“A Survey Of Hedge Fund Research” Presentation Outline

2y ago
7 Views
2 Downloads
809.60 KB
30 Pages
Last View : 16d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Joanna Keil
Transcription

“A Brief Survey of Hedge Fund Research”The London School of Economics’ Financial Markets Group14 February 2006Ms. Hilary Till (LSE, MSc in Statistics, 1987) *Premia Risk Consultancy, Inc.* E-mail: info@premiacap.com *Phone: 312-583-1137 * Chicago * Fax: 312-873-39141

Presentation OutlineI.Return SourcesII. Properties of ReturnsIII. Performance MeasurementIV. Risk ManagementV. Investor Preferences and ChoicesVI. ConclusionCover of “In Search of Alpha: Investing in Hedge Funds” byAlexander Ineichen, UBS Global Equity Research, October 2002.Based on Till and Gunzberg (2005).2

I. Return SourcesA. InefficienciesCapacity of Hedge Fund Industry (With an “Alpha Advantage”)in Billions of DollarsAllowable Inefficiency in Private, MutualFund and Institutional Fund Management-0.5%-0.75%-1.0%Required Excess 10.0%2,7504,1255,500Return for 7.5%3,6675,5007,333Hedge Funds 5.0%5,5008,25011,000Similar Argument also in Ross (2004).3

I. Return SourcesB. Risk Premia Relative-Value Bond Funds Equity Risk Arbitrage Value vs. Growth Strategy Small Capitalization Stocks High-Yield Currency InvestingRembrandt’s Storm on the Sea of Galilee, Isabella Stewart GardnerMuseum, Boston, and Cover of Against the Gods: The RemarkableStory of Risk by Peter Bernstein, John Wiley & Sons, 1996.Examples were drawn from Cochrane (1999a,b),Harvey and Siddique (2000), and Low (2000).4

I. Return SourcesC. Illiquidity Benefits: Tick-by-Tick Evaluation of a Good Investment isPainfulProbability of Making Money at Different ScalesSource: Taleb (2001), Table 3.1.ScaleProbability1 year1 quarter1 month1 day1 hour1 minute1 second93%77%67%54%51.3%50.17%50.02%5

I. Return SourcesC. Illiquidity (Continued) Costs: Default and Liquidation RiskSource: Krishnan and Nelken (2003).6

I. Return SourcesD. Eventful Periods Managed Futures programs are now expected to benefit fromevent risk.The Myth of Hedge Fund Market Neutrality: Good News forManaged FuturesDeclines in the S&P 500 of GreaterThan 6% Since 198012345678910111213141516171819S ep -N o v 1 9 8 7A p r -J u l 2 0 0 2J u n -S e p 2 0 0 1J u l-A u g 1 9 9 8F e b -M a r 2 0 0 1J u n -O ct 1 9 9 0S ep -N o v 2 0 0 0S ep 2 0 0 2D ec 2 0 0 2 to F eb 2 0 0 3A u g -S ep 1 9 8 1F e b -M a r 1 9 8 0D ec 1 9 8 1 -M a r 1 9 8 2S ep 1 9 8 6D ec 1 9 8 0 -J a n 1 9 8 1F e b -M a r 1 9 9 4J a n -F e b 2 0 0 0Jan 1990M a y -J u ly 1 9 8 2J u l-S e p 1 9 9 9A v e ra g eS& P 500-3 0 %-2 0 %-1 7 %-1 5 %-1 5 %-1 5 %-1 3 %-1 1 %-1 0 %-1 0 %-1 0 %-1 0 %-8 %-7 %-7 %-7 %-7 %-7 %-6 %M anagedF u tu re s a8 .5 %1 0 .6 %1 .9 %5 .8 %4 .0 %1 9 .4 %2 .7 %1 .9 %1 2 .1 %0 .1 %1 0 .3 %7 .9 %-4 .2 %9 .5 %0 .3 %0 .9 %3 .2 %1 .4 %-0 .5 %H ed g eFunds b-1 2 %5%-2 %-4 .4 %-3 .8 %-9 .4 %-3 .8 %-1 .9 %-6 .4 %-1 .5 %0 .5 %-2 .1 %6 .8 %-2 .1 %0 .7 %a: CISDM (Center for International Securities and Derivatives Markets) Trading Advisor Qualified Index.b: HFR (Hedge Fund Research) Fund Weighted Composite Index.Based on Horwitz (2002), Slide 8.7

