Hedge Funds

Hedge Funds
A Collection Of Articles
Table Of Contents
16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge
Funds 5
Which Is A Better Investment Hedge Funds Vs Equity
Market 26
Drowning In Expenses Hedge Fund Startups 42
Illusory Chase For The Best Hedge Fund 55
Hedge Fund Terms Explained In English 64
Are Hedge Funds Risky 75
16 Questions To Test
What You Know About
Hedge Funds
Written By
Eng Guan Lim (E.G.)

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds
Ask anyone on the streets if they know what “hedge funds” are, and you will
most likely be greeted with a blank look. And if not, thanks to bad press, a range
of answers with often negative connotations. For example:
1. The name says it all. Well, they hedge.

2. It is a type of very risky investment. These guys are responsible for all, if not
most, of the market crashes.
3. I have seen them on news. They charge ridiculously exorbitant fees but yet
deliver mediocre results.
And the list goes on.
It might be instinctive, but as a professional in the industry, I see it as my duty to

educate and correct any misconceptions that anyone might have about the
work we do. Though I must admit that there are some facets of truth in these
replies.
As an example, many hedge funds do hedge, but some don’t. It is a matter of

what strategy they use. Depending on what type of risks you are looking at,
hedge funds may not be any riskier than your typical passive index funds or
buy-and-hold stock portfolio. In fact, some risks, such as market risks, can
actually be lower. As for fees, I would not deny that it is higher than most
traditional investments. There are many debates on this both for and against.
But ultimately, investors determine what they are willing to pay depending on the
value they perceived. What perhaps might be a surprise to some though, is that
despite performance trailing the markets in recent years, hedge funds actually
still outperform over the longer term (starting from the 90s).
I will leave these for now, each of which can be a lengthy topic by itself. For
now, let’s answer some basic questions.
1. Who founded the rst hedge fund?

Many people does not know the answer to this question, even for those who
work in this industry. Most just never bother to ask themselves this question
and I am one of those when I rst started my job. It is not a requirement to
know and neither is it something that ever pops up in the course of my work
while talking to colleagues or clients. At least, not that I remember. People tend
to talk more about the greats of their time – Paul Tudor Jones, George Soros,
Ray Dalio, Kenneth Gri n, Steve Cohen, Jim Simons, etc. But, still, I believe it is
good to know, especially for someone who works in this industry.
There are 2 persons who can claim credit to the founding of hedge funds. The
more well-known is an Australian named Alfred Winslow Jones, and the other,
an American called Karl G. Karsten. Interestingly, both of them were not nance
professionals to start with.
Karl G. Karsten
Karl G. Karsten was a statistician and economist. In the course of his research
work, he developed certain “barometers” to forecast business conditions. These
included measures on volume of trade, interest rates, wholesale price level,
building activity etc. In the 1930s, he applied these “barometers” to the stock
market by starting a private fund using his and his colleagues’ money. He set
the foundation then, perhaps for the rst statistical arbitrage fund, where he
bought a group of stocks that are predicted to do best and shorted another that
are predicted to do worst. According to records, his fund did very well. In less
than 6 months, it was up 78%, and it displayed desirable characteristics such as
the ability to make large gains while keeping losses low. It also exhibit a return
pro le that is independent of the market it trades. However, his sole objective is
to test out his theory. There was no intention on his part to ever evolve this into
a commercial for-pro t fund.
Alfred Winslow Jones

Alred Winslow Jones was born in Australian, but moved to the United States at
the age of 4. He is also acknowledged as the “father of the hedge fund
industry”. Prior to his involvement in hedge funds, he had worked as a diplomat
and journalist. He also subsequently earned a doctorate in sociology. So why
was he given this title? Because after that, he pioneered the rst commercial for
pro t hedge fund in 1949 with a signi cant amount of his own money using a
partnership structure. This partnership structure helped him circumvent the
restrictive Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations, allowing him
more exibility in his choice of investment strategies. He also took a 20% cut of
the pro ts on the fund and charged no fees if he did not make any money.
He based his strategy on 2 simple principles: (1) he believed he has superior

stock picking skills, (2) but he is unable to predict broad market directions. So
what he did is also similar to what Karl G. Karsten did, he bought stocks that he
thinks will do well, and shorted those that he thinks will do badly, albeit using
different proportions and means to select the stocks. The shorts are what
constitute the concept of a hedge and hence the name “hedge funds”. The net
result is a portfolio that was less sensitive to broad market movements and with
pro ts that were highly dependent on his ability to pick the right stocks. In
addition, he took on leverage to amplify his returns, by using the proceeds from
his short sales to increase the positions of the stocks he bought. What he did
then is still very much relevant today.
2. What are hedge funds?

This might disappoint you, but a simple de nition does not exist. You can easily
look up the websites like Investopedia or Wikipedia or read from books. Most
of the answers will be along lines that hedge funds are alternative investments,
pooled funds, lightly regulated, accessible only to accredited investors, pursue
aggressive strategies (e.g. shorting, concentrated bets, use of derivatives,
leverage etc), illiquid, and measured on absolute returns and so on. These are
all correct but rather restrictive de nitions.
You cannot rely on the literal meaning of “hedge” as well. Modern day hedge
funds, even though they are still called “hedge funds”, have evolved to do all
sorts of different things other than what Karl G. Karsten or Alfred Winslow
Jones started. The concept of a hedge may not be as strong, or even just
outright not applicable to some of these funds. Even the boundaries between
hedge and mutual funds are blurring. For example, long-short strategies use to
be associated only with hedge funds. Today, you can also nd special long-short
mutual funds such as the 130-30. On the regulation side, hedge funds, meeting
certain criteria, can also be offered to retail instead of only accredited investors.
So do not be too obsessed with nding a perfect de nition.
3. How much assets are held by Hedge Funds?

As at 1st quarter of 2018, the Assets Under Management (AUM) for hedge funds
stands close to USD 3 trillion. You can visit Barclayhedge.com to see the latest
information. The AUM has steadily increased from year 2000, only to suffer a
huge drop during the 2008 nancial crisis. But as of today. it has broken the
prior records.
4. What is the relationship between the Investment

Management Company (IMC) & Hedge Fund?
People often use certain terms of a hedge fund structure loosely in a casual
conversation. This can often lead to confusion later. For example, some refer
to the hedge fund and its investment management company interchangeably.
This is especially when their names bear close similarities, which is frequently
the case. For example, you can have ABC Capital Pte Ltd which manage ABC
long-short equity fund and ABC global macro fund.
The fund is a separate entity set up to hold money and make investments
according to the fund’s offering documents. The investment management
company (IMC) is a licensed entity that is appointed to manage the fund’s
investments. It does the research, makes the investment calls, size up the
positions, execute trades, monitor risks, does the marketing and handles
investor relations etc. In majority of the cases, this company is also the one that
sponsors and sets up the fund. The IMC, together with other service providers
engaged by the fund, carry out most of the work. Other than a board of
directors, the fund has no employees. Such an arrangement is not unique to
hedge funds. You will nd similarities within the more well-known mutual fund
industry.
The portfolio manager is the person in the IMC that manages investments for
the fund. This person can be an employee, but more often than not, he/she is
also a stakeholder in the IMC and has a personal investment in the hedge fund
itself.

5. Why do we need a separate fund entity? Why not just do

everything within the IMC?
The segregation of the fund from the IMC bene ts both the IMC and the
investors. In such an arrangement, investors can participate in the fund’s pro ts
without taking on business risks associated with the IMC. The fund pays a
management fee to the IMC but is not liable for expenses incurred by the IMC
such as o ce rental, computer infrastructure, utility, and manpower costs. If
the IMC were to go bust for whatever reason, creditors will also have no claim
over the investor’s assets in the fund, except for the IMC’s own investment in it,
if any. The IMC in turn gets full discretion over the management of the fund and
is able to fully concentrate on investment management to deliver on its returns.
If there is any perceived downside, it would be that investors in the funds have
no voting rights or say in the management of both the IMC and the funds. They
can, however, exit the fund by way of redemption according to the terms stated
in the offering documents.
6. What is a pooled investment and are there any

implications?
The concept is simple. Let’s say you are good at investing and would like to help
your family and close friends make some money. So you raise money from
them and put it all into a single broker account under your name to trade or
invest on their behalf. In this scenario, you might want to note that while the
broker holds the money, it does not how much belongs to who. As far as they
are concerned, it all belongs to you. Thus, the onus is going to fall on you, or
someone else that the people who parked their money with you can trust, to
maintain proper records of all the transactions and keep track of how much
each person holds in the account.
Sounds like common sense? Yes, that is the gist of it. But in an institutional
setting like hedge funds, you are not just going to be dealing with your family or
close friends who have absolute trust in you. You will need to have proper legal
structures and safeguards in place. For that purpose, most funds engage
external service providers such as fund administrators to perform this function.
This gives assurance that the IMC cannot freely manipulate the numbers.
There are bene ts to such a set up. A pooled arrangement provide investors,
even smaller ones, with economies of scale such as lower trade commissions,
lower borrowing costs, better broker services, ability to diversify more widely
across different assets, regions or strategies etc. It is also easier for the
portfolio managers operationally, since they just have to focus on managing a
single pool of money without concerns on con icts of interests.

