Archive for the 'Hedge Funds' Category

Despite Sentence, Bernie Still Madoff With the Money

Kurt Brouwer June 29th, 2009

Bernie Madoff sentenced to 150 years in jail:  I think most would agree that the Bernie Madoff sentencing was appropriate.  The Wall Street Journal gives us the details [emphasis added]:

Bernard Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison Monday after admitting in March to running one of the largest and longest financial frauds in recent memory.

At a packed hearing Monday, U.S. District Judge Denny Chin in Manhattan ordered Mr. Madoff, 71 years old, to serve the statutory maximum sentence in prison. Applause briefly broke out after the sentence was announced.

“Here the message must be sent that Mr. Madoff’s crimes were extraordinarily evil,” Judge Chin said.

The sentence dwarfs other prison terms handed out for other high-profile white-collar fraud in recent years, such as former Worldcom Inc. Chief Executive Bernard J. Ebbers, 67, and Adelphia Communications founder John Rigas. Mr. Ebbers is serving 25 years in prison, while Mr. Rigas, 84, is serving 12 years in prison…

I don’t think there will be many tears shed for Mr. Madoff.

Now that justice has been served, there are still questions to be addressed.  For example, I think that many people still find it hard to understand how he got away with such a massive fraud.  To answer that point, I thought I would revive an earlier post that spelled out exactly how Bernie made off with the money.  The post also gives a clear solution to investors concerned about future Madoff-type scams.

How Bernie Madoff With the Money

My apologies for the play on words in the title.  Just could not help myself.

By all accounts, the Madoff scandal was a fraud of epic proportions and a betrayal of those who entrusted their assets to him. If you have somehow missed out on the details of this $50 billion fraud, see Wall Street Journal — Madoff.

My reason for posting on this is quite simple.  I have noticed a lack of clarity as to why — or more importantly — how it could have happened.

From what I have read, this investment fraud was made possible chiefly because investors with Madoff did not have an independent custodian for the assets entrusted to his firm.  If there had been an independent custodian, I think the scheme would never have been possible.  For example, it appears that Madoff did not make the trades in clients accounts that he claimed to have made.  If those clients had an independent custodian, they would have seen their account holdings and transactions on the statement.  If Madoff claimed to have made a given trade, but it never hit the client’s acount, a serious red flag would have been raised.  Also, the returns he claimed were exaggerated.  If clients were receiving accurate statements from the custodian, they would have known his performance claims were false.

Yes, investors could have dug deeper and questioned him further, but, in my opinion, the scheme was possible only because the Madoff firm was a brokerage firm that created its own client statements.  In short, there was no independent verification that those reports were accurate.  The Madoff scheme illustrates what can happen if you lack one of the very important checks and balances that are part of a sound investment structure.

Like many registered investment advisory firms, our firm, Brouwer & Janachowski, LLC, does not hold clients assets directly.  Instead, clients have their assets in an account at an independent custodian that provides clients with statements showing the value of their assets, the number of positions held and so on.  This type of independent verification of your account status is critical.  We direct the investments in those accounts, but the positions held as well as the value of those investments are clearly shown in the statements from the custodian.

A second layer of protection exists for those who, like us, invest primarily in mutual funds because independent reporting on fund results is built by law into the mutual fund structure.

This piece from Brett Arends’ excellent ROI column in the Wall Street Journal makes the point that mutual funds are looking pretty good these days compared to the disaster experienced by the seemingly-sophisticated investors in the Madoff scheme. He lists 10 points from which I excerpted those I thought were most critical [emphasis added]:

Madoff: a Walking Ad for Mutual Funds (Wall Street Journal, December 16, 2008, Brett Arends)

A multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme reinforces classic investment advice: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Bernard Madoff has done the impossible: He’s made the rest of Wall Street look good this year.

OK, so your funds lost 40% or more. Mr. Madoff’s clients, from charities to the super-rich, lost the whole salami.

Call it another reason to steer clear of so-called financial wizards and miracle investment funds. Here are 10 reasons why you’re better off opening an online account and investing in ordinary mutual funds – like anyone else.

