Tag Archives: hedge fund management fee

Investment Advisory Fees | Hedge Fund Performance Fees and Management Fees

4 Replies

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.

Revising the Hedge Fund Compensation Structure

2 Replies

Syndicated Post on Hedge Fund Fees

I have recently come across a very good blog called Ten Seconds Into the Future by Bryan Goh of First Avenue Partners, a hedge fund seeder.  Bryan’s posts are very insightful and I recommend all managers take a look at his writings.  The post below discusses some possible ways which hedge fund fees may be designed in the future – this is an especially good topic as I am often asked for suggestions on alternative fee structures.

Please feel free to comment below or contact me if you have any questions or would like more information on starting a hedge fund.

****

Hedge Fund Fees. Suggestions for the Future

I have argued before that hedge fund fees were poorly designed, and in that article had suggested a possible design for performance fees. Here I provide more detail into what I think is a practical solution which addresses some but not all of the problems with current fee structures.

Management fees:

This is the simpler issue to deal with. First of all, one has to question what is the purpose of management fees. In traditional long only mutual funds, management fees are the compensation for the manager for managing the fund. With the rise of absolute return funds, and their performance fees, management fees were no longer intended to be the primary compensation for managing of assets. The industry generally represents that management fees are compensation for overheads and the costs of running the asset management business.

If this is in fact the case, then the current flat percentage of assets management fee does not do as represented. The costs and overheads of running an asset management business are not linear in the size of assets under management. There are economies of scale. By charging a flat percentage of assets under management, these economies of scale accrue to the investment manager and not to the investor.

If management fees are indeed intended to cover overheads and costs, then a sliding scale is closer to the intended purpose. One can envisage management fees being charged as follows: 2% of assets as long as assets under management in the fund are under a certain amount, 1.5% when assets rise to a certain level, and 1% whenever assets are over a certain amount. This is just an example of course and there are other ways management fees can be designed to reflect the represented purpose.

A further finessing of management fees which is useful is to waive management fees for side pocketed investments. This encourages the manager to think carefully about side pocketing any assets. Certainly investors would not appreciate management fees being charged on assets that have been ‘gated’ or suspended.

Performance Fees:

Hedge funds fees typically include a profit share by the manager. This can range from 15% to 30% but for the vast majority of funds is 20% of profits. Pre-2005 there were a significant minority of funds which had a hurdle rate (strictly positive). That is, performance fees were only applied once the fund’s returns were higher than some positive return. In the later years, this practice had mostly disappeared as demand outstripped supply and hedge fund managers were able to increase their prices. Almost all hedge funds still operate a ‘High Watermark’ by which is meant that the investor pays fees only if the fund’s NAV is above the previous high. Should the fund’s value fall, performance fees are not collected until the previous high NAV is exceeded again.

This all sounds fair except that there are timing issues. Fees are accrued and at some point crystallized. This usually happens annually. A situation can arise therefore where performance fees are paid out at the end of the year or quarter, the NAV falls thereafter. Even if there is a recovery but the high watermark is not re-attained, fees paid out are not reclaimed.

A simple solution is as follows:

  • Fees are accrued semi-annually.
  • 50% of the performance fee is paid out semi-annually.
  • 50% of the performance fee is retained in Escrow (not to be invested in the fund.)
  • Each retained performance fee vests and is paid out 30 months later (for example, the delay can be made equal to the lock up for example).
  • All retained fees in Escrow are subject to negative performance fees = 20% of loss from the NAV of last performance fee calculation period.
  • When redemptions are paid in full, fees held back are released to the manager.

This design has the following features:

  • The investor pays performance fees on the net performance for their holding period, unless the performance is negative over the entire holding period. Unfortunately the manager cannot be expected to pay a negative performance fee over the entire holding period if the performance turned out to be negative over the holding period.
  • The manager is incentivized to make money over the long term instead of making money only in a given year.
  • The manager has 50% of their performance fee at risk on a rolling basis. On a cumulative basis, the manager may have a whole year’s performance fee at risk.
  • It has the same kind of incentive as a private equity clawback fee structure.
  • The above fee structure can be adjusted for the length of the holdback. The longer the holdback, the more performance fee is at risk.
  • A manager who is confident in generating returns over the length of their lock up should not object to such a fee schedule.
  • It incentivizes a manager to force redeem investors if they do not expect to be able to make money.

The Future:

Customers are the ultimate regulator of an industry, so it is investors who ultimately regulate the hedge fund industry. As long as investors are small and numerous, there may not be the aggregation of bargaining power to negotiate with fund managers. The huge concentration of assets under control in the fund of funds industry afforded funds of funds the opportunity to negotiate, not harshly but fairly with hedge fund managers. Not just on fees but on liquidity terms, transparency and controls. This was an opportunity that was missed. The battering taken by funds of funds in 2008 has greatly impaired their powers. We can only hope that investors find some way of communicating their needs to fund managers. And we can only hope that fund managers are enlightened enough to see that investors are not deliberately antagonistic, although it may seem so today.

****

Other related hedge fund law blog articles:

Hedge Fund Fees | Discussion of Future Trends

1 Reply

The following article is by Christopher Addy, President and CEO of Castle Hall Alternatives, a hedge fund due diligence firm.  We have published a number of pieces by Mr. Addy in the past (please see Hedge Fund Due Diligence Issues, Issues for Hedge Fund Administrators to Consider and ERISA vs. the Hedge Fund Industry).  The following post can be found here.

****

Hedge Fund Fees: Is It Worth It To Pay For A Star Hedge Fund?

An article in the current week’s edition of the Economist asks whether one-and-ten will become the new two-and-twenty.

The discussion notes that there will be clear fee pressure on fund of funds.  We will return to the question of fund of funds in a later post: as a quick precis of our views, while Madoff has raised long overdue questions about whether fund of funds really complete due diligence (saying no always gets in the way of making money) we still see plenty of room for fund of funds who genuinely can serve as expert intermediaries.  Fund of funds as a provider of expertise rather than a provider of capacity, and, separately, fund of funds offering funds of managed accounts, both seem like valid models going forward.

For single strategy managers, the Economist makes several points in a single paragraph:

“Those funds with excellent records will manage to maintain their fee rates. Big diversified managers with mediocre performance will have to cut fees to hold on to their assets. Given the “high watermarks” in place, which require that losses be recouped before performance fees can be charged, they may struggle to retain top staff, although they should at least be able to stay in business. The real threat is to smaller operators—half of all hedge funds manage less than $100m. Lower management fees may not cover their fixed costs, such as salaries, accommodation and IT. The era of hedge-fund managers being unable to pay the rent may soon be dawning.”

While these points are valid, we remain very unconvinced by the argument that “those funds with excellent records will manage to maintain their fee rates.”  More precisely, we agree that the largest funds with good performance will likely keep their fee schedules: but we are unconvinced that those fees are worth it when they are above 2 and 20.

If 2008 has shown us anything, it’s that – as we noted in our last post – you can’t rely on a “best of the best” hedge fund to deliver guaranteed performance.

Plenty of articles have been published commenting on the relative performance of some of the industry’s largest funds – Bloomberg in this piece commented on a variety of funds: while there were winners such as Paulson, Brevan Howard and Winton, there were also plenty of losers, notably Citadel.  Another excellent Bloomberg article on Fortress noted that the firm’s Drawbridge Global Macro was down -26% while Drawbridge Special Opportunities lost 18%.  This article from early November commented on performance from a number of funds: it only got worse by year end.  Any hedge fund investor looking down their portfolio sees the same pattern of apparently random winners and losers among what were previously Top 100, star managers.

Ex post, therefore, some big funds funds have proved themselves to be worth their fees.  Plenty of them, however, have proved not to be.  Investors couldn’t predict the winners and losers beforehand during this market crisis: will they somehow be better at picking the big hedge funds that will be winners rather than losers when we have the next Black Swan event?  Why should investors pay, ex ante, excess fees to any hedge fund based solely on a historical track record?

This line of thinking raises some broader questions.  From our side, we have always been very skeptical of the largest hedge funds.  Indeed, back in early November 2007 we wrote a post called “People are spooked…so let’s invest in big hedge funds.  Is there really a flight to quality?” In that post, we wrote the following:

“This redirection of capital inflows [towards the biggest hedge funds] does seem to be driven by institutional investors.  If we were to ask ourselves, however, what are the three most important issues for institutions considering a hedge fund allocation, we expect the answer would be:

1) Transparency
2) Fees
3) Independent oversight

But…the Top 25 hedge funds now receiving such large allocations of institutional capital have the most restrictive transparency, the highest fees and no independent oversight (virtually all do not appoint an independent administrator, meaning that investors must rely on the manager to calculate each NAV and price all the assets with no third party check.)

We’re really puzzled by this paradox – there’s obviously a big difference between what institutions say they want, and what they are prepared to invest in.

Why is this?  Obviously, there’s strength in numbers, and it’s easy to justify an allocation to a firm if pretty much everyone else in the industry has already invested.  But, to point out the obvious again, the Bear Stearns funds were run by the Wall Street house with the reputation for the greatest expertise in mortgage and structured securities available in the industry.  Amaranth was one of the most sophisticated multi strategy funds available.  Sowood was formed by superstar managers from the Harvard Management Company.  Basis Capital in Australia had the highest possible, 5 star rating from Standard & Poors.  The list goes on, and on.

The lesson, therefore, is simple and obvious: do not to take anything for granted.  Certainly, asking hard questions – and being prepared to walk away – would have served potential investors in the above funds well.  This is not the last time hedge fund investors will learn this lesson.”

Well yes.

As we noted nearly 18 months ago, the biggest firms typically have the highest fees, have limited transparency and often don’t have independent oversight over their NAVs.  We would also add that it is typically the largest firms that ask for the longest lock ups: investors who signed up in ’06 and ’07 to 3 and 5 year lock classes must be pretty unhappy right now.  Moreover, the biggest firms usually have the tightest gates and most restrictive redemption provisions in their offering documents: 2008 has shown that many (most?) of the industry’s largest funds have chosen to suspend redemptions, impose involuntary restructurings etc.

Where does that leave investors?  We don’t deny that some of the largest hedge funds remain deeply resourced, highly skilled money managers.  On the other hand, our point is not to write off the small guy.

For many reasons, we believe that there is a real value in being a “bigger fish in a smaller sea”.  Thinking of operational issues, a larger investor in a smaller fund has so much more leverage:

  • Power to negotiate fees
  • Power to influence the terms of the offering document, and particularly to impact provisions related to gates, suspensions, side pockets etc.
  • Better operational transparency
  • Ability to engage in a constructive dialogue about operational controls: smaller funds are, for example, much more likely to have an administrator.  Smaller managers typically also give more information about their procedures, enabling investors to get a better understanding of key controls such as valuation.  Moreover, if a small firm needs to improve, they are much more likely to listen to a large, strategic investor – in fact, they are much more likely to listen full stop.

Investing in a smaller hedge fund – particularly now – gives the investor much better power to enter into that investment in a spirit of partnership.  It also provides more flexibility on the way in and on the way out.  That is massively different from going to a large multi strat and still facing an unappetizing menu of terms such as a 3 year lock class, a 8% rolling quarterly redemption provision, a 2 and 25, 3 and 30 fee structure et al et al.

One of the questions we always ask ourselves when we visit a hedge fund is about the culture of the manager.  Put simply, does it feel as if the manager thinks we are doing him a favor by giving him our capital, or is there a sense that the manager feels he is doing us a favor by letting us in.

Right now, we would always pay less for a receptive manager than pay more for a fund which still thinks that that we need them more than they need us.

www.castlehallalternatives.com
Hedge Fund Operational Due Diligence