Fund managers' bias toward geographically proximate securities is a well-researched phenomenon, yet the origins of managers' location choices have received little empirical scrutiny. This paper traces the employment and geographic heritage of 358 entrepreneurial fund managers and analyzes the determinants of where they locate their firms and stock selections. The evidence suggests that start-ups tend to be based close to the origins of their founders and in regions with more investment management firms, banking establishments, and large institutional money managers. New money managers show a strong local bias in their equity holdings, three times the levels previously documented for mutual funds. The propensity to invest closer to home correlates strongly with the presence of sub-advisory opportunities from institutional investors in the vicinity. While home bias levels between managers who relocate with their start-ups and the rest of the entrepreneurs are similar, preferences for stocks that were formally local persist.

We examine whether connected hedge funds (i.e. those that are prime-brokerage clients of bailout banks) benefited from bailout programs initiated in seven countries during the 2007–2009 financial crisis. We find that being connected to a bailout bank is generally beneficial for hedge funds in that it lowers the rate of fund failure. However, this benefit becomes smaller during the post bailout period, for example, due to the greater risk-taking and higher leverage of such funds subsequent to bailouts. As such, our findings provide support for the moral hazard hypothesis.