hedge fund indexes and strategy classification
DESCRIPTION
Invited presentation at AIMA Research Day 2003 conference: a study of hedge fund index biases, data quality and cleaning methods. Review of five proposals for hedge fund strategy classifications by leading experts.TRANSCRIPT
Hedge Fund Strategy Classification: AIMA Survey and Analysis of Commercial Classifications
Drago Indjic
Fauchier Partners
AIMA Research Day, 20 October 2003, Paris
• AIMA initiative (April 2003)
• AIMA Classification practice survey (June, published in Sept 2003)
• Analysis of commercial databases classification (Aug-Sep 2003)
• Classification methodology proposals
• Acknowledgements: Alexander Ineichen, Francois-Serge L’Habitant,
Lionel Martellini, Narayan Naik, Aasmund Heen
• Standard disclaimer
Overview
• Early 2003: An index family for every commercial data source: too many indices but a lack of definitions – Implications: legal, performance attribution etc.
• Ad-hoc committee under the auspices of AIMA called for “Expressionsof interest” in April 2003– 72 members (Aug 2003)
• ‘Non-commercial’, coordinated long-term research effort leading to the development of a set of definition “guidelines”
1 Introduction
Using outside
(external) classification
system47%
No classification
3%
Using own (internal)
classification system
50%
0 5 10 15 20
Strategy classification too broad
Strategy classification too narrow
Verification difficult
Other issues
No Reply
Issu
es
Frequency
AIMA HF Strategy Classification Survey: Sample of 36 out of 73 institutions, June 2003. Source: AIMA Journal, Sep 2003
2 Survey: Classification Source and Limits
HFR27%
MSCI23%
Hedgefund.net9%
Others14%
CSFB/Tremont27%
“External” Classification Sources – Commercial Databases
Source: AIMA Journal, Sep 2003
3
Classification Source by User Category
Most HF managers and investors rely on commercial classifications. Source: AIMA Journal, Sep 2003
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Bank (1) Fund offunds (5)
HFmanager
(16)
Investor (3) ServiceProvider
(10)
Total (35)
Own classification system External classification provider
Doesn't classify
4
AIMA Committee Member’s Involvement
Service providers may dominate “active” membership – commercial pressure. Source: AIMA Journal, Sep 2003
02468
1012141618
Anony
mou
sSer
vice
prov
iders
Inve
stor
Fund o
f fund
s
HFM
Bank
Nu
mb
er o
f in
stan
ces
Passive Active
5
• Fact: almost 50% of professionals rely on commercial sources
– Some reply on more than one source
• Demand for more specific, verifiable classifications
– True meaning of hedge fund indices, investment guidelines, RFP, performance attribution …
• What classifications are commercially available?
– No “best” index - unequal risk of different indices for the same strategy
6 Survey Findings
• 100% classification accuracy is not feasible
– Limited by transparency (IAFE IRC recommendations – even valuation is problematic) and consistency of manager’s behaviour
– Limited coverage of risk platforms and exchanges - is transparency welcome? Are new funds investor-friendlier?
• Who should be providing classifications?
– Fund administrators (or risk measurers)?
– How often vendors re-classify strategies?
• Pricing accurate classifications?
