Investment Advisory Fees | Hedge Fund Performance Fees and Management Fees

Review of State Investment Advisory Fee Rules

One of the things I have tried to emphasize within this blog is that there is no “one size fits all” legal solution to hedge fund formation. Each client/manager has a unique set of circumstances and will be subject to a potentially different sets of laws or regulations depending on those circumstances. This is especially true with regard to those managers who must register in a state that requires hedge fund manager registration. Because no two sets of state laws and regulations are the same, the manager must make sure that he understands the rules which are specific to his state.

High Asset Management Fees and Disclosure

One issue which comes up every now and again is whether or not disclosure will be required when the manager charges an annual asset management fee in excess of 3% of AUM. Generally regulators will require that certain disclosures be made to investors through the manager’s disclosure documents (generally in both the Form ADV and the hedge fund offering documents). Sometimes the regulator will require such disclosures based on a general provision (see CO IA fee rule discussion below) or on more explicit provisions (see 116.13(a) of the Texas Administrative Code). In either case managers will generally be required to make a prominent disclosure to investors that a 3% (or higher) annual asset management fee is in excess of industry norms and that similar advisory services may be obtained for less (whether or not this is true). While such a disclosure would, in most instances, be a best practice, managers should be aware that it may also be required if they are registered with a particular state.

State Performance Fee Rules

Like management fee disclosures, the rules for performance fees may differ based on the state of registration. For example, here are how four different states deal with performance fee issue:

Texas – Like most states, Texas allows state-registered investment advisers to charge performance fees only to those investors in a fund which are “qualified clients” as defined in Rule 205-3 of the Investment Advisers Act. This means that a hedge fund manager can only charge performance fees to investors in the fund which have a $1.5 million net worth or who have $750,000 of AUM with the manager (can be in the fund and through other accounts). See generally 116.13(b) of the Texas Administrative Code reprinted below.

New Jersey – Many states adopted laws and regulations based on the 1956 version of the Uniform Securities Act and have yet to make the most recent update to their laws and regulations (generally those found in the 2002 version of the Uniform Securities Act). Under the New Jersey laws a manager can charge performance fees to those clients with a $1 million net worth.

Indiana – similar to New Jersey, Indiana has laws which allow a manager to charge performance fees to those investors with a $1 million net worth. Additionally, Indiana allows a manager to charge performance fees or to those investors who have $500,000 of AUM with the manager (can be in the hedge fund and through other separately managed accounts). Indiana also has an interesting provision which specifies the manner in which the performance fee may be calculated – it requires that the fee be charged on a period of no less than one year. This rule is based on an earlier version of SEC Rule 205-3. What this means, essentially, is that managers who are registered in Indiana cannot charge quarterly performance fees, but must charge their performance fees only on an annual basis (or longer).

Michigan – Unlike any other state, Michigan actually forbids all performance fees for Michigan-registered investment advisors. The present statute is probably an unintended consequence of some sloppy drafting. Nonetheless, it is a regulation on the books. Hedge Fund Managers registered with Michigan, however, should see the bright spot – Michigan is in the process of updating its securities laws and regulations. This means that sometime in late 2009 or early 2010 it should be legal for investment advisors in Michigan to charge their clients a performance fee under certain circumstances (likely to mirror the SEC rules).

New York – Sometimes, states will have some wacky rules. In the case of New York, there are no rules regarding performance fees.

Other Issues

With regard to performance fees, the other issue which should be discussed with your hedge fund lawyer is whether or not the state “looks through” to the underlying investor to determine “qualified client” status. Generally most states will follow the SEC rule on this issue and look through the fund to the underlying investors to make this determination.

While these cases are just a couple of examples of the disparate treatment of similarly situated managers, they serve as a reminder that investment advisor (and securities) laws may differ wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Managers should be aware of the possibility of completely different laws and should be ready to discuss the issue with legal counsel.

The various rules discussed above have been reprinted below.

****

Texas Rule

The full text of the Texas IA fee rules can be found here and are copied below.

§116.13.Advisory Fee Requirements.

(a) Any registered investment adviser who wishes to charge 3.0% or greater of the assets under management must disclose that such fee is in excess of the industry norm and that similar advisory services can be obtained for less.

