Too much money chasing too few real stars - Part 1
In March this year, David Smith, who heads GAM, UBS’s $18bn fund of hedge funds arm, took the decision to close temporarily to new business.It was a contrarian move. It is hard to think of another funds of hedge funds business - asset managers that take investors’ money and put it in a selection of hedge funds - that has turned money away since they began springing up in the 1970s.Mr Smith, a down-to-earth Liverpudlian, says he took the decision because he wanted to protect investors’ returns; he was no longer convinced that there were enough good hedge fund managers out there to take his clients’ cash.”The speed of the new money could have outpaced high quality ideas for new investment,” he says, sitting in his glass-walled office on London’s St James’s Street just around the corner from the Ritz.”We worked out that given our normal level of idea generation, we could place $7bn of new money with various hedge funds managers in 2004. But in the first eight weeks of the year, we took in $3bn and invested it. This sum was close to what we had expected for the whole first half of the year.”We had, we thought, a good idea of how fast our assets would grow based on the previous five years. We were growing our asset base by about 35 per cent a year, so when we grew 30 per cent in the first few months, it seemed prudent to take a step back and cap the funds. It was not just the sheer volume, but the velocity of new money. It certainly made us think ‘whoa’.”The problem is that the demand curve has not just started to steepen, it has shifted exponentially upwards. And the supply curve - for the time being - has remained consistent.”Let’s say your return target is 10 per cent a year and you know there are ten people in the world that can do it and they each could manage $100m. That means there is $1bn capacity that can deliver 10 per cent. But an extra $1bn wants to come in and the next 10 managers that can take that money can get 5 per cent. So you take the extra $1bn, but your return has gone down to 7.5 per cent.”If that level of returns is of interest, the business will continue to grow. I think the market will find an equilibrium, though, and that may well mean some short-term disappointment. But when the new talent does start to come through, we will think about re-opening.”In the meantime, Mr Smith decided enough was enough and capped his six funds of hedge funds. GAM Diversity, Mr Smith’s nine-year-old fund that has $4.5bn under management, was up 12.14 per cent last year. It is up just 0.82 per cent this year to June. His newest fund - GAM Diversity III - was launched at the end of last October. It has $500m under management. It was up 2.49 per cent last year, and is down 1.16 per cent this year.”The more I think about it, the simpler it becomes. Only a percentage of the hedge fund industry is truly talented and as that is becoming more transparent, there are more investors chasing that talent pool.”As this industry is not an asset class in the traditional sense you can’t just replicate it so you have to wait for it to ‘evolve’. It will, as it always has, but patience will be required and hopefully rewarded. The big blow-up in 2004 is going to be investor disappointment in returns across the industry.”Indeed, hedge fund managers around London are feeling the pressure. Markets have been difficult. Every phone conversation is punctuated with mutterings of it being “tough out there”.EuroHedge, the industry newsletter that serves London’s hedge fund community, said in May that all its indices were showing negative returns for the month, things were worse for currency funds and managed futures funds - these two indices went into negative territory for the year.Tim Haywood, hedge fund manager at Julius Baer, says: “Funds of hedge funds have struggled because there has been nowhere to hide, as very few strategies, or even single hedge funds within strategies, made a lot of money in the second quarter. It has raised a bit of a question mark over all of us - hedge funds and funds of hedge funds.”Most hedge funds would hope to be up at least 5 per cent by end-June but instead many are up between 1 and 3 per cent. While this positive return exceeds both long-only equities and long-only bonds, the outcome is disappointing to some.”The second quarter has tested the fund of funds and hedge fund architecture, but we haven’t seen or heard of major unplanned redemptions, and net subscriptions have been received. The architecture remains sound.”Stanley Fink, who heads Man Group, the London-quoted hedge fund group, is irritated by all this chatter. He agrees that 2004 is proving a difficult year for the industry. But he also argues that taking such a short-term perspective on hedge funds is not helpful.”My view, as ever, is trying to be measured,” he says from his office in Sugar Quay in London. “We swing from wild talk that hedge funds will rule the world to the position that the game is over. A very wise man once told me that the future seldom lives up to your wildest expectations but it is also seldom as bad as your worst nightmare. I am always trying to think about that.”I would say that the growth has been higher than expectations. But I also think, like house prices, hedge funds can’t grow at 20 per cent. But it won’t go from 20 per cent to zero.”The historic rate of growth in hedge funds is not sustainable in the long term. But - just like population growth on earth - that doesn’t mean growth will end. But it will cause supply and demand to equalise out.”So far, the pace of growth is not letting up. Hedge funds gained a record $38.2bn in the first quarter of the year, the fourth consecutive quarterly record of money flowing in, according to Tass Research, which is part of Tremont Capital Management, a fund of hedge funds. If it carried on like this for the rest of the year, says Barry Colvin, Tremont president, hedge fund inflows would top $150bn this year, against a record $72bn in 2003.Peter Charrington, managing director in the UK for Citigroup’s private bank, says managers are finding it harder to find good