Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FINDING AN ALTERNATIVE
TO ALTERNATIVES
December 2009
Hugo Cassat
V. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................. 33
GRAPH 1 : GLOBAL HF’S AUM IN MILLION $ (SOURCE : BARCLAY HEDGE, 2009) ................................................. 9
GRAPH 4 : DIFFERENT HF’S STRATÉGIES (SOURCE : HEDGE FUND RESEARCH, 2009) ........................................... 13
GRAPH 7 : COMPARED EVOLUTION OF ETF, MANAGED ACCOUNT, AND RISK FREE ............................................... 27
GRAPH 11 : ADAPTION OF THE CPPI STRUCTURE WITH ETF AS THE CORE ............................................................. 29
TABLE 1: PAYOFF REPLICATION APPROACH, RESULTS OF TESTING. SOURCE: EDHEC RESEARCH CENTER ............ 21
TABLE 2 : FINANCIAL RATIO OF THE DIFFERENT STRATÉGIES COMPARED TO THE CORE AND THE SATELLITE ......... 32
Before the current crisis, Hedge Funds have become popular amongst institutional and private
investors because they allowed them to reach the set of payoffs they didn’t have access to.
Hedges Funds show particularly appealing properties in terms of diversification with respect
to existing asset classes through exposure to alternative risk factors. Hedge Funds investments
suffer however from two main problems: lack of liquidity and lack of transparency. The
recent crisis has heightened investors’ concerns over these two dimensions, and the future
sustainability of the Hedge Funds industry is currently seriously challenged. In this context,
the question arises regarding the emergence of new alternative forms of investment strategies
that could provide investors with Hedge Funds-like payoffs while relaxing the liquidity and
transparency constraints.
The situation we are facing is thus the following: Investors needed these alternative classes of
assets in their wealth management process and were satisfied with what Hedge Funds used to
provide in terms of Payoff and Return Distribution. But the present crisis underlined the limits
of Hedge Funds and motivates the all industry to go further and find a way to overcome
Thus, the answer is not to run away from these alternatives investments and stick to
traditional assets because the allocation process will be too deeply hit by such a behavior.
Rather, the answer is to improve what we consider as the actual Alternative Classes and find
the new paradigm of alternative management. In other words, we want to look for an
Alternative to Alternatives.
What I want to expose in this document is not the ultimate answer to this all industry shift. I
will try to explain and test one of the approaches which exist and which, in my opinion, is the
best present candidate. The main issue I will be facing is that it is a very current focus and
new developments. Thus, my document might lack from the very last research.
Recent advances in asset pricing theory regarding the strong correspondence between option
pricing and dynamic portfolio allocation problems suggest that it is in fact possible to design
novel forms of investment strategies that are designed to meet investors’ needs and
From the investor point of view, the main approaches that can be used in this perspective
1. Active replication will be the first level attempt. By directly transferring the
management but copying strategies, these products aim at over passing hedge funds
expectations in terms of risk budgets with respect to floors and goals. In both last
I will try to analyze the recent criticisms made about hedge funds and how far are they
relevant from the investor point of view. We will see firstly how Hedge Funds performed
through the crisis with regards to their goals and in which measures the investor community is
progressively withdrawing from this alternative investment, waiting for new solution.
Possible Solution
The recent crisis created a consensus for new theory regarding how investor should approach
hedge fund structures. Different attempts where made toward replication. I will try to give a
brief understanding of active and passive replication models and underline the limits of these
developments.
A new perspective
It seems to me that Dynamic Core-Portfolio implementation would be at the moment the new
paradigm in asset management. I’ll try to explain this approach regarding the needs of former
Hedge Investors
Numerical simulations
I will run numerical simulation in order to back test DCS methods by my own. These
simulations already exist but I will try to benefits from the learning of the implementation in
Conclusion
In this part, my aim is to explain how Hedge Funds have been very attractive in growth period
but deceived most investors through the crisis. The key point is that Hedge funds are usually
usual
design and marketed to be crisis shield and bring diversification of performances when the
market turns down but other factors than performances makes them unattractive during these
In the following chart we can see the asset under Hedge Funds management growing
massively between 2002 and 2008. We have to understand that this asset growth is both
2500
2142
2000
1514
1500
1169
1042
1000
670
500 388
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Graph 1 : Global
Glob HF’s AUM in million $ (Source : Barclay Hedge, 2009)
These inflows are mostly provided by Institutional Investors, Funds of Hedge Funds, Family
offices and few particular direct investors. The type of investors is a relevant data to
understand what are the needs and the expectation in investing in Hedge Funds.
Corporations
11%
9% 7% Fund of Funds
Wealthy Individuals
We are now able to notice the sharp increase of Hedge funds asset under management leaded
In order to achieve this industry growth, some useful characteristic of Hedge Funds suited at
constraints that hedges funds investments come with and which triggered off huge outflows
The first advantage of Hedge funds investment is a higher return. Or at least, this is the first
aspect marketed to investors. These higher expected risk adjusted returns are embedded in
what is called the industry Alpha. There is more and more controversy about this term and
Nevertheless, these higher returns are supposed to be generated out of special abilitiesclaimed
by the manager: to invest in more complex derivative financial products, lower law constraint
on this same time frame the growth of a hundred dollar investment in Bonds, Equity and
Secondly, it is well recognized that hedge funds are successful at bringing diversification and
strategy constructed
onstructed to be beta neutral, because they are strongly hedged against market
downturn, or because managers are trading markets that are themselves totally uncorrelated to
equity or bonds or, as some argue, because Hedge funds managers are the bests and they
never loose.
NAREIT 0,24
Graph 3 : Example of Correlation :CS/TremontHedgeFund Index Correlation (Mar 1994 – Jan 2007)
During the past years, we tend to observe a moderate correlation with equity markets.
Each hedge fund is supposed to be unique and have its own story to tell. Actually hedge funds
are often marketed as based on a very strong conviction and original ideas of a manager. Even
these managers’ impressive backgrounds and careers also tell a story and belong to the criteria
investors look when investing in hedge funds. Different Hedge Funds types are so numerous
that none of the strategy mappings existing will never perfectly correspond to the entire
diversity spectrum. What investors appreciate is that they can choose the guy they believe in
with the story they believe in. This behavioral aspect is even truer since wealthy individuals
compose 53% of the investor base. Moreover, an infinite spectrum of strategy and trading
style is also a way for investors to clearly express and pick how they would like to play on the
The following list shows a strategy classification, which is often used by fund of hedge funds
and gives an idea of how diversified they can be. But other classification with more than 80
To finish with, the interest that most investors have in Hedge Funds is the distribution of their
returns. It really makes sense in their investment strategies and they need it in their portfolio
construction methods. But we have to distinguishes why it makes sense in their portfolio and
what are they really looking for. It is not unusual to see investor miss-leaded about their
motivation in putting money into hedge funds. We’ll see latter on that we have to understand
separately what investors are looking for and what Hedge funds are good at.
But the two past years have been drastic for Hedge Funds and totally reversed the trends. The
critical characteristics of Hedge Fund businesses were revealed and the crisis amplified these
bad sides along with the Madoff(among others) story helping to build the bad reputation of
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Managers have usually very few constraints and their incentive to performances is
Of course, risk management systems are set up in order to prevent high drawdowns
but when they want or they need to, it’s not unusual to see manager overcoming ri
risk
management process.
The only way to have a close follow up of a Hedge Fund is to have massive due
diligence process before investing and then to regularly check if risk management is
few investors can have access to managers’ book and they only have to rely on what is
The best example of how opacity is now denounced by investor is the Madoff case.
The book didn’t even exist and no investments were made, falsified performances
hidden…Without the common acceptance for Hedge Funds opacity, this scandal
2.3 Liquidity
A big issue for Hedge Funds that arose during the crisis was the liquidity. There is
actually a mismatch between how fast a Hedge Fund can blow up and how fast
investor can withdraw their entire money. Usually Hedge Funds allow redemptions
between monthly and quarterly with one to three months notification period. It means
when you decide to withdraw money you can wait up to 9 months during which
you’re still exposed to manager’s bad performances. The liquidity constraint caused
drastic problem through the crisis even if Hedge Funds performances were good.
Actually investors needed money elsewhere because of the market downturn and were
not able to balance it with Hedge Funds Investments. Here we can remind the
Amaranth case, where 3 months were enough to see the fund vanishes.
Another issue is the gate activation. Most of hedge funds reserve the right to prevent
clients to withdraw money if they think it could cause damages to the fund. During the
crisis several Hedge funds activated these gates and investors were locked without the
Finally, liquidity issue can arose when managers decide to create side pockets. It’s a
softer version of Gates where investor can only withdraw a part of the investment
according to which percentage of the fund managers consider as illiquid for the
moment. For example the manager would set apart all the CDO he has in his book and
allow its client to withdraw his part in the rest of the fund. The CDO book will be
longer to liquidate and more money can be lost with this exposition.
During past two years, investors were more and more reluctant with the fees structure applied
in the Hedge Fund industry. The most usual model is the 2/20 where you pay-on a monthly
basis- a 2% annualized rate of the net asset value managed by the fund for you and 20% of the
positive performance.
In addition to that, most of investors are already paying fees to different intermediaries before
entering the Hedge Fund. Wealthy investors often pays fees to a family office, Institutional
investors pays fees to fund of fund managers, or corporate investors pay fees to advisors…this
structure is good when performances is so high that the net performances are still matching
clients expectation, but when margins diminish through the crisis, the structure is not valid
anymore.
Even with the high-water mark system, which prevents the customer from paying two times
for the same positive performance, there is now a common thinking that this fees structure is
not efficient and too costly for the investor. Initiative with 1/15 or 0/30 structure has been
launched in the past years but it won’t solve the other issue hedge funds investors are facing.
As a conclusion to this first part, we can agree on the fact that investors need hedge funds for
their return distribution and are attracted by high risk-adjusted performances. Nevertheless,
the crisis emphasized some issue that has always existed but can no longer be ignored by
investors.
We need to think about how to challenge these new constraints: How to provide a product,
which understands investors need and desire with a better transparency, liquidity and fees
structure.
investment banks respecting these new trends. We are going to see what they consist of and
what are the limits and the improvements that can be done.
yourself.
Managed accounts are inspired, after all, on how most institutional investors give mandates to
traditional long only managers: as advisors to a portfolio which sits on the balance sheet of
the institution. The investor would keep control over the assets while the asset management
firm would simply acts as an advisor. Here, the asset management firm will be the hedge fund
manager. Then, some service providers called “platform” would be in charge of implementing
the transaction copied over the hedge fund's strategies. These platforms offer to open
Managed accounts in a large choice of hedge funds in order to allow investors to access easily
to manage accounts shares. We often see confusion between segregated (or separate) accounts
and managed accounts. The former is simply a customized mandate. It offers some form of
flexibility, but no control over the assets, which is the key aspect of a true managed account.
We should see it as the hedge fund manager being hired as a trading advisor with authority to
Since the goal to extract the operations out of the hedge funds firms, it instantly gives a full
transparency over what is being done inside your investments. Sotheby, the lack of
transparency, which was one of the deal breaking cons of Hedge funds is fully over passed.
Of course some hedge fund managers might want to protect themselves and request that the
for aggregate reports to be sent to the investors. In this situation, the platforms operators
should carry specifics in the contract linking him to the investor in order to keep this
Since the assets are not in the Hedge funds firm books anymore, the liquidity of managed
accounts is also greatly improved. Most managed account platforms will offer excellent
liquidity terms such as daily, weekly or monthly whereas most Hedge Funds firm would only
offers quarterly or semi-annual or annual redemption with often long notice period. Moreover,
many funds of hedge funds are now facing serious asset/liability mismatch as they promised
better liquidity terms than what they had with the underlying hedge funds and thus drives
To finish with the key advantage of managed account is to be able to have the control over the
assets and being able to deviate slightly from the original replicated investment in order to fit
it better to investors needs. For example, the platform would be able to overweight an
investment made by the advising manager in order to have a better-adapted product for its
final customers.
managed account investments can mostly be explained by the accumulation of fees through
the process. Actually, it's obvious that the Hedge Fund Manager would ask expensive fees for
its advising role since he pretty gives a full transparency on his transactions and strategies
which are his key success factors in the business. We can also guess that replicating the
transaction of the managers should cost a lot of money and logistics to the platforms,
Since the active replication fail at achieving high performances and notably due to a heavy
fees structure, and a hardly sustainable business model, academics investigated the possibility
clone hedge funds investments position by position and focused on the basic claim that
originate these researches: “What investors are interested in is the return distribution.”
The working assumption is no longer to look inside the Hedge Fund to copy the idea and hope
to achieve similar return, but to only look at the time series, extract the statistical
characteristics and trying to produce the same output from different tools.
While Amin and Kat tried to achieve this goal trough replication of the expected return with
option based tools, the factor based approach tried to guess the hedge funds exposure and
This approach was developed by Amin and Kat in 2003. They assume that investors will be
attentive to look at more evolved risk adjusted performance indicators than just the Sharpe
ratio which has been proven to be an inefficient measure since return distribution are not
systemically Gaussian. Thus, they focus on replicating the co-moments of the return
distribution.
The idea of Payoff replication consists in a two-step process using Option pricing theory in
analyzing the behavior of both time series during a long enough period to be significant, they
suppose that they are able to extract the conditional probability of achieving certain
distribution.
They manage now how the probability of the hedge funds to achieve certain distribution is
supposed to statistically drive the index performances. From this deduction they can set up an
optional portfolio, with the index as underlying, in order to match the hedge fund distribution.
Then the modern option pricing theory can be used to compute the price of the strategy using
cash and the index. In order to be efficient, the price of the strategy should be cheap enough
We have to notice that the first aim of payoff replication is to replicate the distribution. Thus,
if it succeeds, they will be able to obtain two investments with similar co-moments. But the
primary needs of investors are often focused on absolute performances so the moment of the
replicated investment also has to be analyzed. Even if the two distributions of returns can
perfectly identical, the returns mean (first moment) can be totally different.
The Edhec research center tested this methodology in 2008. They used the 13 strategies of the
Edhec Hedge Funds Indices and tried to replicate them using basic risky asset like the S&P
500. They reported the differences between the first four moment of each strategy clones and
The average returns of clones are most of the time different from the original indices.
We expected that this methodology would drive us to different mean but it seems that
it is consistently lower (13 out of 13). It can be explained in part by the bear market
that heated the S&P 500 around 2002. The precaution would be to be very careful in
Most of strategies can be replicated with a fairly good fidelity to the distribution. But
some strategies like fixed income arbitrage gave very poor results and their clones
don’t stick to the indices. Nevertheless, the fact that some strategy are harder to
replicate clearly shows on the other hand that some time series are easier to replicate.
One improvement would be to test this model on single hedge funds rather than on
fixed income arbitrage index or with convertible arbitrage index or if index and single
There is good matching between index and clones concerning standard deviation,
skewness, kurtosis, and value at risk while the Sharpe ratio, due to lower mean, is
constantly lower.
A longer calibration will give best results but to have a satisfying matching, they need
around 6 years of data, which is very long at the investor horizon level.
Investors are also looking at the time series characteristics, which also take into
account the order of each return. The tests show that there is a poor correlation
between index and clones. It means that investor willing to use hedge funds as
diversification providers for their portfolio and want investments un-correlated from
main stock exchange won’t find these characteristics in Payoff Replication models.
To conclude with, the payoff replication model is able to assess some important claims of
But some imperative constraints like high enough returns, diversification and decorelation
were not successfully achieved trough empirical tests. Moreover, we have to analyze the price
of the option based portfolio construction, which should remain competitive or at least
In fact the factor approach to hedge fund replication faces a series of formidable challenges.
These challenges notably include the difficulty in identifying the right factors, as well as the
difficulty in replicating in a robust manner the time- and state-dependent exposures of hedge
find that going beyond the linear case does not necessarily enhance the replication
performance. We also find that selecting factors on the basis of an economic analysis allows
form of the factor model. Overall, we confirm the findings in Hasanhodzic and Lo (2007) that
the performance of the replicating strategies is systematically inferior to that of the actual
hedge funds.
As a conclusion, while the replication of hedge fund factor exposures appears to be a very
attractive concept from a conceptual standpoint, one has to conclude that it still is very much
work in progress. In the end, the relevant question may not be "is it feasible to deliver hedge
fund returns at lower cost?", for which the answer appears to be a clear negative, but instead
"can suitably designed mechanical trading strategies provide a cost-efficient way for investors
to get an access to alternative beta exposures?”. With respect to the second question, there are
reasons to believe that such low-cost alternatives to hedge funds might still be useful to
investors and managers of funds of hedge funds, either for benchmarking or for risk
management purposes.
As opposed to trying an replicate some exogenous HF performance, which has no very good
reason to be optimal for anyone, why not turning to investors and analyze their basic needs,
Actually, the approaches we use to find an alternative to Hedge funds should be aiming at
finding investments able to fulfill the needs that made Hedge Funds successful: it's not a
HF returns are in fact essentially seeking absolute return performance. Good performances
when either the market is going down or up. In order to achieve this idea, the dynamic core-
satellite portfolios strategy has been developed during the past years.
The core-satellite approach aims at separating investor's portfolio management into the
benchmark. The outperformance would be sought within the satellite investment while the
core would be made of an investment in broad market indices. This separation will allow the
investor to structure the portfolio in a coherent manner matching its needs: The core portfolio
will represent its long terms objectives in terms of risk-adjusted profile by a standard
exposure in commercial indices (through ETF for example) while the satellite portfolio will
The core portfolio will adhere to the defined benchmark and the tracking error would only be
generated by the satellite portfolio. Thus, a tracking error of 20% with a satellites’ weight of
10% should imply a 2% tracking error in the overall portfolio. Nevertheless, in order to
benefit more from good tracking errors (outperformance of the benchmark) it is necessary to
dynamically adjust the allocation between the core and satellite portfolios. In order to achieve
these dynamic shifts between weights, we will set up systematic rules reflecting investor’s
needs: The needs would reflect the objectives he had as a Hedge Funds customer.
The first advantage of the DCS approach will be to truncate the return distribution since the
rules of allocation will shift the risks for severe under-performances and gives more potential
to out-performances. Setting up a floor to respect will reflect the available allocation for the
risky asset (satellite portfolio) and thus the risk budget. For example, investors would be able
Investors could also consider a cap determined by the wealth level he wishes to reach. It
would allow stopping any drawdown risks as soon as the objectives are fulfilled and also a
downsizing of the strategies costs. All of these tools are perfectly suited in an absolute return
investment profile and thus should be a good alternative for Hedge Funds and more precisely
Another achievement of these approach is to understand that one the objectives looked after
by Hedge Funds customers was to entrust its wealth management without interfering in it with
the use of forecasts and market views. The managers were entitled for that. What is
remarkable with DCS, it's the absence of forecast and thus forecasts risks since the allocation
between core and satellite portfolio are induced by past value and systematic rules settled up
from the beginning. Of course, investors may have access to proprietary forecasts that they
may wish to use to shift the allocation from the core to the satellite or from the satellite to the
In this part we are going to observe a numerical simulation of a DCS strategy. The Core will
be invested in a ETF for the reason I will explain and the satellite will be a managed account.
In order to get a wide range of observation to analyze the possible behaviors of the DCS
strategy, we will implement it with various parameters like leverage, floor or cap.
commodity index. The composition of the ETF is the same as the index it is supposed
Unlike a conventional mutual fund, the tracker does not require the use of financial
impossible to beat an index and thus would rather save the cost of active management.
We can argue that most of the existing indices can easily be beaten by other passive
index construction since the capitalization weighted indexes for example are proven to
be inefficient but that’s not the subject of this simulation. We will assume that the ETF
We will use a bond ETF in order to have a low volatility core portfolio.
The use of a managed account will allow us to get an exposure to traditional Hedge
Funds but thank to the liquidity offered we will be able to implement a DCS strategy.
Some managed account have a monthly or even weekly liquidity and thus allow us to
rebalance the DCS portfolio very often, as long as a cost analysis has been run in order
to determine what
hat would be the good frequency. In the following numerical test, the
Rivoli managed account will be used with the following track record:
First method would be to implement the DCS with a fixed floor F and multiplier M.
In the following graphs we can observe the impact of varying floor and multiplier.
Here is the evolution of the DCS portfolio value with different floor F:
We can observe that the variation of the floor will allow the portfolio to
track the behavior of the ETF when it’s set close to 100% whereas the more
it will track the Managed account when the more the floor decrease.
Since we keep a high enough floor, the portfolio will have a behavior close
to the ETF, but a high multiplier will give higher impact of the Managed
But investors might think that we would better adjust dynamically these
with ETF and Managed account performances. That is why we are now
The first intuition would be to adapt the CPPI structure with a capital guaranteed floor
Ft=k×e-r(T-t)×A0
Managed account when it’s value over performs a risk free investment. In
the case the portfolio underperform the risk free asset, the allocation to the
satellite will decrease waiting for the benchmark to catch up with the
switch allocation to the satellite. That’s why the next step would be to adapt
Since we are facing investors who understand their goals, they will choose a
benchmark according to their liabilities and not as an absolute return goal. Thus, they
will be more likely to adapt the floor directly to the ETF they use as core instead of a
risk free asset. This parameter might show bigger underperformances but the
rebalancing between core and satellite should be better adapted to investor’s liabilities.
Ft=k× Bt
Here we can observe that the portfolio will have a good timing in switching
the asset allocation to the risky satellite when the Core is underperforming.
Thus this reallocation can be dangerous when the satellite registers bigger
investor will be more likely to chose a Satellite with low or even reverse
Other constraint like maximum drawdown can also been adapted. With a floor
allocation in the portfolio will maximize the less risky asset as long as the portfolio is
in a drawdown period.
We can observe on the graph that the portfolio will behave like the
benchmark when its asset value is below the maximum value reached by the
benchmark, whereas it behaves much more like the satellite when the
Now that we reviewed different ways to set a dynamic floor in our DCS strategy, let’s see
of any DCS portfolio compared either to the ETF or the Managed account.
point.
3. The most revealing figures are the maximum drawdown. Both asset
composing the DCS have higher drawdown (14% and 36%) that any of
the portfolios. This can be explained by the use of floors. But contrary
to traditional CPPI, this result is very interesting since we are not using
risk free asset. This good result can this been explained by a good
Then late evolution of hedge fund market stress out the fact that new approaches need to be
Like it is often the case, the crisis underlined the weak sides of the business and for the
coming years, investors will keep attentive eyes on the following limits of alternative
Opacity
Liquidity
Fees structures
But investors will always been looking for uncorrelated portfolios, high returns, coherent
distribution and special opportunities of investment which were the main reasons they where
exposed to hedgefunds.
This paradox leaded us to look for the new paradigm in Altenative Investments.
After looking at the main existing answers like active replication and passive replication Pay-
off approache and Factor-based approache, it seemed that a new perscpetive was about to
bring a better solution: Dynamic Core-satellite Portfolio Strategies. The main idea of this
aproach aims at separating investor's portfolio management into the construction of a strategic
We implemented numerical test in order to find out quantitative proof of benefits brought by
this strategy. It appears that in addition of bringing better volatility and anualized returns, the
drawdowns, which were one of the main default of hedge funds are clearly minimized while
Thus, we can think that in the following years, the focus point of the alternative investment
this kind of product and maintain the high level of asset under management reached recently.
funds and this asset class will have to go through huge withdrawing in the following years.
The Evolution and regulation of Hedge Funds, Andrew Crockett, April 2007
The Myths and Limits of Passive Hedge Fund Replication, Edhec Risk and Asset
Replication and Evaluation of Hedge Funds, Kat H. and Palaro E., 2006
The Edhec European ETF Survey, Edhec RAM Reaserche Center , May 2009
Passive Hedge Fund Replication, Edhec RAM Reaserche Center , January 2008