I have been grilled by many existing and potential LPs of our fund. Here is a compendium of my favorite, most insightful questions and other observations that I hope can be useful for people trying to choose strangers to manage their money. A 🧵:
1) After a few successful years of performance and AUM growth, one of our LPs sat us down for “the talk”. I call it this because I think he’s done this to many other fledging funds before us. The essence of the speech was: “Do you want to be good or great?”.
I wanted to be great. Most fund managers are going to say that. But what “great” means to you and what sacrifices you are willing to make to be great are revealing. To me, great means many years of good LT risk adjusted returns.
What will I sacrifice to be great? AUM growth, my own economics, my leisure time, my ego. What won’t I sacrifice? My family time, my values, my employees, my passion for investing, and my interests. I don’t know if there is a right answer, but there are revealing ones.
2) Mistake questions - PMs should admit mistakes. When they admit mistakes, they should blame themselves. They should not blame their analysts or the market. Occasionally, PMs can blame bad luck. At minimum, PMs should admit mistakes of judgment.
3) How do you size positions - this is a revealing risk mgmt question. If you want to avoid funds that may blow up, shy away from someone who answers we run concentrated and size on conviction. These two criteria, to exclusion of others, are problematic.
Ppl who run concentrated tend to have trouble changing their minds. Combine that with conviction and you have a lethal combo of overconfidence and stubbornness. If you want funds that won’t blow up, there should be some mention of risk-based sizing.
4) Boats, houses, cars - I am a (relatively) simple person. My partner is less so. He has a fancy house, a fancy car, and a fancy boat. He enjoys his money, but he still works hard and is focused. This question is a lazy and sometimes inaccurate shortcut to motivation issues.
5) Why do you do still do this? This is a better version of the prior question. In this biz, if you are good, not a crazy spender, and get at least a little lucky, at some point you don’t need to work anymore. So why do you?
I still invest because I don’t know what else I’d do. It’s fun. It facilitates, for me, a balanced life. I like my team. I like having LPs. Maybe some day I’ll find something better. But until I do, this is what I do. And if this is what I do I’m going try to be great at it.
6) Allocators / fund managers, what are some of your favorite questions you’ve received or asked over time?
Track records (especially short ones) can be misleading. What are signs of sustainable alpha and how do you distinguish it from unsustainable alpha? H/t to @atelicinvest for politely calling Part 1 too squishy. Let’s get quanty. A 🧵:
@atelicinvest 1) My personal favorites for SM stock picker are batting average and slugging % alpha. Batting average is % of positions where you generated alpha. Slugging % is how much alpha you made when you were right vs lost when wrong. Ideally you want both.
@atelicinvest High batting average (60%+), defined from position inception to closeout, above a certain size threshold (1%?). Good manager IMO should be right more than wrong. Good slugging means you sized well so winners were bigger than losers.
Most investors like research, not selling. But working at a HF is also a sales job - as an analyst you sell yourself, your ideas, and your research to your PM. As a PM, you more literally sell yourself and team to LPs. Some thoughts on effective selling, a 🧵:
1) Many PMs and analysts start out thinking of selling as beneath them; over time they realize its importance (especially in selling ideas to PM), but often do so poorly. For some lack of sales ability or interest in selling is a source of pride. I think this is stupid.
By “selling” I really mean a combination of effective communication, credibility, confidence, humility, and trustworthiness. Many analysts (and PMs) lack one or several of these skills. Whether it’s LPs or your PM, I think the toolkit is essentially the same.
Most people dream of running a HF - not enough dream of being the #2 or equivalent. I’m the #2 at my $2b+ fund, and while sometimes I wish I were the #1, being the #2 can be as good or better if you like and respect the #1 (which I do). A 🧵
I define a #2 or equivalent as being a long-tenured, critical employee, such that your job is basically guaranteed because the #1 relies on you in many ways that make you irreplaceable. Being a long-time money maker is part of this but not all of it.
Perhaps you are a great business partner, thought partner, director of research, or mentor/leader to younger employees. You usually do one or several things the founder/CIO cannot or does not want to do themselves. So why is the #2 such a great job?
Everyone’s favorite topic - there are many approaches to compensating an investment team, and we’ve tried most of them. Ultimately this is a talent driven business. So keeping talent happy and motivated by right incentives is necessary for good returns. A 🧵:
First, four guiding principles:
A) talent pays for itself multiple times over especially at scale, so don’t be too stingy
B) lay out clear factors both individual and team that drive comp
C) keep your comp promises
D) Do C even if the numbers are big
1) I don’t understand why some firms / founders are so stingy especially at scale. Good people pay for themselves multiple times over. If you short change them, good staff will leave, extract value by shirking, or get you back in future negotiations.
Like most small funds that become bigger, we had to transition from being stock pickers to managing an investment team. We’ve had the most success with homegrown talent. This is how we do it: TL;DR: I try to make myself obsolete. A 🧵
1) Mentorship is both selfless and selfish - it’s a non-zero sum game. My goal is to get younger people to be as good or better than me at key investment tasks quickly so I can use my time for higher and better uses. This requires an initial investment of my time.
Some PMs are so focused on generating investment results that they can’t tolerate an investment in time in junior staff. Or, worse, they grew up in a banking culture or environment where abusing juniors is a rite of passage. We reject this.
I’m paranoid our fund will fail, since this is the typical HF ending. So I’ve tried to observe why good funds fail. Most ppl study investors individually, not funds collectively - and failure is usually collective . Some observations / hypotheses - a 🧵:
Most investors aren’t good enough to justify their fees. This is why most funds fail. But this is an easy answer - funds frequently fail despite having teams who have generated meaningful past alpha. I want to focus on those.
Easy answers include getting too big, losing motivation after getting too rich, style drift, strategy becomes out of favor, just got lucky, etc. With that out of the way let’s move on to the interesting ones that are more debatable / less discussed.