How Hedge Funds work !!! (1 Viewer)

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
Seen as though we are trying to understand our owners motives I saw this that might help unravel the mess !!!

How hedge funds work

By Mickey Clark and Michael Clarke
UPDATED: 17:08, 27 March 2007


THE influence of hedge funds over the City has grown as quickly as investors' money has flowed into the funds over the past 15 years.
city_graph230306_100x110.jpg

These funds now reportedly manage over £750bn of clients' money and their highly-paid managers can achieve remarkable returns.
Retail investors have so far been barred from investing in the funds, but that could change next year. But what are these funds and what makes them so different to normal collective investments? Read our report to find out.
What is a hedge fund?
Hedge funds are collective investments that aim to make money whether the market is moving up, down or sideways. Unlike unit trusts, Oeics or investment trusts, which tend to only grow when shares rise, hedge funds can make money when share prices are falling.
They do this using a range of complicated specialist techniques. The most commonly used is by going long or short on a share. Most private investors simply go long on a share, buying it in the hope that the price will rise.
Where an investor goes short, they believe that the equity will fall in value. There are two main ways that hedge funds can do this. The first is by 'shorting' the stock, where the investor 'borrows' a stock to sell it, with the hope that it will decrease in value so they can buy it back at a lower price and keep the difference.
For example, if an investor borrows 500 shares of X company at £10 each, they would then sell those shares for £5,000. If the price then falls to £8 per share, the investor would buy the shares back for £4,000, return them to the original owner and make a profit of £1,000.
Another way of taking advantage of falling share prices is by dealing in 'contracts for difference'. This allows the investor to make money on share price movements without actually buying the shares. A CFD on a company's shares will specify the price of the shares when the contract was started. The contract is an agreement to pay out cash on the difference between the starting share price and when the contract is closed.
However, hedge funds are not only restricted to equities. They will invest in anything that will make them a profit, including foreign currency, bonds or commodities. The return achieved by the fund is likely to be dependent on the skill of the manager rather than underlying economic conditions and that is why they are so well paid.
Can I invest in a hedge fund?
At the moment, hedge funds are only available to high wealth individuals who are prepared to invest around £500,000 or to professional investors, such as pension funds or insurance companies. Individual retail investors cannot buy directly into hedge funds as the City watchdog, the Financial Services Authority, is concerned about how the funds are operated and their risk. Plus, it is unclear whether the hedge fund operators would welcome dealing with a large number of small investors due to the costs involved.
However, the FSA will launch a consultation next year on whether it should increase the scope of funds it authorises to include funds of hedge funds. Retail investors still wouldn't be able to invest directly, but would be able to invest in an authorised collective investment scheme that would put money into hedge funds.
Currently, if investors want exposure to hedge funds they can purchase shares in the companies that operate funds, such as Man Group. It is also possible to buy into foreign funds over the internet, although investors cannot expect the same financial protection that they would receive in the UK.


How risky are they?
Obviously, the level of risk depends on the strategy adopted by the manager, but they are generally regarded as being higher risk than a normal collective investment. The reason for this is many funds are 'leveraged', which means that they borrow money to add to their fund rather than just using investors' capital.
Because many funds use derivatives, where they bet against the future value of the an asset, rather than purchasing an asset directly, the funds are effectively borrowing the money. The result is that gains and losses are magnified, with some making huge profits, but if things go wrong the fund can go bust.
Also, because the performance of the fund is so dependent on the skills of the manager, picking the wrong one can prove costly.
Are they regulated?
The majority of hedge funds are domiciled offshore for tax reasons, but the UK-based managers are fully regulated by the FSA. The FSA polices the market against illegal activity such as insider trading and market manipulation. In March, Europe's largest hedge fund manager GLG and its former star trader Philippe Jabre were each fined £750,000 by the FSA for alleged insider dealing offences.
However, the FSA does not regulate the funds themselves and, as a result, the organisations have developed a reputation for secrecy. For example, firms don't have to disclose their investment strategies other than to clients, or reveal how they have performed. Also, if a fund goes bust, investors don't have any recourse for compensation. And as mentioned before, hedge funds are not currently among the collective investments authorised by the FSA.
How big is the hedge fund market?
It is believed that there are around 8,000 hedge funds operating globally, managing over £700bn of investors cash. The majority of funds are located in the US, but London is a growing, and important, market for the hedge fund world. It is hard to measure their impact on the financial markets, but it is estimated that these firms are responsible for around half of the daily turnover of London Stock Market shares.
It is also thought that they wield considerable power over mergers and acquisitions due to their tendancy to buy heavily into takeover targets. For example, it was believed that hedge funds played a key role in deciding the fate of the London Stock Exchange when several suitors were bidding for the company earlier this year.
The term first originated in the 1940s after alternative investor Alfred Winslow Jones created a fund that sold short some stocks, while normally investing in others.


 

giveusagoal

New Member
Thanks SBJ some people may find that helpful to understand our owners.

I think the reason SISU became interested in CCFC was due to having their head turned by Ranson. They thought that they would get a fairly quick return by us getting back into the Premier league and by turning a loss making business into a profitable one, and then selling at a higher price than they paid.

Unfortunatley - not being football people, (look at some of the people they brought in at various stages), they have tried to cut costs and claw back money instead of investing, and that has come back to bite them.
 

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
So having read this to me it just looks like Sisu are playing a game with our beloved club !!!
They make money on us if we win or fail as long as we are going the direction they want us to go !!!
They wanted us to fail last season after a period of heavy borrowing against assets ?
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
So having read this to me it just looks like Sisu are playing a game with our beloved club !!!
They make money on us if we win or fail as long as we are going the direction they want us to go !!!
They wanted us to fail last season after a period of heavy borrowing against assets ?

How on earth did you come to that conclusion???

ccfc shares are not public listed - they can't be shorted.

They may be able to offset losses against profit in their other investment. But that will only relieve their taxes.
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
So having read this to me it just looks like Sisu are playing a game with our beloved club !!!
They make money on us if we win or fail as long as we are going the direction they want us to go !!!
They wanted us to fail last season after a period of heavy borrowing against assets ?

Oh, and did you read this part:

... or to professional investors, such as pension funds or insurance companies.

You may actually be an indirect investor without you know it .... providing you have a pension.
 

giveusagoal

New Member
So having read this to me it just looks like Sisu are playing a game with our beloved club !!!
They make money on us if we win or fail as long as we are going the direction they want us to go !!!
They wanted us to fail last season after a period of heavy borrowing against assets ?

I don't think that they deliberatley wanted us to fail. I just don't think they knew how much, and in what way they needed to invest for success.

Borrowing against assetts is also a way of covering your ongoing costs/losses.

I think the Council are concerned about what SISU may do with the Arena site if they got hold of it. Remember they exist to make a return on investment.
 

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
It maybe just simple that they have been trying to distress ACL all along to get their hands on the stadium cheap.
I don't see the counsel and Sisu coming to a solution because of the hedge funds secretive nature !!!
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
I knew this was a sky blue John thread even the title has exclamation marks.
 

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
I knew this was a sky blue John thread even the title has exclamation marks.

Join in what are your thoughts.
I am trying to work out our clubs owners motives and see how they can achieve profit for their investors and where this could all go next.
At the end of the day we are CCFC supporters Sisu are not.
 

shy_tall_knight

Well-Known Member
Worked for a company that was taken over by a private equity company. Were on record as saying their intention was to make us the no.1 in our industry in Europe whilst they were in secret negotiations to sell us to a rival. They never turned us around, they stripped out overhead cost and made us easier to sell and made millions in the process.

Their public face did not match their real motivation. Why are SISU any different their responsibility is to their investors not to CCFC/ us fans. IMO they are trying to recoup their losses and using the rent as an argument but what they really want is the stadium plus development opportunities on the cheap so they can sell on for a profit. ACL / Council are aware of this and hence refer to them as the Mayfair based hedge fund.

What price would SISU accept to sell up ? Are they hoping for a rich arab to buy the club off them ? One thing is for sure they are not going to invest in the club anymore.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
Mmmmm .. do you think they got Ranson & Brody to invest in their dreams knowing they'd either succeed & SIS would make money or they'd fail and pull out at a loss which would cover a few years of operation?

We are now on plan B..
 
Last edited by a moderator:

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Ooooh, I hate them now. Grrr,. etc
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
This is all from http://www.distresseddebt.com/ this sort of stuff is why I constantly argue against SISU..

Sisu Capital Limited
Sisu Capital Limited is a privately owned hedge fund. The firm invests in the pubic equity, fixed income, and alternative investment markets of Europe with a focus on United Kingdom. It makes event driven investments in high yield and distressed debt securities for the restructuring of industrial companies.

Investors Guide to Distressed Debt by distresseddebt.com

Introduction – a good place to start if you are looking to invest in distressed debt

Following the asset valuation meltdown of 2008, numerous well diversified investors are increasing looking at distressed debt. The reason we are all so interested in distressed debt is because of its returns potential, especially in the current economic environment, where defaults rates are rising equally fast as companies earnings are falling off the cliff. In this article we highlight some of the key issues facing an investor in distressed debt as well as highlighting the numerous incarnations of distressed debt. Distressed debt is a vague term, covering a multitude of instruments as well as investment styles. This is by no means an academic piece of work, yet we will try to stick to the facts as much as possible. In an area where one is paid a premium for lack of transparency and liquidity, it is not an easy job.

Returns – 8 reasons why the guy next door is speaking to distressed debt managers

There are a number of factors that distinguish distressed debt from other assets classes. These are also reasons why distressed debt can offer better risk adjusted returns compared to traditional asset classes. This however should not be read as distressed debt being a low risk strategy, to contrary, it’s very high risk and yielding very high returns in hands of the right manager. Below, we list 8 reasons why distressed debt is able to offer these attractive return opportunities:

1. Demand and supply: at the time when a company admits to having financial difficulties, the “par investors”, those expecting to get repaid in full at maturity, will look to cut their losses and sell in the market. Unless it is a slow and gradual processes, this results in an excess supply of debt for sale, compared with the number of potential buyers who understand a) the company b) the new information in enough detail in order to be value the debt and put a price to it. It may take anything from a day to weeks, before the market stabilises around the “fair value” given available information. For a distressed investor, who has done his work in advance or has been able to work fast, it offers an attractive entry point into a distressed situation.

2. Liquidity premium: distressed debt, whether bonds, bank loans or trade claims, is highly illiquid, both in terms being able to acquire it as well as selling. Establishing large positions in particular situations can be extremely lengthy, equally it can be close to impossible to exit certain positions by simply selling in the market. This warrants a liquidity premium for the investor such instruments.

3. Access to information: access to information is key to distressed investors, however not everyone has the experience and knowledge where to find such information. Here we refer to both information about the company itself, as well as the legal process the company faces following a filing for bankruptcy in a particular jurisdiction. This is an area where there is a significant difference between investing in Europe or the US. The US has a much more established and transparent bankruptcy process, whereas in Europe, each country has it owns rules and procedures, more importantly however a lot often depends on a particular administrator or judge ruling over a case (e.g. in France or Germany).

4. No control premiums: unlike in equity markets, a distressed investor can take control of a company (by owning more that 50% of the equity following a restructuring) without paying a takeover premium and without disclosing its holdings prior to the restructuring discussions. Currently, in debt capital markets, there are no limitation or disclosure requirements as to how much debt any one investor can hold. This enables active control distressed investors to take over companies by buying majority positions in a company’s various debt instruments.

5. Leverage: companies in distress are in most cases over leveraged and need to have their debt levels reduced. Following a restructuring, however you still end up with a company that is leveraged, just like an LBO would be. In a recession, getting leverage on a new investment would be either impossible or extremely costly, in distressed debt its already there.

6. Binary outcomes: in illiquid markets, with misinformed players, binary outcome situations are not necessarily correctly priced according to their odds. As in points, 1. and 3. the opportunity lies in the fact that skilled distressed investors transacts, through banks and brokers, with “non-distressed experienced” counter parties. In this case distressed investors are better at assessing the odds of the various outcomes, which may only look binary to the inexperienced investor.

7. Emotional attachment and regulation: this point covers a number of economically irrational decisions that are made by sellers of distressed debt. These include situations, where

a. funds cannot hold defaulted debt in their portfolios due to rating restrictions
b. banks do not want to sell their debt in order to delay taking a write-down
c. a bank does not take equity in a restructured company, because that would result in having to consolidate the company or would simply result in the economics of the investment moving from one department (loans) to another (equity investments)
d. Equity investors inject new capital into a company disregarding debt trading levels

8. Negotiations: very difficult to quantify, yet this clearly has value, the option to negotiate your take in a restructuring. If a distressed debt investor is able to take advantage of a hold out position or negotiate better terms by taking consideration in form of equity as opposed to new debt, he may be able to achieve better returns for his investors.

Another feature of distressed debt worth mentioning is its relatively low correlation among its investments. The primary driver of returns is the actual process relating to company in question and less so the market. For example, the price of debt of company facing insolvency is more likely to be driven by whether a new facility is made available rather than a move in the credit or equity markets. This is backed up to some extent by research done by Eisdorfer at University of Connecticut in his paper “Are Financially Distressed Firms Priced Differently?” (http://ssrn.com/abstract=743684 ), showing that companies facing financial difficulties are more influenced by cashflow news rather than expected return news (and I would argue market movements relate to expect return news more than cashflow news!).

From historical data, it also appears that distressed debt as an asset class has relatively low correlation to more traditional asset classes. This however unfortunately works least when credit markets turn south and credit spreads widen. As seen in 2008 and 2009, the premium of distressed debt over high yield spreads lead to distressed debt being one of the worst performing hedge fund strategies in 2008.

Timing - when is the right time?

Chen et al from Morgan Stanley in their paper “The Distressed Corporate Debt Cycle from a Hedge Fund Investor's Perspective” (http://www.iijournals.com/doi/abs/10.3905/jai.2008.708848 )recently discussed the 3 stages in a credit cycle: deteriorating, improving and flat and performance of distressed debt in each of these measured over 3 historical cycles. This research showed that the most attractive returns achieved by investors where during the credit improving stage and least in the credit deteriorating stage. Improved access to capital markets, improving trade, increasing valuations & etc all contribute to distressed debt investments increasing in value in such an environment. In addition, following a deteriorating credit environment with high default rates, investors have a much larger pool of distressed opportunities to choose from.

Tracking distressed debt performance as an asset class is however difficult. There is no “passive” way of getting exposure to distressed debt and there are no “distressed benchmarks”. This makes it difficult to say whether investors are getting any “alpha” or is it simply they are getting access to the “distressed debt beta” by investing with a manager.

As to measuring performance, there are only a limited number of fund of fund indices which track performance of distressed debt funds. These include:

A) HFRI ED: Distressed/Restructuring Index (non investible, https://www.hedgefundresearch.com/mon_register/index.php )
B) HFRX Distressed Securities Index (investible index, https://www.hedgefundresearch.com/hfrx_reg/index.php?fuse=login&loginflag=1 )
C) Credit Suisse Tremont Hedge Fund Index: Event Driven : Distressed (http://www.hedgeindex.com/hedgeindex/en/default.aspx?cy=USD)
D) Barclay Distressed Securities index (http://www.barclaygrp.com/indices/ghs/Distressed_Securities_Index.html)
E) Hennessee Distressed Index (http://www.hennesseegroup.com/indices/returns/strategy/distressed.html)
F) Dow Jones Hedge Fund Distressed Index (http://www.djhedgefundindexes.com/)
 

TheRoyalScam

Well-Known Member
Would never stoop so low.....!!!!

Think you could be right about SISU though - look at Otis's post above - 'The firm invests in the pubic equity....'

The plot thickens:)
 

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
It's hard to be patronised by someone who reads like an excitable child.

!!!

Just carry on support your team in your own childish way and keep your eyes closed to the bigger picture. I will still be here if you decide to open your eyes and want a civilised conversation.
 

ajsccfc

Well-Known Member
Your 'bigger picture' involves sniffing round for motives as if the owners are pantomime villain saboteurs. When you open your eyes it's a land of chocolate and a big helter skelter.
 

CJparker

New Member
Thanks SBJ some people may find that helpful to understand our owners.

I think the reason SISU became interested in CCFC was due to having their head turned by Ranson. They thought that they would get a fairly quick return by us getting back into the Premier league and by turning a loss making business into a profitable one, and then selling at a higher price than they paid.

Unfortunatley - not being football people, (look at some of the people they brought in at various stages), they have tried to cut costs and claw back money instead of investing, and that has come back to bite them.

Exactly - couldn't have written it better myself. That is the root cause of the whole mess, including why they accepted the rent level when they came in (they thought Prem in 3 years, so rent easily affordable).
When Ranson departed they were left holding the baby and didn't know what the hell to do
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
When Ranson departed they were left holding the baby and didn't know what the hell to do

And what they haven't done is behave like a typical hedge fund company.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Just carry on support your team in your own childish way and keep your eyes closed to the bigger picture. I will still be here if you decide to open your eyes and want a civilised conversation.

What's bigger picture? Calling people sisu muppets, developing not one but two threads requesting anybody who posted anti-thorn comments be removed to some sub forum, suggest people are bribed to say positive things about former owners and squeal like a great big baby everyone your one eyed dogma is challenged?

I'll remain in the playground thanks.
 

Stafford_SkBlue

Well-Known Member
Mystery why a Hedge Fund invest in a football club; in the early days they did invest in Dann and Fox. The money may have come from the fund with any profits going back when sold on. What does appear apparent they have made up the shortfall most years to keep us afloat. Thy are a very private business with nothing much published.
They must be in it for a long haul as the recent players signed have been on a reasonably long contracts. Compared with the very short contracts offered a few years ago.
 

giveusagoal

New Member
And what they haven't done is behave like a typical hedge fund company.

They have behaved exactley like a typical hedge fund company - how can you say they haven't? What sets them apart from other hedge fund companies?

Who exactley are the investors?
 
Last edited:

Grendel

Well-Known Member
They have behaved exactley like a typical hedge fund company - how can you say they haven't? What sets them apart from other hedge fund companies?

Who exactley are the investors?

They had poor financial controls from the outset. Ransom was profligate with the budget. They have never had a co-ordinated plan to make any financial return. They have continued to fund a loss making institution with virtually no hope of recouping losses. What hedge fund behaves like a typical football club owner as sisu are doing. I'd have closed the shop 2 years ago.
 

shy_tall_knight

Well-Known Member
The only part of ccfc that fitted the usual private equity target was the fact that it was financially distressed. It had no assets and couldn't be split up and sold off. Why they never acted like a hedge fund at the beginning was because ransom sold them a dream which initially required investment. After August 2009 the purse strings have been tightened.

Why they haven't sold up and gone away because they have tried to get the ricoh and a vast discount or they hope to sell to a rich arab they haven't kept us going cos they love the club. They have invested badly and what a large chunk of this back.
 

giveusagoal

New Member
They had poor financial controls from the outset. Ransom was profligate with the budget. They have never had a co-ordinated plan to make any financial return. They have continued to fund a loss making institution with virtually no hope of recouping losses. What hedge fund behaves like a typical football club owner as sisu are doing. I'd have closed the shop 2 years ago.

They thought they could make a quick buck and got bitten - SISU act on behalf of faceless/secretive investors - if they have our clubs interests at heart why do they hide in the shadows?

I would imagine ranson was given a budget to work too - maybe his controls were lax - but they didn't remove him if this was a problem for them - in fact when he left he stated that it was their lack of investment that was the issue.

They are not acting like a typical football club owner - they have continued to sell our best players and failed to re-invest that money in the playing staff. They are not football people - look at some of the decisions they have made and the people they have brought in/ got rid of/ left after only a few months - How many clubs is this typical of?

SISU have not "closed the shop" simply because they want to claw their money back. They are only interested in their investors not Coventry City.
 
Last edited:
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
They had poor financial controls from the outset. Ransom was profligate with the budget. They have never had a co-ordinated plan to make any financial return. They have continued to fund a loss making institution with virtually no hope of recouping losses. What hedge fund behaves like a typical football club owner as sisu are doing. I'd have closed the shop 2 years ago.

I think I could have explained that above, it seems to me that Ranson paid for the opportunity to run a Football club with ProZone.

Do you think that is a credible explaination or not?
 

giveusagoal

New Member
The only part of ccfc that fitted the usual private equity target was the fact that it was financially distressed. It had no assets and couldn't be split up and sold off. Why they never acted like a hedge fund at the beginning was because ransom sold them a dream which initially required investment. After August 2009 the purse strings have been tightened.

Why they haven't sold up and gone away because they have tried to get the ricoh and a vast discount or they hope to sell to a rich arab they haven't kept us going cos they love the club. They have invested badly and what a large chunk of this back.

Spot on STK.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top