Archives

All hedge funds are not created equal as the return box chart shows for the post Financial Crisis period. There is a significant amount of dispersion across hedge fund styles. Over the period 2009-2018, the difference between the best and worst hedge fund category is almost 7 percent after we account for global equities and bonds.

The attraction to private equity and other less liquid alternatives is clear from the Guide to Alternatives by JP Morgan Asset Management. The return profile is much higher for private equity and debt funds than more liquid alternatives and global bonds; however, the dispersion in returns is multiples higher than what can be expected from other public categories. 

All alternative investments and hedge funds are not created the same. There is significant dispersion in their correlations with global bonds and equities. Some are better at diversification and others are good for adding returns. A recent Guide to Alternatives from JP Morgan Asset Management provides long-term correlations for alternatives and hedge funds for the post Financial Crisis period.

As we better understand the return generation process, we are able to dissect any set of money manager or hedge fund returns into its component parts. At a high level, any money manager can be divided into a set of risk factors or premia and alpha or skill. As a general conclusion, researchers have found that as investors get better at identifying risk factors, the size of alpha declines. We are able to attribute more returns to specific risks so the amount that is leftover as skill declines.

One of the critical problems with decision-making is that it is often simplified into either/or choices. “Yes/no,” and “Go/No-Go” is how we often focus our attention and make decisions. Life is easy when problems are framed as either black or white. For example, the Fed will either tighten or not tighten. Employment will either increase […]

Gary Klein is one of the great researchers in practical decision-making; however, he has been overshadowed by the behavioral bias revolution and the more popular work of Nobel prize winner Dan Kahneman. That is unfortunate and should be rectified. Klein focuses on naturalistic decision-making; the fact that decision-making in real life is significantly different than anything in a controlled environment.

All investors and traders want to get better as decision-makers. They are open to learning and improvement, and a natural way to gain this improvement is through reviewing their actions after the fact. The old adage is that we will learn from our mistakes. If you have a thorough review process, you can form an effective feedback loop to ensure future decisions will not be driven by the mistakes of the past.

If you assume a normal asset return distribution world and it does not exist, you will be surprised with return performance especially in the tails and unlikely for the better. Of course, when in doubt, the rule of thumb for any sample of return data is to assume normality. Using the central limit theorem is a good starting proposition for any discussion, but it is not where the return discussion should end. The distribution assumptions are a place for danger with decision-making.

Investors may be viewed as trend-follower because they chase performance, only picks recent winners, and sort on performance. However, trend-following professionals often exploit this undisciplined, casual, and unsystematic approach to trends through the investment scaling of chasers. Investor behavior driven by tracking the opinion of peers is a form of trend following and may create price trends; however, it is not the same as a disciplined approach to finding trade opportunities through rules-based behavior.