7. Are there other alternative besides a pooled fund?

Some IMCs do offer what is often called managed accounts as an alternative to
a pooled structure. In that case, a separate hedge fund entity is not needed.
What are managed accounts?
Let me use back the previous example. So instead of pooling all the money into
an account under your name, you ask each one to open their own personal
broker account and fund it. After that, both parties will agree on terms like
performance targets, risks and compensation etc. Then your family and friends
will authorize you to trade on their broker accounts. Basically, that is it.
Hedge fund managed accounts operate in a similar way. This type of

arrangement is actually gaining favor among investors as there are various
advantages. It is gives psychological security since the money remains with the
investor. Investors have greater exibility and control to tailor the investment
solutions to their needs. They have full transparency on their account to know
what is happening to their funds. On top of that, large investors can often
negotiate better terms, e.g. lower fees, for themselves. However, managed
accounts can be operationally taxing for the IMC since they would have to juggle
con icts of interests, trading and record keeping among multiple accounts. In
addition, if the account is too small, it may not be feasible to implement certain
strategies. Hence, hedge fund managers usually require managed accounts to
be of a certain size before they think it is worth taking on.

8. Why is there an onshore and o shore version of the

same fund?
If you have followed news or readings on hedge funds, you will most certainly
come across funds that seem to have an onshore and offshore “version”. I was
ba ed too when I rst encounter these terms while trying to compile
performance data about a few hedge funds I was researching on. That was
more than a decade ago.
Onshore funds are domiciled in the local jurisdiction and offshore funds are
funds domiciled in other foreign jurisdictions. As it turns out, tax implications
are the impetus behind the use of an offshore fund which is typically
incorporated in a tax haven such as Cayman Islands. And do not be mistaken,
this is not some shady tax evasion plan. It is entirely legitimate and sensible.
These offshore fund caters to foreign investors and other tax-exempt entities so
that they will not be subject to any inadvertent tax from the local jurisdiction of
the onshore fund. For example, if you are a non-US investor and you invest in a
US onshore fund, you might nd yourself subject to certain US taxes such as
income tax if the fund engage in speci c activities, and estate tax upon death.
The solution to this is to park your money with the offshore fund instead. To
cater to global investors, many US funds adopt a master-feeder structure, with
an onshore US feeder fund for US investors, an offshore feeder fund for foreign
or tax exempt investors, and an offshore master fund. The 2 feeder funds will
invest everything into the offshore master fund. All investment activities are
carried out in the master fund.
9. Who can invest in hedge funds?

Hedge funds in most jurisdictions are lightly regulated. This frees them to
implement non-traditional strategies that would not have been possible, say, in a
mutual fund. But this exibility comes at a price. Most hedge funds are only
allowed to be marketed and sold to accredited investors.
Someone who is accredited is assumed to be sophisticated enough to

understand and undertake the risks involved. What does it take to be
“Accredited”? For individuals, the yardstick to qualify as one is rather super cial.
On most part, you just got to show that you are rich. How rich? That depends
on the regulations governing where the fund is offered. In the United States, you
would need a net worth of USD 1 million excluding the value of your primary
residence or have an annual income of USD 200,000 or more in the last 2 years.
In Singapore where I am, you will need to have a net personal assets of at least
SGD 2 million or have an income not less than SGD 300,000 in the preceding 12
months.
For institutions, licensed and regulated entities such as banks, fund of funds,
sovereign wealth funds, pensions or listed companies are all eligible as
investors. You can look up a compiled list of what it takes to be accredited in
different countries on Wikipedia.
10. What kind of strategies can hedge funds use?

Hedge funds can use non-traditional strategies to make money. This is in
contrast from most mutual funds that are mostly long-only. Long-only funds
can only pick and buy securities. Hedge funds can short-sell, trade on margin
(leverage), use derivatives, take on concentrated bets, buy and trade physicals
such as real estate/gold/oil and much more. This greatly widens their latitude to
make money in different market conditions, thereby producing a different return
pro le from mutual funds. This is their major selling point as another asset
class to own for diversi cation bene ts.
There are a whole multitude of different hedge fund strategies today ranging
from equity long-shorts, activists, sector specialist, distressed investing, event
driven, convertible arbitrage, merger arbitrage, global macro, multi-strategy,
volatility to fund of funds and more. A few can technically be classi ed under
the umbrella of a broader strategy. But do not be too xated on these strategies
as I will not be touching on them here. It is good enough to have a avour of
how diverse the hedge fund strategy landscape looks.
11. What are hedge fund’s benchmark and how does it

di er from mutual funds?
For mutual funds, it is more straightforward to see if the manager is adding any
value through his active management. Since their scope revolves very much
around their designated market, you can compare how the fund did against its
benchmark (usually some market or composite index). You can call this the
relative returns approach. A good active mutual fund will be able deliver stable
and consistent excess return (after fees and expenses) above their benchmark.
To achieve this, the mutual fund manager would have to be a star performer in
picking both good stocks to overweight and bad stocks to underweight. The
di culty to outperform the benchmark is compounded by fees which over time
can take a hefty chunk out of the returns. For the same reason, passive mutual
funds or index funds, which are simply set up to replicate a market index, will
always underperform its benchmark.
Hedge funds are measured based on absolute returns as opposed to relative

returns used by mutual funds. Absolute return is like a xed or range of target
returns which the hedge fund will aim to deliver regardless of market conditions.
Why adopt such a measure? First of all, a key motivation behind early and many
modern hedge funds stems from being independent of the market. Secondly, it
is di cult to set a meaningful benchmark for hedge funds. Even funds among
the same class of strategy can be radically different. For example, both a long-
volatility fund and a short volatility fund would be grouped as volatility funds and
perhaps be compared against a volatility hedge fund index. But because most
volatility hedge funds are short-volatility, the index will be heavily skewed
towards short-volatility. It would not then make much sense to compare a long-
volatility fund against it.
12. Do hedge funds really make money in all conditions

since they pursue absolute returns?
Personally, I do not fully agree with the de nition of hedge funds aiming to
deliver regardless of market conditions. Modern day hedge funds are much
more diverse and there are some with very speci c focus. For example, there
are long-only hedge funds and these funds are not immune when the bear hits.
There are also dedicated short-bias funds and long volatility funds that
specialize in being a hedge for tail events. These funds keep a slow-bleed on
most of the time since market is usually on an uptrend and volatility keeps
decaying over time.
You might be thinking who would want to run such a fund. Would anyone even
invest in them? The answer is yes. Because when the big crash comes along
and trounce most people out there, these guys jump through the roof and have
their last laugh. So they ll an important gap in the portfolio of large institutional
investors who allocate capital to these funds to get the protection they need
during bad times.
Hence, we should not take the de nition of absolute return as a one size ts all.
All strategies have will their own strengths and weaknesses. What is more
important is for the investor to do his/her own due diligence to understand and
nd out what each fund is made out to do before plunging in.
13. How transparent is a hedge fund?

Most hedge funds are shrouded in secrecy. In the rst place, they are not
allowed to market publicly so it is no wonder not much is known about them.
Unlike mutual funds which published a lot more information on their reports
such as country, sector, industry exposure and their largest holdings, hedge
funds are not required to do so. There are no governing standards on the
reporting format. What is reported will differ from fund to fund. But most
hedge fund reports will display basic metrics such as month-to-date return,
year-to-date return and a commentary. If investors require full transparency,
they are better off opting for a managed account if it is available.
14. How liquid are hedge funds?

Liquidity is how readily you can buy or sell something. For example, actively
traded large-cap stocks are highly liquid. You can buy or sell the stock in large
quantities during trading hours without materially impacting the price of the
stock. Mutual funds are also considered liquid investments since you can
subscribe or redeem from it on a daily basis. Hedge funds, however, are a lot
less liquid in comparison.
The liquidity terms among hedge funds can vary a great deal. It is really up to
the fund’s sponsor, usually the IMC, to de ne the terms in the offering
documents. To a large extent, it depends on the strategy of the fund. A short
term trading fund with holding period of days to weeks may provide monthly
liquidity or better, meaning you can subscribe or redeem every month. An
equity long-short fund that invests over a long term horizon may provide
quarterly or semi-annual liquidity, and quite often, also impose a lock-in period of
a year or more. Lock-in is a stipulated period where the investor is unable to
redeem (hard lock-in) or can redeem but with a penalty (soft lock-in). On the
other end of the spectrum, funds that deal with private equity or hard to liquidate
assets can lock your money in for as long as 5-10 years.
15. What are the fees and expenses associated with

investing in a hedge fund?
Let’s look at the more well-known and debated one rst – fees. Hedge funds
generally charge what is known as 2 and 20 in the industry. This means an
annual 2% management fee and 20% performance fee. These fees are paid to
the IMC. The 2% management fee is calculated and deducted monthly (pro-
rated). This is to pay the IMC for their investment management service. It goes
to cover running costs and salaries of the employees in the IMC. The
performance fee may follow a different schedule, say, quarterly, semi-annual or
annual. At the end of each scheduled period, if the fund’s value rises above the
previous high water mark (previous high made at the end of each scheduled
period), it takes a 20% cut of the pro ts. If the AUM of the hedge fund is large,
this payout can be substantial.
The fund also incur expenses which are deducted off directly from the fund.
These are not included in the fees. For example, the initial set up costs of the
fund is usually borne by the initial investors. The fund also pays a host of other
things such as fees to the fund administrator, fund auditor, fund legal counsel,
fund custodian, regulators, distributors as well as trading related costs such as
market data, broker commissions, etc. While these expenses can be material
for a starting hedge fund with little assets, it becomes a lot more manageable if
the fund size grows huge and it is spread out over more assets.
Overall, hedge fund fees and expenses are higher than mutual funds whose
expense ratio which can be as low as 0.25% (passive index funds) or more than
2% (active managed funds) and it covers pretty much everything. This glaring
difference pressured many hedge funds into lowering their fees especially with
increasing competition and lackluster performance in recent years.
16. Can I use hedge fund type strategies on my personal

trading account?
The answer is both yes and no. You can have the expertise but that is not all
there is to it. While some strategies like equity long/shorts can certainly be
replicated on smaller accounts, there are others that are simply out of reach for
the average person. As an example, a hedge fund that trades a diversi ed
portfolio of futures contracts such as e-mini S&P 500, Nikkei 225, 10 Yr
Treasuries Note require a certain size to implement (without taking ridiculously
high leverage) as each contract is currently valued at more than USD 100,000
each notionally. High frequency trading strategies are also beyond the means
of most people due to the high set up cost. Activists funds are also not for the
typical Joe, as it requires you to buy huge stakes into the company to steer and
in uence management decisions.
_____________________________________________
That’s all for now. Hope this gives you a better idea of what hedge funds are,
how and why they operate as they do, and some of their distinctive features.
Which Is A Better
Investment
Hedge Funds
Vs
Equity Market
Written By
Eng Guan Lim (E.G.)

Which Is A Better Investment - Hedge Funds Vs Equity Market
People like to compare. I guess it is just human nature. But many times, the
basis for comparison may not make a lot of sense. If you are a fund manager,
you might encounter people that frequently compare your fund against the
stock markets regardless of what the fund strategy is. For example, I will not be
surprised if an investment manager who runs a dedicated short bias fund
receive questions like “Why did your fund not make any money? This is one of
the best bull market in history!”; or a long-only manager getting quizzed on why
he failed to deliver a positive return during a huge market crash. On the positive
side, more often than not, this stems from a lack of understanding of the
product’s strategy rather than being unreasonable.
In this piece of writing, I am also doing a comparison. I will be pitting hedge

funds against the global equity markets. I will admit it is not really comparing
apple to apple. But you could see them in news every now and then anyway.
Hedge fund performance have, in particular, come under close scrutiny after the
subprime meltdown in 2008. Why? Because equity markets have steadily rose,
especially US, after rounds and rounds of global quantitative easing ushed the
system with cheap money. Hedge funds as a group, on the contrary, lagged far
behind during this period. Index fund proponents and hedge fund critics,
including renowned investor Warren Buffett, were quick to lambast the
industry’s poor performance, high fees and question its value.
But have hedge funds really lost its shine? Let’s look further.
Who Are The Participants?

Let me rst introduce our participants in this little study:
1. HFRI Fund Weighted Composite (HFRI FWI) – A USD-denominated index

net of expenses and fees, comprising of 1500 equal weighted hedge funds
(excluding Fund of Hedge Funds), each of which have at least USD 50
million assets under management (AUM) and 12 months track record.
2. HFRI Fund of Funds Composite (HFRI FOF) – A USD-denominated index
net of expenses and fees, comprising fund of hedge funds i.e. fund that
invests in multiple hedge fund managers for diversi cation. Criteria for
inclusion into the index is similar to the HFRI FWI. This index should be less
susceptible to certain biases that plagues the HFRI FWI, but of course there
are other tradeoffs which I will touch on later.
3. HFRI Equity Hedge (HFRI EHI)– A USD-denominated index net of expenses
and fees, comprising equity long short funds. Criteria for inclusion into the
index is similar to HFRI FWI. This index is probably the most similar to MSCI
World, asset class wise, as it derives its returns from equities.
4. MSCI World (MSCI WL) – A market cap weighted index that captures large
and mid-cap companies in 23 developed markets. I am using the USD
denominated value of the net index i.e. the index includes dividends less
taxes. Note that this is a passive equity index and hence no expenses or
fees are involved.
The data used are of monthly resolution as HFRI only provides monthly data.
Important Things To Note

I have said this earlier. This is not going to be an apple to apple comparison. But
as with many instances in life, unlike a highly controlled science experiment you
did back in school, you can never establish perfect comparisons. You will just
have to make do with what you have, but at the same time, be cognizant of
existing issues that may skew the ndings.
Here are some points to take note of:
1. Hedge fund indices suffer from numerous biases such as selection and
survivorship bias. It is not mandatory for a hedge fund to report
performance to any index providers. Thus, managers can opt to start
reporting only when they have good performance. This is a form of
selection bias. Fortunately, HFRI does not back ll the data of the new
manager into its index. It only starts including it henceforth, meaning only
future performance of the manager is taken into account.
Funds that have shuttered mostly due to performance reasons may also
stop reporting to the index provider way before the fund even close,
omitting a period of bad performance which would otherwise drag the
index down. This leaves only surviving funds, which tend to be the good
performers, thereby putting an upward bias on the index performance.
This is called survivorship bias. However, aside from poor performance,
there are also funds that did very well, but cease reporting because they are
no longer taking in money. So while the former produces an upward bias,
the latter creates a downward bias which reduces this effect.
To mitigate some of these biases, I included the HFRI fund of funds index.
All managers managed by the fund of funds will be accounted for in the
returns submitted to the index provider regardless of whether their
performance is good or bad. Individual managers would not have the
choice to opt out of reporting in this scenario. They are left out only when
they are no longer invested by the fund of funds. But of course, one can
argue that there are active selection by the fund of funds to pick good
managers and drop bad ones as well. The representation may also be less
comprehensive as fund of funds have a tendency to go for more
established managers. To top it off, they charged an additional layer of
fees complicating matters.
2. HFRI indices are equal weighted. The index is rebalanced annually and
equal weight is applied to all funds. That inherently suggest an active
mechanism where winners are sold and losers are bought to maintain the
weights. One can also contest that the results can be skewed upwards as
emerging managers, which receive the same weightage as established
managers, tend to deliver higher returns in the long term.
3. HFRI indices have no equivalent investable products. There are investable
products such as ETFs and index funds that are replicated after MSCI WL.
HFRI indices, however, have no such investable equivalents. Its underlying
funds are investable though. But it will take an enormous resource to
allocate capital to 1500 hedge funds. It is, at this moment, an index used
mostly for benchmarking and tracking broad hedge fund performance.
4. HFRI FWI and HFRI FOF are not pure equity indices. HFRI FWI and FOF
cuts across many asset classes, geographical regions, strategies and time
frames. MSCI WL, on the contrary, is a pure equity index. That is why I
included HFRI EHI, the equity hedged (long-short) index for hedge funds, in
our comparison.
5. Volatility is used as the risk measure here. Despite its prevalent use and
being adopted in modern portfolio theory by Harry Markowitz, volatility as a
proxy for risk has been controversial. Because, it does not measure how
much you can lose (in a more permanent sense), based on exposure to
some speci c factors. Technically, it is nothing more than just an indication
of how much the value of a security or fund can move from an expected
average, both upwards and downwards over time.
Advocators see it as the shortfall risk you may experience should you need to
liquidate at an inopportune time. Others will contest that an investor with a long-
term horizon would render this reasoning less compelling. And the list goes on.
But I am not here to debate this. Yes, everyone has a point. Volatility is not
perfect. It is indeed not a good proxy for many types of risks e.g. tail risks,
counterparty risks, fraud risks, liquidity risks etc. But at present we have no
means to adequately quantify some of these risks, much less to unify them into
a single sensible statistic. And if we are talking about large diversi ed portfolios,
as is the case in this exercise, then some of these risks may be dramatically
reduced. And to show a slightly better picture, I have also included other metrics
like maximum drawdown into this exercise.
Round One – Bull and Bear Let’s Compare

Much of the ak directed at hedge funds in recent years arise from their
relatively poor performance after 2008. Since the worst of the subprime crisis in
early 2009, we have witnessed one of the longest bull market marked by record
low volatility in history, thanks to the central banks for their relentless money
printing. This lead to a sharp contrast in performance, casting a bad light on
hedge funds. But to be fair, we should look further back in history and cover
more market cycles instead of just cherry picking post 2008 period for
comparison.
I have taken data as far back as 1990. This is the earliest for HFRI indices. But it
should su ce as we have 3 bear and 3 bull phases to examine over this period
of approximately 29 years. I de ne any bear market here to be a drop of more
than 20% on the MSCI WL. Let’s have a look at the returns and the maximum
drawdowns generated by the indices over each bull and bear period. For the
chart, I have presented it in log scale, else we would not be able to see the
different curves clearly in the earlier years.
1. Almost all HFRI indices underperform MSCI WL during bull markets,

except during the rise of the internet in the 90s. In terms of trend, it would
seem that the disparity is getting wider with each bull market. The worst for
hedge funds is post 2008. One reason is persistent low volatility, particularly
since 2013. Quantitative easing fueled excess liquidity and stock market
optimism, propping up asset prices. During this period, you hardly see any
major surge in volatility. A few notable ones are Brexit in 2016 and the more
recent collapse of the XIV ETF in February 2018. These blow-ups, while
spectacular, are short lived. Hedge funds pursue a wide spectrum of
strategies, some of which are uncorrelated to the general market but
depended on a certain level of market volatility to thrive. Many hedge funds
also had in place short positions, whether as a hedge to guard against
market sell-offs, or for pro t purposes. Over the long run, these impose a
drag on their overall performance during market rallies.
2. All HFRI indices outperform the MSCI WL during bear markets and by no
small margins. This strongly suggests we should not discount hedge funds
yet. It is worth noting that during the Kuwait invasion (Jan 1990 – Sep
1990), hedge funds actually made quite a fair bit of money, and during Dot
Com Collapse (Apr 2000 – Sep 2002), they lost no more than 10%. This is
in sharp contrast with MSCI WL which lost 24.3% and 46.8% respectively in
the same periods. Even during the latest subprime meltdown (Nov 2007 –
Feb 2009), hedge funds managed with about half (or less) of what MSCI
WL loses. These are signi cant outperformance during critical times.
3. All HFRI indices consistently experienced a lower drawdown in all the

periods, regardless of whether market is in a bull or bear phase. In fact,
the drawdowns are much lower in most of the periods. This means an
investor in hedge funds will lose much less, historically speaking, even if he
has chosen the worst possible time to invest and redeem.
Round Two – Let’s Look Longer Term

So how about longer term performance? Let’s see how the HFRI indices stack
up against the MSCI WL.
1. Annualized returns – In terms of annualized returns, HFRI FWI and EHI still
holds the upper hand against MSCI WL if we take results since 1990 and
2000. HFRI FOF, however, underperformed here. If you noticed, the FOF
seems trail both MSCI WL and its 2 other brethren. I did not dive deep
enough to explore this phenomenon. Manager selection skills can play a
part, though I would think a larger portion of this underperformance may be
attributed to an additional layer of fees. MSCI WL, on the other hand,
clearly held the lead in the period since 2009.
2. Total Returns – For the periods since 1990, HFRI FWI and EHI deliver more
than twice and almost 4 times the total returns of MSCI WL respectively.
Let’s rebased the indices to start at $1 from Jan 1990. If you had held a
dollar worth of HFRI EHI, it would be worth more than $21 today, and a
dollar of HFRI FWI would be $14. HFRI FOF and MSCI WL looks more
comparable, at about $6 each today.
3. Annualized Volatility – In terms of annualized volatility, all HFRI indices are

signi cantly less volatile than MSCI WL. Volatility is a common proxy for
risk. It gives an indication of how much we can deviate from the expected
returns.
4. Sharpe Ratio – It is never complete to look only at returns or risk in

isolation. A good fund would be able to give you more bang for the buck in
terms of more returns per unit risk taken. Sharpe Ratio measures this. For
simplicity, we will just take the returns divide by volatility to get their
respective Sharpe Ratios. After adjusting for volatility, all HFRI indices
deliver more returns per unit volatility over all the periods considered, even
for the period since 2009.
5. Excess Returns over MSCI WL – A key contention is that hedge funds

performance have deteriorated over time. It would indeed appear so from
the data thus far. To get a more precise picture, I computed the excess
return of each HFRI index over MSCI WL each month. Then I build an
equity curve for each based on their monthly excess returns. You can see
that the HFRI excess returns fall during bull market periods and then it
catches up rapidly during bear markets. But since 2009, these excess
returns have been falling steadily for a protracted period. While HFRI FWI
and HFRI EHI remains above water, FOF have dipped into negative territory
i.e. below MSCI WL. It is, however, still premature to decide conclusively
how this will unfold in the future .
6. Other metrics – Let’s take a look at some other metrics computed for the
period since 1990. HFRI indices all experienced signi cantly less
drawdowns than MSCI WL. Their average monthly upside is also more than
the downside, with their best and worst month giving comparable returns.
Overall, this is a desirable outcome. MSCI WL, on the other hand, has a less
favorable performance here.
Warren Bu ett’s Decade Long Bet (Dec 2007 – Dec 2017)

I thought of sharing my views on this famous bet. Warren Buffett have always
been a hedge fund critic. In Dec 2007, he placed a million dollar bet that an index
fund would outperform hedge funds over the next 10 years. And he won. For
the same period, MSCI WL delivered a total return of 63.4% beating all 3 HFRI
indices. But that is only if you look at absolute returns. On a risk adjusted basis,
using Sharpe Ratios, hedge funds still have a slight lead. Moreover, if he had
picked a longer period or any other 10 year cycle that exclude post 2008 period,
the results might have been radically different. Still, I have to give him the credit
of choosing right time to make the wager. A win is a win. In the meantime, we
can wait and see how things turn up in another 10 years.
Parting Thoughts – Hedge Funds Still Has An Edge

The results looks quite clear. Hedge funds still has the edge over the long term.
Even though hedge funds may appear to have deteriorated after 2008, I would
say this is not out of expectations. Hedge funds tend to underperform the stock
market during bull phases. And this has been an exceptionally long bull market.
If the current bull market continues raging on without signs of abating, I would
expect hedge funds as a group to lag even further behind, and any buffers that
hedge funds have accumulated since 1990 could possibly be eroded away.
To many, it seems like a no-brainer to make money. All one has to do is to buy a
low-cost index fund or ETF and hold it. Why bother investing in hedge funds and
pay costly fees to someone who can’t even beat the market? But all parties will
come to an end, and we should not forget that hedge funds have delivered
signi cant outperformance during all the previous downturns. I believe hedge
funds still has a place as an attractive alternative investment.
Until then, let’s see if the buffer runs out before the bear comes.
Drowning In Expenses
Hedge Fund Startups
Written By
Eng Guan Lim (E.G.)

Drowning in Expenses : Hedge Fund Start Ups
Many years back, I was searching for information on how to set up and run a
hedge fund. Can I start one myself? That was my thought then. However, I was
sorely lacking in information. In particular, I want to know how much it is going
to cost. It was not an easy task. I managed to gather bits and pieces from the
internet and friends in the industry. But like solving a giant puzzle, there are
always missing pieces. Pieces which you know you are missing, and pieces
which you don’t know you are missing. And costs are one of those.
I guess I could have talked to a fund lawyer. But it was not a rm thought then. I
was not some pedigreed portfolio manager looking to go start his own fund.
Neither am I rich to begin with, nor do I have wealthy sponsors lining to back me
up. I don’t want to go to a fund lawyer sounding stupid, looking less than half-
committed, and end up wasting both side’s time. Anyway, to cut the long story
short, I did not end up starting a hedge fund. Instead, I joined a start-up hedge
fund several years later. Only then did all the pieces fall into place. Not
surprisingly, I have way underestimated what is needed.
For those who are contemplating starting and running one with the investment
management company based in Singapore, there are a few things you might
want know.
Managed Account Or Fund Structure?

We often use the term “hedge funds” loosely. It is just a broad term. And some
“hedge funds” actually do not have funds. Instead of pooling all the money they
raised into a fund, they managed separately the individual private accounts of
their clients. We call these managed accounts. There are advantages to this
approach, such as lower costs, since that does away with the need for a
separate legal entity. However, this may not always be feasible if the individual
accounts are too small to achieve economies of scale or to execute your
investment strategies.
In this post, I will focus on the more typical fund structure approach. There are 2
entities involved. First, you need to incorporate an Investment Management
Company (IMC). After that, you need to create a Hedge Fund (HF). The HF holds
the pooled assets of all its investors and engages the IMC to manage these
assets. It sounds kind of roundabout, but this elaborate arrangement is
necessary. It segregates the investors’ assets and isolate them from business
risks associated with the IMC. For more generic information about hedge funds,
you can read up an earlier article I wrote 16 Questions To Test What You Know
About Hedge Funds.
Investment Management Company (IMC)

Incorporating the IMC: $300-$400

The IMC is a private company you can easily incorporate with the Accounting
And Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) for a few hundred bucks. You can
see the list of applicable fees on ACRA’s website.
Registering with Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS): $1,000 per year

Before you can conduct money management business, you need approval from
the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). For a start, you are likely to do just
a basic registration instead of applying for a capital markets license. That
makes the IMC a Registered Fund Management Company (RMFC). Going
forward, you just need to comply with the rules and pay an annual admin fee of
like $1000. RFMC are subject to slightly less onerous rules and requirements
than its licensed counterparts. But it comes with certain restrictions, e.g. the IMC
cannot manage more than $250 million. The good news is you can upgrade to a
Licensed Fund Management Company (LFMC) anytime subject to approval of
course. For details, I suggest you you refer to the guidelines on MAS’s website.
Maintaining the base capital: $250,000 at all times

As a RFMC, you have to comply with a host of rules. One of the rules require the
IMC to maintain a base capital of $250,000 at all times. This is a mandated
buffer set aside to meet nancial obligations. A breach is serious, and
recalcitrant offenders can have their registration or license revoked. This means
internally you have to set a higher threshold, say $350,000, so that you would
not inadvertently breach below the regulatory level. While this is not an expense,
it is still something you have to prepare and set aside.
Getting a physical o ice: $2,000 per month

You will need an o ce space. And sorry to disappoint you, your bedroom or
study room is not going to make the cut. You can work anywhere you want, but
you are required to have a proper physical o ce. And for compliance reasons,
the space has to be segregated and protected from non-authorized personnel.
Do also bear in mind that this is a place many prospective clients would like to
see. So it should look su ciently adequate. An easy option is to rent a small
room in a serviced o ce. That takes care of many things e.g. essential facilities,
utilities, internet connectivity etc. Depending on where the o ce is located, the
rental can be vastly different. For o ce space near central area for 3-4 people,
we can be looking north of $2000 per month.
Getting the manpower you need: $12,000 per month

This is potentially the largest chunk of the company’s expenses unless it is
entirely operated by business partners. MAS dictates that you have minimally 2
directors, each having at least 5 years of relevant experience. And one of them
must be a full-time employee resident in Singapore. Technically, you can appoint
any employee directors. But in most IMCs, the Chief Executive O cer (CEO) and
Chief Investment O cer (CIO) are the ones ful lling this criteria.
Besides your CEO & CIO, ideally, you should also have a corporate secretary,
nance o cer, a compliance o cer, an IT personnel, and a marketing person.
But there is no rule to say you can’t hire someone who is both IT savvy and
good at nance, or the CEO/CIO can’t double up as the marketing director. It is
fairly common for people in startups to wear many hats. Compliance, however,
is a full time dedicated function. And due to con ict of interests, you can’t have
the CEO/CIO wearing this hat. You are, however, allowed to outsource this
function to an external service provider.
What if you can’t pay? Then the only alternative is to nd trusted partners who
share the same passion with you. And they must have su ciently deep pockets
to see themselves through the next couple of years. Else this venture is almost
guaranteed to fail. It is, however, by no means easy to nd that many partners.
So let’s just assume you are the CIO, and the CEO/Marketing is your business
partner. Both of you hire another 2 people to ll the roles of a nance/IT and
compliance o cer. It is highly unlikely you want to hire senior professionals
from large institutions unless you can pay really generously. Let’s go for 2 junior
hires and budget about $12000 a month.
IMC Audit: $10,000 per year

As a regulated entity, the IMC have to engage an external auditor to perform an
annual audit. The IMC is not eligible for audit exemption even if the annual
revenue is below $5 million. The auditor will scrutinize everything from your
company processes to the nancial statements. Audit fees can vary
signi cantly between auditors. You go for the BIG four auditors, then you get
BIGGEST four invoices. Forget about such branding when you are still trying to
make ends meet. You might be able to negotiate with a lower tier auditor to do
the job for under $10,000.
Hedge Fund (HF)

Contrary to what many people may think, the hedge fund actually does not have
any direct hires other than a board of directors for oversight. But that does not
mean its expenses are low. Because it engages the service of many third party
providers. And these services do not come cheap. Typically, these expenses are
deducted from the fund. But when the fund is small, as is usually the case for
unknown start ups, there are implications. An annual expense of say $100,000
on a fund with an AUM of $1 million means you got to make 10% rst before
your fund will show any pro t. That is a killing blow to any track record you want
to build. It is also unfair for early investors to bear such a big burden. In such
instances, it makes more sense for the IMC to bear these expenses on behalf of
the fund before it grows to a reasonable size.
Cayman islands o shore fund associated and other regulatory fees: $20,000 per
year
Let’s say you incorporate an offshore fund in Cayman Islands – one of the tax
havens. There are probably lower cost options like British Virgin Islands (BVI),
but I am only familiar with Cayman Islands, so I will go with that. Cayman
Islands is also the choice of domicile for most offshore funds, accounting for
more than half of all offshore structures.
There are of course fees to pay to set up and maintain a fund in Cayman
Islands. Very brie y, you will need to pay on a yearly basis – mutual fund
registration fee, Cayman government fee, Cayman registered o ce fee, annual
returns ling fee, CIMA director fee for each director on board the fund etc. And
just last year in 2018, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) introduce
a new rule requiring all regulated funds to appoint an Anti-Money Laundering
Compliance O cer (MLRO) and a deputy MLRO. If you do not have suitable
candidates, you can outsource this function to the fund administrators for a fee.
Cayman-based nancial institution are also to subject to FATCA reporting
obligations for tax purposes. It is beyond me to explain. But su ce to know you
need to pay to get others to do the reporting for you.
As a ballpark gure, all these stuffs might set you back easily by $20,000 or
more per year.
Legal Advisory Fees: $25,000 -$50,000 one time set up expense

You will need lawyers to draft and le all the legal materials for the HF. The most
important document is the private placement memorandum (PPM). This
document details everything from the portfolio managers, the investment
mandates, strategies, risks, fund terms to service providers etc. And you will
need 2 groups of lawyers:
1. A Cayman fund lawyer as the lead lawyer because your HF is domiciled in

Cayman Islands.
2. A Singapore fund lawyer to review, edit and add to the document because
the IMC is incorporated in Singapore.
Needless to say, your costs has only one direction to go – UP. Again, charges
can differ signi cantly. Let’s budget between $25,000 – $50,000. This setup cost
can be charged to the fund. And while not in line with accounting standards, it is
common practice for small funds to amortize it over a maximum of 5 years.
This helps to distribute the costs so that early investors are not unduly
penalized. This is to be fully disclosed in the PPM and nancial statements.
Alternatively, the IMC can absorb this set up costs.
Fund Administration: $3,000 – $4,000 per month

Would you put money in a hedge fund where the PM himself does the
calculation and con rms the NAV? I don’t think so. The process is inherently
awed as the PM can manipulate performance data without independent
oversight. Not to say that he will, but without proper process, he can.
This is where the fund administrator steps in. They track all the positions and
trades of the fund and reconcile them against the broker statements at the end
of each month to arrive at the o cial NAV. This leaves no room for tricks.
Besides this, they also process investor subscriptions and redemptions, perform
Anti Money Laundering (AML) checks, and prepare the fund’s annual nancial
statement for audit purposes etc.
Fund administration is one of the largest expense. They charge a monthly fee,
usually a couple of basis points based on the size of your fund subject to a
minimum. Again, prices vary according to the complexity of your fund and
administrators. But as a rough estimate, put aside $3,000-$4,000 per month.
Fund Audit: $10,000 – $15,000 per year

Yes, the fund also needs to do its own annual external audit. And it can be a tad
more expensive than the IMC audit. 2 groups of auditors are involved. A local
auditor that does all the groundwork, and another auditor registered with CIMA
to review and do the nal sign off. Budget $10,000-15,000.
Fund Custody Fees: $0

Big banks and prime brokers safekeep the fund’s assets on their behalf. In
return, they charge a custody fee. It is usually a very small percentage of the
total assets in their care per month subject to a minimum. But if you are not that
brand conscious, you can opt for brokers that do not charge custody fees, or at
least not explicitly. These brokers recover the custody costs through the trade
commissions earned. So if you trade infrequently, you may incur an inactivity
fee on your account. That, however, is insigni cant compared to the custody
fees you pay the branded guys. In any case, you can forget about opening a
prime broker account at bulge bracket investment banks if your fund do not
have like a $100 million.
Putting The Pieces Together

Now, if we piece everything together, expense for the rst year can be close to
$300,000 and a bit lower thereafter without the initial set up costs. And this still
excludes the $250,000 base capital you need to maintain. And as I mentioned
earlier, you might have to aim for a higher threshold of $350,000 instead so you
don’t keep pissing MAS off. Of course, if your company is generating a healthy
pro t since day one, then this might not be that much of a concern. But I doubt.
Assuming your running expense to be $300,000 per year, to break-even on just

a management fee of 2%, you require a fund the size of $15 million. Too high?
Sorry to disappoint you again, that is an optimistic scenario. With fees trending
down generally, you probably would not get a single cent as a start up charging
2% management fee. It is highly likely you have to give up more upside and do a
1% or lower. On a more positive note, the fund can probably stand on its own
and absorb the expenses in stride when it is large enough i.e. IMHO deduct less
than 0.5% from the fund. And I have yet to include performance fee. But do
expect rough patches where you will need the management fee to help you tide
through.
Concluding Remarks
Note what I mentioned is not exhaustive. For example, I have not included
expenses on things like web domain, website development, emails, secured
cloud servers, backup power supplies, laptops, name cards, design and printing
of marketing materials, professional indemnity insurance etc. The set up
also cannot be used to solicit US monies. That will require a master feeder fund
structure comprising a US onshore feeder, a Cayman offshore feeder and a
Cayman Master Fund. 3 sets of nancial accounts. More work for auditors.
Complicated tax reporting. And on top of that, you need a US fund lawyer to
draft another PPM for the US investors. Basically, expect to pay a lot more.
There are other paths one can take though. One way is to start with an
incubator fund instead of a full edged hedge fund. Another is to look at joining
a hedge fund platform who have the expertise and economies of scale to
negotiate better deals with the service providers. I did not explore those paths so
I will not comment much here. In any case, anyone serious about it should do
their own homework and consult the relevant professionals. However, I do hope
this post let you have a glimpse into how hedge funds work and some of the
challenges that start up hedge funds faced.
Illusory Chase
For The Best Hedge Fund
Written By
Eng Guan Lim (E.G.)

Illusory Chase For The Best Hedge Fund
We constantly strive to look for the best in everything. The best partner, best
employee, best deal, best career, best education, best investment, and the list
goes endlessly on. And the world has as many categories of “BEST” awards as
you can think of. Similarly, when someone goes out hunting for a hedge fund to
invest, he wants to know which is the best. Somehow, our DNA is hardwired to
seek out the optimal solution to whatever we need. The focus is sharp and
simple. The behavior is also entirely rational. However, like many things in life,
the answers are never as clear.
Are You The Best?