1. You’ll always know where your money is, and you can get it out at any time…

2. You always know how you’re doing, too. Performance figures are updated daily…

4. Everything is out in the open. Mutual funds have to publish regular updates, telling you what they’ve been doing and why. Mr. Madoff actually kicked people out his fund if they asked too many questions…

Lucky people.  Can you imagine how relieved you would be to have been one of those folks Madoff kicked out?

7. You can still get all the diversification you want. Though regular mutual funds you can invest in hedge-fund like “market neutral’ funds, managed timber, Asian real estate, precious metals, and option-selling income funds. You can keep your money in inflation-protected government bonds or Japanese yen. Exactly how much more diversification did you really need?

This is an important point that is often overlooked.  Mutual funds cover a very broad array of investment opportunities, from stocks and bonds to gold, energy and many other asset classes.

9. And when you keep your money in public funds you won’t wake up one morning, switch on the news, and discover it’s all gone. The worst one-day loss in history for investors who entrusted their money to the U.S. public markets is about 20%. It happened just once, October 19, 1987 – and they got their money back in due course.

10. And if you really need to brag about your money at the country club, an $8 online trade and a $3,300 stake can get you one share in Berkshire Hathaway. Then you can smugly say, “I have my money with Warren Buffett.” Do you really believe your brother in law’s “financial whiz” is any better?

If you want to share in Buffett’s professional work, you can buy stock in his company, Berkshire Hathaway, which has some similarities to a closed-end mutual fund.  Or, you can buy shares in mutual funds that own sizeable stakes in Berkshire Hathaway.  The best-known of these funds is Sequoia Fund, which recently re-opened to investors (see Sequoia Fund To Open Up Again).

Obviously, most mutual funds have taken a hit this year.  However, they have avoided scandals like the Madoff mess because of the checks and balances inherent to the mutual fund structure itself.  This chart and text give you a sense of how funds work.  It is excerpted from the Investment Company Factbook, which is created each year by the Investment Company Institute:

ici-mf-structure-08.JPG

Source: Investment Company Institute

As you can see, mutual funds have an explicit structure with checks and balances including an independent audit by a public accounting firm.  Investors in mutual funds typically focus on the fund’s portfolio manager and the types of returns the fund has gotten.  It is only in times such as these that other aspects of the mutual fund structure come into focus.  Those are illustrated in the chart above and in this text from the Factbook about the relatively unsung roles of the custodian and the transfer agent:

Custodians

Mutual funds are required by law to protect their portfolio securities by placing them with a custodian. Nearly all mutual funds use banks as their custodians. The SEC requires any bank acting as a mutual fund custodian to comply with various regulatory requirements designed to protect the fund’s assets, including provisions requiring the bank to segregate mutual fund portfolio securities from other bank assets.

Transfer Agents

Mutual funds and their shareholders also rely on the services of transfer agents to maintain records of shareholder accounts, calculate and distribute dividends and capital gains, and prepare and mail shareholder account statements, federal income tax information, and other shareholder notices. Some transfer agents also prepare and mail statements confirming shareholder transactions and account balances, and maintain customer service departments, including call centers, to respond to shareholder inquiries.

Here are several points I have made over the years.  They illustrate precisely why mutual funds are so unique in the wild and woolly world of investing.

Mutual Funds Are A Unique Investment Vehicle

Mutual funds offer a package of advantages available nowhere else:

• Low minimum investment

• Immediate diversification

• Professional management

• Security

• Liquidity

• Audited track records

The first modern mutual fund was the Massachusetts Investors Trust, which came along in 1924, but it took years of trial and error, and a lot of misery before the mutual fund industry, as a whole, adopted the structure and safeguards we take for granted today.The shocking stock market crash of 1929 sparked the Great Depression of the 1930s–10 years of poverty, disillusionment and despair for many. Yet out of that disastrous decade came many reforms (such as the Securities Act of 1933, the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933 and the Fair Labor Standards Act) and the creation of many governmental oversight agencies (the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB), and the Federal Communications Commission, to name a few). For mutual fund investors, the watershed event was the passage by Congress of The Investment Company Act of 1940, which created the mutual fund structure as we know it today.

