Leo Fernandes, Harkeerit Kalsi, Nicholas Vause, Matthew Downer, Sarah Ek and Sebastian Maxted
Hedge funds and different various funding funds (AIFs) typically take positions in monetary markets that considerably exceed their traders’ capital by utilizing debt or derivatives. Nonetheless, such ‘leverage’ can pose dangers to monetary stability. Regulators in search of to scale back these dangers could contemplate making use of constraints to the fund entities or the actions wherein they have interaction. On this submit, we use a easy portfolio alternative mannequin to look at the consequences of the 2 approaches on fund investments. Underneath the entity-based method, we discover that fund managers substitute from lower-risk to higher-risk investments, whereas an activity-based method can keep away from this unintended reallocation by concentrating on particular investments.
Whereas conventional funding funds usually maintain lengthy positions in shares and bonds, AIFs could take lengthy and brief positions in a wider vary of belongings, together with illiquid belongings like actual property or unlisted securities. Particularly, hedge funds make use of a various array of methods that may be centered on a single asset class or span a number of lessons, with massive ‘multi-strategy’ funds concurrently pursuing a number of methods.
AIFs typically leverage their traders’ capital by borrowing or utilizing derivatives to extend their monetary market exposures and amplify their funding returns. This requires funds to supply a portion of their capital as collateral – or ‘margin‘ – towards their borrowings and derivatives. Regardless of internationally agreed margin requirements placing an higher certain on leverage in lots of areas, funds are sometimes capable of enhance their exposures to multiples of their traders’ capital. Some funds, akin to these pursuing relative worth methods, make use of vital leverage to take notably massive exposures to low-risk belongings, whereas others use much less leverage and take smaller positions in riskier or illiquid belongings. AIFs and their managers are topic to regulatory reporting and oversight below the UK’s Different Funding Fund Managers Directive, which requires them to reveal info on their leverage use to traders however doesn’t usually impose direct, entity-level leverage limits.
Such leverage can pose dangers to monetary stability. As an example, losses might unfold from any defaulting funds to their counterparties, as with the failure of Archegos Capital Administration. Losses might additionally unfold from any funds promoting belongings in an effort to deleverage – maybe due to a sudden enhance in margin necessities or decline of their danger urge for food – to holders of the identical belongings, because of downward strain on costs arising from the gross sales, notably for gross sales of extra concentrated or illiquid positions, as with liability-driven funding funds in Autumn 2022.
International regulators are contemplating methods to mitigate such dangers. These embrace entity-level leverage limits and activity-level measures, akin to enhanced margin necessities or collateral haircuts. Entity-level leverage limits usually constrain fund-level ratios of whole exposures to internet asset worth (NAV), whereas enhanced margin necessities and collateral haircuts would elevate the decrease certain on the quantity of capital required to finance a specific asset or set of belongings.
Within the the rest of this submit, we apply a easy mannequin of portfolio option to AIFs to point out how leverage limits and margin necessities would have an effect on their funding selections. An analogous concern has been a lot studied in banking, each theoretically and empirically, as banks additionally face a leverage constraint (the leverage ratio) in addition to risk-weighted capital expenses towards particular person belongings.
Portfolio alternative mannequin
We mannequin funds with a given quantity of investor capital. Every fund chooses a amount of debt and the allocation of its portfolio between two methods, the place a ‘technique’ is an funding in a specific asset or set of belongings. We contemplate two varieties of fund: one invests in extremely correlated methods with related anticipated returns and volatilities, akin to a industrial actual property (CRE) fund investing in workplace blocks in several cities; and the opposite invests in less-correlated methods with completely different anticipated returns and volatilities, akin to a multi-strategy hedge fund working a long-short fairness technique and a relative worth technique. The funds have a typical danger aversion parameter, which governs the anticipated return they’d surrender in change for decrease variance on the portfolio stage. On condition that risk-return trade-off, we are able to decide the optimum portfolios of the funds within the absence of each entity-level and activity-level constraints. Desk A summarises the inputs – which have been guided by analysis on returns and leverage – and outputs of this mannequin.
Desk A: Portfolio choices and decisions for 2 unconstrained funds
Notice: Returns are ‘unlevered’ returns, ie returns on every £1 invested in a technique. In precept, they need to be extra returns over the risk-free rate of interest, however we summary from this concern by assuming the latter is zero. The chance-aversion parameter is 4.
Within the absence of constraints, the CRE fund chooses 3.6x leverage (ie an assets-to-NAV ratio of three.6) and invests equally in each methods. In distinction, the multi-strategy hedge fund chooses considerably extra leverage and tilts its portfolio closely in direction of the low-risk relative worth technique.
We subsequent impose fastened leverage limits and margin necessities and examine how these two varieties of constraints have an effect on portfolio allocations between the methods. The outcomes are proven in Charts 1 and a pair of for the CRE fund and multi-strategy hedge fund respectively. In every chart, the highest row of charts exhibits optimum investments within the two methods and the underside row exhibits contributions of these investments to the portfolio variance. The left-hand column of charts exhibits how these variables change because the leverage restrict is diminished to half of the leverage chosen by the unconstrained funds. The charts within the different columns present the consequences of margin necessities being doubled – first for every particular person technique after which for each – from charges that don’t constrain the funds.
Chart 1: CRE fund portfolio allocations and their contributions to portfolio variance below entity-level leverage and activity-level margin constraints
Notice: Shifting from left to proper on the x-axes, the charts present how tighter leverage (first column) or margin (different columns) necessities have an effect on the fund’s portfolio allocation (prime row) and the variance of its portfolio return (backside row).
Chart 2: Multi-strategy hedge fund portfolio allocations and their contributions to portfolio variance below entity-level leverage and activity-level margin constraints
Notice: Shifting from left to proper on the x-axes, the charts present how tighter leverage (first column) or margin (different columns) necessities have an effect on the fund’s portfolio allocation (prime row) and the variance of its portfolio return (backside row).
Entity-level constraints
The fastened leverage restrict is efficient in constraining each the overall belongings and portfolio danger of the CRE fund (Chart 1, first column). However this result’s pushed by the similarity of its funding choices. In distinction, the multi-strategy hedge fund responds to the leverage restrict by substituting a few of its massive positions within the low-risk (relative worth) technique for smaller ones within the high-risk (long-short fairness) technique (Chart 2, top-left chart). This substitution limits the decline within the fund’s general portfolio danger (Chart 2, bottom-left chart).
If extrapolated throughout a number of funds, such reallocation between methods might have two unintended penalties. First, the centered discount in capital allotted to the low-risk technique might undermine sure financial advantages arising from these investments. For instance, relative-value trades assist to maintain the costs of associated belongings in keeping with each other, which promotes the environment friendly allocation of funding. Second, the focus of portfolios into the high-risk technique makes funds extra susceptible to idiosyncratic shocks to these investments, which might immediate more-severe spirals of deleveraging and asset worth falls because of extra funds having bigger positions in frequent methods (ie ‘crowded trades’).
Conceivably, a dynamic entity-level constraint that took under consideration not solely the scale of investments but additionally their riskiness might include such reallocations. Nonetheless, value-at-risk (VaR) is the one such danger metric that’s presently utilized broadly throughout asset lessons and methods, however its estimation bias and different limitations have been nicely documented.
Exercise-level constraints
Exercise-level constraints might give regulators the pliability to scale back danger from funding actions which might be troublesome to include with entity-level limits. For instance, whereas the entity-level leverage restrict had no constraining impact on the multi-strategy hedge fund’s publicity to the long-short fairness technique (Chart 2, first column), tightening a margin requirement would instantly cut back these investments (Chart 2, second column).
Constraining just one exercise, nevertheless, prompts funds to substitute into the opposite exercise (Charts 1 and a pair of, second and third columns). This danger is very pronounced for funds with related funding choices, as they’d extra readily permit their portfolio danger to turn into dominated by an funding substitute (examine bottom-middle charts in Charts 1 and a pair of) and, in so doing, retain a stage of portfolio danger that’s not a lot diminished.
To disincentive substitution into different actions, regulators might apply a number of activity-level constraints. In our mannequin, this reduces the riskiness of fund portfolios with out inducing shifts of their composition for each the CRE fund (Chart 1, remaining column) and the multi-strategy hedge fund (Chart 2, remaining column). That is achieved by setting margin necessities proportional to the riskiness of the methods, eg comparatively excessive values for the long-short fairness technique and comparatively low values for the relative worth technique. Furthermore, when margin necessities are universally utilized, the fund successfully turns into topic to an entity-level restrict that adjusts to the portfolio of methods that it employs at any time.
Because it occurs, risk-sensitive margin necessities are already widespread because of present regulatory frameworks (akin to these for cleared and non-cleared derivatives) and prudent counterparty danger administration. That mentioned, gaps in protection stay (eg bilateral authorities bond repo haircuts are sometimes zero) and in some instances their present calibration could fail to adequately cowl the monetary stability dangers (eg if hedge funds have crowded into specific methods).
Conclusion
Our mannequin demonstrates that making use of fastened leverage limits on the entity stage could be efficient for less complicated funds with extremely related belongings or methods. However making use of them to extra complicated funds could have the unintended consequence of accelerating portfolio focus danger or crowding funds into sure methods, whereas decreasing liquidity in others. Alternatively, activity-level measures can goal completely different belongings and methods with risk-sensitive constraints that don’t generate an unintended affect on capital allocation, akin to a shift in direction of riskier belongings with much less leverage. In impact, fastened leverage limits set a mean worth for leverage throughout a portfolio of belongings, whereas margin necessities set marginal costs on particular person belongings, making the latter extra universally efficient in limiting the build-up of danger from leverage. These outcomes exhibit the advantages of insurance policies which tackle leverage dangers from more-complex funds in a risk-sensitive means, for instance, by enhancing activity-level measures.
Leo Fernandes, Harkeerit Kalsi and Nicholas Vause work within the Financial institution’s Market-Primarily based Finance Division; Matthew Downer is a technical specialist on the Monetary Conduct Authority; Sarah Ek is a senior affiliate on the Monetary Conduct Authority; and Sebastian Maxted is an affiliate on the Monetary Conduct Authority.
If you wish to get in contact, please e-mail us at bankunderground@bankofengland.co.uk or go away a remark beneath.
Feedback will solely seem as soon as permitted by a moderator, and are solely revealed the place a full identify is equipped. Financial institution Underground is a weblog for Financial institution of England workers to share views that problem – or help – prevailing coverage orthodoxies. The views expressed listed here are these of the authors, and should not essentially these of the Financial institution of England, or its coverage committees.
Share the submit “A easy mannequin of the consequences of entity and exercise constraints on various funding funds”