This simple question often has no satisfactory answer. Just use IQ tests as a
reference. Is the person with the top IQ score the most intelligent in the whole
world? He is de nitely very gifted in a way, but I would not go as far to claim the
latter. Why? Many reasons. For one, not everyone takes IQ test. Someone better
can always be out there. And what really de nes intelligence? Is the test
comprehensive enough? Are we just measuring a certain aspect of logic
reasoning and neglecting others? Does being at the top now means he will
continue to be where he is in the future?
Answers to a singular question almost always become a complex multi-

dimensional issue. And the search for the best hedge fund is no different. In
fact, posing a direct question of “Are you the best in what you do?” to a hedge
fund manager is outright pointless. Because the only truthful answer is “I don’t
know.”. And if they don’t know the answer themselves, why would anyone else
know.
Why Is It That Di icult To Select The Best?

1. More than you can chew – 10,000 hedge funds

According to eVestment, there are an estimated 10,000 hedge funds managing
an estimated USD 3.2 trillion in 2017. Not all hedge funds are captured, so the
actual number is likely to be signi cantly higher. Even assuming 10,000 is the
correct gure, do you think you have what it takes both in terms of time and
expertise to conduct proper due diligence on each of them? Sure, majority may
not be worth the trouble and you can lter out a bunch of names according to
some criteria. But even if you whittle it down to a few hundred candidates, that is
still an extremely daunting task. Not to mention that you are also likely to throw
away uncovered gems among the names you weeded out.
2. Many are outside the radar

Not all hedge funds are out in the open. They can’t publicly market due to
regulatory constraints. News you see or hear are often about large funds and
celebrated managers. Hedge funds are also not required to submit their
information to public databases like BarclaysHedge, Eurekahedge or eVestment.
This is entirely on a voluntary basis. Beyond that, your chance of knowing the
existence of any particular fund may be through word of mouth, referrals, a
random internet search landing on their site, friends in the industry, or a chance
encounter.
3. Dearth of information
Hedge funds are well known for its secrecy. They are not your publicly listed
companies. Getting to know its existence can already be a challenge, and
extracting information out of it can be no less grueling. Hedge funds do not
follow a standard marketing or reporting template. Their pitch deck or monthly
reports can range from a comprehensive one covering all aspects to a black
box containing nothing other than some fancy stories or a set of elementary
information.
During my earlier career in the role as fund of hedge funds analyst, I have
personally come across monthly reports that print nothing other than the month
to date (MTD) and year to date (YTD) gures. Of course, you can always ask for
the info, but getting it is another story. I have talked to funds who ercely guards
everything beyond what they put on the pitch deck as some “If I tell you, I have
to kill you” type of secrets. And there are funds that have grown so big and
complicated that unless you are talking to the partners, the rest does not know
the whole picture.
4. Even the strong can fall

Hedge fund is an extremely competitive industry. Closures are common. Every
year, there are at least a couple of hundred closures. And in bad times like 2008,
well over a thousand can bite the dust. While I do not have the numbers, I expect
at least as many hedge fund closures in history, if not more, as the number of
hedge funds still standing today. Unfortunately, even established hedge funds
managed by veterans do not wield immunity against a vicious market. Nobody
does. Recent “deceased” funds include multi-billion dollar names like Tourbillon
Capital, High elds Capital and Eton Park Capital.
5. Best is just a transient state

There are competent mangers. No doubt about it. But even then each have its
own strengths and weaknesses. The best at any particular period is more a
function of being the right people having the right skills, running the right
strategies at the right time and place. The best today can be the worst tomorrow
and vice versa.
David Einhorn, a prominent billionaire hedge fund manager, who manages

Greenlight Capital was a star until 2015. He was plagued by subpar
performance and struck a heavy blow in 2018 where his fund tumbled more
than 30%. And that is after his fund lost more than 20% in 2015 and is still in the
midst of recovering.
He is not alone. Many hedge fund strategies are hammered after 2008 for
lagging behind the markets. Why? We can only surmise e.g. change in market
dynamics from excessive central bank meddling; and/or thinning alpha as a
result of intensi ed competition. But not all are suffering. Long-only managers
running equities or risk parity type strategies ourished during this period from a
ood of easy money.
6. Compare Apple to Apple? Sure, you nd me the other Apple

Why not compare hedge funds against their benchmarks just like what we do
for mutual funds?
As a matter of fact, the industry is already doing it. But unlike mutual funds,
which has a very clear and narrow mandate, hedge funds have no such
constraints. Hedge funds are typically grouped into strategy silos, say equity
long/short, global macro, event driven, relative value, xed income/credit,
volatility etc. And within each silo, you can further break it down into many other
sub-strategies.
However, there are potentially so many variations that the full spectrum cannot
be fully represented. Even funds within each sub-strategy are likely to be doing
things differently from the rest. You can have a long/short equity fund that
decide to create a side pocket for illiquid opportunities; or a credit fund
specialized in extending privately negotiated loans; or a volatility fund biased on
the long side while majority are net short. Hence, unless you know the speci cs,
the right Apple is hard to come by, or there may simply be no other comparable
Apple.
7. You think you are better than the experts?

If anyone has an edge in picking the best funds in the business, they got to be
the fund of hedge funds. These guys conduct in depth research on hedge funds
and pick managers day in and day out for a living. And if they can consistently
pick the “top” managers within each strategy, they should be showing some
serious outperformance.
In an article I wrote earlier: Which Is A Better Investment – Hedge Funds Vs

Equity Market, fund of hedge funds delivered 6.6% annualized returns between
1990 to 2017. So was this higher than what hedge funds generate in average?
No, not by a thousand miles. In fact, it is actually quite a bit lower than the
aggregate hedge fund annualized return of 9.7% over the same period. Sure,
fund of hedge funds has an additional layer of fees that drags them down. But if
they can can keep picking and switching into aces, the added fees should not be
an issue. To be fair, they face more challenges than just the fees, but let’s leave
this for another time.
In short, even when armed with such resources and expertise, the bulk of the the
professionals can’t quite hack it. What makes you think you have an edge
against them?
Picking Hedge Funds Is Like a HR Job

When you pick a hedge fund, you are essentially picking people, with the core
ones being the investment team. In a sense, it is not that different from a HR
function where a company goes through the process to hire someone to ll up
speci c roles. You will never have access to the entire pool of candidates out
there. You can rely on internal job rotations, referrals, work with recruitment
rms or advertise externally, but there are only that many you will reach. And
among those that respond, you have to look through their CVs, check out their
background and credentials. Then you have to ascertain through interviews on
other aspects as to whether they will be a good t for the role and company.
Aside from what could be veri ed on paper, the rest boils down to some form of
qualitative assessment which invariably entails a good dose of uncertainty. He
or she, for a multitude of reasons, may still not turn out not to be that ideal
candidate you are looking for.
The same principles applies for picking hedge funds. You have to know clearly
what you want in the rst place. Search and lter out a pool of candidates. Do
your investment due diligence: understand the managers, their strategies, risk
management methodologies etc. Then do your best to pick those you think ts
your purpose, and accept the risks that come with your choice. Manage your
portfolio and just leave the decision of who is the BEST at any point in time in
hands of fate.
Hedge Fund Terms

Explained In English
Written By
Eng Guan Lim (E.G.)

Hedge Fund Terms Explained In English
An investment into any hedge funds require an understanding not just on its
strategy and associated risks. Aside from that, an investor should also
familiarize themselves with basic terms often found on a hedge fund’s Private
Placement Memorandum (PPM) or fact sheet. These are terms stating the fees,
expenses and any special terms with regards to an investment in the fund.
While the PPM do explain what these terms meant, they are written by lawyers.
Well, su ce to say, it is in English but yet not quite your English or my English.
In this post, I want to run through these terms. But do take note that there are
many different variations within the hedge fund industry today. Nevertheless, by
and large, they don’t deviate much from these.
Clearing Up The Air Before Proceeding

To avoid confusion later on, we need to be clear that the Hedge Fund and its
Investment Manager are separate entities. The Hedge Fund is nothing but a
vehicle to hold assets on behalf of its investors similar to a mutual fund. As an
illustration, Franklin Templeton is an Investment Manager and it has multiple
funds under its management. These funds, in turn, pay Franklin Templeton fees
for its services. For the rest of the article, you may see me mentioning “Hedge
Fund pays this and that”. If you are confused by who is paying who and what
you are paying, all you need to remember is YOU PAY WHAT THE HEDGE FUND
PAYS. Because anything that is deducted from the Hedge Fund is taken from
the money you put in.
If you are interested in knowing more about hedge funds in general, you can
look up one of my earlier post about hedge funds.
1. Fund Expenses
For those who think operating a hedge fund should not be any more costlier
than trading his or her personal account at home, it is time to wake up. I shared
this in my prior post on Hedge Fund Startup Expenses. Fund expenses cover
items such as commissions, regulatory fees, withholding taxes, interests on
borrowed funds, stock loan fees for shorting, fund administration fees, fund
audit fees and legal fees etc. In fact, management and performance fees are
also fund expenses from an accounting perspective. But they are separately
calculated after netting off all other expenses for the fund which you will see
later. Hence, when I refer to “expense” in this article, it includes everything a
Hedge Fund pays other than management and performance fee.
2. High Water Mark (HWM)

A High Water Mark (HWM) is the highest NAV Per Share (NPS) a fund achieved
when sampled at prede ned periods. And many hedge funds do that on a
calendar yearly basis. So it does not matter how high a Hedge Fund’s NPS reach
intra-year, as the only time of interest for the HWM is, in this case, at the end of
each year.
As an example, I attached a table showing a Fund’s NPS over 2 years. Let’s

assume the NPS starts at 1 which also implies a starting HWM of 1. Thereafter,
at the end of Year 1, the NPS of 1.07 is above the prior HWM of 1.0. So the new
HWM is set to 1.07. And you might also noticed that while the NPS hits a high of
1.14 in July, that does not matter. Finally at the end of Year 2, as the Fund’s NPS
of 0.98 did not exceed the prior HWM, the HWM remains at 1.07.
Year 1 HWM : 1.07 Year 2 HWM : 1.07
HWM is a very important metric for both the Investment Manager and Investors
because it is used to determine the performance fee. Both follow a common
frequency where the HWM is reset at the end of each performance period. So if
the performance fee is calculated and paid at the end of each year, your HWM
will be reset at the end of each year. But should the performance fee follows a
quarterly schedule instead, the HWM will be reset on a quarterly basis.
We will see HWM in the calculation of the performance fee later.

3. Hurdle Rate
Not all hedge funds have hurdle rates. Hurdle rate, when applicable, means the
Investment Manager is only entitled to a performance fee on pro ts they made
for the fund over and above the hurdle. Anything below the hurdle are not eligible
for performance fee. As a quick example, lets say an investor puts $10,000,000
into a Fund that has a hurdle rate of 5% and charges 20% performance fee. At
the end of the year, the fund makes 20% or $2,000,000 before performance fee
for the investor. Without the hurdle, the Investment Manager will get a 20% cut
of the $2,000,000 pro t which works out to be $400,000. However, with a 5%
hurdle, the Investment Manager cannot charge the 20% fee on the rst 5% or
$500,000 of the pro ts. Instead, the 20% performance fee is applied only on the
next $1,500,000 pro t to give $300,000.
4. Management Fee (MF)

A hedge fund pays a management fee to its Investment Manager for managing
its underlying investments. This fee goes to cover expenses incurred by the
Investment Manager. It includes many things such as rental, utilities,
infrastructure, and manpower etc. Historically, majority of the Investment
Managers charge a 2% management fee. However, it can range anywhere from
a ultra low 0% to an outrageously high 5%. Renaissance Medallion Fund, long
closed to outside investors, charged a 5% management fee. That said, with their
eye popping performance, they have no lack of investors who will rush to put
their money in despite the exorbitant charge. But for the industry in general,
hedge fund fees have trended lower as it came under pressure from mediocre
performance after the 2008 nancial crisis.
So how do we calculate management fee? It is based on the fund’s Gross Asset

Value (GAV) at the end of each month. GAV is the value of the fund net of
expenses incurred during the month. Let’s look at a case of 2% management
fee applied in January.
Example
End Of January Mathematical Operation Value
Gross Asset Value (GAV) $10,500,000
Management Fee (MF) 2% x 31/365 x GAV $17,836
There are a few things to note here. First, we use the GAV as at the end of the
month, not the start or some time weighted average. Second, GAV as mentioned
earlier, is net of expenses (other than management and performance fee).
Finally, we use the actual number of days in the month over the number of
actual days in the year as a proportion to to compute the management fee for
that speci c month. Exact terms can vary among funds, so always refer back to
the PPM.
5. Performance Fee
This is one of the more distinct features that differentiates hedge funds from
mutual funds. Aside from management fee, a hedge fund also pays its
Investment Manager a performance fee if targets are met. That can differ from
fund to fund, but in most cases, it just means making a pro t over the high
water mark for the investor. When that happens, the Investment Manager
receives a share on the pro ts made, typically 20%, although that is also on the
decline. This fee is adjusted every month but cast in concrete and deducted only
at the end of the applicable period. It is termed the performance period and is
usually a calendar year. But it can be longer or shorter depending on the fund’s
strategy.
Example
End Of January Mathematical Operation Value
High Water Mark (HWM) x HWM x #Shares $10,000,000

#Shares
Gross Asset Value (GAV) $10,500,000
GAV Less MF GAV – MF $10,482,164
Performance Fee (PF) 20%x MAX [0, GAV Less MF – (HWM x $96,433
#Shares)]
In this example, the Fund has starts the year with a HWM value (HWM x
#Shares) of $10,000,000. It makes $500,000 net of expenses for the rst month
in January giving us a GAV of $10,500,000. After deducting the applicable
management fee of $17,836, the fund is left with $10,482,164 which is $482,164
above the HWM value. This translates to a performance fee of $96,433 at the
end of January. This amount is held back but not actually deducted. It is subject
to further adjustments till the end of the performance period (end of the year).
To see how this works, let’s say the Fund subsequently loses $400,000 including
expenses in February.
End Of February Mathematical Operation Value
High Water Mark (HWM) HWM x #Shares $10,000,000
Gross Asset Value (GAV) Subtract $400,000 from November’s GAV Less MF $10,082,164
GAV Less MF GAV – MF $10,066,696
Performance Fee (PF) 20%x MAX [0, GAV Less MF – (HWM x # Shares)] $13,339
So at the end of February, the Performance Fee attributable to the Investment

Manager reduces to $13,339 and the fund releases back $83,094 of the
performance fee accrued. This process continues till end of the year where any
applicable performance fee is crystallized and paid to the Investment Manager.
For example, if this is the month of December instead, the $13,339 will be locked
in and paid to the Investment Manager. A new HWM is then locked in with the
performance fee back to zero and the game begins again for the new year.
6. Liquidity
You probably seen or heard about the term “liquidity”. Investment professionals
and the media like to carry it on their mouth wherever they go. But not to worry,
it is not something awfully complex. In short, it means how easy one can get in
and out of an investment. And in our context, that explicitly refers to the
subscription and redemption terms of a hedge fund, or more speci cally, an
open-end hedge fund. Majority of the hedge funds are open-end funds that
issue shares to buyers and redeem shares from sellers. So as far as an investor
is concerned, the hedge fund is their only counterparty. In contrast, a closed end
hedge fund is listed and traded on an exchange just like a stock.
Subscription
Subscription is about how frequent you can invest in the fund, that is, if the fund
is not already closed to further subscriptions. Typically, subscription tends to be
more “friendly” than redemption if we discount the Know Your Customer (KYC)
and Anti Money Laundering (AML) checks for onboarding new clients . You can
usually subscribe at least as frequently as you can redeem, if not more. The
more common terms I seen are monthly or quarterly subscription frequencies.
And unlike mutual funds, you cannot just subscribe today and expect the
transaction to be done the following day. You have to submit an subscription
application form and wire the money over before a subscription deadline for the
transaction to be completed at the start of the following month or quarter.
Redemption
Buying things is always easy. All you need to do is pay up and you can walk
away with the product. Now, try asking for a refund and see if it is that
straightforward. The best you can get, and rarely so, is at most as easy you
bought the item. But these added di culties may not be without rationale.
Investment Managers prefer “sticky” money and for good reasons. As the name
implies, these are money that sticks around. This is ideal as managers can then
concentrate on managing the investments rather than spend time dealing with
redemptions from investors who ee from the rst sight of “blood”.
Redemption frequencies in hedge funds are usually lower than subscription and
tied with more onerous conditions. On top of that, ample advance notice have to
be given through a redemption notice, and failing that, you may have to wait for
the next window. Redemption terms are typically justi ed through the underlying
strategies. For example, an equity long short with long term view horizon will
have a lower redemption frequency or even lock ups (we will see later) than a
fund trading liquid futures.
Lock Ups
Hedge funds pursuing less liquid or long term strategies often impose a lock up
period. This can be a hard or soft lock up. In a hard lock up, investors cannot
redeem during the lock up period. And for a soft lock up, investors can redeem
but either in limited amounts and / or with a penalty. A lock up period of 1 year is
fairly common among equity long short funds. On the higher end, lock ups can
go as far as 5 years or more for funds that deal in private equity.
Gate
This is a special provision that a hedge fund, which has it in its PPM, can
exercise should the need arise. Its intent is to act as a brake when redemption
exceeds a certain level at any point in time. For large hedge funds in particular,
this provide for orderly exits with minimal impact to the market in the event of
massive redemptions.
Are Hedge Funds Risky?
Written By
Patrick Ling
It is a common perception that hedge funds are risky or at least riskier than
traditional mutual funds. This is understandable as there have been many
examples of hedge funds blowup. The most famous example is perhaps LTCM.
On the other hand, we seldom hear about mutual funds blowup. However,
hedge funds should be less risky than mutual funds if they truly live up to the
word hedge. The reason is because hedge funds practice what is called risk
control. Alfred Winslow Jones started the rst modern hedge fund with risk
control in mind. He wanted to insulate himself from the vagaries of broad
economic conditions so he came up with the long/short equities approach. That
way, even in a terrible bear market, his long/short portfolio should still be able to
generate returns if his longs perform better than his shorts. On the other hand, a
long-only mutual fund would be suffering huge losses.
Why Do Hedge Funds Blowup Then?

