Investments Review: Part 4, Hedge Funds

Regal Funds (RF1.AX). Share of net worth: 5.63%. IRR: 45.7%. This is a multi-strategy hedge fund listed on the ASX that has performed very well since the COVID crash:

It has a beta of one to the stock market but has added a lot of alpha. The downside is that it has a trust structure and, therefore, pays out all profits in the form that they were earned in. So, it is not very tax-effective. We have now moved our holding to our SMSF. The stated focus is on Australian stocks, but they hold a lot of foreign stocks too.

Tribeca Global Natural Resources (TGF.AX). Share of net worth: 5.57%. IRR: 19.2%. This a global resource sector focused hedge fund listed on the ASX. From launch the price collapsed from $2.50 to under $1. They also lost a lot of money on a large loan to a US based coal mining company. They now have revised the investment guidelines to prevent a recurrence. The NAV is now above the IPO price and the stock price is almost there. We have gained a lot by buying when the price was depressed as well as in after-tax terms by selling when the price was depressed to take a tax loss.

Pershing Square Holdings (PSH.L). Share of net worth: 5.33%. IRR: 39.8%. This fund is listed on the London stock exchange but managed by Bill Ackman, a famous US hedge fund manager. The fund is very focused. They invest in around 10 large cap mostly US stocks at any one time. It is mostly a long fund. But they gained during the COVID crash by putting on a credit -ased hedge. Almost perfect market timing. The history of Pershing Square Holdings has been a bit erratic but since we invested it has been very good. The fund is still trading a lot below net asset value. Pershing Square Tontine Holdings has been in the news recently following its deal to buy 10% of Universal Music. I'm still not clear what will be the pay-off for PSH.L holders from this deal. Both PSTH and PSH fell on the news.

Cadence Capital (CDM.AX). Share of net worth: 3.80%. IRR: 10.2%. This is a long-biased long-short fund that mostly invests in Australian stocks. I invested in this fund when it had been performing well. Then, soon enough, it started to perform badly. Since the COVID crash it has done well. They also invested in a private investment in DeepGreen Minerals, which will be taken public by a SPAC for a huge gain on Cadence's investment price. I am thinking to trim my exposure to this fund once the price has built in the value of the DeepGreen Investment. There is no reason to hold both this and the Cadence Opportunities Fund, and this is also the worst performing of the hedge funds that I have held for at least a few years.

Cadence Opportunities Fund. Share of net worth: 2.76%. IRR: 41.6%. This fund was launched recently by the managers of Cadence Capital. This fund has performed extremely well. It is a long-biased long-short fund that trades more actively than CDM.AX. It was supposed to be listed on the ASX but the IPO failed and it became a private company. At the time I didn't invest. That was a bad decision. When a second opportunity to invest came up, I took it. Our IRR so far shows that was a good move.

Platinum Capital (PMC.AX). Share of net worth: 2.67%. IRR: 13.0%. I first invested in Platinum Capital back in 2001. Over time, we also held various unlisted versions of the fund. I have gained by trading the fund depending on whether the share price was above or below NAV. The fund's best performance was during the dot.com crash when I first invested in it. Most of the time since then it has underperformed the market but has also had lower volatility. In the last year, value investing has come back into favor and the fund has again been outperforming the market.

APSEC. Share of net worth: 2.07%. IRR: -7.5%. This is an unlisted Australian stocks focused hedge fund. They did very well in the COVID crash:

So, I invested in them, and then they haven't done so well since then.

Contango Income Generator (CIE.AX). Share of net worth: 1.41%. IRR: -11.9%. This is a very new investment, so the IRR likely is pretty meaningless. This listed fund recently changed strategy to a global equity long short portfolio managed by WCM Investment Management. This is supposed to be their track record:

This was the result of an activist campaign by Wilson Asset Management. It is supposed to be hedged into the Australian Dollar.

In summary, a bit more than half of our hedge fund exposure is to the Australian Dollar but there is definitely quite a lot more international than Australian equity exposure.

Cancelled Moominmama's Income Protection Insurance

In 2019 I cancelled my own, but didn't know I could cancel Moominmama's. As she is 11 years younger than me, the premia were nowhere near as high yet but going up quickly. Like me, she has a year of sick and annual leave accumulated. It's hard to imagine her being so ill that she's off work for a year but not bad enough that she is still is planning on returning to work. Anyway, we wouldn't suffer any financial hardship if she stopped working. We would just be investing less and we already have more than AUD 5 million in net worth. Again, I still kept the death and disablement insurance, because the premium is not so much, though I'm not sure I should. I also learned more about disablement insurance in the process. In Australia, it turns out that it is a lump sum like life insurance, I didn't realise that.

