Click below to watch the video!
For International Women’s Day this year I thought I’d create a modern day nursery rhyme to remind women everywhere that they have financial power and acumen that they may not even realize. You are so money, ladies!
Hey all! So this happened. Congress had a hearing on diversity in asset management and I was asked to testify. Please see my written testimony below or check out the actual hearing at THIS LINK.
Written Testimony before the
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion
Hearing: “Diverse Asset Managers: Challenges, Solutions and Opportunities for Inclusion”
Meredith A. Jones
Investment researcher and author of “Women of The Street: Why Female Money Managers Generate Higher Returns (And How You Can Too)”
June 25, 2019
Chairwoman Beatty, Ranking Member Wagner and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today at this important hearing on how to achieve greater diversity in the asset and investment management industry.
By way of background, I am a 21-year veteran of the investment management industry. I began my investing career in 1998 at a small hedge fund firm in Nashville, TN when I was hired by a male CEO and financial services gender contrarian who believed that women made better financial analysts than men. While I worked my way up from my entry-level position as a hedge fund analyst to become the head of research and a member of the firm’s investment committee, I never doubted my boss’s hiring wisdom (although, always a fan of diverse opinions, I did eventually integrate the department to include men during my tenure).
Employed roughly 1,000 miles from Wall Street, I did not initially realize that other asset management and investment firms had far less gender diversity than mine. In fact, it wasn’t until I started regularly speaking at investment industry conferences (where I was often one of few, if not the only, female speaker) that I began to recognize how little gender and racial diversity existed in my chosen profession. I began to research diversity in asset and investment management in 2010 and, over the past nine years, have come to appreciate just how unique my investment “upbringing” was, as well as how unlikely it would have been for me to be sitting here today without my original boss’s unorthodox hiring preferences. However, even with that leg up, admittedly it has been a rather solitary career path, with few diverse role models, mentors, and sponsors along the way.
As challenging as the lack of diversity may have made my personal journey, that pales in the face of the systemic cost of homogeneity in asset management. In fact, nine years of research has left me with the unshakable knowledge that the lack of women and minorities in the asset management and investment industries is making everyone, from Wall Street to Main Street, poorer.
While this may be a bold statement, I believe a number of factors support the assertion that, as a society, we are missing out on a “diversity dividend.”
1) A wealth of investment research suggests that diverse asset managers may provide similar or even higher returns. Studies from the NAIC[1], CityWire[2], BarCap[3], Babalos[4], Morningstar[5], Rothstein Kass[6] and others show that diverse fund manager performance (either within separate funds or in mixed gender teams) is at least equal to and, in many instances, greater than that of the total investment fund universe. A 2016 study by Oleg Chuprinin and Denis Sosyura found that hedge funds run by individuals that grew up poor (bottom 20 percent of households in terms of wealth) outperformed those managed by managers from the top 20 percent by over 1 percent per year[7]. A 2019 study from Harvard University’s Bella Research Group further found that women and minority owned hedge funds, mutual funds and private equity firms had disproportionate representation in top quartile performance figures[8]. Another Harvard study found[9] that the chance of a venture capital-backed company filing for an Initial Public Offering increased by 20 percent if the backing investors were from different ethnic backgrounds, while venture capital firms that “increased their proportion of female partner hires by 10% saw, on average, a 1.5% spike in overall fund returns each year and had 9.7% more profitable exits,” again per a Harvard Business Review study[10].
These studies and others like them strongly suggest that investors, from the wealthiest of individuals to the police, firemen and teachers that depend on well-invested pension portfolios, may in fact have inadequate financial resources due to lack of access to diverse investment talent.
2) Access to diverse asset management talent may provide another diversification tool within portfolios, and may also help mitigate volatile market behavior, which is currently dominated by a single cognitive and behavioral pattern. At least one study has found that having more women on Wall Street could reduce market volatility[11] due to the introduction of differentiated investing behavior. Another review by investing platform Stash found men 87% more likely to sell[12] during periods of market volatility, which means diversity potentially provides both stability and liquidity in the markets. Furthermore, Hedge Fund Research’s Diversity Index (HFRI Diversity Index[13]) has posted a flat return (0.00%) over the last 12 months, which compares favorably to the HFRI Fund Weighted Index -1.24% loss in value over the same period, further evidence of return diversification.
In addition, according to the National Association of Investment Companies (“NAIC”), one reason for outperformance of diverse private equity managers may be differentiated deal flow. The report concludes[14] that “[m]any diverse fund managers have educational and work experience similar to investors in non-diverse funds. However, some also report having expanded, differentiated networks that allow for deal flow off the beaten path.To the extent that a fund manager has access to such deal flow and can strike deals with less competition, their returns, and investors, may benefit. For example, firms and funds focused on the EDM may have access to companies on the cusp of growth due to changing demographics and shifts in the global economy.”
Despite clear advantages to cognitive and behavioral diversification, some estimates indicate that as many as 95% of those taking risk with capital on Wall Street and in the asset management industry are white males, and we certainly know from a variety of sources that asset and investment management generally lacks diverse participants in any meaningful way. For example, per the Bella Research Group study[15] referenced above, “the number of substantially or majority diverse-owned funds represented just 8.6 percent of the total in 2017” and women-owned firms managed a mere 0.8% of all assets under management while minority-owned firms controlled 1.2% of fund assets. Leaving fund ownership aside, a 2017 review of the alternative investment industry by Preqin[16] found that women comprised less than 21% of all employees in private equity, venture capital, hedge funds, real estate, infrastructure, natural resources and private debt funds, and that, of these employees, only 11% (or less depending on the asset management segment measured) occupied senior roles. And TechCrunch reported that 81%[17] of venture capital firms don’t have a single black investor.
3) Concentration of venture capital investments into similar companies perpetuates unmet consumer needs and lack of investment and jobs into diverse and underserved communities.It has been repeatedly shown that the East and West Coasts dominate the venture capital landscape, with the Bay Area and the New York-Washington-Boston corridor landing an astonishing two-thirds of all venture capital investment[18]. This creates a vast, unexplored economic desert throughout much of the continental United States. In addition, female founders received just 2.2%[19] of all venture capital in 2017 and 2018, while from 2007 to 2012 black and Hispanic founders each received about 1%[20] each in venture capital investments. These statistics are both stark and critical for understanding lost economic opportunities.
Women influence 83% of consumer spending and $7 trillion of spending[21] in the U.S. annually, and consumer spending drives an ever-increasing percentage of the GDP,and yet women’s needs currently may not be met by venture-funded companies. A study by Neilson found[22] that “African American income growth rates outstrippednon-Hispanic whites at every annual household income level above $60,000and the largest increase for African American households occurred in the number of households earning over $200,000, with an increase of 138%.” Yet, their consumer needs may not be represented by current venture-capital funded companies. And “between 2016 and 2017, Hispanics increased their real median income by 3.7 percent[23], the highest of any demographic.”
