by HFBOA
25. January 2011 18:24
All HFBOA members are invited to download a copy of the presentation from the January luncheon - featuring topic experts from Rothstein Kass!
Click here to download:
www.hfboa.org\pdf\sas70hf.pdf
by HFBOA
14. January 2011 16:56
The first HFBOA luncheon of 2011 was held in New York City on January 13, 2011. The event was hosted by Evan Margolin of Studley, a tenant only advisory service firm. Evan concentrates in locating office space for hedge fund managers and began the lunch with a few observations.
After two years of contraction, there have been over 700 launches of new hedge funds during the first three quarters of 2010, with several existing firms expanding. Manhattan vacancy rates are decreasing with a commensurate increase in rental rates. Lease rates for mid-town office space are creeping toward $100 per square foot. Of the hedge funds located in New York, approximately 90% are situated in the mid-town area, with the balance located downtown.
Rothstein Kass Update
The main portion of the lunch was a discussion by Joshua Blumenthal and Joseph Markowski of Rothstein Kass ("RK"), focusing on regulatory issues and year-end processes, concentrating on preparations for the annual audit. RK suggested the first step is the development of a timeline with input from all three groups involved in the audit, the client, the administrator and the audit firm. With the timeline, there will be accountability for everyone on their respective deliverables. Also, preferably prior to year-end, the auditor should be alerted of the following:
-
Fund structure changes
-
Offering document changes
-
New side letters
-
Any new fund offerings
-
Investment or valuation changes
-
Any communications from regulatory agencies
-
Any service provider changes
The above list is not all-inclusive. Further, the financial statement templates should be confirmed as quickly as possible.
The major 2010 change in the financial statement presentation is the FAS 57 (Topic 820) footnote disclosure detailing the asset levels. The footnote will need more detail and explain more clearly what assets comprise each level. The observable inputs used in valuing the assets will need expanded explanation, and transfers between levels will require explanation. Mandatory beginning in 2011, but optional for 2010 audits, a roll-forward schedule of the assets in each level will need inclusion in the financial statements.
As for Fin 48, the major change was positive. Australia recently issued its position, and stated it will not collect tax on investment income sourced in that country, for the years ended 2010 and prior. The ruling removed uncertainty and will allow any fund that previously booked a liability for potential Australian tax to reverse the accrual.
Dodd\Frank Bill
As everyone is aware by now, an investment advisor with $150 million or more under management must register with the SEC by July 21, 2011. Investment advisors with $100 - $150 million under management are not required to register unless the advisor has a managed account. There are further exemptions from registering for advisors managing less than $100 million. RK suggests the investment advisor file its Form ADV with the SEC at least six weeks prior to the July 21 deadline.
Should a SEC registered investment advisor liquidate a fund, the fund is required to have an audit that reflects the fund having zero assets and zero liabilities. This will be convoluted as most funds hold back assets for expenses incurred for winding down the fund. A liquidating trust may be set up to transfer assets used to wind down the fund, but the liquidating trust must then be audited and reflect zero assets and liabilities. A conundrum, with at this point no logical solution.
SAS 70
SAS 70 is being replaced by a new standard, SSAE 16. The new standard requires an assertion by company management that opines on the effectiveness of the company’s internal controls.
Becoming more common when conducting due diligence, foreign investors and large pension plans are requesting SAS 70 reports on a fund manager’s front and middle office operations. Assumptively the back office SAS 70 will be covered by the fund’s administrator. The fund manager may not have the ability or financial wherewithal to provide a front\middle office SAS 70 report, but should be ready to document and explain its control processes in these two areas.
Finally, inflows are beginning to inch into smaller funds after two years of being the exclusive domain of the larger, more recognized funds.
Kurt D. Koeplin, Chief Financial Officer, RAIL-SPLITTER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Member, HFBOA EXECUTIVE BOARD
To register to receive a copy of Rothstein Kass’ Alternative Investment Fund Pro Forma Financial Statements Reference Manuel: http://www.rkco.com/Site/CorpAlternativeInvestmentFundProforma.aspx
2010 Hedge Fund Outlook: Back to the Future:
http://rkco.com/Site/ProprietaryResearch/CorpContent.aspx
SAS70 Presentation, see SAS 70 For Hedge Fund- November 2010, webinar slides:
http://www.rkco.com/Site/Webinars/CorpContent.aspx
http://www.hfboa.org/pdf/sas70hf.pdf
by HFBOA
10. September 2010 21:52
Adam Alesandro, Chief Technology Officer from fund administrator AFA (Advanced Fund Services) shared his thoughts on technology as a differentiator in the fund admin space. AFA was founded in 2007 by Peter Young formerly of Citi Hedge Fund Services and BISYS and uses SunGard’s VPM product suite in their firm.
Adam stressed the flexibility of the platform when choosing a portfolio and partnership accounting package and noted the three levels of software packages as well as the pros and cons of each: excel based, proprietary and enterprise level systems. Two of the main differentiators are whether the software uses "structured data" as well as whether the system is scalable. He noted that while excel is flexible and generally easy to use it is typically not sufficient in today’s demanding hedge fund back office environment.
Adam also highlighted the importance of "straight through processing"- limiting the amount of manual intervention and the potential errors and additional manpower that goes along with those entries that need to be done outside of a fully automated workflow.
The group discussed the potential of the administrator and their technology’s ability to enhance and facilitate the internal processes and policies of the hedge fund CFO. AFA frequently provides customized reporting to the funds as often as daily to help the fund back office in their responsibilities to their clients. For those funds that chose to not shadow their administrator’s work on a daily and monthly basis AFA can provide reports and extracts to compare to the prime broker’s data in helping the back office get a comfort level that their controls are sufficient.
For smaller funds or funds with limited internal systems the fund administrator should be able to provide services to facilitate working with third party risk management and reporting firms.
Additionally, the ability of the fund administrator and their systems to provide daily NAV’s has become an increasingly important function of hedge funds with limited internal resources.
The luncheon concluded with a networking session where many hedge fund executives got to share ideas between themselves as well as key service providers.
-Duncan Huyler, CFO, 360 GLOBAL CAPITAL and Executive Board Member, the HFBOA
by HFBOA
17. May 2010 18:26
HFBOA Luncheon Recap
May 13, 2010
The May luncheon was held May 13, 2010 in Chicago. Thanks to Drinker Biddle for hosting the event and Jeff Blumberg for leading the discussion. The main theme was the general state of the industry and regulatory environment, but other topics also were covered.
The industry is presently under more scrutiny than ever. The recent SEC charges against Goldman Sachs have caused the fiduciary duty of investment advisors to be closely reviewed for improprieties. The duration of institutional due diligence has increased significantly. Instead of asking for certain documents and then checking the box when the document is received, institutions are taking the time to read and examine what is given, searching for inconsistencies and actual adherence to written policies. Appropriate checks and balances in allocating trades and best execution requirements are important. Segregation of assets and appropriate custody mandatory. If managers self-administer, a SAS 70 report on the manager will most likely be required.
Hedge-Fund Regulation
Regulation has been on the table for over a year but was pushed aside during the health care debate. It is now gaining momentum in the Senate, with passing generally assured. Funds will probably have twelve months to register after the date of enactment, with January 1, 2012 being the likely date.
There has been a tepid grass roots campaign by hedge fund managers to oppose registration. The advocacy organization for hedge funds is the Managed Funds Association ("MFA"), which is controlled by personnel from the largest hedge funds. The large funds are registered already, so opposition is not a MFA priority.
As part of the Senate bill there is a directive to the SEC to increase the net worth criteria for Accredited Investor status, by utilizing the increase in the Consumer Price Index ("CPI"). Presently, it is unclear if the starting point would be 1982, which is the year the current $1,000,000 threshold was instituted, or if the CPI adjustment would be prospective from the enactment date. If the CPI adjustment is applied retroactively from 1982, the net worth threshold would increase immediately to over $2,000,000. In any event, should a current investor no longer qualify as accredited because of an increase in the net worth threshold, he or she would not have to exit the fund, but would be precluded from investing additional capital.
Alternative measures being discussed for Accredited Investor status would remove the net worth requirement and replace it with a minimum education standard. Another, perhaps better alternative, would require the investor to have a minimum of $1,000,000 in investments. The current net worth requirement of $1,000,000 may include the investor’s personal residence. No matter the outcome, the advisor will need a reasonable basis to believe an investor is as financially sound as purported, with supporting documentation supplied with the subscription documents.
SEC Audit Issues
Although politically popular, SEC registration will provide a false sense of security as the SEC has insufficient manpower. One attendee whose firm underwent an audit has not received the closing letter from the SEC even though fieldwork was completed fourteen months ago. Further, another attendee stated the last SEC audit her firm was subject to, the SEC auditor could not speak English, and likely was sent to the wrong RIA. There is a push by the SEC to hire knowledgeable and experienced personnel, many being ex-Wall Street employees laid off during the crisis. Even with a SEC personnel upgrade, an advisor will eventually be sued for fraud, even if the advisor is registered (another black eye for the SEC).
