NEPC: Redefining the Role of Hedge Funds

Some of the funds are changing their strategic approach or at least becoming slightly more transparent.

NEPC: Redefining the Role of HFs

Hedge funds are not dead. They’re just reinventing themselves, and investors are redefining the role they play in portfolios. Changing perceptions on how hedge funds may serve investors’ portfolios was among the discussions at NEPC’s annual conference, held in Boston on May 9 and 10.

Given the recent lackluster performance within the industry, some investors have exited the sector, while others are tweaking how they use hedge funds within the overall portfolio. In lieu of having a discrete allocation to the sector, some asset owners are now considering using the asset class more as a tool to better refine its exposure among other beta groups.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

“Hedge funds are not an asset class,” Reino Ecklord, research consultant within the hedge fund practice at NEPC said at a panel discussion.. “Hedge funds really represent a variety of different strategies, a variety of different skill sets.”

By moving away from a dedicated allocation to hedge funds, investors can be more selective in opportunities within the space and the risk they are willing to take, Ecklord later expressed to CIO.

For example, some credit portfolios may include passive exchange traded futures exposure to high-yield bonds, long-only high-yield strategies, and private credit. Given the current environment, where spreads are tight and the potential downside to convexity exists, there may be value in a long-short hedge fund strategy, according to Ecklord.

“A credit long-short hedge fund might make sense within your credit portfolio; hopefully, giving you similar risk exposures but a more consistent high-return expectation,” he said.

Further, given the variety of strategies that exist, picking the right managers becomes evermore important in generating alpha. “You’re getting different experiences from different strategies from different market environments, so there is still some value in opportunistically allocating to these strategies,” Ecklord said after presenting the recent varied performance history of different hedge fund strategies.

“I don’t know if all of our clients someday will do it, but more and more are seeing the value of having a more opportunistically constructed portfolio,” he said.

Conversely, the challenge of opportunistically applying hedge funds strategies throughout the portfolio is that it may become difficult for investors to allocate specific benchmarks against performance, given it’s a more targeted strategy. Similarly, the opportunistic approach may also introduce peer risk by presenting challenges to fairly compare relative performance to other asset owners.

In terms of opportunities within the space, NEPC sees potential value within macro strategies targeting emerging markets, particularly as the drivers behind these economies vary from one another and from developed markets. “There are not a whole lot of managers worldwide that are good at emerging macro, but the ones that are good, we think there’s very good opportunity,” said Neil Sheth, partner, director of alternative research at NEPC, at a panel discussion.

Emerging market macro managers selected by NEPC have performed well over the past few years, according to Sheth. “They have the potential to continue to produce,” he said. The challenge with investing with EM managers is the capacity constraints and the limitations on fund sizes.

Other areas of potential opportunities include: niche strategies within structured credit with exposure to credit loan obligations, European merger activity, and long-short equity strategies in healthcare.

Of those investors who eliminated or lowered their hedge fund asset allocations, the shift in commitments have varied across public and private strategies. “You’re seeing some movement into private equity as that continues to offer a higher return versus the public market equivalent,” Ecklord said anecdotally.  Portfolios have also been rebalancing across more beta opportunities. For example, some investors may lower their hedge fund exposure and move towards emerging market equities.

Investors are not the only ones reinventing their perspective on hedge funds. Some of the funds themselves are changing their strategic approach and/or at least becoming slightly more transparent. Certain managers, for example, are becoming more vocal in their consideration of environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors and the value these factors play within risk frameworks and investment processes.

Other managers are sharing better details on qualitative aspects of their strategy, including what they are investing in, drivers behind their decisions, and aspects of their overall process.

“It is part of our process of assessing managers,” added Ecklord. “You can’t just look at performance and say they’ve done a good job and keep your fingers crossed.” NEPC tries to understand how managers approach the space and how their investment frameworks demonstrate potential consistency in performance.

“As they’re becoming a larger piece of the investment landscape, they’re going to be upheld to similar things that we expect from mutual funds or traditional active managers historically,” he said.

Tags: , , ,

Barclays Settles SEC Charges for $97 Million

Investment bank to create fair fund to pay back clients.

 

Barclays Capital has agreed to pay more than $97 million to settle charges levied against it by the SEC for overcharging clients. 

“Barclays failed to ensure that clients were receiving the services they were paying for,” said C. Dabney O’Riordan, co-chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit in a statement.  “Each set of clients who were harmed are being refunded through the settlement.”

 

Without admitting or denying the charges, Barclays agreed to create a fair fund to refund advisory fees to affected clients. The fund will consist of just under $50 million in disgorgement, plus nearly $13.8 million in interest, and a $30 million penalty.  Barclays will directly refund an additional $3.5 million to advisory clients who invested in third-party investment managers and investment strategies that underperformed while going unmonitored.  Those funds also will go to brokerage clients who were guided into more expensive mutual fund share classes.

Want the latest institutional investment industry
news and insights? Sign up for CIO newsletters.

The SEC said Barclays violated Sections 206(2), 206(4) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-7 as well as Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933.

Section 206(2) prohibits an investment adviser from engaging in any transaction, practice, or course of business that operates as a fraud or deceit upon a client or prospective client.

Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-7 require that a registered investment adviser adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder by the adviser and its supervised persons.

Section 207 makes it “unlawful for any person willfully to make any untrue statement of a material fact in any registration application or report filed with the Commission . . . or willfully to omit to state in any such application or report any material fact which is required to be stated therein.”

Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) prohibit any person in the offer or sale of securities from obtaining money or property by means of any untrue statement of material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make statements made not misleading, and from engaging in any practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit in the offer or sale of securities, respectively.

According to the SEC, from September 2010 through December 2015, Barclays Capital, then a dually-registered investment adviser and broker-dealer, overcharged certain advisory clients of its wealth and investment management business.

“Barclays Capital falsely represented to advisory clients that it was performing ongoing due diligence and monitoring of certain third-party managers,” said the SEC in an administrative proceeding against Barclays. 

As a result, said the SEC, Barclays Capital improperly charged 2,050 client accounts approximately $48 million in fees for the promised services. It also said that from January 2011 through March 2015, Barclays Capital charged more than 22,000 client accounts excess fees of approximately $2 million. Additionally, from January 2010 through December 2015, the investment bank allegedly “disadvantaged certain retirement plan and charitable organization brokerage customers by recommending and selling them more expensive mutual fund share classes when less expensive share classes were available.”

Tags: , ,

«