(b) Any registered investment adviser who wishes to charge a fee based on a share of the capital gains or the capital appreciation of the funds or any portion of the funds of a client must comply with SEC Rule 205-3 (17 Code of Federal Regulations §275.205-3), which prohibits the use of such fee unless the client is a “qualified client.” In general, a qualified client may include:

(1) a natural person or company who at the time of entering into such agreement has at least $750,000 under the management of the investment adviser;

(2) a natural person or company who the adviser reasonably believes at the time of entering into the contract: (A) has a net worth of jointly with his or her spouse of more than $1,500,000; or (B) is a qualified purchaser as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, §2(a)(51)(A) (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(51)(A)); or

(3) a natural person who at the time of entering into the contract is: (A) An executive officer, director, trustee, general partner, or person serving in similar capacity of the investment adviser; or (B) An employee of the investment adviser (other than an employee performing solely clerical, secretarial, or administrative functions with regard to the investment adviser), who, in connection with his or her regular functions or duties, participates in the investment activities of such investment adviser, provided that such employee has been performing such functions and duties for or on behalf of the investment adviser, or substantially similar function or duties for or on behalf of another company for at least 12 months.

CO Rule

The full text of the Colorado laws and regulations can be found here. The fee discussion is reprinted below.

51-4.8(IA) Dishonest and Unethical Conduct

Introduction

A person who is an investment adviser or an investment adviser representative is a fiduciary and has a duty to act primarily for the benefit of its clients. While the extent and nature of this duty varies according to the nature of the relationship between an investment adviser and its clients and the circumstances of each case, an investment adviser or investment adviser representative shall not engage in dishonest or unethical conduct including the following:

J. Charging a client an advisory fee that is unreasonable in light of the type of services to be provided, the experience of the adviser, the sophistication and bargaining power of the client, and whether the adviser has disclosed that lower fees for comparable services may be available from other sources.

New Jersey

The full text of the New Jersey performance fee rules can be found here and are copied below.

13:47A-2.10 Performance fee compensation

…

(b) The client entering into the contract subject to this regulation must be a natural person or a company as defined in Rule 205-3, who the registered investment advisor (and any person acting on the investment advisor’s behalf) entering into the contract reasonably believes, immediately prior to entering into the contract, is a natural person or a company as defined in Rule 205-3, whose net worth at the time the contract is entered into exceeds $1,000,000. The net worth of a natural person shall be as defined by Rule 205-3 of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940.

http://www.njconsumeraffairs.gov/bos/bosregs.htm

Indiana

The Indiana rule can be found here and is reprinted below.

(f) The client entering into the contract must be either of the following:

(1) A natural person or a company who immediately after entering into the contract has at least five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) under the management of the investment adviser.

(2) A person who the investment adviser and its investment adviser representatives reasonably believe, immediately before entering into the contract, is a natural person or a company whose net worth, at the time the contract is entered into, exceeds one million dollars ($1,000,000). The net worth of a natural person may include assets held jointly with that person’s spouse.

Michigan

The current law (until October 1, 2009) can be found here and is copied below.

451.502 Investment adviser; unlawful practices.

(b) It is unlawful for any investment adviser to enter into, extend, or renew any investment advisory contract unless it provides in writing all of the following:

(1) That the investment adviser shall not be compensated on the basis of a share of capital gains upon or capital appreciation of the funds or any portion of the funds of the client.

New York

No laws regarding performance fees for state registered investment advisers.

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start a hedge fund. Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Bart Mallon, Esq. runs hedge fund law blog and has written most all of the articles which appear on this website. Mr. Mallon’s legal practice, Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP, is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund. If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

Hedge Funds and TV Tokyo

Hedge Fund Investors Asking for More Meaningful Communication

Clients are demanding that investment managers communicate more than just data

The following white paper was released by BK Communications Group, a company which provides outsourced marketing and client communications solutions for the asset management industry. According to a recent survey of institutional hedge fund investors, clients largely prefer that managers take the call for transparency one level further and communicate to them in a meaningful way that explains what they’re doing with the funds. Popular forms of communication adopted by investment firms include pitch-books, websites, and personal contact. According to a report by McKinsey & Co., providing full transparency and enhancing communication efforts can be useful in client retention and future asset gathering.

The executive summary and highlights of the paper is re-printed in full below as well as a link to the paper.