Mutual Funds & The Integrated Circuit?

By way of comparison, let’s travel back in time to California in 1959. In case you’ve forgotten, that was when Jack Kilby and Robert Noyce created the first integrated circuit, a single chip of silicon that replaced thousands of transistors and other electrical components and ushered in an era of unprecedented innovation as computer technology became cheaper and more powerful, year after year. From being the exclusive province of governments and well-funded university research laboratories, computer technology is now so pervasive and so inexpensive that we cannot imagine a world without it.

Just as the integrated circuit (the forebear to what we now call the semiconductor) brought computing power to people everywhere, the creation of the modern mutual fund structure changed the nature of financial services and opened up sophisticated investments to investors of all types. One piece of legislation created a new era for investors by setting up the safeguards and structure that enabled mutual funds to become the dominant investment vehicle they are today. This was a relatively simple innovation that did not receive much notice at the time. Yet, it opened up a myriad of possibilities and brought professional management, diversification, safety and other tangible benefits into the hands of all investors, no matter how much money or how little money they have.

Today, there are more mutual funds than stocks on the New York Stock Exchange. New funds open daily, offering a dazzling and sometimes intimidating array of choices. The competition for your money is so intense, that new innovations, marketing approaches, investment styles and services are being announced daily. The smartest people on Wall Street are eager and willing to work for you, for a nominal annual fee. In all of human history, there has never been a time like this.

The ‘40 Investment Company Act — History’s Most Effective Regulation

So, we can thank the far-sighted legislators who created the modern mutual fund more than 60 years ago when they passed the Investment Company Act of 1940.  That legislation has given us a golden era for investors that was previously unavailable to all but the very rich.  And, as we have seen with the Madoff mess, even the rich would have been better off using mutual funds.  Those who did avoided all these problems (Hedge Fund Troubles Take Tragic Turn).

But, even if you do not invest in mutual funds, there is an important safety feature that mutual funds pioneered — the independent custodian.  If you invest in investment partnerships, hedge funds and other private investments, you can avoid the heartbreak now being felt by those who invested with Madoff  — just make sure there is an independent custodian that holds your assets and reports to you as to the value of those assets.

If you take that simple step, you won’t ever have to wonder if someone is about to make off with your money.

 

What are hedge funds anyway?

Kurt Brouwer June 25th, 2009

Continuing in our ‘all hedge funds, all the time’ theme today, I thought I would give you a short primer on hedge funds:

Hedge Fund Investing

The term hedge fund is a bit confusing to many people because many ‘hedge’ funds take lots of risk and do not seem to balance out the risks they are taking. Yet, the term hedge itself implies the principle of hedging your bet, which means reducing the risk you take.

The original hedge fund was started almost 60 years ago by an innovative man named A.W. Jones.  Today, Jones’ original fund would be known as a long/short fund.  That is, it bought stocks the manager thought were undervalued, but also balanced or ‘hedged’ that exposure by shorting stocks he did not like. Jones also used leverage or borrowing to accelerate returns. Jones also pioneered the use of incentive fees.

The term hedge fund is primarily a reference to an investment partnership of some type in which the general partner or managing member charges a management fee and an incentive fee or carried interest. This is often 2% as a management fee and 20% as an incentive fee.

Because hedge funds have so much investment flexibility, investors need to be convinced that the portfolio manager has an excellent strategy and also that the manager cares deeply about the interests of investors. Many hedge funds have a structure that prevents the management team from earning incentive fees until the hedge fund gets back to its ‘high water’ mark.  That is, until it gets back all the losses it has incurred.  But, if the high water mark is distant, there may be an incentive for the management team to close the fund and start a new one without a distant high water mark.