May 2021 Report

This was a month of consolidation as I tidied up the SMSF and its repercussions and launched a review of all our investments.

The Australian Dollar rose from USD 0.7725 to USD 0.7738. It was another month of increases in world stock markets. The MSCI World Index rose 1.61%, the S&P 500 by 0.70%, and the ASX 200 rose 2.13%. All these are total returns including dividends. We gained 1.96% in Australian Dollar terms or 2.10% in US Dollar terms. The target portfolio is expected to have gained 1.58% in Australian Dollar terms and the HFRI hedge fund index is expected to gain 0.80% in US Dollar terms. So, we outperformed all benchmarks apart from the ASX 200. Here is a report on the performance of investments by asset class (currency neutral terms):

Gold added the most to performance followed by hedge funds. and only Australian small cap had a negative return. Things that worked well this month:

• Gold had a very strong performance, gaining 8.7% in AUD terms or AUD 43k. Next was Tribeca Global Resources (TGF.AX) gaining AUD 19k, and third was PSS(AP), which gained AUD 7k.
  

What really didn't work:

• The worst performer was new investment Fortescue Metals (FMG.AX), which lost AUD 5k. It was followed by Pershing Square Holdings (PSH.L) and Hearts and Minds (HM1.AX) (-AUD 4k each).
  

The investment performance statistics for the last five years are: 

The first two rows are our unadjusted performance numbers in US and Australian Dollar terms. The following four lines compare performance against each of the three indices. We show the desired asymmetric capture and positive alpha against the ASX200 and MSCI indices. We are doing a little worse than the median hedge fund levered 1.6 times. Interestingly, USD performance is now stronger over the last five years than AUD performance because the Australian Dollar has appreciated over that time.

We stuck close to our desired long-run asset allocation. Real assets is the asset class that is now furthest from its target allocation (3.0% of total assets too much). Private equity and futures are underweight. The former will solve itself over time as Aura make capital calls. We will fix the latter this month.

 

On a regular basis there are retirement contributions. I have stopped making regular contributions to investments outside of superannuation. This was a again a very busy month:

• I sold some Regal Funds (RF1.AX) shares getting back down to 60k shares.
• I invested in Contango Income Generator (CIE.AX).
• I sold Treasury Wine and invested in Fortescue. This was a very bad move.
• I invested in the Ruffer Investment Company (RICA.L).
• I switched funds from Platinum International Fund to Generation Global Fund.
• I made the first investment through Domacom.
• I bought some more shares in Pershing Square Holdings (PSH.L).
  
• I invested in another painting at Masterworks.
  
• I switched funds from the CREF Social Choice Fund to the TIAA Real Estate Fund.
  
• I opened a new calendar spread trade in soybeans. 
• We applied for shares in the WAM Strategic Value IPO.
  

More Investment Review Actions

 Following up on Parts 1 and 3 of the Investment Review I am making the following changes:

1. Switching from CFS Future Leaders to CFS Developing Companies

2. Closing investment in CFS Diversified Fund and switching one third to CFS Imputation Fund and 2/3 to Aspect Diversified Futures. 

The latter is a bet that trend-following will become more profitable again than it's been in recent years.

Investments Review: Part 3, Small Cap Australian Equities

CFS Developing Companies. Share of net worth: 2.14%. IRR: 12.86%. This is one of my oldest investments. I originally invested in May 1997. However, I sold out again in 1998 and bought back in in 2001. Until recently, when I closed my CFS superannuation account, we had a larger position. It's performance relative to CFS's "custom benchmark" has been erratic. It has strongly outperformed over 10 years but underperformed over horizons up to 5 years. Still it gained 80% in the year up to March 2021 but that was less than the benchmark's 104% gain. However, I don't see any reason to change this investment, unless someone knows a better small cap Australian fund. Wilson Microcap (WMI.AX) is such a fund but trading at a big premium to NAV.

WAM Strategic Value. Share of net worth: 2.04%. IRR: Too new. We have applied for shares in this listed investment company that is in the process of IPO-ing and is managed by Wilson Asset Management. The fund's goal is mostly to invest in undervalued closed-end funds in Australia with the aim to closing the gap. It doesn't qualify as a hedge fund as far as I am concerned because it won't go short or use puts etc. As most of these funds are small caps, I'm categorizing it as a small cap investment.

CFS Future Leaders. Share of net worth: 1.00%. IRR: 10.37%. This is the oldest investment I still have. I originally invested in December 1996. This fund invests in somewhat larger companies than Developing Companies does. It has not performed as strongly in the long run. Like Developing Companies, it outperformed its benchmark over 10 years, though not as strongly, and has underperformed in recent years. I'm inclined to roll this into Developing Companies, despite nostalgia.