The lack of funding outside of traditional money centers as well as the near exclusion of diverse founders represents a tremendous lost opportunity for investment, economic expansion and job creation in diverse and underserved communities. Additionally, this compounds the lost opportunities for higher investment return generation, where less competition for portfolio companies creates more reasonable valuations for investors.
In my opinion, these three factors lead to one powerful conclusion: Diversity pays a dividend in asset management, one that, at least with the status quo, we have no hope of collecting.
To address the continuing lack of diversity in asset and investment management, I believe we need to focus on educating three primary groups:
1) Investors– With pension liabilities funded at only 73.7%[24] and with an astonishing 78% of Americans extremely or somewhat concerned about being able to comfortably retire[25], it is critical that the return enhancement and diversification benefits available through investment with diverse asset managers be highlighted and pursued. After all, demand from investors almost always drives innovation and change on Wall Street.
2) Asset and Investment Management Firms– While investors stand to reap the benefits of higher returns, asset managers and investment firms will profit as well through higher income from fee generation. In addition, firms that maximize diversity for returns and diversification may be able to capture a higher percentage of investable assets as investors seek higher return products. Companies that understand how the “diversity dividend” can directly impact their bottom line are more apt to support educational efforts in pre-hire cohorts, recruit diverse talent, uncover and mitigate unconscious bias in hiring and promotion decisions, and provide mentoring, sponsorship and affinity groups as part of a robust inclusion effort. Finally, given the generational wealth transfer taking place to diverse individuals (and the gains in diverse economic status cited above), failure to serve these demographic groups as a client base will almost certainly take a toll on asset and investment manager profitability in the future, further prioritizing this issue.
3) Diverse individuals– Providing financial and investment literacy education to girls and people of color at a young age (high school or earlier) is critical to building a pipeline of qualified diverse asset management candidates. For example, studies have shown that girls opt out of math-related subjects as early as age 11 or 12[26], meaning that it is not sufficient to intervene at the college or graduate school level, when qualified candidates have already self-selected into other academic areas. As a board member for a non-profit that provides financial education to girls (with 69% minority representation), I can say that Rock the Street Wall Street sees a 97% increase in understanding of financial concepts and, perhaps most importantly, 67% of the girls indicate they are now extremely or very likely[27] to explore a major or minor in finance and economics. This type of early intervention is therefore beneficial in building a pipeline of talent for companies and investors, and of course benefits diverse asset management talent as well.
In conclusion, I certainly recognize that diversity in asset management is a complex and costly issue. It is one that has no single, simple solution as it ultimately springs from historical and ongoing conscious and unconscious bias, as well as access to opportunity, education and capital. I do believe, however, that through robust public-private educational partnerships, common-sense transparency requirements (to both measure progress and so investors can adequately assess the level of alpha-generating diversity at asset management firms) and suitable anti-discrimination and harassment statutes, we can change the face of asset management for the future, and enhance the economic well-being of both Wall Street and Main Street in the process.
[1]http://naicpe.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017-performance-report.pdf
[2]https://citywireselector.com/news/alpha-female-2018-mixed-gender-teams-produce-better-returns/a1145784
[3]https://www.managedfunds.org/industry-resources/industry-research/affirmative-investing-women-and-minority-owned-hedge-funds-a-barclays-capital-report/
[4]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0275531915000264
[5]https://www.fa-mag.com/news/morningstar--the-gender-lens-doesn-t-magnify-your-bottom-line-37579.html
[6]https://www.managedfunds.org/industry-resources/industry-research/women-alternative-investments-marathon-sprint-rothstein-kass/
[7]http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/dsosyura/Research%20Papers/FamilyDescentDec2016.pdf
[8]https://kf-site-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media_elements/files/000/000/281/original/2019_KF_DIVERSITY_REPORT-FINAL.pdf
[9]https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/in-venture-capital-birds-of-a-feather-lose-money-together
[10]https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-other-diversity-dividend
[11]https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20130683
[12]https://qz.com/work/1386775/study-of-investors-shows-differences-between-men-and-women/
[13]https://www.hedgefundresearch.com/family-indices/hfri
[14]http://naicpe.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017-performance-report.pdf
[15]https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1cwvq3mc37xwk/Asset-Managers-Owned-by-Women-and-Minorities-Have-to-Work-10X-as-Hard-for-Assets
[16]https://docs.preqin.com/reports/Preqin-Special-Report-Women-in-Alternative-Assets-October-2017.pdf
[17]https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/08/81-of-vc-firms-dont-have-a-single-black-investor-blck-vc-plans-on-changing-that/
[18]https://www.citylab.com/life/2017/10/venture-capital-concentration/539775/
[19]http://fortune.com/2019/01/28/funding-female-founders-2018/
[20]https://money.cnn.com/2016/04/12/smallbusiness/latino-venture-capital/index.html
[21]http://www.genderleadershipgroup.com/the-inclusionary-leadership-blog/210
[22]https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2015/increasingly-affluent-educated-and-diverse--african-american-consumers.html
[23]http://hispanicwealthproject.org/resources/blog/new-hispanic-wealth-project-report-confirms-critical-role-of-hispanics-in-u-s-economic-growth/
[24]https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-state-pension-funding-ratios/
[25]https://news.northwesternmutual.com/2018-05-08-1-In-3-Americans-Have-Less-Than-5-000-In-Retirement-Savings
[26]https://techcrunch.com/2016/01/05/why-stems-future-rests-in-the-hands-of-12-year-old-girls/
[27]https://rockthestreetwallstreet.com
Photo from 123rf.com
A number (maybe 15 or so) of years ago, when I first emerged on the speaking circuit, I gave a talk about hedge funds to a CFA society in Texas. I presented an hour of education on the topic, touching on everything from Long Term Capital Management and blow up risk to fee structures, performance, asset allocation and portfolio construction benefits. At the conclusion of my formal remarks, I took a few audience questions.
At the very front of the room, a distinguished looking lady, somewhat advanced in years, raised her hand to lob the first query.
“Do you have your PhD?” she asked.
“No,” I replied.
“Do you have your MBA?” she inquired.
“No ma’am,” I answered a little more dubiously.
“Your CFA?” she persisted.
“Um, no ma’am,” I said somewhat sheepishly.
“Well, for someone with no education, you gave a marvelous presentation,” she smiled.
It was, is and perhaps always shall be the best backhanded compliment I’ve ever received.
It is kind of funny to think about that episode now. Had this lovely lady known about my evidently deficient education before signing up for the event, she might not have attended, and yet she professed to both enjoy and learn from my remarks.
Or maybe it isn’t so funny. In the investment industry generally, and specifically when it comes to fund managers, you often hear about pedigree. When a new fund launches, talk inevitably turns to where the manager went to school, where they worked, who they worked with and all of the check the box factoids that determine if a fund manager will be hot or not.
It’s become so commonplace to see a specific road to success (at least from a fund raising perspective) that it probably doesn’t even surprise you that 40 percent of venture capitalists went to Harvard or Stanford.Hedge funds also find a large number of their stars at Harvard and Stanford, too, but also frequent the University of Pennsylvania, Cornell and Princeton.
In truth, the emphasis our industry puts on pedigree can be a bit daunting for those of us who didn’t grace the hallowed halls of Harvard or Yale, or who never managed a prop desk at Goldman Sachs. It also may be costing us money.
In a study of venture capital firms, Harvard Business School (yes I’m now quotingHarvard, sue me), found that VCs that went to the same undergraduate school were 34.4 percent more likely to invest together, but the probability of their success (defined as an IPO for this study) actually declined by 19 percent if they both claimed the same alma mater.In addition, the chances of a successful IPO declined by 17 percent if the co-investors worked at the same firm, even if it wasn’t contemporaneously.
Likewise, a 2016 study by Oleg Chuprinin and Denis Sosyura (neither from Harvard) found that hedge funds run by individuals that grew up poor (bottom 20 percent of households in terms of wealth) outperformed those managed by managers from the top 20 percent by over 1 percent per year.I certainly can’t speak for everyone, but as someone who grew up “powdered milk poor” it never occurred to me to apply to Harvard or Stanford because, regardless of whether I could get in, I knew I couldn’t have paid for it. I’m betting some of these outperforming managers found themselves in the same (poor) boat.
And of course, all of this thoroughbred nonsense was magnified recently by the epic college entrance cheating scandal that unfolded in the US, which gave a glimpse into how pedigree can be manufactured if you know the right people and have enough money.
This wasn’t even news to me. Once upon a time, before I ever entered (or even thought of) the investment management industry, I helped research undergraduate applicants of means to determine if “special attention” was warranted in the admissions process. To my knowledge, there was no cheating or anything improper involved in the process – no one was provided admission that didn’t meet basic admissions criteria – but I do know that if it was a close admissions call, every effort was made to, um, clarify the situation before a negative result was delivered.
Look, I’m all for a good education, y’all. I certainly got the best one my powdered milk upbringing could afford, but I’m also not naïve enough to think that everyone has the same opportunity to go to Harvard or Stanford, and from there to Goldman or B-school. Sure, there are scholarships and opportunities out there, but their numbers are finite and what is covered varied.
And if the research shows that the vaunted pedigree that investors search for is actually a potential source of underperformance, then maybe it’s time to expand our horizons. As I’m sure many of you know, there are a ton of very good dogs out there, and not all of us have papers.
(c) 2019 MJ Alts
I have to say, Facebook is getting disturbingly good at targeting ads. Lately my timeline has been populated by comfort items – cozy PJs, custom pillows that ‘guarantee’ a good night’s sleep, shoes without three-inch heels and even this random beanbag thing called a MoonPod. Evidently you buy one too many cards that reads “People, Amirite?” and the magic algorithms of Zuckerberg’s evil empire decide you need a little time out.
In this case, however, they happen to be right. I am tired. Exhausted. Plum tuckered, to use the language of my youth. Lately, I DO actually find myself in need of a mysterious bean bag chair that simulates weightlessness and helps to reduce anxiety and depression. And why I find myself in this state (and why I actually bought that effing MoonPod) is no real mystery. It’s people. Specifically, it is people in the investing industry.
You see, over the past several weeks, a couple of articles have been published that purport to explain why diversity does (or doesn’t) matter in the investing world. The first (in Barron’s) included comments from Jane Buchan that were based on a 2016 study by Rajesh Aggarwal and Nicole Boyson which found “funds with all female managers perform no differently than all male‐managed funds and have similar risk profiles” The second, which was cited in multiple outlets, including in the Financial Times with the incendiary title “Harvard Study Questions Benefits of Fund Manager Diversity,” was penned by Josh Lerner of, you guessed it, Harvard.
As someone who is active in the emerging and diverse fund manager universe, let’s just say the appearance of these articles means I’ve gotten A LOT of emails and DMs on the topic over the past few weeks. I’ve received enough, in fact, to turn my thoughts from acquisition of the Iron Throne to procurement of a freakin’ anti-gravity bean bag.
First, let’s set aside any issues I may have with the way various diverse manager studies are conducted. No study is perfect, including the ones I’ve done myself. However, there are some specific items that really butter my toast:
Single source data – Particularly in the alternative space, using a single data source is almost a guarantee for a small sample. Looking at the total manager counts in some studies is almost enough to make me buy a pair of comfortable shoes, especially since in a number of cases I can list more diverse funds off the top of my head than were included in the total sample.
Mixing social justice and behavioral finance – I get why studies use women- and minority-owned firms as a data set in performance papers, I just don’t happen to agree with it. One metric attempts to measure social justice (the existence or lack thereof of a level-playing field in fund management), while the other aims to quantify behavioral finance – how different subsets of people prosecute investing opportunities and whether these approaches are more or less successful. IMHO, in order to have a true picture of performance, you need to look at the full sample - all diverse fund managers regardless of their stake in the firm’s bottom line. You can still measure the existence of diverse fund ownership, just don’t conflate the two issues.
Focusing on fund performance – In the long-only space, for example, you may find a number of diverse investment managers who don’t have a mutual fund or CIT or other vehicle due to the costs involved and need for a seed investor. But isn’t their performance meaningful as well? Same goes in PE, where a number of diverse private equity investors work (at least initially) more in co-investing than in traditional comingled funds for the same reason. I know it makes it tougher to collect data, but ultimately the data would be more robust.
Looking only at averages – Many studies have found, including Lerner’s recent study, that even if averages are equal, that there may be a disproportionate percentage of diverse funds in the top performance quartiles. Seems like this is an important point, too.
But, leaving all that aside, what makes me most want to retreat to the MoonPod are the emails I get that say, “Huh, I guess diverse fund management ISN’T a thing.”
It’s funny (and I don’t mean HaHa) that I tend to get two responses to these studies when they come out. If a study shows outperformance for diverse fund managers, the default response is “Jackie Robinson.” I can’t tell you the number of times that someone says to me “Don’t you think that the real reason diverse managers outperform is because the fund management industry is so unwelcoming to women and minorities that only the best and brightest diverse managers survive, which is why they ultimately outperform?”
If, on the other hand, a study like Lerner’s or Aggarwal’s shows that performance of diverse fund managers is roughly equal to that of white male investment counterparts, I get the “Ginger Rogers” defense. “You know, if there isn’t outperformance in the diverse manager landscape…if the diverse fund manager can’t do all the same moves backwards and in heels…what’s the point?”
Robinson on the left of me. Rogers on the right. Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.
So it’s either the studies are skewed towards high performers, with the accompanying implication that when more, potentially less skilled, diverse fund managers enter the fray that said outperformance will be as ephemeral as my desire to wear flats. Or the studies show no significant outperformance, meaning that there is no reason to take a “risk” on someone whose personal appearance, background or fund management organization may look different.
