Archive

Posts Tagged ‘hedge funds’

Interview with David Rosier – CEO of Thurleigh Investment Managers

January 15, 2012 Leave a comment

The S&P 500 index ended 2011 relatively unchanged, despite a year of high volatility driven by the European Sovereign Debt Crisis and the pertinent risk of double dip recession. During the year, the markets witnessed the major impacts of the Arab Spring, Japanese earthquake, downgrade of the US credit rating and the risk of a Eurozone country defaulting on its debt obligations – none of which was ‘predicted’ by Wall Street analysts in the beginning of the year.

The future is a lot harder to predict than Wall Street would have us believe. As Nassim Taleb remarked, “To prophesize, don’t add anything to the future; just figure out and eliminate what will not survive.” This Popperian view that all investment hypotheses are provisionally accepted until proven wrong may not seem comforting to investors. Nonetheless, it has not stopped the influx of money flowing into hedge funds.

Hedge funds on average lost 4.83% in 2011 despite amassing a record $2.04 trillion in total capital under management in the first quarter of 2011. The industry – which caters to wealthy and institutional investors chasing higher returns for bigger fees – appears to be licking its wounds as fund managers finished the year in the red. The hedge fund industry, which prides itself on outperforming the market, has failed to live up to expectations and delivered one of its worst annual performances last year. As 2012 – the year of the black dragon according to Chinese Zodiac – rolls on, can the industry reverse its fortunes?

B Beyond caught up with David Rosier, CEO and co-founder of Thurleigh Investment Managers.

David Rosier and Charles MacKinnon, founders of Thurleigh Investment Managers, are a rare breed of investment managers who have skin in the game. David and Charles stress the importance of ‘eating your own cooking’ and have their own personal wealth invested alongside their clients.

BB In your view, what is driving the current market conditions?

DR At the moment, there is greed and there is fear. There is greed because you are leaving your money on deposit and earning next to nothing and there is fear because the markets have become so volatile. It is a ‘risk on risk off’ mentality. The flight to safety, or what investors perceive as safe investments, has been driving this ’bubble’ in the gilt-edge securities. I mean, it’s mad to buy 10-year gilts yielding less than 3% when inflation is 5%.

BB Has this affected your strategy?

DR The way we implement our strategy hasn’t changed. We have always focused on asset allocation and academic research has shown that 90% of portfolio returns can be attributed to asset allocation rather than stock selection. We have always invested in a mixture of index funds, ETF and absolute return funds. We believe that by active asset allocation it is possible to capture short-term cyclical opportunities to enhance the returns without increasing risk. I’d say the main change is we no longer invest in hedge funds with the exception of a few CTAs (Commodities Trading Advisors). People got very frightened in 2008.

BB Why do you no longer invest in hedge funds?

DR We no longer invest in hedge funds for two reasons: liquidity and control. Firstly, our clients wanted liquidity. After the credit crunch, our clients would ring us up and ask ‘how soon could we liquidate our portfolio?’, not necessarily doing it, but just the comfort to know they could turn it into cash. Secondly, when you invest in hedge funds, you lose the element of control. In early 2007, we put orders on to sell the hedge funds, but when we wanted the cash to invest – when markets had fallen – we couldn’t get the cash. It’s not that we don’t think there are some good hedge fund managers out there. The structure or the lack of liquidity is something that neither our clients nor we can take. Also, the UCITS III funds can essentially do what hedge funds do with slightly more onerous restrictions. With a UCITS III fund, you can get similar investment policies with the added benefit of daily dealings.

BB Can you tell us about your investment strategy and has that changed recently?

DR We have four core strategies based on volatility. The very low risk strategy has a maximum volatility of 4%, the low risk is 6%, medium is 8% and the high risk is 12%. Our strategies have not changed as we actively manage them to the desired risk levels. We are constantly checking our proprietary risk models to ensure our strategies run to a certain volatility level.

BB Any thoughts on the European Debt Crisis?

DR As central banks continue to debauch their currencies, government bond yields do not offer a smart risk-reward profile. We think there is a distinct possibility the Eurozone area would fragment with either departures or some form of dual currency emerging (convertible euros and non-convertible euros) to enable the most indebted nations to reflate their economies. It is unlikely for the Eurozone to survive in its current form. Regardless of the outcome, there will be a wealth of investment opportunities that will arise out of the ashes of the Euro project.

BB Any insights on investing in 2012?

DR We think that the large growth economies of China, Brazil, South Korea and Taiwan will continue to grow, and their currencies and bond markets will continue to deepen and strengthen. Within the equity and the bond portfolios, we will continue to move them towards a higher yield profile. We currently have 20% of our bond portfolios exposed to high yield, and we anticipate growing this significantly at the expense of the strategic bond positions. Within equity portfolios, we anticipate altering the weighting of the indices and funds we use to increase the dividend yield significantly with a continued focus on global multinationals.

For more information on David Rosier or Thurleigh please check out: http://www.thurleigh.com

Advertisements

If Hedge Funds are the good child of Capitalism, are Banking Institutions their Evil Twin?

July 12, 2011 15 comments

First published on BBeyond Magazine blog – an ultra niche publisher that caters exclusively for the global UNHW market and community: http://bbpublications.org/BBblogs/if-hedge-funds-are-the-good-child-of-capitalism-are-banking-institutions-their-evil-twin/

Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.

– Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Post-credit crisis, the spotlight was already trained on large ‘unregulated’ investment vehicles. Then we had the Bernie Madoff ponzi scandal. This was followed closely by one of the largest insider trading cases worthy of a Hollywood script – the Raj Rajaratnam Galleon case, which snared senior management from some of the most prestigious Wall Street and consultancy firms.

Main Street was hit with a triple whammy – reeling from the fact that taxpayers’ money is being used to bail out banks that took on too much risk, against a backdrop of the steepest recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s, which was further exacerbated by the unpopular war on two fronts. Obama said he did not run for president to bail out a bunch of fat cat bankers. A witch-hunt was inevitable.

The opaque nature of the hedge fund industry proved an easy target. In theory, hedge funds are just capitalist. They will tear a firm down if it makes money and build it back up if it makes even more. Capitalism at its very best – hedge funds help allocate capital more efficiently by punishing inefficient firms (through short-selling) and rewarding the well-managed ones (by purchasing their stocks). As part of a group of international private investors with a sizeable war chest measuring hundreds of billions, hedge funds can significantly affect global markets and the economies of nations. As such, hedge fund failures are often well documented as their strategies are laid bare for the ensuing media scrutiny.

Long Term Capital Management’s spectacular implosion destroyed $4.6 billion. Most of it belonged to the firm’s partners. Despite its trillion dollar off-balance sheet derivative positions (due to leverage), no taxpayers’ money was used to bail them out. Subsequent academic studies noted that the Fed’s intervention, despite its good intentions, was misguided and unnecessary as it set precedence for regulating hedge fund activity. The Fed may have helped shareholders and managers of LTCM to get a better deal than they would have otherwise obtained in a rescue effort that involved a consortium of Wall Street and international banks.

When Amaranth blew up in a $6 billon bet on natural gas that went bad, another hedge fund, Citadel, stepped in and took over Amaranth’s books. This time, the markets barely flinched. As Sebastian Mallaby, author of More Money than God, puts it: “hedge funds can be a fire-starter as well as a fire-fighter”.

The global financial system and banking institutions are so intertwined that recent events have shown some banks are clearly too big to fail. Hedge funds, on the other hand, are generally small enough to fail. When hedge funds blow up, taxpayers do not foot the bill. The same cannot be said for banking institutions.

During the recent credit crisis triggered by the bursting of the US housing bubble, two of the most hallowed investment banks on Wall Street converted to bank holding companies to take advantage of a lifeline from the Fed. The rest either went bankrupt, got taken over or got bailed out. Beyond the euphemisms, firms like Citigroup, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Merill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley were bailed out by the American taxpayers through the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).  In the UK, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Northern Rock ran into the arms of the British government. Northern Rock became the first bank in 150 years to suffer a bank run. Images of the public queuing up to withdraw their money from the branches were plastered on national newspapers and will forever be seared in the minds of Northern Rock’s customers.

Whilst Hedge Funds and Banking Institutions can both be guilty of gambling with OPM (other people’s money), the hedge fund captain is more likely to go down with the ship. Hedge funds go to great lengths to justify their management and performance fees in order to align their interest with that of their investors. Fund partners often (though not always) have a significant proportion of their personal wealth invested in their own funds. In banking, on the other hand, there is a clear dislocation between management incentives and accountability. With the benefit of hindsight, incredulously, the system is essentially rigged to encourage excessive risk taking. Couple that with deregulation and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and we have ourselves a recipe for disaster. History has shown that given enough rope, some of us have a tendency to hang ourselves. The problem then arises when ‘some of us’ (that may hang ourselves i.e. banks) happen to possess enormous financial power by virtue of their control of other people’s money.

The recent credit crisis may have provided ammunition to opponents of the laissez-faire approach to managing economies. One of the basic tenets of the free-market capitalist approach is that firms should be allowed to fail. Like Social Darwinism, only the strong survive and the weak die out. On the other hand, ideas of socialism, while appealing, begin a slippery slope down into communism. The problem with capitalism is the inherent disparity of wealth that creates fault lines between the ‘haves and the have nots’. The problem with socialism is that it undoubtedly leads to ‘free riding and slacking’, or as Margaret Thatcher once said: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money [to spend]”. Recent financial events have drawn parallels with a common joke that begins:

A beautiful and shallow woman said to an intelligent and ugly man: “We should get married, so our children will be as beautiful as me and as smart as you”. The man replied: “What if our children turn out to be dumb like you and ugly like me?”

This worst of both worlds approach seems to caricaturize the recent tumultuous events of our financial markets post-2007. When we have ‘too big to fail’ in a supposedly capitalistic economy, we end up with the problems of capitalism (huge disparity of wealth) AND the problems of socialism (spending other people’s money) BUT with NONE of their benefits.

Thomas Jefferson, principal author of the Declaration of Independence and Founding Father of the United States of America, the last bastion of free-market capitalism once said that “banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies”.

What about hedge funds that take on excessive risk through high leverage and speculation? Hedge fund luminary George Soros is infamous for being “the Man Who Broke the Bank of England” when his currency trade forced the United Kingdom out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism (a precursor to the Euro). He netted $1bn by betting on the devaluation of the pound sterling in 1992. The total cost to British taxpayers by the botched attempt to prop up the pound was put at $6.1bn (£3.3bn). Subsequent information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act noted that “if the British government had maintained $24bn foreign currency reserves and the pound had fallen by the same amount, the UK would have made a £2.4bn profit on sterling’s devaluation”.

During the 1997 Asian financial crisis, former Malaysian prime minister Dr Mahatir Mohamad publicly criticized Soros as an ‘immoral financial speculator’ while Soros described Mahatir as a ‘menace to his country’ (Mahatir later accepted that Soros was not responsible for the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis). The crisis started in Thailand when the Thai baht collapsed. Thailand had already acquired a burden of foreign debt that effectively made the country bankrupt before the collapse of its currency. Soros defended his actions by saying “speculation could benefit poor societies if it serves as a signal, not a sledgehammer”. It is worth noting that Soros held back from an all-out attack on the Thai baht. In 1992, Soros sold $10bn worth of sterling at around 2.5x the firm’s capital. The $2bn Thai trade was only one-fifth of the firm’s capital. An all-out attack would have precipitated a crisis rather than encourage the Thai government to avoid one.

In the wake of the Thai baht devaluation, Soros funds gained about $750m whilst Thailand’s economic output plunged 17% and millions fell into poverty. Hedge funds were inevitably vilified. But in a larger context, the roots of the crisis stretched back several years where ‘hot money’ pushed the Thai economy into bubble territory. The Soros team had indeed led the short selling but the actions of hedge funds were in part vindicated when the crisis spilled over to other Asian countries that engaged in ‘crony capitalism’ like Indonesia and Malaysia. What is not usually cited is the fact that Soros lost $800m buying the rupiah as he wrongly believed the turmoil in Thailand had spilled over to neighboring Indonesia without justification. This essentially wiped out all the gains he made in Thailand.  President Suharto and his cronies who controlled Indonesia’s banks drove the country to a crisis, which resulted in his own downfall. Hedge funds may have triggered the avalanche, but it was the government officials who allowed snow to build up to such dangerous levels in the first place.

Hedge funds reap the rewards when they are right and pay the price when they are wrong. Banks reap the rewards when they are right but taxpayers pay the price when they (banks) are wrong. This case of ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ has played a key role in precipitating the recent capricious events resulting from the credit crunch.

 

What role did Hedge Funds play in the credit crisis?

July 3, 2011 2 comments

I have been asked numerous times questions along the lines of “What was the role of hedge funds in precipitating the credit crisis?”

The short and simple answer is: They are NOT responsible for the credit crunch. (If anything, Hedge Funds as unregulated investment vehicles probably help keep the markets in check).

Below is the long answer I posted on a discussion forum which attracted recommendations and interests; as such, I am reposting here.

If you have to draw the line somewhere, like with all market cycles, then post-dot-com crash or 9-11 in 2001 would be a good arbitrary starting point. The key points to remember are:

1) Greenspan kept interest rates for far too low after 9-11 and the dot-com crash – fuelling a credit bubble.

2) This cheap credit meant a housing bubble, as low rates = low mortgage = let’s all buy a house! Happy days!

3) As house prices went up, banks ran out of people to loan money to, they went to subprime or Alt-A (alternative to A-paper).

4) From subprime/Alt-A, greed led us to NINJA loans. No income, no jobs and no asset. These people can’t even prove their income but they can get a mortgage. Happy days!

5) House prices were going up, banks kept lending at record low rates, paying themselves huge bonuses. Everyone was doing it. Can’t beat ’em join ’em mentality. Risk was perceived to be low as everyone believed this housing boom was going to continue. Therefore, banks can easily repossess and sell the houses on, fuelling predatory lending.

6) The loans were packaged up, sliced up and sold on worldwide (e.g. European/Japanese pension funds/institutions).

7) ‘Experts’ argue that never in the US history has there been a NATIONWIDE simultaneous fall in the housing market. (Blackswan event, God I hate that word.) This led to the belief that securitized mortgages are relatively ‘safe’.

8) Pension funds can only buy triple A or AAA rated investments. Investment banks got around that problem by mixing up subprime loans with top rated ones. Paid good money to Moodys and S&P to rate them triple A. The rationale was that not everyone is going to default at the same time (see no. 7). The CDOs (Collateralized Debt Obligations) spread the risk around…

9) Hedge funds act like vultures. They are like the market vigilante. Some of the top guys like Michael Burry, John Paulson, Andrew Lahde (my favorite because he knew when to call it quits) begin to explore ways to short housing.

10) This proved to be almost impossible. They could short firms like NATIONWIDE or homebuilders but naked short selling = their losses can be unlimited and the market can remain irrational then we can remain solvent. (Some managers who correctly foresaw the crash lost money because they bet too early and the market still kept going up.)

11) So smart guys like Paulson found a way to bet against housing by buying Credit Default Swaps (CDS). It is sort of like an insurance policy in case the loan goes bad. His line of reasoning is that, when the shit hits the fan, everyone will be scrambling to buy insurance because their loans will be worthless.

12) As Nouriel Roubini puts it: “It is weird that these CDSs (insurance policy) can be traded around freely. For example if you own a house, only YOU can buy fire insurance for it. But in the case of this credit crunch, I or anyone can buy insurance for your house insuring it multiple times, and then sell it on later, essentially betting on your house burning down.”

13) On a sideshow, Goldman Sachs got hauled up to Congress to explain the fact that they helped Paulson & co pick the worst tranches to bet against. GS later turned around and bet against housing themselves.

14) Those that did not bet against housing were geared and long – and as it turns out they were also ‘long and wrong’. Banks were highly leveraged: 30:1 for Lehman 42:1 in Bear Stearns’ case. It was a case of the sausage makers keeping all the sausages on their books despite knowing what went into them.

15) It was only a matter of time when homeowners started defaulting. It became a snowball effect. When half your neighbourhood is being foreclosed, the value of your home plummets. You bought your house for 500k, now it is worth 300k. You hand in the keys and walk away. So more defaults again!

16) Now all the banks are scrambling to buy CDS. House is on fire! CDS shot through the roof. Guess who is holding it? The hedge funds who correctly bet on them like Paulson.

17) AIG (yup, US taxpayers money bailed them out) wrote most of the CDS and sold it dirt cheap. In traders’ lingo – you have AIG making money paying huge bonuses selling insurance policy for houses built from flammable material next to a pyrotechnic factory located on an earthquake fault line. It was a case of ‘picking up nickels and dimes in front of a steamroller/freight train’.

18) No problem – when AIG was about to go down, we have TOO BIG TO FAIL. Lehman was Goldman Sachs’ number one competitor but they were allowed to fail. If AIG went down, Goldman Sachs was on the hook. But no problem, the then Secretary Hank Paulson was former CEO of Goldman Sachs (conflict of interest?). Hank played a key role in bailing out AIG. AIG straight away paid back Goldman.  Make of this what you will. “It is Government Sachs mate. GS is a branch of the US government.” (That was what a friend said to me.)

19) When the market tanked, a lot of institutions started pulling funds from hedge funds. Some of which were geared/leveraged. They then had to unload their positions in a thin market, causing a death spiral. The liquidity problem killed them.

20) So do hedge funds have a role in causing the crash? Answer = NO!  They were as much a casualty as a profiteer.

So what caused the credit crunch? Well, no simple answer. I tried to keep it to 20 sentences. I guess it is a case of pluralistic ignorance, greed, hubris and regulation (or the lack of it)?

“If I had known I was going to fall down, I would have sat down” old Polish proverb.

 

%d bloggers like this: