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. 

Rampallions & Scullions & Hedge Funds, Oh My!

Last week, MarketWatch ran an OpEd on hedge funds that managed to insult nearly every participant in the financial marketplace. Hedge funds were described as “dethroned kings” ruling over an “empire of fools.” Hedge funds are a “cautionary tale” filled with insider trading, poor performance and investor backlash. Why, it is so bad that investors are no longer “dazzled” and hedge funds may be as bad as (gasp!) mutual funds.

I read that article with its virtually Shakespearean array of insults and actually wondered where the author keeps his money. Some folks have wagered it’s either under the bed or in Bitcoin, although I suppose there’s a slight chance it could be in a sock in the freezer. (Friendly note: that’s one of the first places that a thief will check.)

For those of you that are regular readers of my blog, you know that I’ve dealt with a number of the assertions in this article before. Let’s start with performance. There are few places where the phrase “Your Mileage May Vary” is as applicable as it is in the world of hedge funds. While there is no doubt that the average hedge fund return was anemic in comparison to the (insert sarcasm here) infallible S&P 500, an average provides merely that – the arithmetic mean of the top and bottom performers (and everything in between).

Assuming that all hedge funds generated lackluster returns because the average hedge fund did is just, well, silly. You can look at articles such as this CNBC piece or this ZeroHedge article to see hedge funds that didn’t just outperform their industry average, but kicked the pants off of the S&P 500 as well. There were funds that were up 30 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent 60 percent or more, to which I simply say “Thank you, sir, may I please have another?”  (And for those of you that are wondering, that's from Animal House, not Fifty Shades of Grey.)

For more information on The Truth About Hedge Fund Performance, check out my video blog from last quarter.

I’m also not going to get too deeply into the fee equation as I’ve touched on that a time or two as well. I think the last time was a mere two weeks ago in a blog post about duct tape.

But I have to say, what really buttered my toast this time around was the assertion that, in addition to being greedy underperformers, hedge funds have the corner on the insider trading market as well. The hedge fund inclination to insider trading came up twice in MarketWatch’s short post.

So before we start to tar hedge funds with that particular brush, let’s look at SEC data on enforcement actions, shall we?

The chart below shows all SEC enforcement actions across type and year. Note that insider trading is a relatively small category of enforcement actions. Year over year, insider trading accounts for an average of less than 8 percent of the actions of the SEC, with an average of about 50 insider trading enforcement actions per year.

Source: www.sec.gov

Now, even if ALL of the insider trading was committed by hedge funds, it would still represent a very small proportion of the hedge fund world. Take the ever-present 10,000 fund estimate that the industry favors: If all 50 of those annual insider trading schemes occurred in a hedge fund, then 0.05 percent of hedge funds would in fact be knaves and rapscallions.

But we know that insider trading is not solely committed by hedge funds. How do we know? We can again check out www.sec.gov and get a sense of who does commit this crime. Some of my particular favorites? Accounting firm partners, amateur golfers, vitamin company former board member, drug trial doctors, former BP employee, two husbands, Green Mountain Coffee employee, and the list goes on. And it’s true that some of these folks made millions in ill-gotten gains, although one guy got only $35,000 and a jet-ski dock. That dude must LOVE to jet ski.

Look, I’m not saying that some hedge fund managers haven’t done bad things. There certainly are hedge funds represented on the insider-trading list, and just today there was an article on a manager that faked his death to avoid paying back investors. But shenanigans aren’t limited to hedge funds and finance. For example, cell phone companies generate about 38,420 complaints per year, in comparison.

At the end of the day, I just wonder how good it is for the finance industry or for investors to totally defame the entire investment industry and slam hedge funds in particular. I am a fan of exploring all my investment options. Attempting to remove those options through “fund shaming” is ultimately bad for me and other investors. To the extent this kind of misinformation impacts inflows, encourages closures and causes qualified investors to dismiss hedge funds out of hand, it can only result in fewer investment options, lower returns and higher correlations and volatility. 

What “How I Met Your Mother” Can Teach Us About Hiring Fund Raising Staff

As regular readers of my blog know, once a month I try to offer some unsolicited advice to fund managers out on the capital raising trail. Today, I want to tackle the touchy topic of how to hire a great fund marketer.

Fans of “How I Met Your Mother” are likely familiar with the Vicki Mendoza line and its impact on Barney’s decision making. Leaving aside Barney’s oh-so-politically-incorrect humor on dating for a moment, it is possible to apply his matrix-based decision-making to other areas of life, like, for example, choosing a fund marketer.

