Kicking The Buckets

Ever since that mawkish movie starring Jack Nicolson and Morgan Freeman came out in 2007, it seems people can’t stop talking about their “bucket lists”. There have been songs written about the topic (“I went 2.7 seconds on a bull named Fu Man Chu...”), Internet memes created, and the phrase has completely wormed its way into our day-to-day chatter (Ooooh! Going to Thailand is totally on my bucket list!).

In full disclosure, I actually hate both the phrase and the concept of a bucket list. I try to do and say the things I want in the moment, rather than wait for my impending death to be a motivating factor. Right now, the only things on my bucket list are 1) get a tattoo (impending death will remove my long-term tattoo commitment-phobia); and 2) write a salty tell-all about the investment industry that is equal parts Bridget Jones Diary, The Office and Game of Thrones.

With that last goal in mind, some of you out there should be wishing me good health and longevity every darn day. But I digress.

Based on my knowledge of human behavior, I can’t say I’m surprised about our love of the bucket list. We love, love, love to put things in buckets and boxes and to create certainty where there is none. Studies have shown that uncertainty actually causes more stress than actual pain. And, after all, what’s more uncertain than death? So if having prescribed list makes someone feel better about their inevitable demise, maybe it's not all bad, but it is just a coping mechanism. 

Perhaps that also explains our utter fascination with putting investments into buckets. Small Cap, All Cap, SMID Cap Growth. Early Stage, Seed Stage, Growth Stage. Event Driven, Special Situations, Trend Following. Whatever the investment strategy, investors look for ways to group supposedly “like” managers together to streamline the investment process.

But does that actually help or hurt us?

Putting investments in boxes is theoretically easiest in the long-only world. After all, we have ACTUAL boxes in which to put investments thanks to Morningstar. No matter what a manager does, they usually comfortably squeeze into a pre-defined style box, giving investors not only information on what the fund does, but also on how it does, thanks to agreed-upon benchmarks.

But is looking for managers in those boxes to an investors benefit? Martijn Cremers of Notre Dame says “no.” In his analysis of long-only managers he found that the more a manager fits into a box, the more certain an investor could be of one thing: failure. Not surprisingly, benchmark huggers have little opportunity to outperform their, um, benchmark, since they may be holding the same stocks in the same amounts within their funds. So instead of looking for these closet indexers, who make us feel certain and warm and secure (and later, ultimately, poor), Cremers argues investors should be looking for managers who have 40% or less of their holdings in common with their benchmark, and that hold any common holdings in different proportions. While this doesn’t guarantee outsized returns, at least it opens the door to them.

And the bucket story is similar in the alternative investment world.

If I had a dollar for every time an investor or researcher tried to shoehorn a hedge fund into a specific investment bucket, I could probably take time off to write my tell-all.

But the thing about hedge fund strategy buckets is that they are pretty craptastic. It is nigh on impossible for a database or index provider to provide enough granularity into strategies without overwhelming users with a huge number of strategy categories. Historically, the number of hedge fund "buckets" has ranged from a low of about 9 to a high of 100. The former ends up lumping very disparate funds together and the latter is too complex for the average investor to utilize. The result? An imperfect system that, if taken as gospel, can bite an investor in the arse. 

Take, for example, a hedge fund I know well that trades across the capital structure in distressed companies. One group put them in the Distressed bucket. One group put them in Event Driven. One group put them in Multi-Strategy.

Which group is right?

Well, all of them. And none of them.

Hedge fund strategy buckets are catch-alls. They are designed to create some amount of cosmos from chaos, but laser accuracy isn’t their strong suit. You can have all sorts of nuance within a broad category like Equity Hedge, just like you can have all sorts of nuance within a single fund. And no, that’s not “style drift.”

So let’s say an investor decides to look for an Event Driven fund. In their dataset, the fund above is classified as Distressed. They do their search and the fund never pops up, even though it could be just what the investor is looking for. How does that help anyone?

It doesn’t.

And let’s say that a hedge fund is classified within a certain strategy bucket but has a more nichey or nuanced, or even totally unrelated strategy. They may get benchmarked to their strategy bucket, which ultimately has little to do with how the fund actually invests. An investor who relies too heavily on that information could make poor investment or redemption decisions, too.

Again, not helpful.

So I guess I can add one more thing to my bucket list – kicking the (strategy) buckets. While I admit they are probably here to stay, I urge investors to take them with a large grain of salt, perhaps even a salt lick-sized grain. If you must use strategy boxes or buckets or Rubbermaid containers in your investment process, be sure to search adjacent or related strategies when looking for managers. Create blended or custom benchmarks. Don’t let benchmarks make investment decisions. Allow room for nuance and opportunity.

In other words, use buckets the way God intended – for ice and a nice bottle of bubbly and use that to help accept that a little uncertainty can be a good thing.

Sources: http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160421/BLOG12/160429985/the-active-management-edge-is-found-furthest-from-the-benchmark

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160329101037.htm

Are You Hot or Not?

Please note the MJ Alts blog is now posted on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month. 

Money Manager Report Cards

I was going through some old papers recently and, lo and behold, stumbled across my first grade report card. Since I’ve often struggled with authority figures, I opened it with some trepidation and discovered a few tidbits about the past.

1. Much like many employers today, achieving a rating of “outstanding” was impossible by Mrs. Northem’s standards, and is likely the genesis of my overachievement urges.
2. Grades were not merely the results of tests and homework, as they became as I got older, but a more nuanced measure of success.
3. My teacher (and the ones that followed) seemed to actually like me, with Mrs. Northem writing “Meredith is an absolute joy. She has so much curiosity and interest.”

Now, as one of my friends of course pointed out, the end of that sentence could have been left off. He contends that my teacher merely stopped writing before she added:  “She has so much curiosity and interest…that I want to slap her.”

But still.

This little archeological gem made me start thinking about how we grade money managers. We all talk about their collective Grade Point Average (performance) but we tend to get stalled after that.

For example, consider the headlines that of late argue hedge fund managers have generated poor performance, particularly relative to their fees.

What does that mean, exactly?

Let’s assume that means that the average hedge fund has essentially a “C” GPA. If there are five funds (because the math is easy), what grades did each fund make?

1.  3 A’s and 2 F’s
2.  3 A’s and 2 D’s
3. 4 B’s and 1 F
4.  5 C’s
5. 4 C’s and 1 D

For some reason, financial pundits seem to think the answer has to be either 4 or 5, when, in fact, every combination of the grades above would generate that C average.

While certainly Garrison Keillor can’t be right when he quips “all our children are above average,” it is important to remember that when we talk about average performance some funds, potentially a great many funds, will have performed above that average, while others will have performed below the average. It’s math, y’all.

But before we even get too tied up in our numeric underpants, let’s also consider that the “grades” we give our managers are not as simple as a single performance number.

Just like my reading “grade” was comprised of understanding, reading aloud, attacking new words, interest and writing, in which I earned “D”oes good work across the board (with the exception of writing…I’ve always had the handwriting of a serial killer), how we measure managers is, or should be, comprised of a number of different factors.

1.  Did the manager perform as expected? Not every manager or strategy will perform well in every market. If, however, the fund performed as we expected given the prevailing market and strategic considerations, that should be taken into consideration. For example, marking down a short seller for not generating eye-popping positive returns during a raging bull market is insanity and a push towards style drift.
2.  Is the manager taking the risk I expect him to take? If a fund manager starts taking increasing risk with your capital as they chase some illusive performance benchmark, that’s more cause for concern in my book than underperformance.
3. Does the manager communicate effectively? Do you have sufficient transparency and frequent updates so you can evaluate how you feel about items 1 and 2?
4. How does the manager’s performance fit into my overall portfolio? No fund is an island, but is instead part of an overall asset allocation plan. Managers and strategies should contribute when you expect them to (see above), but again, constant outperformance is more of a myth.

Perhaps because much of the media doesn’t get the full picture, or perhaps because, like me, they’re a bit removed from their old report cards, too many folks become entirely too fixated on manager GPA. Unfortunately, that leads those less familiar with investing to potentially make decisions based on this all-too-linear thinking as well, perhaps even ignoring investments that could have a positive impact on their overall portfolio because they are “bad.”

And that’s really the shame, here. Because if we look behind the manager “grades” we would see that many investors, two-thirds in fact, believe their hedge fund investments actually met or exceeded their expectations in 2015, according to Preqin data.

Which means that either more than half of our industry suffers from the “Lake Woebegone Effect” (all my managers are above average) or there is more to the story than simple average performance.

As someone who “D”id good work with numbers, even back in 1978, I’m betting it’s the latter. 

Please note: My blog is now published on the first and third Tuesday of each month. 

The Hedge Fund Headline Predictorator

In the fantastic, utterly un-politically correct movie Blazing Saddles, Madeline Kahn plays a lisping, Teutonic, burlesque dancer (and at least part time lady of the evening) by the name of Lily von Shtupp. Enlisted to help rid Rockridge of its new sherrif, we get to see Lily in action as she performs one of the movie’s highly underated muscial numbers “I’m Tired.”  Kahn croons:

“I’m Tired…

Tired of playing the game…

Ain’t it a cwying shame….

I’m SO tired.”

I felt a bit the same this week as I contemplated the latest hedge fund headlines and had a head-on rendezvous with some déjà vus. A quick Googling let me know I wasn’t imagining things…we actually are stuck in a sort of hedge fund Groundhog’s Day. Minus the cheeky rodent.

Yes, it seems we get to start the year in January, where we lament that the average hedge fund performed averagely. Then in April and May we get the Hedge Fund 100 that showcases most successful (from an AUM perspective) funds, followed closely by the Hedge Fund “Rich List”, which tells us all how much we didn’t make the year before.

Around mid-summer we get treated to a rare showcase of female hedge fund talent, before switching gears to talk about mid-year performance, closures and anticipated end of the year launches. Short articles follow that focus on the Hedge Funds Care and 100 Women in Hedge Fund Galas, before we end the year discussing, again, how the average fund fared.

And in between bursts of schadenfreude, finger pointing and headshots of hedge fund bigwigs, we get a (time-lagged) look into hedge fund portfolios. Not that we care, because the average hedge fund is still average, but let’s just take a little peek.

So to thoroughly prepare us all for the year ahead, I thought I’d create a little cartoon calendar to keep the continuous coverage in perspective. 

(C) MJ Alts

And if you need something a bit more granular to mark the days just remember this happy mantra – negative hedge fund coverage? Must be a day that ends in “Y.”

Image Credits: BrainCheese and 123RF: <a href='http://www.123rf.com/profile_photoman'>photoman / 123RF Stock Photo</a>

Person or People?

I’m a crazy cat lady. Those that know me well in the industry are already clued into that fact. Those that don’t know me well probably at least suspected it. After all, no one can be this sarcastic and inappropriate without spending an inordinate amount of time by herself.

What folks may not know is I am, in fact, a total bleeding heart when it comes to any animal. I have stopped my car to rescue skunks, turtles, dogs, and cats. I have nursed injured geese and mice. In fact, just before Christmas I found homes and no-kill shelter placements for 48 cats that a even crazier cat lady was hoarding in her BFE, Tennessee trailer.

So imagine my outrage when the story broke about a baby dolphin that died after a bunch of total effing morons passed it around on the beach for selfies.

Come. On.

I was so pissed I stomped around the house blathering on (to myself and to my three cats) about how stupid the entire human race has become and how this is all a sign of the total end of civilization, which I am sure some idiot will capture on a freaking GoPro.

And then I started to calm down. I did what those of us who work with causes have to do so often when confronted by things too horrible to imagine. I breathed and I began to think about all of the people that I know who do good things for the world. How private equity veteran Jeremy Coller is a vegetarian and a champion for farm animal welfare. How 100 Women in Hedge Funds raised more than GBP550k for children’s art therapy. How one of my favorite seeders and one of my favorite family office guys both do volunteer work with wildlife and schools in Africa every year.

As a level of sanity returned, I remembered a quote from the existential masterpiece Men In Black: “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.”

http://memeguy.com/photo/42477/men-in-black-quote-seems-more-relevant-by-the-day

I needed to re-focus on persons. Not people.

All too often, however, we tar a person with our people brush. Sometimes it’s well deserved (not to mention a time saver), but most of the time we find that there are exceptions to every rule.  And while it’s hard for most of the public to imagine them as individuals, this is also the case in the world of alternative investments.

Let’s consider some of my fave hedge fund “you people” themes:

Hedge Funds Keep Getting Crushed – Sure, most index providers show hedge funds started the year down more than 2% on average, but that means some funds did worse and…gasp….some funds did significantly better. Hopefully you saw some of the latter in your own portfolio, but if not, Business Insider proves this point with this handy article.

Hedge Funds Charge 2 & 20 – In their study “All That Glitters” Elizabeth Parisian and Saqib Bhatti conclude that pensions pay roughly $81 million in hedge fund years per year, amounting to roughly 57 cents on every dollar of profit. In December 2015, Eurekahedge reported that average hedge fund performance fees last touched 20%  in 2007, while Citibank reported that management fees were, on average 1.59%, with an operating margin of 67 basis points. I’ve seen several funds launch of late with either no management fee or zero performance allocation. And what we’re talking about? They are just the headline fees. Most managers, roughly 97% the last time I polled them in 2013, were willing to drop fees for large investments. That’s a whole lot of persons charging less than “those people.”

Hedge Fund Billionaires – Google “hedge fund billionaire” and, if you’re like me, you’ll get 131,000 results in about 0.57 seconds. Of course, what’s interesting about that fact is it is probably roughly 130,500 hits higher than the actual number of hedge fund billionaires. If one assumes that all hedge fund managers with AUM over $1 billion are, in fact, billionaires (a stretch if I’ve ever heard one), then that leaves roughly 9,500 hedge fund managers who are not billionaires, unless they secretly won the family inheritance or actual lotteries. That’s a pretty unbalanced barbell on which to base any kind of income assumption. And of course, that doesn’t take into account that a hedge fund manager, even a Big Billionaire Hedge Fund Manager, can lose money for the year if they don’t achieve profitability for their clients.

At the end of the day, as my former boss, George Van, used to say, “hedge funds are as varied as animals in the jungle,” and boy, is he right. And whether we want to believe it or not, hedge fund managers are individuals first, and “those people” second.

The moral of the story? Generalizations are generally not your friend. They make you mad. They make you sad. They may make you ignore investment options based on public opinion rather than facts. Instead, take a moment to slow down and individualize. Unless I find out you took a selfie with that dophin, in which case, I suggest you speed up and use your head start. 

At Your Service

A few years ago, I went to Vienna to give a pre-conference workshop at a hedge fund conference. Because I had more than one connection, I checked my luggage, which I almost never do. When I arrived at the Vienna airport and retrieved my luggage, I discovered that it was soaked with a mysterious pink liquid. Everything in my bag was moist, a little fragrant and a lovely shade of rose.

I rushed out into the Vienna evening to purchase something to wear to the event the next day and was at least able to score some skivvies and something to sleep in before the shops closed. I sent those and a suit out to the hotel cleaning service immediately upon my return to the Vienna Hilton.

After two hours, there was a knock on the door.

“Fraulein Jones! We have your laundry!”

I opened the door and was greeted by a white-gloved hotel staffer holding a few coat hangers in one hand, and a silver tray above his head in the other. As I stood slack-jawed and jet-lagged in the doorway, the tray was lowered to my eye level.

On it were my neatly folded and laundered undies. Which had been paraded in all of their unmentionable glory through the entire conference hotel.

(c) www.audio-luci-store.it

The next morning, the “room service undies” story was the talk of the event. I, or at least my underclothes, was the highlight of the conference.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I appreciated the professional Austrian laundry service. The prompt delivery to my door before I collapsed into bed was lovely, too. But much like Goldilocks, there was a desired level of service that was too much, one that was too little, and one that was just right. I’m not sure I quite needed the white gloves. And the silver panty platter? Well, let’s just say that was straight-up overkill. 

It’s not much different in hedge fund land either. At another conference last week, I had the pleasure of sitting next to two gentlemen who were running a small hedge fund. They gave me their elevator pitch (interesting) and then peppered me with some questions about how to take their fund to the next level. It wasn’t long before the question of service providers came up. 

“Just how important are our service providers anyway?” they wanted to know. “We’re a small fund and we really need to be cost conscious, so can we get by with what we have?” they asked. 

Unfortunately for them, the answer was a fairly unequivocal “no.” They were using individuals, not firms, for the most part. And while inexpensive, these individuals were almost certain to cause problems in one of three areas eventually. 

1. Scalability – When a fund is small, the number of LPs may also be quite low. This means fewer K-1s, usually no tax-exempt or offshore investors, few requirements to register with a regulatory body or file ongoing forms, no separate accounts, etc. If you are dealing primarily with your own money and that of your friends and family, then your uncle’s friend’s cousin’s accountant son-in-law may be sufficient for your needs. But as a fund grows, the demands on fund infrastructure and service providers evolve. An administrator who can handle money-laundering regulations becomes mandatory as you accept offshore dollars. Audited financials, not just a performance review, are essential. Late or incorrect K-1s become a kiss of death. It is essential to pick service providers that can grow with your fund. 
2. Due diligence – And speaking of growth, it is also vital that your service providers aid the expansion of assets under management, rather than impede capital raising. The last thing a fund manager should want in an already extensive and extended due diligence process is to force an investor to have to investigate a service provider, too. If you don’t select service providers with at least a basic level of “street cred,” then investors must evaluate not just your skills and organization, but the skill and organization of the groups that support you. And this flies in the face of one of the best pieces of advice a fund manager can hear: “Make it EASY for investors to allocate. The more impediments you put on the road to an investment, the less likely someone will actually send you a wire.“
3. Level of service – Finally, while I’m sure Aunt Sally’s friend’s neighbor’s daughter is great at creating account statements each month, she probably isn’t going to invite you to industry events, hold webinars on topics that are pertinent to your business or have value-add service like cap intro or strategic consulting. Just like it’s important to make it easy on investors to invest, it is equally important to make it easy on yourself to grow. The straight money-for-service trade is only part of the equation – you have to evaluate whether there is additional “bang for your buck” that you may miss by being penny wise and pound foolish.

Having said all this, I do believe there is a Goldilocks principle at work with fund service providers too. To use my Vienna analogy, you do want to make sure you can get dressed in the morning, but many managers probably don’t need their drawers delivered on a silver tray. 

For those looking to play exclusively in institutional investor markets, the biggest names may be essential, but for many hedge funds, there are a range of players (and price points) available. Several publications, like Hedge Fund Alert for example, provide rankings of service providers based on their total number of SEC filings. This can be great starting point for managers looking for firms with experience (and name recognition) in the industry. Ask around and see who other fund managers use as well. At the end of the day, pick a competent, reputable, scalable provider with value-added services at a price point that seems like a good trade for those services. 

Now clearly, I don’t have a dog in this hunt, so all y’all fund managers should ultimately do what you want. But since so many of you might have already seen my undies, I felt we were close enough for me to offer this unsolicited advice. 

Can You Describe The Ruckus?

A tragic thing happened to me last week. I was (gasp!) ma’amed.

No, not maimed. Ma’amed.

While dealing with a very unfortunate chimney repair at my humble Nashville cottage, my two, rather incompetent, repair technicians called me ma’am. Not once. Not twice. But 37 times in one conversation.

It was like having a cold dose of mortality thrown in my face.

Even though I still have the sense of humor of a 12 year old, being ma’am bombed let me know that I have officially hit middle age, which coincidentally may also explain why my “give-a-damn” broke about two years ago as well. They do say, after all, that only little kids and old people tell the truth.

But my brush with ma’am-dom did make me start to think about how the investment industry may change going forward, what with a heaping helping of Millennials headed our way. After all, according to a 2014 Millennial survey by Deloitte, the next generation will comprise 75% of total workforce by 2025. Boomers and Gen X – gird your loins.

Changes That May Be A’Comin’

1)   Socially Responsible Investing Will Surge – Although percentages vary from survey to survey, and between income groups as well, one thing is very clear: Millennials are much more open to socially responsible investing than prior generations. In one study of high net worth investors’ attitudes towards socially responsible investing, nearly half of Millennials considered social responsibility when making investment decisions compared with a mere 27% of seniors. In a study of all investors, Morgan Stanley’s Institute for Sustainable Investing found Millennials to be more than 10 percentage points more likely to favor sustainable investing than their Boomer counterparts.

(C) 2016 MJ Alts. Data Source Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing

This attention to social factors is likely to boost both the number of products launched to pursue some form of socially responsible investing (ESG, Impact, Mission, Socially Responsible, etc.) and to simultaneously increase the demand for said products. As of year-end 2013, one out of every six dollars invested in the U.S. was already invested in SRI strategies (according to the US SIF Foundation), but it is safe to assume that the demographic shift will accelerate this trend.

The upshot? You might want to get ahead of this trend sooner rather than later.

2)   Our Historically Paper and PDF Industry Will Evolve – As luck would have it, I had not one, but two chances to feel old last week. I was speaking with a friend of mine who was extolling the virtues of Tinder. She loved the speed of the “dating” service and the ability to judge people quickly. I then lamented that I missed the days of a good old personal ad.

“You mean like Match.com?” she asked.

“Um, no,” I said. “ I mean like the ones that were in the paper and alternative news in Nashville. You know, Single White Female, blah blah blah…”

“Oh!” she exclaimed. “You mean like on Craigslist.”

“Noooooo,” I said. “I mean printed, paper singles ads. My favorite appeared in the back of the Nashville Scene one day and read ‘Single White Male, fat, ugly and bald, seeks Asian women with long toenails.’ People had to be creative and witty and not just post shirtless bathroom pictures….”

She blinked at me blank-faced in response.

Most Millennials don’t know a world without the Internet or iPhones (or as I like to call them, secular rosaries). Instagram, Pinterest, Twitter, Uber, AirBNB and all sorts of social and disruptive technologies have been at their fingertips (literally) for most of their lives. I can only hope that this comfort with technology leads to some revolution in the investment industry, which has long been dependent on pitch books and PDF one-pagers. I’m not sure what the answer is for this (and God save us from a Tinder app for investments where appearance is everything and substance & due diligence are lost), but there has to be some better ways of doing things than the way it’s been done for the nearly 18 years I’ve been in this space.

3)   The Traditional Pathways to Fund Management May Evolve – Does anyone remember the kid that applied to 2,000 private equity firms last year in order to skip an investment banking stint? Have you read any of the many articles on how to get hired into private equity/hedge funds/ venture capital straight out of undergrad? What about the gig economy? Job hopping? Millennial requirements for work-life balance? No matter how you slice it, the bios of next generation fund managers are likely to look pretty different than what we’ve grown accustomed to in the past.

I’m sure there are plenty of other ways that the industry may evolve in the next 10 years or so, but you can bet I’ll be ruminating on at least these possibilities going forward. At least until the re-release of Pretty In Pink hits theaters next weekend. I’ll be hanging with Duckie that day.

No Quick Fix

Because of the research I’ve done on gender and investing, and, let’s face it, because I am an opinionated and often colorful commentator on all things investing, I get asked one question a lot.

What can we do to fix the gender imbalance in investing?

I think some people expect me to come up with a quick and pithy hack to fix the problem. Something akin to Ronco’s “Set it and forget it!”

It’s likely that some folks want me to utter the dreaded Q word (“quota”), although they should really know by now that’s just not how I roll.

A very, very few want me to say “there is no problem” so they can get back to other matters.

But almost no one really wants to hear the truthful answer to the question, which is this: “I’m not sure what the answer is.”

One thing I am positive about is that the answer is as complex as the problem, much of which is rooted in bias. Now this is not necessarily your grandparent’s or even your parent’s bias. Thankfully the days where consumers were likely to be treated to an ad like this are gone. 

But if you are human, you have bias. Period. And here’s how those biases (both men’s and women’s) might be impacting the number of women in investing:

It Starts Early – A study by Jane Stout, Nilanjana Dasgupta, Matthew Hunsinger, and Melissa A. McManus of UMass Amherst found one of the reasons women may not pursue math is rooted in bias. When faced with a male math professor, 11% of women attempted to answer questions posed to the class at the beginning of the semester. At the end of the semester, that number dropped to 7%. In contrast, female students only attempted to answer questions posed by a female professor 7% of the time at the beginning of the semester, but attempted to answer 46% of the time by the end of the semester. Similar trends were shown in other areas of the classroom experience, including after class requests for help, confidence and test taking (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_hidden_brain/2011/03/psychout_sexism.html) With less than 1 in five math & science professors at top universities women, it is easy to see that the pipeline could narrow early.

The Pipeline Shrinks Further - In 2014, only 37% of MBA applicants were women, and of those, only 6% pursued investment banking compared with 11% men in that field. Also in 2014, 77% of investment analysts were men, who were 20.3% more likely to get an early analyst offer than women. A 2011 Vault study of the largest investment banks in the US found only 25% of staffers were women, 11% of executives were women and only 3% of CEOs at these firms were women per Catalyst. While it is difficult to single reason for these low numbers, culture, mentorship, appeal, and a lack of role models likely all come into play.

Hiring Hurdles – Early last year, Marc Andreessen took copious amounts of, um, “poop” for stating that he has no female partners at his firm because he’s tried to hire one and each time she turned him down. Obviously, there must be more than one qualified female applicant out there, so why isn’t a venture capital magnate like Andreessen seeing them? Part of may spring from the bias in the hiring process.

A study published in the American Psychological Association called, “Evidence That Gendered Wording in Job Advertisements Exists and Sustains Gender Inequality” showed that subtle word choice differences in job postings impacted who responded to those postings. For example, the following ad (http://www.eremedia.com/ere/you-dont-know-it-but-women-see-gender-bias-in-your-job-postings/#) was re-written with feminine and masculine themed words. The feminine ad, perhaps not surprisingly, attracted more women applicants. Now think about the ways we tend to describe asset managers and perhaps it’s not so mysterious why the pipeline has historically sucked. 

Assuming that women do apply for an investment role they have to make it through the resume gauntlet. A recruitment firm created a resume and sent it to 1000 hiring managers. Half of the resumes were attributed to Simon and half were attributed to Susan. At large firms, Simon was preferred over Susan 62% to 56%. Women hiring managers felt Susan matched 14 of 20 job attributes, while Simon matched six, and male hiring managers felt exactly the opposite. (http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/careers/the-same-resume-with-different-names-nets-different-results/news-story/a2a182fb4570e948c27ce63139ee66b1) The upshot? Bias, bias everywhere.

Promotional Considerations – If women do enter the investment arena, they then still have to work their way to the top. Even workplaces like Barclays Capital, who just shared they now employ more women than men (51% to 49%) struggle when it comes to women in the C-suite: 80% of top level positions at Barclays are held by men. The list of potential reasons for this are endless, but a great list can be found in this article, http://www.businessinsider.com/subtle-ways-women-treated-differently-work-2014-6, which details the biases women face when climbing the corporate ladder. Chief among them? Mommy track, networking opportunities, participation in meetings (air time, interruptions), expressing displeasure, etc.

At the end of the day, it is supremely difficult to find a simple fix to these issues. Unconscious bias is, in a way, more difficult to deter because it’s, well, unconscious. These behavioral patterns are pretty inaccessible to the conscious mind and therefore can be very difficult to change.

However, for those firms that are looking to improve their diversity metrics, or those investors who are looking to improve their ratio of male to female money managers, it can be helpful to at least recognize where some of the issues arise and to take steps to guard against the biases where we can. For example, there is software that can create “gender neutral” job postings. Blind resumes can help avoid the Simon-Susan conundrum. Having mixed teams of interviewers can help to balance male and female hiring and promotion biases. Groups like Rock the Street Wall Street (http://www.rockthestreetwallstreet.com) and Girls Who Invest (http://www.girlswhoinvest.org) can help young women overcome their own biases towards math and finance. Certainly, there are a lot of changes required, but they could potentially add up to better gender diversity over time. 

To be clear, no woman I know is asking for special treatment when it comes to hiring of any kind (employment, fund selection, etc.). Every single woman with whom I speak wants to earn their place in investment management and is willing to get scrappy when required. But, in the immortal words of Paul Simon, women do want to know that the “cross is in the ballpark.” Until we can all figure out how to mitigate some of our biases, that may be hard to ensure. 

Sources: In addition to those cited throughout - Graduate Management Admissions Council, Universum, http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=5492

Money Manager Advice: Don’t Panic, But Do Bring a Towel

Last week’s blog got me in a bit of hot water with some alternative investment folks I know. In fact, some thought it should have come with a lifetime supply of chocolate-covered Prozac to counteract the depressive, after-reading effects.

To answer the queries I seemed to receive en masse: No, I am not a defeatist. I am instead an optimistic pessimist – I’m often quite positive that the worst possible thing is bound to happen.

But just because I suggested last week that a few fund managers might have to (or want to) evaluate their long-term business viability in 2016 doesn’t mean I think this year is a total loss.

In fact, I’d say my best advice is, in the infamous words of Douglas Adams, “Don’t panic!” If you can do that and still somehow end 2016 knowing where your towel is, you’ve won.

But seriously, there are a number of positive developments for money managers that could play out this year. For example:

Market Volatility May Be Your Friend – If the stock market theme song post-financial crisis has been “Sweet Child of Mine”, 2016 has certainly changed its tune. Market volatility during the first two weeks of January brought me back to my high school-era living room, sitting in front of my (not flat-paneled) TV watching Axl Rose wiggle across stage belting out “In the jungle. Welcome to the jungle. Watch it bring you to your knnn, knnn, knnn, knnn, knees, knees. I want to watch you bleed!” That was one of my favorite videos back when, you know, MTV actually played music.

And while market volatility can be an exercise in white-knuckle, bile-producing, ‘how-will-I-ever-retire-now’ angst, it also offers investment managers an opportunity they haven’t really had since March 9, 2009: The chance to be a hero.

In a raging bull market, most performance looks like beta. No matter how well an active money manager does, the market can do it faster, cheaper and potentially better. A bull market is often a chump factory, no matter your talents.

And don’t get me wrong, I love a bull market because I am generally in better shape (shopping is, after all, my cardio), but a bull market doesn’t love active management. A down, sideways or otherwise volatile market creates what active money management really needs: Opportunity.

So play this one well, intrepid asset managers, and you could potentially see your breakthrough moment. And may the odds be ever in your favor.

The Fees Knees – Speaking of your knnn, knnn, knnn, knnn, knees, while the markets haven’t exactly been a jungle until recently, the fee debate certainly has.  There has been a barrage of class action lawsuits against Fidelity, Vanguard and others about excessive 401(K) fees. And if you Google “hedge fund fees” two of the top three responses are “Hedge Fund Performance Fees Decline Sharply” (FT) and “The Incredibly Shrinking Hedge-Fund Fee” (Bloomberg View).

Due at least in part to the inability of active managers to shine (see above), fees have become a inevitable battle ground for investors. When the rising tide lifts all ships, it becomes easier to confuse price with value.

But market volatility may help successful managers overcome near militant fee resistance, and interestingly enough, a new lawsuit against Anthem Inc. about low fee funds may help traditional active managers as well. 

 “An overriding theme of lawsuits attacking 401(k) plan fees is that they generally view the cheapest investment as being the most prudent investment choice fiduciaries can make for plan participants, according to Brad Campbell, counsel at Drinker Biddle & Reath and former head of the Employee Benefits Security Administration. That, Mr. Campbell said, is inconsistent with a fiduciary's obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which indicates fees must be reasonable rather than the most inexpensive. According to the text of the new suit's complaint, “investment costs are of paramount importance to prudent investment selection,” which Mr. Campbell said is “an inaccurate statement of the law.” (http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160112/FREE/160119984/401-k-suit-targeting-vanguard-fees-could-support-case-for-active)

After all, to misquote Brian Tracy, “The true measure of the value of any [money manager] is performance.”

Election Attention – And finally, in case y’all have slept through the proposed UK Trump ban, the Sanders-Clinton (oh, yeah, and O’Malley) poll mania, and impassioned pleas for walls around the country or just around Wall Street, you know we’re in an election year. Why is this a good thing? Well, for one, it’s wildly entertaining, although it does bring to mind PoliSci 401 “Those who seek power are not worthy of that power.” (Plato)

But really, it means the Eye of Sauron (read: regulatory and compliance entities) may be thinking about Wall Street, but it is unlikely that much will change this year, giving everyone a chance to continue working through compliance, operations, Form PF, AIFMD, and all of the other special gifts fund managers have gotten post 2008. Hell, someone may even come up with a way to streamline some of those processes during the short lull in activity and actually create some true economies of scale for struggling small funds. It’s MLK day (er, night) as I’m writing this so well, dammit, I have a dream.

In short, it ain’t all doom and gloom out there for the financial industry, but if this blog failed to convince you of that, I can only offer the following to answer any of your lingering doubts or questions.

42

Hedge Funds or Chicken Nuggets? Is It Time For a Personal Stop Loss?

One of my favorite comedic routines of all time comes from fellow Alabama native Roy Wood Jr. Now a regular on The Daily Show, Wood originally did stand-up at various and sundry venues, and made his television debut on Letterman in 2008.

Known for prank calls and “you ain’t going to Mars”, Wood’s best work (in my humble opinion) was a bit he did about career day.

Unlike many of us invited to talk at Career Day, Wood eschewed the normal “if you work hard and study, dream big and believe in yourself, you can achieve anything” mantra. No, Mr. Wood instead chose the path of honesty.

“Remember career day, when a bunch of people would come lie to you?” said Wood. “I went to career day and told them the truth. Look, two or three of y’all aren’t going to make it. That’s the truth. Everybody’s not going to be rich and famous. Somebody has to make the Whoppers, and that’s what people need to understand at an early age. We need failures – they provide chicken nuggets and lap dances, and I like both of them. They are important services...But apparently that’s the wrong thing to thing to say to a room full of first graders.”

As I received news of yet another rash of hedge fund closures, Mr. Wood’s words came to mind. Not because I expect these former fund managers to start making “parts is parts” processed chicken or working in a Magic Mike tribute show, but because, at least the way the industry is evolving right now, “two or three of y’all aren’t going to make it.” 

I’ve seen managers that have struggled for years with low AUMs or extended (or even endless) pre-launch woes and many of the folks I talk to are wondering, “When is enough, enough?”

It’s hard to know when to throw in the towel in this industry. We’re always one trade, one IPO, one deal away from fame and fortune. One Thai Baht, one housing crisis, or one Facebook could make or break a professional investor. It’s a giddy proposition, and one that anyone with a Google machine knows can and does happen. 

But unfortunately, waiting for the lightning to strike, and figuring out how to capitalize on it if you’re not already a household name, can be excruciating. 

I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again. If you’re a hedge fund manager with $100 million under management and a 1-and-20 fee structure who made 10% for investors last year, your firm generated a whopping $560,000 after expenses last year. If you gave any of your investors a fee break for founders’ shares, or if a fair amount of that capital is personal or friends and family, and fees dip closer to 1-and-15, you made 60 grand.

That’s right, I said 60-freakin’-grand. 

And that’s for making roughly 10 times what the S&P 500 generated. 

And since 50% of the industry manages less than $100 million, those firms did even worse, even if they, too, outperformed, which may make those chicken nuggets look a bit more attractive. 

So what’s an intrepid, alternative investment professional to do in a world where 90% of capital is directed to the billion-dollar club and expenses are at an all-time high? Maybe it’s time for a little soul searching.

What’s your overall financial situation? Assume perhaps 10%-20% in AUM growth going forward, along with realistic return expectations. What does the overall firm income look like? Many fund managers launch funds with healthy war chests created at other firms or from other roles, but that is seldom an endless pool of capital. What is the realistic proposition for wealth creation and preservation assuming costs continue to increase and asset growth is sluggish at best? It can be difficult to part with one’s magnum opus, and as humans we do tend to ascribe more value to things in which we have sunk costs. But take a step back and attempt to look rationally and unemotionally at your current situation and the likely scenarios for the next three years. Enlist an impartial third party to validate your assumptions and try to determine if you’re still on the right path.

Can you reinvent your business in any way to improve your AUM base or reduce expenses? There are a growing number of private equity firms dedicated to purchasing strategic stakes in asset managers, have you considered selling a part of the business? Have you investigated all of your service provider relationships to ensure you have all your bases covered, and covered most effectively? Are you being penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to bringing on additional resources, like marketing or operational assistance? Can you team up with a group of other managers to create a cost-sharing consortium for certain functions? Have you shopped your strategy to larger shops that may be looking to diversify their offerings? It is always critical to remember that it running an investment firm ain’t all about (managing) the money, money, money – running an investment shop requires business acumen, strategic planning and smart investments in the firm. Maybe you don’t end up being stud duck of your own Blackstone-esque entity, but you do get to keep doing what you love. 

Can you see yourself doing anything else? I know several investors who say that if you don’t want to manage money at $100 million, you don’t deserve to manage money at $1 billion, and there’s something to be said for that - at least in a perfect world. If you can think of other career avenues you might enjoy, however, it may be time to explore those options. Money managers have done that throughout the last several years, leaving to spend time with family, get involved in charity, and at least three even leaving to start food trucks (The Dark Side of the Moo, and the PIMCO croque-monsieur truck) and The Real Good Juice Company. Hell, even I contemplate buying a farm and raising organic eggs at least once a month. But at the end of the day, I still love what I do. Most days. If you get up every day excited to face the markets, win or lose. If you think your strategy still has the “it” factor. If you think doing any other job would be like enduring the “long dark tea time of the soul”, stick with it. You may never be Dan Loeb, but you’ll always be engaged and happy. 

Here’s to better luck in 2016 for everyone. Let’s hope that the industry changes in ways that make it easier for emerging managers to keep their heads above water and that my little soul searching exercise turns out to be a worst case scenario and not the status quo. If not, you can always think of a break from the investment industry like a stop loss. It's a fail safe to give you time to re-evaluate, re-adjust and come back stronger. Just look at the PIMCO food truck guy - after three years of sandwiches, he's back in the game. And he brought snacks. 

Links to sources: 

Roy Wood Jr. Career Day - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mApfABF-c8

Hedge Fund Fees - The Truth and Math - http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2015/6/29/hedge-fund-truth-series-hedge-fund-fees

Hedge Fund Food Truck - http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/10/from-finance-to-food-trucks-lessons-learned.html

PIMCO Food Truck - http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/10/29/the-pimco-food-truck-lives-on/

Hedge Fund Juicer - http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/06/investing/quit-wall-street-open-food-business/

“long dark tea time of the soul” is from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

Not The Same Old Investing Lang Syne

I love New Year’s Day. It’s a tabula rasa. A wide expanse of pristine sand with no footprints. There are no victories to celebrate (except avoiding Uber surge pricing), but also no defeats. Indeed, on January 1st, my resolutions are strong and, as yet, unbroken. Optimism is high and my natural cynicism has yet to fully kick in after being lulled into complacency by sparkly fireworks and a barrel of Prosecco.

And, really, I’m great at New Year’s resolutions. I should be - I make the same damn ones every year.

1. Floss daily
2. Exercise 5 days a week
3. No carbs
4. Spend less
5. Meditate

Last year I did pretty well. I flossed daily until about June, and kept up regular meditation until early December (so close!). On the other hand, the “no carbs” promise only lasted until my pot of Hoppin’ Johns finished cooking later that day. Can’t win ‘em all, I guess.

So this year, I’m taking a different tack. I mean, seriously, even if I did accomplish my annual goals, who really likes a skinny, sober, cheapo anyway?

No, this year, I’m going with a larger, though perhaps more inspiring, resolution, which is now on an official office nameplate to encourage me daily.

This jaunty motto gives me more latitude, more maneuverability and certainly more creative license to “git ‘er done” in 2016.

And it seems to me that certain portions of the investment industry could use similar doses of encouragement.

In truth, 2015 was a tough year to be an emerging manager. Skyrocketing costs of running an alternative investment business combined with low investor demand caused widespread carnage.

For example, industry-watcher Eurekahedge estimates 294 European hedge funds shuttered in 2015, and 75% of those funds managed less than $150 million. A mere 259 European hedge funds launched in 2015, meaning the industry actually contracted during what is arguably a market environment that needs more, not less, hedging.

(As an aside, these stats make it look like AIFMD could, in fact, end up protecting investors – by accelerating the closures of the instruments they seek to regulate.  No alternative investment funds, no alternative investment fund risk, right?)

But what if there is evidence that small funds outperform, particularly during a crisis? What if soaring regulatory costs and contracting capital raising opportunities are actually going to potentially cost investors in the long run? Don’t think that’s possible? Maybe you missed the compelling study from London’s City University that showed investors were better off with small funds during a crisis (like 2000-2002 or 2008). If you did, it’s certainly worth a read: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2630749

And what about active managers? Those poor bastards can’t catch a break. Through October 2015, Morningstar reported that 58.6% of active managers had underperformed their benchmark, while over 10 years 73% had fallen short.

Undoubtedly, them ain’t good odds. But again, what if the time period and the practically historic bull market are to blame for underperformance? With the Dow providing its first annual loss since 2008, is now really the time to go “all in” with index tracking ETFs?

Even in the hedge fund world, the HFRI Fund Weighted Composite returned 0.17% for the year to date through November 2015, while the Fund of Funds Composite returned 0.24% and the FOF: Conservative and FOF: Diversified Indices returned 0.85% and 0.61%, respectively. A victory, admittedly small, for active management.

And what about diversity in investing? The top performing stock picker in 2015 wasn’t a household name. According to Bloomberg, it was Deena Friedman, manager of Fidelity Select Retailing Portfolio. She returned 19% to investors for the year, outperforming 562 of her peers and the S&P Consumer Discretionary Index (up 10.5% for the year). During a period when the S&P 500 contributed a mere 2.2% to our portfolios, should we be looking at diverse managers to help boost returns and manage volatility?

Unfortunately, 2015 appears to have led us closer to inadvertently homogenizing the entire investment industry into big funds, boys, and benchmarks when perhaps we should be considering more investment options, not less.

So why not consider something a bit different in your 2016 investing?

To be sure, I’m no great prognosticator, however it doesn’t take Nostradamus to see that the markets may be showing signs of running out of steam. Now might be a good time to consider using more of the crayons in the box before volatility has the opportunity to make us its bitch.

Emerging managers, diversity, and active management may enhance 2016 investments. And carbs. Can’t forget the carbs.

Sources: Eurekahedge, Hedge Fund Research, London’s City University “Are Investors Better Off With Small Hedge Funds In Time of Crisis”, Morningstar, Bloomberg