania 3.40 2.67 3.13 3.00Moldova 3.39 3.08 3.15 2.85FYR of 3.36 2.93 3.14 2.86MacedoniaTurkey 3.32 3.00 2.58 2.79Croatia 3.27 3.13 2.87 2.93Slovakia 3.00 2.43 2.50 2.64Cyprus 2.77 2.92 2.23 2.77Poland 2.72 2.00 2.39 2.56Slovenia 2.71 2.57 2.71 2.79Latvia 2.57 2.21 2.21 2.50Malta 2.54 2.46 2.39 2.85Estonia 2.50 2.21 2.21 2.50Czech Republic 2.44 2.06 2.28 2.33Hungary 2.42 1.79 2.11 2.32Lithuania 2.40 2.27 2.20 2.33

Bosnia and Herzegovina, followed by the Ukraine,Belarus and Bulgaria. The least corruption is per-ceived in Lithuania, Hungary and the Czech Repub-lic.

Terrorism scores are bunched together with highs inBosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Moldova, Turkeyand Ukraine. The lowest threat of terrorism isreported in Hungary and the Czech Republic.

Organized Crime appears high in Russia, Albania,Bosnia and Herzegovina and Ukraine. It appearslowest in Hungary, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia,Cyprus and the Czech Republic.

Threats to health and personal safety are also closelybunched, but with high scores assigned to Albania,Russia and Romania. The lowest threats to health andpersonal safety are perceived in Hungary, CzechRepublic and Lithuania.

Ten-Year Perspective

Companies responding to the survey are involved inbusiness activities in all twenty-one Eastern Euro-pean countries. Their focus is on high technologyproducts and consumer products, and to a lesserextent on services. Most after-tax ROI is less than 10per cent. Even though none was aware of EasternEuropean government programs to encourage invest-

EASTERN EUROPE

ment there or legal structures to protect their invest-ments, many are considering new business in EasternEurope over the next 1–5 years with the expectationof moderate to high, short and long term profitpotential. Many believe that EU expansion will havea significant positive impact on their business opport-unities in Eastern Europe.

Few respondents have experienced capital flowrestrictions, but many view exchange rate risk as sig-nificant. A minority of companies hedge exchangerate risk, and nearly all who do, use forward con-tracts. Membership of Eastern European countries inthe EU would encourage more US investmentaccording to respondents, and adopting the Eurowould reduce exchange rate risk. One executive com-mented, ‘I think history repeats itself…the boom thatoccurred in Portugal, Spain and Greece after theyjoined the EU, will happen in Eastern Europeancountries when they join.’

The Massachusetts State and national climate in theUS is viewed as favorable for investment in EasternEurope, although only one firm uses a governmentprogram to support activities there. US federal andMassachusetts’s taxation appear to play little or norole in a company’s decision to conduct business inEastern Europe. One executive commented, ‘Invest-ments are made in Eastern Europe for strategic, nottax reasons.’

What little financing is available for US companies inEastern Europe is generally not utilized. Rather, UScompanies bring it from outside. One financial execu-tive commented, ‘Financing is more cost effective andreliable for us from sources outside Eastern Europe.’Few companies assign a risk premium to requiredROI for doing business in Eastern Europe, but thosefew who do add 10 percentage points.

Eastern European government regulation of US busi-ness is viewed as moderate. One executive said,‘There is still a lack of transparency in Eastern Euro-pean bureaucracy, and sometimes steps in approvalprocesses are unclear.’

US companies perceive differences in political stab-ility between Eastern European countries with Hun-gary and the Czech Republic as the most stable, andgenerally, the ‘…nia’ countries as the least stable.Respondents seemed to have insight into the relativethreats of corruption, terrorism, organized crime andhealth & personal safety. Russia, Albania and Bosniaand Herzegovina topped the list in corruption. Bos-nia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Moldova, Turkey andthe Ukraine ranked high on the terrorism scale.Organized crime was most apparent in Russia,Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Ukraine. Thre-ats to health and personal safety were viewed highin Albania, Russia and Romania. Hungary, the CzechRepublic and Lithuania were viewed as least threat-ening in most of the four categories.


We observe significant differences in key findingscompared to the initial 1993 study. For example, adecade ago most companies surveyed were focusingtheir efforts on high technology services in EasternEurope. Today the greater focus is on consumer pro-ducts. This may reflect further development of East-ern European demand and the ability to pay for west-ern products, compared to 10 years ago. Oneexecutive made the following observation related toproduct development in Eastern Europe: ‘part of theexplanation is the high education level in EasternEurope and emphasis on engineering education…ascompared to Latin America.’

Although the required ROI for investment in EasternEurope a decade ago was in the 16–20 per cent rangeand higher, and a healthy risk premium was addedto normal ROI to reflect the higher perceived risks,the actual, reported ROI today is less than 10 percent. Few companies assign any risk premium totheir ROI for doing business in Eastern Europe. It isnoteworthy that this practice seems to be consistentwith modern finance theory. Assigning country riskpremia may involve double counting of risks in acapital budgeting project and be inconsistent withtheoretical estimates of risk from a model such as theCapital Asset Pricing Model (see Shapiro, 2003 andLessard, 1985 for further discussion of this point).

