In its just-released institutional investor survey, Infovest21 found that almost 60% of the respondents say hedge funds are a possible solution for their underfunding problem.
Lois Peltz, president of Infovest21, noted, “Institutional investors are primarily looking to hedge funds for non-correlated returns. Potential for higher returns, diversification, and downside protection were cited to a lesser extent.”
Other findings of the survey are:
Hedge funds are a mainstream investment
The average institution allocated 29.2% to hedge funds while funds of funds are allocated 11.4%. This represents a 2.3% increase for hedge funds but no change for funds of funds compared with 2009 levels.
Over the next 12 months, the institutions expect their allocations to increase to 35.5% for hedge funds and 16.2% for funds of funds.
Almost one-half of the respondents have been allocating to hedge funds for over ten years.
Over 40% of the respondents said they are using equities to fund hedge funds. Fixed income and cash were each cited by almost 30%.
Allocate most often to long/short equity and multi-strategy….more considerations being given to managed futures and distressed
Of the 23 strategies asked about, institutional investors allocated most frequently to equity long/short and multi-strategy. Respondents, however, had mixed views on multi-strategy funds with almost 40% saying their view was dependent on the asset allocator.
Country specific funds, activists, asset based lending and mortgage-backed securities are out-of-favor while managed futures and distressed are being considered for the first time by a large number of institutional investors.
Consultant’s specialty expertise
In selecting a consultant, almost two-thirds of the respondents said the primary selection factor was specialty expertise followed closely by experience.
Fraud remains major concern
Institutions’ largest concerns with hedge funds are fraud and then poor performance.
Fee pressure to continue
Downward pressure is likely to continue on hedge fund fee structures as almost 40% of the institutions said the management fee is too high while 30% said the incentive fee was too high.
Competitive products
If the institutional investor decided not to use hedge funds going forward, they would replace them most often with private equity. In descending order, hedge fund replication products, commodities, real estate and hedge fund indices were also cited.
Contact Infovest21 for the full survey results, general@infovest21.com or call 212-686-6440
Showing posts with label survey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label survey. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Infovest21 Survey: 60% of institutions surveyed see hedge funds as a possible solution to underfunding problems
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Infovest21 Sentiment Survey: Managers most positive about oil over next three months
Results of Infovest21 ’s quarterly sentiment indicator survey conclude that managers’ views on most markets are slightly positive over the next three months.
In one case, NYMEX Oil, 50% of managers felt the market would move up significantly. In twelve markets, the majority of the managers view the markets as moving up slightly while in one market, the majority of managers expect the market to be down slightly.
The twelve markets in which the majority of managers felt the markets would move up slightly, ranked by percent, are: Yen (72%), 30-Year Fixed Mortgage Rate (56%), Consumer Price Index (53%), Nikkei 225 Stock Average (50%), FTSE 100 Stock Average (44%), Comex Gold (39%), Pound (39%), Euro (38%), DJ Stoxx (33%), 10 Year Treasury (28%), S&P500 (28%) and Dow Jones Industrial Average (28%).
In the DJ Corporate Bond Index, over half of the managers felt the market would move down slightly over the next three months.
Geography and sectors
In ranking geographic market opportunities, 39% of the managers felt the US had the highest level of market opportunities followed by China as cited by 17% of the managers. Canada, Latin America and South America tied for third place at 11% each.
Within Asia, the managers ranked China, Hong Kong and then India as the top three locations with the most interest.
Looking at sectors, commodities, energy/basic materials, and technology garnered the most interest as cited by 28%, 22% and 17% of the managers respectively.
Full results appear in the current issue of Investor Focus.
In one case, NYMEX Oil, 50% of managers felt the market would move up significantly. In twelve markets, the majority of the managers view the markets as moving up slightly while in one market, the majority of managers expect the market to be down slightly.
The twelve markets in which the majority of managers felt the markets would move up slightly, ranked by percent, are: Yen (72%), 30-Year Fixed Mortgage Rate (56%), Consumer Price Index (53%), Nikkei 225 Stock Average (50%), FTSE 100 Stock Average (44%), Comex Gold (39%), Pound (39%), Euro (38%), DJ Stoxx (33%), 10 Year Treasury (28%), S&P500 (28%) and Dow Jones Industrial Average (28%).
In the DJ Corporate Bond Index, over half of the managers felt the market would move down slightly over the next three months.
Geography and sectors
In ranking geographic market opportunities, 39% of the managers felt the US had the highest level of market opportunities followed by China as cited by 17% of the managers. Canada, Latin America and South America tied for third place at 11% each.
Within Asia, the managers ranked China, Hong Kong and then India as the top three locations with the most interest.
Looking at sectors, commodities, energy/basic materials, and technology garnered the most interest as cited by 28%, 22% and 17% of the managers respectively.
Full results appear in the current issue of Investor Focus.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Infovest21 Investor Sentiment Survey: Investors “neutral” to “negative” on UCITS funds
Investors “neutral” to “negative” on UCITS funds
In Infovest21's just-released quarterly sentiment survey of investors, 30% of the investors said they are “somewhat negative” or “very negative” on UCITS funds compared with 15% who view them as “somewhat positive” or “very positive.” One-half of the sample said they were neutral on UCITS funds.
Lois Peltz, president of Infovest21, observed, "Those taking a neutral stances said they were taking a wait-and- see approach to see if UCITS performed, what jurisdictions adopt it or what the tracking error looks like through a market cycle. Criticism included more assets leading to more hot money, not all strategies being compatible with liquidity structures, not a proxy for due diligence, and the regulatory wrapper gives a false sense of security."
Investors most positive about global macro over the next three months and 12 months
Of the 22 strategies asked about, the majority of investors felt "neutral" about 13 over the next three months, "somewhat positive" about eight, and "somewhat negative" about one. In the prior quarter, investors were "somewhat positive" about 12 strategies and “neutral" about 8.
In eight strategies, the majority of investors felt "somewhat positive." In rank order, these are: global macro (90)%, event driven/special situations (65%), distressed (55%), foreign exchange (50%), multi-strategy (50%), merger arbitrage (45%), mortgage backed (45%), and volatility arbitrage (40%).
In 13 strategies, the majority of investors felt "neutral." In order, these are: convertible arbitrage (60%), energy (60%), ETFs (60%), activists (55%), sector (55%), market neutral (50%), asset based lending (45%), emerging markets (45%), equity long/short (45%), managed futures (45%), short biased (40%), statistical arbitrage (35%), and fixed income arbitrage (35%).
In only one strategy, PIPES, did the majority of investors (55%) feel "somewhat negative."
Looking out over the next 12 months, investor sentiment becomes more positive. In no market did the majority of investors feel "very positive"
while in 11 markets, the majority of investors felt "somewhat positive" and in 10 markets, the majority of investors felt "neutral." In one market, the majority of investors were "somewhat negative." Last quarter, none of the investors felt “very positive” about any market over the next 12 months, the majority of investor felt “somewhat positive” in 13, “neutral” in 10 and “negative” about two.
The majority of investors were "somewhat positive" in global macro (88%), event driven/special situations (76%), distressed (59%),
multi-strategy (59%), energy (53%), emerging markets (47%), foreign exchange (47%), managed futures (47%), merger arbitrage (47%), equity long/short (41%) and volatility arbitrage (41%).
The majority of investors were “neutral” about market neutral (71%), convertible arbitrage (65%), activists (62%), ETFs (59%), mortgage backed (59%),
statistical arbitrage (53%), short biased (47%), and sector (47%).
In one market - PIPES - the majority of investors (59%) felt "somewhat negative."
Methodology: Infovest21 conducts this survey on a quarterly basis. This quarter, one-half of the investors responding were funds of funds while 25% were family offices and another 25% were consultants and pensions.
In Infovest21's just-released quarterly sentiment survey of investors, 30% of the investors said they are “somewhat negative” or “very negative” on UCITS funds compared with 15% who view them as “somewhat positive” or “very positive.” One-half of the sample said they were neutral on UCITS funds.
Lois Peltz, president of Infovest21, observed, "Those taking a neutral stances said they were taking a wait-and- see approach to see if UCITS performed, what jurisdictions adopt it or what the tracking error looks like through a market cycle. Criticism included more assets leading to more hot money, not all strategies being compatible with liquidity structures, not a proxy for due diligence, and the regulatory wrapper gives a false sense of security."
Investors most positive about global macro over the next three months and 12 months
Of the 22 strategies asked about, the majority of investors felt "neutral" about 13 over the next three months, "somewhat positive" about eight, and "somewhat negative" about one. In the prior quarter, investors were "somewhat positive" about 12 strategies and “neutral" about 8.
In eight strategies, the majority of investors felt "somewhat positive." In rank order, these are: global macro (90)%, event driven/special situations (65%), distressed (55%), foreign exchange (50%), multi-strategy (50%), merger arbitrage (45%), mortgage backed (45%), and volatility arbitrage (40%).
In 13 strategies, the majority of investors felt "neutral." In order, these are: convertible arbitrage (60%), energy (60%), ETFs (60%), activists (55%), sector (55%), market neutral (50%), asset based lending (45%), emerging markets (45%), equity long/short (45%), managed futures (45%), short biased (40%), statistical arbitrage (35%), and fixed income arbitrage (35%).
In only one strategy, PIPES, did the majority of investors (55%) feel "somewhat negative."
Looking out over the next 12 months, investor sentiment becomes more positive. In no market did the majority of investors feel "very positive"
while in 11 markets, the majority of investors felt "somewhat positive" and in 10 markets, the majority of investors felt "neutral." In one market, the majority of investors were "somewhat negative." Last quarter, none of the investors felt “very positive” about any market over the next 12 months, the majority of investor felt “somewhat positive” in 13, “neutral” in 10 and “negative” about two.
The majority of investors were "somewhat positive" in global macro (88%), event driven/special situations (76%), distressed (59%),
multi-strategy (59%), energy (53%), emerging markets (47%), foreign exchange (47%), managed futures (47%), merger arbitrage (47%), equity long/short (41%) and volatility arbitrage (41%).
The majority of investors were “neutral” about market neutral (71%), convertible arbitrage (65%), activists (62%), ETFs (59%), mortgage backed (59%),
statistical arbitrage (53%), short biased (47%), and sector (47%).
In one market - PIPES - the majority of investors (59%) felt "somewhat negative."
Methodology: Infovest21 conducts this survey on a quarterly basis. This quarter, one-half of the investors responding were funds of funds while 25% were family offices and another 25% were consultants and pensions.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Infovest21 White Paper: Institutional Investors Enter Next Phase in Hedge Fund Investing
Institutions want the highest and most timely disclosure of information from hedge funds as seen by their move toward customized vehicles and managed accounts.
They have raised the bar in areas such as liquidity and transparency. Institutions generally want greater liquidity from their hedge fund managers i.e. funds with shorter lock-up periods. They generally prefer conservative strategies and reduced leverage. As a result, they are searching for hedge funds which can produce lower annualized returns than requested before e.g. 6-7%.
Institutional investors are increasingly differentiating alternative investments by liquidity and risk.
Rather than separating hedge funds out as a separate asset class, some industry experts expect pension funds to use hedge fund managers within their existing equity and fixed income buckets as a best-of-breed solution.
They want fees based on long term rather than short term performance.
Fall-out from 2008 financial crisis
The global financial crisis of 2008 resulted in some institutions putting their hedge fund allocation plans on hold while others re-evaluated their portfolios and asset allocation. Pension & Investments estimated institutional inflows into hedge funds in 2009 were $21.51 billion, down 49% from 2008 and down 68% from 2007. It was not until the fourth quarter of 2009 that inflows started and were estimated at $12.4 billion.
Hedge Fund Asset Flows P&I
($B)
Q1 2009 3.8
Q2 2009 4.5
Q3 2009 0.8
Q4 2009 12.4
Source: Pensions & Investments
Despite disappointing hedge fund performance in 2008, the Madoff Ponzi scheme and other scandals, gates and related illiquidity issues, institutional investors continue to find hedge funds attractive – realizing they performed better than most other investments during 2008.
According to Russell Global Survey, the average institutional allocation to hedge funds was 4.2% in 2009 and is expected to increase to 5.7% by 2012.
Recent activity
In the past year, several institutions made their first foray into hedge funds, such as California State Teachers Retirement, Denver Employees Retirement Fund, Florida State Board of Administration, Kentucky Retirement System, State of Wisconsin Investment Board, Employees’ Retirement System of Texas and Vermont Pensions. In Europe, Ireland’s National Pension Reserve is on brink of making its first allocation.
Other institutions have increased their allocations such as Arizona Public Safety, Chicago Teachers Pension Fund, Illinois Teachers Retirement, Iowa Public Employees, Kern County Employees Retirement, New Hampshire Retirement, New York State Common Retirement Fund, Ohio School Employees Retirement System and West Virginia Investment Board. In Europe and UK, British Telecom, APK, ATP, Clywyd Pension Fund, UK Universities Superannuation Scheme and West Midlands are among those increasing hedge fund allocations.
RFPs and searches are out (or expected soon) for Chicago Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, Connecticut Investment Council, Los Angeles Police & Fire, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, San Antonio Fire & Police, San Bernardino County, Santa Barbara County, and Texas Permanent School Fund. In Europe, searches are on for AP1, Fife Council, Lincolnshire Pension and Waltham Forest.
Some institutions, despite filing lawsuits in connection with hedge funds e.g. Amaranth’s collapse, Madoff-related cases or WG-related cases, continue to allocate to hedge funds. Two examples are Iowa Public Employees Retirement System and San Diego County Employees Retirement Association.
Momentum grows toward direct investing
Another trend is institutions allocating directly to hedge funds rather than take the funds of funds route. Relatively poor fund of funds performance in 2008 and 2009, Madoff and other Ponzi schemes, the pressure for lower fees, institutions and their consultants acquiring more knowledge and expertise on hedge funds as well as some hedge funds becoming more institutional in nature have encouraged some institutions to invest directly with hedge funds. Recent examples include Boeing, South Carolina Retirement System and Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn.
Yet some pensions are searching for funds of funds e.g. Ohio Public Employment Retirement System, Croyden and Lincolnshire Pension. Some institutions continue with the core-satellite approach where the core allocation is to a fund of funds supplemented by a number of single strategy funds.
Growth potential
Whereas public pension funds comprise a larger number investing in hedge funds, the largest growth potential is with private corporate plans. The private sector started investing later than public pensions and endowments. Recent activity shows select corporate pensions are starting to make large allocations to hedge funds.
In the endowment space, growth is limited with the larger endowments as they were early and heavy adopters of hedge funds. The main opportunity is a new manager replacing an existing manager or with smaller endowments increasing their allocations. Following the 2008 financial crisis, endowments are no longer copying the Harvard and Yale models but reassessing what is best for their specific needs.
Outside the US
It appears that European institutions have terminated or reduced hedge fund allocations more than their US counterparts. Lack of diversification, lack of transparency during the financial crisis as well as poor performance during 2008 are often-cited reasons. Some institutions in this category are Unipension (Denmark), VER (Finland), Ilmarinen Mutual Insurance (Finland), TNO (The Netherlands), Nedlloyd Pension (The Netherlands), AP2 (Sweden), BLVK (Switzerland), Luzern Pension (Switzerland) and Tate Gallery (UK).
Nevertheless, European pension plans as a whole are still looking to increase their exposure to hedge funds/funds of funds. According to an IPE survey, the average European institution has about 2.3% of its portfolio in hedge funds. Swiss pensions have the highest average allocation at about 6%. While most European institutions have increased their allocations, Italy was the exception and almost halved it.
Japanese pension funds have become more cautious of hedge funds. Estimates are that hedge funds account for 7-9% of Japanese pensions; a 2% reduction occurred in the past year. Hedge funds’ role seems to be changing from a fixed income substitute to a middle-risk type asset. Japanese pension fund preference is for low risk and transparent products.
Other trends
Other interesting trends include more focus on due diligence. While the weighting of the various attributes varies among investors, focus is increased on operational due diligence and risk management policies, notes Don Steinbrugge of Agecroft Partners.
Lois Peltz Lois Peltz, president of Infovest21, observes, “Some institutions are taking a more active role in seeding hedge fund managers because they hope the best hedge fund managers will spin out as bigger independent firms. The rationale is that by getting involved early on with a hedge fund manager, the institutional investor has more control over its assets and can better control its investment cost. It creates the possibility of locking in and aligning interests early on with top teams without paying high compensation costs.”
The above information is an excerpt from Infovest21’s just-released Institutional Interest/Allocation in Hedge Funds, an annual white paper examining trends on a global basis. The white paper looks at recent hedge fund interest and activity by pensions, endowments, sovereign wealth funds. Commentary is also provided on consultants, corporate pensions and insurance companies. For each institution, summary highlights of recent activity are provided as well as plans for moving ahead.
Institutional activity is examined in North America, Europe, UK, Japan and Australia. Special emphasis is place on the largest allocators i.e. those allocating $1 billion or more to hedge funds, as well as the next tier i.e. those allocating between $500 million and $999 million. A survey is also provided of smaller institutions making allocations as well as those issuing RFPs or conducting a search. Those institutions deciding not to allocate or who have reduced their hedge fund allocation are also listed.
They have raised the bar in areas such as liquidity and transparency. Institutions generally want greater liquidity from their hedge fund managers i.e. funds with shorter lock-up periods. They generally prefer conservative strategies and reduced leverage. As a result, they are searching for hedge funds which can produce lower annualized returns than requested before e.g. 6-7%.
Institutional investors are increasingly differentiating alternative investments by liquidity and risk.
Rather than separating hedge funds out as a separate asset class, some industry experts expect pension funds to use hedge fund managers within their existing equity and fixed income buckets as a best-of-breed solution.
They want fees based on long term rather than short term performance.
Fall-out from 2008 financial crisis
The global financial crisis of 2008 resulted in some institutions putting their hedge fund allocation plans on hold while others re-evaluated their portfolios and asset allocation. Pension & Investments estimated institutional inflows into hedge funds in 2009 were $21.51 billion, down 49% from 2008 and down 68% from 2007. It was not until the fourth quarter of 2009 that inflows started and were estimated at $12.4 billion.
Hedge Fund Asset Flows P&I
($B)
Q1 2009 3.8
Q2 2009 4.5
Q3 2009 0.8
Q4 2009 12.4
Source: Pensions & Investments
Despite disappointing hedge fund performance in 2008, the Madoff Ponzi scheme and other scandals, gates and related illiquidity issues, institutional investors continue to find hedge funds attractive – realizing they performed better than most other investments during 2008.
According to Russell Global Survey, the average institutional allocation to hedge funds was 4.2% in 2009 and is expected to increase to 5.7% by 2012.
Recent activity
In the past year, several institutions made their first foray into hedge funds, such as California State Teachers Retirement, Denver Employees Retirement Fund, Florida State Board of Administration, Kentucky Retirement System, State of Wisconsin Investment Board, Employees’ Retirement System of Texas and Vermont Pensions. In Europe, Ireland’s National Pension Reserve is on brink of making its first allocation.
Other institutions have increased their allocations such as Arizona Public Safety, Chicago Teachers Pension Fund, Illinois Teachers Retirement, Iowa Public Employees, Kern County Employees Retirement, New Hampshire Retirement, New York State Common Retirement Fund, Ohio School Employees Retirement System and West Virginia Investment Board. In Europe and UK, British Telecom, APK, ATP, Clywyd Pension Fund, UK Universities Superannuation Scheme and West Midlands are among those increasing hedge fund allocations.
RFPs and searches are out (or expected soon) for Chicago Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, Connecticut Investment Council, Los Angeles Police & Fire, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, San Antonio Fire & Police, San Bernardino County, Santa Barbara County, and Texas Permanent School Fund. In Europe, searches are on for AP1, Fife Council, Lincolnshire Pension and Waltham Forest.
Some institutions, despite filing lawsuits in connection with hedge funds e.g. Amaranth’s collapse, Madoff-related cases or WG-related cases, continue to allocate to hedge funds. Two examples are Iowa Public Employees Retirement System and San Diego County Employees Retirement Association.
Momentum grows toward direct investing
Another trend is institutions allocating directly to hedge funds rather than take the funds of funds route. Relatively poor fund of funds performance in 2008 and 2009, Madoff and other Ponzi schemes, the pressure for lower fees, institutions and their consultants acquiring more knowledge and expertise on hedge funds as well as some hedge funds becoming more institutional in nature have encouraged some institutions to invest directly with hedge funds. Recent examples include Boeing, South Carolina Retirement System and Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn.
Yet some pensions are searching for funds of funds e.g. Ohio Public Employment Retirement System, Croyden and Lincolnshire Pension. Some institutions continue with the core-satellite approach where the core allocation is to a fund of funds supplemented by a number of single strategy funds.
Growth potential
Whereas public pension funds comprise a larger number investing in hedge funds, the largest growth potential is with private corporate plans. The private sector started investing later than public pensions and endowments. Recent activity shows select corporate pensions are starting to make large allocations to hedge funds.
In the endowment space, growth is limited with the larger endowments as they were early and heavy adopters of hedge funds. The main opportunity is a new manager replacing an existing manager or with smaller endowments increasing their allocations. Following the 2008 financial crisis, endowments are no longer copying the Harvard and Yale models but reassessing what is best for their specific needs.
Outside the US
It appears that European institutions have terminated or reduced hedge fund allocations more than their US counterparts. Lack of diversification, lack of transparency during the financial crisis as well as poor performance during 2008 are often-cited reasons. Some institutions in this category are Unipension (Denmark), VER (Finland), Ilmarinen Mutual Insurance (Finland), TNO (The Netherlands), Nedlloyd Pension (The Netherlands), AP2 (Sweden), BLVK (Switzerland), Luzern Pension (Switzerland) and Tate Gallery (UK).
Nevertheless, European pension plans as a whole are still looking to increase their exposure to hedge funds/funds of funds. According to an IPE survey, the average European institution has about 2.3% of its portfolio in hedge funds. Swiss pensions have the highest average allocation at about 6%. While most European institutions have increased their allocations, Italy was the exception and almost halved it.
Japanese pension funds have become more cautious of hedge funds. Estimates are that hedge funds account for 7-9% of Japanese pensions; a 2% reduction occurred in the past year. Hedge funds’ role seems to be changing from a fixed income substitute to a middle-risk type asset. Japanese pension fund preference is for low risk and transparent products.
Other trends
Other interesting trends include more focus on due diligence. While the weighting of the various attributes varies among investors, focus is increased on operational due diligence and risk management policies, notes Don Steinbrugge of Agecroft Partners.
Lois Peltz Lois Peltz, president of Infovest21, observes, “Some institutions are taking a more active role in seeding hedge fund managers because they hope the best hedge fund managers will spin out as bigger independent firms. The rationale is that by getting involved early on with a hedge fund manager, the institutional investor has more control over its assets and can better control its investment cost. It creates the possibility of locking in and aligning interests early on with top teams without paying high compensation costs.”
The above information is an excerpt from Infovest21’s just-released Institutional Interest/Allocation in Hedge Funds, an annual white paper examining trends on a global basis. The white paper looks at recent hedge fund interest and activity by pensions, endowments, sovereign wealth funds. Commentary is also provided on consultants, corporate pensions and insurance companies. For each institution, summary highlights of recent activity are provided as well as plans for moving ahead.
Institutional activity is examined in North America, Europe, UK, Japan and Australia. Special emphasis is place on the largest allocators i.e. those allocating $1 billion or more to hedge funds, as well as the next tier i.e. those allocating between $500 million and $999 million. A survey is also provided of smaller institutions making allocations as well as those issuing RFPs or conducting a search. Those institutions deciding not to allocate or who have reduced their hedge fund allocation are also listed.
Infovest21 Investor Focus: The Value-Added of a Fund of Funds
The financial crisis of 2008, the Madoff Ponzi scheme and other similar frauds, relatively disappointing returns in 2008 and 2009, liquidity mismatch, the pressure on fees, lack of transparency, the growing knowledge and experience of pensions and consultants with hedge fund, as well as increasing institutional requirements for control and transparency have taken a toll on institutional usage of funds of funds.
Various surveys provide statistics showing pensions taking a more direct investing approach to hedge funds rather than the funds of funds route especially those that have in-house capability to select hedge fund managers.
A recent Preqin survey found that of the institutional investors they surveyed, most have been investing since 2001. When these institutions first made their hedge fund investment, 64% selected fund of funds, 24% used a combination of funds of funds and single managers while only 12% allocated to single managers. Today, the survey found 31% of respondents invest directly with single managers, 34% use a combination of single managers and funds of funds, and 35% are now solely invested in funds of funds.
Another example: Towers Watson said it did nine searches for funds of funds in 2009, down about 80% from 43 searches in 2008.
Asset flows
HFR said funds of funds lost $187 billion in assets from the first of 2008 through mid 2010. In the second quarter of 2010, funds of funds had a $2 billion outflow. Only 31% of funds of funds experienced inflows compared with 59% of all single manager funds in the first quarter of 2010. In this same time frame, hedge funds had inflows of $9.5 billion.
Lois Peltz, president of Infovest21, says, “Another way to look at the situation is to determine the percentage of the industry assets funds of funds represent compared with the total hedge fund industry. In 2010, funds of funds represent about 34% of the industry, down from 59.3% in 2005 and 54.5% in 2006. However, funds of funds had been as low as 18.3% of industry assets in 1999 and as high as 78.8% in 1992.”
Increasingly sophisticated investors are asking funds of funds about the value added they provide i.e. what are they doing to justify their fees. Access to top managers means less than it used to as a number of top managers opened up in the past few years to replenish their assets.
Avoiding manager mistakes, providing strong liquidity management, providing specialist or niche products are some of the ways funds of funds are adding value today. Some are moving more assets toward managed accounts so they can provide more transparency, liquidity and control to the investor. Other large funds of funds are going one step further and providing active management.
Excerpt from Infovest21's June issue of Investor Focus.
Various surveys provide statistics showing pensions taking a more direct investing approach to hedge funds rather than the funds of funds route especially those that have in-house capability to select hedge fund managers.
A recent Preqin survey found that of the institutional investors they surveyed, most have been investing since 2001. When these institutions first made their hedge fund investment, 64% selected fund of funds, 24% used a combination of funds of funds and single managers while only 12% allocated to single managers. Today, the survey found 31% of respondents invest directly with single managers, 34% use a combination of single managers and funds of funds, and 35% are now solely invested in funds of funds.
Another example: Towers Watson said it did nine searches for funds of funds in 2009, down about 80% from 43 searches in 2008.
Asset flows
HFR said funds of funds lost $187 billion in assets from the first of 2008 through mid 2010. In the second quarter of 2010, funds of funds had a $2 billion outflow. Only 31% of funds of funds experienced inflows compared with 59% of all single manager funds in the first quarter of 2010. In this same time frame, hedge funds had inflows of $9.5 billion.
Lois Peltz, president of Infovest21, says, “Another way to look at the situation is to determine the percentage of the industry assets funds of funds represent compared with the total hedge fund industry. In 2010, funds of funds represent about 34% of the industry, down from 59.3% in 2005 and 54.5% in 2006. However, funds of funds had been as low as 18.3% of industry assets in 1999 and as high as 78.8% in 1992.”
Increasingly sophisticated investors are asking funds of funds about the value added they provide i.e. what are they doing to justify their fees. Access to top managers means less than it used to as a number of top managers opened up in the past few years to replenish their assets.
Avoiding manager mistakes, providing strong liquidity management, providing specialist or niche products are some of the ways funds of funds are adding value today. Some are moving more assets toward managed accounts so they can provide more transparency, liquidity and control to the investor. Other large funds of funds are going one step further and providing active management.
Excerpt from Infovest21's June issue of Investor Focus.
Infovest21 Marketers: Less optimistic on hedge fund industry. Global macro reclaims top spot.
In Infovest21's just-released marketer sentiment survey, one-half of the hedge fund marketers surveyed are "somewhat optimistic" for the hedge fund/funds of industry for the next 12 months compared with last quarter when 73% were “somewhat optimistic. In the first quarter of 2010, 90% were "somewhat optimistic." None of the marketers are "very optimistic" for the industry compared with 27% last quarter and 10% in the first quarter of 2010.
Only 12% of the marketers rate the current flow of institutional assets into hedge funds as "somewhat strong" compared with last quarter when two-thirds had that sentiment. 38% of the marketers said institutional flows were “neutral” this quarter while another 38% said it was “somewhat weak.” Last quarter, 18% of the marketers said institutional asset flow was neutral and 9% said it was “somewhat weak.”
When asked about UCITS, over 60% of the marketers said the structure has problems and not the panacea that a lot of people think it is. One-quarter of the marketers felt UCITS are a good vehicle that helps broaden the investor base. The remainder felt the structure was not applicable to US managers.
When asked about managed accounts, one-half said they are “somewhat important” in investor selection of managers while another 12% said they were “very important.” Almost 40% of the marketers said they were of “neutral importance.”
Strategies of interest
With 1 representing the highest ranking and 15 the lowest, global macro reclaimed the top spot with a score of 3.0 as long/short fell to fourth spot with a score of 4.2
Lois Peltz
, president of Infovest21, observed, "Strategies having a higher score this quarter i.e. attracting more investor interest were multi-strategy, fixed income arbitrage and convertible arbitrage. Meanwhile, long/short equity, emerging markets, statistical arbitrage, merger arbitrage, asset based lending, short biased and activist managers had lower scores this quarter. Scores for global macro, managed futures, market neutral, distressed and energy were about unchanged from last quarter. Activist was the lowest ranked strategy - a spot previously held by short-biased funds."
Strategy Score
Global macro 3.0
Multi-strategy 3.2
Fixed income arbitrage 4.0
Long/short 4.2
Managed futures 4.4
Market neutral 5.0
Distressed 5.4
Energy 6.0
Emerging markets 6.2
Convertible arbitrage 7.0
Statistical arbitrage 8.5
Merger arbitrage 9.0
Asset based lending 9.6
Short biased 13.75
Activist 14.25
The quarterly marketer sentiment survey, which appears in the June issue of Investor Focus, also includes marketers' views on specific investor categories such as:
➢ return expectations
➢ concerns
➢ geographic interest
Only 12% of the marketers rate the current flow of institutional assets into hedge funds as "somewhat strong" compared with last quarter when two-thirds had that sentiment. 38% of the marketers said institutional flows were “neutral” this quarter while another 38% said it was “somewhat weak.” Last quarter, 18% of the marketers said institutional asset flow was neutral and 9% said it was “somewhat weak.”
When asked about UCITS, over 60% of the marketers said the structure has problems and not the panacea that a lot of people think it is. One-quarter of the marketers felt UCITS are a good vehicle that helps broaden the investor base. The remainder felt the structure was not applicable to US managers.
When asked about managed accounts, one-half said they are “somewhat important” in investor selection of managers while another 12% said they were “very important.” Almost 40% of the marketers said they were of “neutral importance.”
Strategies of interest
With 1 representing the highest ranking and 15 the lowest, global macro reclaimed the top spot with a score of 3.0 as long/short fell to fourth spot with a score of 4.2
Lois Peltz
, president of Infovest21, observed, "Strategies having a higher score this quarter i.e. attracting more investor interest were multi-strategy, fixed income arbitrage and convertible arbitrage. Meanwhile, long/short equity, emerging markets, statistical arbitrage, merger arbitrage, asset based lending, short biased and activist managers had lower scores this quarter. Scores for global macro, managed futures, market neutral, distressed and energy were about unchanged from last quarter. Activist was the lowest ranked strategy - a spot previously held by short-biased funds."
Strategy Score
Global macro 3.0
Multi-strategy 3.2
Fixed income arbitrage 4.0
Long/short 4.2
Managed futures 4.4
Market neutral 5.0
Distressed 5.4
Energy 6.0
Emerging markets 6.2
Convertible arbitrage 7.0
Statistical arbitrage 8.5
Merger arbitrage 9.0
Asset based lending 9.6
Short biased 13.75
Activist 14.25
The quarterly marketer sentiment survey, which appears in the June issue of Investor Focus, also includes marketers' views on specific investor categories such as:
➢ return expectations
➢ concerns
➢ geographic interest
Monday, July 12, 2010
Infovest21 Survey: 80% of family offices view hedge funds favorably
During May and June, Infovest21 interviewed 30 family offices to get their thoughts on hedge funds and funds of funds.
The survey provides a snapshot look at the typical family office organization in today's environment. We were particularly interested in how the events of 2008 may have impacted their views on hedge funds and funds of funds.
Lois Peltz, president of Infovest21, summarized some of the highlights:
Hedge Fund/Fund of Funds Allocations
➢ On average, the family offices allocated about 32% of their portfolio to hedge funds, up from 25% in 2009.
➢ The average allocation to funds of funds fell slightly to 8.98% in 2010 from 9.02% in 2009.
Views on Hedge Funds
➢ One-third of family offices surveyed viewed hedge funds "very favorably" while 47% viewed them "somewhat favorably." Meanwhile, 17% were neutral and 3% view hedge funds negatively.
➢ After the financial turmoil of 2008, almost 60% of the family offices found hedge funds more correlated to markets than they had previously thought.
➢ Family offices were evenly divided on hedge funds' main function. Almost one-quarter said hedge funds' main function was diversifying a traditional portfolio while the same percentage said hedge funds provide absolute returns. Another 20% said hedge funds provide uncorrelated returns to traditional investments.
Manager Selection
The three most important selection criteria cited in manager selection were performance, reputation and experience.
Asset size was not a criteria for over 40% of the family offices while 9% said it depended on the strategy.
Strategies Allocated To
Over 80% of the families allocate to equity long/short. Distressed, event driven and global macro were the most allocated to strategies.
Fees
The average fee structure paid to a hedge fund was 1.5% management fee and 18.3% incentive fee. To funds of funds, the average management fee was 1.2% and 9.2% incentive fee.
60% of the families said the fees were about the same as last year while 30% said they are paying a lower management fee and 30% said they are paying a lower incentive fee.
********
Excerpts from Infovest21's Family Office Survey: A Snapshot Look at Today's Family Office
Topics covered:
*Views on hedge funds/funds of funds
*Manager selection criteria
*Hedge fund/fund of funds allocations
*Strategies used
*Terms
*Use of managed accounts
*Concerns
*Comparison:Single family office vs multiple family
*Profile of respondents
*Assets under management
Approx 25 pages including graphs and tables. $500
The survey provides a snapshot look at the typical family office organization in today's environment. We were particularly interested in how the events of 2008 may have impacted their views on hedge funds and funds of funds.
Lois Peltz, president of Infovest21, summarized some of the highlights:
Hedge Fund/Fund of Funds Allocations
➢ On average, the family offices allocated about 32% of their portfolio to hedge funds, up from 25% in 2009.
➢ The average allocation to funds of funds fell slightly to 8.98% in 2010 from 9.02% in 2009.
Views on Hedge Funds
➢ One-third of family offices surveyed viewed hedge funds "very favorably" while 47% viewed them "somewhat favorably." Meanwhile, 17% were neutral and 3% view hedge funds negatively.
➢ After the financial turmoil of 2008, almost 60% of the family offices found hedge funds more correlated to markets than they had previously thought.
➢ Family offices were evenly divided on hedge funds' main function. Almost one-quarter said hedge funds' main function was diversifying a traditional portfolio while the same percentage said hedge funds provide absolute returns. Another 20% said hedge funds provide uncorrelated returns to traditional investments.
Manager Selection
The three most important selection criteria cited in manager selection were performance, reputation and experience.
Asset size was not a criteria for over 40% of the family offices while 9% said it depended on the strategy.
Strategies Allocated To
Over 80% of the families allocate to equity long/short. Distressed, event driven and global macro were the most allocated to strategies.
Fees
The average fee structure paid to a hedge fund was 1.5% management fee and 18.3% incentive fee. To funds of funds, the average management fee was 1.2% and 9.2% incentive fee.
60% of the families said the fees were about the same as last year while 30% said they are paying a lower management fee and 30% said they are paying a lower incentive fee.
********
Excerpts from Infovest21's Family Office Survey: A Snapshot Look at Today's Family Office
Topics covered:
*Views on hedge funds/funds of funds
*Manager selection criteria
*Hedge fund/fund of funds allocations
*Strategies used
*Terms
*Use of managed accounts
*Concerns
*Comparison:Single family office vs multiple family
*Profile of respondents
*Assets under management
Approx 25 pages including graphs and tables. $500
Monday, June 14, 2010
Infovest21 Investor Sentiment Indicator: Funds of funds continue to lose appeal relative to direct investing
In Infovest21’s just-released quarterly sentiment survey of investors, 31% of the investors said they expect to increase their hedge fund allocation while decreasing their funds of funds allocation. 42% don’t expect any change. None expected to increase the funds of funds’ allocation while decreasing the hedge fund allocation.
These responses reflected a change from the prior quarterly survey when two-thirds of the investors said the expected no change and only 10% expected to increase their hedge fund allocations while decreasing that of funds of funds. At that time, 5% planned to increase their allocation to funds of funds.
Lois Peltz, president of Infovest21, summarized some of the other highlights of the survey:
44% of the investors feel managers have the upper hand in the relationship between investors and managers while only 19% feel an equal balance exists.
The largest percentage, 48%, said they do not plan to increase their hedge fund allocation over the next 12 months. Another 15% said they plan to increase allocations significantly and 19% plan to increase slightly.
This reflects a noticeable change from the prior quarterly survey where the largest percentage, 52%, said they planned to increase hedge fund allocations while one-third planned no change.
While most investors did not feel registration would affect their views or allocations of hedge funds, some interesting observations were made. For example
o Some strategies will be more impacted than others. Those which depend on leverage or riskier securities for return will be less attractive.
o Impact on funds of funds will not be as significant as with hedge funds.
o Smaller managers will be less impacted than larger managers as they will be regulated by states rather than the SEC.
o Some managers may decide to close their funds or partner up with larger organizations rather than register.
Of the various strategies, investors remain the most positive about event driven/special situation over the next three months - 27% of the investors are “very positive.” Event driven/special situations had the highest rank last quarter as well.
Of the 22 strategies asked about, the majority of investors felt “somewhat positive” about 12 over the next three months, “neutral” about 8, and “somewhat negative” or “very negative” in two. In the prior quarter, investors were “somewhat positive” about six strategies and “neutral” about 16.
Energy, distressed, event driven/special situations, global macro and multi-strategy were among those strategies investors were “somewhat positive” about.
More optimism on the investor front in the near-term
Of the various strategies, investors remain the most positive about event driven/special situation over the next three months - 27% of the investors are “very positive.” Event driven/special situations had the highest rank last quarter.
In 12 strategies, the majority of investors felt “somewhat positive” which is considerably more than the six strategies cited during the prior quarter. In rank order, these are: energy (62%), distressed (58%), event driven/special situations (50%), global macro (50%), multi-strategy (50%), volatility arbitrage (46%), merger arbitrage (42%), managed futures (42%), equity long/short (42%), emerging markets (42%), fixed income arbitrage (35%) and activists (33%).
In eight strategies, the majority of investors felt “neutral” compared with 17 strategies last quarter. In order, these are: sector (72%), ETFs (58%), convertible arbitrage (54%), mortgage backed (48%), short biased (42%), statistical arbitrage (42%), fixed income (42%) and market neutral (38%).
In two strategies, the majority of investors felt “somewhat negative” or “very negative.” 37% felt “somewhat negative” about asset based lending and 33% felt “very negative” about PIPES.
Methodology: Infovest21 conducts this survey on a quarterly basis.
This quarter, 30 investors responded. Of those, about 41% were funds of funds, 26% were family offices, 26% were consultants and 12% were pensions and endowments.
These responses reflected a change from the prior quarterly survey when two-thirds of the investors said the expected no change and only 10% expected to increase their hedge fund allocations while decreasing that of funds of funds. At that time, 5% planned to increase their allocation to funds of funds.
Lois Peltz, president of Infovest21, summarized some of the other highlights of the survey:
44% of the investors feel managers have the upper hand in the relationship between investors and managers while only 19% feel an equal balance exists.
The largest percentage, 48%, said they do not plan to increase their hedge fund allocation over the next 12 months. Another 15% said they plan to increase allocations significantly and 19% plan to increase slightly.
This reflects a noticeable change from the prior quarterly survey where the largest percentage, 52%, said they planned to increase hedge fund allocations while one-third planned no change.
While most investors did not feel registration would affect their views or allocations of hedge funds, some interesting observations were made. For example
o Some strategies will be more impacted than others. Those which depend on leverage or riskier securities for return will be less attractive.
o Impact on funds of funds will not be as significant as with hedge funds.
o Smaller managers will be less impacted than larger managers as they will be regulated by states rather than the SEC.
o Some managers may decide to close their funds or partner up with larger organizations rather than register.
Of the various strategies, investors remain the most positive about event driven/special situation over the next three months - 27% of the investors are “very positive.” Event driven/special situations had the highest rank last quarter as well.
Of the 22 strategies asked about, the majority of investors felt “somewhat positive” about 12 over the next three months, “neutral” about 8, and “somewhat negative” or “very negative” in two. In the prior quarter, investors were “somewhat positive” about six strategies and “neutral” about 16.
Energy, distressed, event driven/special situations, global macro and multi-strategy were among those strategies investors were “somewhat positive” about.
More optimism on the investor front in the near-term
Of the various strategies, investors remain the most positive about event driven/special situation over the next three months - 27% of the investors are “very positive.” Event driven/special situations had the highest rank last quarter.
In 12 strategies, the majority of investors felt “somewhat positive” which is considerably more than the six strategies cited during the prior quarter. In rank order, these are: energy (62%), distressed (58%), event driven/special situations (50%), global macro (50%), multi-strategy (50%), volatility arbitrage (46%), merger arbitrage (42%), managed futures (42%), equity long/short (42%), emerging markets (42%), fixed income arbitrage (35%) and activists (33%).
In eight strategies, the majority of investors felt “neutral” compared with 17 strategies last quarter. In order, these are: sector (72%), ETFs (58%), convertible arbitrage (54%), mortgage backed (48%), short biased (42%), statistical arbitrage (42%), fixed income (42%) and market neutral (38%).
In two strategies, the majority of investors felt “somewhat negative” or “very negative.” 37% felt “somewhat negative” about asset based lending and 33% felt “very negative” about PIPES.
Methodology: Infovest21 conducts this survey on a quarterly basis.
This quarter, 30 investors responded. Of those, about 41% were funds of funds, 26% were family offices, 26% were consultants and 12% were pensions and endowments.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Infovest21's Annual Hedge Fund Manager Compensation Survey
CEO and COO top compensation survey;Results mixed compared with last year
Infovest21 conducted its eighth annual executive compensation survey of hedge funds during September, October and November 2009. Separate surveys were conducted and results analyzed for those managers with assets over $1 billion and those with assets under $1 billion.
For the large (over $1 billion) managers, 21 executive and back office positions were included - Chief Executive Officer, Chief Investment Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Risk Officer, Director of Research, Portfolio Manager, Assistant Portfolio Manager, Senior Analyst, Mid-Level Analyst, Junior Analyst, General Counsel, Compliance Director, Director of Sales and Marketing, Director of Investor Relations, Client Services, Fund Accountant, Controller, Assistant Controller, Director of Operations and Operations/mid-office.
The results included data from 21 separate hedge fund management firms. In calculating the statistics throughout the survey, only those respondents who provided concrete compensation data with a dollar figure were included.
Total Compensation Due to the financial crisis and uncertainty at some firms, 2009 bonuses were not provided for a few of the positions examined. In those instances – Chief Investment Officer, Chief Risk Officer and Controller - where the sample size was too small, we could not calculate total compensation for 2009.
With that caveat, the top paid positions in 2009, based on the information provided, were Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer. Both positions had total compensation over $1 million.
Three positions have total compensation between $600,000 and $999,999. They were: Director of Sales and Marketing, General Counsel and Chief Financial Officer.
Twelve positions – Director of Research, Portfolio Manager, Compliance Director, Director of Operations, Senior Analyst, Assistant Portfolio Manager, Mid-Level Analyst, Junior Analyst, Director of Investor Relations, Client Services, Assistant Controller and Operations/Mid-Office – had total compensation of between $100,000 and $399,999.
Fund Accountant had a total compensation below $100,000.
Impacted by the financial crisis, the trend for compensation in 2009 was mixed compared with last year.
Generally, management positions were higher (e.g. Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer) but lower for most investment positions (e.g. Portfolio Manager, Assistant Portfolio Manager, Senior Analyst, Mid-Level Analyst, Junior Analyst, Director of Research.) Compensation was also lower for financial positions (e.g. Fund Accountant, Assistant Controller).
Sales and marketing positions were mixed – higher for Director of Sales and Marketing but lower for Client Services. Legal/compliance compensation positions were also mixed – higher for General Counsel but lower for Compliance Director.
Other highlights
In nine positions, the average bonus outweighs the average base salary. In rank order, these are: Chief Operating Office, Director of Sales and Marketing, General Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Executive Officer, Junior Analyst, Portfolio Manager, Chief Risk Officer and Director of Research.
35% of the managers surveyed said they did not change head count. While 35% increased head count another 30% lowered head count.
In 2009, asset flow and fund performance were cited by 47% and 44% respectively as the factors most affecting compensation.
Many variations on the bonus structure are cited. For those positions where the bonus was based on performance, some patterns were noticeable. For example, firm performance was the predominant factor for the majority of positions including: Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Senior Analyst, Mid Level Analyst, Director of Research, General Counsel, Compliance Director, Assistant Comptroller and Director of Operations.
A full copy of Infovest21\'s $1 billion+ hedge fund manager compensation report is available by calling Infovest21\ at (212) 686-6440 or emailing general@infovest21.com.
The full report details base salary, bonus and total compensation for 21 executive and back office positions. High, low, average and median are provided for each position. Manager profile and factors affecting hiring/compensation are also included. Report also assesses the impact of asset size on compensation results and compares 2009 results to those of 2008 as well as impact of high water mark on compensation results.
Separate compensation surveys are available for:
Hedge funds with assets above $1 billion
Hedge funds with assets below $1 billion
Funds of funds with assets above $1 billion
Funds of funds with assets below $1 billion
UK managers
Each report is $700. Volume discounts available for multiple purchases.
Infovest21 conducted its eighth annual executive compensation survey of hedge funds during September, October and November 2009. Separate surveys were conducted and results analyzed for those managers with assets over $1 billion and those with assets under $1 billion.
For the large (over $1 billion) managers, 21 executive and back office positions were included - Chief Executive Officer, Chief Investment Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Risk Officer, Director of Research, Portfolio Manager, Assistant Portfolio Manager, Senior Analyst, Mid-Level Analyst, Junior Analyst, General Counsel, Compliance Director, Director of Sales and Marketing, Director of Investor Relations, Client Services, Fund Accountant, Controller, Assistant Controller, Director of Operations and Operations/mid-office.
The results included data from 21 separate hedge fund management firms. In calculating the statistics throughout the survey, only those respondents who provided concrete compensation data with a dollar figure were included.
Total Compensation Due to the financial crisis and uncertainty at some firms, 2009 bonuses were not provided for a few of the positions examined. In those instances – Chief Investment Officer, Chief Risk Officer and Controller - where the sample size was too small, we could not calculate total compensation for 2009.
With that caveat, the top paid positions in 2009, based on the information provided, were Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer. Both positions had total compensation over $1 million.
Three positions have total compensation between $600,000 and $999,999. They were: Director of Sales and Marketing, General Counsel and Chief Financial Officer.
Twelve positions – Director of Research, Portfolio Manager, Compliance Director, Director of Operations, Senior Analyst, Assistant Portfolio Manager, Mid-Level Analyst, Junior Analyst, Director of Investor Relations, Client Services, Assistant Controller and Operations/Mid-Office – had total compensation of between $100,000 and $399,999.
Fund Accountant had a total compensation below $100,000.
Impacted by the financial crisis, the trend for compensation in 2009 was mixed compared with last year.
Generally, management positions were higher (e.g. Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer) but lower for most investment positions (e.g. Portfolio Manager, Assistant Portfolio Manager, Senior Analyst, Mid-Level Analyst, Junior Analyst, Director of Research.) Compensation was also lower for financial positions (e.g. Fund Accountant, Assistant Controller).
Sales and marketing positions were mixed – higher for Director of Sales and Marketing but lower for Client Services. Legal/compliance compensation positions were also mixed – higher for General Counsel but lower for Compliance Director.
Other highlights
In nine positions, the average bonus outweighs the average base salary. In rank order, these are: Chief Operating Office, Director of Sales and Marketing, General Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Executive Officer, Junior Analyst, Portfolio Manager, Chief Risk Officer and Director of Research.
35% of the managers surveyed said they did not change head count. While 35% increased head count another 30% lowered head count.
In 2009, asset flow and fund performance were cited by 47% and 44% respectively as the factors most affecting compensation.
Many variations on the bonus structure are cited. For those positions where the bonus was based on performance, some patterns were noticeable. For example, firm performance was the predominant factor for the majority of positions including: Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Senior Analyst, Mid Level Analyst, Director of Research, General Counsel, Compliance Director, Assistant Comptroller and Director of Operations.
A full copy of Infovest21\'s $1 billion+ hedge fund manager compensation report is available by calling Infovest21\ at (212) 686-6440 or emailing general@infovest21.com.
The full report details base salary, bonus and total compensation for 21 executive and back office positions. High, low, average and median are provided for each position. Manager profile and factors affecting hiring/compensation are also included. Report also assesses the impact of asset size on compensation results and compares 2009 results to those of 2008 as well as impact of high water mark on compensation results.
Separate compensation surveys are available for:
Hedge funds with assets above $1 billion
Hedge funds with assets below $1 billion
Funds of funds with assets above $1 billion
Funds of funds with assets below $1 billion
UK managers
Each report is $700. Volume discounts available for multiple purchases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)