GIPS和对冲基金:合规是认证代理吗?

IF 0.4 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Luke Foster, T. Ngo, M. Pyles
{"title":"GIPS和对冲基金:合规是认证代理吗?","authors":"Luke Foster, T. Ngo, M. Pyles","doi":"10.3905/jai.2021.1.140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examines a sample of global hedge funds and focuses on analyzing characteristics consistently predictive of being GIPS compliant. Hedge fund data are merged with the CFA Institute’s list of GIPS-compliant firms. The authors find that smaller funds, with less experienced managers and those not denominated in US currency, are more likely to be compliant. They also find that firms with a strong internal control mechanism, defined as having one of the big four accounting firms as an auditor, are more likely to claim compliance. Turning to some core elements of the investor–fund relationship, they find performance fees are lower in firms claiming compliance, but past performance is insignificantly different. Collectively, the results suggest that GIPS compliance is useful to smaller and riskier firms that want to display confidence and transparency in their performance, thus supporting the notion that compliance is an additional certification agent. There is also some evidence to suggest a benefit to the investor in lower fees. Key Findings ▪ The minority number of hedge funds that chose to be compliant prior to the revised GIPS standards of 2020 are typically relatively smaller, have less-experienced managers, and are based in non-US currency. ▪ Compliant firms have smaller performance fees, resulting in a lower overall fee structure, compared to their noncompliant counterparts. ▪ Results are consistent with the notion that funds that chose compliance are those that could benefit from the additional certification it could provide.","PeriodicalId":45142,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Alternative Investments","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"GIPS and Hedge Funds: Is Compliance a Certification Agent?\",\"authors\":\"Luke Foster, T. Ngo, M. Pyles\",\"doi\":\"10.3905/jai.2021.1.140\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study examines a sample of global hedge funds and focuses on analyzing characteristics consistently predictive of being GIPS compliant. Hedge fund data are merged with the CFA Institute’s list of GIPS-compliant firms. The authors find that smaller funds, with less experienced managers and those not denominated in US currency, are more likely to be compliant. They also find that firms with a strong internal control mechanism, defined as having one of the big four accounting firms as an auditor, are more likely to claim compliance. Turning to some core elements of the investor–fund relationship, they find performance fees are lower in firms claiming compliance, but past performance is insignificantly different. Collectively, the results suggest that GIPS compliance is useful to smaller and riskier firms that want to display confidence and transparency in their performance, thus supporting the notion that compliance is an additional certification agent. There is also some evidence to suggest a benefit to the investor in lower fees. Key Findings ▪ The minority number of hedge funds that chose to be compliant prior to the revised GIPS standards of 2020 are typically relatively smaller, have less-experienced managers, and are based in non-US currency. ▪ Compliant firms have smaller performance fees, resulting in a lower overall fee structure, compared to their noncompliant counterparts. ▪ Results are consistent with the notion that funds that chose compliance are those that could benefit from the additional certification it could provide.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45142,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Alternative Investments\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Alternative Investments\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3905/jai.2021.1.140\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Alternative Investments","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3905/jai.2021.1.140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究考察了全球对冲基金的样本,并重点分析了一致预测GIPS合规的特征。对冲基金的数据与CFA协会(CFA Institute)符合gips标准的公司名单合并。作者发现,规模较小的基金(管理人员经验不足,且不以美元计价)更有可能遵守规定。他们还发现,拥有强大内部控制机制的公司(定义为拥有四大会计师事务所之一的审计师)更有可能声称合规。转向投资者-基金关系的一些核心要素,他们发现,声称合规的公司的绩效费用较低,但过去的业绩没有显著差异。总的来说,结果表明,GIPS合规性对于希望在其绩效中显示信心和透明度的较小和风险较高的公司是有用的,因此支持合规性是额外认证代理的概念。还有一些证据表明,较低的费用对投资者有利。▪在2020年修订后的GIPS标准之前选择合规的少数对冲基金通常相对较小,拥有经验不足的经理,并且以非美元货币为基础。▪与不合规的公司相比,合规公司的绩效费更少,导致整体费用结构更低。▪结果与选择遵守的基金可以从其提供的额外认证中受益的概念是一致的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
GIPS and Hedge Funds: Is Compliance a Certification Agent?
This study examines a sample of global hedge funds and focuses on analyzing characteristics consistently predictive of being GIPS compliant. Hedge fund data are merged with the CFA Institute’s list of GIPS-compliant firms. The authors find that smaller funds, with less experienced managers and those not denominated in US currency, are more likely to be compliant. They also find that firms with a strong internal control mechanism, defined as having one of the big four accounting firms as an auditor, are more likely to claim compliance. Turning to some core elements of the investor–fund relationship, they find performance fees are lower in firms claiming compliance, but past performance is insignificantly different. Collectively, the results suggest that GIPS compliance is useful to smaller and riskier firms that want to display confidence and transparency in their performance, thus supporting the notion that compliance is an additional certification agent. There is also some evidence to suggest a benefit to the investor in lower fees. Key Findings ▪ The minority number of hedge funds that chose to be compliant prior to the revised GIPS standards of 2020 are typically relatively smaller, have less-experienced managers, and are based in non-US currency. ▪ Compliant firms have smaller performance fees, resulting in a lower overall fee structure, compared to their noncompliant counterparts. ▪ Results are consistent with the notion that funds that chose compliance are those that could benefit from the additional certification it could provide.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Alternative Investments (JAI) provides you with cutting-edge research and expert analysis on managing investments in hedge funds, private equity, distressed debt, commodities and futures, energy, funds of funds, and other nontraditional assets. JAI is the official publication of the Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst Association (CAIA®). JAI provides you with challenging ideas and practical tools to: •Profit from the growth of hedge funds and alternatives •Determine the optimal mix of traditional and alternative investments •Measure and track portfolio performance •Manage your alternative investment portfolio with proven risk management practices
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信