II. Properties of ReturnsA. Short-Options-Like ReturnsHFR Event Driven Returns vs. Traditional Portfolio ReturnsLOESS Fit (degree 3, span 1.0000)HFR Event driven monthly returns0.10LPP Pictet Index:a benchmark index for Swissinstitutional investors, which includes Swissequities, global equities, and global bonds.0.05LOESS Fit (Regression):a type of regression used to fit non-linearrelationships. Here, the researchers fit therelationship between hedge fund returnsand market returns. Market returns, in turn,are represented by the LPP Pictet Index.0.00-0.05-0.10-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.000.020.040.06LPP Pictet Index monthly returnsHFR: Hedge Fund Research, Inc.Event Driven (Strategy): Also known as “corporate life cycle investing.”Source: Favre and Galeano (2002), Exhibit 8.8

II. Properties of ReturnsA. Short-Options-Like Returns (Continued)Returns of an Options-Based Index Strategy thatMaximizes the Sharpe Ratio vs. an IndexSource: Goetzmann et al. (2002), Figure 4.9

II. Properties of ReturnsB. Long-Options-Like Returns Call optionPayoff ProfileInvestors expect long-options-like profiles fromCTA’s and global macro hedge fund managers.Histogram of Monthly Returns of the Barclay CTA 0Monthly ReturnsSource: Lungarella (2002), Figure 1.10

II. Properties of ReturnsB. Long-Options-Like Returns (Continued) StraddleGloba l Ma cro Style ve rsus the Dolla rPercent per Month6420-2-412345Quintile s of Dollar Re tur nGlobal MacroSource: Fung and Hsieh (1997), Figure 5.US Dollar11

III. Performance MeasurementA. Sharpe Ratio Required Assumptions1.Historical Results Have Some Predictive Ability;2.The Mean and Standard Deviation Are Sufficient Statistics;3.The Investment’s Return Are Not Serially Correlated; andSource: Sharpe (1994).12

III. Performance MeasurementA. Sharpe Ratio (Continued) Required Assumptions (Continued)4.The Candidate Investments HaveSimilar Correlations with theInvestor’s Other Assets.5.Conclusion: Sharpe himselfstates that the use of historicalSharpe ratios as the basis formaking predictions “is subject to serious question.”Source: Lux, (2002).13

III. Performance MeasurementB. Alternative Metrics Asset-Based Style FactorsHedge Fund Styles That Can be Modeled with Asset-Based Style FactorsMarket Timing or DirectionalStrategiesLong/Short or Relative ValueStrategiesHigh beta to standard asset classesLow beta to standard asset classesEvent-DrivenTrend Following vergence on:Commodities Capitalization SpreadValue/Growth SpreadTrend Following:1 and/or 2 aboveExcerpted from Fung and Hsieh (2003), Exhibit 5.5.Convergence on: Credit SpreadMortgageSpreadTrend Following:Credit Spread14

III. Performance MeasurementB. Alternative Metrics (Continued) Asset-Based Style FactorsEquity Arbitrage StrategiesHFR Event Driven Index8.006.004.00Return2.00EDRPED0.00-2.00EDRP: Event DrivenReplicating PortfolioED: HFR Event Driven IndexJul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- M Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec0000 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 ay- 01 0101 01 01 01 0101-4.00-6.00MonthSource: Agarwal and Naik (2004).15

