U.S. hedge funds share a few systematic and idiosyncratic long bets – a phenomenon called “crowding.” Hedge fund crowding within specific sectors can be heavy; bets on exploration and production (E&P) companies are particularly crowded. Hedge fund E&P bets are the subject of this article. Eight stocks are responsible for three quarters of the herding.

Crowding is costly to investors, fund managers, and allocators: over the past 10 years the aggregate hedge fund E&P portfolio underperformed the market E&P portfolio by 23% while taking more risk. The risk-adjusted return was even worse – a loss of 52%.

Identifying Hedge Fund E&P Crowding

To evaluate hedge fund (HF) exploration and production (E&P) herding, we followed the approach of our earlier work on aggregate and sector-specific hedge fund crowding: We created an aggregate position-weighted portfolio (HF E&P Aggregate) consisting of all exploration and production long equity positions reported by over 400 U.S. hedge funds with medium to low turnover. We then evaluated HF E&P Aggregate’s risk relative to the capitalization-weighted portfolio of E&P equities (Market E&P Aggregate) using AlphaBetaWorks’ Statistical Equity Risk Model.

Crowded E&P Stocks Underperform

Crowding hurts performance. HF E&P Aggregate had poor returns following the peak of the last energy cycle in 2008. Consequently, understanding Hedge Fund E&P crowding is vital to investors, fund managers, and allocators.

When the broad market and the E&P sector are doing well, crowded hedge fund E&P stocks generally outperform. However, these stocks generally underperform in the down cycle. This is a tell-tale sign of flocking to higher-risk stocks. This crowding towards higher market and sector betas is consistent with the aggregate systematic crowding of hedge funds:

Historical Return for Hedge Fund E&P Aggregate vs. Market E&P Aggregate

Indeed, we will see later that hedge fund E&P aggregate has both higher market exposure (market beta) and higher E&P sector exposure (E&P sector beta) than the market E&P Aggregate.

When we adjust for the systematic (factor) risk, we discover that the residual return of HF E&P aggregate due to security selection is even worse. Investors would have made 52% more over the past 10 years if they had invested in an ETF portfolio with similar factor risk:

Historical Hedge Fund E&P Aggregate, Factor, and Residual Returns

Hedge Fund E&P Risk

HF E&P Aggregate has a 5.0% estimated future tracking error relative to Market E&P Aggregate, primarily due to stock-specific bets:

Sources of Relative Risk for Hedge Fund E&P Aggregate

The 5.0% tracking error means that HF E&P Aggregate’s annual return is forecasted to differ from Market E&P Aggregate’s by less than 5.0% two thirds of the time.

Hedge Fund Factor (Systematic) E&P Crowding

On the chart below, HF E&P Aggregate’s factor exposures (red) are similar to Market E&P Aggregate’s (gray), but tend to be higher. Hedge Funds tend to invest in names with higher market and sector betas, perhaps as a logical consequence of their compensation structure:

Hedge Fund E&P Aggregate’s Exposure to Significant Risk Factors

Hedge Fund Residual (Idiosyncratic) E&P Crowding

Over 75% of the relative risk of HF E&P Aggregate is due to stock-specific (residual) bets. Below are the sources of HF E&P Aggregate’s relative residual variance. Three quarters of the estimated relative residual risk is due to only eight stocks:

Stocks Contributing Most to Relative Residual Variance of Hedge Fund E&P Aggregate

As with HF Energy Aggregate, some of the largest bets are not the stocks hedge funds own, but the stocks they don’t own. (For example, hedge funds are underweight COP, OXY, and EOG.) The crowded bets are likely to deliver negative risk-adjusted returns in flat or declining oil and gas producer cycle.

Of course, the poor long-term performance of the HF E&P aggregate does not mean that some individual equities will not do well. In fact, in the third quarter of 2014, ATHL was acquired. With half of the shares owned by hedge funds, ATHL was one of the largest positions of HF E&P Aggregate and the top idiosyncratic bet.

Summary

• Hedge Fund Exploration and Production (E&P) Aggregate tends to have higher risk than Market E&P Aggregate.
• Crowded Hedge Fund E&P stocks tend to underperform market aggregate over the long-term, in spite of higher risk.
• Crowded Hedge Fund E&P stocks tend to generate negative risk-adjusted returns.
• There is both factor (systematic/market) and residual (idiosyncratic/security-specific) crowding of long hedge fund E&P portfolios.
• Over 80% of recent crowding is attributable to eight stocks: ATHL, CHK, COP, OXY, EOG, CIE, CNQ, and EPE.

The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2014, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Share the Insight...

Email

Linkedin

Facebook

Google

Twitter

Tumblr

A Survey of Pershing Square’s Security Selection and Market Timing

Not all outperformance is true outperformance. There are many funds whose performance looks spectacular on the surface, but whose risk-adjusted performance is poor. This article takes a closer look at Pershing Square Capital Management, nominally one of the top performing funds throughout 2014 and over the long-term. We show that the risk-adjusted performance of Pershing’s reported long equity positions is, in fact, impressive. We also delve into sectors and factors behind these outstanding risk-adjusted results.

Risk-Adjusted Performance Defined

The AlphaBetaWorks (ABW) Performance Analytics Platform identifies risk-adjusted performance as αβReturn – performance relative to a passive replicating portfolio. αβReturn consists of performance due to security selection (αReturn) and market timing (βReturn). αReturn is the return a fund would have generated if markets were flat. βReturn is the return a fund generated by varying its factor exposures.

Pershing Square – Risk-Adjusted Returns

The fund’s 10-year long αβReturn is around 300%, while passive long return is over 500%. Below we illustrate Pershing’s overall active return (αβReturn) and passive return over the past ten years. The purple area highlights cumulative positive active return; cumulative passive return is the gray area underneath:

Pershing Square Capital Management Historical Passive and Active Returns – Long Equity Portfolio

Below we provide the components of Pershing’s estimated annual returns. Active returns (αβReturns) are broken down into security selection, or stock picking, (αReturn) and market timing (βReturn). Most of the 2014 return is active: roughly two thirds from stock picking and one third from market timing.

We will now delve deeper into the sources of Pershing’s high risk-adjusted returns – the sectors and the factors that contributed most to αβReturn.

Pershing Square – Long Equity Security Selection

αReturn is the risk-adjusted return from security selection – the return a fund would have generated if markets were flat. Pershing’s recent and 10-year results are stellar:

Pershing Square Capital Management Historical Security Selection Return – Long Equity Portfolio

Furthermore, Pershing’s trailing three-year annualized αReturn of 5% exceeds αReturns of 81% of its peers:

Pershing Square Capital Management 3-year Sector Security Selection Return vs. Peers

Sector Security Selection

Digging deeper, most of the 2014 αReturn came from the Industrial and Consumer sectors. Over history, there have been a few years of especially large positive (and negative) sector-specific αReturns:

The Industrial sector is an area of consistent strength:

Pershing Square Capital Management Industrial Sector Security Selection Return – Long Equity Portfolio

Pershing’s recent long positions in the industrial sector are:

Pershing’s Consumer sector αReturn has been mixed over the past 3 years; it has been excellent over the long-term and in 2014:

Pershing Square Capital Management Consumer Sector Security Selection Return – Long Equity Portfolio

Pershing’s recent long position in the consumer sector is:

Additional security-selection insights, such as position sizing skill and the analysis of portfolio scalability/overcapitalization, are available but beyond the scope of this article.

Pershing Square – Long Equity Market Timing

βReturn is the risk-adjusted return from market timing – the return due to variation in factor exposures over time. Positive βReturns occur when a manager takes on larger exposures to factors that subsequently generate larger-than-typical returns.

Pershing Square has varied factor and sector exposures dramatically over time. In the chart below, the red dots depict historical long portfolio factor exposures, while the diamonds show current exposures. Critically for skill evaluation, ABW’s non-market risk factors exclude all market effects, which enables sound performance attribution:

Pershing Square Capital Management Historical Factor Exposures – Long Equity Portfolio

Pershing Square’s factor timing performance (βReturn) was negative from 2004 to 2006, largely flat through 2012, and positive since 2012:

Pershing Square Capital Management Historical Market Timing Return – Long Equity Portfolio

Similar to analyzing αReturns by sector, AlphaBetaWorks analyzes specific sources of βReturn to identify which factors the fund has timed successfully, or unsuccessfully. For example, In 2014 Pershing’s positive market-timing returns were due to:

• Increased exposure to the U.S. Health, Canada Market, and Canada Industrial factors;
• Decreased exposure to the U.S. Consumer factor.

Pershing Square’s significant βReturn components, by year:

Conclusion

• Risk-adjusted performance is return above a passive portfolio replicating a fund’s typical risk profile.
• Pershing Square exhibited strong risk-adjusted return from overall security selection (αReturn) and, recently, strong market/factor timing (βReturn).
• Pershing Square recently exhibited especially strong risk-adjusted security selection returns (αReturns) in Consumer and Industrial sectors.
• Pershing Square recently exhibited strong risk adjusted market timing returns (βReturns) due to increased exposures to the U.S. Health, Canada Market, and Canada Industrial factors, and reduced exposure to the U.S. Consumer factor.
• Among its many advantages, our analysis provides allocators insights into manager core competencies. Portfolio managers, too, benefit from deeper understanding of their own – and their teams’ – strengths and weakness.

The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2014, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Share the Insight...

Email

Linkedin

Facebook

Google

Twitter

Tumblr

U.S. hedge funds share a few systematic and idiosyncratic long bets – a phenomenon called “crowding.” Crowding exists within aggregate portfolios and within specific sectors. Energy bets are particularly crowded and are the subject of this article. Crowded bets are the main sources of hedge funds’ collective and many individual funds’ energy sector returns. Four risk factors (systematic bets) and six stocks (idiosyncratic bets) are behind three quarters of the herding.

Systematic (factor) hedge fund energy crowding primarily consists of:

1. A bet against integrated energy companies;
2. A bet on oil refiners;
3. A bet on cheap international and against expensive U.S. producers;
4. A bet on independent oil and gas producers.

Idiosyncratic (residual) hedge fund energy sector crowding primarily consist of exposures to CVI, XOM, CHK, ATHL, CVX, and YPF.

Combined, these bets account for three quarters of aggregate hedge fund long energy sector risk (tracking error) relative to the overall energy equity market.

Crowding has two vital implications: First, hedge fund impatience contributes to greater volatility in crowded bets. Second, hedge fund long energy equity portfolios tend to generate negative risk-adjusted returns.  Thus, consensus stock and factor picks are likely to disappoint.

Identifying Hedge Fund Energy Crowding

We created an aggregate position-weighted portfolio (HF Energy Aggregate) consisting of all energy sector equities held by over 400 U.S. hedge funds with medium to low turnover. The size of each position is the dollar value of its ownership by hedge funds. This process is similar to our earlier analysis of aggregate long hedge fund crowding.

We then evaluated HF Energy Aggregate’s risk relative to the capitalization-weighted portfolio of U.S. energy equities (Market Energy Aggregate) using AlphaBetaWorks’ Statistical Equity Risk Model. Finally, we analyzed HF Energy Aggregate’s systematic and idiosyncratic bets and looked for evidence of crowding.

Hedge Fund Energy Risk

HF Energy Aggregate has a 7.8% estimated future tracking error relative to Market Energy Aggregate, mostly due to factor bets:

Sources of Relative Risk for Hedge Fund Energy Aggregate

HF Energy Aggregate’s annual return will differ from Market Energy Aggregate’s by more than 7.8% about one third of the time. Combined, hedge funds’ energy portfolios are active, and closet indexing is not a concern.

Hedge Fund Factor (Systematic) Energy Crowding

Below are HF Energy Aggregate’s most significant relative factor exposures (red). The benchmark (gray) is Market Energy Aggregate:

Factors Contributing Most to the Relative Risk for Hedge Fund Energy Aggregate

Below is the contribution of various factors to HF Energy Aggregate’s relative systematic risk. These are the components of the red “Factor Variance” in the first chart:

Factors Contributing Most to Relative Factor Variance of Hedge Fund Energy Aggregate

Four factors are responsible for 75% of the relative factor risk of Hedge Fund Energy Aggregate:

These bets have the following meanings:

1. Integrated Oil – short bet on integrated energy companies;
2. Oil Refining and Marketing – long bet on oil refiners;
3. Stat Factor 1 – systematic risk not captured by the standard market risk factors;
4. Oil and Gas Production – long bet on non-integrated oil and gas producers.

AlphaBetaWorks’ Statistical Factors (Stat Factors) capture systematic risks overlooked by traditional risk models. Statistical factors and exposures to them are estimated using factor analysis. Stat Factor 1 turns out to be a combination of bets on cheap international, and against expensive U.S. producers. Securities with the largest positive exposure to Stat Factor 1 are LukOil ADR (LUKOY), Rosneft GDR (GB:ROSN), and BP ADR (BP). Securities with the largest negative exposure to it are Range Resources (RRC) and Cabot Oil & Gas (COG):

Hedge Fund Energy Positions’ Exposures to Stat Factors

Hedge Fund Residual (Idiosyncratic) Energy Crowding

Below are the sources of HF Energy Aggregate’s relative residual variance. These are the components of the blue “Residual Variance” in the first chart. Six stocks are responsible for over three quarters of the relative residual (idiosyncratic) risk of HF Energy Aggregate:

Stocks Contributing Most to Relative Residual Variance of Hedge Fund Energy Aggregate

These stocks will have the most sway on HF Energy Aggregate, and many individual funds. Conversely, the funds’ impatience will also affect these stocks the most. Investors should be ready for seemingly inexplicable volatility, especially among smaller companies:

As with factor crowding, there is significant stock-specific crowding into a handful of popular names.

Summary

• There is both factor (systematic/market) and residual (idiosyncratic/security-specific) crowding of long hedge fund energy portfolios.
• The main sources of systematic crowding are three bets on energy sub-sectors and a relative value bet on international vs. domestic producers.
• The main sources of stock-specific crowding are CVI, XOM, CHK, ATHL, CVX, and YPF.
• Investors in crowded stocks may experience elevated volatility.
• Collectively, hedge funds’ long U.S. energy equity portfolios tend to generate negative risk-adjusted returns. Consequently, their crowded bets in this sector tend to disappoint.

The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2014, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Share the Insight...

Email

Linkedin

Facebook

Google

Twitter

Tumblr

The March to Uniformity – Illustrated and Quantified

We examined the evolution of systematic, idiosyncratic, and total risk of long equity hedge fund portfolios relative to each other.  We found decreasing differentiation and increasing herding over time. In summary, over the past 10 years total differentiation declined by 30% while systematic (factor) differentiation declined by 39%. As capital increasingly flows to undifferentiated managers, uninformed allocators will find themselves in crowded bets that are destined, at best, for index returns. With proper tools, investors can identify plenty of skilled and differentiated managers.

Hedge Funds Going Mainstream

The rise of hedge funds as an institutional asset class has been hazardous to diversified hedge fund portfolios. Some researchers find the asset class has under-performed a passive equivalent over the past ten years, while cumulative real investor profits over the period may have been negative. Even the industry-backed rebuttal shows similar post-2004 performance (Table 4: Investing in hedge funds vs T-bills).

A larger pool of capital chasing a limited set of opportunities is commonly blamed. The systematic (factor) and idiosyncratic (residual) return dispersion of currently active funds’ long equity portfolios has indeed decreased dramatically over the past 15 years. Even during the 2008-2009 volatility spike, the active returns of today’s funds were less differentiated than in the lower-volatility regime of 2003-2004:

Return Dispersion History – Long Hedge Fund Portfolios

In spite of this herding, many differentiated and skilled funds remain. The key is finding them. Skilled and differentiated managers are likely to generate positive idiosyncratic returns in the future. Allocators who lack the proper tools may find themselves invested across many funds that are not nearly as distinguished as they seem.

Analyzing Hedge Fund Crowding Trends

We used the AlphaBetaWorks (ABW) North America Statistical Equity Risk Model to analyze the long equity positions of today’s medium to low turnover hedge funds at two points in time: year-end of 2004 and 2013. We combined position factor exposures to estimate fund factor exposures. We then compared the factor exposures and residual risk of every fund relative to every other fund, estimating the future relative volatility (tracking error) of every fund pair. At each date, we estimated the relative tracking errors for approximately 100,000 portfolio pairs. We then aggregated estimates of funds’ differences into a broad picture of differentiation within the asset class. We further separated differences among funds into market (factor) and security-specific (residual) bets. The higher the expected relative tracking error between two funds, the more different they are from one another.

This approach is more robust than returns-based style analysis, which fails for funds that vary factor exposures over time. The ABW Equity Risk Models also address flaws common to simpler holdings-based and fundamental analyses.

Total Hedge Fund Differentiation

Between 2004 and 2013, the average expected tracking error between two hedge fund long portfolios declined from 21% to 16%:

Equal-Weighted Relative Tracking Error Distribution – Long Hedge Fund Portfolios

However, this relative tracking error is not representative of the differentiation investors will realize – it ignores fund size.

A better measure of investor outcomes uses asset-weighted tracking error – the expected relative volatility of two dollars invested in different portfolios. This measure declined from 21% to 14%:

Asset-Weighted Relative Tracking Error Distribution – Long Hedge Fund Portfolios

The largest funds – and dollars invested in them – have become even more crowded than the average fund.

Systematic (Factor) Differentiation

The primary driver of hedge fund crowding is the herding of market (factor) bets. The expected volatility of relative factor returns for capital invested in different funds dropped from 15% in 2004 to 9% in 2013.

Asset-Weighted Relative Factor Tracking Error Distribution – Long Hedge Fund Portfolios

We estimate that in 2014, differences in factor returns of hedge funds’ long equity portfolios will be below 9% about 2/3 of the time.

While much capital is pursuing uncorrelated systematic bets, the bulk is relatively less differentiated and crowded into similar factors. Our earlier Insight discussed these shared factor bets.

Hedge Fund Skill, Size, and Differentiation

The long equity portfolios of today’s hedge funds have become markedly less differentiated between 2004 and 2013, primarily due to the crowding of factor bets. Crowding is greatest among the largest funds, as evidenced by the larger circles in the lower half of the figure below – a map depicting hedge fund skill and differentiation:

Hedge Fund Skill, Size, and Differentiation

Skilled, differentiated managers are in the upper-right. Unskilled, un-differentiated managers are in the bottom-left.

In spite of increased hedge fund herding, plenty of skilled and differentiated managers remain. Especially attractive are those who stand apart from the crowd and make large bets in areas where they show significant evidence of skill. We discuss general and specific fund skills in earlier articles. AlphaBetaWorks Analytics enable allocators to identify both and quantify crowding within existing fund portfolios.

Summary

Hedge fund crowding has increased over the past 10 years due to declines in market (factor) and stock-specific (residual) differentiation:

• Between 2004 and 2013, total differentiation declined by 30%.
• Between 2004 and 2013, systematic (factor) differentiation declined by 39%.
• New capital has been predominantly committed to less differentiated managers.
• Many skilled and differentiated managers exist and can be identified with the proper tools.
• ABW identifies skilled and differentiated managers, including those most likely to outperform in the future.

Copyright © 2012-2014, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Share the Insight...

Email

Linkedin

Facebook

Google

Twitter

Tumblr