Leo Fernandes, Harkeerit Kalsi, Nicholas Vause, Matthew Downer, Sarah Ek and Sebastian Maxted
Hedge funds and different different 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 looking for to cut back these dangers might take into account making use of constraints to the fund entities or the actions through which they interact. On this put up, we use a easy portfolio selection mannequin to look at the results of the 2 approaches on fund investments. Beneath 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 sometimes maintain lengthy positions in shares and bonds, AIFs might take lengthy and quick positions in a wider vary of property, together with illiquid property like actual property or unlisted securities. Specifically, hedge funds make use of a numerous array of methods that may be centered on a single asset class or span a number of lessons, with giant ‘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‘ – in opposition to 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 improve their exposures to multiples of their traders’ capital. Some funds, resembling these pursuing relative worth methods, make use of important leverage to take notably giant exposures to low-risk property, whereas others use much less leverage and take smaller positions in riskier or illiquid property. AIFs and their managers are topic to regulatory reporting and oversight beneath the UK’s Various Funding Fund Managers Directive, which requires them to reveal info on their leverage use to traders however doesn’t sometimes impose direct, entity-level leverage limits.
Such leverage can pose dangers to monetary stability. As an illustration, losses may unfold from any defaulting funds to their counterparties, as with the failure of Archegos Capital Administration. Losses may additionally unfold from any funds promoting property with a purpose to deleverage – maybe due to a sudden improve in margin necessities or decline of their danger urge for food – to holders of the identical property, attributable to 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 embody entity-level leverage limits and activity-level measures, resembling enhanced margin necessities or collateral haircuts. Entity-level leverage limits sometimes constrain fund-level ratios of complete exposures to web asset worth (NAV), whereas enhanced margin necessities and collateral haircuts would increase the decrease certain on the quantity of capital required to finance a specific asset or set of property.
Within the the rest of this put up, 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 subject 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 costs in opposition to particular person property.
Portfolio selection 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 property. We take into account two varieties of fund: one invests in extremely correlated methods with comparable anticipated returns and volatilities, resembling a industrial actual property (CRE) fund investing in workplace blocks in numerous cities; and the opposite invests in less-correlated methods with totally different anticipated returns and volatilities, resembling 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 might quit in alternate for decrease variance on the portfolio degree. On condition that risk-return trade-off, we will decide the optimum portfolios of the funds within the absence of each entity-level and activity-level constraints. Desk A summarises the inputs – which had been guided by analysis on returns and leverage – and outputs of this mannequin.
Desk A: Portfolio choices and decisions for 2 unconstrained funds
Be aware: Returns are ‘unlevered’ returns, ie returns on every £1 invested in a method. In precept, they need to be extra returns over the risk-free rate of interest, however we summary from this subject by assuming the latter is zero. The danger-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 mounted 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 couple 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 results 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 beneath entity-level leverage and activity-level margin constraints
Be aware: 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 (high row) and the variance of its portfolio return (backside row).
Chart 2: Multi-strategy hedge fund portfolio allocations and their contributions to portfolio variance beneath entity-level leverage and activity-level margin constraints
Be aware: 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 (high row) and the variance of its portfolio return (backside row).
Entity-level constraints
The mounted leverage restrict is efficient in constraining each the full property 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 giant 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 may have two unintended penalties. First, the centered discount in capital allotted to the low-risk technique may undermine sure financial advantages arising from these investments. For instance, relative-value trades assist to maintain the costs of associated property in step 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 may immediate more-severe spirals of deleveraging and asset worth falls attributable to extra funds having bigger positions in frequent methods (ie ‘crowded trades’).
Conceivably, a dynamic entity-level constraint that took under consideration not solely the dimensions of investments but in addition their riskiness may comprise such reallocations. Nonetheless, value-at-risk (VaR) is the one such danger metric that’s at present utilized broadly throughout asset lessons and methods, however its estimation bias and different limitations have been nicely documented.
Exercise-level constraints
Exercise-level constraints may give regulators the flexibleness to cut back danger from funding actions which might be tough to comprise 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 scale back these investments (Chart 2, second column).
Constraining just one exercise, nonetheless, prompts funds to substitute into the opposite exercise (Charts 1 and a couple of, second and third columns). This danger is particularly pronounced for funds with comparable funding choices, as they might extra readily permit their portfolio danger to change into dominated by an funding substitute (examine bottom-middle charts in Charts 1 and a couple of) and, in so doing, retain a degree of portfolio danger that’s not a lot diminished.
To disincentive substitution into different actions, regulators may 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, closing column) and the multi-strategy hedge fund (Chart 2, closing 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 (resembling these for cleared and non-cleared derivatives) and prudent counterparty danger administration. That stated, gaps in protection stay (eg bilateral authorities bond repo haircuts are sometimes zero) and in some circumstances their present calibration might 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 mounted leverage limits on the entity degree may be efficient for easier funds with extremely comparable property or methods. However making use of them to extra complicated funds might 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 totally different property and methods with risk-sensitive constraints that don’t generate an unintended influence on capital allocation, resembling a shift in direction of riskier property with much less leverage. In impact, mounted leverage limits set a median worth for leverage throughout a portfolio of property, whereas margin necessities set marginal costs on particular person property, making the latter extra universally efficient in limiting the build-up of danger from leverage. These outcomes reveal the advantages of insurance policies which deal with leverage dangers from more-complex funds in a risk-sensitive method, 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 depart a remark beneath.
Feedback will solely seem as soon as permitted by a moderator, and are solely revealed the place a full title 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 aren’t essentially these of the Financial institution of England, or its coverage committees.
Share the put up “A easy mannequin of the results of entity and exercise constraints on different funding funds”