There is nothing wrong with hedge funds as an investment structure. However, the details are critical. They have to be carefully-selected both as individual investments and as to their impact on an overall portfolio. In short, they have to make investment sense. Another issue to be examined is risk.  Does the hedge fund use leverage or borrowed money to enhance its returns?  If so, that adds significantly to potential risk.  The other issue is cost structure in that their cost structure has to be reasonable for what they do. No doubt there are investment strategies that can warrant the 2 and 20 cost structure, but that is a high hurdle to overcome.

The original hedge fund concept started by A.W. Jones was a long/short equity fund.  Jones bought long positions in companies he thought were undervalued and he sold short positions in companies he thought were overvalued.  Depending on the state of the stock market his net long position (long positions minus short positions) would vary.

The Jones model or long/short hedge fund is still a common strategy today.  There are many other hedge fund strategies such as merger arbitrage, fixed income arbitrage, distressed assets, global macro and many more.

See also:

How Bernie Madoff With the Money

Hedge Fund Troubles Take Tragic Turn

Van Eck Offers Hedging Mutual Fund

Kurt Brouwer June 25th, 2009

The New York Times’ Dealbook blog tells us of another mutual fund that is designed to offer hedge-fund-like strategies:

Van Eck To Invest in Hedges Through Mutual Fund (Dealbook, June 24, 2009, Chris V. Nicholson)

Van Eck Global, the United States money manager, said Tuesday that it would introduce a new mutual fund to invest in hedge funds.

The Van Eck Multi-Manager Alternatives Fund, or VMAAX, will be an open-ended fund that holds a variety of funds pursuing alternative, hedgelike strategies. The fund aims to serve as a channel between retail investors and funds that are often restricted to the wealthy, and Van Eck’s move may indicate greater confidence in hedge funds, after their worst year ever.

Harvey Hirsch, senior vice president of marketing at Van Eck, said in the statement announcing the the fund that it “may give investors access to sophisticated asset management strategies in a single portfolio, providing diversification, hedging potential, and in some cases, it may capitalize on market dislocations as they develop globally.”…

See also:

Mutual Funds: Edging Into Hedging

Mutual Funds: Edging Into Hedging

Kurt Brouwer June 25th, 2009

Reuters has a good piece on a large hedge fund company that is doing more than just edging into mutual fund hedging [emphasis added]:

AQR hedging its bets with big mutual fund plan (Reuters, June 24, 2009, Joseph A. Giannone)

AQR Capital Management LLC, among the world’s largest hedge fund managers, will introduce another hedge fund-style mutual fund next month, as it expands its reach beyond the biggest investors.

Greenwich, Connecticut-based AQR, a $20 billion firm led by former Goldman Sachs Group star Cliff Asness, led a new wave of hedge funds marketing to the masses when it launched the AQR Diversified Arbitrage Fund ADAIX.O in January.

“We, in about two weeks, expect to introduce a whole new series of style exposures for retail investors,” AQR co-founder David Kabiller told Reuters in a rare interview.

…Six decades ago, U.S. regulators divided the investment world into closely watched, long-only mutual funds and hedge funds, lightly regulated pools that can short stocks, use leverage and were exclusive to large or wealthy investors.

But those lines are getting more blurry by the day. In just the past week, Van Eck Global became the latest manager to unveil a hedge style fund, while Bull Path Hedge Fund converted itself into a mutual fund.

…Kabiller said hedge funds by design should never be allowed to get too big. With only 60 mergers pending at any one time, arbitrage strategies would suffer with too many assets.

“The stuff we’re doing on the alternative side, if we’re true to it, has real finite capacity,” he said.

Which is why AQR intends to offer a series of retail funds, including some strategies that can be expanded to several billion dollars.

…Convincing small investors to buy these funds will not be easy, though. Hedge funds are viewed as high risk and their reputation is in tatters after their worst performance in decades. Moreover, hedge funds by design should post modest gains when stock markets are booming.

To be sure, Mom and Pop investors will not get a piece of the high-octane, high-risk action sold to the rich. Hedge-style mutual funds will use less leverage and deliver tamer returns.

