Misusing These Popular Alternative Investment Terms? Inconceivable!

One of my favorite movies is The Princess Bride. Those of you that know me and my sense of humor probably aren’t surprised by that, but seriously, how can you NOT love a movie with R.O.U.S. (Rodents of Unusual Size), Miracle Max and a mysterious six-fingered man?

In fact, one of the best movie exchanges ever written probably appears in that movie. In it, the Dread Pirate Roberts is following Vizzini, Fezzik, and Inigo Montoya as they kidnap the titular princess, intent on malfeasance. 

Even as the Dread Pirate Roberts pursues them across an ocean of screaming eels and up the Cliffs of Insanity, Vizzini cries repeatedly that such actions are “Inconceivable!” Finally, Inigo Montoya declares: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Comic gold? Absolutely.

Applicable to the alternative investment industry? Curiously, yes.

Recent interactions with various folks in the investment industry have led me to believe that Inigo may well have been speaking to us as well. In a number of cases, the words we use don’t mean what we think they mean. Perhaps we’ve selected them because they’re particular sexeh or they represent what we wish were true, rather than what is true, but regardless, we’re all sometimes guilty of creating a little linguistic anarchy by misusing investment terminology.

So, without further ado, and in no particular order, here are my top five investment terms that do not mean what we sometimes think they mean.

1. High Conviction and/or Concentrated– There is a growing body of research that supports the theory that high conviction portfolios generate higher returns. For example, a 2008 study from Harvard, the London School of Economic and Goldman Sachs found that, within U.S. Equity Mutual Funds, the highest conviction stocks outperformed the broad U.S. stock market and lower conviction stocks between 1 and 4 percent per quarter. Not too shabby. As a result, many investors like to see high conviction managers and many managers like to say they manage high conviction portfolios. But here’s a hint, it’s hard to have a portfolio of 50 high conviction positions. High conviction doesn’t just mean you LOVE your investments, it means you have fewer, larger positions, period. Which leads me to concentrated portfolios. As part and parcel of the High Conviction theme, I’ve come across an increasing number of managers who boast concentrated portfolios. Again, more than 50 positions does not a concentrated portfolio make. Take Warren Buffett for example. He usually has about 10 names in his book. Those keeping track, that’s conviction and concentration.
   
2. Unicorn – Merriam Webster defines a unicorn as “a mythical animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead.” The fact that it’s mythical means that the average Joe isn’t going to find a unicorn on his back porch eating the cat’s food anytime soon. In investing, a unicorn is a private company valued at $1 billion or more. As of March 2015, there were more than 80 unicorns according to CB Research, or just under the number from the prior three years combined. There are animals on the endangered species list with less population density. Perhaps we need a new term.
   
3. Emerging Manager – If you have a billion in AUM, and you’re not women, minority, or veteran owned, you are not an emerging manager. If you have $500 million in AUM, and you’re not women, minority, or veteran owned, you are not an emerging manager. If you have $250 million in AUM, and you’re not women, minority, or veteran owned, you are on the cusp (the top end) of being an emerging manager. If you are on Fund III, IV or V, and you’re not women, minority, or veteran owned, you are not an emerging manager.
   
4. Poor Performance – Underperforming an arbitrary and/or unrelated index is not an appropriate measure of performance. For example, comparing credit investments to the S&P 500. Comparing long-short equity investments to long only managers or long-only indexes. Determining whether something is good or bad relative to something else requires that the things being compared be largely similar to begin with.
   
5. Bottoms Up – “Bottoms up!” is a toast. Bottom-up is a way of analyzing information during the research process.

Seeing and hearing these terms misused in the investment industry makes my left eye twitch. Help save me from a lifetime of folks asking “Are you looking at me?” and start using these frequent used, but often abused, terms correctly.

Sources: http://www.globaleconomicandinvestmentanalytics.com/archiveslist/articles/499-the-case-for-high-conviction-investing.html, Merriam Webster, CB Insights

Crisis Communication for Investment Managers

Crisis communications isn't something most money managers practice very often. Well, I guess if they did, they probably wouldn't continue to manage money very long. But last week's market volatility was a great crisis communication "pop quiz" for investment managers. In case you failed the test, or if you just want to boost your score with investors, here are some tips for effectively communicating with investors and prospects during a crisis, whether it's market-driven or created by personnel, regulatory bodies, service providers, or litigation. Communicating effectively during a crisis can make or break a business, so study up and ace the next test.

(C) MJ Alternative Investment Research

The Wrong Barn Door?

Every Thursday there is a crisis at my house. A big one. It involves Hollywood movie scale running, hiding and yelling. The best FX team has nothing on the Matrix-like special effects that go on Chez MJ. And I can always tell the crisis is starting when I see this:

Yes, my Thursday Crisis is the Invasion of the House Cleaners. It’s scary stuff because, you know, vacuums and rags and spray bottles (oh my!).

How my cats learned to anticipate the Thursday Crisis is beyond me. I suppose there are subtle clues. I get up a little earlier to pick up and unload the dishwasher. (No judgment! I bet if I did a scientific poll about people who clean before their maids arrive the results would show I’m in the majority). I make a least one trip to the laundry room to grab clean sheets and towels. Whatever it may be, Spike and Tyrone have learned to watch for Thursdays with the diligence of Jack Nicolson guarding us against Cuban communism in A Few Good Men (“You can’t handle the vacuum!”).

For the rest of us, watching for the next financial crisis is a bit more nuanced. Last week, for example, I read two articles that made me wonder if we even understand what a crisis is, or if we all believe financial panic is as predictable as my housecleaners’ arrival.

The first article looked at the state of venture capital in the U.S. New figures, released by PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association showed that venture capital investments in companies reached $17.5 during the second quarter of 2015, their highest totals since 2000. However, the article argued that, given that the total projected investment for 2015 (more than $49 billion) was less than the total amount invested in 2000 ($144 billion) and that the number of deals is lower as well, it couldn’t be another tech wreck-venture capital bubble in the making.

The second article looked at the risk precision of Form PF – a document introduced post-2008 to better understand and measure the risks created by hedge funds. The article cited two instances where hedge funds had proven their ability to destabilize economies: George Soros’ attack on the GBP in 1992 and Long Term Capital Management, the first "too big to fail", in 1998. Given that the hedge fund industry is now much larger than it was during those two “crisis”, it of course stands to reason that the risks created by hedge funds are now exponentially greater as well.

Or are they? 

Both articles were extremely interesting and presented compelling facts and figures, but they also were intriguing in that both seemed to assume that, at least in part, we experience the same crisis repeatedly. That perhaps we have a financial boogeyman waiting outside of the New York Stock Exchange every Thursday, much like my housecleaners.

But the reality is, a crisis is often a crisis precisely because we don’t see it coming. Each meltdown looks different, however subtly, from the one that went before. Which begs two questions:

1. Are we always slamming the barn door after the horses are gone?
2. And going forward, are we even worried about the right barn door?

Let’s look at a few financial meltdowns as examples.

1987 – Largely blamed on program trading by large institutions attempting to hedge portfolio risk.

1990s – Real estate crisis caused by market oversupply.

1998 – Asian markets (1997) plus Russia plus Long Term Capital Management– a hedge fund leveraged out the ying yang (technical term).

2000-2002 – The tech wreck. Could be blamed on “irrational exuberance”, changes to tax code that favored stocks with no dividends, or excessive investment in companies with no earnings (or products in some cases).

2008 – Credit meltdown created largely by overleveraged consumers and financial institutions.  Real estate crisis created by demand (not supply).

2011 – Sovereign credit issues, not a total meltdown obviously, but noticeable, particularly in many credit markets.

While these are gross oversimplifications of each period, it does show a clear pattern that, well, there ain’t much of a clear pattern. Bubbles happen largely due to macro-economic investor psychology. Everyone jumps on the same bandwagon, and then decides to jump off at roughly the same point. Think of it as Groupthink on a fiscal level. It isn’t easy to break away from Groupthink and it’s often even harder to spot, given that we’re often part of the group when the bubble is building.

So what’s the point of this little rant? Do I think we’re at a new venture capital bubble? I don’t know. The market has changed dramatically since 2000 – crowdfunding, Unicorn Watch 2015, lower costs for startups, and shows like “Shark Tank” are all evidence of that, in my opinion. And are hedge funds creating systemic risk in the financial markets? I don’t know the answer to that question either, but ETFs have now eclipsed hedge funds in size and robo investors are gaining ground faster than you can say “Terminator,” and LTCM was nearly 20 years ago, so it seems unlikely that hedge funds are the sole weak spot in the markets.

I guess I said all that to say simply this: If we spend too much time trying to guard ourselves against the problems we’ve already experienced, we’re unlikely to even notice the new danger we may be facing. If my cats only worry about Thursdays, what happens if the plumber shows up on Tuesday? Panic. If you drive forward while looking behind you, what generally happens? Crash.

MJ Blog RSS

Sources: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/248784, http://www.ibtimes.com/hedge-fund-risks-may-be-bigger-regulators-know-despite-dodd-frank-2033322

Trust Me, I’m a Portfolio Manager!

Last week’s post on the softer side of investing garnered a question from an intrepid reader:

Just how does a manager go about building trust and a personal relationship with investors and prospects?

Excellent question, and since I regularly offer unsolicited advice on how to further capital raising efforts, one on which I am more than happy to opine. So with very little ado, here are MJ’s Top Ten Ways To Build Better Relationships With Investors and Prospects. While this list isn’t quite as funny as the Top 10 Bad Names for Businesses (http://www.ultimatetop10s.com/top-10-bad-names-businesses/), it may just save you from closing your fund to become the next franchisee for this business. 

http://www.ultimatetop10s.com/top-10-bad-names-businesses/

Top Ten Ways To Build Better Relationships With Investors and Prospects

1. Have conversations, not monologues. When you walk in to give an initial pitch or a portfolio update do you spend the majority of the time giving your spiel? Do you doggedly march through your pitch book? How much time passes before you ask your audience a question? Before you launch into your pitching soliloquy, ask your audience some questions about themselves, their portfolio and their investment goals. Pause on your table of contents and ask, “Here’s what I would like to cover today, what would you like to spend the most/least time on? Are there other topics you’d like to address?” Take notes, plan your time accordingly, and instead of taking your audience on a PowerPoint Trail of Tears, tailor the time you have for maximum & (most importantly) mutual productivity.
2. Always tell the truth, even if the answer is “I don’t know.” This goes for you and your entire staff. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve gotten one answer from a marketing/cap intro source and a different answer from a portfolio manager. Always remember: “I’ll get back to you on that.” is a perfectly acceptable reply.
3. Put information about your staff and other support personnel in your pitch book and DDQ. We all remember the phrase “Two guys and a Bloomberg” from the good/bad old days of investing. Well, my friends, those day are gone (if they ever existed). No portfolio manager is an island and, whatever your stud duck fantasies may be, it takes more than one person to manage money. Not including the firm’s staff in a pitch book (including outsourced services) creates two problems for investors. A) They have to ask how tasks get done, which an investor shouldn’t have to wonder and B) it may make them think that the manager does not value their staff. Employee turnover, particularly in CFO, CCO, COO, key analyst and other functions, can be almost as devastating to a fund as manager turnover, so I worry both about hubris and employee satisfaction when I don’t see a pretty little org chart. With names.
4. Talk about your background, but then, um, stop talking. I have met with managers who spent an entire meeting taking me on what seemed like a minute-by-minute tour of their professional bio. And don’t get me wrong: I care. I just don’t care that much. I can read your bio. I need to know what you see as the key inflection points and the highlights of why your background qualifies you to run the fund. I do not need an hour-long history lesson that starts off a la Steve Martin in The Jerk.
5. Call before bad news arrives… A fund of funds manager friend of mine has one cardinal rule: Call me before you end up in the Wall Street Journal. I would add to that: Call me before a large, out of character loss. Call me when your entire market segment is blowing up. Call me if one of your peers is having public valuation issues and tell me why you’re not and won’t. Give your investors and prospects a heads up and they will come to trust you more.
6.  …but don’t only call for bad news. If you only call when things are bad, investors develop a Pavlovian response to your phone calls. Call with good news once in a while (e.g. a really good month, a terrific new hire, a great new investor, you’re going to be on CNBC…).
7. Talk about what you’ve learned and how you learned it. One of the things many investors want to know about a money manager is what they’ve learned and that they are capable of continued learning. If a particular drawdown or market scare made you change your strategy or thinking about certain scenarios, that’s great to talk about. A long time ago, a prior firm had an investment with a manager that experienced significant losses during a market meltdown. When we sat with him to discuss the portfolio, he talked about that period and said that if he had it to do over again, he would sell off the book and start over. When the markets went into the pooper (technical term) in 2000, the manager did just that. He was able to avert large losses, he showed that he could learn, and he gained additional trust because he did what he said he would do, all in one fell swoop.
8.  Let people know what scares the pants off of you from a market or investment perspective. In 1999, I met with a famous money management firm to evaluate one of their funds for investment. I asked them about their worst market scenario and how they would react. They said that they couldn’t imagine a scenario where they wouldn’t see what was coming and get out of the way well in advance. Less than six months later they lost over 20% in one month. So much for that legendary foresight, eh? Every manager will lose money. Being honest about when and how a fund can lose money and how you plan to react lets your investors sleep better at night.
9. Don’t hide behind jargon, buzzwords, or opaque language. At a “speed dating” capital introduction event many years ago, a frantic event organizer begged me to go into the room with a fund manager who was, um, lonely. It seems investors came to his sessions but quickly received urgent calls or emails and had to depart. I attended his session and quickly learned why. The manager didn’t want people to figure out his “secret sauce” so he talked in the most pompous, jargon-filled manner imaginable. I wanted to shank myself with my coffee stirrer within 15 minutes. Hiding behind big words, complex math and opaque terms doesn’t make a manager sound smarter. It makes them sound scarier and riskier. It means investors have to ask questions that make them feel stupid. Word to the wise: When you make people feel dumb, they seldom give you money.
10. Know your client.  This goes beyond the B/D definition and fun compliance videos we've all had to watch and hits on a personal level. To the extent possible, make an effort to know key facts about every client. Where do they live? Are they married? Do they have kids? What do they like to do when they aren’t asking you every question on the AIMA DDQ? Being able to have an actual personal discussion moves your relationship out of simple transactions. Don’t underestimate the power of the personal connection. 

Swingers And The Art of Investor Communication

For those of you that were fans of the movie Swingers you may remember this infamous scene:

“[It's 2:32am, and Mike decides to call Nikki, a girl he met just a few hours ago][Nikki's machine picks up: Hi, this is Nikki. Leave a message]

MIKE: Hi, uh, Nikki, this is Mike. I met you at the, um, at the Dresden tonight. I just called to say that I had a great time... and you should call me tomorrow, or in two days, whatever. Anyway, my number is 213-555-4679 -

[the machine beeps. Mike calls back, the machine picks up]

MIKE Hi, Nikki, this is Mike again. I just called cuz it sounded like your machine might've cut me off when I, before I finished leaving my number. Anyway, uh, and, y'know, and also, sorry to call so late, but you were still at the Dresden when I left so I knew I'd get your machine. Anyhow, uh, my number's 21 -

[the machine beeps. Mike calls back; the machine picks up again]

MIKE: 213-555-4679. That's it. I just wanna leave my number. I didn't want you to think I was weird or desperate, or... we should just hang out and see where it goes cuz it's nice and, y'know, no expectations. Ok? Thanks a lot. Bye bye.

[a few more calls. Mike walks away from the phone... then walks back and calls again; once again, the machine picks up]

NIKKI: [picks up] Mike?

MIKE: [very cheerful] Nikki? Great! Did you just walk in or were you listening all along?

NIKKI: Don't ever call me again.

[hangs up]”

Yeah, communicating with potential investors can feel a bit like that.

Lionsgate Entertainment

In fact, a few years ago I was speaking with an investor friend in Switzerland about manager communication. I asked him how much he liked to hear from his current managers and potential investments and, as was his wont, he laconically answered “Enough.”  When I pressed him a bit further, he provided a story to illustrate his point.

“There is a manager that I hear from every day it seems. Every time I open the mail or get an email or answer the phone, I know it must be them. Finally, I started marking ‘Deceased’ on everything they sent and sending it back. Eventually the communication stopped.”

Seriously, when you have to fake your own death to escape an aggressive fund marketer, they’ve probably gone just a HAIR too far, donchathink?

All kidding aside, communication (how much and how often) is a serious question, and one that I get a lot from fund managers, particularly those frustrated with a lack of progress from potential investors.

While some managers react to slow moving capital-raising cycles by reducing or ceasing all communication (bad idea!), others move too far in the other direction, potentially killing (hopefully just figuratively) their prospects with emails, letters, calls, etc.  But there is a happy medium for investor communication if you follow these simple guidelines.

Early communication – In the earliest days, just after you’ve met a new potential investor, your goals for communication are simple:

1.  Provide key information about the fund (pitch book, performance history);
   
2. Attempt to schedule a meeting (or a follow up meeting) to discuss the fund in person;
   
3. Establish what additional materials the prospect would like to see (DDQ, ongoing monthly/quarterly letters, audits, white papers, etc.)
   
4. Send those materials

Your only goal at this stage is to see if you can move the ball forward to get to a meeting or a follow up meeting. Think of it like dating. Just not like Swingers dating. You always want to try to move the ball down the field, with the realization that being overzealous is more likely to get you slobberknockered than a touchdown.

Ongoing communication – After you have established a dialog with a potential investor, you should have realized (read: ASKED) what that investor wishes to receive on an ongoing basis. You should continue sending that. In perpetuity. Unless they ask you to stop, or they literally or figuratively die. Think about how much communication that an investor receives from the 10,000 hedge funds, 2,209 private equity funds, and 200+ venture capital funds that are actively fundraising. If your fund falls completely off the radar, how likely is it than an investor will think about you down the line? Yeah, them ain’t good odds. Your ongoing communication should consist of a combination of the following:

1. Monthly performance and commentary;
   
2. White papers (educationally focused);
   
3. Invitations to webinars or investor days that you are hosting or notifications about where you will be speaking;
   
4. Email if you are going to be in the prospects’ vicinity to see if an additional meeting makes sense.
   

In addition, it is a good idea to establish an appropriate time to call during your meetings. For example, after the initial or follow up meeting, ask specifically when you should follow up via phone. And then do it – no ifs, ands or buts. Even if performance isn’t great at the moment. Even if you feel you’ve now got bigger fish to fry. Make the call. And during that call, make an appointment for another call. And so on and so on and so on.

The trick here is to keep the fund in front of a potential investor without being in their face. And to do that, you MUST ask questions and you must be prepared to hear that another call and/or meeting may not make sense at the moment. Take cues from potential investors. Trust me, they’ll appreciate you for it.

During Due Diligence – If you are lucky enough to make it to the due diligence stage, I would suggest preparing a basic package of materials that you can send to expedite the process and demonstrate a high level of professionalism.

1. AIMA approved DDQ – And don’t leave out questions. We’ve all seen these enough to know when questions have been deleted. If a question isn’t applicable put in N/A.
   
2. References
   
3. Audits (all years since inception)
   
4. Biographies of principals
   
5. Organization chart
   
6. Offering documents
   
7. Articles of incorporation
   
8. Investment management agreement
   
9. Information about outside board members
   
10. Service provider contacts
    
11. Valuation policies (if applicable)
    
12. Form ADV (I and II)
    

After The Investment – After an investor makes an investment in your fund you should stay focused on your communication strategies. Ideally, you should agree with the investor BEFORE THE WIRE ARRIVES what they wish to see (and what you can provide) on an ongoing basis. This will help avoid problems in the future. You can earn bonus points by including any ODD personnel on materials related to operational due diligence, since they don’t always get shared between IDD and ODD departments.

Also, make sure you pick up the phone when performance is particularly good OR particularly bad. Many managers will call when performance is bad for advance “damage control,” but only calling when performance is bad creates a negative Pavlovian response to caller ID.  Don’t be the fund people dread hearing from.

Hopefully these guidelines will help as you navigate the fundraising cycle. And if not, hey, Swingers quote.

Sources: IMDB.com, CNBC, NVCA

Excusa-paloosa: The Sad Excuses We Give To Avoid Small Funds & Gender Diversity

I am no stranger to making lame excuses. Just last week, in the throes of a bad case of the flu, I managed to justify not only the eating of strawberry pop-tarts and Top Ramen but also the viewing of at least one episode of “Friday Night Lights.” It’s nice to know that when the chips are down at my house, I turn into caricature of a trailer park redneck. 

But in between bouts of coughing and episodes of Judge Judy, however, I did manage to get some work done. And perhaps it was hyper-vigilance about my own excuse making that made me particularly sensitive to the contrivances of others, but it certainly seemed like a doozy of a week for rationalizations. Particularly when it came to fund diversity in nearly every sense of the term, but particularly when it came to investing in women and/or small funds.

So without further ado (and hopefully with no further flu-induced ah-choo!), here were my two favorite pretexts from last week.

Excusa-Palooza Doozie #1 – “We want to hire diverse candidates, but we can’t find them.”