IV. Risk ManagementA. Incorporating Extreme EventsSample Portfolio with a Maximum Investment in Hedge Funds of gohne considerationwithoutofvonS S ten0,90%0,80%Efficient frontierEffizienzliniemit BerücksichtigungwithconsiderationvonS S ,00NormaleandNormalundmodifiedmodifizierteVaR VaR(in %)(in %)(S refers to skewness, and K refers to kurtosis).Source: Signer and Favre (2002), Exhibit 6.16

IV. Risk ManagementB. Event Risk: Individual ManagersA Derivatives Portfolio’s Exposure to Severe EventsEventOctober 1987 stock market crashGulf War in 1990Fall 1998 bond market debacleAftermath of 9/11/01 attacksMaximum Loss-4.11%-4.12%-6.42%-3.95%Worst-Case EventFall 1998 bond market debacleMaximum Loss-6.42%Value-at-Risk based on recent volatility and correlations3.67%Source: Risk Report from Premia Capital Management, LLCas cited in Till and Eagleeye (2003).17

IV. Risk ManagementC. Event Risk: Fund-of-FundsSource: Johnson et al. (2002).18

IV. Risk ManagementD. Transparency and the Limitations to QuantitativeTechniques Bismarck’s AdviceFrom experience, it seems that hedge fund investors applyBaron von Bismarck's advice on sausages and legislationto their investments:“Anyone who likes legislation or sausage should watchneither one being made.”19

IV. Risk ManagementD. Transparency and the Limitations to QuantitativeTechniques (Continued) Inferring ExposuresHedge-Fund Style RadarsGlobal Macro0.450.40Convertible Arbitrage0.35Fixed Income ArbitrageConvertible Arbitrage0.30Dedicated Short Bias0.250.20Fixed Income Arbitrage0.150.250.200.100.150.10Long Short EquityMarket Neutral0.050.05Market Neutral0.000.00Dedicated Short BiasManaged FuturesEmergingManaged FuturesEvent DrivenGlobal MacroLong Short EquityEvent DrivenEmerging“The figure shows the hedge fund radars obtained for a convertible arbitrage fund (left) and a fund of hedge funds (right). The sensitivities (i.e., style-betacoefficients) are estimated using three years of historical data.”Source: Lhabitant (2001).20

IV. Risk ManagementD. Transparency and the Limitations to QuantitativeTechniques (Continued) Inferring Exposures (Continued)Proportional Marginal Variance DecompositionThis graph illustrates Premia Capital’s rolling exposures in energies, metals, U.S. fixed income, livestock, and agriculture during the first eight months of2004. More technically, the graph shows the conventional benchmarks that were most effective in jointly explaining Premia’s daily return varianceusing an advanced returns-based-analysis technique.The benchmarks are the Goldman Sachs (GS) Commodity sector excess return (ER) indices and a Bloomberg U.S. fixed-income index. The graph’s yaxis is the fraction of R-squared that can be attributed to a benchmark exposure. This is also known as the benchmark’s variance component. The middlechart shows each benchmark’s contribution to R-squared over the whole history.Based on Feldman (2005), Slide 8,PRISM Analytics, http://www.prismanalytics.com.21

IV. Risk ManagementD. Transparency and the Limitations to QuantitativeTechniques (Continued) Cautionary ExampleSimulated Short Volatility Investment Strategy20000001800000Investment 02000007671666156514641363126211611610Time (months)Short Volatility InvestmentSource: Anson (2002), Exhibit 1. (This chart wascreated by Professor J. Clay Singleton of RollinsCollege using the algorithm in Anson’s article.)Investment at T-bill 6%22

V. Investor Preferences and ChoicesA. Types of Products Risk and Loss Aversion In a Situation of Surplus or NotSources: Chen et al. (2002) and Siegmann and Lucas (2002).23

