Category Archives: Risk

What Fraction of Smart Beta is Dumb Beta?

Leave a reply

Our earlier articles discussed how some smart beta strategies turn out to be merely high beta strategies, and how others actively time the market, requiring careful monitoring. We also showed that the returns of popular factor ETFs such as Momentum and Quality are mostly attributable to exposures to traditional Market and Sector Factors. We now quantify the influence of traditional factors, or dumb beta, on all broad U.S. equity smart beta ETFs.

Though many smart beta ETFs do provide valuable exposure to idiosyncratic factors, many others mostly re-shuffle exposures to basic dumb factors. To successfully use smart beta products, investors and allocators must apply rigorous quantitative analysis. With capable analytics, they can guard against elaborate (and often expensive) re-packaging of dumb beta as smart beta, identify smart beta products that time dumb beta factors effectively, and monitor smart beta allocations to control for unintended dumb factor exposures.

Measuring the Influence of Dumb Beta Factors on Smart Beta ETFs

We started with approximately 800 U.S. Smart Beta ETFs. Since our focus was on the broad U.S. equity strategies, we removed non-U.S. portfolios and sector portfolios. (Later articles will cover global equity portfolios.) We also removed portfolios for which returns estimated from historical positions did not reconcile closely to reported performance. We were left with 215 broad U.S. equity smart beta ETFs. This nearly complete sample contains all the popular smart beta strategies.

For each ETF, we estimated monthly positions and then used these positions to calculate portfolio factor exposures for traditional (dumb beta) factors such as Market and Sectors.  These ex-ante factor exposures can be used to predict or explain the following months’ returns.

The correlation between returns predicted by dumb beta factor exposures and actual returns quantifies the influence of dumb beta factors. The higher the correlation, the more similar a smart beta ETF is to a portfolio of traditional, simple, and dumb systematic risk factors.

The Influence of Market Beta on Smart Beta ETFs

Our simplest test used a single systematic risk factor – Market Beta. This is the dumbest traditional factor and also the cheapest to invest in. Since Market Beta is the dominant factor behind portfolio performance, even a very simple 1-factor model built with robust statistical methods delivered 0.92 mean and 0.94 median correlation between predicted and actual monthly returns for smart beta ETFs:

Chart of the correlations between predicted returns constructed using a single-factor statistical equity risk model and actual historical returns for over 200 U.S. smart beta equity ETFs

U.S. Smart Beta Equity ETFs: Correlation between a single-factor statistical equity risk model’s predictions and actual monthly returns

  Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max. 
0.5622  0.8972  0.9393  0.9174  0.9693  0.9960

Put differently: For most broad U.S. equity smart beta ETFs, U.S. Market Beta accounts for over 88% of monthly return variance.

The Influence of Market and Sector Betas on Smart Beta ETFs

Since traditional sector/industry allocation is a staple of portfolio construction and risk management, we next tested a two-factor model that added a Sector Factor. Each security belongs to one of 10 broad sectors (e.g., Energy, Technology). Market and Sector Betas, estimated with robust methods, delivered 0.95 mean and 0.96 median correlation between predicted and actual monthly returns for smart beta ETFs:

Chart of the correlations between predicted returns constructed using a two-factor statistical equity risk model and actual historical returns for over 200 U.S. smart beta equity ETFs

U.S. Smart Beta Equity ETFs: Correlation between a two-factor statistical equity risk model’s predictions and actual monthly returns

  Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max. 
0.5643  0.9320  0.9634  0.9452  0.9805  0.9974

Put differently: For most broad U.S. equity smart beta ETFs, U.S. Market and Sector Betas accounts for over 92% of monthly return variance.

Smart Beta Variance and Dumb Beta Variance

Rather than measuring the correlation between returns predicted by dumb beta exposures and actual returns, we can instead measure the fraction of variance unexplained by dumb beta exposures. This (in blue below) is the fraction of smart beta ETFs’ variance that is unrelated to dumb beta:

Chart of the percentage of variance explained by traditional, non-smart, or dumb beta factors Market and Sectors and the percentage of variance unexplained by these factors for over 200 U.S. smart beta equity ETFs

U.S. Smart Beta Equity ETFs: Percentage of Variance Explained and Unexplained by Dumb Beta Factors

Percentage of Variance Explained by Dumb Beta Factors

Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max. 
1.85   86.87   92.81   89.71   96.14   99.47

Percentage of Variance Unexplained by Dumb Beta Factors

Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max. 
 .53    3.86    7.19   10.29   13.13   68.15

Note that some smart beta strategies do provide value by timing the dumb beta factors. This market timing can generate a positive active return, but it still consists of traditional dumb factor exposures and their variation. Market timing by smart beta ETFs is beyond the scope of this article.

The high explanatory power of dumb beta exposures above was achieved with a primitive model using Market and Sector Factors only. If one incorporates Value/Growth and Size factors that are decades old and considered dumb beta by some, smart beta variance shrinks further.

Conclusions

  • Traditional, or dumb, Market and Sector Betas account for over 92% of variance for most U.S. equity smart beta ETFs.
  • Smart beta, unexplained by the traditional Market and Sector Betas, accounts for under 8% of variance for most U.S. equity smart beta ETFs.
  • With proper analytics, investors and allocators can guard against elaborate re-packaging of dumb beta as smart beta.
  • With proper analytics, investors and allocators can monitor smart beta allocations to control for unintended dumb factor exposures.
  • Equity risk models can adequately describe and predict the performance of most smart beta strategies with traditional dumb risk factors such as Market and Sectors.
The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2016, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Hedge Fund Crowding Update – Q2 2016

Leave a reply

Typical analysis of hedge fund crowding focuses on individual stocks. This is misguided since over 85% of hedge funds’ monthly return variance is due to factor (systematic) exposures. Their residual, (idiosyncratic, or stock-specific) bets account for less than 15% of it. Likewise, factor crowding has driven much of the hedge fund industry’s performance and volatility. In Q2 2016, half of U.S. hedge funds’ long equity risk (tracking error) relative to the U.S. Market was due to a single crowded factor and two thirds was due to three crowded factors. This article reviews the most crowded bets at 6/30/2016 that have been driving hedge funds’ long equity performance.

Note that active risk is required to generate active returns and warrant management fees. Yet, not all exposures are created equal. Systematic exposures that are shared by the entire hedge fund industry and that can be obtained cheaply via index funds and ETFs do not warrant the same compensation as the distinctive insights of gifted managers. Even worse, these crowded bets expose investors to the damaging stampede of impatient capital.

Identifying Hedge Fund Crowding

We followed the approach of our earlier studies of hedge fund crowding: We processed regulatory filings of over 1,000 hedge funds and created a position-weighted portfolio (HF Aggregate) comprising all tractable hedge fund long U.S. equity portfolios. We then analyzed HF Aggregate’s risk relative to the U.S. Market. The most crowded bets are driving the hedge fund industry’s risk and performance. We identified these bets using the AlphaBetaWorks (ABW) Statistical Equity Risk Model – an effective system of forecasting future risk and performance.

Hedge Fund Industry’s Risk

HF Aggregate had 3.5% estimated future volatility (tracking error) relative to the U.S. Market in Q2 2016. Nearly 80% of this was due to its factor (systematic) exposures, rather than individual stocks:

Factor (systematic) and residual (idiosyncratic) components of the U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s variance relative to U.S. Market on 6/30/2016

Components of the Relative Risk for U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate in Q2 2016

Source Volatility (ann. %) Share of Variance (%)
Factor 3.12 77.84
Residual 1.67 22.16
Total 3.54 100.00

A typical analysis of hedge fund crowding that focuses on individual stocks and popular holdings is thus misguided. It dwells on only 20% of the industry’s risk, overlooking the other 80%. Funds with no shared positions can still correlate highly when they have similar factor exposures. Consequently, such a simplistic analysis of position overlap and holdings misrepresents fund risk risk and fosters dangerous complacency.

Hedge Fund Factor (Systematic) Crowding

Below are HF Aggregate’s principal factor exposures (in red) relative to the U.S. Market’s (in gray). These are the primary bets behind factor risk and crowding in the table above:

Chart of the factor exposures contributing most to the factor variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate Portfolio relative to U.S. Market on 6/30/2016

Significant Absolute and Residual Factor Exposures of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate in Q2 2016

Market (Beta) is the dominant long equity bet within the hedge fund industry. It accounts for approximately two thirds of relative factor risk and half of relative total risk:

Chart of the main factors and their cumulative contribution to the factor variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate Portfolio relative to U.S. Market on 6/30/2016

Factors Contributing Most to Relative Factor Variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate in Q2 2016

Factor Relative Exposure Factor Volatility Share of Relative Factor Variance Share of Relative Total Variance
Market 17.62 12.58 62.96 49.01
Size -9.39 8.46 10.00 7.78
Health 9.45 6.95 9.19 7.15
Oil Price 1.89 31.29 9.12 7.10
Utilities -3.74 12.42 5.71 4.44
Bond Index -7.90 3.55 5.01 3.90
Consumer -5.40 3.96 2.30 1.79
FX 2.18 7.30 -1.99 -1.55
Energy -2.30 13.44 -1.62 -1.26
Value -1.81 13.33 -0.53 -0.41

(Relative exposures and relative variance contribution. All values are in %. Volatility is annualized.)

The most crowded long equity bet is high systematic exposure to the U.S. Market – not any particular stock. In fact, high systematic market risk is more important to U.S. hedge fund long portfolios than all of their stock-specific bets combined. This makes the popular fascination with fund holdings and position overlap particularly dangerous. As factor crowding continues to dominate stock-specific risk and stock picking skill, the survival of asset managers and allocators increasingly relies on their grasp of systematic crowding and the predictive power of their risk management systems.