…This year, the AQR mutual fund is up around 4.5 percent, half the gain in the S&P 500. But in mid-March, when U.S. stocks were down 20 percent, the fund was little changed…

There are some alternative or hedge fund strategies that translate pretty well into the mutual fund format.  For example, merger arbitrage funds such as the Merger Fund or the Arbitrage Fund.  Other hedge fund strategies, for example those that employ lots of borrowing or leverage, will not be easily adapted to a mutual fund format.

If hedge fund firms can replicate successful hedge fund strategies in a mutual fund format and, secondly, if they can do so at a reasonable cost, I’m all for this.  Those are big ifs though.

Via: Abnormal Returns

Chrysler Won’t Repay Bailout Billions

Kurt Brouwer May 6th, 2009

This report from CNN [emphasis added below] spells out the fact that both Chrysler and the White House have agreed to forgive the billions in bailout money Chrysler has received. In addition, Chrysler is going to get billions more in loans that are — ‘wink wink’ — going to be repaid, or something.

Chrysler LLC will not repay U.S. taxpayers more than $7 billion in bailout money it received earlier this year and as part of its bankruptcy filing.

This revelation was buried within Chrysler’s bankruptcy filings last week and confirmed by the Obama administration Tuesday. The filings included a list of business assumptions from one of the company’s key financial advisors in the bankruptcy case.

Some of the main assumptions listed by Robert Manzo of Capstone Advisory Group were that the Treasury would forgive a $4 billion bridge loan given to Chrysler in the closing days of the Bush administration, a $300 million fee on that loan, and the $3.2 billion in financing approved last week by the Obama administration to fund Chrysler’s operations during bankruptcy…

That is a total of $7.5 billion by my count. As this report from the Deal.com indicates, the actual cost of saving Chrysler could be as high as $300,000 per job. I understand the concept of avoiding a disastrous collapse — such as GM — during an economic contraction, but Chrysler is a relatively small company that really has no national significance. Why not just use that money to help retrain the workers who will eventually get laid off anyway?

It will take months (if not years) to ultimately judge the U.S. government’s historic bailout of the auto business. But based on the initial comments by Chrysler LLC in bankruptcy court, it might not be too early to declare that, however the company turns out, the U.S. taxpayer appears to be among the losers.

An adviser to Chrysler in court Monday said it was “highly unlikely” Chrysler would be able to repay the $4 billion in loans the government advanced the company in the months leading up to last week’s bankruptcy filing, or the additional $4 billion the U.S. Treasury is providing in debtor-in-possession financing. While that might not come as a surprise to anyone who has followed Chrysler’s struggles, the comments seemingly resolve any lingering debate about whether the Chrysler assistance was an investment with an expected return, as some have argued, or a bailout.

The relevant question is what the U.S. taxpayer is getting in return for its largess. It is hard to argue that what is left of Chrysler is pivotal to the survival of the U.S. industrial base…

Rather, the best way to justify the Chrysler bailout is the jobs saved, but even by that measure the plan appears expensive. Chrysler on its Web site boasts that it “touches” 100,000 jobs in the U.S., costing taxpayers $80,000 per job saved. But that number almost certainly includes dealers, suppliers, mechanics and others who are also touched by other, healthier automakers, and who may not necessarily be out of work had Chrysler failed.

Chrysler is coy on its exact number of U.S. employees, but the company according to United Auto Workers records had about 26,800 union members in the U.S., prior to the last buyout offer. Using that figure, the government is spending almost $300,000 per job saved…

This Business Insider post makes the point that every man, woman and child in America just gave $25 to Fiat (an Italian car company), the United Auto Workers and Chrysler’s bondholders:

The White House confirmed yesterday that the $8 billion in “bridge loans” the U.S. taxpayer has given to Chrysler over the past six months, including $4 billion in bankruptcy financing, won’t be paid back. Taxpayers also won’t be getting a big slug of Chrysler stock in exchange.

Instead, the wreckage of Chrysler will be divided up among Fiat, Chrysler’s unions, and Chrysler’s debtholders. Which means that the taxpayers’ $8 billion was just a gift to these three consitituencies.

