What Is the Optimal Number of Managers In a Fund of Hedge Funds

Via SSRN: I came across an interesting academic paper from State University of New York (SUNY) professors Greg Gregoriou and Razvan Pascalau. Diversification is often the mantra of hedge fund investors, but this paper suggests that the optimal number of underlying hedge funds within a fund of hedge fund portfolio may actually be as low as 6-10.

From the Abstract:

This paper investigates the level and the determinants of the optimal number of hedge fund managers in a Fund of Hedge Funds (FOFs). The paper also analyzes the impact that this level has on the performance and the volatility of returns of the typical FOF. Several important findings emerge. First, we find that the number of underlying hedge funds (HFs) included into a FOF has a negative and significant impact on the volatility of returns but less of an impact on the actual returns. However, if we properly classify the FOFs into several larger categories of interest, we find evidence that the FOFs having between 6 and 10 hedge fund managers perform the best. On average this group of FOFs has assets under management of around $200 million. Second, further evidence shows that there is a positive relationship between the size of the FOF portfolio and the lifetime of the fund. Third, several factors that influence the number of HF managers into a FOF include, but are not limited to the amount of leverage, the redemption frequency, the size of the fund, the total number of assets managed by the FOF manager, whether the fund issues a K-1 schedule for tax purposes, the currency in which the fund trades, the geographical focus, and the strategy pursued.

From the Introduction:

Many institutional investors, having no experience in hedge fund manager selection are willing to pay the additional layer of fees of owning a pre-packaged and diversified FOFs rather than setting up an in-house FOF. The number of underlying hedge fund managers in a FOF can play a primordial role in its performance and its survival. We believe this is the first paper to our knowledge that examines the optimal number of underlying hedge fund managers in FOFs. Numerous papers have stated what the optimal number of hedge fund managers in FOFs should be, but none have used an actual dataset to examine this.

Read the paper here

Delayed Foreclosures Stalk Market

H/T to The Big Picture.  Via the WSJ:

The size of this shadow inventory is a source of concern and debate among real-estate agents and analysts who worry that when the supply is unleashed, it could interrupt the budding housing recovery and ignite a new wave of stress in the housing market.

“There’s going to be a flood [of bank-owned homes] listed for sale at some point,” says John Burns, a real-estate consultant based in Irvine, Calif. When that happens, Mr. Burns believes, home prices will fall further, particularly in markets with large numbers of foreclosures. Overall, he expects home prices to decline 6% next year.

Analysts who track the shadow market have focused primarily on the gap between the number of seriously delinquent loans and the number of foreclosed homes for sale by mortgage companies. A loan is considered seriously delinquent, which typically means it is headed to foreclosure, if it is 90 days or more past due.

As of July, mortgage companies hadn’t begun the foreclosure process on 1.2 million loans that were at least 90 days past due, according to estimates prepared for The Wall Street Journal by LPS Applied Analytics, which collects and analyzes mortgage data. An additional 1.5 million seriously delinquent loans were somewhere in the foreclosure process, though the lender hadn’t yet acquired the property. The figures don’t include home-equity loans and other second mortgages

Moreover, there were 217,000 loans in July where the borrower hadn’t made a payment in at least a year but the lender hadn’t begun the foreclosure process. In other words, 17% of home mortgages that are at least 12 months overdue aren’t in foreclosure, up from 8% a year earlier.

Read the full article here

Is Jim Grant the Latest To Be Drinking the Kool-Aid?

David Rosenberg of Gluskin Sheff comments on Jim Grant’s WSJ column:

The Weekend Journal ran with an article by James Grant, which admittedly took us by surprise (he is a true giant in the industry, as an aside) — From Bear to Bull and in the article, he relies mostly on the thought process from two economic think-tanks — Michael Darda from MKM Partners and the folks over at the Economic Cycle Research Institute.

We highly recommend this article for everyone to read to understand the other side of the debate. But we have some major problems with the points being made.

