The Myth of Cheaper Liability Hedges

Don’t hold out for cheaper liability hedges that may never materialize, Redington warns.

Investors should not delay hedging their liabilities to access cheaper prices in the future, consultancy firm Redington has said.

Pension funds have delayed purchasing protection in the belief that rising interest rates would bring down the cost of doing so, said Dermot Dorgan, consultant at Redington.

“While current levels may feel expensive, hedging is unlikely to be significantly cheaper in the coming years, even when rates are rising.” —Dermot Dorgan, RedingtonIn a blog post on the consultant’s website, Dorgan said investors “needn’t fear regret risk” as the cost of hedging was unlikely to fall significantly when central banks began to raise interest rates.

The US Federal Reserve is expected to raise its base interest rate from a record low of 0.25% before the end of this year—perhaps as soon as next month—while the Bank of England will begin to increase its rate from 0.5% in 2016, according to market forecasts.

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

Dorgan researched the behaviour of yield curves during previous periods of rising interest rates in the UK. In each of three periods he analysed, market expectations for future gilt yield levels—central to pricing for liability hedges—were higher than the reality.

Expected months to next UK rate rise (Source: Redington)How UK rate hike expectations have developed post-crisis. Source: Redington“This implies that hedging would have improved funding levels, and that delaying would have been more expensive,” Dorgan said.

However, he emphasised that he was not criticising those who had not hedged liabilities: “Hedging decisions are among the most important decisions that investors make and the [analysis alone is] insufficient to justify action.”

“A more robust conclusion that one could draw is that investors needn’t fear regret risk,” Dorgan said. “While current levels may feel expensive, hedging is unlikely to be significantly cheaper in the coming years, even when rates are rising.”

Related:DB Plans Eye Annuity Buyouts Despite Pricing Fears & Rate Rises Won’t Help Active Managers, S&P Warns

The Case Against Hedge Fund Managers

Most funds are actually passive—not unlike alternative beta strategies—and even fail to deliver superior performance over the long term, according to recent research.

Hedge fund managers are failing to do what they are meant to do: generate outperformance through active management. 

According to a paper written by Mikhail Tupitsyn and Paul Lajbcygier of Australia’s Monash University, most hedge funds are actually passive and not too different from alternative beta strategies.

“While in the short term hedge funds may engage in dynamic trading strategies involving complex securities, over the long run many of them behave like alternative beta portfolios.”Specifically, only one-fifth of more than 5,500 hedge funds from 1994 to 2010 had nonlinear exposures to risk factors that drive hedge funds returns, the study found.

An overwhelming two-thirds of the funds exhibited only linear risk exposures—or were passive.

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

“These results mean that while in the short term hedge funds may engage in dynamic trading strategies involving complex securities, over the long run many of them behave like alternative beta portfolios,” the authors wrote.

Of the different styles of hedge funds, arbitrage, event-driven strategies, and managed futures were the most likely to have nonlinear risk exposures, according to the study.

On the other hand, directional styles—long-short equity, dedicated short bias, and emerging market funds—were mostly passive.

Furthermore, the study found nonlinear funds on average underperformed their not-so-active counterparts.

From 1995 to 2009, the study found nonlinear funds’ returns were 0.1% lower than those of linear funds. They performed even more poorly compared to market-neutral funds, falling 0.28% lower while featuring higher volatility.

These more active hedge funds also had higher negative tail risk and lower Sharpe ratio and alpha than linear funds, the authors added.

In addition, only 15% to 25% of hedge funds and managers that exhibited true skill remained that way over the long term, the paper said, as they failed to withstand poor performance.

“After suffering poor performance compared to linear funds, some of the nonlinear funds do not survive and close down, while others alter their risk profile and become linear funds in order to remain competitive and attract assets under management,” Tupitsyn and Lajbcygier wrote.

Some 40% of nonlinear funds from 1994 to 1998 transitioned over to the passive side in the period between 1999 and 2003.

In comparison, the study found 70% to 85% of passive funds remained passive.

Read the full paper, “Passive Hedge Funds”.

Related: Higher Fees Are Fruitless of Pension Funds, Think Tank Says; How Skillful Is Your Hedge Fund Manager?; Hedge Funds’ Annus Horribilis

«