We don’t know about you, but we can think of a few dozen charities that we’d rather have given that $8 billion to than Chrysler’s debtholders, Chrysler’s unions, and Fiat…

This piece from the New York Times indicates that the deal struck with Chrysler is unusually favorable to the United Autoworkers Union:

But for the United Automobile Workers union, Chrysler’s Chapter 11 case, which began in New York on Friday, could turn out to be — if the company survives and thrives — the Cadillac of bankruptcies.

The U.A.W., for example, has received upfront protection from the Treasury Department for its pension plan and the fund that will take over responsibility for retiree medical benefits.

Moreover, that fund, called the voluntary employee beneficiary association, or VEBA, will control 55 percent of the equity in the new Chrysler once it emerges from bankruptcy, and hold a seat on the Chrysler board.

…But for now, even though Chrysler workers had to agree to lower pay and less generous benefits as part of the deal, the U.A.W. appears to be enjoying relative safety in helping steer the course of the Chrysler bankruptcy.

“I’m very comfortable,” Ron Gettelfinger, the U.A.W.’s president, said Friday on National Public Radio. “It’s not like we’re going into this bankruptcy fighting with Chrysler and Fiat and the U.S. Treasury. We’re going in there in lockstep to put our agreements in place.”

Labor and restructuring lawyers said such a comprehensive deal going into bankruptcy was rare.

I could not help but note that one group was not represented in the UAW leader’s ‘lockstep’ process — bondholders. Again, if someone bought Chrysler bonds, they certainly should have known the company was not that strong. However, they should also be treated fairly.

And, finally, in the realm of unintended consequences, we find out that all these shenanigans will probably mean that financing for unionized industries may become more scarce and more expensive in the future. Why?

In this post from the Atlantic, we find out that political considerations are ‘mucking’ up the Chrysler deal. This does not bode well for the future when companies run into trouble:

For the record, I have no problem with whatever cramdown those debtholders–or any others–get in bankruptcy court. If the judge thinks that the reorganization can’t be done without making the UAW basically whole, fine. I just think that the reorganization should be done under the well-established procedures of the bankruptcy court, not at the behest of an administration trying to reward its supporters.

…Perhaps it’s idealistic of me, but the American bankruptcy system actually works very, very well. I think we should be very cautious about mucking with it, particularly when there’s no reason to. The administration didn’t need to beat up the creditors in order to reorganize the company–or at least, they wouldn’t have needed to do so, if they weren’t trying to make the creditors take less than they’d get in a liquidation. Nor did it need to do so to keep the UAW at the table–unlike capital, the UAW isn’t going anywhere. The administration is beating up the creditors because a) it wants to give the UAW a much better deal than they’d get in liquidation and b) they’d like someone else to pay for it. I recognize that the law is always kind of messy, but as far as I know, this kind of blatant political intervention between debt claims is unprecedented, and worse, it’s a dress rehearsal for doing the same thing at GM. I don’t think this is good for the rule of law, I’m pretty sure it will be bad for capital markets, and I’m nearly positive it’s going to make it hard for any heavily unionized company to get substantial capital for the next decade. And why? It hasn’t exactly enhanced Chrysler’s already dicey chances of survival.

If bondholders are demonized and threatened and forced to bear the brunt of any restructuring, how likely is it that they would lend to these types of companies in the future? And, remember, these bondholders or ‘speculators’ are just investors who put money from pension plans or other vehicles into debt that was secured by Chrysler’s assets. As such, they should be treated fairly and they should have their day in court.

All in all, this is a very disappointing turn of events. Chrysler is on its second bailout and American taxpayers are being forced to put up money that will just prolong the company’s — and its employees’ — agony. There is very little likelihood that Chrysler will survive or that those jobs will either.

And, if this is a prelude to the GM workout, then we should all be worried.

See also:

Americans Skeptical About Chrysler-UAW Deal

Epitaph for a Great Car Company

« Prev - Next »