Hedge Fund Returns Are Path Dependent - As 2011 Illustrates

One of the things that is attempted on this website is to look at market action to help explain, or comprehend hedge fund returns. For example, two years ago a commentary was distributed on the significance of the quality factor in explaining returns in 2009 (see this article), and the impact of high correlation this year was explored  (here) too. This year has been a very unusual year in the macro background and in how markets have moved - year three of a recovery does not normally look like this one in economics or markets. 

The market events of this year have been a slalom course for hedge fund managers to negotiate (risk on/risk off), and the hedge fund indices reflect that. The HFRX Global Hedge Fund Index was down 8.58% for the year up to Monday (the 5th of December), and directional funds have fared a lot worse than non-directional strategies (the former are down 18% on an index basis).

Manager letters can be a good source of market context for hedge fund returns. In particular managers taking a quantitative approach are risk aware by nature and typically have a numerically stronger way of expressing the market conditions, and the suitability of their own methodology for extracting value from them.The overview reproduced below comes from Quant Asset Management of Singapore, managers of a portfolio of global equities.

Dear Investor,

It is unusual for us to add any written text to our monthly email other than the standard text in the newsletter. Since we apply a consistent, systematic investment methodology, once familiar with the methodology, the newsletter is normally self-explanatory. But because we are currently witnessing the biggest draw-down since the inception of the QAM Global Equities fund, 71/2 years ago, we’d like to use this opportunity to share some of our thoughts on this.

We now had a period of seven consecutive negative months with the fund being down 22% for the year. The main reasons for the negative performance are:

1) We use mostly fundamental factors when selecting our stocks from a global universe of over 6000 stocks. Fundamentals haven’t been driving markets in the past seven months. Macro-economic factors were driving markets and correlations have been at an all time high.

2) We use a trend following methodology that adjust factor weightings each period for what worked well in a certain past period (dynamic) before. This didn’t work well in the past seven months due to volatility spikes and trend reversals.

3) We use a hedging methodology whereby we are either 0% or 50% net exposed mostly based on aggregate earnings revisions number and some price performance related techniques. This hasn’t added value in the past seven months.

So the question arises if our methodology is still valid and when will it work again?          

First of all; all good investment methodologies go through periods where they struggle but as long as they add value over time and make logical sense, it makes sense to stick with them in order to achieve above average returns.

Furthermore we believe that systematically picking a large number of stocks on the basis of fundamentals (valuations, earnings growth and earnings revisions) combined with a factor adaption methodology, whilst hedging out a large part of the market risk, does add lots of value. Remember that the fund is up 154% since inception. This compares to 16% for the MSCI World in the same period.

We have always allowed volatility in our funds (around 20%, which is much more than most of our peers) in order to achieve higher returns than our peers. These high returns have been achieved and we have a strong belief that they can be achieved again. In order for this to happen one has to allow certain periods of under-performance. Draw downs are pretty natural and frequent in fundamental factor adaptation systems and one should be reminded that they can create opportunities too.

Kind regards,
The QAM Team

The letter is reproduced here to give some insight to market drivers of return this year, not to point fingers at a style or a particular manager. The general point is that the vast majority of managers take a specific approach to markets that they hope works most of the time and for most market conditions. The marketing conceit of an "all weather" hedge fund or strategy died in 2008. The returns delivered by a manager are a function of their own style and the opportunity set available from the market over the period. It is very striking  that the gyrations of markets in 2010 and 2011 made it very difficult for equity hedge fund managers to make positive absolute returns except when the equity market letter was written by the Fed and other central banks through the mechanism of QE2 (from August 2010 to March 2011). 

Hedge fund returns are path dependent, not independent of the direction of markets, nor independent of changes to intra-market or inter-market correlation, nor unaffected by the extent to which markets trend. The specific sequence of ups and downs, step-wise shifts in volatility, and how long a market regime lasts impacts the ability of the manager to harvest alpha in the way they are set up to address markets. So, for example, it would not just be relevant that markets were down 5% over a six month period, but in understanding outcomes it is more relevant that they appreciated by 11% over six weeks before losing 15-16% over 4 months (with specific volatility and correlation conditions). 

It is up to the investor in hedge funds to put together portfolios of funds which take account of the various market conditions which may occur, in full knowledge of the manager style. Building such an efficient portfolio of funds can only be achieved when investors truly understand how their capital is being applied to markets by their managers. Provided the managers stick to their expressed style, there should be a limited number of surprises to investors in hedge funds given market conditions, and how market conditions change (the specific path markets follow). For any given market conditions and sequences the better investors in hedge funds will have a range of expected return per manager in which they are invested. As yet, the path dependency of hedge fund returns is not sufficiently well appreciated  - spread the word.



UCITS III Footnote - the offshore fund from QAM was down 23.49% over the period end Feb 2011 to the end of November. The onshore equivalent  - Quant Global Equities fund, a sub-fund of the Quant AM SICAV (a UCITS III type fund) - was down  27.77% over the same period. The onshore version launched in March this year.

Top Macro Manager Talks Through Set-Ups, Triggers and Sizing Positions

This week I heard a presentation by a senior trader at one of the large global macro hedge funds which has been in business for nearly 20 years. He put across several insights into the way of working of those who engage in the strategy. The particular trades under discussion were in foreign exchange, in the Euro/U.S. Dollar, during last year.



Fundamental Set-Up

In FX there are three elements to the fundamentals that should be aligned for putting on a position, according to the trader. The first is valuation. In FX there are several valuation models which are commonly used though each has limitations. Purchasing power parity (PPP) for a currency pair is a value which is unobservable in markets, and is a conceptual level that actual FX rates pass through without pausing. Extreme deviation from PPP is taken as an under or over-valuation. The Economist uses the price of the ubiquitous McDonald's meal to calculate the "Big Mac Index", a guide showing how far from fair value different world currencies are. The Big Mac theory, which is based on an observable purchasing-power parity, says that exchange rates should even out the prices of Big Macs sold across the world.

The second element of the fundamentals to consider is the interest rate differential between the two countries on each side of the currency pair. This is not a static element, as the FX markets (spot rate) move with forward forward rates. So expectations of future interest rate differentials are what count. The relative growth outlooks of the two economies is what the senior trader emphasised in getting a handle on interest rate differentials. For my part I would say that the perceived prospects for medium term inflation are now taking a much bigger role in the mind of the market than hithertofor in looking at interest rate differentials.

The third fundamental element to a good FX set up for a macro trader is the policy environment. Last year presented a classic opportunity (in looking at Euro related trades) in that European politicians/central bankers commented on levels and movements in traded rates (CDSs as well as bond auctions and FX parities). Some of the great macro trades have been set up by governments attempting to talk down markets when their policy objectives clash with what the markets discount as sustainable. So last year was a classic of its type in this regard, though interest rate policy specifically was a stale issue according to the bulge-bracket macro trader. That is, changes to interest rate policy were not expected to be a driver of the market condition for the trade under consideration in the time-frame envisaged. For trades at the market level like those illustrated here, and particularly in FX it is very important to understand the market drivers at the time. The graphic below indicates what the macro trader stated were the major drivers for the €/$ level last year through the different phases.

Technical Set-Up

The technical set up for a macro trade can be about flows and positioning by the various categories of market participants (say hedgers, speculators and governments). For example, the Commitments of Traders report for listed US futures showed there were very high levels of Dollar bear positions just before the monthly employment report for July 2010 released on the 6^th August last year. So the positioning in the market shifted the odds of the labour market data being bad enough to move the Euro up further versus the Dollar. That date marked an interim top for the Euro versus the Dollar.

The other form of commonly used technical set up is pattern recognition, which in its crudest form is chartism. Along with the rest of the market, the senior trader from the well-known global macro firm was onto the break in the multi-quarter uptrend for the Euro (versus the Dollar) that occurred in December 2009. The Greek debt crisis powered the multi-month fall in the Euro which lasted into the middle of 2010. The break in trend of itself is often a good entry point for a trade, but as FX markets have lots of minor reversals against the major trend traders have to have tools to identify the second and third high quality entry points as the new major trend unfolds. In the middle of January 2010 there was a good secondary entry point on such a short term reversal – as is typical the secondary entry point corresponds to a support/reversal level on the previous major trend – in this case around 1.45 on the €/$ in the period 13-15^th January.

This secondary, high-quality entry point can be illustrated in another trade mentioned on this website – in Gilt futures (see here and here).

Technical Set Up for Trade in Gilt Futures Showing High-Quality Entry Point

The significance from a money management perspective is that the second entry point - as the security price accelerates away from a key support or resistance level - can be a higher conviction entry point than the first. This is because the investment hypothesis ("the market is going to go down", say) has been tested by market action and passed the test. So depending on style, the macro trader can trade in several risk units at the second entry point. In no way is the second entry point a secondary entry point!

The global macro trader also disclosed the use of a particular tool to assess sentiment – the world wide web. The fund monitored the occurrence of the phrase "quantitative easing" on the web in August, September and October to ascertain the degree of dominance in the minds of investors.


Trigger

Global macro trading is often about assessing the persistence of action by the various actors in the market drama. It was interesting that the senior macro trader said that the trigger for putting on the position was often the behaviour of the markets themselves. Note that the crucial observations are across markets, not necessarily from market action within the market under consideration. So for the €/$ last year the maturity of the Euro rally that began in June was under consideration in August by the trader because the co-movements of the S&P500 (as a proxy for global equities) and the fx rate diverged. The €/$ and the SPX had synchronised price changes for a period of some months, but over the first few trading days of August days the S&P was flat whilst the € was still appreciating against the $. For the macro trader this signalled a change of behaviour was imminent for the Euro/Dollar relationship because the S&P action signalled at least a pause in the driver for the FX rate (the slowing US economy). To quote the trader directly, "divergences between markets are the best clue for market behaviour. A correlation break that lasts for one-to-two days and can indicate a movement to follow that lasts for 2-3 months." He also stated that more than 50% of a macro trader's insight comes from understanding the message of the markets, that is the behavioural inference is key. Like many traders, including those with a macro framework, the presenting macro trader only puts capital to work if the market has already started to move in the direction he wants to play.


Sizing

Sizing of positions in macro is usually a function of risk/reward and correlation. The senior trader didn't mention correlation himself in this regard, so we'll concentrate on the potential profit and loss as the key input to position sizing. The target price and stop loss levels for positions in markets are typically placed at or near significant support and resistance levels – the difference between current price levels and these two levels gives the upside/downside ratio for the potential trade. The potential loss between current levels and the stop is used to scale the maximum position size. A loss of say 5% on a position that is 20% of the gross equity of the fund would give a portfolio level loss of 1%. If two percent loss at the fund level for a single position is the outer bound then a 3% loss to the stop would equate to a 24% of equity maximum position size. The principle is determine how much you are prepared to lose – "anything else is bad discipline, or has ego in it," admonishes the trader.

This particular macro fund also uses drawdown from peak as an additional risk limiter at the level of the individual trader. So the risk capital of the trader will be reduced if his P&L is down 5% from his own peak, and he will be out of the market for a period if he loses 10% from his peak P&L, even if he is still positive on the year.