But y’all. We are in the investing industry. We take risks every day. We are supposed to look at the available data and make a calculated calculation about whether or not a particular investment is “worth it.” But somehow we continue to miss the forest for the trees on this particular topic.
The lion’s share of the studies (NAIC, CityWire, Lerner, Aggarwal, BarCap, Babalos, Morningstar ,Rothstein Kass to name a few) that are available show that diverse fund manager performance (either within separate funds or in mixed gender teams) is equal to or greater than the total investment fund universe, effectively taking performance OFF the freakin’ table as a risk factor.
So, if performance isn’t a negative factor and, in fact, may potentially be a positive, what risks remain?
Mainly ones we are creating ourselves.
You see, in Aggarwal’s research, he found that funds with at least one female fund manager fail at a higher rate than all-male fund complexes. He notes that “management and incentive fees are much higher for all-male funds than all-female funds” and I can anecdotally say the same is true for minority-run funds. And both groups are almost always more willing to negotiate fees, too. When you combine this with the ample research that diverse funds tend to have fewer assets under management (AUM) than non-diverse funds (BarCap, Lerner, Aggarwal et al), and it is little wonder why these diverse managers don’t have the same robust operational infrastructure of their non-diverse, large fund brethren? A – they don’t need it at their size and B – they can’t afford it as they slash fees in an attempt to grow AUM.
Indeed, it seems like the market is looking for a perfect, shiny, definitive study that proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that diverse fund managers (along with two of my other fund management loves, emerging managers and ESG investing) consistently beat non-diverse funds in order to justify the “risk” of investing with them. A “risk” that would be mitigated if only more people were investing with them.
Calgon, take me away!
At the end of the day, I just don’t see studies saying diversity is a bad thing. I see studies saying it can be difficult to manage diversity. I see studies saying it can be uncomfortable for the team involved when differing opinions and viewpoints are brought into play. I see studies saying building diverse teams (or portfolios) can be tough. But diversity of thought and behavior is, I think, worth the impediments and small risks we take to get it.
I’d be willing to bet my MoonPod on it, y’all.
A new holiday fad for fund managers of all ages and denominations! LP On A Shelf (or ELP on a Shelf, as I call him) knows when you've been spending too much time at conferences, when you're creating pitch books that are too long, or when you're not hiring critical personnel (or skill sets) and will tell Santa not to offer you an allocation in the New Year.
Many of the fund managers I speak to remain conflicted about how best to position their diverse asset management firm. While I don’t have all the answers, perhaps I can help shed a little light on the topic for folks. Read this while you’re thinking about your capital raising battle plans for 2019. And may it help you separate who’s been naughty and nice, whose chimney you should visit and whose you should skip in the New Year.
In January of this year, I was asked to speak at the 2018 TEDx UIUC event "Roots." The theme of the event was pretty straightforward - "The beginning of all things are small" (Cicero). The organizers asked me to talk about both my professional journey and the work I do around diversity in finance/investing.
First, I was very flattered.
Then, I *may* have pooped my pants a little at the thought of giving a TEDx talk.
Ultimately, I of course accepted. And on April 22, 2018 I gave my talk to about 400 students, faculty, members of the Champaign-Urbana community, my mom, and Jill Kimmel (yes, THAT Kimmel).
If you've got just under 20 minutes, I hope you'll take time to watch it. If you like the message, I hope you'll take time to share it. If you utterly hate it, let me know and I'll send you a personal note of apology for the time wasted AND I'll try to prevent my mom from sending you hate mail, too.
As someone who was born, raised, and has spent the majority of my life in the South, one of the things I’m required to love, besides SEC football, is Redneck Humor. From Trae Crowder, Corey Ryan Forrester, Roy Wood Jr., and Drew Morgan today to Ron White and Jeff Foxworthy a decade or so ago, I love poking fun at myself and laughing at my fellow rednecks. I can reliably drive on the backroads of Tennessee and come up with “You may be a redneck” moments every few miles, and my friends and me are up for our own hillbilly kudos when summer reliably finds us in a backyard with a baby pool and some PBR.
I even have a personal favorite “you may be a redneck joke” that makes me laugh every time I tell it:
“You may be a redneck if you think a tornado and a divorce have a lot in common – ‘cos either way, someone’s losing their trailer.”
(2) 123rf.com
Bwhahahahah!
A recent trip to the WellRED comedy show in Nashville got me thinking about all the ways in which, I as a redneck, can be defined. It also got me thinking about how we categorize and group other people, places and things in an attempt to make cosmos out of chaos.
There are few places in the investment world where there is more confusion than in the world of emerging managers. Ask two people what constitutes an emerging manager and you’re likely to get two completely different answers. Is it small funds? How small? Is it diverse funds? Ownership or fund management? Is it new funds? What’s the cut off? Does the manager need to be local? Does the manager need to be certified? What counts as a minority? Frankly, I find that emerging managers swirl in their own vortex of uncertainty.
So to help everyone out a little bit, I thought I’d use my 11+ years in the emerging and diverse manager space to create a handy-dandy checklist to determine whether or not a fund may be emerging. After all, it seemed like a great project for a winter weekend when 0.5 inches of snow has me pinned inside the house like the Southerner I am.
You Might Be An Emerging Manager If…
…you have less than $2 billion in AUM and manage long-only assets. Although this may seem reasonable on the surface, since the largest long-only fund managers may control trillions of dollars (with a “T”), it may still be a little large. In an August 2017 study by Richard B. Evans, Martin Rohleder, Hendrik Tentesch, and Marco Wilkens looked at 3,370 separate accounts (“SMAs”) managing $3,671 million and found those in the 10th percentile managed $5.38m, the 50th percentile managed $128m and the 90th percentile managed $1,470m, with a range of accounts from 3 to 15 to 305, respectively. In line with research about mutual funds, the authors found better performance in the smaller SMAs, in part due to liquidity constraints and market impact costs, but also due to increasing management complexity as the number of accounts increased. Take a look at the research if you’ve not seen it yet.
…you have less than $1 billion, and really more like <$250 million, in hedged AUM. (There are only about 700 funds with over $1 billion, so if you’ve gotten to that milestone, beating out 9,300 of your peers, I’d say you’d emerged).
…your firm is owned at least 51% by women or minorities for official certification, or has 33% women or minority ownership if you want to get a bigger crop of funds from groups that historically have had less assets with which to launch funds, and therefore may have partnered with firms or individuals that dilute the ownership structure.
…your fund is managed by women or minorities. This can be key for investors who are looking for cognitive and behavioral alpha (or differentiated networks for private asset funds), and may be more important to some than ownership status.
…the minority ownership or fund management in question is done by a U.S. citizen.
…the minority ownership is not by fungible personnel who were given ownership status simply to qualify for MBWE status (wives, daughters, back office personnel, figureheads).
…the fund is less than three years old or is a Fund I, II or III.
…the fund is not part of a mega asset management complex.
…the fund meets the above requirements and is located in the same state as the certain potential investors (Illinois, Pennsylvania, etc.)
…the fund is owned by veterans or disabled veterans.
Now, obviously there are all kinds of competing definitions out there, and there are also practical implications for investors, particularly larger ones. For example, if an institution manages billions of dollars (with a “B”), it may be difficult for them to look at the smaller end of the spectrum of emerging funds without having to assemble a massive portfolio of managers. Still, I hope these definitions may resonate with folks out there who are looking to capture some structural, cognitive and behavioral alpha. They may be a more successful investor if….
Sources: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2933546 Preqin, SBA
I seem to provide this information to newer and smaller funds often, so I thought I'd cut down on repetition and provide all you gorgeous small, new, and diverse fund managers with a short guide to early stage investors. Now start smiling and dialing!
(c) 1980 Paramount Pictures
Arizona - Has made at least one investment in a large 'emerging' manager.
Arkansas - Teachers Retirement System reportedly tabled the program in 2008 but 2011 document shows active investments in MWBE managers.
California - Looks for EM's based on size and tenure but prohibited by Prop 209 from looking at minority status or gender.
Colorado - Colorado PERA added an "external manager portal" in 2016 to make "it easier for us to include appropriate emerging managers when the right investment opportunities develop."
Connecticut - Based on size, minority status or gender. Awarded mandate in 2014 to Grosvenor, Morgan Stanley and Appomattox.
Florida - Looks at emerging managers on equal footing with other managers.
Georgia - Invest Georgia has $100 million to work with venture capital and private equity firms in the state. There is an emphasis on emerging managers and emerging funds per press reports.
Illinois - Perhaps the most active emerging manager state, based on gender, minority status and location.
Indiana - Based on size, minority status, or gender.
Kentucky - Reported $75 million allocation at one time.
Maine - Has made at least one investment in a large 'emerging' manager.
Maryland - Very active jurisdiction with details available online for gender and minority status manager information.
Massachusetts- Includes size, minority status or gender.
Michigan - $300 million program.
Missouri - Status based on size.
Minnesota - Past investments in emerging managers.
New Jersey - Status based on size.
New York - Status based on size, minority status or gender. $1 billion mandate in 2014. $200 million seed mandate in 2014.
North Carolina - Status based on size and HUB (minority and women owned) status.
Ohio - Status based on size, minority status or gender.
Oregon - Emerging manager program in place.
Pennsylvania - Status based on size with preference for minority or women run funds.
Rhode Island - Plan in place from 1995.
South Carolina - Status based on size.
Texas - Actively engaged with emerging managers. Status based on size, minority status or gender.
Virginia - Status based on size, minority status or gender.
Washington - Has issued prior emerging manager RFPs.
Oh, and if you reproduce this list, be sure to cite MJ Alts. Thanks y'all!
https://www.hfalert.com/documents/FG/hsp/hfa-rankings/575025_Backers.pdf
(c) 1988 Bull Durham
Anyone who has spent any time talking to me or reading my blogs knows I love a good movie. Although I don’t see as many as I’d like these days, I love how a film can transport you, inspire you, create emotion and just generally entertain. I even use the love of a particular film as a kind of odd litmus test in friendship, business and dating situations. Did you adore Forrest Gump? Yeah, that makes me seriously question your judgment.
But some movies stand out more than others in the MJ Pantheon of Favorite Flicks. Star Wars (the original trilogy, natch), Shawshank Redemption, Argo, Bridesmaids, The Blind Side (don’t judge me), The Wolf of Wall Street, The Princess Bride, 50/50, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Rudy, Love Actually, Aliens, The Terminator (1 & 2), Die Hard and Pride & Prejudice (the 2005 version) are just a few of my all-time faves.
And of course, there’s Bull Durham. Though I’m not a huge fan of baseball (too slow, lots of spitting, often hot), I loved that movie when I first saw it at the ripe old age of 18. It was my first sophisticated on-screen romance, which had theretofore been populated by teen sex films (e.g. Porky’s), John Hughes offerings (Pretty in Pink, Sixteen Candles) and saccharine Disney scripts.
When Kevin Costner’s Crash Davis gave his epic speech during Annie Savoy’s, ahem “tryout” between Crash and Nuke LaLoosh (Tim Robbins), Susan Sarandon wasn’t the only one who sighed “Oh my…”
In case you haven’t seen Bull Durham since it’s original 1988 release (sacrilege!), here’s the scene in question. (And you may not remember this, but it is officially NSFW.)
Since we’re nearing the end of summer, I decided to watch my one and only cinematic homage to baseball over the long Labor Day weekend. It got me thinking about what I believe in when it comes to life and investing, and it wasn’t long before I was on an epic, Crash Davis-esque rant.
“I believe in manager skill. That checkbox due diligence only works if you also have a high EQ for evaluating people. That generalists and specialists should work together to combine the best aspects of myopia and a more holistic, 30,000-foot view. I believe that people who call themselves long-term investors, but who regularly redeem in less than 24 months, are full of crap. I believe that managers who say they can’t find diverse job candidates either exist in ridiculously insulated bubbles or have no imagination. I believe that having less than 10% of hedge funds, mutual funds, venture capital and private equity funds managed by women – who comprise 50% of the population – means we’re missing out on some amazing talent. I believe if all investment managers and all investors agreed to always interview a diverse candidate for jobs/fund searches, it would go a long way towards adding cognitive and behavioral diversity to the industry.
“I believe in downside deviation, maximum drawdowns and time to recovery. I think standard deviation is silly. I believe most investors don’t worry about upside volatility, but that out-of-character positive returns should trigger a monitoring phone call as fast as a losing month. I believe in macro funds, commodity trading advisors and short selling strategies, and that investors should consider these strategies before the proverbial shit hits the investing fan. I think hedging with index options isn’t real hedging, and that taking 8 to 12 months to complete due diligence is like wanting to get pregnant without risking actual sex.
“I think investment conferences should improve the quality of their cocktail party wine. That you should NEVER order the vegetarian option for lunch at an event unless you have a desire to eat something that looks like road kill. I believe in polite but persistent marketing. I think that if you focus on your expertise instead of a sale, you’ll amass greater assets under management (AUM). I believe you should always check time zones before calling a prospect or client, and that texting is NSFP (Not Suitable For Prospects).
“I believe in differentiated networks, niche strategies and cognitive alpha. I believe in gut feelings and spidey senses about people, markets, and investments. I believe in contrarians, and in sticking to your investment guns, as long as you periodically re-visit your thesis to ensure you’re not just stubborn. I believe going to cash takes testicular fortitude. I believe getting back into the market does, too. I believe in good business cards, firm handshakes and not approaching prospects in the bathroom.
“I believe that those funds that don’t get into responsible investing/ESG now will be licking AUM wounds in years to come. I believe that all investment managers make mistakes, and that admitting mistakes and ensuring that they don’t happen again is a mark in a manager’s favor. I believe in strategy continuity, but not necessarily in strategy drift. And that past performance isn’t indicative of future results, but it beats knowing nothing about how strategy translates into returns.
"I believe that most meetings could be emails, and those that cannot should be limited to one hour, tops. Oh, and any meeting that goes longer than one hour should involve snacks.
"Finally, I believe in small funds. New funds. Large funds. Old funds. Women run funds. Minority run funds. White guy run funds. Bread and butter funds. Niche funds. Liquid funds. Illiquid funds. And contrarian funds. I believe there is manager talent and fund utility in all types of funds, and that only by looking at the full menu can investor's hope to have a balanced portfolio meal."
Oh my!
So get back to work all. I hope you enjoyed my little investment rant…pith in the wind if you will. Maybe it will get you thinking about YOUR investment beliefs as we ramp back up into what I think could be a certifiably crazy fall market. Oh, and if you have an investment belief or rant of your own (or a good movie suggestions), feel free to sound off in the comments below.
When I was a young lass in Nineteen Never Mind, I used to spend Christmas Day with my mom and the week after Christmas with my dad. He would come for my sister and me in Tuscaloosa, Alabama and drive us all the way to Ft. Worth, Texas for another week of holiday overeating and unwrapping.
It was about a 12-hour drive, door to door, but we tried to make the best of it. My sister, stepbrother and I would clamber into the “way back” with a cooler full of Cokes,bags brimming with healthy snacks like Pop Rocks, potato chips and Slim Jim’s, nestled securely next to my Dad’s Coors that he snuck over state lines, Smokey & the Bandit-style. There, we’ll loll about (with no seatbelts), stuffing our faces (not dying from the Pop Rock/Coke combo) and alternate singing, sleeping and snarking at one another for the entirety of the 12-hour trip.
At some point, we would inevitably get on my Dad’s nerves. There would be over-the-seat, disjointed swats, strong language and finally a threat to “TURN THIS DAMN CAR AROUND AND TAKE EVERYONE HOME.”
We kids thought that was super funny.
What wasn’t hilarious, however, was 2016 - an epically craptastic annum bad in so many ways that it even made Mariah Carey’s New Year’s Rockin’ Eve performance look apropos.
So, while 2017 is still barely warm, I thought I’d give it a little, tiny warning.
If y’all pull the same stunts this year that you did last year, I’ll turn this year around and take us all home. At the very least, I’ll figure out how to off everyone using nothing but Pop Rocks and warm Coors. You get me?
What am I talking about specifically? Well, here are some of my key investment industry pet peeves from 2016:
Looking in the same tired places for returns, and then pretending shock when they don’t measure up – Investors from Kentucky to New York and a few states in-between reduced or redeemed their hedge fund portfolios in 2016, based in large part on lackluster “average” returns. While many point to “average returns” in the neighborhood of just under 5% though November, perhaps it’s best to look at how the best (and worst) performers are faring. Articles have shown top performing hedge funds gained 20% or more through November 2016. And over the four quarters ending 3Q2016, top HFRI decile funds gained 29.54%. The bottom decile funds lost 15.57%. So there are funds that have performed strongly over the last 12 months IF an investor was willing to look for them and perhaps take risks on lesser known, newer, nicher or funds otherwise “off the beaten path.” It kind of reminds me of the old joke “Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I do this…” How ‘bout in 2017, we stop doing that, lest it continue to hurt.
Using “averages” to talk about investment funds, particularly alternative investment funds – Speaking of, with the kind of return dispersion above, why don’t we stop talking about “average returns” full stop. Even when it comes to white-bread mutual funds, getting fixated on “average” returns doesn’t really help. How do I know? One of the top, non-indexed US mutual funds returned 30% in 2016. Yeah, I said 30-freakin’-percent, more than twice the return of the S&P 500. But by fixating on “average return,” no matter what the asset class, investors may in danger of writing off entire investment strategies based on normalized returns that don’t accurately represent reality. In 2017, let’s focus more on the opportunities unveiled by return dispersion and less on pesky averages, shall we? Oh, and the same thing goes for fees discussions, too.
Saying you want to hire diverse talent, but complaining that you “just can’t find any” – So I’ve heard (or read about) more than one asset management firm complain about how they’d “love to hire women and minorities” but they “just can’t find qualified applicants”, and they’re not willing to lower their standards. Come. On.
Women comprise 50.8% of the U.S. population according to the Census Bureau. Minorities make up nearly 23% of the U.S. population. Do some simple math on the number of women and minorities in a population of 323,127,513 and it boggles the mind that there are ZERO qualified diverse applicants.
Indeed, when I read or hear this, one of a few questions generally comes to mind:
Inappropriate benchmarks – Why, oh why, do we benchmark every damn thing to the S&P 500? It’s become so pervasive that I just caught myself doing it above (the top performing mutual fund invests in small caps, not S&P-level stocks) and I know better. Just because it’s well known, and just because it’s been crammed down our throats by everyone from consultants to financial advisors, doesn’t mean it always fits. Small cap fund? Ixnay on the S&P-ay. Hedge funds? Can’t be expected to outperform in bull markets because they are HEDGED. Private equity & venture capital – comparing illiquid investments to a liquid benchmark seems a bit silly, no? So in 2017, let’s either agree to benchmark appropriately so we can make a sober decision about whether an investment has performed well (or not) OR let’s just decide to sell everything and invest only in the S&P 500, since it’s where it’s at, obviously.
Communicating inappropriately – This may be just a “me” thing, but in 2016 I noted an increasing number of asset managers who text investors. What. The. Actual. Hell. Texting is informal. Texting is immediate and insinuates you deserve an instant response. Texting invites typos. Texting doesn’t allow for compliance review or disclaimers. Unless you are meeting someone that day and need to say you’ll be late, early, or identifiable by the rose in your lapel, or unless that investor has given you express permission to text, don’t. The investors I know who put their mobile numbers on their cards are coming to regret it. And if you lose that, you’ll only spend more time waiting on callbacks.
So cheers, all, to a happy, healthy, prosperous, properly benchmarked 2017. May we lose fewer of my 80s idols and more of our investing bad habits.
Sources:
http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/12/new-hedge-fund-launches-fall-total-capital-increases-record/
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/00
Photo credit:
Copyright: <a href='http://www.123rf.com/profile_artzzz'>artzzz / 123RF Stock Photo</a>
Me and my Granny, Christmas morning circa 1973/1974-ish
Well, 2016 has been one helluva year. Between the celebrity deaths (Bowie, Rickman, Prince in particular), fake news, election chaos, Zika, creepy clowns, Aleppo, and a host of other miserable events, I know I won’t look back on 2016 with anything remotely regarding fondness. In fact, I may pretend this year didn’t even happen, therefore reducing any future therapy bills and bolstering lies about my real age.
But alas, as much as I wish I could be Queen of de-Nile, I’m afraid 2016 did happen, and I have the blogs to prove it.
