Mixed Results for Hedge Funds at Mid-Year

Half of returns are positive, half negative, for an overall uninspiring performance.

It’s a best-of-times/worst-of-times scenario for hedge funds at 2018’s midpoint, according to eVestment researchers.

Only slightly more than half of strategies are positive through June, up an average 5.3%. But in a nod to Charles Dickens, negative performers are down an identical amount. Overall, the firm’s hedge fund aggregate was up just 0.16%, compared to 2.65% for the S&P 500 over the six-month period.

“In many cases, what had been doing well in 2017 has underperformed in 2018,” and vice-versa, the firm wrote in a report. While cautioning the investors shouldn’t let short-term results sway them, it added: “This is not a situation which inspires confidence.”

Look at long/short funds, a large category. For last year, it beat out every other category, with a 12.13% return. But for this year’s first half, it only managed 1.48%. No doubt, 2017’s strong stock market—versus the late January 2018 correction, followed by lackluster performance since—explains the difference.

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

Event-driven funds, though, had a reversal of fortune.  As mergers picked up in tempo this year, the strategy has flagged with an increase of just 2.41%, while last year rising 7.47%.

One paradox: Macro funds, which make big bets based on macroeconomic trends, also didn’t cover itself with glory in the past six months, with a loss of 0.73% (it was up 3.39% in 2017). Oddly, eVestment found, investment flows into macro have remained strong. Perhaps they think macro will be a good vehicle during a global trade war and other disruptions.

Tags: , ,

British Airways Wins Lawsuit over Pension Trustees

Court of Appeals overturns High Court ruling in favor of trustees making discretionary increases.

The UK’s Court of Appeal has overturned a 2017 High Court ruling that said the trustees of a British Airways pension were within their right to amend the plan’s rules to give itself the authority to make discretionary increases.

“This judgment could potentially restrict the role of trustees in defined benefit scheme closures,” said Hayley Goldstone, a pensions litigation expert with UK law firm Pinsent Masons. “Trustees should be administering and managing scheme benefits in accordance with their rules, but not interfering with scheme design unless given express power to do so under scheme rules.”

The case stems from the British government’s announcement in 2010 that it would use the consumer price index (CPI) instead of the retail price index (RPI) for public service pension increases. Because the RPI is almost always higher than the CPI, and therefore means higher payments, the change was objected to by many members of the Airways Pension Scheme (APS).

To counter the effect of changing to CPI, in 2011, the trustees introduced a power that allowed them to consider whether to grant a discretionary increase above what the CPI provided. No increases were granted in 2011 or 2012, but in 2013, the trustees granted an increase of half the difference between the RPI and CPI, despite British Airways’ objection to the move.

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

In December 2013, the airline issued proceedings to challenge the amendment of the rules by the trustees on the basis that the amendment was outside the scope and purpose of the amendment power.

In May 2017, the High Court ruled that the introduction of the discretionary increase power in 2011, and the increase in 2013 were valid. However, it granted British Airways permission to appeal over whether the amendment was outside the scope and purpose of the amendment power. The airline appealed on two technical points: whether the amendment power could be used to introduce the discretionary increase power, and whether discretionary increases were “benevolent or compassionate” payments which are prohibited under the APS trust deed.

The Court of Appeal accepted the airline’s appeal that both the introduction and use of the discretionary increase power by the trustees were not valid. Two of the three judges concluded that the amendment power could not be used to introduce the discretionary increase power.

“The general power that is given to [the trustees] is limited to a power to do all acts which are either incidental or conducive to that management and administration,” said Lord Justice Lewison in the court’s ruling, according to Pinsent Masons. “I do not consider that the design of the benefit structure falls within the purpose of the general power given to the trustees.”

However, the Court unanimously rejected British Airways’ point that the plan’s trust deed prohibits the company from making discretionary increases that are benevolent or compassionate.

The Court of Appeal has given the APS permission to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, which is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases. The airline was denied permission to appeal the decision on the “benevolent or compassionate” restriction.

“We considered that asking the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal its decision was a protective step to keep our options open,” said the APS in a statement. “We are analyzing the full implications of the judgment with our professional advisers and assessing our next steps, including whether to pursue the appeal to the Supreme Court.”

Tags: , , , ,

«