Closing the Position

The macro trader acknowledged his belief in the concept of reflexivity – Soros' concept that positive price changes themselves impact how positively investors think about the market – such that prices can waterfall down or continue upwards way beyond most expectations. Conceptualising potential price changes and unusual market impacts helps macro traders mentally prepare for a range of market outcomes. But still an all, positions have to be closed even after exceptional profits – so what feeds into the decision making at the closing of a trade? "A position should be reviewed when a price target is hit, and should be closed for sure when a lot of the market has joined you in that position."

How do you make money in macro trading? – "You need to take risk aggressively to make money, but you need to take it well." 



One of the reasons I posted this article is that the trader uses several methods I use in my own style of investing. If you run a hedge fund and would welcome input on your processes (investment, research and risk management) from my consultancy or want to persuade me to share my expertise full-time contact me on s-kerr@tiscali.co.uk 

Consulting One - Team Working in Hedge Funds

There is no such thing as a perfect hedge fund – we are all trying. So in my role as a consultant to hedge fund portfolio managers (PMs), I am usually carrying out remedial work in some dimension. Sometimes it can be about the positioning of hedge funds commercially, but usually it is about what the portfolio managers are doing. I'm going to write a series of articles about my consulting work – this is the first.

One of the key elements I have to investigate in my consulting work is the relationship between team members. I'm going to discuss one project I did with two joint-portfolio managers of an equity long/short hedge fund. This discussion is to raise issues and to describe ways of working. The team in this case comprised two members, PM "A" and PM "B", and they ran reasonably successful long-only products. There are three topics in this snapshot – the ground rules were not well established in this example, there were some important differences in style (personal and investment style) that got in the way of successful team working, and one of the portfolio managers had an unusual trait which had a bearing on his money management style. Finally I have included some of the solutions I gave to the portfolio managers and their boss.



Ground Rules

It is not unusual for a team to move from running long-only money together to managing a hedge fund. In doing so there will, of necessity, have to be new rules of engagement. Clarity of the decision making process is very important, for internal purposes (for accountability and reward), and for external parties like potential investors. It is important that there is agreement about the specific roles to be taken, and that there is a buy-in from the off of the structure adopted. A successful agreement or understanding will have a level of detail in it that may surprise some.

One of the most basic areas not made explicit in this case was the fund's objectives and the consequences that follow from that. The two portfolio managers did not have a common, agreed understanding of what returns would make the fund they both ran commercially attractive. Therefore they did not feel the need to measure their portfolio level risk and monitor it - where they taking too much or too little risk? They just didn't know.

Another consequence of this lack of commerciality in terms of return profile is that they had no notion of what was a the worst monthly loss they could sustain without putting themselves out of active consideration by investors. The worst monthly loss is a key metric both internally and externally. Internally the metric gives an implication of where portfolio level stops should kick in. Externally it is one of a number of measures that give investors an idea of what the whole risk profile should be like – number of winning-to-losing months, drawdown, recovery period, and what is a good and bad month for the style of investment.

One of the issues which provoked some tension in the relationship between the managers was how they split between them the sectors of the equity market they worked on. It was fine, and indeed seen commonly elsewhere, that the market was split into two – one half invested in by one portfolio manager. The tension, such as it was, arose because PM B did not want to be excluded from investing in some of the sectors covered by PM A. It was never satisfactorily covered in discussion at inception in the mind of manager B, and that oversight hung over discussions in the ensuing two or three years.

It is quite usual for a PM in a team of portfolio managers to be able to initiate positions without reference to their partners. But how the team will react to change for the positions (in size or price) does need to be covered in the ground rules. Is there any right of veto, is there a different scale of decision made when the partners don't agree? Once a position is owned is it subject to hard or soft stops – do both partners have to adhere to review and exit levels? For the fund and team under discussion one of the partners was much more engaged in challenging the positions initiated by the other partner. Whilst the partners whose positions were under discussion saw this as a personal style point (one partner was just more vocal/forthright than the other), the other partner saw such challenging discussions as part of the investment process. This difference in perception and therefore activity could easily undermine a relationship under pressure because of returns.



Differences Between the Portfolio Managers

Having had some preliminary discussions for an overview, and discussed at some length how the two portfolio managers spent their time and what structure they had in place in their investment process, some clear points of difference came through. To explore these further I conducted separate structured interviews – asking the same questions to each portfolio manager gave a chance to compare attitudes, preferences, and perceptions of the two team members. To put the following list of differences into context I quote from my written report on the managers: "The managers have fantastically complementary philosophies on the market. They get on very well on a personal basis. In fact they have worked incredibly well together with some quite significant differences in tactical approaches (strategy being broadly agreed)."



Differences in Time-Frame

PM B is more comfortable with the shorter term time-frame that running a L/S hedge fund usually requires. Specifically B is much more willing to incorporate the current implications of market action into his market view by stock than PM A.



Differences in seeing Companies and Stocks

They have a similar level of respect for each other's views on companies (specifically differentiating between stocks and companies). However, when looking at equities of companies (shares) portfolio manager B can be as dispassionate about shares as he can about companies. This is in contrast to PM A – who is still prepared to argue with markets when he likes the company, even when the share price action is saying that the market does not agree with the positive (or negative) view of the company in the short term. So the feedback loop from owning the shares – the P&L – is negative for the position and getting worse (e.g. if it is a short the shares are going up) and that message from the markets, even if it is just about short term timing of the position, is being ignored.



The Fall-back Input - is it Technical or Fundamental?

(or to put it another way "short-term or long-term" or even "stock market or real world")?