In an interview with Fortune magazine, Marc Andreessen, head of Andreessen Horowitz said that he had tried to hire a female general partner five whole times, but that “she had turned him down.”

Now c’mon, Mr. Andreessen. You can’t possible be saying that there is only one qualified female venture capital GP candidate in the entire free world? I know that women only comprise about 8-10% of current venture capital executives but unless there are only 100 total VC industry participants, that still doesn’t reduce down to one. Andreessen Horowitz has within its own confines 52% female employees, and none of them are promotable? If that’s true, you need a new head of recruiting. Or a new career development program. Or both. 

But it seems that Andreessen isn’t entirely alone in casting a very narrow net when it comes to adding diversity. A late-March Reuters piece also noted that they best way to get tapped to join a board as a woman was to already be on a board. One female board member interviewed had received 18 invitations to join boards over 24 months alone.

It seems the criteria used to recruit women (and, to some extent, minority) candidates into high-level positions are perhaps a bit too restrictive. In fact, maybe this isn’t a “pipeline” problem like we’ve been led to believe. Maybe it’s instead more of a tunnel vision issue.

So, as always happy to offer unsolicited advice, let me put on my peanut gallery hat. If you genuinely want to add diversity to your investment staff, here are some good places to look:

• Conferences – The National Association of Securities Professionals, RG Associates, The Women’s Private Equity Summit, Opal’s Emerging Manager events, the CFA Society, Morningstar and other organizations are all now conducing events geared towards women and minority investing. Look at the brochures and identify candidates. Better yet, actually attend the conference and see what all the hubbub is about, bub. 
• Word of mouth – I have to wonder if Andreessen asked the female GP candidate on any of his recruitment attempts if she knew anyone else she could recommend. If not, shame on him. Our industry is built in large part on networking. We network for deals, investors, service providers, market intelligence, recruiting, job hunting, etc. We are masters of the network (or we should be) and so it seems reasonable that networking would be a fall back position for anyone seeking talent. And if Andreessen did ask and was not given suitable introductions to alternate candidates, shame on the “unnamed woman general partner.” 
• Recruiters – Given the growing body of evidence that shows diversity is good for investors, it’s perhaps no surprise that there are now at least two recruiters who specialize in diversity candidates within the investment industry. Let them do the legwork for you for board members, investment professionals and the like.
• Service providers – Want a bead on a diverse CFO/CCO – call your fund auditor. Looking for investment staff? Call your prime broker or legal counsel. Your service providers see lots of folks come in and out of their doors. Funds that didn’t quite achieve lift off, people who are looking for a change, etc. – chances are your service providers have seen them all and know where the bodies are buried. Don’t be afraid to ask them for referrals.

Excusa-Palooza Doozie #2 – See?!? Investors are allocating to “small” hedge funds! In a second article guaranteed to get both my fever and my dander up, we were treated to an incredibly optimistic turn of asset flow events. It turns out that “small” hedge funds took in roughly half of capital inflows in 2014, up from 37% in 2013 per the WSJ.

Now before you break out the champagne, let me do a little clarification for you.

Hedge funds with $5 billion or more took in half of all asset flows.

Everything that wasn’t in the $5 billion club was termed “small” and was the recipient of the other half of the asset inflows.

It would have been interesting to see how that broke down between funds with $1 billion to $5 billion and everyone else. We already know from industry-watchers HFR (who provided the WSJ figures) that 89% of assets went to funds with more than $1 billion under management. We also already know that there are only 500 or so hedge funds with more than $1 billion under management. So really, when you put the pieces together, aren’t we really saying that hedge funds with $5 billion or more got 50% of the asset flows, hedge funds with $1 billion to $5 billion got 39% of the remaining asset flows, and that truly “small”  and, well, "small-ish" hedge funds got 11% in asset flows?

I mean, for a hedge fund to be termed “small” wouldn’t it have to be below the industry’s median size? With only 500 hedge funds at $1 billion or more and 9,500 hedge funds below that size, it seems not only highly unlikely but also mathematically impossible that the median hedge fund size is $5 billion. Or $1 billion. In fact, the last time I calculated the median size of a hedge fund (back in June 2011 for Barclays Capital) it was - wait for it, wait for it - $181 million.

And I’m betting you already know how much in asset flows went to managers under that median figure…somewhere just slightly north of bupkis. And the day that hedge funds under $200 million get half of the asset flows, I will hula hoop on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. 

So let’s do us all a favor and stop making excuses and start making actual changes. Otherwise, we’re leaving money and progress on the table, y’all. 

Sources: WSJ, HFR, BarclaysCapital, Reuters, Huffington Post

7 Secrets to a Successful Fund "Elevator Pitch"

Regular readers of my blog know that periodically I offer completely unsolicited fund marketing advice. Given that we are in the midst of a busy conference season, I thought it wise to focus this week's peanut gallery on the elevator pitch. If you've been to many conferences in any capacity, you've had the opportunity to witness the elevator pitch in all of its flavors - the good, the bad, and the practically sociopathic. You may have even been asked (out loud or with just a frantic glance across a crowded cocktail party) to aid and abet the escape from an elevator pitch gone wrong. 

To protect conference goers everywhere from the out-of-control elevator pitch, I've created the following infographic to help bring cosmos to the pitching chaos. I hope the advice will help your next asset raising encounter or at least make a colorful liner for your trash bin. As always, may the pitch be with you.

(c) MJ Alternative Investment Research LLC

Venn-dication? What Simple Graphs Can & Can't Tell Us About Alternative Investments

Everyone loves a Venn diagram. One of my industry friends insists the single best way to get a ton of views, likes and retweets on LinkedIn or Twitter is to build a pithy Venn. If it’s actually scribbled on cocktail napkin, so much the better.

As a case in point, last week there was an article in The New York Times that showed the “benefits” of hedge funds on one simple Venn diagram.  As my daddy always says, it was PFM - Pure Freaking Magic. 

Source: The New York Times

Of course, me being me, I did have a slight problem with this drawing. Besides the obviously fake napkin motif, it was, in my opinion, a somewhat Venn-dictive Venn.  

For example, when I look at the intersection of the three characteristics diagrammed (expense, appeal to rich people, don’t work well), I see a lot of more likely suspects than hedge funds.

Jaguars, for example. In 2013, Consumer Reports had not one but two pricey Jaguar models on their “Least Reliable” list, leading one magazine to quip that dependability was “in the crapper.” I think that’s a technical term.

And then there’s the laundry list of other things that are expensive, don’t work very well and are loved by rich people. Pre-nups, trophy wives and pool boys all make appearances on this list. Oh, and draping cashmere sweaters over your shoulders. Who the hell came up with that?

But I digress.

The problem, as I see it, is that the characteristics (circles) on a Venn are selected by a person who may have biases. Their agenda then impacts everyone who sees the graph and assumes, like many people do when stuff looks scientific, that its conclusion is fact.

What if, for example, we instead graphed some of the benefits of alternative investments (Yes, contrary to a lot of reporting these days there are some) and determined how they intersected to create strong investment opportunities? How does this change the “story” about whether alternative investments are good for investors? Would that provide any Venn-dication?