1. Mr. Grant starts off by saying that “as if they really knew, leading economists predict that recovery from our Great Recession will be plodding, gray and jobless.” Well, frankly, it doesn’t really matter what “leading economists” are saying because Mr. Market has already moved to the bullish side of the debate having expanded valuation metrics to a point that is consistent with 4% real GDP growth and a doubling in earnings, to $83 EPS, which even the consensus does not expect to see until we are into 2012. We are more than fully priced as it is for mid-cycle earnings.
2. Nowhere in Mr. Grant’s synopsis do the words “deleveraging” or “credit contraction” show up. Yet, this is the cornerstone of the bearish viewpoint. Attitudes towards homeownership, discretionary spending and credit have changed, and the change is secular, not merely cyclical. After all, didn’t consumers just see a record $20 billion of outstanding credit evaporate in August?
3. Mr. Grant emphasizes (the Darda argument) how we had a huge bounce in the economy after the worst point of the Great Depression (in fact, the subtitle of the article contains: “The deeper the slump, the zippier the recovery”). Well, we didn’t have the Great Depression this time around — real GDP did not contract 25% but rather by 3.7%. We probably have to go now and redefine what a massive slump is. But all we had in the mid-part of the 1930s — between the worst point in 1932 to the 1937-38 relapse — was a statistical recovery, and nothing more than that. Nobody from that era will recall that any year was particularly good — each one was just different shades of pain and sacrifice. By the end of the decade, the unemployment rate was still 15%, the CPI was deflating at a 2% annual rate and the level of nominal GDP, as well as industrial production, still had yet to re-attain its 1929 peak. The equity market in 1941 was no higher than it was in 1933 (and long bond yields were heading below 2%) and even a child knows that it was WWII that brought the economy out of its malaise, not the seven years of New Deal stimulus.

So, to concentrate on the wiggles in the GDP data in the 1930s, no matter how large, totally misses the point about what the decade was really about, which was social change, a focus on family, less discretionary spending, and a trend towards frugality that few market pundits seem to comprehend. But the 1930s were the antithesis of the 1920s — not unlike what we are witnessing today. To concentrate on a bungee jump that wasn’t even sustained is akin to focusing on the noise around the trend-line as opposed to the trend-line itself.

4. The very sexy argument about how all the government stimulus is going to give the economy a really big lift — combined monetary and fiscal measures are worth 19.5% of GDP. This is viewed as a good thing, of course, but nowhere in the analysis is there a comment about how this “stimulus” is just there to cushion the blow and smooth the transition as wide swaths of private sector credit vanish. We are at the point where 85% of housing activity is still being supported by government interventions. Is this really desirable? According to BusinessWeek, it’s not just the FHA financing 40% of new mortgage originations but the USDA is also allowing builders and lenders to take advantage of rural mortgages that require no-money down and with 100% financing through “a little-known loan program”.

Well, as with most bulls, this new era of state capitalism is a reason to rejoice. But from our lens, what would be more noteworthy would be an article explaining that the massive government incursion with all this “stimulus” is actually more a reason to be concerned than be jubilant — what it really symbolizes is an economy that is so sick that it continues to require massive doses of medication.

It’s not what all the stimulus does that matters — of course, it is there to act as a cushion — but it is what all the stimulus has come to symbolize. A fundamentally weak economic backdrop and a precarious banking system that has government guarantees to thank for its survival.

Inflation or Deflation?

George Washington of Washington’s Blog writing in Naked Capitalism:

As Absolute Return Partners wrote in its July newsletter:

The most important investment decision you will have to make this year and possibly for years to come is whether to structure your portfolio for deflation or inflation.

So which is it, inflation or deflation?

This is obviously a hot topic of debate, and experts weigh in on both sides. I’ve analyzed this issue in numerous posts, but every day there are new arguments one way or the other from some very smart people.

Because the arguments for inflation are so obvious and widely-discussed (bailouts, quantitative easing, Fed purchasing treasuries, etc.), I will not discuss them here (other than pointing to an interesting new argument for inflation by Andy Xie).

How Bad Could It Get?

The biggest deflation bears are rather pessimistic:

• David Rosenberg says that deflationary periods can last years before inflation kicks in

• Renowned economist Dr. Lacy Hunt says that we may have 15-20 years of deflation

• PhD economist Steve Keen says that – unless we reduce our debt – we could have a “never-ending depression”

These are the most pessimistic views I have run across.  Most deflationists think that a deflationary period would last for a shorter period of time.

The Best Recent Arguments for Deflation

Following are some of the best arguments for deflation…

Read the full post here

Fed Growth Effort May Be Undermined by ‘Tight’ Credit

Via Bloomberg:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s efforts to stoke a U.S. economic recovery may be undermined by the central bank’s other goal of restoring the banking system to health.

The Federal Open Market Committee, at the conclusion tomorrow of a two-day meeting, will probably maintain its assessment that “tight” bank credit is impeding growth, said economists including former Fed Governor Lyle Gramley. Lending contracted for five straight weeks through Sept. 9, a drop that in part reflects Fed orders to banks to raise more capital and toughen lending standards, analysts say.

A failure to restore the flow of bank credit carries the risk that the economic recovery will be slower than the Fed anticipates, or even that the U.S. lapses into another recession, economists say. That would make it more likely the Fed will keep its main interest rate close to zero for a longer period.

————

“Even though from a technical perspective the recession is very likely over at this point, it’s still going to feel like a very weak economy for some time,” Bernanke said in response to a question after a speech in Washington. Fed officials in June predicted that GDP will expand 2.1 percent to 3.3 percent next year after shrinking 1.5 percent to 1 percent this year, according to the central tendency of their forecasts.