Through the structured interviews of the portfolio managers it is possible to tease out where there are differences between the team members on research time. For example, in this case PM A suggested that they needed to have 300 company meetings a year, PM B thought that 100 meetings a year with company management was enough. The different perceptions of what was needed fed through to the weighting given to the fundamentals. Or, as likely, reflected the biases the managers brought into the discussion. Under pressure PM A will rely on the fundamentals to win out, whilst PM B will listen to the message of the markets and will be prepared to cut losing positions.



Conviction or Confidence?

Operators in markets, particularly traders, but to a significant degree portfolio managers as well, bring with them the baggage from their previous life experience to their decision making. So sometimes in analysing a team it is not that there are subtle style differences so much as one of the team is coming from somewhere else attitudinally (or characteristically). There can be a one-sided difference, if you like. Portfolio manager X brings with them epsilon, whilst portfolio manager Y has acquired a trait of zeta.

Through the structured interview it came through very strongly that PM A (or the Alpha member!) had a strong conviction that the most important characteristic of a successful portfolio manager was confidence. It is true that someone operating in markets has to have the belief in themselves sufficient to take on the markets, but the very strong emphasis on confidence manifested itself in the investment process in this case. This happened in two ways.

The first expression of individual confidence, if you like an assertion of confidence of an investment view, was in position sizing. Having done the analytical work PM A would take what I would consider a large position for his initial holding in a stock. Almost by definition the stock was bound to be perceived as under-valued by the market at the point of taking the initial position. If the market further under-valued that (long) position by marking the shares down (causing a loss) this would create a "better" (cheaper) buying opportunity, so PM A would have some bias to expressing confidence in his initial view of the shares by buying more. But the more important point is the size of the initial holding – he may or may not add to the position. Portfolio manager B would take an initial position of less than half the size of that taken by PM A, and look to add to it.

The second expression of confidence was the maintenance of positions of large size. PM A would always look for a further up leg in longs he owned for fundamental medium-term reasons. PM B would have a bias to trim successful positions as the positive momentum waned (to top and tail the positions). There was clear anchoring by PM A in sticking to previously successful positions, and to cut them would, in his mind, be an expression of a lessening confidence in the initial research.





Recommendations and Suggestions to Address the Issues Raised

In this particular case I wrote a 30-odd page report to the CIO of the firm as well as presented my conclusions to the portfolio managers that ran the equity long/short hedge. In the report I made a series of tiered written proposals – key recommendations, other recommendations, and finally at a more elective level, some suggestions. In response to the issues raised above here are some of the Recommendations and Suggestions forwarded:

• You should select what you consider to be "high potential" company meetings for both PMs to attend. This will enable higher conviction positions to be established at an earlier stage with a common background on the company.
  
• Be very clear and explicit (shared between you) on the reasons for having a position in a stock. Indeed there may be five potential drivers for a stock to go up (or down), but you must be clear why you own it (are short of it). The stock position should be in a portfolio for reason of how it will contribute to the portfolio characteristics (factor bets) as much as any stock specific reason (factor). This allows you to control portfolio shape in an informed way. Drift in any one position may not matter, but when aggregated across a portfolio, factors like capitalisation effects will turn you into heroes or zeroes promptly in the hedge fund format. Own positions for a reason and stick to it.
  
• You both have to have the capacity to invest in all sectors of the market.
  
• You need a few mechanistic rules that you can apply to take even more of the emotion out of decision making:
  

1. Automatic locking in profit/reducing exposure after a stated return. So a trading position that gives a 15% plus return in two weeks is completely sold, an investment position that gives 25%-plus return in a couple of months is halved automatically. The trading position can be bought again if it is equally attractive at some point. If the fundamentals still justify a larger position (they have improved since original position taken) then the investment position can be made larger.
   
2. You need a review level and hard-stop level per position. I suggest a 10% loss on book should be a review level, and 15% is a hard stop level (sell whole position, no exceptions). As a reminder the ABC Large Cap Fund has a hard stop at 8% for non-core positions and a hard stop of 10% for core positions, and the ABC Europe Fund has 5 and 10% respectively.
   

• Either can initiate a position, as at present. However there must be a vote before ADDING to a position – both PMs must agree.
  
• Just as you need to know yourself to be an investor, you need to know your partner if you have joint and several decision-making, rather than having a presiding genius. Because you demonstrate some differences in personal style, there are times when you don't understand where your partner is coming from. I suggest that you complete a Myers-Briggs Model™ (Extravert, Introvert, Intuitive, Sensor, Thinker, Feeler, Judger, Perciever) questionnaire. This is particularly relevant for times of stress – we each revert to a fall-back way of operating and this is the kernel of what you need to know of each other for managing money as a team. If you understand more about where each other is coming from (not intellectually but in personal style) then you will be able to tolerate the differences more easily.
  

Clarium Redux - Still Arguing with Markets, Still Losing

I am grateful to the website market folly (www.marketfolly.com) for this input on Clarium Capital, the global macro fund manager.

Peter Thiel, source:Bloomberg

" Even more shocking perhaps is that the downward spiral at Peter Thiel's hedge fund Clarium Capital has continued. ZeroHedge noted that Clarium lost 6.1% in the first three weeks of March and was now down 5.4% for the year. This all comes as US equity markets are up over 6.4% for 2010. We're not quite sure what's going on over there but after a fantastic start to the fund, the last few years have been quite rough on them, to put it politely. They were down 25% in 2009 according to our hedge fund performance numbers post. However, as of the recent performance data, they were still up 210% since inception.