The Contacts/Context Graph for Fund Marketing Success.

Hiring a marketer (or negotiating salary/bonus?) Where do you fit? (c) MJ Alternative Investment Research

On the Y-Axis I have created a Contacts scale. This measures the relative strength of the contacts your potential marketer is bringing to the table. Please note that the scale starts at 2 because, frankly, for the right price, anyone can obtain a list of investor targets from any number of sources. If that’s news to you, try Googling “Investor List” and you’ll be shocked by what you can buy.   

Of course, there are contacts and then there are contacts. With lists easily available (and potentially overused and/or out of date), it is important to judge the quality of the contacts, not just the quantity, as well.

• I started with a basic list as a 2.
• A good list with some personal (not just purchased or Googled) contacts gets a 4 to 6.
• Because it’s important not just to know investors, but to know the investors who match well with the fund’s strategy and life cycle, a robust list with at least some relevant personal contacts (e.g. the right type of investors for your fund, be they individual investor, family office or institutional) gets a 6 to an 8. After all, an emerging manager who hires a public plan marketing specialist may have difficultly quickly securing the early capital they need.
• Finally, an outstanding list with deep, relevant, personal contacts who have a history of investing with the marketer gets an 8 to a 10. 

The X-Axis is the Context Scale - how this individual fits in the context of my firm. Unfortunately, I had to start this scale with a -2 since there are some hires that are not only not a great fit with your organization, they are actively bad for your firm.

For example, I still remember the marketer I met more than 10 years ago who, after unsuccessfully pitching me in 5 minutes at an Opal conference cocktail hour said, and I quote, “Well, I’m here to raise assets, not to make friends. I’ll catch you later.” Or the guy who called me and my staff at Van Hedge on Fridays to ask if we were ready to invest yet. Every. Freaking. Friday. As a result of his calls, spontaneous laryngitis was common and highly contagious in our office at the end of each week.

Rest assured, folks like those will not only be unsuccessful at raising assets for your firm, they will also actively diminish your brand and reputation in the industry.

Think of it this way: I still remember the exact words from these guys after more than a decade. And while I am occasionally accused of being a little Rain Man-esque when it comes to facts, I can assure you that a bad impression lasts a really long time, no matter who you are.

The Context scale attempts to measure a number of things: sales skill, their personality fit in the overall make-up of the firm, willingness to pitch in outside of their domain, knowledge of the strategy and industry, attention to detail, compliance focus, proactive versus reactive nature, organizational skills, etc. It’s a broad scale, and I would suggest that before you start looking for a marketer you think about what elements of Context are most important to you and your firm.

So, let’s get down to brass tacks.

• If a potential hire scores below 0 on the Context line, they are firmly in the NO GO ZONE. No matter what their Contacts score look like.
• Below a 5 on both scales is what I call the Danger Zone. This may be a decent hire, but you should watch for friction within the organization and/or longer-lead time sales. A large part of their success will depend on attitude, general people skills and EQ.
• Above a 5 on the Contacts line but below a 5 on the Context line and you should consider hiring the individual as an outside contractor or a third party marketer (3PM). This will minimize friction in the organization (and any blowback outside the firm) and allow you to still capitalize on the marketer’s contacts.
• A 5 to 10 on the Context scale but low scores on Contacts means the person could be an excellent fit for the organization, but perhaps not the best marketer. They could be a tremendous addition to another area of the firm (investor relations, operations, entry level marketing) but will need time to build relationships and “season.” Understand that if you make a marketing hire in this zone, patience will likely be required.
• The Safe Zone contains good hires. They may be slower to fit in or to close business, but chances are they will get there.
• Between an 8 and a 10 on the context scale and a 6 to 8 on the contacts scale you’ll find Really Good Marketing Hires.
• If someone scores between an 8 and 10 on both scales, you should give them equity and encourage them to work at your firm forever. Actual golden handcuffs may be required.

Even, if you aren’t looking to make an internal hire, the Contacts/Context matrix works for third party marketers as well. We all know that 3PMs don’t always have the best “street cred” in our industry, but there are good choices out there. Select candidates using the Contacts/Context criteria and then rank further based on things like retainer, length of contract, trailing commission, geographic focus, etc.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, matrix and formula, but at least thinking through the issues raised by the Contacts/Context Matrix before making an internal or external hire should help you position your fund well above the Midas Line. 

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)

#SaveTheEmergingManager

Recent asset flow patterns and fund closures reveal that small (and new) hedge funds may be on the endangered species list. Recent data shows that funds need at least $250 million to break even, and even that may not be enough to successfully run a business. But if small hedge funds go the way of the dinosaur, what happens to structural alpha? Will niche investments, club deals and micro-caps be permanently overlooked? Where will investors look for outsized returns and differentiated portfolios?

Recent asset flow patterns and fund closures reveal that small (and new) hedge funds may be on the endangered species list. Recent data shows that funds need at least $250 million to break even, and even that may not be enough to successfully run a business. But if small hedge funds go the way of the dinosaur, what happens to structural alpha? Will niche investments, club deals and micro-caps be permanently overlooked? Where will investors look for outsized returns and differentiated portfolios?

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!

New Year’s Resolutions for Investors & Managers (Part One)

As we enter 2015 refreshed from vacations, overstuffed with tasty victuals and perhaps even slightly hung-over, it’s time for that oh-so-hopeful tradition of New Year’s resolutions. Many of you probably resolved to spend more time with your family, eat better, exercise more, floss daily, or to give more to charity. Despite what the research says, some of those resolutions may even stick. So before the holiday afterglow completely fades, I would like to turn attention to some investing resolutions, designed to bring more (mental) health, wealth and happiness in 2015. Without further ado, here are my top three New Year’s resolutions for investors. (Due to the length of this post, I’ll cover money manager New Year’s resolutions in next week’s blog.)

Investor Resolutions for 2015

I resolve to not confuse absolute and relative returns – When you profess to want “absolute returns” you do not get to invoke the S&P 500 in the same breath. In 2014,  “absolute return” came to mean “I expect my investments to absolutely beat the S&P 500” or “My investments absolutely cannot lose money (or I will redeem them at my first opportunity).”  

Absolute returns actually means you make an investment in an asset class or strategy and then you judge whether you are happy with those returns based on absolute standards. Did the strategy perform as expected, based on returns, volatility, drawdown, and/or diversification? Do I still believe in this strategy or asset class going forward? If there was a loss, do I believe this is a substantial, long-term problem or is this a buying opportunity? Trying to turn absolute investments into relative investments after the allocation fact causes a lot of knee-jerk investment decisions, leads to return chasing and, ultimately, underperformance.

I resolve to not get tied up in my investing underpants – This probably needs some explanation because I do not want any of my blog readers to Google “tied up in underpants”  - the answers you get will absolutely not be suitable for work.

Instead this (quaint?) colloquial saying basically means that you shouldn’t get so wrapped up in perfecting the small things (underpants) that you can’t get to the big stuff (getting dressed and leaving the house).  For example: “That meeting was worthless. We spent all morning tied up in our underpants about where to get lunch and we didn’t address the sales quotas.” For non-Tennesseans, the less colorful turn of phrase would involve forests, trees and all that.

When it comes to investing, there are any number of “underpants issues” with which to deal. Fees are a great example. Every time someone wants to argue with me on Twitter about alternative investments, they inevitably start with “You don’t have to pay 2%/20% to [get diversification, manage volatility, achieve those returns, etc.]."

It’s always interesting to chat with these folks about what they think an appropriate fee structure would be. Most people say they are willing to “pay for performance.” And in fact, perhaps with the exception of investments into a small number (less than 500) of “billion dollar club” funds, you are.

Since more than half of all funds have less than $100 million in AUM, it’s pretty difficult for the bulk of funds to get rich from a management fee alone. Management fees tend to be, on average, around 1.6%. In comparison, mutual funds charge between 0.2% (index funds) and 2% in management fees, with the average equity mutual fund charging, according to an October 6, 2012 New York Times article, around 1.44%. Not that different, eh? As for the incentive fee, that only gets paid if the manager makes money. It’s designed to align interests (“I make more if you make more”), not steal from the “poor” and give to the rich. Perhaps a hurdle makes sense, but why dis-incent a manager entirely?

At the end of the day, this laser focus on fees hampers good investment decision-making. We run the risk of focusing too much on what we don’t want others to have than on what we might get in return (diversification, a truly unique or niche strategy, reduced volatility, expertise, returns). We run the risk of negative selection bias (with managers and with strategies) if we choose only low fee funds. We also risk dis-incentivizing smaller, niche-y and more labor-intensive start-up funds, which could completely homogenize the investment universe.

Is there room for fee negotiation? Of course. I am a big proponent of sliding scales based on allocation size or overall AUM. However, making fees your sole decision point is, I believe, penny wise and pound foolish over time and will leave you, well, tied up in your underpants.

I resolve to take a holistic approach to my portfolio – Say this with me three times “I will not chase returns in 2015. I will not chase returns in 2015. I will not chase returns in 2015.”

Why should auld performance be forgot? Let’s look at managed futures/commodity trading advisors. It hasn’t been an easy ride for macro/futures funds. In 2012, they were the worst performing strategy according to HFR. In 2013, they were edged out of last place in HFRs report by the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index, but still under performed all other hedged strategies. The last two years saw heavy redemptions, with eVestment reporting outflows from Managed Futures funds for 26 of the last 27 months.

And in 2014? Managed Futures killed it.

Early estimates from Newedge show that Managed Futures funds returned an average of 15.2% in 2014. January 2015 predictions are that Managed Futures will either win or place amongst top strategies for 2014.

It’s always tempting to dress for yesterday’s weather, but savvy investors look not just at what’s performed well, but where there are future opportunities and potential pitfalls. Even an up-trending market, maybe especially in an up-trending market, it’s important to look to out-of-favor and diversifying strategies, niche players and contrarians to create a truly “all weather” portfolio.

Stay tuned for money manager resolutions next week, and in the meantime, best wishes for a Happy Investing New 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

Happy Holidays!

Wishing everyone a joyous and happy holiday season in whatever flavor you prefer. May 2015 bring everyone nothing but the best things in life.

Anatomy Of A Tear Sheet

Having been an investor, a PerTrac employee and a general statistics nerd, I have seen more than my share of performance tear sheets. While some people think of them as unnecessary, I can tell you that a good performance tear sheet can help make the case for an investment in your fund, and can also highlight why an investor should should stay with your fund through tough times. Make no mistake: A strong tear sheet isn't optional. 

Logo - Your entire marketing toolkit, including your tear sheet, needs a look and feel. This is no longer optional. If you want to compete in this industry, your fund has to look like it's part of a viable, successful, long-term business. This ain't the days of two guys and a Bloomberg terminal. If you don't have a logo, get one. And with logos available for under $1,000, there are really no excuses on this front.

Contact information - You would be shocked to see how many folks have no contact info on their materials. People can't invest if they can't find you. Include the contact person's name, email, address, phone, website, Twitter handle and all other pertinent information.

Strategy description and monthly commentary - The strategy description SHOULD NOT say "Our goal is to provide attractive risk adjusted returns over a three to five year period." It should actually say what you do. If there is room, you should have a few sentences about the current month's performance as it relates to your strategy as well. This will not replace your monthly letter to investors, but it will help put the numbers folks are looking at into perspective.

VAMI Chart - a simple Value Added Monthly Index (mountain) chart versus appropriate benchmarks helps people visualize how the fund performs.

Another compelling chart - Depending on the strategy goals and attributes, this could be an up and down market outperformance graph, an underwater chart, correlation analysis, etc. The goal is to visually demonstrate to investors that your fund delivers on its promises (protect in down markets, provide uncorrelated returns, limit drawdowns, etc.)

Monthly and annual returns - Uh, monthly and annual returns. NET OF ALL FEES

Peer ranking - Shows how you do against other funds like you.

Risk/reward table - includes the relevant statistics (CAR, standard deviation, Sharpe, Sortino, maximum drawdown, etc.) versus relevant benchmarks.

Top holdings or attribution - Some type of granularity into the portfolio make-up. Solidifies the strategy in people's minds.

Manager bio - People invest in people, not vehicles. Don't miss this opportunity to connect.

Terms and service providers - If people don't know when they can get in and out of your fund, your fees, your partners (service providers), it's hard to invest.

Explanatory notes - Go to a second page (or the back of the page) if necessary. Do not squish everything else (or make tear sheet sacrifices) to fit in what can be lengthy explanatory notes.

Of course, you don't have to follow this layout exactly, but these elements should be included in some way, shape, form or fashion on any useful and compelling tear sheet. Happy number crunching!

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.

The Simple Case for Emerging Managers

When people ask me why I am such a passionate advocate for emerging managers, I sometimes wax a little poetic. But the fact is, after nearly 17 years in the alternative investment industry, I don't believe any investor can have a truly optimized or truly diversified portfolio without allocations to young, small, women and minority-run funds.

With 90% or more of asset flows going to the "billion dollar club" managers, it would certainly seem others don't share my enthusiasm. However, when you look at the different types of alpha, it seems clear why emerging managers should get more than a fair shake. I'm not advocating avoiding large, successful funds. But by ignoring emerging managers, investors risk removing two important types of alpha from their money management arsenal. 

(c) 2014 MJ Alternative Investment Research

With any size or age fund, or within any manager demographic, it is possible to find funds where alpha is generated by luck. The saying "even a blind pig can find a truffle" exists for a reason. Likewise, there are very skilled managers available in each of the groups above. The cyclicality of investment strategies mean that alpha can be generated by emerging managers in any strategy if market conditions are right. 

However, when it comes to structural alpha and cognitive alpha, the rubber hits the road. Structural alpha is created when a fund is young and small enough to be nimble, niche-y, under the radar, concentrated, etc. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a fund in the "billion dollar club" to exhibit these traits. Cognitive alpha, where a fund generates higher returns because the manager thinks and acts differently than the herd, isn't unheard of in the "billion dollar club," but it is exceedingly rare. Think about how many minority or women fund managers you know with more than $1 billion in AUM. 

Small and young funds may exhibit structural alpha and they are also more likely to have diversity managers at the helm that can contribute cognitive alpha. Women-run and minority-run funds may exhibit cognitive alpha, and they tend to be small and/or young funds, so may also display structural alpha. With alpha supposedly an endangered species in today's investing world, can investors really afford to ignore emerging managers? 

Thanksgiving Hiatus

The MJ Alts blog is on hiatus this week for the Thanksgiving holiday. I invite you to check out previous posts on topics like hedge fund failures, conference tips for managers, diversity investing and more while you slip into a L-tryptophan-induced coma. 

Next week the blog returns with a post about where to look for alpha. 

Emerging Manager 2015 Travel Planner

As emerging managers start thinking about capital raising for 2015, it's time to think about travel planning and investor meetings. Even though a recent survey of investors found that two-thirds are willing to meet with a manager in whom they don't plan to invest, who has time for that? To help you on your way, I've created this handy-dandy map of public fund emerging manager interest for your Expedia booking pleasure, along with some (hopefully helpful) notes below.

Arizona - Has made at least one investment in a large 'emerging' manager.

Arkansas - Teachers Retirement System reportedly tabled the program in 2008 but 2011 document shows active investments in MWBE managers. 

California - Looks for EM's based on size and tenure but prohibited by Prop 209 from looking at minority status or gender.

Connecticut - Based on size, minority status or gender. Awarded mandate in 2014 to Grosvenor, Morgan Stanley and Appomattox. 

Florida - Looks at emerging managers on equal footing with other managers. 

Hawaii - CIO has been historically pro-emerging manager. Plus, well, Hawaii.

Illinois - Perhaps the most active emerging manager state, based on gender, minority status and location. 

Indiana - Based on size, minority status, or gender. 

Kentucky - Reported $75 million allocation.

Maine - Has made at least one investment in a large 'emerging' manager.

Maryland - Very active jurisdiction with details available online for gender and minority status manager information.

Massachusetts- Includes size, minority status or gender. 

Michigan - $300 million program.

Missouri - Status based on size. 

Minnesota - Past investments in emerging managers. 

New Jersey - Status based on size. 

New York - Status based on size, minority status or gender. $1 billion mandate in 2014. $200 million seed mandate in 2014.

North Carolina - Status based on size and HUB (minority and women owned) status.

Ohio - Status based on size, minority status or gender. 

Oregon - Emerging manager program in place. 

Pennsylvania - Status based on size with preference for minority or women run funds.

Rhode Island - Plan in place from 1995.

South Carolina - Status based on size.

Texas - Actively engaged with emerging managers. Status based on size, minority status or gender.

Virginia - Status based on size, minority status or gender.

Washington - Has issued prior emerging manager RFPs. 

This information has been culled from some pretty extensive research, a host of conversations and, frankly, just knowing where some of the bodies are buried. Please remember that 'emerging manager" is a term that has a lot of definitions. There may still be minimum size requirements, minimum track record requirements and strategy restrictions.  I will update the map as I get more data. Happy hunting!