bets.”The next couple of years may be challenging. The key thing is to find the right managers and get access to them. In the past you could have a broad array of funds of hedge funds and individual managers. But now you have lots and lots of managers chasing fewer deals and certain opportunities. You have to work a lot harder on who you put your money with.”And now the regulators - concerned about the scant information on how hedge funds work, coupled with huge inflows - are beginning to press for more information.
对冲基金：资金太多明星太少
GAM是瑞士银行(UBS)的“对冲基金的基金”部门，旗下管理的总资产达到180亿美元。今年3月，GAM主管戴维?史密斯(David Smith)做出决定，暂时停止接受新资金。
这是个逆潮流而动的举措。自上世纪70年代对冲基金开始涌现后，很难想象还会有其它对冲基金的基金公司拒绝接受资金。“对冲基金的基金”(fund of hedge funds)业务属于资产管理，管理者将投资者的资金投入若干精选的对冲基金。
史密斯先生是个脚踏实地的利物浦人，他说，他之所以做出这个决定，是因为想保护投资者的回报；他不再相信现在市场上还有足够多的优秀对冲基金经理，能够有效运作他的客户的全部资金。
他坐在玻璃墙办公室里说：“新资金流入的速度，可能已超过高质量的投资创意。”他的办公室位于伦敦圣詹姆士大街，就在里兹大饭店的拐角处。
“我们研究得出，根据我们产生投资创意的正常水平，2004年我们有能力将70亿美元新资金分派给不同的对冲基金经理。但在今年的前8周里，我们吸纳并投资了30亿美元，这接近我们计划中整个上半年的资金额。”
“基于过去5年的状况，我们自以为已经很了解我们的资产将以什么样的速度增长。前些年，我们每年的资产总额增幅在35%左右，因此当今年前几个月就增长了30%时，后退一步将基金封顶似乎是谨慎的做法。这不单是因为金额过于庞大，还因为新资金来势汹涌，让我们想喊‘哇！’。
“问题在于，需求上升的曲线不光是变得更为陡峭，而且简直是呈现指数级飚升。而在另一方面，供应曲线就目前而言仍保持平坦。”
“比如你的年回报目标是10%，同时你知道，世界上有10个经理人可以做到这一点，而且每人能管理1亿美元。这意味着有10亿美元的容量，这10亿美元能带来10%的回报。但现在另外有10亿美元希望入局，而下一批的10个经理人能让这些钱产生5%的回报。这样你又接受了10亿美元，但你的平均回报已下降到了7.5%。
“如果这一回报水平让人感兴趣，那么业务将继续增长。但我认为市场将找到一个平衡状态，这就意味着短期内会有人感到失望。但当新的人才确实开始出现时，我们将考虑重新开放基金。”
与此同时，史密斯先生认为应该适可而止了，于是他将自己主管的6个“对冲基金的基金”封顶。史密斯先生的GAM Diversity基金已有9年的运作历史，其管理的资产达到45亿美元，去年升值了12.14%。今年到6月为止，该基金只升值了0.82%。他最新的基金GAM Diversity III于去年10月底推出。该基金管理着5亿美元，去年升值2.49%，今年则已缩水1.16%。
“对此，我越想越觉得简单。在对冲基金行业，真正具有才华的基金经理有如凤毛麟角，随着优劣差异日渐分明，有越来越多的投资者追逐那些真正优秀的对冲基金经理人。
“对冲基金并非传统意义上的一种资产类别，因此你无法简单地复制优秀业绩，而只能静观其变。演变是会发生的，历来都是这样，但需要耐心，并期盼耐心得到回报。2004年的一大特征将是投资者对整个行业的回报感到失望。”
的确，伦敦的对冲基金经理们正感受到压力。市场形势变得严峻。电话交谈中每每夹杂着“外面形势很严峻”之类的低声抱怨。
伦敦对冲基金业的行业通讯《欧洲对冲基金》(EuroHedge)在5月指出，当月它所有的指数都显示负值，其中外汇基金和管理型期货基金的情况更糟，这两类基金的指数今年迄今显示负值。
Julius Baer的对冲基金经理蒂姆?海伍德(Tim Haywood)说：“对冲基金的基金处境艰难，因为它们无处藏身，第二季度几乎没有赚大钱的交易策略，甚至没有策略结构中的个别对冲基金赚大钱。这已使人们对所有基金（包括对冲基金和对冲基金的基金）产生了问号。
“多数对冲基金会希望到6月底能至少升值5%，但实际上很多基金的增幅在1%至3%之间。尽管这些正值回报超出了‘只限长仓’(long-only)的股票和债券基金，但这样的回报还是让一部分人失望。
“第二季度考验了基金的基金和对冲基金体系，但我们尚未看到或听到大规模的突发赎回事件，而且基金仍得到了净认购。整个体系保持在健全状态。”
斯坦利?芬克(Stanley Fink)是伦敦上市的对冲基金集团Man Group的负责人，他对所有这些喋喋不休的议论感到恼火。他同意说，2004年是该行业艰难的一年。但他也争辩说，用这么短浅的眼光来看待对冲基金是无益的。
“我的观点一如既往，就是尽量做到有分寸，”他在伦敦糖码头区的办公室里说道，“人们曾发出对冲基金将主宰世界的狂言，但现在却说游戏已经结束。一位智者曾经告诫过我：未来很少会达到你最心驰神往的期望，但也很少会像你最可怕的噩梦那样糟糕。我总是努力思考这一点。
“我的看法是，增长速度迄今快于预期。但我也认为，对冲基金就像住房价格一样，不可能以20%的速度一直增长下去，但也不会从20%降至0。
“从长期来看，对冲基金的历史性增长速度是不可持续的。但就像地球上的人口增长一样，这并不意味着增长将会停止。但它会导致供需趋于平衡。”
迄今为止，增长速度并没有减缓。据塔斯研究公司(Tass Research)统计，今年第一季度，对冲基金获得了创纪录的382亿美元资金，为连续第四个创纪录的资金流入季度。塔斯研究公司是对冲基金的基金Tremont Capital Management的一部分。Tremont的总裁巴里?科尔文(Barry Colvin)表示，如果在今年的剩余时间里保持这样的趋势，那么今年对冲基金的资金流入就将超过1,500亿美元，高于2003年创纪录的720亿美元。
花旗集团(Citigroup)私人银行英国业务的董事总经理彼得?查林顿(Peter Charrington)表示，对冲基金经理们发现，找到可以下注的好投资越来越困难。
“接下来的几年可能会很有挑战性。关键在于，要找到合适的经理人并让他们管理资金。过去或许有大量对冲基金的基金和经理人，但现在则有大量经理人追逐着比以前更少的交易和有限的机会。在斟酌该把资金交给谁管理时，你得比过去花费大得多的功夫。”
同时，由于担心有关对冲基金运作方式的信息太少，加之有大量资金流入，现在监管部门已开始要求获得更多的信息。