Tosca Fund and Abaco Financials - Return Outcomes versus Portfolio Construction and Alpha Type

    Preface

The following discussion and analysis looks at two equity hedge funds that specialise in the financial sector. Naturally the sector was stressed as the nexus of the Credit Crunch, and the dislocations within the sector have created gross opportunities which have been taken advantage of by both the funds covered here. The longer-established Tosca Fund has undergone a successful reorganisation in order to align the portfolio processes with investors' requirements. So, to be clear, the portfolio construction elements discussed here relate to the Tosca Fund after the reorganisation of the final quarter of 2008.

One of the tenets of my consultancy business is that the portfolio construction and risk management used by a hedge fund should be consistent with the desired outcomes. The target returns are usually given as a range of absolute return per year, and sometimes come with a volatility of monthly return co-target or secondary target. The ranking of return versus risk assumption, whether it is volatility of return, downside risk, semi-variance, drawdown or worst monthly loss forecast is a primary element in understanding a particular hedge fund. Not just ex-post external measurement of risk versus actual monthly returns, but ex-ante from the perspective of the portfolio manager(s). What are they trying to achieve in terms of secondary risk characteristics other than absolute return, and how important are the higher moments in how they impinge on the investment process?

I have been looking at two hedge funds operating in the same speciality, and looking through their portfolio construction techniques. Both funds are financial sector specialists. Naturally, both the funds have had different portfolio shapes in the last 18 months than in the previous period.

Directional versus Market-Neutral

The Tosca Fund set up by Martin Hughes and now managed by Johnny de la Hay is a long/short global equity fund which is run with fund shape drawn from Hughes' experience at Tiger Management. Tiger cubs tend to have a net long bias, but to always have a significant short book. The shorts are there to make money more than hedge. The net varies between +30 to +50%. The gross used to be typically above a hundred and fifty percent of equity; the gross of Tosca Fund has been closer to 100% of equity this year. Tosca is a net-long bias, directional, and fundamentally-driven hedge fund.

ABACO Financials Fund is self-described by the managers as a market-neutral equity fund. It is of critical importance that that label market-neutral is at the first level of description along with the dedication to financials. For Inigo Lecubarri, Louis Rivera-Camino, and Martin Deurell who run the fund the beta-based market-neutrality encompasses a net between 20% net long and 20% net short. Striving to achieve relative performance within the portfolio, shorts are in place to hedge much more than for profit. A typical gross exposure (not average) has been, say, 190 percent of equity. A year ago the gross was less than 100% of equity, and is now back to the typical levels.

So the ABACO Financials Fund has had a structurally constrained and smaller net exposure to markets than Toscafund, and a slightly larger gross through its life. The gross exposure of the ABACO product is thought to be nearly twice that of Tosca Fund at the moment. The ABACO Financials Fund is a structurally market-neutral, very slightly directional equity hedge fund in which returns come from both fundamental investing and trading. Not that Tosca doesn't trade around positions at all, rather trading has not historically been a major contributor to overall returns.

Mandate Scope and Thematic Similarity

Tosca is not a pure financials fund. The top-down parts of the process includes a macro-economic analysis and micro-level analysis (firm and sector level) which gives an understanding of the growth prospects of various product categories. Whilst the core of this work is about the financial sector, inevitably the prospects of the financial sector as a buyer or seller of products and services becomes evident. So Toscafund invests in service sector stocks which the fundamental research process on the financial sector suggests will have a tailwind (longs) or headwind (shorts). For example, moves to a cashless, lower cheque utilisation banking sector drives demand for other forms of payment processing and transaction methods. The beneficiaries may be software or hardware providers.

ABACO is a pure financials hedge fund, with only a few positions being from outside Europe. The top-down elements of the ABACO investment process, the medium-term idea generation component, are very similar in outcome to those at Tosca. The knowledge base of the ABACO managers allows them to isolate the fundamental drivers for each sector and stock in their universe of more than 250 names. Drivers are of three classifications –a) Operational, b) Sector / Industry, and c) Macro-Economic. Companies financial performance is modelled based on the relevant drivers on the understanding that there is a trade-off between explanatory power and complexity. So for each company followed at Abaco the managers calculate an earnings sensitivity per factor. Earnings under various economic/sector scenarios can then be extrapolated, and then probabilities attached to the scenarios.

So for the top-down (longer time-frame) element both Tosca and ABACO are using a thematic approach. This means that in effect stock positions in the respective portfolios are knowingly related to a degree.

Time-Frames, Stops and Liquidity

The ABACO Financials Fund is managed with multiple time-frames as ABACO always has trading positions as well as core investments. The Tosca Fund is managed with a much greater bias to the medium term, and in hedge fund terms one could even suggest a long-term time frame. The Tosca process derives a target price based on internal analysis extending out two years or more. In the short term the stock market resembles a beauty pageant, and in the long term a weighing machine. The Tosca approach assesses the companies' worth on a rational multi-year basis (weighing machine basis) and looks through the fashionable or commonly held subjective biases.

This can be very powerful in allowing the manager of Tosca to argue with the short term perceptions in the market, and hold onto positions. Historically Tosca would tend not to use stops on positions or the whole portfolio, having taken a fundamental position on a stock.

The Abaco Financials Fund is run by three Portfolio Managers with different type of backgrounds:
from research (Inigo Lecubarri),portfolio management (Rivera-Camino) and from a trading background (Martin Deurell). Capital is allocated as a function of expected risk/return and catalysts, the latter acting as triggers for timing. So the core of the process is a creating an orderly ranking of long/short candidates. Candidates for inclusion are assessed for their marginal contribution to portfolio diversification before they are added. Both Tosca and ABACO use a correlation matrix of names in their universe to understand the relationships between their holdings (and potential holdings) on a historic basis.