Hedge Fund U.S. Market Factor Crowding

The current Market Factor Exposure of HF Aggregate is approximately 115% (its Market Beta is approximately 1.15). This exposure has remained above 100% since 2012:

Chart of the historical exposure of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s to the U.S. Market Factor

U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s U.S. Market Factor Exposure History

The average hedge fund long equity portfolio now carries approximately 15% more market risk than the Russell 3000 Index and approximately 20% more than the slightly less risky S&P 500 Index. This higher exposure illustrates the danger of evaluating them relative to broad benchmarks. In a year when S&P 500 returns 10%, the average hedge fund would need to return approximately 12% to match what investors would have earned by taking the same risk passively.

Hedge Fund U.S. Size Factor Crowding

The ABW Size Factor is the difference in returns, net of market and sector effects, between the largest and the smallest stocks. It is closely related to the Fama–French SMB Factor, but includes critical fixes: The ABW Size Factor strips out market and sector effects from security returns, revealing pure size risk. By contrast, SMB Factor captures size risk together with market beta and sector effects, since market exposure and sector composition differ between small- and large-cap stocks. This market and sector noise in the SMB Factor makes accurate risk estimation challenging and accurate performance attribution impossible.

Negative Size exposure corresponds to small-cap risk.  Hedge fund long equity portfolios currently have near-record small-cap exposure, equivalent to an approximately 10% bet on small company outperformance:

Chart of the historical exposure of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s to the U.S. Size Factor

U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s U.S. Size Factor Exposure History

Hedge Fund U.S. Health Factor Crowding

Current hedge fund Heath Factor exposure remains near an all-time high:

Chart of the historical exposure of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s to the U.S. Health Factor

U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s U.S. Size Health Factor Exposure History

Hedge Fund Residual (Idiosyncratic) Crowding

As of 6/30/2016, a quarter of hedge fund crowding was due to residual (idiosyncratic, stock-specific) risk. As factor crowding increased, residual crowding has diminished. Thus, stock-specific risk and stock-picking still have faded in importance:

Chart of the main stock-specific bets and their cumulative contribution to the residual variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate Portfolio relative to U.S. Market on 6/30/2016

Stocks Contributing Most to Relative Residual Variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate in Q2 2016

Symbol Name Relative Exposure Residual Volatility Share of Relative Residual Variance Share of Relative Total Variance
LNG Cheniere Energy 1.65 34.66 11.77 2.61
AGN Allergan plc 2.79 14.71 6.06 1.34
CHTR Charter Communications 1.84 20.58 5.16 1.14
PCLN Priceline Group 1.61 22.25 4.64 1.03
FLT FleetCor Technologies 1.74 19.87 4.29 0.95
VRX Valeant Pharmaceuticals 0.82 39.76 3.85 0.85
FB Facebook, Inc. Class A 0.89 31.39 2.84 0.63
HCA HCA Holdings 1.21 22.78 2.76 0.61
AAPL Apple Inc. -1.68 16.41 2.74 0.61
PYPL PayPal Holdings Inc 1.66 15.88 2.49 0.55

(Relative exposures and relative variance contribution. All values are in %. Volatility is annualized.)

The most crowded stocks continue to be sensitive to asset flows in and out of the industry. Yet, in the current environment of extreme systematic hedge fund crowding, allocators and fund followers should continue to pay more attention to factor risk. Indeed, allocators invested in a seemingly diversified portfolio of hedge funds may, in fact, be paying high active fees for a passive factor portfolio.

Summary

  • At Q2 2016, nearly 80% of hedge funds’ relative long equity risk was due to factor, or systematic, exposures.
  • The main source of Q2 2016 hedge fund crowding, responsible for half of long equity tracking error, was record U.S. Market exposure.
  • Short Size Factor (small-cap bias) and long Health Factor exposures were the next most crowded bets, both near their historic extremes.
  • Given high current hedge fund factor crowding, an analysis of aggregate and individual hedge funds must focus on systematic exposures and risk shared across positions, and not solely on individual positions.
  • Fund investors, followers, and allocators must monitor whether they are investing in exceptional insights or generic factor exposures otherwise available via cheap passive instruments.
The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2016, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Hedge Fund Finance Sector Crowding

Leave a reply

Asset outflows and portfolio liquidations have devastated crowded hedge fund bets since 2015. Losses have been especially severe in the Finance Sector. We survey hedge fund finance sector crowding and identify the stocks driving it. Investors and allocators must be vigilant: when capital flows out, these bets tend to suffer sharp losses. When capital flows in, they tend to benefit. We also provide an early indicator of this underperformance and outperformance.

Identifying Hedge Fund Finance Crowding

We created an aggregate position-weighted portfolio (Hedge Fund Finance Aggregate, or HF Finance Aggregate) consisting of finance sector equities held by all hedge fund long equity portfolios that are tractable from regulatory filings. The size of each position is the dollar value of its ownership by hedge funds. This process is similar to our earlier analyses of hedge fund crowding. We then evaluated HF Finance Aggregate’s risk relative to the capitalization-weighted portfolio of U.S. finance equities (Market Finance Aggregate) using an AlphaBetaWorks’ Statistical Equity Risk Model. Finally, we analyzed HF Finance Aggregate’s idiosyncratic bets and identified the most crowded ones.

Hedge Fund Finance Sector Performance

Over the past 10 years HF Finance Aggregate generated approximately the same return as a portfolio of index funds and ETFs with the same systematic (market) risk (Factor Portfolio):

Historical cumulative factor, security selection, and total returns of the Hedge Fund Finance Sector Aggregate through Q2 2016

Historical Factor and Total Return of the Hedge Fund Finance Sector Aggregate

Blue area represents positive and gray area represents negative risk-adjusted returns from security selection, net of factor effects. HF Finance Aggregate outperformed the Factor Portfolio between 2006 and 2013 and has underperformed since. A look at the security selection performance below illustrates the underlying cycles of performance.

Hedge Fund Finance Sector Security Selection

AlphaBetaWorks’ metric of security selection is αReturn – the performance a portfolio would have generated if markets had been flat. It is also the performance of a portfolio with its factor exposures hedged:

Historical cumulative security selection return of the Hedge Fund Finance Sector Aggregate through Q2 2016

Historical Return from Security Selection of Hedge Fund Finance Sector Aggregate

Hedge funds have enjoyed positive αReturn in the finance sector during calm market regimes. Throughout our test period, the only episode of security selection losses prior to 2014 was Q3 2008. It was followed by a sharp reversal starting in late-2008. The 2008-2010 security selection gains of HF Finance Aggregate illustrate how forced liquidation of 2008 ended with a mean-reversion: the biggest losers became attractive opportunities.

The cycles of asset inflows and liquidations are common to HF Sector Aggregates. Illustrations can be found in our previous pieces on hedge fund semiconductor crowding and hedge fund exploration and production crowding.

HF Finance Aggregate has been showing signs of liquidation since mid-2014. This was also the time when the overall HF Aggregate began to generate negative αReturns that eventually turned into a rout. Since 2014, hedge funds’ long finance picks underperformed by 15% on a risk-adjusted basis. Had the industry taken the same risks passively with ETFs, its long financials portfolio would have generated approximately 15% higher return.

Hedge Fund Residual (Idiosyncratic) Finance Sector Crowding

Hedge fund sector portfolios have a history of booms and busts. Their sharply negative αReturns usually signal liquidations. Consequently, identifying and avoiding crowded bets is vital during these periods. When a cycle eventually turns, the biggest losers can present attractive opportunities. The following stocks were recent top contributors to idiosyncratic (stock-specific) risk of HF Finance Aggregate – its most crowded stocks. Blue bars represent long (overweight) exposures relative to Market Finance Aggregate. White bars represent short (underweight) exposures. Bar height represents contribution to relative stock-specific risk:

Chart of the residual Hedge Fund Finance Sector Crowding: the main stock-specific bets and their cumulative contribution to the residual variance of Hedge Fund Finance Sector Aggregate Portfolio relative to Market on 6/30/2016

Stocks Contributing Most to U.S. Hedge Fund Finance Aggregate Relative Residual Risk in Q2 2014

The following table contains detailed data on the residual hedge fund finance sector crowding:

Exposure (%) Net Exposure Share of Risk (%)
HF Sector Aggr. Sector Aggr. % $mil Days of Trading
AIG American International Group, Inc. 7.98 1.49 6.49 3,651.8 6.6 13.33
HTZ Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. 2.51 0.11 2.40 1,350.1 10.3 13.32
EQIX Equinix, Inc. 4.20 0.56 3.64 2,048.5 10.0 10.95
JPM JPMorgan Chase \& Co. 0.80 5.31 -4.51 -2,536.9 -1.9 5.85
AER AerCap Holdings NV 2.24 0.19 2.05 1,154.8 8.4 5.71
CAR Avis Budget Group, Inc. 1.39 0.06 1.33 746.5 8.2 5.34
BAC Bank of America Corporation 0.66 3.40 -2.74 -1,543.8 -0.9 5.11
LPLA LPL Financial Holdings Inc. 1.62 0.05 1.56 879.1 38.4 3.60
CACC Credit Acceptance Corporation 1.32 0.09 1.23 693.5 22.3 2.84
CBG CBRE Group, Inc. Class A 1.76 0.24 1.52 856.0 8.9 2.00
WLTW Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Comp 2.46 0.40 2.06 1,161.3 8.0 1.73
IBKR Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. Class A 1.27 0.06 1.21 680.8 20.9 1.65
BK Bank of New York Mellon Corporation 3.60 0.97 2.63 1,481.9 5.1 1.58
MA MasterCard Incorporated Class A 4.29 2.51 1.78 1,002.7 0.9 1.56
ALLY Ally Financial Inc 1.84 0.22 1.62 911.9 4.1 1.41
WFC Wells Fargo & Company 2.43 5.97 -3.54 -1,994.8 -1.9 1.33
GLPI Gaming and Leisure Properties, Inc. 1.28 0.09 1.19 672.0 9.1 1.33
NSAM NorthStar Asset Management Corp 0.95 0.05 0.90 506.3 19.3 1.29
FNMA Federal National Mortgage Association 0.29 0.04 0.25 139.5 42.7 1.10
SPG Simon Property Group, Inc. 0.01 1.60 -1.59 -894.9 -2.0 0.89
… Other Positions 0.64 18.06
Total 100.00

Long (overweight) exposures to AIG, HTZ, EQIX, and AER as well as short (underweight) exposure to JPM account for half of the stock-specific risk and volatility of hedge funds’ long financials books. The stock-specific losses of the crowded financials bets in 2015-2016 have been more severe than those in the 2008 crisis. Given this severity, when the cycle turns positive the crowded books are likely to outperform.

