Academic study finds hedge funds more likely to sail into the sunset than go down in blaze of glory

A variety of euphemisms are often used to describe hedge funds that close their doors from “going under,” to “collapsed,” to “failures,” to “forced into liquidation.”  While colorful imagery is engaging, the reality is actually much more boring.  As we have written before, most hedge funds that cease operations do so by simply sailing off into the sunset, not going down in a blaze of glory.

A new academic paper (earlier version here) makes this point in spades.  Jung-Min Kim of Ohio State University studied hundreds of now-defunct hedge funds and found that most of them closed their doors after a relentless period of poor performance and bleeding assets, not as the result of a sudden violent drawdown as is often assumed.  In his words:

“By plotting how the average performance and fund flow of failed funds evolve over time until they fail, I show that, on average, hedge funds fail slowly due to gradual fund outflows following poor performance.”

Kim goes on to call this approach the “slow hedge fund failure model.”  It looks like this…

This chart shows the average monthly returns and asset flows for the final 24 months before hedge funds liquidate.  (Click on the chart for a closer look.)

There are three (3) sets of returns and asset flows depicted in the chart above.  The first two lines are the returns and asset flows of Kim’s entire sample of defunct funds.  The next two lines show the returns and flows of assets with no lock-ups (around 20% of all defunct funds).  This removes the issue of whether a lock-up was somehow responsible for maintaining assets (and to some extent returns) artificially high.

The final two lines described in the chart legend show the returns and asset flows for defunct funds that closed in a month other than their fiscal year-end month (around 85% of all defunct funds).  This removes what you might call more orderly closures where managers gave up right at year-end in order to collect one final performance fee cheque.

Regardless of the sub-sample examined, the conclusion is clear: the average defunct hedge fund did not blow up all at once, but instead suffered a slow and painful death.

So what are the mechanisms that lead to the ultimate demise of these funds?  Kim suggests a number of possibilities ranging from style drift to “investor impatience” to simply becoming too small to operate profitably.

Kim describes the first of these factors in the following way:

“As a hedge fund becomes concerned that investors are likely to withdraw capital due to poor performance, it may be forced to change its investment policy. In particular, it has to take more positions in liquid assets so that it can meet redemption requests and it has to avoid trades that could lead to sharp losses in the short-term that would accelerate withdrawals. To become more liquid, a fund may have to liquidate some illiquid positions, which can be costly and hence reduce its performance.”

Funds in the sunsets of their lives not only face the need to prepare for their probable impending demises, but they must also deal with an increasingly impatient investor base.  In fact, Kim finds that “investor impatience” (defined as “measured by the time distance between the month in which a fund achieves its maximum value and current month.”) is a good predictor of a fund closing its doors.

Whether fund management economics, (forced) style drift, or impatient investors is the mechanism behind a fund closer, the conclusion is that hedge fund flame-outs are not actually the norm.  Instead, most old hedge funds just drift off into the sunset.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. Senthil
    January 16, 2009 at 2:53 am

    The fact that the hedge fund becomes concerned about more and more redemption is unavoidable..the investors haven’t got their due rights of knowing where their money are invested. especially when the investments are really huge some and didn’t showed the returns expected. Transparency, Strict regulations are some of the things which we should act on to see the hedge fund industry cross this hurdle.

  2. Craig
    January 19, 2009 at 7:12 pm

    While I agree with increased transparency, I disagree with more regulations. Keep hedge funds available only to sophistcated investors who have the resources to make investment decisions – based on increased transparency from the managers. Now that everyone is more aware of both sides of the balance sheet both parties can discuss liquidity matching. Notice that private equity funds aren’t struggling as much.

  3. Beverly
    January 21, 2009 at 1:35 pm

    We must be clear about what we mean by transparency. We are a hedge fund of funds and we get detailed portfolio information, including position level transparency from some, at least monthly from all of our underlying funds. That information should not be available to the general public, only to investors and, generally, to qualified investors. Regulators also already have access to this data as while many funds are not regulated, all of their market activities are. If a fund will not freely provide enough information to investors to understand and feel comfortable about what they are invested in, DON’T INVEST.

Leave A Reply

← Report says that after 2008, "the case for LDI has moved from the head to the heart" Does Size Matter in the Hedge Fund Industry? →