7 Expectation Management
8 Direct Count of Hedge Fund Strategies
Strategy HFR TASS CISDM Strategy HFR TASS CISDM
Emerging Markets 129 108 Arbitrage 89 130
Foreign Exchange 28 Eq Market Neutral 153 147
Global Emer. 99 Fixed Income 141
Global Macro 108 53 Arbitrage 90
Macro 89 Market Neutral 393
Managed Futures 163 Merger Arbitrage 67
Market Timing 47 Relative Value Arb 73
Sector 137 121 Total Relative Value 523 367 393Short Selling 16 20 25 Global Est. 325
Total Directional 446 399 298 Equity Hedge 551
Arbitrage 89 130 Equity Non-Hedge 85
Eq Market Neutral 153 147 Global Intl 46
Fixed Income 141 Long Only 16
Arbitrage 90 Long/Short Equity 836
Market Neutral 393 Total Security Selec 636 836 387Merger Arbitrage 67 Securities 65
Relative Value Arb 73 Event Driven 231 104 153
Total Relative Valu 523 367 393 Total Multi Process 296 104 153
Note: Data as at September 1st, 2003
9 Direct Count of Hedge Fund Strategies (2)
Event driven and short selling are the only strategy descriptions common to all three data providers.Note: Data as at September 1st, 2003
Strategy HFR TASS CISDMHedgeHedge Fund 2479 2433 1676Index 102 210 22Median 20Other 82Unclassified 447Composite 101Total 2682 2725 2165Fund of Funds 564 524 445
5928 5974 4775
Classification methodologies – concern over purity
Classification Purity -Martellini (2003)
Index Provider N ° of Indices Classification Methodology
EACM 18 Classified by EACM
HFR 37 Manager self proclaimed style
CSFB 14Classified by the manager and then checked by the Index
Committee
Zurich 5 Classified by Zurich
Van Hedge 16 Classified by Van Hedge
Hennessee 24Classified by the ma nager and then checked by the Index
Committee
HF Net 37 Manager self proclaimed style
LJH 16 Classified by LJH
CISDM 19 Manager self proclaimed style
Altvest 14 Manager self proclaimed style
MSCI over 160Classified by the manager and then checked by the Index
Committee
S&P 10 Classified by S&P
Feri 16 Classified by Feri
Blue X 1 Classified by BlueX
MondoHedge 7Classified by the manager and then checked by the Index
Committee
EurekaHedge 3 Not reported
HFIntelligence9 InvestHedge + 12
EuroHedg e + 7 AsiaHedgeNot reported
Bernheim 1 Not reported
TalentHedge 3 Classified by TalentHedge
10
• How are funds are classified by commercial databases?
– Get a “baseline” classification estimates using HFR, Tass and CISDM hedge fund databases
– How consistent are the classifications of the same fund?
– Related study: Meriot Jones (Pertrac), Apr 2003, unpublished
• “Noisy” database fund identifiers and strategy classification fields
11 Commercial Strategy Classifications
• Fauchier Partners research project– 3 man-months (G. Thompson, A. Heen, A. Lahiri)
• Not taxonomical analysis of strategy descriptions but collectingevidence
• Pertrac data format - database cleaning, name matching and counting
• Not database market research: – Not a comparison of data vendors
12 Hedge fund database Classification analysis
13 Approach
• “Top-Down” Strategy Classification Approach
– Map the “narrow” vendor strategies to “broad” strategies (by convention)
– “Count” classifications and “vote”
– Estimate overall consistency of the broad strategy classifications and identify conflicts
• Identify “unique” funds in different databases
– Problem: No ISIN, no sector classification
– LP/Ltd, USD/EUR share classes etc causes funds to be identified as the same when they are not
Short Selling (H*,T*,C*)
Sector (H*,C*)
Relative Value Arb (H*)Market Timing (H*)
Merger Arbitrage (H*)Long/Short Equity (T*)Managed Futures (T*)
Market Neutral (C*)Long Only (C)Macro (H*)
Fixed Income Arbitrage (T*)Global Intl (C*)Global Macro (T*,C*)
Fixed Income (H*)Equity Non-Hedge (H*)Global Emer. (C*)
Eq Market Neutral (H*,T*)Equity Hedge (H*)Event Driven (H*,T*,C*)Foreign Exchange (H)
Convertible Arbitrage (H*,T*)Global Est. (C*)Distressed Securities (H*)Emerging Markets (H*,T*)
Relative ValueSecurity SelectionMulti ProcessDirectional
• Subject to discussion: convention based on compilation of several sources.
• Note: Altvest classifies non-exclusively (“tick all that apply”)
Notes: H = HFR98, T = Tass, C = CISDMHedge. * = index exists. FOF excluded
“Top-Down” Strategy Grouping: A Strategy Mapping Convention (1)
14
“Top-Down” Strategy Grouping: A Strategy Mapping Convention (2)
Long Only (C)
Fixed Income (H*)
Short Selling (H*,T*,C*)
Sector (H*,C*)
Market Timing (H*)
Managed Futures (T*)
Relative Value Arb (H*)Long/Short Equity (T*)Macro (H*)
Market Neutral (C*)Global Intl (C*)Global Macro (T*,C*)
Fixed Income Arbitrage (T*)Equity Non-Hedge (H*)Merger Arbitrage (H*)Global Emer. (C*)
Eq Market Neutral (H*,T*)Equity Hedge (H*)Event Driven (H*,T*,C*)Foreign Exchange (H)
Convertible Arbitrage (H*,T*)Global Est. (C*)Distressed Securities (H*)Emerging Markets (H*,T*)
Relative ValueSecurity SelectionEvent DrivenDirectional
• Following to Naik and Ineichen; large multi-strategy funds should be in separate group (Inechien)
Notes: H = HFR98, T = Tass, C = CISDMHedge. * = index exists. FOF excluded
15
Fund Matching Heuristics
• Descriptive + numerical criteria : match of fund name (substrings) and fund return (±%tollerance) on two specific dates
• Runtime: merged database cleaning for 15,000 funds takes ~1 houron PC
-0.32%-1.28%HFR98Pioneer Global Macro PGM (USD)20424600
-0.32%-1.28%TassPioneer Global Macro (USD)20421414
-0.32%-1.28%ALTVESTPioneer Global Macro (PGM) USD20421422
Return PreviousReturn SourceNameMatchIDID
16
Total of 6363 funds in 3 major databases (table for >3 databases available), after filtering duplicate records 4589 “unique” funds (28% less). Includes dead and alive funds for classification analysis purpose.
Source: Fauchier (August 2003)
17 Automatic HF Universe Count
Tass Tremont (54%)
CISDMHedge(35 %)
HFR (52%)
25% 5% 16%
4%10%
12%
28%
Strategy Classification “Matching”
• Following to identification of an unique fund present in 1 or more databases:
• Cases of classification multiplicity:
– Only 1: trivial, fund present in only one database, no 2nd opinion on its classification
– 2: fund present in two databases
– 3: fund present three databases
– >3: fund present in three databases
• Algorithm: count modified Pertrac “des” database field descriptors where “narrow” vendor classification are replaced by “broad” classifications
18
4%34%30%12%20%2 strategies
29%29%15%8%19%1 strategy
Fund of fundsSecurity SelectionRelative ValueMulti-ProcessDirectional%
500748476226468
3227224094156Non-agreement
468476236132312#Agreement
Fund of fundsSecurity SelectionRelative ValueMulti-ProcessDirectional
2 “name” matches
Case of Two Available Classifications
Out of 794 funds classified into different broad strategies there are 156 instances where one of the “broad” strategies is “Directional”. “Non-agreements” counts instances, while “agreement” counts instances of unique fund pairs (thus equals 2 x the number of funds).
RelativeXXX
RelativeXXX
Broad StrategyFund
DirectionalYYY
Relative ValueYYY
Broad StrategyFund
19
18%31%15%4%31%3 strategies
4%39%28%10%18%2 strategies
23%30%23%10%15%1 strategy
Fund of FundsSecurity SelectionRelative ValueMulti-ProcessDirectionalPercentages
332815593228410
274622646Non-agreement
464383181161982 to 1
259331253106166# Agreement
Fund of FundsSecurity SelectionRelative ValueMulti-ProcessDirectional
3 “name” Matches
Case of Three Available Classifications
Relative Val.XXX
Relative Val.XXX
Relative Val.XXX
Broad StrategyFund
DirectionalZZZ
Sec. SelectZZZ
Relative Val.ZZZ
Broad StrategyFund
Sec. SelectYYY
Relative Val.YYY
Relative Val.YYY
Broad StrategyFund
Note: some funds are classified in 3 different “broad” strategies.