The SEC is conducting more surprise audits based upon tips, with the SEC arriving at the subject advisor within twenty-four hours from receiving the information. During an audit, it is not uncommon for the SEC to expect document requests to be fulfilled within twenty-four hours.
Other
The House of Representatives has twice passed legislation that would tax incentive fees as ordinary income instead of capital gain income, only to have the measures die in the Senate. There is now strong support in the Senate and will probably be included in the next tax bill. Effective date would be January 1, 2011.
Mandatory listing on an exchange of derivative products is still being debated. The benefit would be the reduction of counter-party default risk because the exchange would guarantee the trade, not a JP Morgan or Morgan Stanley. The detriment would be the standardization of the products. Since the purpose of products such as credit default swaps is the capacity to hedge risk, standardized products will be unable to address all risk scenarios.
Kurt Koeplin, Member of the HFBOA Executive Board
by HFBOA
28. April 2010 00:27
The April luncheon was held April 22nd in New York. Thank you to Linedata Services for hosting this event.
The topics discussed were: Institutional Hedge Fund Due Diligence, Properly Managing Operational Risk –Technology’s Increased Role in Fund Management and What to Expect from Regulators in 2010.
Institutional Due Diligence-The New Checklist.
The panel started out by agreeing that investors are spending significantly more time on due diligence and that the investment process has lengthened averaging about six months in duration. Small hedge funds are being held to standards that previously only applied to larger hedge funds and investors are demanding proof that managers actually are doing what they promised to do.
The panel suggested that managers put a risk assessment process in place to review (no less than annually) their firms in an effort to spot conflicts and issues with respect to their operations. Managers need to be able to recognize issues, address them and document how they resolve the particular matter. If necessary, it was suggested that Committees be formed and/or outside persons be brought in to assist with the review.
Additional best practices suggestions were strengthening internal management, having real time risk management, automation of processes front to back and multiple prime brokers and custodians to reduce the risk to assets.
Investors performing due diligence are looking for any inconsistency between what is in the fund’s marketing and organizational documents and what they hear or see is actually occurring. As part of the due diligence process, it is not uncommon for investors to ask to meet with traders, back office and compliance personnel as well as tracing transactions from front to back.
New Operational Requirements
Investors want to know who has access to information at a firm? They want to know what are the security protocols for data transmissions? What are the disaster recovery procedures? How quickly can you recover? What are the controls on cash and cash movements? How are trades aggregated and allocated when there are multiple funds or a managed account running alongside a commingled fund? What is the manager’s valuation policy? They want to test it.
While an outside administrator is a necessity-How does the manager check the work of the administrator? Does the manager reconcile to the administrator? How often does the manager meet with their service providers? How often does the manager review the service provider’s level of service?
The greater the degree of automation the better. Stand-alone excel schedules are frowned upon. Investors want to see systems in place and controls against human error.
Remember, there are always other places to invest-investors want to be with managers that are continually upgrading their systems and controls and providing transparency on their operations.
What Can We Expect From Regulators?
Most commentators are expecting that Advisors will have to register at some level of AUM whether that is 30 million, 100 million or 150 million. While it is expected that there would be some period to ramp up, the panel recommended not waiting until the last minute to register, as there may be delays in the registration process.
For advisors that have been in business for some time, that will most likely require a scrubbing and updating of their organizational documents. While most advisors whether registered or not, have best practices in place, the biggest change is probably undergoing the required audit by the SEC.
SEC audits have become more intense and time consuming. Current areas of interest to the SEC are controls on cash, operational controls, insider trading, best execution, how analysts get their investment ideas, fund expenses, soft dollar arrangements and disclosure thereon.
SEC examination teams may have enforcement division staff mixed in in an effort to obtain greater insight on the hedge fund business. This carries a greater risk to managers that may not be aware of the mixed make up of some teams.
Advisors need to have procedures in place to maintain all of the information required by the SEC and be able to produce it in a short period of time if requested by an examiner.
- George Roeck, Executive Board Member, HFBOA
by HFBOA
19. March 2010 20:04
Summary prepared by Daemon Repp, Sr. Financial Analyst, Genesee Investments
Chris Lombardy of Kinetic Partners and Jonathan Choslovsky of Albourne Partners led the discussion. Both Mr. Lombardy and Mr. Choslovsky focus on operational due diligence of hedge funds in their current roles. Given the proliferation and magnitude of frauds in the past couple years, investors are placing added significance on thorough operational due diligence when evaluating hedge fund managers. The conversation addressed three points:
- recent themes of investor due diligence and establishing an operations, compliance, and best practice infrastructure to meet the demands of operational due diligence reviews
- the changing US regulatory landscape for investment advisers
- recent themes of regulatory examinations
Gone are the days when due diligence focused solely on a hedge fund managers’ investing capabilities. Nowadays, investors are also looking for good operational infrastructure, regardless of the size of the fund. They want to see the fund operated at an “institutional” quality level. This includes a well defined segregation of duties and quality service providers such as legal counsel, administrator, and prime broker.
Mr. Choslovsky pointed out that this focus on operations is a result of recent ponzi schemes that blew up funds in 2007 and 2008. Prior to that, operational due diligence was largely an afterthought. Recent trends include the insistence upon a third party administrator who can custody assets, transfer money, and verify pricing. Another trend is the verification of AUM. In nearly every ponzi scheme, the manager lies by overstating their AUM. Mr. Choslovsky feels that verifying AUM is a full proof silver bullet for detecting a ponzi scheme.
Another trend is the focus on counterparty exposure. ISDA agreements are more closely scrutinized. How the agreements with the prime brokers structured and whether ISDA agreements are one or two-way are some examples of this focus.
Borrowing a term from banking, investors are keen to a fund’s asset/liability management (“ALM”). More specifically, are a fund’s liquidity terms consistent with the types of investments it makes? For example, a distressed debt manager with monthly liquidity on two weeks’ notice is not a favorable matchup. Nor is a large cap US equity manager with annual liquidity. A fund’s liquidity terms had not been given much through prior to 2008, and at the end of that year gates, suspensions, SPV’s, and retroactive side pockets all occurred. This caused a lot of confusion and investor backlash. In some cases, managers’ documents were written so long ago that they themselves did not know what they could do.
Currently, funds are setting themselves up with ALM in mind. Managers now carefully consider how they would handle events similar to the end of 2008 when drafting their documents. One popular method is to stagger the redemption windows. This is most effectively accomplished by creating investor level gates, where each investor is only allowed to withdraw a maximum percentage, say 20-25%, of its capital at each redemption period. This method is favored by investors over a fund level gate, as it eliminates much of the game theory in the redemption process. Completely out of favor now is the stacked gate, where investors who redeemed at prior redemption periods and were gated are given preferential treatment over new redeemers at the next redemption window.
Investors are becoming more critical of a fund’s fee structure as well, both the management fee and the incentive fee. Management fees have steadily increased over the years from 1.0% to 1.5% to 2.0% and sometimes even higher. Investors expect that the management fee be used to cover the expenses the manager incurs in operating its business. The fee should be fair and should not be so high that it incentivizes the manager to be an asset gatherer. Investors are loathe to pay a high management fee for a fund that has grown large and feel that the fees should come down when the manager reaches a certain asset level. There is a backlash against managers trying to run certain expenses that should be covered by the management fee through the fund instead. While more forgiving for smaller funds, especially those that have shrunk and thus are generating less revenue than previously, there is little leeway in investors’ minds for large managers who try to put expenses through the fund.
As to incentive fees, investors want to pay for alpha, not beta. This naturally leads to some kind of hurdle rate, whether fixed or floating based on some appropriate benchmark index. Furthermore, if a fund has a strategy with a long lockup (greater than one year), then investors would expect that the incentive fees would not crystallize until after the lockup expires.
Transparency is another hot button issue, with the general consensus being that more is better. Again, this became more of a necessity with the recent proliferation of ponzi schemes and the events in the markets during the fall of 2008.
Managed accounts were a popular issue a few years ago, but less so now. It was suggested that the decline in popularity may be due to the fact that funds are more willing to give transparency than previously. Transparency, along with no fear of being gated and no potential for a ponzi scheme are the benefits of a managed account for an investor. They are also good for FOF who are seeking to manage their own ALM issues. In general, managers do not like managed accounts due to the increased administrative burden. This is especially true of larger managers who are not as desperate for the assets. However, most all managers have an amount over which they will accept a managed account.
Mr. Lombardy gave the example of a client who conducts a “document request.” More specifically, the client wants to know if a manager’s DDQ, PPM, monthly letters, and marketing documents are all consistent with each other. This is a general test for a manager’s attention to detail and business coordination. Mr. Lombardy recommended conducting this exercise periodically after investment as well.
It is consensus among investors that they would never invest in a fund without an audit report. However, where the audit used to also be viewed as asset verification, that is no longer the case. Investors recognize that the audit only verifies a fund’s year end assets and that much happens from one year end to the next. Administrators and prime brokers are now used to verify asset levels. In most cases, the administrator or prime broker must see that the investor has received permission from the manager before answering these types of questions. Investors should view it as a red flag should service providers not freely answer these questions.
In verifying independent pricing, it is not just enough to know that it exists. Investors now want to drill down further. What level of service is the administrator providing in this regard? How easy does the manager make it for the administrator to get independent quotes from the various brokers? Is what the administrator saying about services provided consistent with what the manager says about the administrator’s services? Exactly how are the obtained quotes used in establishing a price? These are the types of questions that investors are demanding answers to.
The panelists emphasized the importance of a fund’s offering documents. Managers need to be very careful about putting limits that are too restrictive into the offering documents. Over time, managers tend to forget some of them, which could inadvertently lead to a misrepresentation. This is essentially what happened to Wood River. It is very important for managers to review their legal documents every year.
Brokerage fees are another area of increased scrutiny. How does a specific broker’s fees compare to the industry standard? Investors want to see managers check this at least annually and see that the research provided matches the commissions charged. For micro cap and small cap stocks, 5¢ per share is reasonable. For more liquid stocks, 2-3¢ is reasonable. The quality of ideas the broker suggests, how they handle large block orders, and any kind of marketing they do should also be assessed in determining a reasonable commission.
During the Q&A session, there were some questions about emergent issues that the SEC is looking at. Managers are closely monitoring whether or not they need to be registered. Legislation in Congress is moving the requirement away from a client count threshold towards an asset level threshold. Insider trading is a specific focus of the SEC, and not just of the tipper/tippee type. The focus is more on the manager’s compliance department, and if it is monitoring analysts’ networking calls or paying attention to where they got their good performing trades.
There was a question about third party marketers. The most important issue for a manager is to make sure that any third party marketer they use is a broker/dealer, because the manager’s fund is a security and the third party marketer is offering it. If the third party is not a broker/dealer, then a client who loses money may be able to come after the manager for restitution.
There was also discussion of the kinds of disclosures a manager is required to make. The consensus was anything that is material, where material means anything that would influence an investor making or keeping an investment in the manager’s fund. One area of such disclosure is personnel movement. Investors get very annoyed with managers who don’t disclose when certain employees are no longer with the manager. Even more annoying is if it is an employee the manager said was important while working there and then says was unimportant or junior after he’s departed.
by HFBOA
15. March 2010 18:55
by HFBOA
2. March 2010 03:03
Technology Requirements: “Do we really need this?”
Defining the items you must have, should have, and don’t need at all
The Topic:
A common struggle for hedge fund operations managers lies in determining how, and how much, to
spend budget on IT. It can be difficult to understand how much a fund relies on technology, how that
technology will be managed by in‐house IT staff, and how to scale up or downsize technology when
necessary. Are your stakeholders asking you tough questions about the IT budget? The current
economic environment makes things even more difficult. How has it affected your fund’s technology
spend?
At this roundtable event, Vinod Paul, Managing Director at Eze Castle Integration, will guide participants
through the process of evaluating a hedge fund’s IT and determining the value of all the systems and
software that make a fund run, including:
- Infrastructure requirements
- Trading applications/ connectivity
- BCP/DR, including data protection
- Cloud computing/ managed services
- Regulations/ required systems, including email/IM archiving
- Voice communications
Participants will leave the event with the ability to answer tough questions like:
What is currently/ what will be required by law?
What are the industry best practices?
Where should we spend more?
What can we eliminate from the budget?
Moderated by:
Vinod Paul, Managing Director
Matthew Bretan, Senior Business Consultant
The Recap of the Luncheon:
Some of the more salient points from the presentation are as follows (a copy of the slide show is
available for download from the HFBOA website):
Overview of Eze Castle (Eze):
Eze gained 103 clients in 2009, of which approximately half were new accounts from existing
relationships, and the balance was new relationships. Approximately 25 client relationships were
terminated due to the underlying funds winding‐down, but net client growth represented approximately
20 clients. Eze has serviced approximately 2,500 start‐up clients globally since inception.
Headquartered in Boston, MA, there are 7 US offices, as well as London, Singapore (Feb. 2010) and
expectations of a Hong Kong office by the end of 2010. There are 20 employees working for Eze. Eze is
a privately held company, with over 550 Hedge Funds who rely on their services. 90% of their clientele
is from Hedge Funds, the remainder is from broker dealers, private equity/VC firms, and Fund of Funds.
The majority of their clients are Hedge Funds with between $150mm to $750mm.
Of particular interest was the statistic that 90% of their clients do not have internal technologists as part
of their staff.
Infrastructure Needs:
Eze described the need for IT as both an infrastructure risk mitigation tool as well as an opportunity to
enhance operational efficiency. The technology foundation of a firm needs to be designed to address a
firm’s current and future needs, as well as be consistent with the firms and markets economic
capabilities and climate.
The trading aspect of a firm can utilize technology to better access market data (real time market data
and analytics,) providing direct links for order executions and management, facilitating more robust and
active trading strategies, and provide pipelines to various networks, such as broker dealers, clients, etc.
An example would be tying in the front office activity with the back office via order management, trade
capture, portfolio accounting, risk, security master, and other systems. The security, redundancy, and
seamlessness of the systems working in concert and individually need to be addressed.
The IT infrastructure also needs to consider compliance issues and the applicable regulatory regime.
Both best practices and most regulatory requirements demand both Disaster Recovery and a Business
Continuity programs. Sometimes considered under the same umbrella, Disaster Recovery focuses on
accessing technology from locations other than the primary location, and Business Continuity focuses on
the distinct processes involved with the firm which starts with the various policies and procedures, as
well as the technology component associated with each. Institutional investors have been increasing
their focus on both these areas.
Additional compliance concerns, such as retention of (and access to) e‐mails, instant messaging, and
other forms of electronic communications and access to social networks can be addressed (and only
addressed) by the technology infrastructure, while remaining compliant with firm and regulatory
requirements.
Investor Relations is also a key component of the IT infrastructure. Properly capturing relationships,
facilitating periodic reporting to investors, and allowing for such data to be easily accessed and queried
are points to consider, as well as compatibility with other systems throughout the firm.
Trends include Cloud Computing and Hedge Fund Hotels
Cloud Computing is essentially a means to have applications and hardware utilized on a service or
consumption based term of usage through the internet via a provider, as opposed to needing all of the
the upfront investment, hardware, and expertise in‐house to manage the IT infrastructure. The speed at
which applications could be run can be greatly enhanced via the Cloud, as most functionality takes place
via the providers systems, not the local PC.
Hedge Fund Hotels are a more common IT solution for newer firms, whereby office space and
technology are hosted by the sponsor, with varying degrees of on‐site support and shared resources and
facilities.
Both Cloud Computing and Hedge Fund Hote
ls are possible solutions for smaller or less seasoned firms
to tap into robust IT infrastructure, without the sunk costs or in‐house expertise needed to fully support
the IT process.
Connectivity via microwave (roof top dishes) is another alternative to the more traditional T1 lines using
fiber optic cable. This technology (which was a significant part of the question and answer session)
mitigates the possible issues with cable such as telecom closet mishaps (installer or other tenants
cutting cables in risers), work on the ground beneath the street that could interrupt the cable network,
etc. Mitigating such risks could save time and money by negating the need to execute Disaster Recovery
or Business Continuity Plans. Speed and cost were deemed to be comparable to cable, with the major
limitations being Line of Sight requirements, and certain high intensity light interference issues.
When asked, Eze mentioned that their services have been paid by both managers and funds, although
this decision is made by their clients, which they do not offer guidance on.
In summary, there are common functions within each firm that are addressed and enhanced by the IT
infrastructure. These functions need to be designed and evaluated not only based upon needs for
today, but also with growth/contraction concerns and changes to the economy and regulatory
environment. Utilizing an out‐sourced vendor can assist asset managers with the proper design,
implementation, and maintenance of such systems and can help ensure business viability and
competitiveness from an IT and Due Diligence perspective.
By Dan Federmann
by HFBOA
2. March 2010 02:36
Securities Lending
The last bastion of manual intervention in an automated trading world
The HFBOA luncheon was hosted on Thursday January 14th by Hedge Source LLC and dealt with issues and opportunities available to fund managers with respect to securities borrowing and lending. The presentation was lead by Allen Wolkow, the CEO of Hedge Source along with Janah Angelou, the COO.
Our speaker covered challenges many funds face when it comes to securities lending, as well as, viable techniques to more efficiently manage your fund’s securities lending business. Download the full recap.
|
|
Subscribe