A decade ago, most companies viewed the windowof opportunity for investment in Eastern Europe tobe near term to seize first-mover advantages. ‘Nowor never’ was the axiom then. Today, the opport-unities are viewed more in the 3–5 year range, indi-cating that investment in Eastern Europe has becomemore a part of traditional long range planningactivity for US firms. One executive said, ‘Many ofthe market inefficiencies that existed in Eastern Eur-ope in earlier years have disappeared.’

Similar to a decade ago, little financing is availablefor US companies from Eastern European sources, soUS companies merely bring it from home. One execu-tive who now runs his own enterprise risk manage-ment firm with business in Eastern Europe and a for-mer CFO at a major international Boston bank sharedhis view saying, ‘Many financial markets in EasternEurope are non-functional by our standards.’

Companies still, as they did a decade ago, viewPoland, Russia, the Czech Republic and Hungary ashaving the best future product market potential.

Political stability of Eastern European countries gen-erally is viewed by US companies more favorablythan a decade ago. Their view of Eastern Europeangovernment regulation of business has dropped fromhigh to moderate. One executive opined, ‘The pros-pect of these countries possibly joining the EuropeanUnion is a major motivation for them to improvetheir government regulation of business.’

%many financial markets

in Eastern Europe remain

both inefficient and

ineffective

EASTERN EUROPE

Compared to a decade ago, US companies seem tohave a better understanding of the differencesbetween countries on the basis of threats of corrup-tion, terrorism, organized crime and health andsafety. One executive reminded us, ‘Bribes paid inEastern Europe are still tax deductible expenses insome developed countries…but not in the US.’

In contrast to concerns expressed a decade ago, fewcompanies have actually experienced capital flowrestrictions, and exchange rate risk is being handledwith forward contracts. A decade ago, few, if anycompanies envisioned Eastern European economiesbecoming part of the EU or adopting the Euro; TheEuro was not available until January 1999. Today,companies view Eastern European countries joiningthe EU as a boon to US investment there. Adoptingthe Euro is viewed favorably, in part, because it isbelieved to reduce exchange rate risk. In the wordsof one executive, ‘Adopting the Euro will prevent thekind of currency devaluation that occurred in Tur-key, for example.’

Finally, virtually all companies conducting businessin Eastern Europe a decade ago either knew about,or were utilizing US government programs to assisttheir activities there. This is instark contrast to the situationtoday when only one companywas utilizing a US governmentprogram. Either the US govern-ment has exited the business ofproviding programs to encour-age and support companies toinvest in Eastern Europe, orcompanies view those programs as unnecessary. Oneexecutive commented, ‘Government support wasneeded a decade ago to reduce uncertainty, buttoday, markets are much more efficient in EasternEurope.’ Another said, ‘Where business is attractiveand profits can be made, US companies will be there,with or without US government programs or incen-tives.’

Concluding Remarks

The way US companies conduct business in EasternEurope has changed significantly over the past dec-ade. Much of that change suggests lessened risk ofinvestment in Eastern Europe.

For example, marketing and sales have broadened toinclude a new emphasis on consumer products toround out their product and service portfolios. Diver-sification of the product and service market portfoliocan dampen fluctuations in sales revenue and havethe effect of lessening investment risk. Greater rev-enue contribution from consumer products where thepattern of consumer spending is considered morepredictable and stable may have the same effect.


Furthermore, and contrary to earlier concerns, capitalflows have not been restricted and exchange rate riskhas been satisfactorily hedged. Financing is largelyintermediate term and US-based, a known sourcewith a predictable and reasonable cost.

Although threats related to corruption, terrorism,crime, health and personal safety exist, US companiesappear to have a better understanding of where andto what extent they exist. In contrast, ten years ago,companies did not have such keen insight, and as aresult, seem to have exaggerated those threats.

US government programs are no longer the sine quanon for doing business in Eastern Europe that theywere 10 years ago. US companies no longer dependon US government encouragement and support oftheir investments in the region. They are now willingand able to go it alone.

Companies appear to view investment in EasternEurope in a more traditional long range-planningcontext. This is in contrast to a more opportunisticview companies had a decade ago when high shortterm ROI’s were sought by moving before the compe-tition and taking advantage of market inefficiencies.

Actual returns on investmenttoday are substantially lessthan what was expected 10years ago, when risks were per-ceived to be much higher.

In short, the classic risk – returntradeoff of traditional financetheory is alive and well for

investment in product and service markets for USfirms operating in Eastern Europe. Risk is less thanit was a decade ago and actual returns have becomemore moderate, at least compared to what wasrequired for investment in the earlier timeframe. Oneexecutive concluded, ‘Yes, risk is less, but becausecompetition is huge, returns have been beaten downas well.’ Product and service markets in Eastern Eur-ope seem to have become more efficient.

It is noteworthy, however, based on our evidence, thesame cannot be said for financial markets. We inferfrom the evidence provided by financial executiveswho responded to our survey and who were sub-sequently interviewed, that many financial marketsin Eastern Europe remain both inefficient and ineffec-tive.

Companies view the next catapult for them doingbusiness in Eastern Europe as the forthcoming expan-sion of the EU to Eastern European countries andtheir adoption of the Euro. One executive summed itup by saying, ‘We view the resulting enhancementof political and economic stability, and financingbecoming more available locally, very favorably.’ Itis possible that EU accession and adoption of theEuro will move financial markets towards efficiency

EASTERN EUROPE

and effectiveness. Maybe then the traditional risk-return tradeoff will be observed in financial marketsas it is now being observed in product and servicemarkets.

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful for the cooperation of the member-ship, Board of Directors, President Gerard Maus and Admin-istrative Assistant Dee Calabrese at Financial Executives Inter-national. MBA student Jason Denmark played a vital role.Finance Group Assistants Kathy Musker and Elmira Budoprovided extensive work expediting the survey mailing withthe cooperation of James Divine, Director of NortheasternUniversity’s Mail Services. Professor Welch is grateful for thefinancial support provided by Charlotte Harding and theDonald J. Harding Professorship of Finance. Professor SheilaPuffer read and made helpful comments on an earlier versionof the manuscript.

References

Bolton, W. (ed.) (1985) Case study as a research methodology.The Case Research Journal Fall, 3–14.

Filatotchev, I., Wright, M., Uhlenbruck, K., Tihanyi, L. andHoskisson, R.E. (2003) Governance, organizational capa-bilities and restructuring in transitional economies. Jour-nal of World Business 38 331–348.

Healey, N.M. (1994) The transition economies of Central andEastern Europe: a political, economic, social and techno-logical analysis. The Columbia Journal of World BusinessSpring, 63–70.

Larosiere d. J., (2000) Central and Eastern Europe: Economic

JONATHAN WELCH, North- CETIN CINER, Northeasterneastern University, College of University, College of BusinessBusiness Administration, Fin- Administration, Finance andance and Insurance Group, 413 Insurance Group, 413 HaydenHayden Hall, 360 Huntington Hall, 360 Huntington Avenue,Avenue, Boston, MA 02115- Boston, MA 02115-5000, USA.5000, USA. E-mail: j.welch@- E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Cetin Ciner is Assistant ProfessorJonathan B. Welch is the Donald of Finance and Insurance atJ. Harding Professor of Finance at Northeastern University, Boston.Northeastern University, Boston. His teaching and research inter-

A prolific author, and widely-experienced instructor ests include financial markets, international financeand consultant, his research focuses on business fin- and investments.ance, financial performance and regulated and tech-nology-driven firms.


Achievements, European Intergration Prospects, Road-show EMEA Strategy Product. http://www.asmp.fr/fiches academiciens/textacad/larosiere/larosiere8.pdf

Lessard, D.R. (1985) Evaluating Foreign Projects: An AdjustedPresent Value Approach (in) Intenational Financial Man-agement (2nd ed.). John Wiley and Sons, N.Y.

Lorinc, M. (1995) Investing in financial markets of East andCentral Europe. The Columbia Journal of World BusinessSpring, 88–111.

Lyles, R. (1998) Eastern Europe: private investment steadydespite Asian economic crisis, Radio Free Europe,http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1998/03/F.RU.980327111247.html

McCarthy, D.J., Puffer, S.M. and Naumov, A.I. (2000) Russia’sretreat to statization and the implication for business.Journal of World Business 35, 256–275.

McMahon (2000) UN: foreign investment in Eastern Europeremains steady, Radio Free Europe, http:/www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/10/04102000162241.asp

Puffer, S.M. and McCarthy, D.J. (2003) The Emergence of Cor-porate Governance in Russia. Journal of World Business 38,284–299.

Shapiro, A.C. (2003) Multinational Financial Management. (7thedn). John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Shama, A. (2000) After the meltdown: a survey of inter-national firms in Russia. Business Horizons Jul-Aug, 73–81.

Shama, A. (1995) Entry strategies of U. S. Firms to the newlyindependent Baltic states and Eastern European coun-tries. California Management Review Spring (90), 109.

Sormani, A. (2003) Central & Eastern Europe: the accessionyears. European Venture Capital and Private Equity JournalJul-Aug, 63–71.

Tappan, M.A. (1998) Grassroots Business Recovery in Russia.Herriman Review. Special Issue on the Russian Economyin Crisis, Dec. 12–13.

Welch, J.B. (1993) Investing in Eastern Europe: perspectivesof chief financial officers. The International Executive 35,45–72.

Conducting Business in Eastern Europe:: Risk–Return Perspectives of Senior Financial Executives

Documents

Transcript of Conducting Business in Eastern Europe:: Risk–Return Perspectives of Senior Financial Executives