20
Further Database Classification Research
• Estimate size of universe and attrition rates
– quarterly trend analysis of strategy growth
• Marginal utility of additional databases – how many?
• What is behind inconsistencies?
– Identify classification trouble spots
– Estimate misclassification rate and bias
– Induce vendor’s classification rule
• Verify HF index compositions
21
• Threshold transparency level (non-transparent funds cannot be classified)
• 1: performance estimates (NAV)
• 2: consolidated exposure (sensitivities)
• 3: position level (daily copy of portfolio statement)
• 4: trade level (intra-daily - ideal)
• Accuracy, precision, confidence …
• Econometrics: data (history) requirements, “drift” detection discriminate styles within strategy, adapt to evolving strategies
22 Part 2: Methodology Requirements
• Initiate discussion
• Several proposals made by ad-hoc committee:
– Statistical: clustering, PCA
– Structural: risk factors, syntactical
• Further proposals are welcome
– Explanation facility
23 Current Classification Methodology Proposals
• Cluster Analysis: the best way to classify hedge funds without bias
– Suggested algorithm: partition around metroids (PAM)
• Center of each style = first principal component of all indices publicly available for a style (e.g. EDHEC indices)
• Leverage effects should be normalized
24 F. –S. L’Habitant (2003)
Related Research
• Brown and Goetzmann (2001) style analysis using clustering– Does not distinguish between (equally correlated) share classes
with varying leverage
• Gyger and Gibson (2001)– “Hard” vs “Soft” (fuzzy/probabilistic) classification, robust
distance measures– Normalise leverage by average strategy variance (or by “gross”
balance sheet exposure?)
• Produces peer-relative measure (“tracking error”)
25
• “Asset based style” factor analysis, Fung and Hsieh (2001)
– Linear and nonlinear (option) payoffs
• Standardise taxonomy of strategies
– Managers should self-declare %risk exposure to strategies
• Mutual fund industry – re-classification lessons
– Some 700 managers asking to be reclassified by Morningstar exhibited better performance under new benchmarks (Goetzmann)
26 Naik (2003)
• Two problems: right categories + classification method
• Using a manager’s self-proclaimed style is not a good option because of style biases and style drifts.
– William Sharpe’s insight: “If it acts like a duck, I’ll consider it’s a duck”
• Perform a rolling-window regression analysis of the fund performance on a set of indices, and look for patterns
– One should use pure indices perfectly representative of a given pure strategy
• Many index providers exist but none is entirely reliable
– EDHEC Indices: Portfolio of indices derived using PCA
27 Martellini (2003)
• Verification and validation problem
• What does managers’ portfolio holdings say about strategy?
– Strategy reasoning system
28 Indjic (2003)
Issuer Type Sector PositionX Equity A ShortX CB A LongX CDS A LongY Equity B LongZ Equity B Short
• Why not classifying strategies on the basis of VaR?
• Can discretionary traders be ever classified using systematic factors?
29 AIMA Conference Feedback
• Guidelines/ endorsement (for investors, FoF, performance attribution)
– Standard definitions
– “Blind classification” competition
– Are you prepared to “override” your classifications?
• Classification “clearing house” / web server
– Consensus building
– Data fusion (statistics, factor analysis)
30 Future: Methodology
• Open Forum
– Public dissemination – classification workshop in 2004?
– Consensus is slowly moving: how to facilitate the process?
• Format for constructive dialogue with vendors
– Publish names of inconsistently classified funds and resolve conflicts?
– Implication for index “products” and benchmarking
• For-profit or not?
– “Open” academic “standard”
– Independency guarantee vs (charitable) funding
31 Future: Committee