V. Investor Preferences and ChoicesB. How to Incorporate Hedge Funds in an Investor’s OverallPortfolioSix Possible Conceptual Frameworks for Hedge Funds, Part IHOW HEDGE FUNDS SHOULD BE CHARACTERIZED1. Equity Proxies2. Unconventional Betas/Non-StandardPerformance CharacteristicsPOTENTIALIMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGER SELECTIONIMPLICATIONS FOR INSTITUTIONALASSET ALLOCATIONWant managers who capture thepremium of asset class but also curtail downside riskReplace traditionalequity managers withhedge fund managers.Could decide to only use style-pure managersonce factor exposures are defined;Include unconventional betasin plan's long-term asset allocationmodeling.Use investable style tracker funds instead of managers; and/orBe careful to not pay high "alpha" fees for what isactually a type of "beta."Opens up possibility fortactical style selection.Decide which hedge fund stylesare appropriate, given an institution'slevel of risk and loss aversion.3. Alpha Generators/Exploiting InefficienciesEmphasis on managers whose performance cannot belinked to major risk factorsExpectation is that returnpatterns will be unrelated to assetclasses in the core portfolio.Manager selection is a bottom-up exercise.Cannot use hedge fund style and indexdata in asset allocation modeling.For every investor thatbenefits from exploitingan inefficiency, there mustbe an investor supplying theinefficiency:Strategies are thereforeinherently capacity constrained.Source: Till (2004).24

V. Investor Preferences and ChoicesB. How to Incorporate Hedge Funds in an Investor’s OverallPortfolio (Continued)Six Possible Conceptual Frameworks for Hedge Funds, Part I(Continued)HOW HEDGE FUNDS SHOULD BE CHARACTERIZED4. Traditional Factor Exposures with AdditionalReturns from Market Segmentation and Liquidity Premia5. Total Return ProvisionThrough a Fund-of-FundsPOTENTIALIMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGER SELECTIONIMPLICATIONS FOR INSTITUTIONALASSET ALLOCATIONManager selection would be part of a top-down approach.A holistic framework in which allinvestments are represented interms of a common set of factorsEmphasis on fund-of-funds or multi-strategy managersDiversify idiosyncraticoperational risk of individualhedge funds."Style Drift" is acceptable on the part of both managersand the fund-of-funds.Within a fund-of-funds portfolio, rebalancing is not a viableoption.Additional advantage in modeling is as follows:of the hedge fund data that is available,fund-of-fund data have the least biases.Optimal fund-of-fund construction is aresponsibility of the fund-of-fund manager, notthe plan sponsor.6. Unstable Factor ExposuresSource: Till (2004).Hedge Funds can't be integrated into an institutional framework.Don't use hedge funds25

V. Investor Preferences and ChoicesB. How to Incorporate Hedge Funds in an Investor’s OverallPortfolio (Continued)Six Possible Conceptual Frameworks for Hedge Funds, Part IIHOW HEDGE FUNDS SHOULD BE CHARACTERIZED1. Equity ProxiesBENCHMARKWant correlation withS&P but withtruncated downside.Equity mutual funds2. Unconventional Betas/Non-StandardPerformance Characteristics3. Alpha Generators/Exploiting Inefficiencies4. Traditional Factor Exposures with AdditionalReturns from Market Segmentation and Liquidity Premia5. Total Return ProvisionThrough a Fund-of-Funds6. Unstable Factor ExposuresSource: Till (2004).Benchmark is either a linear functionof basic factor exposures, orasset-based style factors, orhedge fund styles.A total-return benchmarkDerived from the factors assumed todrive each hedge fund strategy's returns.Balanced 60/40 Portfolio:But note that this bogey has beendifficult to outperform.Not applicable26

VI. Conclusion We cannot all be exploiters of inefficiencies, providersof insurance, and suppliers of liquidity. Therefore, one will need to accept that most investors’long-term performance will be due to an appropriatelydesigned and executed asset allocation policy.27

References Agarwal, Vikas and Narayan Naik, “Risks and PortfolioDecisions involving Hedge Funds,” Review of FinancialStudies, Spring 2004, pp. 63-98. Anson, Mark, “Symmetrical Performance Measures andAsymmetrical Trading Strategies: A CautionaryExample,” Journal of Alternative Investments, Summer2002, pp. 81-85. Chen, Peng, Feldman, Barry, and Chandra Goda,“Portfolios with Hedge Funds and Other AlternativeInvestments: Introduction to a Work in Progress,”Ibbotson Associates, Working Paper, July 2002. Cochrane, John, “New Facts in Finance,” EconomicPerspectives, Federal Reserve Board of Chicago, ThirdQuarter, 1999, pp. 36-58. Cochrane, John, “Portfolio Advice for a MultifactorWorld,” Economic Perspectives, Federal Reserve Board ofChicago, Third Quarter, 1999, pp. 59-78. Favre, Laurent and Jose-Antonio Galeano, “An Analysisof Hedge Fund Performance Using Loess Fit Regression,”Journal of Alternative Investments, Spring 2002, pp. 8-24. Feldman, Barry, “Returns-Based Analysis Using PMVD,”Prism Analytics, Presentation at 4th Hedge Fund AnalyticsConference, Financial Research Associates, New York, 24February 2005. Fung, William and David Hsieh, “EmpiricalCharacteristics of Dynamic Trading Strategies: The Caseof Hedge Funds,” Review of Financial Studies, Summer1997, pp. 275-302.Degas, Edgar, “The Cotton Exchange at New Orleans,” 1873, Musée Municipal, Pau,France.28

References (Continued) Fung, William and David Hsieh, “The Risk in Hedge Fund Strategies: Alternative Alphas and Alternative Betas,” The NewGeneration of Risk Management for Hedge Funds and Private Equity (Edited by Lars Jaeger) Euromoney Books (London), 2003. Goetzmann, William, Ingersoll, Jonathan, Spiegel, Matthew, and Ivo Welch, “Sharpening Sharpe Ratios,” Yale School ofManagement, Working Paper, February 2002. Harvey, Campbell and Akhtar Siddique, “Conditional Skewness in Asset Pricing Tests,” Journal of Finance, June 2000, pp. 12631296. Horwitz, Richard, “Constructing a ‘Risk-Efficient’ Portfolio of Hedge Funds,” Kenmar Global Investment, Presentation at RiskInvest2002 Conference, Boston, 11 December 2002 (with data updated through February 2003). Johnson, Damien, Macleod, Nick, and Chris Thomas, “Modeling the Return Structure of a Fund of Hedge Funds,” AIMA Newsletter,April 2002. Krishnan, Hari and Izzy Nelken, “A Liquidity Haircut for Hedge Funds,” Risk Magazine, April 2003, pp. S18-S21. Lhabitant, Francois-Serge, “Hedge Fund Investing: A Quantitative Look Inside the Black Box,” Union Bancaire Privee, WorkingPaper, 2001. Low, Cheekiat, “Asymmetric Returns and Semidimensional Risks: Security Valuation with a New Volatility Metric,” WorkingPaper, National University of Singapore and Yale University, August 2000. Lungarella, Gildo, Harcourt AG, “Managed Futures: A Real Alternative,” swissHEDGE, 4th Quarter 2002. Lux, Hal, “Risk Gets Riskier,” Institutional Investor magazine, October 2002, pp. 28-36. Ross, Steve, “Market Efficiency and Behavioral Finance,” Presentation at MIT Fama Conference, May 2004. Sharpe, William, “The Sharpe Ratio,” Journal of Portfolio Management, Fall 1994, pp. 49-58. Siegmann, Arjen and Andre Lucas, “Explaining Hedge Fund Investment Styles By Loss Aversion: A Rational Alternative,”Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, May 2002. Signer, Andreas and Laurent Favre, “The Difficulties of Measuring the Benefits of Hedge Funds,” Journal of Alternative Investments,Summer 2002, pp. 31-41.29

References (Continued) Taleb, Nassim, Fooled By Randomness, Texere (New York), 2001. Till, Hilary and Joseph Eagleeye, “A Review of the Differences Between Traditional Investment Programs and Absolute-ReturnStrategies,” Quantitative Finance, June 2003, pp. C42-C48, http://www.premiacap.com/publications/QF 0603.pdf. Till, Hilary, “The Role of Hedge Funds in Institutional Portfolios: Part II,” PRMIA (Professional Risk Managers’ InternationalAssociation) Members’ Update, October 2004, pp. 1-5. Till, Hilary and Jodie Gunzberg, “Survey of Recent Hedge Fund Articles, Journal of Wealth Management, Winter 2005, pp. 81-98.Presentation Prepared By Katherine Farren, Premia Risk Consultancy, Inc., farren@premiacap.com30

Hedge-Fund Style Radars “The figure shows the hedge fund radars obtained for a convertible arbitrage fund (left) and a fund of hedge funds (right). The sensitivities (i.e., style-beta coefficients) are estimated using three years of historical data.” Source: Lhabitant (2001). 0.00 0.05

Related Documents:

Section I Hedge Funds. 9 2. Introduction to Hedge Funds 11 3. Establishing a Hedge Fund Investment Program 37 4. Selecting a Hedge Fund Manager 57 5. Due Diligence for Hedge Fund Managers 69 6. Risk Management Part 1: Hedge Fund Return Distributions 93 7. Risk Management Part II: Additional Hedge Fund Risks

Hedge Fund Spotlight, the monthly newsletter from Preqin providing insights into the hedge fund industry, including information on investors, funds, performance and more. Hedge Fund Spotlight uses information from our online product Hedge Fund Online, which includes Hedge Fund I

South Africa’s hedge fund industry. Broadly speaking, the Hedge Fund Regulations established certain ‘fit and proper requirements’ for hedge fund managers, introduced the procedures which hedge fund managers are required to follow in order to obtain authorisation to act as such and the created of a Code of Conduct for hedge fund managers.

Source: Preqin Hedge Fund Online Hong Kong, home to 63bn of hedge fund AUM and 368 fund managers, is the centre of the hedge fund industry in Asia Paci c. In fact it is the third largest country globally, in terms of hedge fund capital managed, behind the US and the UK. Hong Kong has been a longestablished centre for hedge fund activity;

Hedge Fund Research (HFR) database, also the industry standard for hedge fund data. HFR, Inc. utilizes a UCITS compliant methodology to construct the HFRX Hedge Fund Indices. The methodology is based on defined and predetermined rules and objective criteria to select and rebalance components to maximize representation of the Hedge Fund Universe.

I am a hedge fund manager I am an investor Global Hedge Fund Benchmark Study 8 This survey is part of an ongoing series of research projects conducted by AIMA, Simmons & Simmons and Seward & Kissel. We considered the health of the hedge fund industry and explore various trends prevalent in the hedge fund industry.

2 THE CONCEPT OF HEDGE FUNDS 6 3 TYPOLOGY OF HEDGE FUNDS 8 4 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HEDGE FUND INDUSTRY 11 4.1 Location of hedge funds and their managers 11 4.2 Incentive structure and failure rates 17 4.3 Parties involved 18 4.4 Investors 19 4.5 Fund size 20 5 RECENT EVOLUTION OF THE HEDGE FUND BUSINESS 22 6 FINANCIAL STABILITY IMPLICATIONS 25

1.3. Enhanced Economics of Hedge Fund Seeding A seeder’s return potential is greater than that of other investors in a hedge fund because the seeder usually receives a portion of the hedge fund’s revenue stream. Thus, the seeder’s