The short answer is overcon dence. The more nuanced answer is that risk
cannot be completely hedged away. Often times, you are merely converting one
type of risk into another. Blowups happen when the manager either thinks that
the risk has been completely hedged or thinks that the new risk is negligible.
That leads him to think that he can leverage up to the hilt to generate
exceptionally high returns. Let’s look at ways to hedge certain risk and how
things can still go wrong.
Equity Market Risk

Alfred Winslow Jones wanted to neutralize equity market risk when he set up his
hedge fund. This is the risk that a broad economic recession arise and decimate
stocks across the board. To hedge against broad equity market risk, you can
short the same dollar amount of a stock with very similar characteristics to the
stock that you own. Obviously, you must hold the view that the stock that you
own has better fundamentals than the one that you short. A ctional example is
to buy Goldman Sachs shares and short JP Morgan shares.
Putting aside the fact that it cost more to short, you have exchanged absolute
market risk for relative market risk. This is the risk that the company that you
shorted may outperform drastically for whatever reason while the company that
you bought under-performs. An extreme case is that the company you are long
decided to take over the company you shorted at a huge premium. This would
lead to the share price of the acquiring company dropping while the target
company’s share price rises to the takeover price. This is a double whammy
since both legs of the long/short pair is losing at the same time.
Market Cycle Risk

Risk parity is a popular asset allocation strategy in recent times. The story goes
that Ray Dalio was thinking about how to construct an appropriate portfolio for
his family trust which is robust under all kinds of market conditions. He thought
about the various asset classes and how each behaved in different parts of the
market cycle. The outcome of the brainstorming was a risk-weighted
combination of the asset classes such that at least some asset classes would
do well while others might do less well under a particular stage of the market
cycle. This strategy became so successful that he offered it as a separate fund
for his clients and that fund now manages billions.
This style of hedging market cycle risk is now becoming commoditized. Even
some big robo-advisor in the US is offering it to retail clients. However, some
hedge funds have taken things to the extreme by employing high leverage on
risk parity to generate exceptional returns. In this instance, they have exchanged
market cycle risk for correlation risk. This is the risk that all asset classes goes
down together at the same time. The diversi cation bene t disappears and the
portfolio suffers a deep draw-down. It might even lead to ruin on an over-
leveraged portfolio.
Weapons Of Mass Destruction

When one talks about hedging, derivatives naturally comes to mind. In fact, the
futures and options market came about because of the need for hedging.
However, signi cant market events in the past have been linked to derivatives.
This led to Warren Buffett describing derivatives as weapons of mass
destruction. One of the most notorious example was the 1987 stock market
crash. On Monday, October 19, 1987, the Dow Jones Industrial Average crashed
23% in a single day. Although it was never proven, an arcane risk management
technique known as portfolio insurance was widely credited as being the cause
of the crash.
Portfolio insurance became seen as the magic bullet that will ensure a portfolio
will never experience a loss beyond a comfortable limit. Many people including
institutions began to load up on stocks because of having portfolio insurance in
place. However, they either forgot or they ignored gap risk as well as over-
crowding risk. Gap risk is the risk of a sudden discontinuous drop in price
resulting in the inability to hedge in time. Over-crowding risk is the risk that too
many people are employing the same technique and trying to hedge at the
same time.
Calendar spreads are very popular as a “low-risk” way of putting on bets.

Theoretically, futures contracts with expiration dates that are close together
should move pretty much in lock-step. However, it is an imperfect hedge. There
can be instances where the spread can deviate signi cantly. This is known as
basis risk. An example of a hedge fund that blew up because of a spread play
gone wrong is Amaranth. Actually, the fund wouldn’t have blown up if not for
over-con dence on the part of Brian Hunter who doubled down on a losing
trade.
Does It Mean That Hedge Funds Are Risky?

It is better to answer this question with another question. Are cars dangerous?
The answer would invariably be that it depends on the driver. It is the same with
hedge funds. It really depends on the fund managers responsible for running the
hedge fund. However, having said that, I do think that the general investing
public also has a role to play.
Let’s face it. A hedge fund is also a business that is ghting for investor dollars.
A responsible fund manager can do the right thing based on realistic
expectations of risk and return but if investors have unrealistic expectations,
their money would ow to those managers who dare to promise those
unrealistic returns regardless of the risk involved. In the end, the responsible
fund manager would not be able to survive simply on pure economics. It is sad
but true. In all instances of those spectacular hedge fund blew ups, the
managers walked away rich while the investors suffered losses.
The Upshot
Unfortunately, this is the way things are and it would be unrealistic to expect
investor behavior to change anytime soon. At the individual level though, before
you say categorically that hedge funds are risky, ask yourself whether you have
realistic expectations in the rst place. Do you accept the need for risk control
which acts as a natural limiter on returns or do you only look at returns without
regards to risk?
For hedge fund managers, the point about risk control is to be conservative. If
you are a discretionary player, multiply the worst draw-down you have ever
experienced in the past by 1.5 times and assume that is the worst draw-down
you have yet to encounter. For a systematic player, do the same for either live or
back-test period whichever contains the worst draw-down. If you cannot survive
such a draw-down, then you are using too much leverage. And by surviving, I do
not only mean avoiding a blowup. A draw-down of 20% can often mean the end
for a hedge fund.
Of course, the best risk control is having the humility to know that you can
always be wrong.
About The Authors
Eng Guan Lim (E.G.)

Eng Guan is the founder and Partner of AllQuant which is set up to empower
retail investors to invest professionally. Prior to starting AllQuant, he was a
portfolio manager of a multi-strategy hedge fund. He has been with the asset
management and banking industry since 2006 working across various roles.
These include performing investment due diligence on hedge funds, valuation
control on derivatives and structured products, proprietary trading and fund
management.
About The Authors
Patrick Ling
Patrick is the cp-founder and Partner of AllQuant which is set up to empower
retail investors to invest professionally. Prior to starting AllQuant, Patrick is a
portfolio manager of a systematic hedge fund. He has spent more than a
decade in the asset management and banking industry working through various
roles since 2005. These include managing private client portfolios, covering
hedge fund clients for equity derivatives products and strategy, product control
on derivative and structured products, and fund management.
Disclaimer
1. Views are solely the authors.

Any views or opinions represented iare personal and belong solely to the
authors. It does not represent any other people, institutions or organizations that
the owner may or may not be associated with in professional or personal
capacity. The views or opinions are not intended to offend or malign any religion,
ethnic group, club, organization, country, company or individuals.
2. Content is intended for informational purposes only. Use at your OWN

RISK.
The content is intended for informational purposes only. The authors make no
representations as to accuracy, reliability, completeness, suitability or validity of
any information or content on, distributed through or linked, downloaded or
accessed from this site. The authors will not be liable for any errors, omissions,
or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its
display or use of the information on this site. All information is provided on an
as-is basis without any obligation to make improvements or to correct errors or
omissions. This articles may contain links to other web sites. The authors of
make no guarantees or promises regarding these web sites and do not
necessarily endorse or approve of their content. Any use of information or
material provided is solely at your own risk.
3. Any downloadable les and images is provided at the user’s own risk.
Any downloadable le, including but not limited to Microsoft Excel les, Word
documents, pdfs, jpegs, pngs, is provided at the user’s own risk. The authors will
not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages resulting from a corrupted or
damaged le, or any errors or misinformation in the content of the le.

Hedge Funds

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hedge Funds

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hedge Funds

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hedge Funds

Eng Guan Lim (E.G.)

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

1. The name says it all. Well, they hedge.

It might be instinctive, but as a professional in the industry, I see it as my duty to

As an example, many hedge funds do hedge, but some don’t. It is a matter of

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

1. Who founded the rst hedge fund?

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

Alfred Winslow Jones

He based his strategy on 2 simple principles: (1) he believed he has superior

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

2. What are hedge funds?

3. How much assets are held by Hedge Funds?

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

4. What is the relationship between the Investment

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

5. Why do we need a separate fund entity? Why not just do

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

6. What is a pooled investment and are there any

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

7. Are there other alternative besides a pooled fund?

Hedge fund managed accounts operate in a similar way. This type of

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

8. Why is there an onshore and o shore version of the

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

9. Who can invest in hedge funds?

Someone who is accredited is assumed to be sophisticated enough to

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

10. What kind of strategies can hedge funds use?

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

11. What are hedge fund’s benchmark and how does it

Hedge funds are measured based on absolute returns as opposed to relative

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

12. Do hedge funds really make money in all conditions

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

13. How transparent is a hedge fund?

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

14. How liquid are hedge funds?

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

15. What are the fees and expenses associated with

16 Questions To Test What You Know About Hedge Funds

16. Can I use hedge fund type strategies on my personal

Eng Guan Lim (E.G.)

In this piece of writing, I am also doing a comparison. I will be pitting hedge

Which Is A Better Investment - Hedge Funds Vs Equity Market

Who Are The Participants?

1. HFRI Fund Weighted Composite (HFRI FWI) – A USD-denominated index

Which Is A Better Investment - Hedge Funds Vs Equity Market

Important Things To Note

Which Is A Better Investment - Hedge Funds Vs Equity Market

Here are some points to take note of:

Which Is A Better Investment - Hedge Funds Vs Equity Market

Which Is A Better Investment - Hedge Funds Vs Equity Market

Round One – Bull and Bear Let’s Compare

Which Is A Better Investment - Hedge Funds Vs Equity Market

Which Is A Better Investment - Hedge Funds Vs Equity Market