So if you need a good year-end chuckle to survive the holidays, the Electoral College vote, or your boozy office fete, or if you’re just craving random info and snarky rants about the investment industry, I’ve got just what the doctor ordered.
Here’s a complete wrap up of all my blog postings, by topic, for 2016. Enjoy them while you rock around the Christmas tree, drink your Gin and Tonica, or however you plan to celebrate the season.
See y’all next year!
Hedge Funds (Don’t) Suck
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/11/1/killer-kittens-the-decline-of-hedge-fund-returns (Why you’re more likely to be injured by your toilet than get busted by the SEC)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/9/6/you-cant-handle-this-hedge-fund-truth (Perception versus reality in the world of hedge funds, told with pictures)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/5/17/hedge-fund-truth-dont-believe-everything-you-read (Animated blog about hedge fund fees, returns and the so-called talent shortage)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/2/29/the-hedge-fund-headline-predictorator (Using hedge fund headlines (13-Fs, Rich List, etc.) to tell time and seasons)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/2/22/person-or-people (Why we tar the investment industry with a big brush, and how that can hurt performance in the long run)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/9/20/can-this-hedge-fund-relationship-be-saved (The hedge funds people fell in love with 2000 to 2002…well, they’ve changed…)
Behavioral Finance
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/8/16/thank-god-what-you-see-isnt-all-there-is (The bias of “what you see is all there is” and why that makes us think returns are lower than they are)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/7/19/great-expectations (Matching investor expectations to reality. Matching money manager expectations to reality)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/8/2/a-picture-is-almost-worth-1000-words (Truly terrible drawings that illustrate the “streetlight effect” and how we end up looking in the wrong place for strong performance)
Diversity And Investing
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/11/15/lenny-bruce-is-not-afraid (A post election blog that covers the importance of diversity, ESG, thinking before you talk to investors and a long-term investment strategy)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/7/5/and-now-for-something-completely-different (How cognitive, behavioral, structural and network diversity can benefit investors in hedge funds, private equity and venture capital)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/6/7/the-five-ps-of-gender-parity (Solutions for getting more women into the investment industry)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/1/25/no-quick-fix (The many unconscious biases men AND women have to overcome to achieve gender parity in investing)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/1/4/nostradamnus (Why the low return environment heading into 2016 may require some creativity on the part of investors re: active management, diversity, and emerging managers)
Emerging Managers and/or Capital Raising
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/12/6/the-five-stages-of-emerging-manager-grief (Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance all figure into your capital raising experience)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/10/4/seed-me-seymour (The truth and consequences of seed capital)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/7/5/and-now-for-something-completely-different (How cognitive, behavioral, structural and network diversity can benefit investors in hedge funds, private equity and venture capital)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/6/21/capital-raising-crimes-punishment (Don’t be guilty of these capital raising crimes or pay the price of low AUM).
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/4/5/are-you-hot-or-not (Evaluating a new fund launch – what makes some sizzle and others fizzle?)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/2/14/at-your-service (Choosing your service providers)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/1/31/making-the-first-move (How to make and keep contact with investors without making them hate you)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/1/4/nostradamnus (Why the low return environment heading into 2016 may require some creativity on the part of investors re: active management, diversity, and emerging managers)
Random Musings
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/11/15/lenny-bruce-is-not-afraid (A post election blog that covers the importance of diversity, ESG, thinking before you talk to investors and a long-term investment strategy)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/1/18/money-manager-advice-dont-panic-but-do-bring-a-towel (What 2016 may bring - fee pressure, market volatility, few changes to the regulatory regime until after the election)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/5/3/kicking-the-buckets (Do strategy and style buckets help or hurt us? Getting past a checkbox mentality)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/4/18/you-are-so-money (Money manager horoscopes - don’t ask!)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/3/14/money-manager-report (How to effectively evaluate money manager performance without getting caught up in your benchmark underpants.
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/10/18/sleepless-in-nashville (The things about the investment industry - hedge funds, private equity, venture capital, real estate, investment advisors, etc. - that keep me up at night)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/1/4/nostradamnus (Why the low return environment heading into 2016 may require some creativity on the part of investors re: active management, diversity, and emerging managers)
ESG/Socially Responsible Investing
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/11/15/lenny-bruce-is-not-afraid (A post election blog that covers the importance of diversity, ESG, thinking before you talk to investors and a long-term investment strategy)
http://www.aboutmjones.com/mjblog/2016/2/7/ucee2gr6omdig0e5vtpsbx8qra738m (Predicting more interest in socially responsible/ESG investing, different pathways to fund management jobs, and a break from paper and PDFs)
November has been, at least thus far, a month of surprises.
You know that curse on the Chicago Cubs? Surprise! They won the World Series.
Didn’t I just see a Facebook post on a local norovirus (aka the stomach flu) outbreak? Surprise! I temporarily had to rename myself Vomitola Khomeni – and finally found that button I ate when I was three…
Hey! Do you remember all those polls that showed Democrat Hillary Clinton easily winning the White House? Surprise! Donald Trump is the 45th President of the United States.
Oh, and of course you recall all the dire predictions for the stock market should Donald Trump win the presidency? Surprise! The Dow Jones Industrial Average was trading in record-making territory a mere two days later.
To be honest, while I did spend much of the first part of the week “enjoying” my virus-induced weight loss opportunity, I also, if somewhat dimly and feverishly, realized that collectively we have done a terrible job of predicting recent events.
I know many in the financial industry had to have been stunned and dismayed by the election results. According to an October 26, 2016 article in Fortune, Trump raised $239,250 from hedge fund and private equity firms, while Hillary Clinton raised $45.2 million from the same groups. Charles River Ventures, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm even went so far as to entitle a blog posting “F*CK TRUMP.” Even though Republicans in other races enjoyed healthy and widespread financial industry support, it just wasn’t there for Trump.
As a result, for many people, last Wednesday morning must have seemed like the end of the world (as we know it). And while I didn’t notice any birds, there were even “snakes and aeroplanes” for any still doubting the seriousness of the situation. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/08/snake-on-a-plane-passengers-flight-mexico-city)
So where do we go from here? How does the investment industry successfully navigate the new normal and survive and thrive in a new world order? Here are a few thoughts I had that may help investors and managers both do good while they do well.
One: Don’t Say Or Write Anything That Endangers Your Current AUM
This was a contentious election. Combative. Testy. Belligerent. Factious. Antagonistic. Insert every single synonym for “unpleasant and argumentative” you can come up with here, because no matter how you slice it, the 2016 political campaign was a dumpster fire, starting with the Republican and Democratic primaries and continuing through the general election. It. Was. Not. Pretty.
As a result, there are a lot of very strong post-election feelings on both sides of the aisle.
And as we extend our personas over Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, Instagram and other platforms, there has simultaneously been a reduction of social restrictions and inhibitions known as the “Online Disinhibition Effect.” It makes us more likely to say, write or post things that we likely wouldn’t have before.
