Great Expectations

For the last several weeks, I've been watching what I eat. After months of travel and often substituting the contents of my minibar for dinner, I had grown concerned that my bloodstream was permanently clogged with Pringle fragments. So I bought some actual fruits and vegetables (goodbye, scurvy!) and sat down to eat something that didn’t start its life behind a Chipotle counter.

Now, me being me, of course I did my research first, only to discover that I seem to have cognitive dissonance when it comes to portion sizes. I expected that a portion of beef is the literal half-cow that I receive on a plate at Del Frisco’s, when instead it is 3 ounces, smaller than a deck of cards. What. The. Actual. Hell? I felt gypped. I felt bitter. I felt hungry, no make that HANGRY.

But a week later, after sticking to my original plan, I realized I felt full, energetic and, well, maybe even kind of skinny. Maybe the problem wasn't with the reality of eating, but with my perception of what it should be. Hmmmm.

And then I started thinking about investing, and how investors and fund managers seem to be facing similar issues.  No, I don’t mean that those pants make y’alls butts look fat. I mean that there seems to be some serious mismatches between what fund managers and investors expect from one another, almost guaranteeing that one (or both sides) will end up disappointed.

So in the spirit of the newly converted (quick, ask me how many calories a banana has!), here are a few ways that investment industry participants can better get along.

Investor Expectation #1: My fund managers should never lose money.

Reality: I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – Continuous outperformance is a myth. No fund manager walks on water, is always right at the right time, or is even always right. No money manager can control for the unknown unknowns, and occasionally even the known unknowns can bite them in the tushie. The key is not to look for managers who never experience a drawdown (um, let’s remember money manager Bernie Madoff only posted one loss in his career) but for fund managers who can mitigate, manage and learn from losses, as well as be candid and proactive about addressing them.

Money Manager Expectation #1: My fund is AWESOME and yet no one gives me money. Jerks.

Reality: Your fund may be awesome, but if you aren’t getting assets, there has to be a reason. Maybe you don’t have the right network. Maybe you’re not targeting the right investors. Maybe your strategy isn’t in vogue right now. Maybe the investors you’re targeting are fully committed at the moment. Maybe you don’t mind a fair amount of volatility but other folks do. Maybe you have more faith in your simulated track record than others. Maybe you’re just too small/don’t have the right infrastructure at the moment and therefore folks can’t commit meaningful capital. The list of reasons why you’re not getting capital can be endless. Rather than dwelling on how shortsighted investors must be to overlook your fund, perhaps the best use of time would be figuring out why assets aren’t flowing in your direction and developing a plan to address those issues.

Investor Expectation #2: Money managers shouldn’t make money from the management fees.

Reality: While it’s generally accepted these days that a fund’s management fee shouldn’t be a bonanza annuity for any manager, it is also generally accepted (though sometimes forgotten) that running an investment fund takes moola. You have to be able to attract and pay talent a base salary in good times and bad. You need ample staff for your particular investment strategy. You may need research, IT, and other services. You’ve got to keep the lights on, the firewalls up and disaster recovery plans in place. How much this costs depends on strategy, location, number of investors, staffing requirements and a host of other factors. It’s up to the fund managers and investors (during due diligence) to determine a fund’s true “bottom line” and pay fees accordingly. Rarely will they be “zero.”

 Money Manager Expectation #2: Investors should have infinite time to talk to me about my fund.

Reality: There are generally eight to 10 hours in an investor’s working day. The investors that I speak to often get 20 to 100 emails and calls a day from fund managers. You start doing the math. Oh, and make sure you factor in committee meetings, travel, PowerPoint presentations, conference calls, HR, compliance tutorials, and bathroom breaks. Now do you understand why it took Issac Investor a few days (or a few emails) to get back to you? Or why they only want to chat for minutes, rather than hours, about your fund? To quote The Karate Kid, “Patience, Daniel-San.”

Investor Expectation #3: There’s only one way to be “institutional.”

Reality: As much as we want a “check the box” solution for fund evaluation, it will never exist. Just because a fund manager has a full time Chief Compliance Officer, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Information Officer doesn’t necessarily make that fund better than one that has combined or even outsourced some of those functions. Different levels of staffing and infrastructure will be appropriate at different stages of fund evolution and for different strategies. The key is to determine if key functions are covered adequately, not to count C-Suite professionals in the org chart.

Money Manager Expectation #3: Anyone can be a fund marketer.

Reality: Some folks are great at initiating contact with investors, making a concise and compelling case for a fund, pushing gently for follow up and asking for (and getting) a commitment. Some people aren’t. If you aren’t one of those people (see also, Money Manager Expectation Number 1), even if it is your fund and you know it better than anyone else ever could, you should consider delegating those tasks.

What are your “favorite” expectation/reality gaps between investors and fund managers? Sound off in the comments below while I go eat some celery. 

And Now For Something Completely Different...

How many times have you sat through a panel presentation at an investment conference only to be bored out of your damn mind by one session or another?

The topic of the session doesn’t matter. It can be a session on anything from the tax treatment of investments to investors writing actual checks to fund managers on stage - investment porn if you will. 

Indeed, there is only one thing that can kill a panel discussion faster than Raid kills roaches: overwhelming consensus.

“I agree with the prior panelists that (restate what you’ve just heard).”

“I agree with the prior three panelists that (restate again what you’ve just heard two times already).”

“Bob, do you have anything to add here?” “Well, I actually agree with Pat and Mary and that gentleman in the audience…”

C’mon, you know you’ve been there. And whether you’re in the audience or actually on the conference stage, a part of you wants to pick up a chair, throw it, and start chanting “Jer-ry! Jer-ry! Jer-ry!”

Ok, maybe that’s just me.

Now don’t get me wrong, generally I’m a fan of consensus. Consensus over where to eat dinner, what bottle of wine to order, whether or not a particular outfit makes my butt look big - these are good things on which to have input and universal agreement.

But when it comes to investing, I look for a few renegades, rogues and innovators and prioritize utility over unanimity, potential benefit over style and strategy boxes, because that's where excess value lives. 

Last week, Palgrave, the publisher of my 2015 tome Women of the Street: Why Female Money Managers Generate Higher Returns (And How You Can Too), and I launched a Twitter poll. Roughly 130 Tweeters (Twitterers?) responded to the question: “Why do you think gender diversity is important in investing is important?”

This multiple-choice poll offered the following options for answers: Underrepresentation, Higher Returns, Diverse Behavior/Views, and Not Important.

The winning answer (39%) in the poll was “Diverse Behavior/Views”, which was great because that’s essentially my book in a nutshell, and I love the smell of validation in the morning.

I was, however, somewhat stunned that the second most popular answer (30%) was “Not Important.”

Uh, what? How can diverse views and behavior NOT be important in this industry? After all, the investment industry is overwhelmingly Caucasian, male and 35+, and the fund landscape (no matter what the asset class) is dominated by a few large investment firms …and if that ain’t a prime breeding ground for painful consensus, I don’t know what is.

Look, it’s undeniable that some level of consensus is necessary in investing (otherwise you will own a stock, company, bond or other instrument that never increases in value 'cos no one agrees with you about the value), but when we drift towards overwhelming consensus, I believe our ability to make money is diminished. And nothing pisses me off like missing out on returns.

Let’s take venture capital, for example.

• Data from the Martin Prosperity Institute shows that 25.3% of venture capital is invested in San Francisco/San Jose.
• Data from Forbes/Statista shows that 36.2% of venture capital is directed towards software companies, with another 17.3% going into biotechnology.
• And data from PitchBook shows that 45% of venture capitalists with MBAs matriculated from Harvard, Wharton or Stanford.

That's a whole heapin' helpin' of consensus. 

To oversimplify a bit, that means you end up with a Venn Diagram of geography, network and industry that looks a lot like the one below, where anything that is overlapping spells some level of competition (higher valuations, similar concepts, etc.). 

(c) 2016 MJ Alts

But start to change even one thing around and you could end up with increased opportunity. What if you look at the same industries and you went to Harvard, but you focus on, I don’t know, the Southeast, for example? Would it make sense that you might find some highly interesting investments that others might not, or are all the good ideas on the coasts? Or maybe you change your network. With so little capital directed to women and minority entrepreneurs, what if you cultivated a different network (or hired people with differentiated networks) to find out-of-the-box opportunities? Could that open up a new avenue for excess returns? The capitalist in me says, “Yes!” Differences can be good.

(c) 2016 MJ Alts

The same types of things happen in other parts of the investment spectrum, too. I’ve discussed in prior blogs research showing that long-only “benchmark huggers” have less chance of outperformance, (http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/5/3/kicking-the-buckets) and if you think about it, the same should generally be true for hedge funds.

For example, equity hedge funds make up roughly 30% of the overall hedge fund universe by number, and roughly 40% by assets under management. Many of these funds focus on US investment markets, and the vast majority are also managed by white males. This creates a universe of funds that potentially has a similar universe of investment opportunities, similar information available and similar behavior patterns, which can limit outperformance. By modifying one aspect, behavior for example, could we open ourselves up to a differentiated or even higher return? What if we looked at *truly* different strategies? What if…?

(C) 2016 MJ Alts

(c) 2016 MJ Alts

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not anti-anything that generates (or exceeds) my expected return, and the reason that assets tend to concentrate the way they do is that those firms, industries, strategies, etc. often have a history of success.

But as an industry watcher, I can’t help but wonder what kinds of returns would be possible if investors and asset management firms changed their perspective just a bit and took a road less traveled every once in a while. If we wondered less about how much an investment or new hire or strategy looks like past success and instead asked how it is differentiated and could contribute to our overall success. I’m guessing we’d end up with increased diversification, higher returns and a myriad of other tangential benefits, not the least of which is fewer torturous panels. 

Sources:http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/global-startup-cities-venture-capital/429255/ , http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/06/27/which-industries-attract-the-most-venture-capital-infographic/#4b07db986778, https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/harvard-4-other-schools-make-up-most-mbas-at-pe-vc-firms

Capital (Raising) Crimes & Punishment

With hot weather upon us, more folks out of the office, and a truncated conference schedule, it's easy to get frustrated with the capital raising process. Before you start hating the players *and* the game, make sure you're not committing any capital (raising) crimes and putting your own asset raising efforts in the pokey.

(c) 2016 MJ Alts

The Five P's of Gender Parity

A few weeks ago, I attended an interesting and informative event on women and investing. One of the sessions was focused on how to increase gender parity within the investment industry. The discussion eventually coalesced around five key drivers of diversity in investments: Pipeline, Parenting, Presence, Pay and Promotion.

Hedge Fund Truth - Don't Believe Everything You Read

It's time for another animated installment of The Hedge Fund Truth! Turn up your speakers, close your door and watch this week's video blog. This video looks at some of the truths and fictions around the hedge fund industry, focusing around recent bad press about returns, fees and a shortage of talent. It asks if the entire industry should be tarred with the same big brush or if there is nuance that investors and industry watchers may not have considered. Are hedge funds inherently BAD for investors, or do we need to gather more data and adjust our thinking? Enjoy!

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