Analytics built on a robust risk model, such as the AlphaBetaWorks Statistical Equity Risk Model used here, offer leading indicators of portfolio liquidations and losses to crowding. These analytics provided portfolio managers and investors with warning signs as early as 2014, helping avoid losses, or even profit from herding. Since liquidations and crowding losses are routine, it is also vital that allocators identify undifferentiated managers.

Conclusions

  • Analysis of hedge fund crowding using robust risk models provides early signs of portfolio liquidations and opportunities.
  • Half of hedge fund residual (idiosyncratic, stock-specific) finance sector crowding comes from only five stocks.
  • Investors with robust data on hedge fund crowding and cycles of capital flow can reduce losses and profit from opportunities.
  • Allocators with robust data on hedge fund crowding can monitor manager differentiation and reduce losses.
The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2016, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Hedge Fund Crowding Update – Q1 2016

Leave a reply

Analyses of hedge fund crowding typically focus on hedge funds’ individual positions (their residual, idiosyncratic, or stock-specific exposures). Yet, over 85% of the monthly return variance for the majority of hedge fund long equity portfolios is due to their factor (systematic) exposures. Stock-specific bets account for less than 15%. Factor – rather than residual – crowding has driven much of the industry’s past exuberance and its recent grief. In Q1 2016, nearly half of U.S. hedge funds’ relative long equity risk (tracking error) was due to a single factor, U.S. Market Exposure. This piece surveys the crowded factor and residual exposures at 3/31/2016 that are likely to drive long equity performance for hedge funds in coming quarters.

Identifying Hedge Fund Crowding

This piece follows the approach of our earlier articles on crowding: We processed regulatory filings of over 1,000 hedge funds and created a position-weighted portfolio (HF Aggregate) consisting of all tractable hedge fund long U.S. equity portfolios. We then analyzed HF Aggregate’s risk relative to the U.S. Market using the AlphaBetaWorks Statistical Equity Risk Model – a proven system for performance forecasting. The most crowded hedge fund bets are factors and, to a lesser extent, stocks that drive HF Aggregate’s relative risk and performance. Ironically, these are rarely the largest or the most common hedge fund positions.

Hedge Fund Aggregate’s Risk

The Q1 2016 HF Aggregate had 3.4% estimated future tracking error relative to the U.S. Market. Factor (systematic) exposures accounted for over two thirds of it:

Factor (systematic) and residual (idiosyncratic) components of U.S. hedge fund crowding and U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s variance relative to U.S. Market on 3/31/2016

Components of the Relative Risk for U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate in Q1 2016

Source Volatility (ann. %) Share of Variance (%)
Factor 2.78 68.23
Residual 1.89 31.77
Total 3.36 100.00

A simplistic analysis of hedge fund crowding that focuses on individual positions will overlook systematic exposures. Yet, they are responsible for over two thirds of the hedge fund industry’s risk. Since funds with no shared positions but similar factor exposures will correlate highly, a simplistic crowding analysis that lacks a predictive risk model will misidentify such similar funds as differentiated. This will misrepresent their risk and can foster dangerous complacency.

Hedge Fund Factor (Systematic) Crowding

Below are the principal factor exposures (in red) relative to U.S. Market’s exposures (in gray) that are responsible for the factor crowding in the above table:

Chart of the factor exposures contributing most to the U.S. hedge fund crowding and factor variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate Portfolio relative to U.S. Market on 3/31/2016

Significant Absolute and Relative Factor Exposures of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate in Q1 2016

Of these exposures, Market (Beta) alone accounts for approximately two thirds of the relative and half of the total factor risk:

Chart of the main factors and their cumulative contribution to the factor variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate Portfolio relative to U.S. Market on 3/31/2016

Factors Contributing Most to Relative Factor Variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate in Q1 2016

Factor Relative Exposure Factor Volatility Share of Relative Factor Variance Share of Relative Total Variance
Market 15.46 12.67 64.54 44.04
Bond Index -21.46 3.32 18.23 12.44
Utilities -3.56 11.75 6.76 4.61
Consumer -9.07 3.97 4.74 3.23
Size -3.59 8.39 3.30 2.25
Health 3.44 7.29 2.48 1.69
Energy -2.50 13.17 -2.42 -1.65
Communications -1.17 12.02 1.82 1.24
Oil Price 0.18 30.91 0.99 0.68
Value -1.00 13.21 -0.74 -0.51

(Relative exposures and relative variance contribution. All values are in %. Volatility is annualized.)

The U.S. hedge fund industry’s most crowded bet is not a stock, or stocks, it is high systematic exposure to the U.S. Market. This makes the popular fascination with fund holdings and position overlap particularly dangerous. This factor crowding explains much of recent hedge fund misery. As large asset bases continue to diminish the importance of stock-specific risk, the survival of asset managers and allocators will increasingly rely on their analysis of systematic crowding with robust and predictive factor models.

Hedge Fund U.S. Market Factor Crowding

After working to refine our historical hedge fund portfolio database with particular attention to defunct firms and survivorship bias, we have an increasingly accurate picture of HF Aggregate’s historical factor exposures. Its current Market Factor Exposure is approximately 115% (i.e. the HF Aggregate’s Market Beta is approximately 1.15). The average hedge fund long equity portfolio now carries approximately 15% more Market Exposure than the Russell 3000 ETF and approximately 20% more Market Exposure than the S&P 500 ETF:

Chart of the historical exposure of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s to the U.S. Market Factor

U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s U.S. Market Factor Exposure History

This Market crowding has been costly and disruptive during the recent volatility. It also partially explains the failures of simple performance and skill metrics: When portfolios carry different Market Exposure than S&P500, calculating security selection return as performance relative to S&P500 is perilous. High Market Exposure is a general risk to the industry and a source of turmoil. Since there is no relationship between Market Exposure of HF Aggregate and subsequent Market Factor return, Market Factor crowding is not a predictive indicator of future performance:

Chart of the correlation between the exposure of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s to the U.S. Market Factor and U.S. Market Factor’s return

U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s U.S. Market Factor Exposure History and Factor Return

Hedge Fund Bond Factor (Interest Rate) Crowding

We showed in an earlier piece that Bond (Interest Rate) Factor exposure is one of the top drivers of hedge fund long equity risk and performance. This bond risk is a natural consequence of hedge funds’ fondness for “cheap call options.” These are often levered companies with significant bond exposure: the companies’ creditors are long bonds; the companies (and their equity owners) are economically short them.

This short Bond Factor (long Interest Rate) exposure is now near record levels and is the second most important source of HF Aggregate’s Factor Crowding:

Chart of the historical exposure of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s to the U.S. Bond Factor

U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s U.S. Bond Factor Exposure History

As with Market Factor, Bond Factor Exposure is a general risk to the industry. There is no relationship between Bond Exposure of HF Aggregate and subsequent Bond Factor return:

Chart of the correlation between the exposure of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s to the U.S. Bond Factor and U.S. Bond Factor’s return

U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s U.S. Bond Factor Exposure History and Factor Return

Hedge Fund Residual (Idiosyncratic) Crowding

As of 3/31/2016, a  third of hedge fund crowding was due to residual (idiosyncratic, stock-specific) risk. Netflix (NFLX) is responsible for a quarter of it. The five most crowded stocks collectively account for half:

Chart of the main stock-specific bets and their cumulative contribution to the residual variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate Portfolio relative to U.S. Market on 3/31/2016

Stocks Contributing Most to Relative Residual Variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate in Q1 2016

These may be perfectly sound fundamental investments. However, they are sensitive to asset flows in and out of the industry. Given the sharp losses to residual hedge fund crowding in 2015-2016 and the tendency of liquidations to revert, crowding risk in these has diminished and the liquidation may even present long investment opportunities:

Symbol Name Relative Exposure Residual Volatility Share of Relative Residual Variance Share of Relative Total Variance
NFLX Netflix, Inc. 1.77 54.97 26.47 8.41
LNG Cheniere Energy, Inc. 1.60 32.94 7.73 2.46
CHTR Charter Communications 2.38 19.79 6.17 1.96
TWC Time Warner Cable Inc. 2.74 15.80 5.22 1.66
JD JD.com, Inc. Sponsored ADR 1.34 29.35 4.31 1.37
AGN Allergan plc 2.06 17.07 3.43 1.09
VRX Valeant Pharmaceuticals International 0.67 43.49 2.37 0.75
PCLN Priceline Group Inc 1.28 22.17 2.24 0.71
FLT FleetCor Technologies, Inc. 1.41 19.72 2.16 0.69
UAL United Continental Holdings, Inc. 0.92 28.15 1.86 0.59

(Relative exposures and relative variance contribution. All values are in %. Volatility is annualized.)

Though these stock-specific bets are important, they account for less than a third of the entire hedge fund crowding picture. Consequently, in the current environment of extreme systematic hedge fund crowding, allocators and fund followers should continue to pay more attention to factor risk. As hedge funds’ residual volatility continues to wane, allocators owning a broadly diversified portfolio of hedge funds are increasingly at risk of paying high active fees for a passive factor portfolio.

Summary

  • The main source of Q1 2016 hedge fund crowding, responsible for nearly half of relative long equity risk, was record U.S. Market exposure.
  • The second most important source of Q1 2016 hedge fund crowding was near-record short Bond (long interest rate) exposure.
  • Given high factor (systematic) hedge fund long equity crowding, analysis of crowding risks must focus on factor exposures, rather than individual positions.
The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Copyright © 2012-2016, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved. Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Hedge Fund Clustering in Q4 2015

Leave a reply

Crowding consists of large capital pools chasing related strategies. Within the hedge fund industry, long equity portfolios crowd into several clusters with similar systematic (factor) and idiosyncratic (residual) bets. This hedge fund clustering is the internal structure of crowding. We illustrate the large-scale hedge fund clustering and crowded bets within the largest cluster. Allocators and fund followers without a handle on this phenomenon may be investing in an undifferentiated portfolio prone to liquidation, or paying high active fees for consensus factor exposures.

Hedge Fund Crowding and Hedge Fund Clustering

Our articles on hedge fund crowding analyze the factor (systematic) and residual (idiosyncratic) exposures of HF Aggregate, which consists of the long equity holdings of all U.S. hedge fund portfolios tractable from regulatory filings. Most analyses of crowding overlook bets shared by fund groups within the aggregate. To explore this internal structure of hedge fun crowding, in 2014 AlphaBetaWorks pioneered research on hedge fund clustering. Here we update this analysis with Q4 2015 holdings data.

Hedge Fund Clusters

Note that simplistic analysis of holdings overlap fails to measure fund similarity. Since their variance is overwhelmingly systematic, two funds with no overlapping positions but similar factor exposures can track each other closely. To identify clusters of funds without these deficiencies, we analyze factor and residual exposures of every portfolio relative to every other portfolio using the AlphaBetaWorks’ Statistical Equity Risk Model, a proven tool for forecasting portfolio risk and future performance. For each portfolio pair we estimate the future relative volatility (tracking error). The lower the expected relative tracking error between two funds, the more similar they are to each other.

Once each hedge fund pair is analyzed – hundreds of thousands of factor-based risk analyses – we find funds with similar exposures and build clusters (related to phylogenic trees, or family trees) of funds. We use agglomerative hierarchical clustering with estimated future relative tracking error as the metric of differentiation or dissimilarity. The resulting clusters capture similarities of all analyzable U.S. hedge fund long equity portfolios:

Chart of hedge fund clustering for U.S. long equity portfolios in Q4 2015

Clusters of U.S. Hedge Funds’ Long Equity Portfolios in Q4 2015

The largest cluster contains approximately 40 funds. It and other large clusters warrant careful scrutiny by allocators: those invested in a portfolio of clustered funds may be paying high active fees for a handful of consensus factor and stock-specific bets.

The AQR-Adage Hedge Fund Cluster

The AQR-Adage Cluster, named after two of its large and similar members, has recently been the largest cluster of hedge funds’ long equity portfolios:

Chart of hedge fund clustering within the largest cluster of U.S. Hedge Funds’ Q4 2015 Long Equity Portfolios

The Largest Hedge Fund Long Equity Portfolio Cluster in Q4 2015

A flat diagram illustrates the distances (estimated future tracking errors) between its members:

Chart of the flat view of clustering within the AQR-Adage cluster of U.S. Hedge Funds’ Q4 2015 Long Equity Portfolios

The AQR-Adage Long Equity Portfolio Cluster in Q4 2015

This cluster’s aggregate portfolio is similar to the U.S. equity market. We estimate only 1.8% tracking error of the AQR-Adage Cluster relative to the Russell 3000 Index.

Source Volatility (ann. %) Share of Variance (%)
Factor 1.26 48.23
Residual 1.31 51.77
Total 1.82 100.00

Put differently, we expect this cluster’s aggregate annual long portfolio return to differ from the market by more than 1.8% only about a third of the time.

AQR-Adage Cluster’s Factor (Systematic) Crowding

Below are this cluster’s significant factor exposures (in red) relative to the Russell 3000’s exposures (in gray):

Chart of exposures to the risk factors contributing most to the risk of the Q4 2015 AQR-Adage hedge fund long equity portfolio cluster relative to the U.S. Market

Factor Exposures of the AQR-Adage Hedge Fund Cluster in Q4 2015

Market (high-beta) and Size (small-cap) are the primary sources of the relative factor risk:

Chart of contributions to the relative factor (systematic) variance of the risk factors contributing most to the risk of the Q4 2015 AQR-Adage hedge fund long equity portfolio cluster relative to the U.S. Market

Factors Contributing Most to Relative Variance of the AQR-Adage Hedge Fund Cluster in Q4 2015

Factor Relative Exposure Factor Volatility Share of Relative Factor Variance Share of Relative Total Variance
Market 5.31 12.46 38.20 18.42
Size -8.23 8.09 22.14 10.68
Oil Price 1.42 29.43 18.84 9.09
Value -3.90 12.91 11.29 5.44
Finance -6.56 5.08 11.05 5.33
Utilities -2.21 11.28 6.05 2.92
Communications -1.18 11.98 2.79 1.35
Health -1.57 7.22 -2.97 -1.43
FX 1.50 7.28 -3.29 -1.59
Energy -2.07 11.77 -4.56 -2.20

(Relative exposures and relative variance contribution. All values are in %. Volatility is annualized.)

AQR-Adage Cluster’s Factor Crowding Stress Tests

AQR-Adage Cluster’s Maximum Outperformance

Given the AQR-Adage Cluster’s macroeconomic positioning (Long Market, Short Finance, Value, and Size), it would experience its highest outperformance in an environment similar to the 1999-2000 dot-com boom:

Chart of the cumulative factor (systematic) return for the historical scenario that would generate the larger relative outperformance for the AQR-Adage Hedge Fund Cluster in Q4 2015

Historical Scenario that Would Generate the Highest Relative Performance for the AQR-Adage Hedge Fund Cluster in Q4 2015

Factor Return Portfolio Exposure Benchmark Exposure Relative Exposure Portfolio Return Benchmark Return Relative Return
Market 31.52 107.31 102.00 5.31 34.06 32.21 1.85
Finance -19.62 12.76 19.32 -6.56 -2.62 -3.95 1.33
Oil Price 128.16 0.42 -1.00 1.42 0.39 -0.93 1.32
Size -10.49 -9.11 -0.88 -8.23 0.96 0.09 0.87
Value -21.96 -4.05 -0.15 -3.90 0.90 0.03 0.87

AQR-Adage Cluster’s Maximum Underperformance

These exposures would deliver the AQR-Adage Cluster its highest underperformance in an environment similar to the 2000-2001 .com crash:

Chart of the cumulative factor (systematic) return for the historical scenario that would generate the larger relative underperformance for the AQR-Adage Hedge Fund Cluster in Q4 2015

Historical Scenario that Would Generate the Lowest Relative Performance for the AQR-Adage Hedge Fund Cluster in Q4 2015

Factor Return Portfolio Exposure Benchmark Exposure Relative Exposure Portfolio Return Benchmark Return Relative Return
Finance 47.97 12.76 19.32 -6.56 5.39 8.24 -2.85
Value 86.46 -4.05 -0.15 -3.90 -2.67 -0.10 -2.57
Utilities 52.32 0.98 3.19 -2.21 0.45 1.46 -1.01
Market -14.21 107.31 102.00 5.31 -15.30 -14.51 -0.79
Energy 33.72 2.47 4.54 -2.07 0.77 1.43 -0.65

AQR-Adage Cluster Residual (Idiosyncratic) Crowding

The stock-specific bets of the AQR-Adage Cluster have grown more crowded as the idiosyncratic volatility of several crowded longs spiked recently. Four stocks account for most of its relative residual risk:

Chart of contributions to the relative residual (idiosyncratic) variance of the stocks contributing most to the risk of the Q4 2015 AQR-Adage hedge fund long equity portfolio cluster relative to U.S. Market

Stocks Contributing Most to Relative Residual Variance of the AQR-Adage Hedge Fund Cluster in Q4 2015

Symbol Name Relative Exposure Residual Volatility Share of Relative Residual Variance Share of Relative Total Variance
TPIV TapImmune Inc. 0.41 125.70 20.11 9.21
NHLD National Holdings Corporation 0.75 68.38 20.05 9.18
PTRC Petro River Oil Corp. 0.22 151.46 8.05 3.69
LRAD LRAD Corporation 0.76 38.81 6.69 3.06
VRX Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. 0.51 43.72 3.82 1.75
JD JD.com, Inc. Sponsored ADR Class A 0.49 31.91 1.86 0.85
CHTR Charter Communications, Inc. Class A 0.75 20.31 1.76 0.81
IBKR Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. Class A 0.71 19.64 1.47 0.67
AAPL Apple Inc. -0.81 16.25 1.33 0.61
GNUS Genius Brands International, Inc. 0.12 103.74 1.21 0.56

(Relative exposures and relative variance contribution. All values are in %. Volatility is annualized.)

Idiosyncratic crowding is not the main problem with this cluster, since the expected idiosyncratic tracking error is low (around 1.3%). However, it is vital for fund followers, as it helps explain unexpected volatility in the most crowded names. In fact, several of the crowded names above have shown signs of mass liquidation. It is also worth noting that the crowded names’ from earlier in 2015 presaged subsequent disasters. Valeant Pharmaceuticals (VRX), Micron, Inc. (MU), and Cheniere Natural Gas (LNG) were all featured in our crowding work.

Passivity is a bigger problem still, since allocators to diversified portfolios of hedge funds within this cluster may be paying high fees for a few consensus bets.

Summary

  • An analysis of the underlying structure of hedge fund crowding reveals hedge fund clustering – groups of portfolios with similar bets.
  • The largest cluster’s factor herding is towards Market (high-beta), short Size (small-cap), and four stock-specific bets (TPIV, NHLD, PTRC, and LRAD).
  • Allocators and fund followers unaware of clustering may find themselves in a nearly passive factor portfolio and a handful of consensus stock-specific bets.

The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2016, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Hedge Fund Crowding Update – Q4 2015

2 Replies

Most analyses of hedge fund crowding focus on their residual (idiosyncratic, stock-specific) bets. This is misguided, since over 85% of the monthly return variance for the majority of hedge fund long equity portfolios is due to factor (systematic) exposures, rather than individual stocks. Indeed, it is the exceptional factor crowding and the record market risk that have driven much of the industry’s recent misery (just as they have driven much of the earlier upswings). In Q4 2015, a single factor accounted for half of U.S. hedge funds’ relative long equity risk (tracking error). We survey all sources of hedge fund crowding at year-end 2015 and identify the market regimes that would generate the highest relative outperformance and underperformance for the crowded factor portfolio. These are the regimes that would most benefit or hurt hedge fund investors and followers.

Identifying Hedge Fund Crowding

This piece follows the approach of our earlier articles on crowding: We processed regulatory filings of over 1,000 hedge funds and created a position-weighted portfolio (HF Aggregate) consisting of all the tractable hedge fund long U.S. equity portfolios. We then analyzed HF Aggregate’s risk relative to U.S. Market using the AlphaBetaWorks Statistical Equity Risk Model – a proven system for performance forecasting. The top contributors to HF Aggregate’s relative risk are the most crowded hedge fund bets.

Hedge Fund Aggregate’s Risk

The Q4 2015 HF Aggregate had 3.7% estimated future tracking error relative to U.S. Market; over two thirds of this was due to factor (systematic) exposures:

Factor (systematic) and residual (idiosyncratic) components of hedge fund crowding, or U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s variance relative to U.S. Market on 12/31/2015

Components of the Relative Risk for U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate in Q4 2015

Source Volatility (ann. %) Share of Variance (%)
Factor 3.10 69.07
Residual 2.08 30.93
Total 3.73 100.00

Simplistic analysis of hedge fund crowding that lacks a capable risk model will miss these systematic exposures. Among its flows, this comparison of holdings will overlook funds with no position overlap but high future correlation due to similar factor exposures. Hence, this simplistic analysis of hedge fund crowding fosters dangerous complacency.

Hedge Fund Factor (Systematic) Crowding

Factor exposures drove nearly 70% of the relative risk of HF Aggregate at year-end 2015. Below are the principal factor exposures (in red) relative to U.S. Market’s exposures (in gray):

Chart of the factor exposures contributing most to hedge fund crowding, or the factor variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate Portfolio relative to U.S. Market on 12/31/2015

Significant Absolute and Relative Factor Exposures of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate in Q4 2015

Of these bets, Market (Beta) alone accounts for two thirds of the relative and half of the total factor risk, as illustrated below:

Chart of the main factors behind systematic hedge fund crowding and their cumulative contribution to the factor variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate Portfolio relative to U.S. Market on 12/31/2015

Factors Contributing Most to Relative Factor Variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate in Q4 2015

Factor Relative Exposure Factor Volatility Share of Relative Factor Variance Share of Relative Total Variance
Market 18.27 12.46 68.12 47.05
Oil Price 2.28 29.43 13.08 9.04
Bond Index -7.53 3.33 4.97 3.43
Utilities -3.10 11.28 4.77 3.30
Consumer -8.30 3.75 3.54 2.44
Energy -3.21 11.77 -2.96 -2.04
Health 4.79 7.22 2.54 1.75
Communications -1.67 11.98 1.91 1.32
Finance -6.89 5.08 1.68 1.16
Size -1.96 8.09 1.34 0.92

(Relative exposures and relative variance contribution. All values are in %. Volatility is annualized.)

Thus, the most important source of hedge fund crowding is not a stock or a group of stocks, but systematic exposure to the U.S. Market Factor. When nearly half of the industry’s risk comes from a single Factor, fixation on the individual crowded stocks is particularly dangerous.

The U.S. Market crowding alone explains much of the recent industry misery. In this era of systematic crowding, risk management with a robust and predictive factor model is particularly vital for managers’ and allocators’ survival.

Hedge Fund Factor Crowding Stress Tests

Hedge Fund Crowding Maximum Outperformance

Given Hedge Fund Aggregate’s bullish macroeconomic positioning (Long Market, Short Bonds/Long Interest Rates), it would experience its highest outperformance in an environment similar to the March-2009 rally. In this scenario, HF Aggregate’s factor portfolio would outperform by 20%:

Chart of the cumulative factor returns for the historical scenario that would generate the highest relative return for the 12/31/2015 U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate Portfolio relative to U.S. Market

Historical Scenario that Would Generate the Highest Relative Performance for the Q4 2015 U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate

The top contributors to this outperformance would be the following exposures:

Factor Return Portfolio Exposure Benchmark Exposure Relative Exposure Portfolio Return Benchmark Return Relative Return
Market 66.04 120.07 101.80 18.27 83.00 67.50 15.50
Oil Price 87.13 1.53 -0.75 2.28 1.05 -0.51 1.56
Bond Index -6.29 -4.92 2.61 -7.53 0.31 -0.17 0.48
Energy -12.54 1.61 4.82 -3.21 -0.20 -0.61 0.41
Communications -17.62 0.52 2.19 -1.67 -0.10 -0.41 0.31

Hedge Fund Crowding Maximum Underperformance

Given Hedge Fund Aggregate’s bullish macroeconomic positioning, combined with a long Technology and short Finance exposures, it would experience its highest underperformance in an environment similar to the 2000-2001 .com Crash. In this scenario, HF Aggregate’s factor portfolio would underperform by 8%:

Chart of the cumulative factor returns for the historical scenario that would generate the lowest relative return for the 12/31/2015 U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate Portfolio relative to U.S. Market

Historical Scenario that Would Generate the Lowest Relative Performance for the Q4 2015 U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate

The top contributors to this underperformance would be the following exposures:

Factor Return Portfolio Exposure Benchmark Exposure Relative Exposure Portfolio Return Benchmark Return Relative Return
Finance 47.97 12.48 19.36 -6.89 5.27 8.26 -2.99
Market -14.21 120.07 101.80 18.27 -17.22 -14.48 -2.74
Technology -36.73 23.75 20.14 3.62 -9.83 -8.38 -1.45
Utilities 52.32 0.22 3.31 -3.10 0.10 1.51 -1.42
Consumer 12.36 14.87 23.17 -8.30 1.82 2.85 -1.02

Hedge Fund Residual (Idiosyncratic) Crowding

A third of the year-end 2015 hedge fund crowding is due to residual (idiosyncratic, stock-specific) risk. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International (VRX) and Netflix (NFLX) are responsible for nearly half of it:

Chart of the main stock-specific sources of hedge fund crowding and their cumulative contribution to the residual variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate Portfolio relative to U.S. Market on 12/31/2015

Stocks Contributing Most to Relative Residual Variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate in Q4 2015

Though there may be sound individual reasons for these investments, they are vulnerable to brutal liquidation. Given the recent damage to hedge funds from herding, these crowded residual bets remain vulnerable:

Symbol Name Relative Exposure Residual Volatility Share of Relative Residual Variance Share of Relative Total Variance
VRX Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. 2.67 43.72 31.56 9.76
NFLX Netflix, Inc. 1.57 54.62 17.15 5.30
JD JD.com, Inc. Sponsored ADR Class A 1.60 31.91 6.05 1.87
LNG Cheniere Energy, Inc. 1.38 33.35 4.88 1.51
CHTR Charter Communications, Inc. Class A 1.79 20.31 3.08 0.95
TWC Time Warner Cable Inc. 1.85 16.14 2.06 0.64
AGN Allergan plc 1.83 14.62 1.66 0.51
FLT FleetCor Technologies, Inc. 1.18 19.61 1.23 0.38
PCLN Priceline Group Inc 1.12 20.10 1.18 0.36
MSFT Microsoft Corporation 1.54 14.13 1.10 0.34

(Relative exposures and relative variance contribution. All values are in %. Volatility is annualized.)

Though stock-specific bets remain important, allocators and fund followers should pay particular attention to their factor exposures in the current environment of extreme systematic hedge fund crowding. Many may be effectively invested in leveraged passive index fund portfolio, with the added insult of high fees. AlphaBetaWorks Analytics address all of these needs with the coverage of market-wide and sector-specific herding, plus aggregate factor exposures of funds and portfolios of funds.

Summary

  • The main source of Q4 2015 hedge fund crowding, responsible for nearly half of the relative long equity risk, was record U.S. Market exposure.
  • The main sources of Q4 2015 residual crowding were VRX and NFLX.
  • Given the high factor (systematic) crowding among hedge funds’ long equity portfolios, current analysis of crowding risks must focus on the factor exposures, rather than individual positions.
The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2016, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

 

Are Momentum ETFs Delivering Momentum Returns?

5 Replies

There is a large difference between momentum strategies in theory and in practice. Given that much of its model performance derives from illiquid securities and high turnover, the academic momentum factor is a theoretical ideal that is not directly investable. Consequently, real-world momentum products, such as momentum ETFs, are restricted to investable liquid securities and usually reduce the approximately 200% annual turnover of theoretical momentum portfolios. After these modifications, their idiosyncratic momentum returns mostly vanish.

We consider a popular momentum ETF and illustrate that its historical performance is almost entirely attributable to passive exposures to simple non-momentum factors, such as Market and Sectors. Investors may thus be able to achieve and even surpass the performance of popular momentum ETFs with transparent, passive, and potentially lower-cost portfolios of simpler funds.

Attributing the Performance of Momentum ETFs to Simpler Factors

We analyzed iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM) using the AlphaBetaWorks Statistical Equity Risk Model – a proven tool for forecasting portfolio risk and performance. We estimated monthly positions from regulatory filings, retrieved positions’ factor (systematic) exposures, and aggregated these. This produced a series of monthly portfolio exposures to simple investable risk factors such as Market, Sector, and Size. The factor exposures at the end of Month 1 and factor returns during Month 2 are used to calculate factor returns during Month 2 and any residual (security-selection, idiosyncratic, stock-specific) returns un-attributable to factors.

There are only two ways for a fund to deviate from a passive portfolio: residual returns un-attributable to factors and factor timing returns due to variation in factor exposures over time. We define and measure both components below.

iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor (MTUM): Performance Attribution

We used iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor (MTUM) as an example of a practical implementation of a theoretical momentum portfolio. MTUM is a $1.1bil ETF that seeks to track an index of U.S. large- and mid-cap stocks with high momentum. The fund’s turnover, around 100% annually, is about half that of the theoretical momentum factor.

iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor (MTUM): Factor Exposures

The following factors are responsible for most of the historical returns and variance of MTUM:

Chart of exposures to the risk factors contributing most to the historical performance of MSCI USA Momentum Factor (MTUM)

MSCI USA Momentum Factor (MTUM): Significant Historical Factor Exposures

Latest Mean Min. Max.
Market 88.44 84.12 65.46 96.03
Health 23.73 30.28 23.73 34.94
Consumer 74.02 32.53 13.10 74.06
Industrial 1.69 9.71 1.13 24.51
Size -10.47 -1.04 -11.09 7.67
Oil Price -2.90 -2.45 -4.94 -0.04
Technology 17.72 16.56 1.50 32.29
Value -4.86 -2.13 -8.00 5.20
Energy 0.00 1.86 0.00 4.12
Bond Index 6.51 1.08 -22.90 23.64

iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor (MTUM): Active Return

To replicate MTUM with simple non-momentum factors, one can use a passive portfolio of these simple non-momentum factors with MTUM’s mean exposures as weights. This portfolio defined the Passive Return in the following chart. Active return, or αβReturn, is the performance in excess of this passive replicating portfolio. It is the active return due to residual stock performance and factor timing:

Chart of the cumulative historical active return from security selection and factor timing of MSCI USA Momentum Factor (MTUM)

MSCI USA Momentum Factor (MTUM): Cumulative Passive and Active Returns

MTUM’s performance closely tracks the passive replicating portfolio. Pearson’s correlation between Total Return and Passive Return is 0.96. Consequently, 93% of the variance of monthly returns is attributable to passive factor exposures, primarily to Market and Sector factors.

Once passive exposures to simpler factors have been removed, MTUM’s active return is negligible. Since MTUM’s launch, the cumulative return difference from such passive replicating portfolio has been approximately 1%:

2013 2014 2015 Total
Total Return 16.73 14.62 8.50 45.18
  Passive Return 16.06 16.48 4.55 41.34
  αβReturn 1.11 -2.46 2.54 1.12
    αReturn 3.91 0.05 0.29 4.27
    βReturn -2.71 -2.52 2.23 -3.05

This active return can be further decomposed into security selection (αReturn) and factor timing (βReturn). These active return components generated low volatility, around 1% annually, mostly offsetting each other as illustrated below:

iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor (MTUM): Active Return from Security Selection

AlphaBetaWorks’ measure of residual security selection performance is αReturn – performance relative to a factor portfolio that matches the funds’ historical factor exposures. αReturn is the return a fund would have generated if markets had been flat. MTUM has generated approximately 4% cumulative αReturn, primarily in 2013, compared to roughly 1.5% decline for the average U.S. equity ETF:

Chart of the cumulative historical active return from security selection of MSCI USA Momentum Factor (MTUM)

MSCI USA Momentum Factor (MTUM): Cumulative Active Return from Security Selection

iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor (MTUM): Active Return from Factor Timing

AlphaBetaWorks’ measure of factor timing performance is βReturn – performance due to variation in factor exposures. βReturn is the fund’s outperformance relative to a portfolio with the same mean, but constant, factor exposures as the fund. MTUM generates approximately -3% cumulative βReturn, compared to a roughly 1% decline for the average U.S. equity ETF:

Chart of the cumulative historical active return from factor timing of MSCI USA Momentum Factor (MTUM)

MSCI USA Momentum Factor (MTUM): Cumulative Active Return from Factor Timing

These low active returns are consistent with our earlier findings that many “smart beta” funds are merely high-beta and offer no value over portfolios of conventional dumb-beta funds. It is thus vital to test any new resident of the Factor Zoo to determine whether they are merely exotic breeds of its more boring residents.

Conclusion

  • Theoretical, or academic, momentum portfolios are not directly investable.
  • A popular momentum ETF, MSCI USA Momentum Factor (MTUM), did not deviate significantly from a passive portfolio of simpler non-momentum factors.
  • Investors may be able to achieve and surpass the performance of the popular momentum ETFs with transparent, passive, and potentially lower-cost portfolios of simpler index funds and ETFs.
The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2016, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Hedge Fund Crowding Update – Q3 2015

Leave a reply

Since crowded stocks are prone to mass liquidation, investors are typically most concerned with residual (idiosyncratic, stock-specific) hedge fund crowding. This overlooks the exceptional factor (systematic) crowding and the record market risk that have been driving recent industry performance. In Q3 2015, when a single factor and a single stock accounted for over half of the aggregate U.S. hedge fund long equity portfolio’s relative risk, hedge fund crowding became unprecedented.

Identifying Hedge Fund Crowding

This piece follows the approach of our earlier articles on crowding: We created a position-weighted portfolio (HF Aggregate) consisting of the common U.S. equity holdings of all tractable long hedge fund portfolios. We then analyzed HF Aggregate’s risk relative to U.S. Market using the AlphaBetaWorks Statistical Equity Risk Model. The top sources of HF Aggregate’s relative risk are the top sources of hedge fund crowding.

Hedge Fund Aggregate’s Risk

The Q3 2015 HF Aggregate had 3.9% estimated future tracking error relative to U.S. Market; factor (systematic) bets were its primary sources. The components of HF Aggregate’s relative risk were as follows:

Factor (systematic) and residual (idiosyncratic) components of the U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s variance relative to U.S. Market

Components of the Relative Risk for U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate

Source Volatility (ann. %) Share of Variance (%)
Factor 2.91 55.17
Residual 2.62 44.83
Total 3.91 100.00

A simplistic crowding analysis that does not rely on an effective risk model ignores systematic exposures of positions. Since portfolios with very different holdings can have matching factor exposures and can track each other closely, crowding is common even for portfolios with little overlap. Such simplistic analyses thus overlooks factor (systematic) exposures that are responsible for the majority of covariance among hedge funds.

Hedge Fund Factor (Systematic) Crowding

Factor exposures drove over half of the relative risk of HF Aggregate in Q3. Below are its principal factor exposures (in red) relative to U.S. Market’s exposures (in gray):

Chart of the factor exposures contributing most to the factor variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate Portfolio relative to U.S. Market on 9/30/2015

Factors Contributing Most to the Relative Risk for U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate

Of these bets, Market (Beta) alone accounts for two thirds of the relative factor risk and over a third of the total risk. The top components of the 2.91% Factor Volatility in the first table are as follows:

Chart of the main factors and their cumulative contribution to the factor variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate Portfolio relative to U.S. Market on 9/30/2015

Factors Contributing Most to Relative Factor Variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate

Factor Relative Exposure Factor Volatility Share of Relative Factor Variance Share of Relative Total Variance
Market 17.26 12.28 65.18 35.96
Oil Price 2.93 28.89 20.11 11.10
Industrial 9.30 5.41 7.80 4.30
Utilities -3.32 11.05 4.49 2.48
Finance -7.76 5.18 3.36 1.85
Consumer -4.85 4.27 2.68 1.48
Health 5.68 6.82 2.31 1.27
Communications -1.74 11.77 1.64 0.91
Energy -2.10 12.68 -4.19 -2.31
FX 4.78 7.59 -5.95 -3.28

(Relative exposures and relative variance contribution. All values are in %. Volatility is annualized.)

The most important source of hedge fund crowding is not a stock or a set of stocks, but systematic exposure to a risk factor. Currently, fixation on stock-specific hedge fund bets is at best misguided and at worst dangerous for allocators. Risk management using a robust and predictive system, such as AlphaBetaWorks Risk Analytics, is currently key to controlling systematic fund crowding.

Hedge Fund U.S. Market Factor Exposure History

HF Aggregate’s 9/30/2015 market exposure was approximately 120% (its Market Beta was approximately 1.2). The hedge fund industry is thus taking approximately 20% more market risk than U.S. equities and approximately 25% more market risk than S&P 500. This record exposure has been costly for the industry and many individual funds during the 2015 turmoil, exacerbating volatility due to stock-specific crowding:

Chart of the historical exposure of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate Portfolio to the U.S. Market Factor

U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate’s U.S. Market Factor Exposure History

HF Aggregate generally takes 10-20% more market risk than S&P500. Consequently, comparison of long hedge fund portfolio performance to market indices is misleading and assumption that outperformance relative to S&P500 is alpha is wrong. In a rising market, allocators who make these mistakes are likely to allocate to the most aggressive managers, rather than the most skilled. In flat or declining market, these mistakes become evident. Skill analytics that discriminate among the different levels of systematic risk are the solution.

Hedge Fund Residual (Idiosyncratic) Crowding

About 45% of recent hedge fund crowding is due to residual (idiosyncratic, stock-specific) risk. In part due to its spectacular volatility, a single position in Valeant Pharmaceuticals International (VRX) is now responsible for most of it:

Chart of the main stock-specific bets and their cumulative contribution to the residual variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate Portfolio relative to U.S. Market on 9/30/2015

Stocks Contributing Most to Relative Residual Variance of U.S. Hedge Fund Aggregate

Though individual crowded names may be wonderful investments, they have tended to underperform; they have seen consistent, and lately brutal, liquidation under the recent outflows:

Symbol Name Relative Exposure Residual Volatility Share of Relative Residual Variance Share of Relative Total Variance
VRX Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. 4.68 43.92 61.55 27.59
LNG Cheniere Energy, Inc. 1.80 40.12 7.57 3.39
NFLX Netflix, Inc. 1.10 56.17 5.59 2.51
CHTR Charter Communications, Inc. Class A 1.81 20.93 2.09 0.94
JD JD.com, Inc. Sponsored ADR Class A 1.31 28.91 2.08 0.93
TWC Time Warner Cable Inc. 1.86 16.57 1.39 0.62
AGN Allergan plc 1.67 15.39 0.96 0.43
FLT FleetCor Technologies, Inc. 1.20 19.53 0.80 0.36
PCLN Priceline Group Inc 1.11 20.74 0.78 0.35
PAGP Plains GP Holdings LP Class A 0.89 22.91 0.60 0.27

(Relative exposures and relative variance contribution. All values are in %. Volatility is annualized.)

Especially in the prevailing environment of portfolio liquidations, investors should not blindly follow star managers. Instead, any signs of crowding should trigger particularly thorough due-diligence. Allocators should be doubly concerned with crowding as they may be investing in a pool of undifferentiated bets and a leveraged factor portfolio. AlphaBetaWorks’ analytics address all of these needs with coverage of aggregate and sector-specific herding, predictive risk analytics, and detection of skills strongly predictive of future performance.

Summary

  • The main source of Q3 2015 hedge fund crowding is record Market (Beta) exposure, responsible for more than a third of the hedge fund industry’s relative risk.
  • The main source of Q3 2015 residual crowding is VRX.
  • In the current environment, analysis of hedge fund crowding must focus on the factor exposures driving systematic crowding, rather than individual positions.
The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2015, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

The Risk Impact of Valeant on Sequoia Fund

Leave a reply

“This is your fund on drugs”

The Sequoia Fund’s (SEQUX) hefty sizing of Valeant Pharmaceuticals (VRX) dramatically changed the fund’s risk profile from historical norms. With the proper tools, allocators would have noticed this style drift back in Q2 2015 when Sequoia’s key factor exposures moved two to three times beyond historical averages. What’s more, allocators would have noticed a predicted volatility increase of 25% and a tracking-error increased 70%. Though this analysis would not have anticipated Valeant’s subsequent decline, it would have warned fund investors that Sequoia’s risk was out of the ordinary. 

Sequoia Fund’s Risk Profile

Below is a chart of Sequoia’s major factor exposures, spanning a ten year history through June 2015:

Chart of the exposures of Sequoia Fund (SEQUX) to the risk factors contributing most to its risk

Sequoia Fund (SEQUX) – Historical Factor Exposures

(Note that this analysis and our model do not include Valeant’s recent heightened volatility: we are using the AlphaBetaWorks Statistical Equity Risk Model as of 8/31/15 and SEQUX’s positions as of 6/30/2015. In short, we are looking at the world prior to Valeant’s subsequent downside volatility.)

Sequoia’s stock selection and allocation decisions result in certain factor bets such as market beta (“US and Canada”, above), other factors (Value, Size), and sectors (Consumer, Health). The red dots above represent factor exposures in a particular month, the red boxes represent two quartile deviations, and the diamonds denote current (i.e. 6/30/15) exposures. Several sectors/factors are circled for emphasis: they are current exposures as well as outliers versus history. More importantly, these outlying factor bets are the direct result of Sequoia’s large percentage ownership of Valeant.

The Impact of Valeant on Sequoia Fund’s Factor Exposures

We examined Sequoia Fund’s factor exposures with and without Valeant. We assumed that the pro forma Sequoia Fund without Valeant would have increased all other positions proportionally to make up for the void.  For example, we increase Sequoia’s next-largest position (TJX) from 7.3% to 10.9%, and so on for all longs for the pro forma non-Valeant Sequoia portfolio.

Below is a chart comparing the most salient factor exposures of Sequoia Fund, with and without Valeant:

Chart of the exposures of Sequoia Fund (SEQUX) to the risk factors contributing most to its risk including and excluding the position in Valeant (VRX)

Sequoia Fund (SEQUX) – Factor Exposures With and Without Valeant (VRX)

Valeant has had a significant impact on Sequoia’s factor exposures. The factors with the highest delta are the same as those highlighted as outliers on the first chart above.

This is significant in several ways. First, the large Valeant holding increases Sequoia Fund’s overall volatility by 25%. Second, Sequoia’s tracking error is increased by its Valeant holding by 70%. Sequoia Fund volatility estimates with and without Valeant are below:

The main components of Sequoia Fund’s (SEQUX’s) absolute and relative volatility and variance including the position in Valeant (VRX)

Sequoia Fund (SEQUX) with Valeant (VRX) – Absolute and Relative (to S&P 500) Estimated Risk

The main components of Sequoia Fund’s (SEQUX’s) absolute and relative volatility and variance excluding the position in Valeant (VRX)

Sequoia Fund (SEQUX) without Valeant (VRX) – Absolute and Relative (to S&P 500) Estimated Risk

Valeant increases Sequoia’s overall predicted volatility (tracking error) by 26% (from 9.73% to 12.31%, annualized – gold boxes). Likewise, Valeant increases Sequoia’s tracking error by 69% (from 5.19% to 8.76% – brown boxes). Increases in both Absolute and Relative volatility are due to the incremental Residual Risk contribution of Sequoia’s large Valeant holding (graphically shown by the larger blue boxes in the “with VRX” charts, in contrast to smaller blue boxes in the “without VRX” charts).

Conclusions

In the end, this analysis is not about Sequoia or VRX. It is a single example of decisions that could have been avoided by a portfolio manager or questions that would have arisen to an allocator with the proper risk toolkit. Sequoia’s decision to make Valeant an outsized position did not go unnoticed from a risk standpoint. Increases in factor exposures of two to three times outside historical bounds were an early warning. The impact of this was increased predicted volatility – both on an absolute basis and relative to the S&P 500. A framework that warns of a fund taking large factor and idiosyncratic bets aids greatly in avoiding negative surprises.

The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2015, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.

Hedge Fund Crowding Costs: Q3 2015

Leave a reply

Applying a robust risk model to hedge fund holdings data helps avoid losses and yields profitable opportunities. In this article, we highlight the sectors with the largest Hedge Fund losses due to crowding in Q3 2015, which sum to $4 billion. Our methodology provides an early-warning system for losses in crowded names. This analysis also identifies crowded stocks beaten up by hedge fund liquidations, which tend to mean-revert.

Analyzing Hedge Fund Sector Crowding

Our edge comes from a central thesis: the most crowded stocks are those that contribute the most to hedge fund stock-specific volatility (volatility of alpha). Furthermore, the direction of this alpha (positive or negative) is a leading indicator. A robust analysis of the AlphaBetaWorks Statistical Equity Risk Model allows us to identify stocks that are the highest contributors to stock-specific volatility for hedge funds in each sector.  These are the most crowded stocks that stand to benefit the most from accumulation and stand to lose the most from liquidation.

While a static crowding analysis using our risk model provides valuable insights, we go further by identifying Hedge Fund Aggregate Sector Alpha – the alpha (stock-specific performance) of aggregated hedge fund portfolios by sector.  This makes the analysis dynamic: If Hedge Fund Aggregate Sector Alpha is trending up, capital is flowing into crowded stocks. Conversely, if it is trending down, capital is flowing out of crowded stocks – often abruptly. Yes, crowding is good at some times and bad at others.  Further, Hedge Fund Aggregate Sector Alpha trends persist for months and years, providing advanced notice of losses. Importantly, crowded stocks hit hard by liquidations tend to mean-revert: the worst risk-adjusted performers often become attractive long opportunities.

Hedge Fund Sector Aggregates

We create aggregate portfolios of hedge fund positions in each sector. Each such sector portfolio is a Hedge Fund Sector Aggregate within which we identify the highest contributors to security-specific (residual) volatility (the most crowded stocks). This follows the approach of our earlier articles on hedge fund crowding.

The Hedge Fund Sector Aggregate Alpha (αReturn, residual, or security-specific return) measures hedge fund security selection performance in a sector. It is the return HF Sector Aggregate would have generated if markets had been flat. αReturn can indicate accumulations and liquidations.

The AlphaBetaWorks Statistical Equity Risk Model, a proven tool for forecasting portfolio risk and performance, estimated factor exposures and residuals. Without an effective risk model, simplistic crowding analyses ignore the systematic and idiosyncratic exposures of positions and typically merely identify companies with the largest market capitalizations.

Sectors with the Largest Losses from Hedge Fund Crowding

During Q3 2015, hedge funds lost $4 billion to security selection in the five sectors below. Said another way: if hedge funds had simply invested passively with the same risk, their sector long equity portfolios would have made $4 billion more. The monthly losses are listed (in $millions) below:

7/31/2015 8/31/2015 9/30/2015 Total
Other Consumer Services -101.16 -113.93 -312.84 -426.77
Oil and Gas Pipelines 472.21 -465.63 -10.29 -475.93
Specialty Chemicals -155.87 196.41 -730.73 -534.32
Oil Refining and Marketing 262.69 -167.15 -388.52 -555.67
Semiconductors -240.71 -1,422.70 -660.95 -2,083.65

The Semiconductor Sector was particularly painful for hedge funds in Q3 2015, which we examined in a previous article.

Below we provide our data on three of the above sectors: historical Hedge Fund Sector Alpha and the most crowded names.

Specialty Chemicals – Hedge Fund Alpha and Crowding

Hedge Fund Specialty Chemicals Security Selection Performance

Hedge Fund Specialty Chemicals Sector Aggregate Historical Security Selection Performance

Historical Return from Security Selection of Hedge Fund Specialty Chemicals Sector Aggregate

Hedge Fund Specialty Chemicals Crowding

Chart of the stock-specific hedge fund crowding the cumulative contributors to the residual variance of Hedge Fund Specialty Chemicals Sector Aggregate Portfolio relative to Market

Crowded Hedge Fund Specialty Chemicals Sector Bets

The following table contains detailed data on these crowded holdings:

Exposure (%) Net Exposure Share of Risk (%)
HF Sector Aggr. Sector Aggr. % $mil Days of Trading
GB:PAH Platform Specialty Products Corp. 17.59 2.52 15.07 1,351.8 14.3 44.62
APD Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. 47.46 13.89 33.57 3,010.8 13.7 22.09
LYB LyondellBasell Industries NV 3.36 23.03 -19.67 -1,764.2 -5.9 14.04
GRBK Green Brick Partners, Inc. 2.99 0.25 2.74 245.7 79.7 10.58
GRA W. R. Grace \& Co. 11.76 3.45 8.32 745.8 11.0 2.99
PX Praxair, Inc. 0.31 16.29 -15.98 -1,433.5 -5.9 2.21
AXLL Axiall Corporation 2.79 1.20 1.59 142.8 4.5 0.74
TROX Tronox Ltd. 1.80 0.45 1.35 121.2 14.2 0.36
ARG Airgas, Inc. 0.19 3.77 -3.59 -321.8 -4.1 0.33
SIAL Sigma-Aldrich Corporation 3.32 7.88 -4.56 -408.6 -2.3 0.28
NEU NewMarket Corporation 0.23 2.61 -2.38 -213.4 -6.0 0.26
VHI Valhi, Inc. 0.02 0.91 -0.88 -79.2 -240.2 0.26
CYT Cytec Industries Inc. 0.07 2.04 -1.97 -176.5 -2.0 0.18
ASH Ashland Inc. 1.66 3.89 -2.23 -200.0 -2.4 0.18
POL PolyOne Corporation 0.19 1.65 -1.46 -131.2 -4.3 0.10
TANH Tantech Holdings Ltd. 0.00 0.19 -0.19 -17.3 -2.7 0.09
BCPC Balchem Corporation 0.00 0.82 -0.82 -73.4 -8.8 0.07
CBM Cambrex Corporation 0.06 0.65 -0.59 -53.2 -2.1 0.06
CMP Compass Minerals International, Inc. 0.15 1.31 -1.16 -104.0 -4.8 0.06
… Other Positions 0.29 0.51
Total 100.00

Oil Refining and Marketing – Hedge Fund Alpha and Crowding

Hedge Fund Oil Refining and Marketing Security Selection Performance

Hedge Fund Oil Refining and Marketing Sector Aggregate Historical Security Selection Performance

Historical Return from Security Selection of Hedge Fund Oil Refining and Marketing Sector Aggregate

Hedge Fund Oil Refining and Marketing Crowding

Chart of the stock-specific hedge fund crowding the cumulative contributors to the residual variance of Hedge Fund Oil Refining and Marketing Sector Aggregate Portfolio relative to Market

Crowded Hedge Fund Oil Refining and Marketing Sector Bets

The following table contains detailed data on these crowded holdings:

Exposure (%) Net Exposure Share of Risk (%)
HF Sector Aggr. Sector Aggr. % $mil Days of Trading
MWE MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. 18.23 5.31 12.92 848.9 6.1 31.86
VLO Valero Energy Corporation 0.38 16.06 -15.68 -1,030.4 -2.7 23.34
TSO Tesoro Corporation 14.32 5.36 8.96 589.0 1.4 12.74
TRGP Targa Resources Corp. 8.99 2.52 6.47 425.3 8.7 7.76
PSX Phillips 66 9.21 21.86 -12.66 -831.8 -2.8 6.03
PBF PBF Energy, Inc. Class A 6.80 1.23 5.56 365.6 7.8 5.84
NGLS Targa Resources Partners LP 8.74 3.52 5.21 342.7 6.2 2.84
WGP Western Gas Equity Partners LP 3.58 6.63 -3.05 -200.5 -7.4 2.06
MPC Marathon Petroleum Corporation 9.59 14.34 -4.75 -312.0 -1.1 1.81
TLLP Tesoro Logistics LP 5.12 2.33 2.79 183.1 3.5 1.45
HFC HollyFrontier Corporation 1.29 4.22 -2.93 -192.3 -1.4 1.11
WNR Western Refining, Inc. 0.21 2.10 -1.89 -124.5 -1.4 0.61
IOC Interoil Corporation 0.66 1.50 -0.84 -55.3 -6.9 0.49
GEL Genesis Energy, L.P. 4.35 2.20 2.15 141.1 6.2 0.34
ENBL Enable Midstream Partners LP 0.39 1.73 -1.34 -88.2 -31.6 0.33
EMES Emerge Energy Services LP 0.01 0.43 -0.42 -27.6 -6.1 0.29
DK Delek US Holdings, Inc. 0.00 1.07 -1.07 -70.0 -1.2 0.26
WNRL Western Refining Logistics, LP 1.57 0.36 1.21 79.5 15.0 0.24
ALJ Alon USA Energy, Inc. 0.00 0.67 -0.67 -44.1 -2.3 0.18
NS NuStar Energy L.P. 3.50 2.33 1.17 76.9 1.4 0.15
… Other Positions 0.07 0.28
Total

Semiconductors – Hedge Fund Alpha and Crowding

Hedge Fund Semiconductor Security Selection Performance

Hedge Fund Semiconductors Sector Aggregate Historical Security Selection Performance

Historical Return from Security Selection of Hedge Fund Semiconductors Sector Aggregate

Given the magnitude of recent semiconductor sector liquidations and the record of mean-reversions, the following crowded hedge fund semiconductor bets may now be especially attractive:

Hedge Fund Semiconductor Crowding

Chart of the stock-specific hedge fund crowding the cumulative contributors to the residual variance of Hedge Fund Semiconductors Sector Aggregate Portfolio relative to Market

Crowded Hedge Fund Semiconductors Sector Bets

The following table contains detailed data on these crowded holdings:

Exposure (%) Net Exposure Share of Risk (%)
HF Sector Aggr. Sector Aggr. % $mil Days of Trading
SUNE SunEdison, Inc. 33.18 1.82 31.36 2,550.9 9.6 86.72
MU Micron Technology, Inc. 18.87 3.95 14.93 1,214.1 2.9 8.85
INTC Intel Corporation 3.72 27.94 -24.22 -1,970.2 -1.6 2.01
SEMI SunEdison Semiconductor, Inc. 3.22 0.14 3.08 250.7 52.5 0.38
SWKS Skyworks Solutions, Inc. 0.04 3.85 -3.82 -310.4 -0.9 0.38
TXN Texas Instruments Incorporated 0.09 10.38 -10.28 -836.6 -1.9 0.32
NXPI NXP Semiconductors NV 7.90 4.41 3.49 283.6 1.0 0.29
AVGO Avago Technologies Limited 3.29 6.69 -3.40 -276.3 -0.5 0.18
FSL Freescale Semiconductor Inc 0.02 2.40 -2.38 -193.5 -5.2 0.17
ON ON Semiconductor Corporation 3.39 0.97 2.42 196.6 4.3 0.08
MLNX Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. 1.89 0.43 1.45 118.3 0.7 0.08
BRCM Broadcom Corporation Class A 7.81 5.51 2.30 187.2 0.5 0.07
MX MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation 0.92 0.05 0.87 70.9 31.2 0.07
ADI Analog Devices, Inc. 0.05 3.90 -3.85 -312.9 -1.7 0.06
QRVO Qorvo, Inc. 1.13 2.32 -1.19 -96.7 -1.1 0.06
NVDA NVIDIA Corporation 0.58 2.10 -1.51 -123.1 -0.4 0.04
GB:0Q19 CEVA, Inc. 1.25 0.08 1.17 95.5 30.7 0.04
MRVL Marvell Technology Group Ltd. 0.04 1.32 -1.28 -104.4 -0.9 0.03
MXIM Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. 0.34 1.90 -1.56 -126.9 -1.7 0.02
MXL MaxLinear, Inc. Class A 0.74 0.12 0.62 50.6 2.8 0.02
… Other Positions 0.36 0.13
Total

Conclusions

  • Data on the crowded names and their alpha can reduce losses and provide profitable investment opportunities.
  • A robust and predictive equity risk model is necessary to accurately identify hedge fund crowding.
  • Allocators aware of crowding can gain new insights into portfolio risk, manager skill, and fund differentiation.
  • Crowded bets tend to mean-revert following liquidation: the worst risk-adjusted performers in a sector become the best.
The information herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete or timely.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Copyright © 2012-2015, AlphaBetaWorks, a division of Alpha Beta Analytics, LLC. All rights reserved.
Content may not be republished without express written consent.