The real reason hedge funds are shutting down

By Dominic Frisby Sep 10, 2008

Dominic Frisby

Print this article

Closing down sale

Hedge funds closing may be down to how managers are paid

This has been a bad year for hedge funds. Many are facing huge redemptions, while others, such as Ospraie's flagship commodity fund last week, are simply shutting down.

You might think this is all down to the credit crunch or market volatility wiping these funds out, but that's not always the case. I want to take a look for a moment at the possible motives behind some of these closures.

They might not be as simple as they first appear…

The power of incentives in an organisation

Tim Harford's excellent The Undercover Economist looked in great detail at the power of incentives. If a society or an organisation gets its incentive structure right, its people can go on and achieve great things for themselves and for their organisation. If that incentive structure is wrong, people may act in self-interest, which is not always in the best interests of the greater good.

There are, according to economists, three types of incentive:

Financial – if you do this, I will pay you. If you do it well, I will pay you well.
Moral – You should do this because it is the right thing to do. If you do the right thing, you can expect a sense of self-esteem, and approval and admiration from your community. If you don't, you can expect a sense of guilt, and condemnation or even ostracism from your community.
Coercive – if you do this, physical force will be used against you; you may go to prison.

How the incentive structure works in hedge funds

Let's look at the (financial) incentive structure behind hedge funds. The strategies funds use vary hugely. Some may deal only in bonds, others in commodities; some may be long-only, while some special situations funds can do pretty much whatever they like.

But one similarity is in the way they charge. There will typically be a small annual management fee (1%-3% maybe) on top of which they take 20% of any profits – but only after making good any earlier losses. More highly regarded managers may charge a higher performance fee.

The idea behind this performance fee structure is that it rewards success, though it has been criticised for giving managers the incentive to take on higher risk and thus higher leverage than they otherwise would.

Enjoying this article? Sign up for our free daily email, Money Morning, to receive intelligent investment advice every weekday. Sign up to Money Morning.

But I think the phrase to look at in the current loss-making climate is, "after making good any earlier losses". What's called a 'high-water mark' is often applied to a performance fee calculation. If a fund launched at £100 and it goes to £150, the manager will receive 20% of that £50 profit - £10. But next year if that fund goes back to £125, no fee is payable.

If the following year the fund gets up to £135, still no fee is payable, despite the fund being up. If the next year, the fund goes up to £175, despite that being a phenonomenal performance by the manager, he will still only get 20% of the difference between £150 and £175. The manager has gone two years with no performance fee, then on the third year he only gets a fee of £5 on a £40 move.

Why we are going to see a wave of fund closures

In other words, if a hedge fund has a bad year or two, there is very little financial incentive – though there is some moral incentive - for the manager to keep the fund open. What makes far greater financial sense is to simply shut down a losing fund and start again with a clean slate.

There will be some funds who have been on the short side who will have done phenomenally well this past year, but, given that virtually every asset class is falling – even cash if measured against real inflation – and that these are tremendously difficult markets to make money in, it's likely that most funds will have had a poor last 18 months.

So why keep a fund open? Where's the incentive to do so? Why not just shut down and re-open in a few months or a year when the markets look like they might be turning? I'm not saying that was behind Ospraie's commodity fund's closure, but my prediction is that there will be many more of the like.

Despite the moral incentive to stay open, to the fury of investors, you are going to see a wave of closures. Some time later new funds will start opening. There'll be legal enquiries, no doubt, but they'll be overcome. The funds' real problem will be raising money, but no doubt the credit markets will have loosened by then.

Aim – a chance to have your say

Just before I go, some months back I had a go at Aim and its market-maker system. (See: What's wrong with AIM? ). It's another case of a poor incentive structure, I'm afraid. Well, it seems I've started some kind of revolution and some noble private investors have taken it upon themselves to hold an enormous poll about Aim and go to the London Stock Exchange (LSE) with the results.

Their incentive is both financial – as a better market will mean their investments will fare better – and moral, in that if they succeed they should be hailed as heroes by all investors! Vote and have your say -  I strongly urge you to do so.

You never know. The LSE might actually listen. After Monday's debacle, it's about time they did something right.

Our recommended article for today

Why you should put your money in wind – and where
Wind power, though controversial, is becoming mainstream. Oil magnate T Boone Pickens is spending $2bn on turbines. And there are plenty of companies that are likely to do well from the burgeoning industry. Here are three to whet your appetite.

Published in Economics | More articles by Dominic Frisby

Related articles

FREE - MoneyWeek's daily investment emailJohn Stepek

Our free daily email, Money Morning, is an informative and enjoyable analysis of what's going on in the markets. Written by our Editor, John Stepek, and guest contributors.
Sign up FREE to Money Morning here.