****

BKCG White Paper
June 2009
The New Transparency: Words

Clients are demanding that investment managers communicate more than just data

Executive Summary

Transparency has typically been equated with access to data (trade, exposure, valuation, etc.), but the financial crisis and fund scandals have led clients, investors, as well as regulators to demand more. Major surveys and anecdotal evidence indicate communication is now in demand. Clients want managers to put the numbers in context, to explain what they’re doing, to communicate on a clear and meaningful basis. This expanded transparency can help retain clients and strategically position a firm for future asset gathering, both by building a brand associated with full transparency and by ensuring that all touchpoints – from pitchbooks to websites to personal contact – are fully in place and high quality. Investment firms must carefully examine how they currently communicate, decide on any adjustments that must be made, and determine whether they have the internal capabilities and resources to execute on those adjustments.

Highlights

Communication is the new transparency. Data alone is no longer sufficient. Clients want managers to put the numbers in context, to explain what they’re doing, to communicate on a clear and meaningful basis
SEI/Greenwich Associates’ global survey of institutional investors finds investors will “intensify their scrutiny of investment processes” and increasingly emphasize client reporting and communications.
Preqin’s survey of 50 institutional hedge fund investors finds that events of the past 12 months have led 43% of respondents to expect “increased transparency and understandable strategy.”
Providing full transparency can be a way of helping to retain clients and strategically position a firm for future asset gathering. McKinsey & Co’s major report (“The Asset Management Industry in 2010”) concludes that “winning asset managers will be those who forge a superior reputation and capabilities for service and sophisticated advice.”
Communications transparency can be approached strategically, to ensure an investment firm’s brand is associated with openness and clarity, and to establish a reputation for thought leadership, as this is associated with mastery of core competence.
Communications transparency can also be approached tactically by making sure that all touchpoints – from pitchbooks to websites to personal contacts – are fully in place and high quality.
Many investment firms are shedding internal resources that are not profit centers, including communications personnel, or are hesitant to bring on those resources – leaving them without the necessary skills, or bandwidth, for an appropriate level of communications.

For the full report, please see BKCG Transparency White Paper

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start a hedge fund. Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Bart Mallon, Esq. runs hedge fund law blog and has written most all of the articles which appear on this website. Mr. Mallon’s legal practice is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund. If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

Commodity Pool Operators Scrambling After Surprise CFTC Decision

1 Reply

CFTC Withdraws Two No-Action Letters

In a surprise move the CFTC has withdrawn two no-action letters which is had just recently issued. Under the new Chairman Gary Gensler, the CFTC has made an about face on this issue with regard to two commodity pool operators who were relying on the no-action letters issued in 2006. Under the no-action letters, the CFTC provided no-action relief to the CPOs from certain speculative position limits. According to the release reprinted below, the reason for the change is because Chairman Gensler “believe[s] that position limits should be consistently applied and vigorously enforced.” While we generally believe that rules should be applied uniformly, we also believe that the governmental agencies (the CFTC and the SEC) should not make it a practice of revoking previously issued no-action letters. We also believe that the CFTC and the SEC should not be in the business of express politicking, which may have been the case here – it sets a horrible precedent for new/changing administrations. Additionally, we believe that the same “tough line” on position limits could have been effected in a less onerous manner.

The release states that the CFTC will work with the affected CPOs, but the damage has been done – how are businesses supposed to operate when these governmental agencies are constantly moving the target?

The no-action letters can be found here:

****

Release: 5695-09
For Release: August 19, 2009

CFTC Withdraws Two No-Action Letters Granting Relief from Federal Speculative Position Limits on Soybeans, Corn and Wheat Contracts

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission today announced that it is withdrawing two no-action letters that provided relief from federal agricultural speculative positions limits set forth in CFTC regulations (17 C.F.R §150.2).

“I believe that position limits should be consistently applied and vigorously enforced,” CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler said. “Position limits promote market integrity by guarding against concentrated positions.”

In CFTC Letter 06-09 (May 5, 2006), the agency’s Division of Market Oversight (DMO) granted no-action relief to DB Commodity Services LLC, a commodity pool operator (CPO) and commodity trading advisor (CTA), permitting the DB Commodity Index Tracking Master Fund to take positions in corn and wheat futures that exceed federal speculative position limits set forth in CFTC Regulation 150.2. Subsequently, in CFTC Letter 06-19 (September 6, 2006), DMO granted similar no-action relief to a CPO/CTA employing a proprietary commodity investment strategy that includes positions in Chicago Board of Trade corn, soybeans and wheat futures contracts. Among other things, DMO’s no-action position in both cases stated that any change in circumstances or conditions could result in a different conclusion. DMO has previously stated that the trading strategies employed by these entities would not qualify for a bona fide hedge exemption under the Commission’s regulations.

DMO will work with each of these entities as they transition to positions within current federal speculative limits. The withdrawal of these no-action positions is very specific and limited and does not affect any other no-action or regulatory positions taken by the CFTC or its staff with regard to these entities or other market participants.

Last Updated: August 19, 2009

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start a hedge fund. Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Hedge Fund Operational Issues and Failures

2 Replies

Hedge Fund Due Diligence Firm Releases White Paper

We’ve published a number of thoughtful pieces on this blog from Chris Addy, president and CEO of Castle Hall Alternatives (see, for example, article on Hedge Fund Auditors). Today we are publishing a press release which announces a new white paper from Castle Hall detailing the various reasons which hedge funds fail. The press release also describes a new web database called HedgeEvent which was created by Castle Hall and details a number of hedge fund operational failures over the last few years.

I found the white paper to be interesting. I would imagine that some fund of funds and other types of hedge fund investors would find the information useful. A couple of interesting facts from the whitepaper:

The most common causes of operational failure in hedge funds are (i) theft and misappropriation and (ii) existence of assets (i.e. Ponzi schemes).
Long/short equity and managed futures are the strategies which are most likely to be subject to operational failure.

****

Castle Hall Alternatives Publishes White Paper on Hedge Fund Operational Failures: Launches “HedgeEvent” Database

MONTREAL–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Castle Hall Alternatives, the hedge fund industry’s leading provider of operational due diligence, today published its latest White Paper, ‘From Manhattan to Madoff: the Causes and Lessons of Hedge Fund Operational Failure.’ The Paper’s analysis and findings are based on HedgeEvent, a comprehensive, web-based database of more than 300 operational events, now available to Castle Hall’s due diligence clients. HedgeEvent supplements HedgeDiligence, the firm’s existing client web portal.

The White Paper may be downloaded from www.castlehallalternatives.com/publications.php

Chris Addy, Castle Hall’s CEO, said “the colossal fraud perpetrated by Bernie Madoff, together with a number of other recent cases, has made investors acutely concerned by the risk of operational ‘blow ups’. However, there has been little systematic study of operational failure, meaning that investors have limited guidance as to the extent of this problem.”

“The creation of HedgeEvent, which has taken more than two years to compile, has enabled us to summarize key metrics related to hedge fund operational failure” said Addy. “From Manhattan to Madoff analyzes operational events by number, estimated loss, causal factor and by the strategy of the funds involved.”

HedgeEvent contains 327 cases of hedge fund operational failure through June 30, 2009. Madoff, with an estimated financial impact of $64 billion, is by far the largest; the remaining cases have an aggregate estimated financial impact of approximately $15 billion. Of the 327 operational events, 121 have an estimated impact of $10 million or more, and 31 of at least $100 million.

“While operational failures are material – Madoff spectacularly so – it does not seem that fraud is pervasive in the hedge fund industry” said Addy. “Investors should, however, be very focused on the lessons which can be learned from those hedge funds which did generate large losses. Many of these were well established firms which attracted capital from reputable investors.”

Across all Events, the most common causes of operational failure are theft and misappropriation followed by existence of assets (the manager claimed to own fake securities or operated a Ponzi scheme where reported assets did not exist). The most common strategies subject to operational failure are long / short equity followed by managed futures. It is notable that investors have traditionally viewed these strategies, holding largely exchange-traded securities, as straightforward with low operational risk.

“HedgeEvent is an invaluable tool for both Castle Hall and our clients” said Addy. “A lot can be learned from historical events: better knowledge can help investors avoid the losses, both monetary and reputational, of hedge fund operational failure.”

About Castle Hall Alternatives

Castle Hall Alternatives helps leading institutional investors, fund of funds, family offices and endowments identify and manage hedge fund operational risk. Castle Hall’s team draws on more than 30 years of direct due diligence experience and is the industry’s largest, dedicated provider of operational due diligence. More information is available at www.castlehallalternatives.com

Contacts

Castle Hall Alternatives
Chris Addy, President and CEO, +1 450 465 8880
[email protected]

****

Other related hedge fund law and start up articles include:

For more information, please call Bart Mallon, Esq. at 415-296-8510

Deal Book: New Hedge Fund with Questionable Name

Series 79 Exam Available November 2, 2009

2 Replies

FINRA Announces Date of First Series 79 Exam

The new investment banking exam, the Series 79, will be available for those first new test takers on November 2, 2009 at any of the FINRA testing centers (Pearson and Prometric). In addition to the test date announcement, FINRA also published a Series 79 Content Outline which seems to be very comprehensive. We have provided an overview of the exam below and will continue to bring you updated information on this exam.

Also, please note that right now we do not know of any groups who have completed a Series 79 exam study guide, but we have had informal conversations with representatives from both STC and Kaplan – these representatives have stated that they are currently working on developing such a study guide which should be available soon. We will let you know when these study materials become available.

Series 79 Overview

According to FINRA, the following are the key stats for the Series 79 exam:

Questions: 175 multiple choice questions (plus 10 pre-test, non-graded questions)
Time: 5 hours testing time
Eligibility: FINRA member firm must sponsor the candidate
Application: Submission of Form U-4 through Web CRD
Purpose: This examination qualifies an individual to advise on or facilitate debt or equity offerings through a private placement or public offering or to advise or facilitate mergers or acquisitions, tender offers, financial restructurings, asset sales, divestitures or other corporate reorganizations or business combination transactions.

FINRA’s Stated Exam Purpose

The Series 79 Examination is designed to assess the competency of entry-level investment bankers. As a qualification examination, it is intended to safeguard the investing public by seeking to measure the degree to which each candidate possesses the knowledge, skills and abilities needed to perform the major functions of an entry-level investment banker. Candidates should note that the duties and functions of the investment banker must be performed in accordance with just and equitable principles of trade, federal and state laws, and industry regulations. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the candidate to be aware of changes in current legislation, regulation and policy. A registrant who violates industry regulations is subject to disciplinary action, including censures, fines, suspension, and permanent loss of registration.

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start a hedge fund. Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Start a Hedge Fund in the Cayman Islands

4 Replies

How to Set Up a Cayman Islands Hedge Fund

There are two main jurisdictions to establish an offshore hedge fund (either as a single hedge fund or as part of a master-feeder structure). The two jurisdictions are the BVI and the Cayman Islands. This article will discuss some of the features of Cayman Island based hedge fund structures.

Why the Cayman Islands?

Cayman has been the leading jurisdiction for fund formation with an estimated 80% of the world’s hedge funds domiciled there. As of December 2008, Cayman had over 10,000 hedge funds registered with the local regulatory authority: The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (“CIMA”).

First and foremost: establishing a fund in the Cayman Islands is easy and efficient, offering managers many competitive advantages over other jurisdictions including:

Non-public funds can be registered in as little as 3-5 days with CIMA and the vehicle of choice for the fund can be registered within 1 day prior to filing, if necessary;
Flexible statutory regimes, with an absence of exchange control provisions, that are well-established and relatively low-cost;
There are no restrictions on: (i) investment policy (ii) issue of equity interests (iii) prime brokers or (iv) custodians;
The regulatory and legislative environment is continuously evolving to strengthen the jurisdiction’s appeal for hedge funds in response to ever changing market conditions;
Cayman is a tax neutral jurisdiction – there are no capital gains, income, profits, withholding or inheritance taxes attaching to investment funds established there, nor to investors in such investment funds;
Cayman is a British Overseas Territory and as such maintains all of the security and stability associated with the British flag. The UK remains responsible for the islands’ external affairs, defence and their legal system; and
The quality and expertise of the Cayman Islands local services, infrastructure and legal system is well above par.

Does Every Hedge Fund Have to be Registered with CIMA?

While most funds (90%) will be required by Cayman Islands law to register with CIMA, there are some funds that will not: those funds where the equity interests are not held by more than 15 investors who collectively have the power to appoint or remove the “operator” of the fund i.e. the director, trustee, or general partner, depending on the fund’s choice of vehicle. For example, a private fund or closely held funds such as partners’ funds or those in incubation “testing the waters” before launching into the registered world. These funds need not make filings or pay fees to CIMA.

All other funds must register with CIMA, pay annual fees and undergo annual auditing.

What are the CIMA Hedge Fund Registration Requirements?

1. Incorporation/Formation of the fund vehicle. The fund must be in the form of one of three vehicles: i) a Cayman Islands Exempted Company (most common); ii) a Unit Trust; or iii) an Exempted Limited Partnership. (The latter is popular with US investors as the Cayman Islands Exempted Limited Partnership Law follows the equivalent legislation in Delaware.) There must be a minimum of two (2) directors appointed to the fund – corporate or individuals. The directors need not be local.

2. Preparation of the fund’s Offering Document.

3. Preparation of the fund’s constitutional documents (i.e. Memorandum and Articles of Association) to reflect the terms of the Offering Document. This is usually done by way of amending and restating the constitutional documents after the vehicle for the fund has been properly formed (see 1 above).

4. Preparation of the service agreements i.e. administration agreement/investment management agreement/advisory agreement etc.

5. Preparation of the form of subscription agreement to be executed by the investors of the fund.

6. Resolutions must be passed approving: the Offering Document, service agreements and the issue of equity interests by the fund.

7. All of the following documents must then be submitted to CIMA:

i)    A certified copy of the fund’s certificate of incorporation (or otherwise, depending on the vehicle used);
ii)    Fund’s Offering Document;
iii)    Application Form (“Form MF1”);
iv)    Auditor’s letter of consent; (A local auditor must be appointed. Such auditor must also sign off on the fund’s audited financial statements which are to be submitted annually to CIMA.)
v)    Administrator’s letter of consent (no requirement for local administrator);
vi)    Registration fee (approximately US$3,000 (subject to change))

What Are the Costs for CIMA Registered Funds?

The total approximate costs of setting up a Cayman Islands Hedge Fund will include: the incorporation/formation costs of the vehicle required plus the ongoing annual fee (for exempted companies); the annual administrator’s fee; the annual auditor’s fee; the initial registration fee of the fund with CIMA and an annual fee to maintain the fund’s registration, and any legal fees associated therewith.

Quotes for incorporation etc. and estimates for services may be obtained from service providers and legal counsel directly, as these will likely vary. Legal counsel may provide recommendations for service providers upon request.

Article Written by Michelle Richie

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start a hedge fund. Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Bart Mallon, Esq. has written most all of the articles which appear on the Hedge Fund Law Blog. Mr. Mallon’s legal practice, Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP, is devoted to helping emerging and start up hedge fund managers successfully launch a hedge fund. If you are a hedge fund manager who is looking to start a hedge fund, or if you have questions about investment adviser registration with the SEC or state securities commission, please call Mr. Mallon directly at 415-296-8510.

The Future of Hedge Funds: A Look at the Industry and Opportunities for Women

1 Reply

What the Future Holds for Women in the Hedge Fund Industry

Occasionally we will have readers submit potential articles for publication on this website which is the case with the post below. If you are interested in having your article re-published on our website, please contact us.

Hedge Fund Research, Inc. (HFRI) recently conducted a study that shows a recent increase in quarterly assets invested in the hedge fund industry as well as a rise in the number of funds. This data leads some experts to remain hopeful that the industry as a whole can sustain the impact of the financial crisis, and it begs the question as to how newcomers to the industry will be impacted by the new the impetus for regulation and transparency.

Kelly Chesney, and industry expert and co-founder of a well-known investment management company, maintains that the move towards regulation and transparency will be a good thing for the industry as a whole, but the cost of such regulation may raise the barrier to for women trying to enter a largely male-dominated industry. Currently, only three percent of hedge funds are led by women. Opinions vary as to how the high costs of running a fund will impact women trying to enter the industry and run their own business. Typically, smaller and newer funds will have a more difficult time trying to keep up with the rising costs of compliance given their relatively low assets under management. Opinions vary as to how the high costs of running a fund will impact women trying to enter the industry and run their own business. Some experts, like Chesney, remain hopeful that opportunities do exist out there for women and perhaps the future will find more female hedge fund managers than we see today.

The article published by The Glass Hammer can be found here and is also reprinted in full below.

****

The Future of Hedge Funds

by Liz O’Donnell (Boston)

New data from Hedge Fund Research, Inc., (HFRI) shows assets invested in the industry increased by $100 billion in the second quarter of 2009, ending at $1.43 trillion. This is the first quarterly increase in assets since second quarter of 2008. HFRI attributes the growth to gains shown during the quarter. The HFRI Fund Weighted Composite Index returned 9.13 percent. This is the best quarterly gain since the last quarter of 1999, although still below the highest peak, reached in 1997. And while investors are still redeeming capital, the pace of the redemptions has slowed from recent years.

But looking past the most current returns, what does the future hold for the hedge fund industry given the tremendous impact of the global financial crisis and amid discussions of government regulations? And what about the outlook for women? Will the recent inflow mean more opportunities or will women still be virtually missing from the industry this time next year?