When you combine those things – deep disappointment, hurt feelings and increased disinhibition – you end up with an improved likelihood of offending someone, inadvertently or otherwise. And when you seriously offend a client or prospect in this industry, your AUM suffers.
So lock down your Facebook account if you post politically on it. Don’t assume you know what someone’s views may be unless they’ve actually told you what their views are. In fact, to the extent that politics and social issues don’t impact your investment strategy or portfolio, don’t talk about them in professional settings. At all. Better safe than sorry because it’s easier to keep a client/investor than to acquire a new one.
Don’t believe me on this one? Ask Matt Maloney, who’s firm, GrubHub, suffered share price losses of 9.4% in the two days after the election over a leaked internal communiqué. Shut. It.
Two: Consider Diversity In Hiring and Investing
This election cycle has been, at least in part, about disenfranchisement. Trump likely won the election due to the disenfranchisement of the white, working class rural voter, while those who fear pending disenfranchisement (minorities, women, immigrants, LBGTQ) have fueled protests post-election.
The good news for investors and money managers is that inclusion will ease disenfranchisement, and it can also make everyone richer, too. Here’s how:
Certainly, in a rapidly changing world, having better problem solving skills and potentially better returns has to be a good thing, right? So cast a wide net when hiring staff or money managers going forward to maximize your cognitive alpha.
Three: It’s Still A Great Time To Focus On ESG Factors
So, early reports have the newly-elected administration throwing out both the Environmental Protection Agency and the CFPB, as well as doing away with Dodd-Frank, among other regulatory changes. While it’s too early to know whether and when that can or will happen, there are a few things we do know:
It seems reasonable that ignoring ESG factors can cost you both potential returns and clients, and possibly increase portfolio risks. And even if there aren’t dedicated regulations or government bodies watchdogging, it also seems reasonable to assume that many investors (and the markets) WILL still care.
Four: Don’t Make Any Sudden Investment Moves
The Sunday before the election, I had a sudden Han Solo moment (“I’ve got a bad feeling about this…”) and decided that I needed to think about buying an inverse S&P ETF. I gave myself 24 hours to ponder and ultimately decided to stay my current course and not change anything in my investment portfolio. Lucky me, right? That single choice would have cost me. Bigly.
Humans want certainty. In a study published in Nature Communications, knowing there is a small chance of getting an electrical shock causes more stress than knowing you’ll be shocked.
Shocking!
But seriously, when you’re feeling uncertain about your investment strategy, take a moment. Take a walk. Take a breath. Take a sip. Take whatever step back you need before making any sudden investment decisions. Whether you’re an investor or a money manager or just a Star Wars fan with a retirement account, it’s important to remember that we generally invest for the long-term. Don’t risk your long-term goals chasing short-term “certainty.”
As for me, I’m taking my own advice. Right after I get back to my 80s roots, dig out my mismatched Converse high-tops from the very back of the closet, and have a 3-minute R.E.M.-party to dance it out. I invite you all to do the same.
Sources: http://fortune.com/2016/10/26/trump-hillary-clinton-hedge-fund-campaign-finance/
http://seekingalpha.com/news/3223875-grubhub-minus-5_8-percent-following-ceos-anti-trump-commentary
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/
http://corporate.morningstar.com/US/documents/ResearchPapers/Fund-Managers-by-Gender.pdf
https://www.hedgefundresearch.com/family-indices/hfri#
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/diverse-backgrounds-personalities-can-strengthen-groups
http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/papers/12/12-14.pdf
http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/%3FFA=facts.QA
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0316/290316-uncertainty-stress
It’s that time of year again. The leaves are turning pretty colors. Kids are back in school. There is a real possibility of leaving my air-conditioned Nashville home without my glasses fogging upon hitting the practically solid wall of outdoor heat and humidity. And like any good Libra lass, I’m celebrating a birthday.
That’s right, it’s time for my annual orgy of champagne, mid-life crisis, chocolate frosting and introspection. Oh, and it’s time to check the batteries on the smoke detectors – best to make sure those suckers are good and dead before I light this many candles.
One of the things I’ve noticed in particular about this year’s “I’m old AF-palooza” is how much time I spend thinking about sleep. On any given day (and night), I’m likely to be contemplating the following questions:
I even bought a nifty little device to track and rate my sleep (oh, the joy’s of being quantitatively oriented!). Every night, this glowy orb tracks how long I sleep, when I wake, how long I spend in deep sleep, air quality in my bedroom, humidity levels (in the South – HA!), noise and movement.
To sleep, no chance to dream
Yes, I’ve learned a lot about my nocturnal habits from my sleep tracker – for example, I move around 17% less than the average user of the sleep tracking system, I’m guessing due to having two giant Siamese cats pinning me down - but the one thing I didn’t need it to tell me was that I SUCK at sleep.
I’m not sure when I went from “I can sleep 12 hours straight and easily snooze through lunch” to “If I fall asleep RIGHT NOW I can still sleep 3 hours before my flight….RIGHT NOW and I can still get 2.75 hours…1.5 hours….” but it definitely happened.
I don’t drink caffeine. I exercise. I bought a new age aromatherapy diffuser and something helpfully called “Serenity Now” to put into it. I got an air purifier, a new mattress and great sheets.
But no matter what I try, I am a terrible sleeper.
I’ve concluded that it must have something to do with stress. I do spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about life, the universe and everything, so perhaps that’s my problem.
So in honor of my 46th year on the planet, I decided to compile a list of the top 46-investment related things I worry about at night. They do say admitting the problem is the first step in solving it, after all.
In no particular order:
Yep, looking at this list it’s little wonder that sleep eludes me. If anyone can help alleviate my “invest-istential” angst, I’m all ears. In the meantime, feel free to suggest essential oils, soothing teas and other avenues for getting some shuteye.
Sources and Bonus Reading:
Asset flows to ETFs: https://www.ft.com/content/de606d3e-897b-11e6-8cb7-e7ada1d123b1
Recent HF Performance (buried) http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/10/hedge-fund-assets-flows/
HF Replication: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/10/low-cost-hedge-fund-replication-may-threaten-securities-lawyers/
Average HF Fees: http://www.opalesque.com/661691/Global_hedge_funds_slicing_fees_to_draw_investors169.html
Political Agendas & Investing: http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/16/10/03/murphy-adds-plank-to-platform-no-hedge-funds-in-pension-and-benefits-system/
Asset Gathering vs. Investment Mgmt: http://wealthmanagement.com/blog/client-focused-fas-more-profitable-investment-managers
World's Largest PE Fund: http://fortune.com/2016/10/15/private-equity-worlds-largest-softbank/
Spurious Correlations: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-14/hedge-fund-woes-after-u-s-crackdown-don-t-surprise-sec-s-chair
Short-Term Thinking - 5 Months Does Not Track Record Make: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/14/venture-capitalist-chamath-palihapitiyas-hedge-fund-is-outperforming-market.html
