Listing in the United States doesn't create understanding. It creates an obligation to be understood.
FPIs carry an extra translation burden: unfamiliar reporting formats, home-country context, different governance norms, concentrated ownership, sector stories that don't map to U.S. peer groups. The result shows up in the data — thin trading, few institutions, little or no coverage — even when the business is performing.
And the research says closing that gap pays. Foreign companies listed in the U.S. have historically been valued meaningfully higher than comparable firms that stayed home — about 16.5% in the foundational study — a premium researchers tie to disclosure, investor protection, and visibility. Markets pay for what they can see and trust.
Source: Doidge, Karolyi & Stulz, “Why Are Foreign Firms Listed in the U.S. Worth More?”, Journal of Financial Economics 71 (2004). See also Baker, Nofsinger & Weaver, JFQA (2002) on visibility; Foerster & Karolyi, Journal of Finance (1999) on liquidity.
And the work itself is what moves the needle. When smaller public companies bring in professional investor relations, research finds they gain media coverage, analyst following, institutional ownership — and valuation. For cross-listed companies specifically, more analyst coverage is tied to higher value. The listing opens the door; the communication is what walks through it.
Source: Bushee & Miller, “Investor Relations, Firm Visibility, and Investor Following,” The Accounting Review 87 (2012); Lang, Lins & Miller, Journal of Accounting Research 41 (2003).
Can anyone promise you a re-rating? No — and walk away from anyone who does. What you can do is build the conditions the research associates with one: clearer positioning, credible disclosure, broader awareness, and steady engagement, compounding alongside performance. That's our work.