Banks have plenty of reasons to hold back on lending, analysts say.

Americans fell behind on their mortgage payments at a record pace in the second quarter, with delinquencies rising to 9.24 percent, according to an August report by the Mortgage Bankers Association.

“Consumers aren’t necessarily that creditworthy a proposition right now,” said John Ryding, chief economist and founder of RDQ Economics LLC in New York.

Falling values of commercial real estate are also a problem for banks, with an “uncertain degree of losses” to come, said Ryding, a former Fed researcher. Loans made for commercial property will probably sour and lenders will need to raise more capital to cover credit losses, Mike Mayo, a banking analyst at CLSA Ltd., said today at a conference in Hong Kong.

Read the full article here

HSBC Bids Farewell to Dollar Supremacy

Via Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of Telegraph.co.uk:

“The dollar looks awfully like sterling after the First World War,” said David Bloom, the bank’s currency chief.

“The whole picture of risk-reward for emerging market currencies has changed. It is not so much that they have risen to our standards, it is that we have fallen to theirs. It used to be that sovereign risk was mainly an emerging market issue but the events of the last year have shown that this is no longer the case. Look at the UK – debt is racing up to 100pc of GDP,” he said

Crucially, China and rising Asia have reached the point where they can no longer keep holding down their currencies to boost exports because this is causing mayhem to their own economies, stoking asset bubbles. Asia’s “mercantilist mindset” of recent decades is about to be broken by the spectre of an inflation spiral.

The policy headache was already becoming clear in the final phase of the global credit boom but the financial crisis temporarily masked the effect. The pressures will return with a vengeance as these countries roar back to life, leaving the US and other laggards of the old world far behind.

Read the full article here

Economists Need to Study Bubbles, Reinvent Models

A great editorial by Robert Shiller:

The widespread failure of economists to forecast the financial crisis that erupted last year has much to do with faulty models. This lack of sound models meant that economic policymakers and central bankers received no warning of what was to come.

As George Akerlof and I argue in our recent book Animal Spirits, the current financial crisis was driven by speculative bubbles in the housing market, the stock market, energy and other commodities markets. Bubbles are caused by feedback loops: rising speculative prices encourage optimism, which encourages more buying and hence further speculative price increases — until the crash comes.

You won’t find the word “bubble,” however, in most economics treatises or textbooks. Likewise, a search of working papers produced by central banks and economics departments in recent years yields few instances of “bubbles” even being mentioned. Indeed, the idea that bubbles exist has become so disreputable in much of the economics and finance profession that bringing them up in an economics seminar is like bringing up astrology to a group of astronomers.

The fundamental problem is that a generation of mainstream macroeconomic theorists has come to accept a theory that has an error at its very core — the axiom that people are fully rational. As the statistician Leonard “Jimmie” Savage showed in 1954, if people follow certain axioms of rationality, they must behave as if they knew all the probabilities and did all the appropriate calculations.

So economists assume that people do indeed use all publicly available information and know, or behave as if they know, the probabilities of all conceivable future events. They are not influenced by anything but the facts, and probabilities are taken as facts. They update these probabilities as soon as new information becomes available and so any change in their behavior must be attributable to their rational response to genuinely new information. If economic actors are always rational, then no bubbles — irrational market responses — are allowed.

Abundant psychological evidence, however, has now shown that people do not satisfy Savage’s axioms of rationality.

Read the full article here

Eight Mental Traps to Avoid

This is a great article by Paul Larson of Morningstar.com on how investing is as much an exercise in controlling emotions as harnessing the intellect. Mr. Larson covers eight emotions. I provide a summary here:

Anchoring
Anchoring is the act of latching on to a given piece of information and using that as a point of reference for making decisions. Unfortunately, many investors anchor on things that are irrelevant to a business’s value, such as their own personal cost basis in a given stock or the 52-week trading high. Rather, we should focus on the thing that matters the most, the estimated future cash flow of a company.

Availability Bias
This mental shortcut concerns the relative importance of information. The importance our minds attach to information is correlated to how often we see the information. If we see and think about something often, our brains attach greater importance to it.

Endowment Effect
People place a higher value on things that they already own than things they do not own. Meaning, we would sell our possessions at a much higher price than at which we would buy the very same possessions if we did not already own them.

Sunk Cost Aversion
Sunk costs are costs that cannot be recovered once incurred. Once something is paid for in either time or money, our instinct is that we must soldier on and get some benefit for the expense, lest we feel like we are wasting resources. This is a variation of loss aversion, which is a concept that says people feel the pain of a loss at double the magnitude they feel the pleasure of a gain of the same amount. Two tips here. First, if a stock is clearly worth far less than what we originally paid for it, we should be willing to sell if today’s price is above our estimate of current value; that we are realizing a loss should be irrelevant to the decision. Second, if we spend several hours to research a given opportunity, we should still be willing to walk away. Our instinct will be to like the opportunity since we just spent time on it, but our goal should be to have rationality outweigh instinct.