Both Funds pay attention to the liquidity of positions – for Tosca Fund it must be feasible to liquidate 90% of the portfolio within three months of normal trading. In practise all but 10% of the current Tosca portfolio could be liquidated in 5 days on 20% of the market volume. For the ABACO fund at least 80% of the portfolio can be liquidated in less than a day's trading, and the balance of the portfolio can be liquidated in 2 to 3 days' trading. There are two factors at play here – size and style.

The Tosca Fund is more than $2.5bn in AUM, up to 20 times the size of the ABACO Financials Fund. As important is that the medium to long term holding period of the Tosca Fund is matched by fund liquidity terms of quarterly redemptions with 3 months notice. The ABACO Financials Fund has monthly dealing and it has a trading component as well as investment time-frame positions. So the liquidity demanded of the underlying positions of the ABACO fund is consistent with the style, just as it is for Tosca Fund.

Martin Deurell of ABACO has commented: "We are much more liquid (than Tosca) which can help us to execute the risk management efficiently. The drawback of this, of course, is that we can't capture certain alpha that Tosca can: they can take bigger positions in less liquid companies."

Some Diversification by Book for ABACO

As mentioned, a differentiator of ABACO versus Tosca is that the former explicitly run trading (short term) positions. Allocations of capital to trading positions vary through time, as does the P&L versus the medium term holdings. So there is an element of diversification by book for the ABACO Fund.

One further difference to emphasise between the two financial specialists is that, consistent with a market-neutral mandate, the ABACO Fund is described by the managers as a relative value fund. The long book is conceptually held versus the short book as it is at Tosca, but at ABACO the long and short books will be more similar. When a long position is put on by ABACO it is likely that a couple of short positions will be put on to minimise country and sector factors for the long. So for the same return target the ABACO fund structure would require a bigger gross.

Having written that however, the Tosca Fund (a global financials fund) is much more diversified by country exposure than the ABACO Financials Fund. Maybe it is appropriate as European financial specialists that ABACO has more concentrated country risk. It is clear too that both fund managers spend a lot of time analysing and ranking country growth and credit worthiness, so the thematic top-down element is at least partly about expressing country biases. It is worth pointing too that Tosca Fund takes an active view on emerging market exposures – over a market cycle this should contribute to both risk and return relative to a fund that only invests in developed markets.

In terms of the activity levels, from all of the above one could infer that the holding period of Tosca Fund is a lot longer than that of the ABACO Financials Fund, and that names turnover a lot quicker at ABACO. It doesn't mean that the research effort is more or less intense at either; it is just applied differently.

So on balance the manager of Tosca Fund is trying to extract alpha over a longer time-frame than the managers of the ABACO Financials Fund, and given the larger bias to fundamentals has been more prepared to argue with the markets. Tosca Fund is net-long biased; ABACO Financials Fund is a market-neutral relative value fund. The target return of Tosca Fund is 15-20% net to investors over a full cycle - something it has achieved historically for most of its existence. I believe it will be achieved in future. The target return for ABACO Financials Fund is 10%, and just about as important to the managers is the lack of correlation to markets.

Outcomes from the Two Styles

Tosca C (since re-organisation) versus a Peer Group of European-Based Equity Hedge Funds

 















The Tosca Fund was up 43% in 2009, the fifth time it has posted annual returns in excess of 20% since its inception in late 2000.

Data Source: Eurohedge

The ABACO Financials Fund has had an annualized return since inception in June 2003 of 8.69% ($ version) achieved with a monthly volatility (annualised) of 5.99%, and is having its best year yet in 2009. However, given the mandate, it is just as significant that the returns of the ABACO Fund have an r² of 0.01 with the S&P500, according to a hedge fund database. Further the return series for ABACO has a negative correlation with other hedge fund equity market neutral funds, at least at the hedge fund index level. The Fund also shows nearly no correlation with the European financial sector time series.

Monthly and Annual Return of ABACO Financials Fund (EUR)

	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Jan	--	0.71%	1.92%	1.32%	-1.06%	3.67%	2.89%
Feb	--	2.20%	0.85%	3.64%	1.61%	-0.46%	3.07%
Mar	--	0.84%	0.22%	-0.87%	0.44%	-3.13%	-2.58%
Apr	--	-1.54%	-1.02%	-0.50%	2.49%	4.01%	0.56%
May	--	0.69%	-0.34%	0.20%	2.70%	0.14%	2.75%
Jun	0.49%	2.06%	-0.15%	1.29%	1.19%	1.53%	-0.33%
Jul	0.59%	-2.31%	1.14%	0.18%	-2.63%	0.58%	1.37%
Aug	0.50%	0.45%	-1.07%	2.45%	2.65%	1.58%	4.98%
Sep	0.55%	1.26%	1.58%	1.40%	-0.83%	-5.33%	2.22%
Oct	1.34%	-0.18%	0.93%	0.61%	-0.36%	1.14%	-1.90%
Nov	0.51%	-0.42%	1.51%	2.37%	-1.61%	1.35%	2.29%
Dec	2.58%	0.76%	-0.27%	-0.66%	2.28%	0.36%	0.64%
YTD	6.73%	4.51%	5.37%	11.93%	6.89%	5.19%	16.88%

Source: Hedge fund database
The top down processes and risk measurements used by the managers of the two financial equity hedge funds are similar. The risk management and portfolio construction of the two hedge funds are different, but each consistent with their respective sources of alpha and targets for return, and explicit (ABACO)and implicit (Tosca) higher moments of their return series. Investors in hedge funds should always evaluate the extent that the portfolio construction and particularly the money management element of running a hedge fund is consistent with the form and time-frame of insight into markets utilised by a manager. In these two cases they are.