Domacom (DCL.AX). Share of net worth: 0.73%. IRR: -3.04%. This is a company rather than a fund and its business is fractional property investment. The company has developed a series of innovative products but has struggled to increase funds under management and so continues to make large losses. My thesis for investing was that they would likely get acquired by a larger financial player who could put a lot more funds into their products. Really it is surprising that this is a listed company rather than a venture capital sponsored investment. Now the company has "voluntarily suspended" its shares because ASIC is investigating its merger/takeover of a company called AustAgri that has made all kinds of wild claims the most solid of which was it was buying Cedar Meats in Melbourne. Why they would want to become a Domacom managed fund, paying management fees to Domacom was not clear. In return they were supposed to receive Domacom shares. Whatever the outcome of this is I don't think this will be a complete loss, because again I think they could sell the platform. I don't have any choice but to hold at the moment.

Career Update etc.

About a month ago I posted about my career decision-making. So, because I ummed and ahhed, the incoming director found someone else for the leadership position for a year with a view to me doing it after that. On the other hand, she was happy for me to get a teaching reduction when I am in that leadership position.

I talked with HR and my immediate department head about long service leave. He was happy for me to get a reduction in teaching next year but not the course I wanted to drop. Instead, he suggested I drop both courses that are supposed to run in the first half of the year and do another course instead in the second half of the year. This is somewhat appealing as after a few year I get bored of teaching a course even though preparing a new course is a lot of work. So, then I would have a year out of teaching, then teach the new course, and then take on the leadership position while still teaching this course. 

That takes us to the end of 2024 when I will be 60 years old. So, my thinking is to then drop to a 50% position rather than retire outright and teach one course a year. 

On another front, a former student who I am collaborating with on research and maybe on another fintech business venture (at the moment I am on the informal "advisory board") is interested in trying to implement automatic systematic trading with my methods. He already has 2-3 other collaborators on the other (research intensive) business development. These guys are pretty expert in Python etc while I am relatively expert in markets. But he wants me to pay for their time up front for development. So, I really need to make sure I have something profitable before paying for this. So, I am going to do more extensive backtesting of my soybeans model, which is the easier one to backtest using my existing software. Most of the work is in compiling futures data together into a continuous series. I will go back at least to the Great Recession and maybe further. Currently I've tested about 6 years. If that works out (I am skeptical actually) they would then do more testing of other markets once we are trading the first market.

My thinking is to pay for development by being issued shares in return for cash in their (to be founded) company. After that when trading is up and running there would be profit sharing with the management company of which I would also be then a shareholder. One of the team is an accountant who would set all this up. They already have an IP agreement in place.

This actually all seems pretty crazy to me but you won't succeed if you don't try.

TIAA Real Estate Fund

I haven't gotten around to reviewing the TIAA Real Estate Fund yet, but have decided to buy more of it. There are two reasons. First, after reviewing the CREF Social Choice Fund, I'm a bit concerned that it is 40% bonds even though it has been a pretty decent fund relative to benchmarks. Second, it looks like timing is good to switch into TIAA Real Estate. The following chart shows its monthly returns and a 12 month moving average:

The fund does well after recessions but with a lag compared to the stock market. The moving average has just turned the corner again and monthly returns are above anything seen in recent years. In March I switched out of this fund as I was worried about the pandemic and into Social Choice and Money Market. Then in December I switched back into Real Estate. Now I just switched most of my remaining holding of Social Choice.

Already Making Changes Based on the Investment Review

I've only done the first two parts of the Investments Review, but am already making changes to our portfolio based on it. I switched our holding of the Platinum International Fund for more units in the Generation Global Fund. The internal rate of return of the latter is twice that of the former and the alpha of the former is about zero, while the latter is around 3%. We still have a holding in the listed investment company Platinum Capital (PMC.AX). I also cancelled the automatic investment plan for Moominmama's account that holds the Generation Global Fund. Now that we are trying to get more money into superannuation, it doesn't make sense to keep putting AUD 2k per month into these accounts. Her account now holds the Generation investment (now 2.45% of net worth) and holdings in CFS Imputation (0.98% of net worth) and CFS Developing Companies (not reviewed yet).

