Sat, Sep 20, 2014
A A A
Welcome Guest
Free Trial RSS
Get FREE trial access to our award winning publications
Opalesque Futures Intelligence

Futures Lab: Same net exposure, same risk? No, says Jon Sundt. See his example of a quant fund, based on the "perfect storm" of August 2007

Tuesday, July 27, 2010


Jon Sundt

Understanding Quants' Hazard

As investors consider riskier assets, it may be useful to recall a lesson from three years ago. The following parable is from an August 2007 newsletter sent to clients by Jon Sundt, president and chief executive of Altegris Investments, an allocator to hedge funds and commodity trading advisors.

The example was inspired by the steep losses suffered by quantitative traders in August 2007. It is from real experience, but Mr. Sundt used fictional names for the two funds he compared, PhD Fund and Plain Vanilla Fund.

Both funds are market neutral and go long and short US equities. Both have stellar track records, low correlation to the S&P 500 and reasonable performance in up and down markets


By 2007, low volatility had lulled many quant shops into a false sense of security. The lack of any recent blowups or spikes in volatility made them feel immune to market jolts. At the same time, quantitative models were picking up nickels where they formerly picked up quarters. Because the models would need to pick up more nickels to make the same amount of money, many turned to leverage for help.

The PhD Fund had run its models over the past five years and made a killing. Its managers were rich. They had found that because of the low volatility in the market and the low correlation within their market-neutral system, they could leverage their fund.
So they decided to lever eight to one. For every $1 million the Fund put forward, it borrowed enough to have $4 million for its long book and $4 million for its short book, staying with the "market neutral" label.

This was genius! The PhD Fund amplified returns, all the while keeping its market neutral hat on. It had $1 billion under management before leverage. With leverage, its assets were $8 billion. Its net exposure was zero ($4 million long plus $4 million short), but its gross exposure was 8x.

For comparison, consider the Plain Vanilla Long Short Fund, with around $400 million under management. It has an experienced research team that evaluates fundamental measures of a company's stock (bottom-up research) as well as overall industry trends (top-down research). The team buys what they believe are undervalued stocks and sells what they believe are overvalued stocks.

The Vanilla Fund's team trade 50 positions long and 50 positions short. They keep their book market neutral, so their net exposure is zero. They do this by using the regular margin available for many brokerage accounts. The Vanilla Fund borrows $1 million for every $1 million dollar invested, meaning it uses $1 million to go long and $1 million to go short, for a gross leverage of 2x. With leverage, the Vanilla Fund has $800 million under management.

 



The Vanilla Fund and the PhD Fund both have zero net exposures...for every dollar long they have a dollar short. Combine this with their performance, and they look pretty similar. But that is a wrong perception.

The difference is seen by looking at the funds' gross exposure. Here the differential is huge: 200% for the Vanilla Fund compared to 800% for the PhD Fund (chart). Gross exposure shows just how leveraged these funds are: 2x versus 8x.

During a few days in August 2007, there was an extreme event in the stock market. In particular, the stocks bought vs. short sold by quant funds went through a sharp reversal. Because many funds had similar positions, they drove the market down as they tried to liquidate holdings.

The PhD Fund suffered a 4% loss on the longs and a 4% loss on the shorts. But that was before the leverage. Because of the leverage, you have to multiply it by eight, for a 32% loss! The Vanilla Fund also lost money that month, but less.

The moral: Net exposure can be misleading. One has to pay attention to gross exposure.
 



 
This article was published in Opalesque Futures Intelligence.
Opalesque Futures Intelligence
Opalesque Futures Intelligence
Opalesque Futures Intelligence
Today's Exclusives Today's Other Voices More Exclusives
Previous Opalesque Exclusives                                  
More Other Voices
Previous Other Voices                                               
Access Alternative Market Briefing


  • Top Forwarded
  • Top Tracked
  • Top Searched
  1. SEC charges 19 investment firms and one trader for breach of Rule 105[more]

    Benedicte Gravrand, Opalesque Geneva: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) started a push to enhance the enforcement of Rule 105 of Regulation M last year to uncover hedge funds and private equity firms that have illegally participated in an offering of a stock after short selling it duri

  2. Fund managers, bullish on Europe, anticipate monetary policy separation of Fed and ECB[more]

    Komfie Manalo, Opalesque Asia: At least 202 fund managers with $556bn of assets under management said that while the European Central Bank (ECB) has eased its monetary policy that sent sentiments towards Europe to pick up, the Fed is expected to hike its rate in the spring of 2015. Investor

  3. Institutions - North Carolina workers call on state pension to dump up to $6bn in hedge funds, UK pension fund criticizes hedge fund fees[more]

    North Carolina workers call on state pension to dump up to $6bn in hedge funds From Forbes.com: The State Employees Association of North Carolina this afternoon called on state Treasurer Janet Cowell to withdraw all investments in hedge funds, which appear to amount to approximately $6 b

  4. News Briefs - Limited partners of investment managers may be subject to self-employment taxes, Just one week left until NYC's Rocktoberfest[more]

    Limited partners of investment managers may be subject to self-employment taxes On September 5, 2014, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued Chief Counsel Advice 201436049, concluding that members of an investment manager were subject to self-employment taxes with respect to their e

  5. Institutions - Adviser's faith in hedge funds unshaken by CalPERS' move Advisers weigh in on CalPERS’ decision, Gina Raimondo sees no reason to follow California’s lead, exit hedge funds, Danish pension funds step up 'alternative investments'[more]

    Adviser's faith in hedge funds unshaken by CalPERS' move From WSJ.com: Financial advisers who use hedge funds in their clients' portfolios say they aren't rethinking that approach after a huge California pension fund announced plans to exit the hedge-fund market. The decision by the Cali