@MJ Alts

Hedge funds, for example, as much as some people don’t want to admit it, do have positive traits. Sure, the average fund has underperformed the S&P 500 in recent periods, but between 2007-2009, the average hedge fund kicked the index’s keister (another technical term), providing valuable downside protection and smoothing volatility. More recently, in January 2015, the S&P 500 dropped about 3%, while the average hedge fund was essentially flat, and diversifying strategies like managed futures and global macro gained 3% and 1.7%, respectively. The markets don’t always rocket straight up. You don’t always have time to wait out a correction. You want to sleep at night. Therefore, hedge funds may actually create some value.

Or think about private equity. Sure you could focus on fees and liquidity. Or you could look at the liquidity premium investors potentially score. Over the past 25 years, US private equity has created a 3.4 percentage point differential over the S&P 500. In fact, it is only during the latest bull market that this asset class has been edged by the indices. In part, these returns are achieved due to streamlining balance sheets and the business, which can be a good thing in and of itself. One study showed that sectors with private equity activity grew 20% faster, while another showed that only 6% of PE backed firms end up in bankruptcy or reorganization, a default rate lower than corporate bond issuers. And because private equity invests in, well, private equity, it can be more insulated from market volatility, lowering an investor’s overall correlations.

And let’s not forget about venture capital. Over the past 15, 20 and 25 years US venture capital has more than doubled the returns of the S&P 500. Even in the leaner, dot.com bubble years, venture capital still performed relatively well. And while the average investor now has access to venture investing through crowd funding platforms, they generally can’t bring in significant follow on financing, they don’t get involved in recruiting, they can’t provide office space, search for acquisitions, etc.

So are alternative investments all rainbows and kittens and puppy dog tails? Of course not. My point is simply this: looking only at the pejorative characteristics of anything is counter-productive. It may cause well-suited investors to eschew what might otherwise be an outstanding investment strategy match. Looking only at the positive characteristics may mislead investors into thinking that fees, frauds, losses and other mishaps don’t happen.

Perhaps our dialog and diagrams about alternative investments just need a little balance. Maybe we could even institute a five circle minimum. Regardless of the approach, it's clear we need a more (pun-intended) well-rounded approach.

Sources: The New York Times, eVestment Alliance, Cambridge Associates, The Atlantic “Is Private Equity Bad for the Economy”

What’s In A Name? What Fund Manager Names Tell Us About Diversity

William Shakespeare once asked, “What’s in a name?” believing, as many do, that “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” But on this point I must take issue with dear William and say instead that I think names have power. Perhaps this notion springs from being reared on the tale of Rumplestilskin or maybe from teenage readings of The Hobbit. It could be from my more recent forays into Jim Butcher’s Harry Dresden novels.

I know, I know - I never said I wasn’t a nerd.

Regardless of the origins of my belief, my theory was, in a way, proven earlier this week, when the New York Times ran a piece by Justin Wolfers entitled “Fewer Women Run Big Companies Than Men Named John.” In it, the writer created what he called a “Glass Ceiling Index” that looked at the ratio of men named John, Robert, William or James running companies in the S&P 1500 versus the number of women in the same role. His conclusion? For every one woman at the helm of a large company, there are four men named John, Robert, William or James.

To be clear: That’s not just one woman to every four generic men. That’s one woman for every four specifically-named men.

Wolfers’ study was inspired by an Ernst & Young report that looked at the ratio of women board members to men with the same ubiquitous monikers. E&Y found that for every woman (with any name) on a board, there were 1.03 men named John, Robert, William or James.

The New York Times article further showed that there are 2.17 Senate Republicans of the John-Bob-Will-Jim persuasion for every female senate republican, and 1.12 men with those names for every one female economics professor.

While all of that is certainly a sign that the more things change, the more they stay the same, it made me think about the financial world and our own glass ceiling.

In 17 years in finance, I have never once waited in line for the bathroom at a hedge fund or other investment conference. While telling, that’s certainly not a scientific measure of progress towards even moderate gender balance in finance. As a result, I decided it would be interesting to construct a more concrete measure of the fund management glass ceiling. After hours of looking through hedge fund & private equity mogul names like Kenneth, David, James, John, Robert, and William, I started referring to my creation as the “Jim-Bob Ratio,” as a good Southern girl should.

I looked at the 100 largest hedge funds, excluded six banks and large fund conglomerates that are not your typical “cult of personality” hedge fund shops, created a spreadsheet of hedge fund managers/founders/stud ducks and determined that the hedge fund industry has a whopping 11 fund moguls named John, Robert, William and James for every one woman fund manager. There was a 4:1 ratio just for Johns, and 3:1 for guys named Bill.

(c) MJ Alts

And even those ratios were generous: I counted Leda Braga separately from Blue Crest in my total, even though her fund was not discretely listed at the time of the 2014 list.

I also looked at the monikers of the “grand quesos” at the 20 largest private equity firms. There are currently three Williams, two Johns (or Jon) and one James versus zero large firm female private equity senior leadership.

Of course, you may be saying it’s unfair to look at only the largest funds, but I doubt the ratio improves a great deal as we go down the AUM food chain. There are currently only 125 female run hedge funds in a universe of 10,000 funds. That gives an 80:1 male to female fund ratio before we start sifting through names. In private equity and venture capital, we know from reading Forbes that women comprise only 11.8% (including non-investment executives) and 8.5% of partners, respectively. Therefore, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that the alternative investment industry’s Jim-Bob Ratio could fall below 4:1 even within larger samples. Ugh. One more reason for folks to say the S&P outperformed.

Now, before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, I should point out that I am vehemently NOT anti-male fund manager. The gentlemen on those lists have been wildly successful overall, and I in no way wish to or could diminish their performance and business accomplishments. And for those that are also wondering, I am also just as disappointed at the small (read virtually non-existent) racial diversity ratio on those lists as well. 

What I am, however, as regular readers of my blogs know, is a huge proponent for diversity (fund size, gender, race, strategy, fund age, etc.) in investing and a bit of a fan of the underdog. Diversity of strategies, instruments, and liquidity are all keys to building a successful portfolio if you ask me. And, perhaps even more importantly, you need diversity of thinking, or cognitive alpha, which seems like it could be in short supply when we look across the fund management landscape. Similar backgrounds, similar stories, and similar names could lead to similar performance and similar volatility profiles, dontcha think? While correlation can be your friend when the markets are trending up, it is rarely your bestie when the tables turn. And if you don’t have portfolio managers who think differently, are you ever truly diversified or uncorrelated?

In the coming months and years, I’d like to see the alternative investment industry specifically, and the investment industry in general, actively attempt to lower our Jim-Bob Ratio. And luckily, unlike the equity markets, there seems to be only one way for us to go from here. 

Sources include: Institutional Investor Alpha magazine, Business Insider, industry knowledge and a fair amount of tedious internet GTS (er, Google That Stuff) time. 

Pattern Recognition May Make You Poorer

As I was trapped in my Nashville home awaiting rescue after Snowpocalypse 2015 from one of Tennessee’s (not kidding) FIVE mid-state snowplows, I watched a lot of television, ate a lot of carbs and tried to fight off scurvy with gin and tonics and a splash of precious lime juice. But at some point, in between re-runs of Shawshank Redemption, Aliens and The Matrix, I was struck by the increasing mainstreaming of behavioral finance.

An advertisement for the Chevrolet Colorado, what is known in the Deep South as a “Big ‘Ol Truck,” highlighted a series of focus groups weighing in on the characteristics of two men, Truck Guy and Sedan Guy. 

Truck Guy and Sedan Guy from Chevy Colorado Commercial

Now, of course Truck Guy and Sedan Guy are, in fact, the same person, but groups of children, adults, single women, bearded men and old folks were asked to describe the characteristics of each man. The result? Truck Guy was rated as 85% more handsome, 76% more resourceful and 100% more likely to have an “awesome pet” than Sedan Guy.

While it may seem like a silly commercial, and obviously one geared towards my fellow Southern brethren, the reactions of the Chevy focus groups were not unlike the biases displayed in other walks of life. Like it or not, pattern recognition and its resultant behavioral biases are active in every decision you make. Unfortunately, in investing, it may be making you poorer.

Pattern recognition, in particular template matching, is the process by which our brains save time. The brain, which consumes more energy than any other organ in the human body, tries to expend the least energy possible to process data and make decisions by taking incoming sensory data and comparing it to what has already been stored in our memory. Hence why a simple picture of Truck Guy elicited judgments about his character and choice of dog when he was otherwise wholly unknown to the focus groups.

It's true pattern recognition can be beneficial – after all, it would be time consuming and exhausting to start over fresh with each new data set all the time a la 50 First Dates – it can also stand in the way of innovative and profitable thinking. In investing, for example, pattern recognition may impact where you direct your capital.

Let’s consider capital flows of assets into hedge funds, venture capital and private equity.

Hedge Funds – In 2014, 86.9% of asset flows went to funds with more than $1 billion under management per HFR. The “Billion Dollar Club” is approximately 500 funds out of an overall universe of roughly 10,000 funds. Per Pensions & Investments, the 25 largest hedge funds control 46% of all hedge fund assets as of the end of the year.

Venture Capital – Per the Wall Street Journal, venture capital firms raised $32.97 billion in 2014, with a mere 8 venture capital firms of $1 billion in AUM or more accounting for just over one-third of that total.

Private Equity – According to industry watcher Preqin – only 7% of the $486 billion raised in 2014 went to first time funds.

Looking at data like this, it’s clear that investors are thinking along the same lines:

·      I should only invest with firms that are BIG.

·      I should only invest with firms that are old (uh, “established”).

·      I should only invest with firms populated by the pale and male.

To many, this seems like a relatively “safe” approach to investing, along the lines of “No one gets fired for buying IBM.” Unfortunately, it doesn’t leave a lot of room for innovation, eye-popping returns, cognitive diversity and true diversification. So by sticking with these established patterns, what are investors potentially leaving on the table?

1)   Research has consistently shown that smaller funds (particularly on the hedged side) often perform better due to the ability to invest in niche plays and club-sized deals. In an increasingly volatile market, smaller funds may be able to be more nimble and liquidate positions in a pinch more easily than larger funds.

2)   Research has also shown that younger firms may post higher returns as well, due in part to the smaller fund sizes above as well as a smaller safety net provided by management fees.

3)   Research has shown that inclusion of women and minorities may increase returns, in some cases substantially. This cognitive and behavioral alpha may not be available, or may be available only in a limited fashion, at the industry’s largest firms. In addition, a lack of diversity at the fund management level may result in less diversification of deals, stocks, ideas and positions, creating additional correlation within a portfolio. In short, investors may not be as diversified as they think they are if all of their managers think alike.

At the end of the day, pattern recognition has created wealth, but it also leaves money (and risk) on the table. It seems to me that we could all be better off, richer and get better gas mileage if we left our prejudices at the door and just rode with Sedan Guy for a while. 

Don't Get Your Duct Tape In A Wad

On a recent flight from New York to Nashville, I took my seat on Barbie’s Dream Plane, otherwise known as a commuter jet, and was faced with a vehicle in such disrepair it actually unnerved someone who has flown more than 1.5 million miles in 15 years. And yes, that would be me.

I looked across the aisle and found a similarly “fixed” window one row back, and suddenly my thoughts were filled with being sucked out of a plane somewhere over West Virginia. The flight was virtually empty (leading my pessimistic mind to conclude that everyone else was smarter or luckier than I not to be on the explosive decompression-mobile) so I asked the flight attendant about the rather homey “repair.”

“It’s amazing!” she said. “And our CEO makes $57,000 per day and still uses duct tape.”

Well, I guess $57,000 will buy a helluva lot of duct tape - 16,913 rolls at WalMart by my calculations.

After I had safely landed in Nashville, however, I started wondering: Why do folks get so worked up over what hedge fund, private equity and other fund managers get paid, and don’t get nearly as vitriolic over a $57,000 per day gig at a corporation? I asked some friends and did some soul searching, and here’s what I came up with:

1.    Financial services professionals don’t do “real work.” Over the course of several days, I asked friends and family why it was ok for an airline CEO to make $20 million plus per year, but complete, foaming at the mouth, anathema for a hedge fund or private equity fund manager to make bank. Their (almost universal) response? Managing money isn’t “real work.”

The first time this response was given I chuckled a little. But after the next five to six responses I began to bristle and wonder, do people even understand what money management entails?

Running an investment firm requires the same skills and efforts of running a small business. You must manage, hire and fire employees. Appropriate policies, procedures and compliance must be established and followed. Relationships with service providers must be initiated and maintained. Client communication is required. Marketing is not optional. Of course, you have to create and maintain a successful investment track record. And if you think that is easy, chew on this: Only 1 in 100 day traders are “predictably profitable.”

Managing an investment firm is really no different than running an airline, albeit on a much, much smaller scale. And of course, investment firms find the use of duct tape is generally verboten when dealing with institutions and high net worth individuals.

2.    We think the “Rich List” is reality. Every year, Forbes and other publications publish their “Richest Hedge Fund Manager” lists, striking envy and loathing into the hearts of readers around the globe. And while it’s easy to be gobsmacked by the fact that Ray Dalio is worth $15.2 billion, John Paulson $13.7 billion and Paul Tudor Jones $4.3 billion, this is not the reality for most fund managers.

I’ve done the math for you before, but suffice it to say that the base pay for the AVERAGE hedge fund manager is something closer to $500,000-$750,000. While this is certainly a lot of money, it’s not as far in the stratosphere as one might think. Medscape reports that an orthopedic doctor can bank $413,000 or more annually as well. One study showed the median CEO pay package at companies with $1b in revenue was $15.1 million in 2012. And the top 0.1% of earners in the U.S.? Roughly 40% of them are top management at corporations, excluding finance.

If you want to know what pay is really like in the hedge fund universe (or if you're negotiating your bonus), look at SumZero’s report on hedge fund compensation. And remember, only 0.07% of hedge fund managers are billionaires.

3.    We focus more on fees than value. Roughly two weeks ago ago, I tweeted that CALPERS would be reducing the number of private equity managers in their portfolio to reduce fees. Almost immediately after the tweet, um, tweeted, I received a reply asserting that maybe CALPERS just didn’t get enough out of their private equity investment to justify costs.

How much has CALPERS made off private equity per their own website? $31 billion over 14 years.  Likewise, hedge funds have returned $1.5 trillion after fees over the last decade according to AIMA.

At the end of the day, investors invest to generate returns. We all know this doesn’t happen in a vacuum, without skill or without a significant investment of time and energy and business acumen on the part of those managing money. Frankly, my biggest concern when looking at my investment portfolio is my net return. If I am happy with that, I don’t necessarily dwell on what someone else is making. After all, I don’t likely have the skill, staff, time or expertise to generate a similar return.

It’s truly unfortunate that we’ve become almost singularly focused on investment manager income rather on diversification and value creation, but that’s where we seem to be. As a case in point, a February 1, 2015 article on the dearth of female fund managers pointed to one possible reason for the lack of estrogen on Wall Street: “On average, women appear to place more importance on feeling that their job has a clear value to society,” said Anne Richards of Aberdeen.

And I guess that leads me to wonder, when did making folks money, safeguarding retirement and financial goals, or helping pensions fund liabilities lose its value?

Don’t Listen to Greg Weinstein

In the 2000 movie release “Boiler Room” Greg Weinstein (in)famously talked about how to sell stocks to women. His advice? Don’t.

“We don't sell stock to women. I don't care who it is, we don't do it. Nancy Sinatra calls, you tell her you're sorry.” – Greg Weinstein

While I’m not on a Hollywood big screen, I am here to tell you this: Greg Weinstein is a moron.

Let me give you a few facts about women, wealth and investing.

• Studies have shown that women control 51.3% of personal wealth, and that number is expected to grow to 66% by 2030;
• U.S. women are an economy equal in size to the entire economy of Japan;
•  Women make up 47% of the top wealth holders in the U.S.;
• Women are either the sole decision maker or an equal decision maker in up to 90% of high net worth households;
• A 2014 MainStay Investments study showed that 89% of women who had invested in alternatives had a positive experience and that 27% of women (compared with 20% of men) are looking towards alternative investments; and,
•  High net worth women are more likely to invest in alternative investments. According to a 2015 CNBC article women are “three times more likely to invest in hedge funds, venture capital and private equity and twice as likely to invest in commodities and precious metals.”

Affluent women are a powerful and growing force in the alternative investment investor landscape.

According to a 2014 Preqin report, high net worth investors account for 9% of hedge fund investors by type and 3.6% of the total assets in hedge funds. For many emerging hedge funds, high net worth investors comprise up to 100% of their assets under management. High net worth investors are therefore a critical part of the alternative investment investor-verse.

One final fact: Preqin released statistics on Monday showing that assets under management in alternative investments (including hedge funds, private equity, real estate, private debt and infrastructure) has grown to $6.9 trillion dollars.

If high net worth investors account for 3.6% of the AUM in alternatives, then nearly $250 billion of all alternative investment assets come from their pockets.

If women are sole or equal decision makers in 90% of high net worth households, then women control or influence nearly $225 billion of alternative investments.

As managers struggle to raise assets, as RIAs and CFPs look for new clients, as first funds look to launch, there should be a concerted effort to integrate this significant segment of the investor-verse. Failure to do so is not just short sighted, it’s also business-limiting.  

If you haven’t started thinking about how you can attract female investors, it’s time to start. I attended a women and wealth conference in New York last week. There were only three men in attendance. One was a speaker. One worked for another speaker. I didn’t get a chance to meet number 3, but suffice it to say that, based on my experience last week, it seems the emerging market that is women is continues to be overlooked by the financial services industry.

Wake up, y’all. Greg Weinstein was wrong.

Sources: Fara Warner: “Power of the Purse” & the American College of Financial Services, IRS, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, CNBC, Preqin)

New Year’s Resolutions for Investors and Managers (Part Deux)

Last week I directed everyone’s post-holiday attention to making New Year’s Resolutions for investors. Now that everyone has had a week to digest those mantras, get over the soreness you inevitably felt after hitting the gym (for the first time in 12 months) diligently, and have balanced your ketones after a week of low-carb, New Year dieting, I thought it best to turn attention to resolutions for money managers.  If you missed last week’s post, you can find it HERE. For those of you still looking to make a few investing resolutions for 2015, read on.

Money Manager Resolutions:

I resolve to create a business plan around capital raising – Raising and maintaining assets under management has perhaps become as critical as performance. Don’t believe me? Look at recent fund closures. Paul Tudor Jones just announced the shuttering of his longest standing fund, which at $300 million was absorbing a disproportionate amount of firm resources. Merchants Gate, which peaked at $2.3 billion in AUM, decided to close as assets shrank to $1.1 billion, despite above average performance. Woodbine Capital closed after assets dipped to $400 million. Indeed, during the first half of 2014, Hedge Fund Research (HFR) reported that 461 funds closed, which was on pace to equal or exceed the worst year on record for hedge fund liquidations: 2009.

While many people believe that hedge funds “fail” in a blaze of glory a la Amaranth or Galleon, most hedge funds die a death of 1,000 cuts, either never gaining enough performance traction or amassing enough assets to create a sustainable business. According to a 2012 Citi Prime Services report, hedge funds now need between $250 million and $375 million just to break even, and the relatively large closures listed above make me believe the number may be closer to the higher end of that spectrum.

So, with ten hedge fund firms accounting for 57 percent of asset flows in 2014, what’s a fund to do? At the very least, make a plan. If I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: Your capital raising efforts should be executed like Sherman marching through Georgia in 2015.

We all talk about the “business and operational risk” in hedge funds, and I, for one, would include an effective capital raising (and retention) strategy as one of those risks. Without an effective asset raising campaign, a hedge fund manager may have to:

1)   Spend more time on capital raising, potentially taking time away from generating strong performance;

2)   Worry more about redemptions. Any redemption payouts will likely have to be liquidated from the active portfolio, potentially compromising returns;

3)   Lower the investment minimum so investors will invest (and not be too large of a percentage of the fund). Sure, more investors is great, but client communications will also take more time;

4)   Constantly assuage investor (their own and their employees) fears about the long-term sustainability of the fund.

In 2015, make a plan for capital raising. Pick three to four conferences with a high concentration of potential investors and really work them. Get on the speaking faculty. Get the attendee list in advance and set up meetings before you arrive. Have great materials available. Practice your elevator pitch. After the event, have a plan for follow up. Write great investor letters. Polish your performance template. Host a webinar on your strategy. Hire a writer/capital raiser/graphic designer or whatever you need to fill in the gaps. People are already predicting 2015 will be a worse year for hedge fund closures – Let’s prove folks wrong. 

(NOTE: This does not mean I don't think there is still a place for small, niche funds. If a manager is content and profitable and generating returns smaller, that's fantastic, and needed in the industry). 

I resolve to find my own niche, but not tell everyone I’m the only one there – If I read the words “Our competitive advantage is our fundamental, bottoms-up [sic] stock picking” one more time, I will put out my own eye with a pencil. It’s very hard for a traditional stock picker to demonstrate alpha right now, so you must find, demonstrate and articulate an edge.

The fact is, many of the investors to whom I speak have vanilla investing covered. Whether it’s equities, private equity or credit, if it ain’t something they can’t do themselves, they aren’t likely to invest. If you do something really unique or spectacularly well, make sure you highlight that in every conversation and in all of your marketing efforts. For example, I’ve seen managers with great equity strategies market themselves as simple long/short funds, when in fact there is much more meat in their burger. Don't hide your light under an anemically worded bushel.

With that being said, I think if I hear “I am the only one who is long ________ now” one more time, I will poke out my eardrums with a number two pencil. Hubris is never attractive, and it can result in some spectacular losses. Just ask Long Term Capital Management.

At the end of the day, you often need other folks to figure out the equation (although preferably after you do) in order for your ideas to generate returns. If no one else ever unearths your undiscovered company, or piles into energy, or gets on your disruptive bandwagon, you’ll end up holding a nice position at par for a really long time. Not as attractive, eh? Explain why you're early in, but also why others will eventually get the memo for the best results.

I resolve to stick to my guns – This one may be tough. With the amount of pressure on money managers to outperform, avoid all losses, lower fees and generally walk on water, it can be hard to stay with a strategy that hasn’t been shooting the lights out, hold the line on fees to protect a fund’s long-term viability or not branch into strategies where expertise may be lacking. It’s also a fine line between maintaining conviction and riding an idea or stock to the bottom. For the most part, trust what you know. Explain when you have to. But always at least listen to what others and your intuition are telling you. 

Wishing all of us a safe, happy and prosperous year!

In Case You Missed Them - 2014 Blogs By Topic

In case you missed any of my snappy, snarky blogs in 2014, here is a quick reference guide (by topic) so you can catch up while you gear up for 2015. My blog will return with new content next Tuesday – starting with my "New Year’s Resolutions for Managers and Investors."

“How To” Marketing Blogs

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/12/8/anatomy-of-a-tear-sheet

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/11/12/emerging-manager-2015-travel-planner

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/10/21/conference-savvy-for-investment-managers

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/9/11/ten-commandments-for-pitch-book-salvation

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/7/18/emerging-managers-the-pitch-is-back

Risk

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/11/10/look-both-ways

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/11/3/the-honey-badger

General Alternative Investing

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/10/25/earworms-and-investing

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/10/7/alternative-investment-good-newsbad-news

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/9/17/pay-what

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/7/21/investing-and-the-law-of-unintended-consequences

 “The Truth About” Animated Blogs – Debunking Hedge Fund Myths

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/10/13/the-truth-about-hedge-fund-correlations

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/9/6/the-truth-about-hedge-fund-performance

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/8/8/the-truth-behind-hedge-fund-failures

Diversity Investing

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/12/8/getting-an-edge-in-private-equity-and-venture-capital

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/11/21/the-simple-case-for-emerging-managers

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/9/29/mi-alpha-pi-a-look-at-the-sources-of-alpha

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/7/21/affirmative-investing-putting-diverse-into-diversification

Private Equity and Venture Capital

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/12/8/getting-an-edge-in-private-equity-and-venture-capital

Emerging Managers

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/11/21/the-simple-case-for-emerging-managers

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/11/12/emerging-manager-2015-travel-planner

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/9/29/mi-alpha-pi-a-look-at-the-sources-of-alpha

http://www.aboutmjones.com/blog/2014/8/25/submerging-managers

Getting an Edge in Private Equity and Venture Capital

My gym teacher in junior high was a woman named Mrs. Landers. While I truly hated gym, Mrs. Landers was a godsend to an uncoordinated nerd like me.

You see, Mrs. Landers didn’t put your entire gym class grade in one basket. You got 50 points (out of 100) from “dressing out.” By simply changing from my Molly Ringwald-esque garb into a grotty Northport Jr. High gym-suit, I could get halfway to the “A” I craved. The written test counted for another 20 points. “Hello passing grade!” And I hadn’t even broken a sweat. The last 30 points came from actual physical activity, and admittedly, those I struggled with. But volunteer to put up the volleyball net? Five points. Get Mrs. Landers a diet coke and bag of Frito Lays to eat while she supervised our Jane Fonda workouts? Two points. Inevitably by the end of the semester, I had secured an A in gym without ever hitting, catching or running with a ball.

Finding more than one way to skin a cat is often a recipe for success. Today, Private Equity (an altogether different form of PE) has $1.04 trillion of dry powder, the highest on record according to the Private Equity Growth Council. As a result, there is a need to think creatively to ensure the best possible performance outcome for GPs and LPs alike. 

Cognitive alpha does exist in PE and in Venture Capital. There have been studies that show the excess return or alpha of women and minority owned firms in particular within the PE/VC space, although unfortunately there is a very small sample to study. Less than 1% of PE and VC firms are run or heavily influenced by women and minorities, along with less than 0.25% of the assets under management.  

And yet studies have shown that this small group “gets ‘er done.”

In one NAIC study of women and minority owned Private Equity, diverse firms delivered 1.5X return on investment versus 1.1X for non-diverse firms from 1998 to 2011. In the RK Women in Alternatives Study I authored in 2014, women-run PE firms outperformed the universe at large by one percentage point in 2013.

Now some would insert a best and brightest argument here: with such a small sample, isn't it only the best and brightest women and minorities that are able to rise through the PE and VC ranks to start a fund, causing the large return differential?

My answer is that I believe the reasons for outperformance go much deeper, well into the realm of behavioral finance. Two possible reasons for strong outperformance are pattern recognition and differentiated networks.

Pattern recognition – Even though our brains consume roughly 20% of the calories we take in, making it the greediest organ in our bodies, it is always looking for shortcuts. One of the ways it conserves energy is through pattern recognition. We tend to look for patterns in data so we can make decisions faster. In PE/VC, that means we look for companies that look similar in some way to past successes, and place our bets with those. Women and minorities may be able to recognize different patterns, allowing for profitable investments that are more “outside the box.”

Differentiated networks – Women and minority owned or influenced firms may be able to find differentiated deals due to expanded or different networks. It’s true that anyone who goes a traditional route to PE or VC has some overlap of network (B-school, analyst training programs, etc.) but even subtle differences in network can lead to differentiated deals with less crowding and less competition.

These two characteristics may help women and minority owned and influenced PE and VC to excel in an environment with a tremendous amount of dry powder. It may also lead them down roads less traveled in PE and VC – towards minority and female founders. A recent McKinsey study of UK companies found firms in the top 10% of gender and racial diversity had 5.6% higher earnings while firms in top quartile of racial diversity were 30% more likely to have above-average financial returns. Both desirable traits in a PE or VC portfolio. However, those firms don’t generally fit into the traditional PE and VC mold, as evidenced by the fact that minority and female owned companies are 21% and 2.6% less likely to get funded, respectively, according to Pepperdine University.

In a world where there is a tremendous amount of dry powder, increasing interest in PE/VC from institutions and individual investors alike, and where returns are, as always, key, every advantage is important. For investors looking for that extra “je ne sais quoi,” women and minority owned or influenced firms may be the ticket. For PE and VC firms looking to get an edge on competitors, diversity hiring could be in order, because unlike my gym class, there are no points awarded for simply getting dressed every morning.