Herd Behavior
Our deepest instincts tell us that there is safety in numbers. Beyond having a desire to do what is perceived to be socially acceptable, we often believe others have useful information from which we can take cues. After all, we all like to be liked, and the bigger group may know something we don’t. Simply, if “everybody’s doing it,” we feel the pressure to take that same action, whatever it may be. Plus, with investing being an activity where having incomplete information is the norm, this instinct to take cues from others can be amplified.

Recency Bias
We live in the here and now, and the ability to contemplate things far in the past and/or future is a uniquely human ability that requires higher cognitive functions. Yet our instincts can still get the better of us on occasion. Recency is the tendency to weigh recent events much more heavily into our decision-making than more distant events. It is a sort of mental short-sightedness where we think much more about our current situation than the much broader historical perspective. This can cause us to assume that the current state of the world–good or bad–persists into the future, rather than reverting to a long-run mean.

Confirmation Bias
Our brains inherently do not like conflict; they prefer to have a consistent, harmonious view of the world. They are wired to avoid cognitive dissonance–having two different ideas that are incompatible with each other. Our instinct is to search out information that confirms our existing views, accepting data that plug neatly into our preconceived biases, while rejecting data that do not support what we already think. Information that is consistent is processed more easily and does not increase stress.

Overconfidence
It’s an unfortunate fact that people tend to believe that their skill level is much higher than what it is in reality. For instance, the vast majority of drivers believe their driving ability is above average, even though this is statistically impossible. Unfortunately, Lake Wobegon is but fiction, and there is not a place where “all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.”

This positive illusion we carry about ourselves allows us to be, as the famous book is titled, “Fooled by Randomness,” and attribute positive outcomes to our personal skills rather than luck or a trend over which we really had no control. Overconfidence can help us get through the stresses of our lives, but it can be deadly in the world of finance by causing one to overplay his or her hand.

Read the full article to learn more about each emotion

Related: Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes And How To Correct Them: Lessons From The New Science Of Behavioral Economics

You Can’t Handle the Truth About Stocks

CNNMoney.com interviews Boston University School of Management professor Zvi Bodie. I do not totally agree with Mr. Bodie, but he does have some interesting points. Here are some highlights:

The advice rolls off the tongues of financial planners and appears frequently in the pages of financial magazines such as Money: To have any shot at retiring well, you need to invest a good portion of your money in stocks.

But mention this to Boston University School of Management professor Zvi Bodie, author of “Worry-Free Investing,” and you’ll get a stern reminder of how equities often betray investors. And you’ll get an earful about how millions of us are taking too much risk with our nest eggs.

……….

But don’t you need the growth that stocks provide to combat the risk of inflation?

Inflation is exactly what Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) and I bonds were created to protect against. Even if equities did perform well in periods of inflation, you’re exposing yourself to an even greater risk of a stock market decline. And as it turns out, anytime there’s been significant inflation, equities have been a terrible investment. Just look at the 1970s.

So you’d tell an investor to have 100% of his retirement money in TIPS?

Yes. In fact, I have 100% of my own retirement money in TIPS. I do have a small account of nonretirement funds in which I invest in bonds, options, and stocks.

Currently, long-term TIPS earn just 2% after inflation. How is anyone going to be able to retire on so little growth?

If you look at most online retirement calculators, they make two assumptions: one, that you want to retire at age 65, and two, that people will be able to save only a certain amount — say 10%. As a result, they spit out risky portfolios to get a higher return. Well, who says we all want to retire at 65 and can save only 10%? What if I retire at 70 or 75? What if I save 30%? Suddenly, you don’t need to take so much risk in your portfolio. Now, if you put 100% in TIPS, you will have to save upwards of 20% of your annual pay, even if you’re young, to retire at age 65. But I think it would be more reasonable to expect to retire at a later date.

Read the full interview here

Video: Frontline – Breaking The Bank

H/T to Simoleon Sense for bringing this video to my attention. If you missed it the first time around, or you want to watch it again, here is the great FRONTLINE piece on Ken Lewis.

Introduction (Via PBS)

In Breaking the Bank, FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk (Inside the Meltdown, Bush’s War) draws on a rare combination of high-profile interviews with key players Ken Lewis and former Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain to reveal the story of two banks at the heart of the financial crisis, the rocky merger, and the government’s new role in taking over — some call it “nationalizing” — the American banking system.

“This is more than a story about just one man or one bank,” says producer Michael Kirk. “This is the story of the most important change in the relationship between government and private business in a generation.”

Watch the video below or click here for the PBS FRONTLINE page