This thesis examines the degree to which alternative funds deviate from their style-benchmark and how this is related to past performance and fund size, and how it impacts future risk and returns. Additionally the thesis examines how security selection and market timing skills differ across varying degrees of deviation from the benchmark. The thesis uses data for hedge funds, funds of funds, and CTA funds from the Center for International Securities and Derivatives Markets and employs fund???s tracking error relative to their style-benchmark to estimate the level of drift. The style-benchmarks used are the median return for all reporting funds that follow a particular style and funds are assigned a benchmark based on their self-reported style. First, this thesis documents statistically significant differences in the tracking errors of portfolios of funds with the highest tracking error versus funds with the lowest tracking error, implying that some managers drift from their self-reported style-benchmarks. Second, funds??? benchmark-inconsistency is less severe in the case of funds that have a regulatory obligation to disclose their performance, suggesting that the absence of regulation fosters an environment where managers can be more flexible with their investment approach. Third, the tendency to drift from the benchmark is most prevalent amongst funds with superior past performance as well as small funds. Fourth, future total portfolio risk increases as funds display more benchmarkinconsistency, suggesting that managers adopt riskier strategies as they attempt to enhance returns. Fifth, the thesis demonstrates that CTA funds that display drift from their benchmark produce higher absolute and relative returns in subsequent periods regardless of the direction of the general market. In contrast, the findings show for hedge funds and funds of funds, benchmark-inconsistent funds are likely to outperform in bull markets and underperform in bear markets. Finally, this thesis shows that more benchmark-consistent managers have better security selection skill. The main contribution of this thesis is in identifying the group of hedge funds, funds of funds, and CTA funds that are likely to deviate from their self-reported style-benchmark and the risk-return consequences of such deviations. The findings have implications for investors and regulators.

This thesis examines the degree to which alternative funds deviate from their style-benchmark and how this is related to past performance and fund size, and how it impacts future risk and returns. Additionally the thesis examines how security selection and market timing skills differ across varying degrees of deviation from the benchmark. The thesis uses data for hedge funds, funds of funds, and CTA funds from the Center for International Securities and Derivatives Markets and employs fund???s tracking error relative to their style-benchmark to estimate the level of drift. The style-benchmarks used are the median return for all reporting funds that follow a particular style and funds are assigned a benchmark based on their self-reported style. First, this thesis documents statistically significant differences in the tracking errors of portfolios of funds with the highest tracking error versus funds with the lowest tracking error, implying that some managers drift from their self-reported style-benchmarks. Second, funds??? benchmark-inconsistency is less severe in the case of funds that have a regulatory obligation to disclose their performance, suggesting that the absence of regulation fosters an environment where managers can be more flexible with their investment approach. Third, the tendency to drift from the benchmark is most prevalent amongst funds with superior past performance as well as small funds. Fourth, future total portfolio risk increases as funds display more benchmarkinconsistency, suggesting that managers adopt riskier strategies as they attempt to enhance returns. Fifth, the thesis demonstrates that CTA funds that display drift from their benchmark produce higher absolute and relative returns in subsequent periods regardless of the direction of the general market. In contrast, the findings show for hedge funds and funds of funds, benchmark-inconsistent funds are likely to outperform in bull markets and underperform in bear markets. Finally, this thesis shows that more benchmark-consistent managers have better security selection skill. The main contribution of this thesis is in identifying the group of hedge funds, funds of funds, and CTA funds that are likely to deviate from their self-reported style-benchmark and the risk-return consequences of such deviations. The findings have implications for investors and regulators.

This thesis examines the degree to which alternative funds deviate from their style-benchmark and how this is related to past performance and fund size, and how it impacts future risk and returns. Additionally the thesis examines how security selection and market timing skills differ across varying degrees of deviation from the benchmark. The thesis uses data for hedge funds, funds of funds, and CTA funds from the Center for International Securities and Derivatives Markets and employs fund???s tracking error relative to their style-benchmark to estimate the level of drift. The style-benchmarks used are the median return for all reporting funds that follow a particular style and funds are assigned a benchmark based on their self-reported style. First, this thesis documents statistically significant differences in the tracking errors of portfolios of funds with the highest tracking error versus funds with the lowest tracking error, implying that some managers drift from their self-reported style-benchmarks. Second, funds??? benchmark-inconsistency is less severe in the case of funds that have a regulatory obligation to disclose their performance, suggesting that the absence of regulation fosters an environment where managers can be more flexible with their investment approach. Third, the tendency to drift from the benchmark is most prevalent amongst funds with superior past performance as well as small funds. Fourth, future total portfolio risk increases as funds display more benchmarkinconsistency, suggesting that managers adopt riskier strategies as they attempt to enhance returns. Fifth, the thesis demonstrates that CTA funds that display drift from their benchmark produce higher absolute and relative returns in subsequent periods regardless of the direction of the general market. In contrast, the findings show for hedge funds and funds of funds, benchmark-inconsistent funds are likely to outperform in bull markets and underperform in bear markets. Finally, this thesis shows that more benchmark-consistent managers have better security selection skill. The main contribution of this thesis is in identifying the group of hedge funds, funds of funds, and CTA funds that are likely to deviate from their self-reported style-benchmark and the risk-return consequences of such deviations. The findings have implications for investors and regulators.

This thesis examines the degree to which alternative funds deviate from their style-benchmark and how this is related to past performance and fund size, and how it impacts future risk and returns. Additionally the thesis examines how security selection and market timing skills differ across varying degrees of deviation from the benchmark. The thesis uses data for hedge funds, funds of funds, and CTA funds from the Center for International Securities and Derivatives Markets and employs fund???s tracking error relative to their style-benchmark to estimate the level of drift. The style-benchmarks used are the median return for all reporting funds that follow a particular style and funds are assigned a benchmark based on their self-reported style. First, this thesis documents statistically significant differences in the tracking errors of portfolios of funds with the highest tracking error versus funds with the lowest tracking error, implying that some managers drift from their self-reported style-benchmarks. Second, funds??? benchmark-inconsistency is less severe in the case of funds that have a regulatory obligation to disclose their performance, suggesting that the absence of regulation fosters an environment where managers can be more flexible with their investment approach. Third, the tendency to drift from the benchmark is most prevalent amongst funds with superior past performance as well as small funds. Fourth, future total portfolio risk increases as funds display more benchmarkinconsistency, suggesting that managers adopt riskier strategies as they attempt to enhance returns. Fifth, the thesis demonstrates that CTA funds that display drift from their benchmark produce higher absolute and relative returns in subsequent periods regardless of the direction of the general market. In contrast, the findings show for hedge funds and funds of funds, benchmark-inconsistent funds are likely to outperform in bull markets and underperform in bear markets. Finally, this thesis shows that more benchmark-consistent managers have better security selection skill. The main contribution of this thesis is in identifying the group of hedge funds, funds of funds, and CTA funds that are likely to deviate from their self-reported style-benchmark and the risk-return consequences of such deviations. The findings have implications for investors and regulators.

Hedge funds report performance information voluntarily. When they stop reporting they are transferred from the "live" pool of funds to the "defunct" pool. Consequently, liquidated funds constitute a subset of the defunct pool. I present models of hedge fund survival, attrition, and survivorship bias based on liquidation alone. This refines estimates of predictor variables in models of survival, leads to attrition rates of hedge funds to be roughly one half those previously thought, and produces larger estimates of survivorship bias. Survival models based on liquidated funds only, lead to an increase in survival time of 50 to 100 percent relative to survival based on all defunct funds. / In addition to refining estimates of survival time, it is useful to examine how the double fee structure of hedge funds and Commodity Trading Advisors (CTA) affects the incentives of their managers. Young CTAs are usually very small --- they hold few financial assets --- and may not meet their operating expenses with their management fee alone, so their incentive is to take on risk and post good returns. As they grow, their incentive to take on risk diminishes. CTAs in their fifth year diminish their volatility by 25 percent relative to their first year, and diminish returns by 70 percent. We find CTAs to behave more like indexers as they grow, concerned with more with capital preservation than asset management. / Operational risk is a major cause of hedge fund and CTA liquidation. In the banking industry, regulators have called upon institutions to develop models for measuring capital charge for operational losses, and to subject these models to stress testing. Losses are found to be inversely related to GDP growth, and positively related to unemployment. Since losses are thus cyclical, one way to stress test models is to calculate capital charge during good and bad economic regimes. We find loss distributions to have thicker tails during bad regimes. One implication is that banks will likely need to increase their capital charge when economic conditions deteriorate.

No description available.

Commodity Trading Advisors (CTAs) have gained popularity due to their abilities to generate an absolute return strategy. Little is known about how CTAs work and what variables are important to tune in order to create a profitable strategy. Some investors use CTA-like strategies to leverage their portfolio and create positive returns in times when the spot market is falling. The report is written for Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken and aims to give the bank and readers an understanding on how changes of parameters in a CTA strategy change the outcome of it with focus on three main measurements: Sharpe ratio, drawdown and total return.  The foundation of CTAs is that they rely on signals from some given sets of assets and make investments decisions solely based on them. CTAs can be rule-based with a binomial signal, or they can use a continual signal, like in the report. The thesis aims to recreate a CTA using a continuous momentum signal and with the signal, invest accordingly. Some different variables were tested, most importantly the report focuses on the weights of the assets and investigates if the momentum signal is good as it is or if a risk parity weighting is needed on top of the signal in order to generate a return that matches the expectations of a low drawdown and a high Sharpe ratio.  Beyond the weight allocation, different lookback periods of both the signal and weight were tested. A shorter lookback generated a quicker return that was more sensible to short trends on the market. Which in some cases was profitable but it also lost more of it accumulated return when the trend was "false". The equally weighted signal that only takes the trend into account when allocating the weights of the assets was more volatile it its returns and benefited from a long signal. The CTA results presented can only be seen as an index since it is rebalanced every rebalancing point, the frequency of those points was examined and the strategy was performing well if rebalanced once a week or once a month, every day and once a year did not yield a better result.  As expected, the CTA benefits from trend on the market, no matter the direction of it. The best periods for the CTA were when the market was very volatile, mainly 2008 and 2022. When there is no clear trend, the CTA reacts too slowly and often loses money. One important conclusion is that the CTA never should be used as an investment strategy on its own, rather as a hedging strategy that allocates a fraction of a total long-only portfolio.