The Limits to Fundamental Conviction – Clarium Capital

In August 2007, perfectly catching the first public intimations of a financial downwave global macro manager Clarium Capital, then of San Francisco, dispatched a manager letter that took a negative view on economic growth, real estate and the stock market. In the letter they wrote ""We have begun a post-Long Boom phase that can be called the Long Goodbye. Returns during the Long Goodbye will be lower -- perhaps half as much -- than those of the Long Boom."

The firm argued that the developed world has entered a period of lower returns in which interest rates and economic volatility would increase while growth in corporate profits and global expansion decline. To adjust to this new reality, the firm explained that people must work more, consume less and compensate for lower returns by using more leverage -- borrowing more, that is. The prudent response would be to work longer and cut consumption, but up to that point the reaction had been just to borrow more, Clarium said.

Chillingly, Clarium predicted "that higher leverage has made markets much more vulnerable to outside shocks that will force "painful" de-leveraging and a reduction in liquidity." Clarium built these economic scenarios and market forecasts into portfolios through several investment themes. One was being short the US Dollar, and another was shorting shares of leveraged companies. In the second half of 2007 and early 2008 Clarium made stand-out returns on these themes (see table).

2007 Returns







2008 Returns






Clarium's excellent research had also put them into the camp that believed in the peak oil concept, making oil prices more sensitive to small changes in the demand/supply balance, and giving prices an upward bias over the long term. As it turned out, Clarium's investors didn't have to wait for the long term to arrive and for a payout on the long energy positions Clarium ran – in the first half of 2008 the oil price accelerated to the upside and Clarium's returns reflected big long exposure to energy, gaining 11.2% in May 2008 and 16.0% in June.So in the middle of last year Clarium Capital's principal, Peter Thiel, was a "Master of the Universe". In the first six months of 2008 his Fund was up 57.9 percent. Significant inflows followed the turn of the year returns, and by the end of July 2008 Clarium Capital Management had assets under management of $7.3bn.

Clarium's Peter Thiel, source:Bloomberg

Clarium stayed short of the US Dollar and long energy as the start of the second half of last year, so in July and August gave back some of the gains of the first half of 2008. Bets against the world's reserve currency, the US Dollar, in a time of crisis would not have helped returns at the time of the collapse of Lehmans and the follow on problems at AIG and the UK banks (October/November last year). So after a bang-out first half, Clarium ended 2008 having made a small loss of 4.5%. Better than most hedge funds across all strategies, but the Clarium returns in the second half of 2008 were worse than the peer group global macro managers, and across the whole year the small loss was delivered to investors with very high volatility. Many macro managers run steepener trades as portfolio insurance for a liquidity crisis, so many macro managers were positive in each month of the final quarter of 2008. Clarium didn't carry that insurance and had losses in two out of three months. Like the whole industry Clarium Capital suffered major redemptions in 2008, but the scale of some of Clarium's monthly losses hastened investors to the exit. AUM were $2.5bn at the end of 2008.

2008 Returns






Peter Thiel has been quoted as saying recently that "There was a degree to which the financial economy has been extremely decoupled from the real economy." He has noted that he didn't expect the S&P 500 to rally 62 percent, its steepest advance since the Great Depression, at the same time that the proportion of Americas without a job rose to a 26-year high. The Clarium fundamental call has been that the economic recovery would be at best constrained."A real, sustainable recovery is not possible without productivity growth," said Clarium's Chief Economist Kevin Harrington. "The recovery is not real," he says. "Deep structural problems haven't been solved and it's unclear how we will create jobs and get the economy growing again -- that's long been my thesis and it still is." He continued, "The government has helped stabilize the banking system, but I'm not sure we have a path toward sustainable growth, partly because consumers are dealing with debt and other issues, even as an energy crisis looms. It always feels unpatriotic to be negative. But too few people are focused on the real problems."

Thiel himself is of the same mindset: "I don't think that a recovery is impossible. I do think its quite hard to get to a situation where you have a lot of growth in the economy without running into basic constraint problems.

 "The key thing in the US is going to be doing more with less. If you try to do the recovery by just doing more of the same and if the recovery is going to consist of going back -- to the housing bubble, going back to leveraged finance, lending money again like crazy, going back to 2005 -- it just seems to me like you're setting yourself up for a real problem. I think you would run right back into four dollar a gallon gas prices and it would sort of correct itself [back into recession].

"Longer term I'm hopeful. I'm not wildly optimistic…But I don't think it gets driven by the financial system or even has that much to do with macroeconomic policy. I think it basically has to do with getting innovation working again. I think that's a very long term trajectory. I'm pessimistic in the sense that I don't think people are focusing on that enough."

Implementing these views Clarium was long the Yen and Dollar in the first quarter of 2009. . The Dollar positioning in the first half reflected an implicitly deflationary view, and Clarium has been long of high-quality bonds based on the view that fear will prevail in markets in 2009. That fear in terms of stock markets peaked in March, and since then stock markets have rallied hard. It appeared to the investment professionals at Clarium that valuations on equity markets quickly became rich, and they have shorted stocks into the middle of the year. And paid for it:

2009 Returns






Global macro managers are paid to take a view on how the economic environment is going to impact market prices. If markets reflect the fair values of stocks, bonds and the parities of fx rates global macro managers have no trades to put on. They trade on where prices are going, given their view on the dynamics of economic growth, final demand, inflation and job growth, in the context of markets subject to the emotions as well as the rational thinking of investors.Modern form macro funds aim to have five or six themes running in their portfolios. The themes are only distinct to the extent that they are uncorrelated. So if two trades are long yen call options as a probabilistic bet that the carry trade unwinds in emergencies, plus a yield curve steepening trade then there are two trades that will work for the same scenario, and they will be tightly correlated when you expect them to work. Long gold and long index-linked bond trades can be thought of the same way. Late last year was a period when correlations between positions were either +1 or -1. So it was very difficult to construct trades with a macro take on markets that were not very correlated (positively or negatively).
  
Many managers in macro use VaR type measurements of portfolio risk. This methodology is flawed but still useful for macro managers because it allows risk assumption across different asset classes to be measured on a common basis. Although macro managers are not as micro-controlled as equity hedge managers in risk-assumption boundaries they can and do vary risk assumption according to shifts in markets, including regime change, which is what we saw in the Autumn. So macro managers have a free choice about maintaining, increasing or cutting their risk assumption as market values move, just like hedge fund managers in other styles.
  
One of the tenets of running money, particularly for other people, is that you earn the right to take risk. On an individual level Peter Thiel did that by co-founding PayPal, and so started Clarium with capital which was merited. The annual return series for Clarium given below shows the classic global macro pay-off profile: the portfolio is run as a series of bets some of which become highly profitable. In concept a global macro fund runs a series of themes are run to give a chance to smooth out returns, and losses are limited by three things: trades which have natural downside protection (like the bond floor of convertibles, or a hard asset value), strategies are put on with delineated stop-losses from the outset, and options are used to implement the views. So the return series should look like a strip of option positions – occasional big pay offs interspersed with dull returns (small losses and small profits).

Annual Returns of Clarium LP

In the case of Clarium several of the tenets of running money, and running money in the modern global macro format specifically have been broken. These are matching stop-losses with the risk/return profile, diversification of theme, and arguing with the market without a suitable limit.There have been 14 double-digit monthly returns in the Clarium performance history, both gains and losses. That scale of monthly return is only feasible with the use of leverage. The use of leverage carries the inference of high conviction and/or investing capital in low volatility assets. Soros used leverage (re-hypothecation) on his bond positions in his heyday, and traded forward currencies in large size using the implicit leverage of forwards with no margin in low volatility instruments. So leverage per se is not a bad thing, and in normal markets is necessary to potentially generate 20% absolute returns from low volatility instruments.

Soros used to load up on a position when it started to turn his way - the foot-to-the-floor version of risk assumption. That is the investment hypothesis had been tested in the market and shown to be positive, so reinforce the winners. Contrarily, the markets are very good at teaching lessons in humility – so if a position started to ship losses Soros was all over it , and mentally able to cut it and re-visit at a more opportune time. So capital was dynamically applied at Soros Fund Management with the feedback loop of the P&L delivered by the positions in the market.

The other feedback loop that managers use is the fundamentals – have they mapped out as forecast? Is the road-map of the progress of the macro factor turning out as expected at this point? Some, indeed many, managers will argue with markets (running a negative P&L) on the basis that their fundamental view is being borne out in the real world away from traded markets. So if trade deficits are the key factor in monitoring fx rates at the time, and the trade balance is progressing as expected then managers give themselves the right to argue with the markets for the time until their conception is generally recognised in FX cross-rates. Of course there may be other factors influencing the fx rate, and the rate of progress may not be as laid out in the road-map. There is room for judgement, but not for behavioural biases counter to the facts.

In the case of Clarium the losses of August and October last year are prima face evidence that the tenets of macro management were not being followed. If there were effective stop losses at the portfolio level or by theme and the portfolio themes were indeed non-correlated then a single month's loss should not reach 13 or 18%.

As stated, last Autumn was exceptional in the shift on volatility and correlation. However part of what investors pay for in the modern hedge fund world is superior risk management. Exposures should be cut at a hedge fund at the portfolio level to ensure that the target maximum monthly loss should not be breached. Clariums' track record from 2002 to 2007 showed 3 monthly losses of 11% or just over 11%. Given the size and number of positive months that maximum monthly loss was (just) tolerable. But a loss of 18% was not and is not. Exposures should have been cut intra-month so that the target maximum loss was not exceeded. As much as anything else that was a logical reason for investors to withdraw their capital, as they did towards the end of last year at Clarium.

This year is different again. It is clear that the Clarium view on the economy is the same now as it was at the beginning of the year. That is fine – it has been a disappointing economic recovery in some senses, and so in macro-economic terms Clarium have been broadly correct this year, and may be borne out on their forecasts beyond this year. How those views have worked out in traded markets has been less successful – Clarium were down 15.8% by the end of September.

It looks like September 2009 has been a signal month for Clarium Capital Management. The Clarium Fund lost 8% in the first 14 trading days of the month. Between between Sept. 11 and Sept. 19 Clarium cut leverage from 4.2 times down to 1.4 times equity, and closed the month with a loss of 8.1%.

I would contend that the commercial position of Clarium Capital Management LLC was different this year than during the rest of Clarium's history. The large losses of August and October last year, the withdrawal of investor's capital last year, the increase in frequency of losing months, and the fact that the Fund is well below its high water mark (so vulnerable to staff losses) all shout to me that the remaining capital ($1.6bn at the end of September 2009) should be run more conservatively than hithertofor.

I do not think that managers in the position that Clarium was in this year should argue with the market to the extent in terms of scale and time that Clarium did. Being right on the economy only mitigates the position to the extent that positions in markets make money. There are natural limits to risk assumption in global macro, and to an extent Clarium lost some of its degrees of freedom in that regard from the outcomes last year. This year the natural limits to fundamental conviction for the firm should have kicked in a lot sooner than September.


The above was put together using material from various sources. I acknowledge the use of quotations and data from Bloomberg and The New York Post. The use of appropriate feedback loops and money management are core concepts used by Enhance Consulting, Simon Kerr's consultancy.
useful link: manager letter (April 2009)