It seems most people's opinions on hedge funds generally fall into one of two categories: Firstly there are those who claim to understand them, and frequently criticise them in the process, and secondly there are those who admit they don't understand them. The problem is those in the second category tend to listen or believe the opinions of those in the first.
And the problem for the hedge fund industry is that as a whole it's an easy target, as the funds that make up the sector is extraordinarily broad and diverse. As a result finding hedge funds or hedge fund managers who fit the negative stereotype is not difficult, in part because they're the ones who get most of the publicity.
I have to admit to potentially being a little biased in the good vs. bad hedge fund debate, and even if I'm not most readers will assume that I am anyway. However it is worth pointing out some facts about the hedge fund sector, while at the same time accepting the reality that not all of them are perfect, and only a minority are truly "best of breed".
So firstly let's look at what makes up the universe. ASIC in its Regulatory Guide 240, is quite clear and correct when it states that there's no firm definition of a hedge fund, but provides a range of features which it uses to identify them. These include a more complex investment strategy that aims to generate returns with a low correlation to equity and bond indices, the use of derivatives such as futures and options, the use of leverage or borrowing, the use of short selling, and finally the charging of a performance based fee in addition to a management fee.
Using the above five criteria when evaluating the performance of hedge funds creates a wide range of funds to choose from, each of which might invest in completely different asset types such as equities, bonds, credit, commodities or currencies which would normally not be associated with each other, and therefore rarely compared.
Adding to the complexity for the casual observer is that there are over twenty different strategies that a fund manager might use. And within each strategy there are further sub strategies or styles to complicate the analysis further. For instance if we just take those funds investing in equities, the www.fundmonitors.com database divides the universe up into eight further sub strategies or styles.
To make matters worse it doesn't end there. Even taking equity long/short, (the most popular equity type strategy) there are funds which specialise in specific market sectors, such are large cap/small cap or industrials vs. resources. Some go further and focus on small cap and emerging resource or gold stocks.
Styles differ also - quantitative and discretionary, as does the geographic universe or mandate which might cover Australia, Asia, Asia ex Japan, Europe or the US - and so it goes on.
The point of detailing all this is that the term "hedge fund" casts a very wide net indeed, and frequently there is little to no comparison or correlation between one end of the spectrum and the other.
The same can be said of performance, and indeed it is worth noting that one of the objectives of hedge or alternative funds for institutional investors is to diversify their exposure to a specific asset class so that when one (such as equities) performs badly others (such as bonds or commodities) provide some protection against the volatility.
Read the entire article by Chris Gosselin here.
Attached Files:
One big problem for the hedge fund sector (pdf format)