“Right now hedge funds are a hot topic,” says Kelly Chesney, principal and co-founder of Pluscios Management LLC, a women-owned investment management firm. “I think they really got some negative press and sentiment last year and they are starting to turn around. There is more publicity when hedge funds don’t perform well, but they did much of what was expected.”

Following what she calls “an economic tsunami”, Chesney, and others, see consolidation and regulation as key issues that will impact the industry. “I think it will be choppy and we’ll have various events happen over the next few years. We need to be nimble and adaptive and hedge funds are good at that,” Chesney says.

Certainly the industry has already seen the beginnings of consolidation. After a rapid growth spurt, (the number of funds grew from 610 in 1990 to approximately 9,000 today) 15 percent of funds have disappeared. State Street, in its recently released report “Alternatives: New Views of the Hedge Fund Industry” says that half of all hedge funds may disappear before the crisis shakes out.

Eloise Yellen Clark, founder and CEO of OmniQuest Capital LLC, agrees consolidation will be a continuing trend. “More and more money is going to the bigger players where traditionally there was a bunch of little players. It gets awfully expensive for smaller (funds) to survive.”

As far as what the future holds, Clark says, “Everybody’s talking regulation. I really don’t think it’s a big deal and I think it’s a good idea.” Clark points out that many hedge funds and many managers are already registered with the SEC. She believes more regulation around the issue of transparency would be valuable. Of course, just how far the government takes regulation could be an issue. “On the whole, reasonable regulation that respects fair markets is good. Transparency is good. But limiting the ability to buy and sell is bad,” said Clark.

Chesney says “absolutely” regulation will be a factor moving forward. “It’s not like there hasn’t been regulation.” But that regulation could increase. “It depends on what it is,” she says. “It could be wide ranging — from every fund must register—or it could be a ban on short selling.”

Some funds are “hedging” their bets. Aimee McCarty, marketing director for Ascentia Capital Partners, LLC, says her firm closed its hedge fund and now offers a mutual fund. According to McCarty, the new product combines the benefits of hedge funds with the features of mutual funds to offer a product that is “regulated, transparent, and liquid.” AQR Capital Management LLC added a mutual fund to its product offering earlier in the year.

Diversification might spell survival for some financial firms. Chesney believes it will get more expensive to run a fund, as compliance with regulations will add a new level of management. “There will be a higher barrier to entry,” she says.

That high cost of entry might not bode well for women. Already, there are very, very few women in the hedge fund industry. Currently only three percent of hedge funds are led by a woman. A recent report from The National Council for Research on Women, which we reported on here , asserts that one of the major reasons there are so few women in the industry is that gaining access to capital is harder for women than it is for men.

Chesney says,

“Typically women who get frustrated in other industries go out and start their own thing. But it’s tougher for women on Wall Street (because of) getting assets to manage.” None the less, Chesney is hopeful about the future of women in hedge funds. “I think there are going to be a lot of opportunities.”

Clark, who currently sees very few women in the business, says: “It’s my belief that women are different in business than men. Any organization that combines that is optimal.”

Chesney agrees. “Key in any fund management is diversification.” Whether that diversification extends beyond the fund and to the fund managers, is still to be seen.

****

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start a hedge fund. Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2009

3 Replies

Obama Administration to Regulate Derivatives Markets

Today the Treasury announced that the Obama Administration proposed a bill named the “Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2009”. The bill proposes to amend a number of the securities laws (including the Commodity Exchange Act, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), to regulate the OTC derivatives markets. A summary of the release is reprinted below. For the full legislation, please see Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2009.

****

August 11, 2009
TG-261

Administration’s Regulatory Reform Agenda Reaches New Milestone: Final Piece of Legislative Language Delivered to Capitol Hill

For the legislative language, visit link.

Acting on its commitment to restoring stability in our financial system, the Administration delivered legislative language to Capitol Hill today focusing on the regulatory reform of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. One of the most significant changes in the world of finance in recent decades has been the explosive growth and rapid innovation in the markets for credit default swaps (CDS) and other OTC derivatives. These markets have largely gone unregulated since their inception. Enormous risks built up in these markets – substantially out of the view or control of regulators – and these risks contributed to the collapse of major financial firms in the past year and severe stress throughout the financial system.

Under the Administration’s legislation, the OTC derivative markets will be comprehensively regulated for the first time. The legislation will provide for regulation and transparency for all OTC derivative transactions; strong prudential and business conduct regulation of all OTC derivative dealers and other major participants in the OTC derivative markets; and improved regulatory and enforcement tools to prevent manipulation, fraud, and other abuses in these markets.

Today’s delivery marks an important new milestone, as the Administration has now delivered a comprehensive package of financial regulatory reform legislation to Capitol Hill. Less than two months since the release of its white paper, “Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation,” on June 17, the Administration has successfully translated all of its proposals into detailed legislative text – a remarkable effort in both speed and scope. The Administration looks forward to working with Congress to pass a comprehensive regulatory reform bill by the end of the year.

As part of the Administration’s proposed legislation, credit default swap markets and all other OTC derivative markets will be subject to comprehensive regulation in order to:

Guard against activities in those markets posing excessive risk to the financial system
Promote the transparency and efficiency of those markets
Prevent market manipulation, fraud, insider trading, and other market abuses
Block OTC derivatives from being marketed inappropriately to unsophisticated parties

These goals will be reached through comprehensive regulation that includes:

Regulation of OTC derivative markets
Regulation of all OTC Derivative dealers and other major market participants
Preventing market manipulation, fraud, insider trading, and other market abuses
Protecting unsophisticated investors

Regulation of OTC Derivative Markets

Require Central Clearing and Trading of Standardized OTC Derivatives:

To reduce risks to financial stability that arise from the web of bilateral connections among major financial institutions, the legislation will require standardized OTC derivatives to be centrally cleared by a derivatives clearing organization regulated by the CFTC or a securities clearing agency regulated by the SEC.
To improve transparency and price discovery, standardized OTC derivatives will be required to be traded on a CFTC- or SEC-regulated exchange or a CFTC- or SEC-regulated alternative swap execution facility.

Move More OTC Derivatives into Central Clearing and Exchange Trading:

Through higher capital requirements and higher margin requirements for non-standardized derivatives, the legislation will encourage substantially greater use of standardized derivatives and thereby will facilitate substantial migration of OTC derivatives onto central clearinghouses and exchanges.
The legislation proposes a broad definition of a standardized OTC derivative that will be capable of evolving with the markets.

o An OTC derivative that is accepted for clearing by any regulated central clearinghouse will be presumed to be standardized.
o The CFTC and SEC will be given clear authority to prevent attempts by market participants to use spurious customization to avoid central clearing and exchange trading.

Require Transparency for All OTC Derivative Markets:

Accordingly, all relevant federal financial regulatory agencies will have access on a confidential basis to the OTC derivative transactions and related open positions of individual market participants.
In addition, the public will have access to aggregated data on open positions and trading volumes.

Regulation of All OTC Derivative Dealers and Other Major Market Participants

Extend the Scope of Regulation to Cover all OTC Derivative Dealers and other Major Participants in the OTC Derivative Markets:

Our legislation will require, for the first time, the federal supervision and regulation of any firm that deals in OTC derivatives and any other firm that takes large positions in OTC derivatives.

Bring Robust and Comprehensive Prudential Regulation to all OTC Derivative Dealers and other Major Participants in the OTC Derivative Markets:

Under the legislation, OTC derivative dealers and major market participants that are banks will be regulated by the federal banking agencies. OTC derivative dealers and major market participants that are not banks will be regulated by the CFTC or SEC.
The federal banking agencies, CFTC, and SEC will be required to provide robust and comprehensive prudential supervision and regulation – including strict capital and margin requirements – for all OTC derivative dealers and major market participants.
The CFTC and SEC will be required to issue and enforce strong business conduct, reporting, and recordkeeping (including audit trail) rules for all OTC derivative dealers and major market participants.

Preventing Market Manipulation, Fraud, and other Market Abuses

Provide the CFTC and SEC with the Tools and Information Necessary to Prevent Manipulation, Fraud, and Abuse:

The legislation gives the CFTC and SEC clear, unimpeded authority to deter market manipulation, fraud, insider trading, and other abuses in the OTC derivative markets.
The CFTC and SEC will be given the authority to set position limits and large trader reporting requirements for OTC derivatives that perform or affect a significant price discovery function with respect to regulated markets.
The full regulatory transparency that the legislation will bring to the OTC derivative markets will assist regulators in detecting and deterring manipulation, fraud, insider trading, and other abuses.

Protecting Unsophisticated Investors

Better Protect Unsophisticated Investors from Abuse in the OTC Derivative Markets:

The legislation will tighten the definition of eligible investors that are able to engage in OTC derivative transactions to better protect individuals and small municipalities.

###

Please contact us if you have any questions or would like to start a hedge fund. Other related hedge fund law articles include: