It begs the question: in today’s highly regulated world post FoFA, how well do you really know your fund manager? Do you fully understand risk as it pertains to doing business with any particular funds management outfit? Should you even care?

Alex Wise from specialist fund manager Select Asset Management continues his second of a four part CPD mini-series with an insider’s account to better understand what goes on to determine the key (non-investment) risks in funds management. (Click here to read the first article in this CPD series).

Business Risk Due Diligence is an important part of any allocation decision.  The main drivers are always likely to be forward looking views of strategy and manager performance, however since a number of high profile investor frauds such as Trio in Australia and the Bernie Madoff affair in the United States, greater scrutiny has been placed on operational and business due diligence globally. It should be made clear that whilst thorough Business Risk Due Diligence should assist in uncovering concerns and inconsistencies, it is not a fool proof method of uncovering any highly sophisticated fraud.   However, several ‘red flags’ – common to the Trio case and the Madoff fraud should have put investors on notice.

A thorough Business Risk Due Diligence review will consider the risk of a catastrophic event or, in crude terms a “blow up”. Effective due diligence provides a much broader insight into the overall quality of each manager’s business, including the firm’s culture and operational philosophy. Indeed, “business risk” due diligence is probably a more helpful description than a more limited “operational” due diligence framework.

It is important to consider both Business Risk Due Diligence and investment research, when making an investment.  Whilst it is important to differentiate between these disciplines there are clearly multiple points of overlap that exist.

The Manager

Many investors believe that larger managers rank lower on the operational risk scale and are thus relative ‘safe havens’.  Whilst it widely believed that smaller boutique managers tend to be exposed to greater operational risk it is also true that larger managers often have complicated business models and may exhibit significant operational risks.  Larger investors may have “deep pockets” and resources but many investors believe the outperformance or ‘alpha’ is higher in smaller, more nimble managers.  Operational processes do vary within the asset management industry and investors need to do their homework on a particular manager and fund before investing.

Investors should consider whether there has been appropriate investment in people, systems and other infrastructure. After analysis, investors have a good indicator of whether the manager is investing in infrastructure for the long haul or treating the management vehicle as a “cash cow”.

Business Risk Due Diligence should include a review of the manager’s personnel.  The manager’s team of people is important not only in implementing investment strategy but also in supporting that implementation through operations.  Some fundamental questions that should be asked include:

• are the managers significantly experienced to run the strategy?
•  are business support staff appropriately qualified in accounting or law?  (A good test is to review the qualifications of the key staff and where possible take references.  I have seen some underwhelming qualified people acting as “Chief Compliance Officers” and even an electrician sitting on an offshore fund board!

Segregation of duties is important and high level Business Risk Due Diligence should uncover the roles of the portfolio manager and the COO or back office manager.

Technology is increasingly available and affordable, and as such any review should include some review of the manager’s technology platform.  In my experience technology and business continuity plans of fund managers in Australia often exhibit weaknesses for example in appropriate server security or untested business continuity plans.

We have noted far deeper adaptation of cloud based technologies in overseas fund managers and expect this trend to continue into Australia.  Users of the cloud should have significant redundancy in internet connectivity in place with multiple ultra-fast internet connections.

The back office functions are clearly important in any fund manager but often overlooked or treated as mundane.  Trade reconciliation, settlement monitoring and valuation are hugely important areas.  Failed trades represent a risk not only to the manager but also to the fund and its investors.  Furthermore valuation errors can have a significant impact on net asset values or “NAV”s.

In respect of compliance, investors are looking for a compliance culture.  This doesn’t mean a business has to be bogged down in red tape: in fact an easily applicable set of rules is more appropriate for a smaller manager than a 200 page document that nobody reads.  In terms of personnel a seasoned compliance officer and an experienced, independent compliance committee provide a solid base from which a compliance culture can grow.

The Fund

Most investments are carried out through fund structures.  In Australia these are unit trusts and elsewhere these are typically companies or partnerships.  No matter what the structure funds are legal entities and governed by a set of constitutional rules and offering documents.  Whilst these documents contain powers, discretions and authorities they are low on practical content.  A Product Disclosure Statement for example contains limited practical information other than perhaps the fees (unless they are hidden through swaps) or timeframes for redemptions and subscriptions.

A PDS does not typically include some important information, for example who calculates the fund’s unit price or the identity of the custodian and auditor..  These are material issues and investors should ask questions to ensure sufficiently qualified and rated counterparties are involved. I have seen examples where affiliates of the manager are used in various roles without adequate disclosure. Additionally we would prefer accounting firms with dedicated financial services practises to be carrying out the audit.   There are still many managers who prefer to hire lesser known auditors effectively “doing things on the cheap”.

Practical investment terms of redemption and subscription should be carefully reviewed.  It is also important to match the redemption terms of the fund with the liquidity of the underlying investments.  For example, if a fund holding illiquid credit or property offers daily liquidity investors should consider what will happen if unitholders stampede for the door in significant numbers?    Investors should understand the ‘gating’ powers.   During the GFC investors were left holding illiquid investments for significant periods of time – often with managers and “responsible” entities charging substantial fees during those periods.

The fund structure offers significant opportunity for managers to align their interest with investors.  Investors should want to know the answer to one simple question “how much money does the portfolio manager have invested in the fund?” Few diners eat at a restaurant where the chef refuses to eat his own cooking.  In our experience this is a question that largely goes unasked and unanswered by many investors and researchers.  We have also seen many examples (particularly in Australia) of high earning portfolio managers with insignificant amounts invested in the fund.  Investors can make up their own mind as to whether they think the manager has sufficient alignment with investors.

Another area for alignment is performance fees.  In essence if the manager performs he gets paid.  However it is not quite as simple as that and investors should look at high watermarks, benchmarks and equalisation. Some performance fees allow a manager to collect performance fees even where the fund’s performance is down for the year, investors can make their own judgements on whether that is fair.  Equalisation is uncommon in Australia but it effectively means an investor pays an individual performance fee from the time they invest.  Due to the fact that few fund administrators in Australia have purchased systems that allow equalisation; investors can lose out in paying performance fees when the fund performance is below the level at which they invested.

To recap

Many investors and advisers are constrained by their resources but governed by a best interest duty.  Investing with a poorly organised manager with inequitable fund terms, liquidity mismatch and a weak auditor are unlikely to be in the client’s best interest.  Investors should also have some method of concentrating resources only on the highest risk managers.

Business Risk Due Diligence should capture the operational and wider business risks; in particular what can go wrong.  Experienced investors weigh the risks of what can go wrong against the ability of the manager to make money.  Only in doing this can investors truly satisfy the best interest test.

Note: The accreditation for this CPD article is no longer current. Please visit our CPD section for current CPD quizzes. 

The post Best interest duty – business risks in due diligence appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Andrew Gordon, head of BNY Mellon’s Alternative Investment Services in Asia looks at the pressures impacting the hedge fund and private equity industry and what the drivers of growth are in 2011.

“The global low interest rate environment is driving institutional investors and pension funds to seek alternative sources of returns, driving an increase in appetite for alternatives in emerging markets, especially in Asia.

“In what could perhaps be described as a relatively tougher capital raising environment for hedge funds globally, 2010 saw the continuation of a paradigm change in the industry – where large institutions, especially those in Asia, including Japan, Australia, New Zealand and India, as well as the rest of the world are focusing an increased degree of attention on hedge fund opportunities, with increasing numbers of investors making their first investments in the alternatives space in the region – and this is a trend that is expected to continue well into 2011.

“An increasing number of large institutions including sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and life insurance companies are shifting their allocations to alternatives, as they seek better returns and portfolio diversification. The majority of those who have not done so are also actively looking around to identify the right fund managers to invest with.  In addition to the funds’ investment track record, what attracts these large institutions would be the business and operational track records of fund managers and the level of transparency that they can provide to their investors in terms of day-to-day reporting.

Transparency and risk management increasingly top of institutions lists

“Global investors continue to invest time and resources in the due diligence process with hedge funds in the region, looking into non-investment aspects of the managers including corporate governance, transparency and risk management.  This trend is likely to accelerate in 2011 as a number of high profile funds folded during the first half of 2010 and a multitude of insider trading cases emerged in the latter half.

“Investors, especially large global institutions, are looking to gain increased insight into their fund managers, looking beyond the traditional aspects of performance data to get into the bottom of how sustainable the team, business and strategies are. Looking through 2011, we believe we will be seeing more robust outlook and increased capital raising activities in those Asian hedge fund managers who have invested or are willing to invest in institutionalising themselves, that is, building up the infrastructure of their business for greater transparency, corporate governance and risk management, and making sure these insights are accessible to investors.

“The global hedge fund industry is institutionalizing and this trend is moving from the U.S. and Europe rapidly into Asia. This is what we believe will eventually and effectively differentiate winners from losers in the marketplace, specifically for those smaller hedge funds from the region. Post financial crisis, global hedge funds are also reviewing their presences in Asia, with a number opening offices in Hong Kong and Singapore, competition intensifies more rapidly than ever.

Private equity expected to mirror hedge fund trends

“Many of the same investors are also active in private equity, and we see similar themes. We are talking to a number of large institutional allocators to private equity in many parts of Asia, and they are seeking help to standardise and manage the increased flow of information and data that they are increasingly demanding from their managers. As with hedge funds, they trust their mangers, but are looking for independent verification of the value that their managers are bringing to the portfolios they manage – whether a company that a private equity fund has purchased, or a listed security that a hedge fund manager has taken a position in.”

The post Asian institutional demand for alternatives will accelerate in 2011 with corporate governance top priority in choice of manager, says BNY Mellon appeared first on AdviserVoice.

In addition to receiving shareholder and court approvals, the merger also remains subject to various regulatory approvals, including from the Federal Treasurer.

It is expected that the transaction will be put to the AXA APH minority shareholders for their approval by the end of the first quarter of 2011.

The post AMP and AXA APH complete due diligence appeared first on AdviserVoice.

As part of ongoing efforts to deepen its global capabilities and resources in alternative investments, Russell Investments has announced three new global hires in alternatives.

At Russell’s  Australian Investment Summit earlier this month, director of alternative investments Australasia, Nicole Connolly announced a three year initiative to make 60 specialist alternatives recruitments to support expected demand for alternative investments in the coming years.

As part of this initiative, Russell Investments has hired Egidio (Ed) Robertiello as managing director of alternative strategies, with a focus on hedge funds; Stephan Breban as director of private equity; and Samuel Baughn as director of operational due diligence. This brings the total number of dedicated alternatives hires this year to 12, as Russell works to meet increasing demands from institutional investors for alternative investing expertise, advice and solutions.

• Robertiello, who is based in Russell’s New York office, will be responsible for developing and implementing Russell’s hedge fund capabilities on a global scale. He most recently was managing director and head of hedge fund solutions for Credit Suisse Group in New York. Previously, he worked as senior managing director, investments and research at Asset Alliance Corp. and as a managing director at The Blackstone Group, where he created and led the Manager Identification and Selection team for the company’s $12 billion fund of hedge fund affiliate Blackstone Alternative Asset Management (BAAM). Prior to The Blackstone Group, Robertiello managed retirement assets for RJR Nabisco, Inc. as vice president of pension and benefit investments.
• As director of private equity, London-based Breban will be responsible for further developing Russell’s private equity advice expertise accessible to investors globally. Before joining Russell, he served as the founder and managing director of City Capital Partners in London, a firm providing independent advice to private equity investors, and as a partner at Watson Wyatt (now Towers Watson).
• Baughn, also based in New York, will lead Russell’s operational due diligence function across the spectrum of alternative investment strategies. Most recently Baughn served as principal, chief operating officer and chief financial officer for ETFPortfolio Management, LLC in New York. In this role he was responsible for managing all aspects of the firm’s operations, including infrastructure build-out, compliance program monitoring and oversight of operations and reporting. Prior, he was Co-Head of Operational Due Diligence at Société Générale Asset Management, Inc., where he developed the firm’s operational due diligence process for investments located in North America, EMEA, Australia and Asia.

“We are committed to offering greater flexibility to clients in how they interact with Russell so that we can offer investment solutions as well as support our consulting and fiduciary outsourced clients on a global scale,” said Victor Leverett, managing director of Russell’s global alternative investments team.

“Ed, Stephan and Samuel all have a wealth of experience in alternatives, and I am very pleased that they have joined Russell and will be a part of the future growth of our global alternative investment business.”

In June, Russell released its 2010 Global Survey on Alternative Investing, documenting the evolving changes in philosophies, policies and attitudes among diverse global institutions that participate in alternatives. The survey found that institutional investors are recommitting to the use of alternative investment strategies and expecting (on average) an increase of over a third (from 14% to 19%) in their allocation to alternatives over the next two to three years.

The post Russell adds three directors to global alternatives team appeared first on AdviserVoice.