Third Point and AlphaSimplex

I don't write much on the blog about investments I evaluated but rejected. There are quite a lot of these, of course. Recently, I evaluated and rejected Third Point and AlphaSimplex. Third Point is  a well-known hedge fund managed by Daniel Loeb. Retail investors can invest in it through TPOU.L a closed-end fund on the London stock exchange. AlphaSimplex is a managed futures manager based in Boston that developed out of MIT. U.S. retail investors can invest with them through mutual funds issued by Natixis Funds. ASFYX has a USD 100k minimum and a lower expense ratio than AMFAX which has a low minimum investment. Non-U.S. investors can access them via Luxembourg based funds. There are institutional (USD 100k minimum and lower management fee) and retail classes (USD 1k minimum and higher management fee) and the funds are available in various currencies. Even the Australian Dollar! Kathryn Kaminski, their chief research strategist, was just on Meb Faber's podcast.

So, is this fund any good? And what about Third Point? Both these investments were interesting enough for me to do some proper analysis on them. These are some results using annual returns:

The period of analysis is the length of the track record provided by AlphaSimplex. All returns are in U.S. Dollars. None of this analysis deducts the risk-free-rate from returns. My returns in U.S. Dollars are not very good over the last ten years. In Australian Dollar terms they are much better.

So, it turns out that using annual data AlphaSimplex has a beta of 0.34 to the MSCI World Index and no alpha. Its correlation with the market is 0.4. Its average return was just 3.4% with a Sharpe ratio of 0.3. The Winton Global Alpha Fund has had similarly poor returns but actually has a negative beta and positive alpha. Before the 2020 debacle, Winton was a lot better than AlphaSimplex. I'm definitely not sold on AlphaSimplex.

Third Point is more attractive. However, it acts more or less like a good quality long-only fund. It's correlation with the MSCI is 0.92. It has an alpha of 1.4%. I added Pershing Square Holdings as a comparison. It has a much lower correlation to the market though it has a beta of 1.04. With an alpha of 4.3% it adds much more uncorrelated return. So, I haven't found Third Point convincing enough to add to the portfolio.

Investments Review: Part 2, Long-only Large Cap Equities

For the second part of the investments review, I am looking at our long-only large cap equities funds. Usually, I would divide these into Australian large cap, U.S., and rest of world equities, but Hearts and Minds spans all of these and Generation the last two. The funds all have strong IRRs. Note that the IRR of an investment depends both on its underlying performance and our trading and timing.

Hearts and Minds (HM1.AX). Share of net worth: 4.13%. IRR: 27.52%. This fund invests across Australia and global markets by picking the best ideas of a set of fund managers. 35% of the portfolio is allocated according to the stocks pitched at the annual Sohn Hearts and Minds Conference. 65% is allocated according to the best ideas of six core fund managers: Caledonia Investments, Cooper Investors, Magellan Financial Group, Paradice Investment Management, Regal Funds Management, and TDM Growth Partners. Instead of charging management fees, the fund contributes 1.5% of NAV to charity every year. Since inception, this fund has performed very well. On the other hand, it has been weaker this year as the conference stocks this time are mostly high growth stocks, which are now falling out of favor:

The China Fund (CHN). Share of net worth: 1.77%. IRR: 16.00%. This is a closed-end fund investing in Chinese stocks. There have been changes of manager over time and the latest manager seems to be doing well:

The reason to hold this fund is to tilt towards exposure to emerging markets. I think our diversified funds have a relatively low exposure to emerging markets, though it's impossible to get that information for most of them. OTOH, one of our "hedge funds", Platinum Capital has a 17% allocation to China and Hong Kong and 2% to India. So, this seems a good fund to get that exposure through. But is almost one third of our allocation to "rest of the world stocks" too much?

Generation Global Fund. Share of net worth: 1.60%. IRR: 16.50%. This fund is hosted on the Colonial First State platform and is closed to new investors. We are automatically adding AUD 400 to this fund every month. The question is whether to raise that or stop contributing to funds outside of super altogether. The fund is managed by Generation Investment Management, who are an ESG fund manager. Compared to the MSCI World Index it has a beta of 1.11 and annual alpha of 3.2% over the last five years. So, this is a good long-only fund.

Fortescue Metals (FMG.AX). Share of net worth: 1.60%. IRR: Too new. I very recently switched out of Treasury Wines and into this stock, which so far has been a very bad move. I guess I just like to do some trading with a small part of the portfolio. I am hoping this will pay nice franked dividends and that I at least won't lose capital value in the long term.

Colonial First State Imputation Fund. Share of net worth: 0.99%. IRR: 18.00%. This fund invests in large cap Australian stocks with strong "franked" dividends. There is little logic to hold both this fund and Argo Investments... Argo has a much lower management fee. On the other hand, this fund has outperformed the benchmark on many time scales despite the high management fee (0.96%):

So, if we retain this account, then I think this fund makes sense as one of the investments.

Berkshire Hathaway (BRK/B).  Share of net worth: 0.87%. IRR: 9.80%. My thesis for investing in Berkshire is here. Berkshire is providing more exposure to the US market in the SMSF.

Argo Investments (ARG.AX). Share of net worth: 0.79%. IRR: 23.03%. This is a closed end fund (listed investment company) investing in mainly large cap Australian shares. The expense ratio is only 0.15%! Timing has boosted our IRR for this fund... The fund has outperformed the benchmark recently and over 20 years, but not over the interim time frames:

So, maybe this isn't such a good idea? I recently invested again in this fund to get more exposure to the Australian market after rolling over my Colonial First State superannuation fund into the SMSF. Note that the share price performed poorly recently as the premium to NTA fell, after which we purchased the fund.

Investments Review: Part 1, Diversified Funds

After noting that we had at a conservative count, 40 different investments, I thought it'd be a good idea to do a review of all of them to see what makes sense and what doesn't. Maybe my readers will learn about some interesting investments too. Or about what not to invest in. Each post will look at one type of investment starting with diversified funds. Shares of net worth don't include our house in net worth.

Unisuper Balanced Fund. Share of net worth: 10.02%. IRR: 10.64%. This is my employer superannuation fund. I think in theory we could have contributions made to another fund instead but then they would only pay the 9.5% (of salary p.a.) superannuation guarantee instead of 17%! What I do have an option to do is to switch to other investment options within Unisuper. I also think I could rollover the investment into another fund such as our SMSF. The balanced fund is diversified across Australian stocks (33%), international equities (27%), bonds (30%), property (5%), and infrastructure and private equity (5%). It is one of the better performing balanced super funds in Australia. I used to invest more aggressively by investing in the growth option instead. Unless our SMSF outperforms strongly, I'm inclined to leave this as it is.

PSS(AP) Balanced Fund. Share of net worth: 9.16%. IRR: 9.41%. This is Moominmama's employer superanniation fund. It's not quite as well-performing as Unisuper. They only offer four investment options now. There used to be more. They provide even less information about their investments than Unisuper do. Generally, it's amazing how little information most Australian fund managers provide compared to U.S. fund managers. The fund is allocated across equities (56%), bonds (18%), hedge funds (15%), and real assets (11%). I think there is a similar condition on fund choice.

Colonial First State Diversified Fund. Share of net worth: 3.12%. IRR: 10.31%. I contribute automatically AUD 500 into this fund each month. Before rolling over my CFS superannuation account into our SMSF we had a lot of superannuation invested in this fund too. There isn't really a strong justification for holding this fund, especially given the 20% of net worth that we have invested in the two superannuation funds above. Selling would mean a capital gains tax bill, but I'm really not sure why I am continuing to put money into the fund. The CGT bill would actually not be that big as the distributions have been taxed all along the way. The fund is allocated 30% to Australia shares, 20% to global shares, 30% to bonds, 5% to property securities, 5% to infrastructure securities, and 10% to "real return". It has returned 7.78% p.a. in the last ten years to March, which is less than our portfolio return.

CREF Social Choice. Share of net worth: 1.66%. IRR: 13.33%. This fund is 40% U.S. stocks, 20% rest of the world stocks, and 40% bonds with an ESG overlay. I use this as the core fund in my former U.S. employer retirement fund (403b account). Apparently, my market timing since 2002 when I first invested in this fund has paid off to boost the IRR. I have been both more aggressive and more conservative in the allocation in this account. It has returned 8.33% in the last ten years and outpaced the relevant Morningstar benchmarks. The question is whether to be more aggressive in this account and shift to the Global Equities option instead.

Ruffer Investment Company (RICA.L). Share of net worth: 0.97%. IRR: Too new. This is an extremely new investment that plays more of the role of a hedge fund in the portfolio. But as it doesn't use shorting or charge a performance fee I've classified it as a diversified fund. The allocation is 9% U.S. stocks, 31% rest of the world equities, 39% bonds (mostly index linked), 8% gold, and 13% in what they describe as "illiquid strategies" and options. The illiquid strategies seem to be hedge funds specialising in mitigating tail risk. I'm counting this part of the fund towards our hedge fund allocation.

Adjusting Estimated Real Estate Exposure for Leverage

I realized that because the URF.AX fund, which is invested in New York and New Jersey real estate, is highly levered, my exposure to real estate is much greater than I previously estimated. The market value of this investment is AUD 51, but the underlying value of the real estate assets is almost AUD 1/2 million.

Based on this, the share of real assets in the portfolio is 17.28% currently, which is above the target share of 15%. The asset allocation pie chart now looks like this:

 In recent months the share of real estate increased a lot: