Tag Archives: valuation

Hedge Fund Due Diligence Firm Releases Whitepaper on Hedge Fund Industry

1 Reply

Castle Hall Alternatives, a hedge fund due diligence firm, has just released a new white paper entitled “Hedge Fund Investing in a New World: Five Questions for Investors.”  We greatly respect the thoughts and opinions of Christopher Addy, President and CEO of Castle Hall, who has allowed us to repost some of his earlier blog posts (please see Issues for Hedge Fund Administrators to Consider and ERISA vs. the Hedge Fund Industry).

In this article, I have summarized the thoughts presented in the white paper and added my own thoughts as well.  The thesis of the white paper is that the hedge fund industry will change because of the recent market events.  The paper is broken up into five different questions and each answer discusses how the current industry trends and what the trends will likely (or should) look like in the future.  The issues the white paper raised are:

1.  Is 2 and 20 fundamentally flawed?

In this section Castle Hall believes that there may be more hurdle rates in the future, that performance fees periods will need to mirror lock-up periods and that performance fees on hard to value assets need to be reconsidered.

HFLB: We agree with some of the points made in this section.  While the fee structure will ultimately be decided by the market, whatever the manager decides upon can be implemented by the attorneys in the hedge fund offering documents.  A good hedge fund attorney should discuss the above issues with hedge fund managers who have hard to value assets or long lock-up periods.

2. Do Hedge Funds Need Better Corporate Governance?

In this section Castle Hall argues that hedge funds, especially offshore funds, have very low corporate governance standards and that there may need to be greater oversight in the future.  The paper states, “As an immediate priority, investors need a Board which can provide genuine, active oversight in two key areas: portfolio valuation and situations in which funds elect to impose gates or suspend redemptions.”

HFLB: We agree generally and in principle.  However, investors will ultimately pay for the expense of greater corporate governance.  If investors show themselves willing to pay for the added expenses then it seems there should not be a lot of push back from the hedge fund managers.

3.  Is there an ‘Expections Gap’ in the administration industry?

Castle Hall notes that “vigilant oversight from an independent administrator remains by far the most effective protection investors have against manager errors, be they honest or dishonest.”  CH then goes on to discuss how hedge fund administrators do not all provide the same services to hedge fund managers and many administrators provide “NAV Lite” services.  CH believes that administrators need to have clearly defined and delineated roles which should include real asset valuation (not just rubber stamping a manager’s good faith valutation).  CH notes that third party valuation specialists may be a solution but that this could be an expensive option for hedge fund managers and investors.

HFLB: We agree.  The term “hedge fund administrator” is one of the loosest terms in the industry right now.  Administrators may be full service, provide “NAV lite” or provide mid and back office support as stated in the paper.  Sometimes hedge fund offering documents do not thoroughly discuss the actual duties of the hedge fund administrator and we believe that disclosure in the offering documents will increase in the future.  In the future hedge fund managers may want to include the actual administration contract in the offering documents as an exhibit.

With regard to third party valuation specialists, we agree that these types of firms will provide valuable services to both hedge funds and administrators in the future.  Hedge fund managers should discuss this option with their hedge fund attorney.

4.  Is the Prospectus written for the Manager or the Investor?

Castle Hall discusses the interesting phenomenon of “Prospectus Creep” or basically the lengthening of hedge fund offering documents as hedge fund lawyers add more clauses to the documents which are designed to protect the managers.  Castle Hall notes that “today’s offering documents are typically drafted to give maximum freedom of action for the manager and often permit unrestricted investment activities. Investors are also faced with offering documents which list every possible risk factor in an attempt to absolve the manager from responsibility under virtually all loss scenarios.”

HFLB: We agree that offering documents can be long and that often they contain a long list of risk factors associated with the investment program.  The purpose of the offering documents is to explain the manager’s investment program and if the manager truly has a “kitchen sink” investment program, then all of the disclosures and risk factors are a necessary part of the offering documents.  However we also feel that hedge fund offering documents should accurately describe the manager’s proposed investment program and that if the manager has a very specific strategy, he should provide as much detail to the investors as possible.

5.  Is it possible to hold illiquid assets in an open ended vehicle?

Castle Hall questions whether funds which hold illiquid assets should have open contribution and withdrawal periods.  If there are open contribution or withdrawal periods then illiquid assets must be valued so that there can be a NAV calculation.

HFLB: We agree that hedge funds need to have valuation methodologies if a fund will hold illiquid or hard to value assets.  We do not necessarily agree that funds which hold illiquid assets need to be closed ended (i.e. have a private equity fund structure).  Hedge fund attorneys will usually address this issue in a couple of ways: (1) through specifically delineated valuation practices to be utilized on valuation dates or (2) side pocket or similar structures.   We do note that in certain instances the manager, as well as the investor, would be better served through a closed end or private equity fund structure.  These are issues which the manager will need to discuss with their hedge fund attorney.

Conclusion

Castle Hall concludes with the following statement: “Ultimately, challenge brings opportunity: we remain convinced that a better, stronger hedge fund industry can emerge from the difficulties of today’s markets.”

HFLB: We agree.  I have stated before that we think the hedge fund industry will come back strong.  As regulations are added and due diligence increases, hedge funds should continue to grow as investors grow more comfortable with hedge funds as an asset class.

The full white paper can be found here.  The press release reprinted below, can be found here.

****

November 03, 2008

Castle Hall Releases White Paper on Hedge Fund Investing in a New World

Castle Hall Alternatives, a leading provider of hedge fund operational due diligence, today published “Hedge Fund Investing in a New World: Five Questions for Investors and Managers.”

Chris Addy, Castle Hall’s President and CEO, said “the credit crisis and market events over the past year have challenged the hedge fund industry as never before. Alternative investments will remain integral to diversified, institutional portfolios, but there will unavoidably be a re-evaluation of the hedge fund model.”

Castle Hall’s focus on hedge fund operational risk has helped the firm identify five questions relevant to both investors and managers in this “New World”. The firm’s White Paper asks whether the typical “2 and 20” fee structure is fundamentally flawed; whether hedge funds need better corporate governance; and whether there is an “expectations gap” in the fund administration industry. The White Paper also questions whether the fund prospectus should be written to protect the manager or the investor and asks if it is possible to hold illiquid assets in an open ended vehicle.

“The structures and conventions accepted in the past may not be the best for the hedge fund industry going forward” said Addy. “We have highlighted a number of areas where current practices are weak and, in the New World, we expect investors to be more vocal and require greater protection and control when allocating to hedge funds. Investors will also focus more intently on operational, structural and business issues in addition to performance and strategy.”

Hedge Fund Investing in a New World, the first in a series of thought leadership papers to be published by Castle Hall, can be accessed on our Website, under the Publications section.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any comments or questions.  Other relevant HFLB articles include:

Real Estate Hedge Fund Structure

5 Replies

Real estate hedge funds have always been popular and considering the current stock market turmoil and volatility many real estate hedge fund sponsors believe that the time is ripe to offer a real estate product to market weary investors.

Potential Investments

Real estate hedge funds are not limited in their investment strategy and many such funds have different strategies. Many funds purchase real property and hold onto the real property for appreciation. Other funds will purchase raw land and then develop the land or hire other companies (including companies related to the sponsor of the fund) to develop the land. Still other funds will buy properties to manage for current income. Our law firm has handled all of these types of funds, as well as funds which seek to profit from turning around distressed real estate. The real estate may or may not be located in the United States. Other popular strategies include investing in commercial, multi family, general investment quality properties, and properties which have not yet been developed.

Structure and offering documents

Investors

The real estate hedge fund structure is similar to a hedge fund focused on trading securities; however there are some important differences. Most importantly, as long as the real estate fund is not investing in any securities (or money market accounts which may, in certain circumstances, be deemed to be securities), the fund will not be subject to the Investment Company Act of 1940 and therefore will not need to fall within either the 3(c)(1) or the 3(c)(7) exemption. This allows the real estate hedge fund a little more flexibility than securities hedge funds. Notably, the fund will need to adhere to the Regulation D requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 only and not the Investment Company Act. This means that the fund will be able to have an unlimited amount of accredited investors and up to 35 non-accredited investors. There is no requirement that investors in a real estate fund be either a qualified client or a qualified purchaser.

Structure

Because real estate hedge funds invest in assets which are not easily valued the real estate hedge fund will oftentimes take on a private equity like fund structure. The major characteristics of the private equity fund structure is the (i) closing/drawdown process for capital contributions and (ii) the limit on withdrawals until there is a disposition event. In this way the private equity fund does not have to deal with valuation issues until a value is determined. This helps to prevent the problem of the general partner taking a performance fee on an unknown rise in the asset value. In addition many general partners will also agree to a clawback provision.

An alternative to the strictly private equity structure is for the fund to implement side pocket investments. In their most simplest form a side pocket investment is an investment which is carried on the books to the side. Generally only those investors who were in the fund at the time of the investment (or in some programs, those who opt into the investment) are “owners” of that investment. Generally there will be no performance allocation on any investments in a side pocket account until there has been a disposition of the investment. Then, profits can be distributed to the investors in the side pocket account. Like the private equity structure this allows the fund to invest in hard to value assets without having to actually value the assets until distribution.

The side pocket account also allows a real estate hedge fund to offer a “hybrid” hedge fund product. Managers are finding that hybrid hedge funds are becoming more popular with investors and allow them to sell a product which may potentially resonate with a larger group of potential investors.

There are numerous iterations of a side pocket account and what is allocated to the account and when so we will not go into these in detail here. Once the manager has decided on a general structure the lawyer will work with the manager to identify any questions or issues with the structure. The general rule is that any structural design of the fund can be accommodated within the hedge fund structure – the question is how long it will take the manager and the lawyer to talk through and identify all of the issues of any particular structure.

The real estate hedge fund offering documents will follow the same standard format for hedge fund offering documents which includes a private placement memorandum, a limited partnership (or limited liability company) agreement, and subscription documents.

Real estate hedge fund fees and expenses

Because no two real estate hedge funds are going to have the same investment program and structure of the investment program, there are not any standard fees for these funds. Generally there will be some sort of asset management fee which might range from 1% to 3%. Often a fund will feature a preferred return and then some sort of carry over the preferred return. In this way the performance fees of a real estate hedge fund resemble the structure of the private equity funds. Because of the great variety of fee structures, though, for real estate hedge funds, there is no expected fee structure like for a securities hedge fund.

In addition the asset management fee and performance fees, real estate funds are unique in the fact that they have other expenses which are different from a securities only hedge fund. Specifically there are property acquisition fees as well as fees related to: property managers, leasing and sales agents, construction managers or other services as necessary. It is very common for the general partner to control entities which will provide such services to the fund. Generally the offering documents will note this conflict of interest and/or include a statement that such affiliated entities will be compensated at current market rates.

Valuation

As with any asset for which there is not a liquid exchange market, valuation of real estate is subjective. Accordingly valuation becomes a major issue for many real estate hedge funds if there is going to be withdrawals from the fund or if the general partner will receive a performance fee for any “paper” gains attributable to increase in the value of the real estate. Valuation becomes less of an issue if there the real estate will be placed in a side pocket account or if there are no withdrawals or performance fees until a disposition event. In the event that a fund needs to implement a valuation policy, the real estate hedge fund manager will basically choose from between three methods of valation (or some combination thereof).

The basic methods of valuation include: (1) book value; (2) outside valuation agent; or (3) by formula. There are advantages and disadvantages to each one of these methods and if you need to have a valuation methodology your lawyer will be able to help you to decide on one of theses methods.

Risks

There are always a number of risks involved in any type of hedge fund structure.  One potential risk when dealing with real property is eminent domain.  Depending on the real estate holdings and other investments a fund will make, there are considerations about the ability of the government to reposes the hedge fund holding through the eminent domain process (for more information, please see Washington state eminent domain). This is a risk which should be disclosed in the offering document if it is applicable to the fund’s investments.

Conclusion

Real estate hedge funds are a great structure for the current market and allow non-traditional hedge fund managers an entry point into the alternative investments industry. If you are a real estate professional who is thinking of establishing a real estate hedge fund, please feel free to contact us.

DOL tells ERISA plan to monitor hedge fund valuation practices

4 Replies

I came across this ERISA hedge fund article last night and found it to be very interesting.  This article highlights an issue that is plaguing the hedge fund industry – how to value illiquid and other hard to value assets.  This issue has come to the forefront over the last year as the bank and large hedge funds have posted huge losses due to improper valuation of assets.  More to come on this issue.  The orginal article can be found here: www.castlehallalternatives.com.

ERISA vs. the Hedge Fund Industry

According to Pensions and Investment, the Boston office of the US Department of Labor (the “DOL”) recently issued a letter to an (unidentified) US Pension Plan subject to ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act) stating that the plan was in violation of ERISA regulations.  The DOL is responsible for monitoring – and sanctioning – ERISA plans and, in their letter, threatened legal action if the plan in question did not remedy the noted violations.

The problem?

When valuing hedge funds and other alternative assets for purposes of the Plan’s annual filing, the pension investor had apparently relied upon valuations provided by the underlying funds’ general partners and, in some cases, on audited financial statements for those funds.

This is, of course, standard practice for many hedge fund investors.  It appears, however, that this approach could create a major roadblock for ERISA plans.

According to the DOL, “it is incumbent on the Plan Administrator to establish a process to evaluate the fair market value of any hard to value assets held by the Plan.  Such a process would include a complete understanding of the underlying investments and the fund’s investment strategy.  In addition, the Plan Administrator must have a thorough knowledge of the general partner’s valuation methodology to ensure that it comports with the fund’s written valuation provisions and reflects fair market value.  A process which merely uses the general partner’s established value for all funds without additional analysis may not insure that the alternative investments are valued at fair market value.”

In other words, the entity which has to value all assets – and especially hard to value assets – is the pension investor subject to ERISA.  There is no way of dodging this poison chalice – the ERISA investor cannot simply rely on the hedge fund’s own valuation.

This is an enormously challenging obligation, particularly in the context of the severe fiduciary standards set by ERISA.  Indeed, the DOL position raises a broad question – is it even possible for ERISA plans (or indeed any hedge fund investor) to meet this duty of care?

We have three observations.

Firstly, very few hedge funds provide position level transparency.  However, it is stating the obvious to say that, without position level transparency, it is impossible for an ERISA investor (or any other investor for that matter) to have a “complete” understanding of the underlying investments and the fund’s investment strategy.  Moreover, even if managers do provide position information, how can investors ensure that it is timely and accurate?  The best solution to the transparency issue is a managed account – as such, would one outcome of the DOL’s position, if enforced, be for ERISA plans to only invest through managed account structures?

Secondly, the DOL states that ERISA plans must have a “thorough knowledge of the general partner’s valuation methodology”.  However, in practice, most hedge fund offering documents have deliberately vague and unspecific clauses as to valuation and calculation of the net asset value, especially in relation to hard to value instruments. To add salt to the wound, every prospectus we have ever read includes a final caveat along the lines of “notwithstanding the above policies, the general partner (or the Board of directors in “consultation” with the investment manager for an offshore fund) may elect any “alternative method” of fair valuation. “ There is hence very limited specificity as to valuation procedures in virtually all hedge fund offering materials, and certainly insufficient information to provide a “thorough knowledge” of the valuation methodology which will be applied.

If the prospectus gives an inadequate description of the valuation process, investors need to turn to supplementary information from the hedge fund manager.  At this point, however, things get worse – many hedge fund managers have not developed any internal, written valuation policy at all.  For those funds which do have a valuation document, there is no standardization, and many valuation policies remain uncomfortably vague and unspecific (although, in fairness, we congratulate the minority of managers who have some stepped up and do furnish investors with comprehensive valuation information.)

The worst case is when a manager does have a valuation document, but will not provide it to the investor.  Ironically, the worst culprits in this situation are some of the industry’s largest and most well known hedge fund managers.  The issue is liability: hedge fund lawyers now appear to advise managers that the more information provided to investors, the more the potential liability.  (As an aside, we recently spoke with the CFO of a large hedge fund: he noted that the sight of the Bear Stearns hedge fund managers being led away in ‘cuffs had resulted in urgent calls from the firm’s lawyers, advising the manager to reduce the amount of information it provided to investors.)

The third area of concern is the ongoing assumption by many investors, including many ERISA plans, that third party administrators assume responsibility for valuing hedge fund portfolios.  As such, the administrator, it is perceived, can provide the necessary independence in the valuation process.

Not so fast.  As we have noted before, much of today’s administration industry is now emphatic that they perform only the services of a “calculation agent” not a “valuation agent”.  This is a relatively mute point when dealing with exchange traded securities, but it is an enormous issue when looking at a hedge fund which trades hard to value instruments (it goes without saying that we need help to value exotic CDOs, not IBM stock).

As a “calculation agent”, many administrators have amended their legal contracts to retain the right to “consult with” the manager and, indeed, accept prices from the hedge fund manager without further verification.  Again, we hate to make an “emperor has no clothes” comment, but this is obviously nonsense: taking prices from the manager is like a police officer issuing speeding tickets on the basis of asking drivers how fast they were going.

These issues, in our mind, share a common theme.  In recent years, with an ever-accelerating pace, we have watched the legal pendulum which defines how investors and hedge fund managers transact drift ever further in favor of the manager at the expense of the investor.  It is trite, but uncomfortably accurate, to say that, in today’s hedge fund industry, no-one wants to be responsible for anything.  Everyone is instead seeking to be indemnified to the point of invulnerability.

And this is the disconnect between the hedge fund industry and DOL.  ERISA establishes onerous standards of fiduciary responsibility, deliberately designed to make those responsible for ERISA plans accountable, responsible and liable for their actions.  Today’s hedge funds, however, are increasingly structured to ensure the lowest possible degree of accountability and liability on the part of pretty much everyone involved.

Against this background, we will watch with great interest ongoing developments as the DOL monitors ERISA plans with material hedge fund portfolios.  The question, of course, is whether investing in opaque, uncommunicative hedge funds (even when they are some of the largest in the world) is too close to pushing a square peg in a round hole for investors who do operate within a strict fiduciary framework.