|
Last week, I took the Wall Street Journal to
task for publishing a "Heard on the Street" column that did little more
than spread hedge fund industry hype. In that blog posting, I asked
Journal staff to look into four questions related to the relevance
and validity of the facts asserted in that column.
On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal
addressed the first of those four questions, publishing an article about
how statistics related to the size and growth of the hedge fund industry
are manipulated. Reporters Alistair MacDonald and Margot Patrick placed
some phone calls and turned over a few rocks. Here is what crawled out:
1. While it is standard practice for mutual funds
and other investment funds to report their size in terms of investor
capital, some hedge funds substitute assets for capital when reporting
their size. With hedge funds routinely leveraging themselves ten times
or more, this can make a $100 million fund appear to be a $1 billion
fund. Call this approach to reporting what you want. I call it lying.
2. With many investors looking to a fund's size as
an indication of success, this misleading reporting might induce
investors into a small fund by making them think they are investing in a
large, successful fund.
3. The misleading reporting inflates estimates of
the industry's size and growth. Those estimates are blatantly
unreliable. The Journal cites two disseminators of hedge fund
propaganda: Hedge Fund Intelligence and Credit Suisse Tremont. One
claims the hedge fund industry controls $2.48 trillion in capital. The
other cites a number half as large. That is a pretty big discrepancy.
4. There are other factors that can distort or bias
such statistics. One is for double-counting of assets invested in hedge
funds by funds of funds. The Journal mentions RAB Capital, plc.
They have a fund of funds that invests about $500 million in the groups
other hedge funds. The Journal doesn't even touch on the gaping
conflict of interest here, but they do confirm that RAB double reports
the assets to data distributors.
I applaud the Journal for shining a light on a
small fraction of what is unseemly about the hedge fund industry. But
there is more work to be done. In my last blog posting, I asked three
other questions that need to be addressed. There are a lot more rocks to
turn over.
We now know hedge funds are being creative when
reporting their capital. On its own, this revelation is a drop in the
bucket, but it contributes to a river of disturbing evidence. I suspect
the hedge fund industry is a sham with consequences as far-reaching as
the dot-com bubble seven years ago.
Glyn A. Holton
|