2008 was a watershed event as it reinforced investors’ requirements for increased liquidity and transparency. These characteristics are important features of managed accounts, Ucits and hedge fund mutual funds.
2008 also brought to many investors' attention the fact that their actual risk profile was different from what they thought it was.
Different investors demand different types of access. Typically, the managed account is the domain of the ultra high net worth investor and institutions because of the high managed account minimums for the top quality managers. Mutual funds appeal to the financial adviser who wants to give his retail client diversification. Some see the hedge fund mutual fund as a cost-effective way to gain access to an institutional quality offering with daily liquidity, daily pricing, transparency, a small minimum investment and a timely 1099. These advantages appeal to investors who were hurt by lock-ups and side pockets in 2008.
As the Infovest21white paper details, none of these vehicles are a panacea and challenges exist for each structure. Yet they do reflect evolutionary forces taking place in the hedge fund arena.
Alternative to funds of funds?
Hedge fund managers are increasingly using managed account platforms, Ucits and mutual fund hedge funds to gather assets and diversify their client base.
Some investors see these products as an alternative to funds of funds. “As large institutions leave funds of funds industry, many want to allocate directly to hedge funds but they may have a small staff and may not be equipped to do the stringent due diligence. They can hire a consultant for advisory services. Others, however, may choose to use managed accounts. The investor gets due diligence on the managed account platform and doesn’t have to do the operational due diligence on all the managers they want to hire,” says Martin Gagnon, co-chief executive officer of Innocap.
Some financial planners say they could also see investors moving out of funds of funds and into mutual funds because of value, simplicity of tax issues and greater liquidity.
Some funds of funds, however, disagree and have been actively developing their own managed account platforms as a way to differentiate themselves in a difficult environment. Some are providing a niche such as having smaller managers or strategy-specific managers. One platform provider says early fund of fund adopters of managed account programs will probably grow faster than traditional fund of fund firms.
Outlook
Transparency, risk aggregation, granular information
Institutions will continue to be the driving force behind these evolving products. Institutions’ requirement for transparency will be a major factor going forward.
Managed account platform providers say they are delivering aggregated information to investors more frequently and will continue to enhance what is provided. Investors may eventually be able to see their aggregated exposures on a daily basis. Emphasis is on how to use the data to make improved investment decisions which will ultimately lead to better performance over time.
Managed accounts, providing access to real-time trading, will increasingly be used by some investors as a tool to invest with newer managers.
Major platforms dominate with niche platforms filling a need
The large major managed account platforms are expected to dominate as managed accounts are operationally intensive. Some industry veterans expect to see more banks become involved as they see the platforms providing another source of revenue.
Some expect the platforms to add other sources of revenue as margins get squeezed. This could include providing advisory/risk management services or acting as third party marketers to funds on the platform etc.
A place will exist for independent managed account platforms as they are attractive to banks who don’t have their own managed account platform.
Innovative pricing
In response to fees being pressured downward, both banks and asset manager/independent platforms are looking for ways to become more innovative with their pricing and still maintain some margins. Some platforms will charge investors platform fees while platforms will charge distribution/administrative fees.
Innovative technology: Point click invest
With technology, transparency may eventually be expanded to existing hedge funds (as opposed to just managed accounts). Some platforms are looking at connecting investors and managers online. One platform is currently in the beta phase with “point click invest” where investors will be able to subscribe electronically. Roll-out is expected this summer.
Growing overlap: Managed account platforms complement Ucits and hedge fund mutual funds
Ucits and managed accounts are separate structures but they overlap and may be complementary. A managed account can be used as a basis for Ucits vehicles, index products, structured products etc.
For those who want to do a Ucits-type product, it is much easier to base that product off of a managed account where there is independent liquidity, transparency and control of actual assets. “A managed account platform in an independent vehicle that has daily transparency, daily valuations, excellent governance and risk management. Managers want to get all those elements in one place,” says Caleim Parkes of MSS Consultancy.
“Investors are realizing that managed accounts and Ucits are not a binary choice. They are part of a continuum of solutions. Ucits are one investment option in the spectrum of investment solutions. There are a number of hedge fund strategies that are not suitable for Ucits e.g. fixed income arbitrage,” adds Gabriel Bousbib of Gottex.
Some investors e.g. sovereign wealth funds in Middle East, don’t need Ucits vehicles. They are happy to invest in an offshore structure. Other investors like French insurance companies aren’t willing to invest unless it is a Ucits format.
Similarly, managed accounts and mutual funds are more likely to overlap when managed account platforms provide the manager access that mutual funds require.
Regulatory clarity required
Other managed account platform providers are a bit more hesitant on the growing overlap of these products. They feel regulatory clarity is needed before they add Ucits. “Our platform is onshore and we could easily transform it into Ucits. We have the tools to do it but we haven’t. You need to make sure all the rules comply with Ucits regulation. Some convergence exists between Ucits and the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFM). We need some clarity with AIFM which we will have in coming months. I hope European regulators will get together and there will be some convergence between Ucits and AIFM to offer the public a better product," comments Gagnon.
Regulatory clarification is also needed on the managed futures mutual fund side. Interest exists in the industry for the SEC and the CFTC to harmonize rules. A number of funds of funds say they’d offer mutual funds once those regulatory issues are resolved. Issues exist over the lack of transparency on fee structures in some existing managed futures mutual funds.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Infovest21 White Paper: Evolution of Product Structures - Managed Account Platforms, Ucits and Hedge Fund Mutual Funds
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Top Pension Funds By Assets ($B)
- California Public Employees 214.6
- Federal Retirement Thrift 210.6
- California State Teachers 147.2
- New York State Common 138.4
- Florida State Board 118.7
- General Motors 110.3
- New York City Retirement 107.3
- Texas Teachers 95.9
- AT&T 89.6
- New York State Teachers 88.5
- IBM 78.9
- Wisconsin Investment Board 74.5
- New Jersey 71.8
- North Carolina 70.5
- General Electric 70.3
- Ohio Public Employees 69.6
- Boeing 68.9
- Ohio State Teachers 62.9
- Washington State Board 61.5
- Michigan Retirement 57.2
- Oregon Public Employees 55.3
- Pennsylvania School Employees 54.7
- Verizon 51.8
- Virginia Retirement 50.4
- Ford Motor 48.8
- University of California 47.1
- Georgia Teachers 46.6
- Minnesota State Board 46.5
- Massachusetts PRIM 45.4
- Lockheed Martin 43.8
- Alcatel Lucent 41.3
- Colorado Employees 36.6
- United Nations Joint Staff 35.4
- Los Angeles County Employees 35.2
- Illinois Teachers 34.1
- Maryland State Retirement 32.7
- Northrop Grumman 31.9
- Pennsylvania Employees 31.1
- Teamsters, Western 30.3
- Tennessee Consolidated 30.3
- Bank of America 28.5
- Exxon Mobil 28.0
- Alabama Retirement 27.6
- United Technologies 27.5
- Chrysler 26.6
- National Railroad 25.3
- Missouri Public Schools 24.6
- Utah State Retirement 24.5
- South Carolina Retirement 24.5
- DuPont 24.4
- United Parcel Service 23.6
- Arizona State Retirement 23.6
- Connecticut Retirement 23.6
- Raytheon 22.8
- Texas Employees 21.9
- Citigroup 21.2
- Teamsters, Central States 21.2
- Iowa Public Employees 2.6
- Nevada Public Employees 20.6
- Illinois Municipal 20.6
- Hewlett Packard 20.1
- JPMorgan Chase 19.9
- Chevron 19.4
- Honeywell 18.9
- Mississippi Employees 18.9
- Dow Chemical 18.7
- State Farm 17.5
- Alaska Retirement 17.4
- Procter & Gamble 17.1
- FedEx 16.9
- Kaiser 16.9
- Shell Oil 16.8
- American Airlines 16.7
- 3M 16.2
- Wells Fargo 16.2
- San Francisco City & County 15.9
- United Methodist Church 14.8
- Prudential 14.6
- Texas County & District 14.4
- Texas Municipal Retirement 14.1
- BP American 14.1
- Indiana Public Employees 13.9
- Georgia Employees 13.9
- World Bank 13.8
- Illinois State Universities 13.7
- Los Angeles Fire & Police 13.2
- Caterpillar 13.2
- Wachovia 13.2
- Kentucky Teachers 13.2
- Louisiana Teachers 13.1
- Illinois State Board 12.9
- Delphia 12.9
- National Electric 12.6
- Johnson & Johnson 12.6
- Eastman Kodak 12.5
- Pfizer 12.5
- General Dynamics 12.3
- PG&E 11.9
- ConocoPhillips 11.9
- Kentucky Retirement 11.7
- Exelon 11.6
- Kansas Public Employees 11.6
- Deere 11.6
- Qwest 11.3
- New Mexico Public Employees 11.0
- Kraft Foods 10.9
- International Paper 10.9
- Alcoa 10.8
- Siemens USA 10.7
- Ohio Police & Fire 10.7
- MetLife 10.7
- Southern Co 10.5
- Chicago Teachers 10.3
- Federal Reserve Employees 10.1
- Idaho Public Employees 9.9
- Hawaii Employees 9.8
- New York State Deferred Comp 9.8
- Los Angeles City Employees 9.7
- Ohio School Employees 9.6
- Arkansas Teachers 9.6
- Maine State Retirement 9.6
- Wal-Mart Stores 9.5
- Weyerhaeuser 9.5
- Consolidated Edison 9.5
- Koch Industries 9.5
- US Steel 9.4
- Abbott Laboratories 8.9
- Episcopal Church 8.9
- 1199SEIU National 8.9
- Motorola 8.8
- Operating Eng. International 8.8
- Xerox 8.8
- Altria 8.7
- PepsiCo 8.4
- Delta Air Lines 8.4
- Missouri State Employees 8.3
- Eli Lilly 8.3
- Oklahoma Teachers 8.2
- National Rural Electric 8.1
- Boilermaker-Blacksmith 8.1
- Northwest Airlines 8.0
- Sears Holding 8.0
- Aetna 7.9
- New Mexico Educational 7.9
- New York City Deferred Comp 7.9
- Electrical Ind, Joint Board 7.9
- Intel 7.9
- Nebraska Investment Council 7.8
- Indiana Teachers 7.8
- JC Penney 7.8
- Louisiana State Employees 7.8
- Merck 7.8
- IAM National 7.7
- Tennessee Valley Authority 7.5
- San Diego County 7.5
- West Virginia Investment 7.5
- National Grid 7.5
- South Dakota 7.5
- Glaxo Smith Kline 7.3
- Rhode Island Employees 7.3
- Allstate 7.2
- Bristol-Myers Squibb 7.2
- Delaware Public Employees 7.1
- Dominion Resources 7.1
- ITT 7.0
- Orange County 7.0
- Montana Board of Investments 6.9
- Merrill Lynch 6.9
- Ohio Deferred Comp 6.8
- Los Angeles Water & Powere 6.8
- Walt Disney 6.8
- Presbytarian Church 6.7
- Time Warner 6.7
- First Energy 6.6
- Cook County Employees 6.6
- Supervalu 6.6
- UFCW Industry, IL 6.5
- Bank of New York Mellon 6.4
- CBS 6.4
- American Electric 6.4
- Oklahoma Public Employees 6.4
- Target 6.3
- Duke Energy 6.2
- Hartford Financial 6.2
- Unisys 6.2
- Liberty Mutual 6.2
- General Mills 6.2
- FMR 6.2
- Arizona Public Safety 6.1
- IMF 6.1
- Reynolds American 6.0
- Anheuser-Busch 6.0
- Sacramento County 6.0
- Southern California Edison 5.9
- Wyeth 5.9
- Los Angeles County Deferred 5.8
- Morgan Stanley 5.8
- Wyoming Retirement 5.8
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber 5.7
- Source: Pensions & Investments, as of Sept 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment