Fund characteristics and their impacts on the performance of hedge funds an emperical evidence for european and north american hedge fund industries

FUND CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR IMPACTS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF HEDGE FUNDS: AN EMPERICAL EVIDENCE FOR EUROPEAN AND NORTH AMERICAN HEDGE FUND INDUSTRIES ABSTRACT In this paper, we investigate the impactsAB of fund characteristics on the performance of North American hedge funds (NAHFs) and European hedge funds (EHFs) over a period of 1st January 2001 - 31st December 2013 The study period is divided into two sub-sample periods:(1) non-crisis sub-sample period (1st January 2001- 31st December 2007) and (2) during-crisis and post-crisis sub-sample period (1st January 2008 - 31st December 2013), to measure the impact of the global crisis on the results of our study Our samples consist of 325 North American hedge funds (NAHFs) and 166 European hedge funds (EHFs), which all survive through the sample period Using the cross sectional regression method, the omega ratios of hedge funds in each sample are regressed against their fund characteristics for a full sample period and sub-sample periods Results show evidence of the significant impacts of fund strategies on the performance of both NAHFs and EHFs More fund characteristics are found to have significant impacts on the performance of NAHFs and EHFs during the non-crisis sub-sample period As compared to NAHFs, the performance of EHFs is rarely affected by theirs fund characteristics during the crisis- and post-crisis sub-sample period Key words: North American hedge funds, European hedge funds, omega ratios, fund characteristics, performance 1 INTRODUCTION Being well-known as an innovative financial product since the late 1990, a hedge fund often possesses many special characteristics designed by its managers to strike for an absolute performance rather than a relative performance as compared to the traditional investments such as mutual funds Knowing individual impacts of the designed fund characteristics of hedge funds is undoubtedly important to both hedge fund managers and investors in order to achieve better fund management and fund selection, respectively Studies on the impact of hedge fund characteristics on their performance are often conducted with selective numbers of fund characteristics, namely incentive fees, management fees, fund age, fund strategies, fund size, lock-up period, leverage ratio, redemption period, redemption notification period, hurdle rate, high-water mark, and minimum investment However, it is found that results are often mixed and inconclusive In addition, it is also found that not all fund characteristics, that are believed to shed light on the way a hedge fund is managed, are often discussed together in a single study This could be due to the lack transparency or information provided by hedge fund managers With an attempt to expand the study by Nguyen et al (2011), we investigate the impact of fund characteristics on the performance of hedge funds in three regions: Asian, Europe, and North America Thus, three regional samples of hedge funds are then selected for this study: (1) a sample of 325 North American hedge funds (NAHFs), and (3) a sample of 166 European hedge funds (EHFs) Information on fund characteristics and returns for all the three samples of hedge funds are fully available over the period of 1st January 2001 – 31st December 2013 A cross-sectional regression analysis is carried out, from which the omega ratios of hedge funds in each of the three samples are regressed against their own fund characteristics The omega ratios (Keating and Shadwick, 2002) are used to overcome the the possibly ambiguous results produced by the Sharpe ratio (Ackermann et al., 1999; Do et al, 2005) To our best knowledge, this is the first time the omega ratio is used as a performance measure in this kind of study It is also believed that the use of omega ratios will better reflect the actual performance of hedge funds during the study period Results show evidence of the significant impacts of fund strategies on the performance of both NAHFs and EHFs More fund characteristics are found to have significant impacts on the performance of NAHFs and EHFs during the non-crisis sub-sample period The performance of EHFs is found to be less predictable during-crisis- and post-crisis sub-sample period The rest of the paper is organized as follows: related studies are reviewed in Part 2, followed by Part with hypothesis and testing method, main findings are presented in Part 4, and key conclusions are given in the final part, Part LITERATURE REVIEW In literature, fund characteristics which are mostly discussed are incentive fees, management fees, fund age, fund strategies, fund size, lock-up period, leverage ratio, redemption period, redemption notification period, hurdle rate, high-water mark, and minimum investment The impact of the incentive fee on the performance of hedge funds is found to be mixed in literature A number of studies find that the incentive fee has a significant positive impact on the performance of hedge funds (Ackermann, McEnally, Ravenscraft, 1999; Edwards and Caglayan, 2001; Fung, Xu, and Yau, 2002; Brown, Goetzmann, and Liang, 2004; and Do, Faff, and Wickramanayake, 2005) This implies that incentive fees motivate fund managers to perform better On the other hand, a number of studies find no evidence of such significant positive impacts of incentive fees on the performance of hedge funds, namely Schneeweis, Kazemi, and Martin (2002), Brown, Goetzmann, and Liang (2004), and Fung, Xu, and Yau (2004) Interestingly, some studies discover a negative impact of incentive fees on the performance of hedge funds, i.e Koh, Koh, and Teo (2003), Kouwenberg & Ziemba (2004), and Steri, Giorgino, and Viviani (2009) Unlike incentive fees, management fees are like fixed salaries paid to fund managers in order to manage the funds Therefore, this fund characteristic is expected to be independent from the performance of a fund In fact, many studies find no significant evidence of the impact of this fund characteristic on fund returns (Liang, 1999; Edwards and Caglayan, 2001; Steri, Giorgino, and Viviani, 2009) However, a number of studies find negative impact of this fund characteristic on the performance of hedge funds, namely Ackermann, McEnally, and Ravenscraft (1999), Brown, Goetzmann, and Liang (2004), Kouwenberg & Ziemba (2004), Do, Faff, and Wickramanayake (2005) The findings of these studies imply that funds with higher management fees tend to perform poorly Findings on the impact of fund sizes on the performance of hedge funds are mixed Studies that find the significant positive impact of fund sizes on the performance of hedge funds are Liang (1999), Fung, Xu, and Yau (2002), Liang (2000), Brown, Goetzmann, and Liang (2004), Kouwenberg & Ziemba (2004), Do, Faff, and Wickramanayake (2005), and Nguyen et al (2011) On the other hand, some studies find no relationship between fund size and the performance of hedge funds (Regoriou and Rouah, 2002; Koh, Koh, and Teo, 2003) Moreover, a number of studies find that a fund’s size has a negative impact of on its performance (Schneeweis, Kazemi, and Martin, 2002; Harri and Brorsen, 2004; Kat and Paloro, 2005; Kat and Palaro, 2007) For fund age, the relationship between this fund characteristic and the performance of hedge funds provides mixed results in literature In Liang (2000) and Edwards and Caglayan (2001), the fund age is found to have a significant positive impact on the returns of a hedge fund However, a contradicting result is found in Liang (1999), Fung, Xu, and Yau (2002), Brown, Goetzmann, and Liang (2004), Kouwenberg & Ziemba (2004) In terms of risks, Kouwenberg & Ziemba (2004) and Do, Faff, and Wickramanayake (2005) find that the older a fund is, the higher standard deviation and systematic risk it seems to have Besides the above findings, some studies find no evidence at all that a fund’s age could have any significant impacts on performance of the fund (Ackermann, McEnally, Ravenscraft, 1999; Koh, Koh, and Teo, 2003; Kat and Palaro, 2007; Steri, Giorgino, and Viviani, 2009) Most studies find that lock-up periods have significant positive impacts on the performance of hedge funds (see Liang, 1999; Schneeweis, Kazemi, and Martin, 2002; Agarwal, Daniel, and Naik, 2007; Nguyen et al., 2011) However, the impact varies across performance measures and study periods For example, in Schneeweis, Kazemi, and Martin (2002), the positive effects of a lock-up period disappear when risk-adjusted returns are used for U.S equity hedge funds during 1996-2000 Moreover, Fung, Xu, and Yau (2002) find that the positive impact of lock-up periods on managers’ stock selection skills is not persistent throughout their sample period In examining the impact of leverage ratios on the performance of hedge funds, Agarwal and Naik (2000) find some evidence although they are not statistically significant in most cases This finding implies that funds with leverage not necessarily outperform or underperform those that not employ leverage In another study by Fung, Xu, and Yau (2002), contrasting results are found, where the leverage ratio has a strong and positive impact on the Sharpe ratio as well as Jensen’s alpha, but not on the systematic risk The results testify to the misconception among investors that higher leverage employed by a hedge fund increases its risk Nguyen et al (2011) also find significant positive impact of leverage (0.046) on the annual returns of AHFs at the 5% level For minimum investment, Koh, Koh, and Teo (2003) not find any significant evidence that a fund’s minimum investment has any relation with its monthly returns For redemption period, Koh, Koh, and Teo (2003) find a positive correlation of the redemption period and the returns of their funds, implying that a longer redemption period allows a fund to unwind from its position For redemption notification period, Steri, Giorgino, and Viviani (2009) find that the redemption notification period has a significant negative impact on the performance of Italian hedge funds at 5% level, implying that hedge funds that require longer redemption notification periods not perform better than funds that require shorter ones Clearly, from the above-reviewed literature, it is worth to note that (1) mixed results were found for individual fund characteristics, (2) not many hedge fund characteristics were explored in a single study, (3) none of similar studies has been conducted for hedge fund industries in Europe and North America Thus, we attempt to fill in these gaps RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 The EurekaHedge Databases EurekaHedge Inc is the world’s largest independent data provider and alternative research firm since 2001 EurekaHedge Inc specialises in hedge fund databases for four different regions: Asia, North America, Europe, and Latin America Besides performance data, EurekaHedge Inc., also records other useful information for hedge funds which are also useful for this study The additional information provided by EurekaHedge Inc are namely as company name, starting and ending dates, fund code, fund name, fund strategy, geographical market, size, managers' names, total asset under management, lockup period, penalty, redemption and notification period, minimum investment, listed in stock exchange, management fee and performance fee Due to the comprehensive coverage of hedge funds offered by the EurekaHedge Inc., its three regional databases are then chosen for this study to establish two samples: (1) a sample of North American hedge funds (NAHFs), and (23) a sample European hedge funds (EHFs) By November 2013, the total numbers of funds present in the three databases for NAHFs and EHFs are 6629, and 7426, respectively The reported monthly returns in EurekaHedge are all net of fees, i.e management fees and performance fees Using the definition used in Ackermann et al (1999), a monthly return for a fund defined by EurekaHedge is the percentage of change in the fund’s net asset value during the month as compared to that at the beginning of that month, assuming that any distribution such as dividends are reinvested on the reinvestment date The monthly returns are perceived to bring a greater accuracy in the estimates of risk (standard deviation) 3.2 The Study Period The study period chosen for this study is from January 2001 to 31 December 2013 This is due to the availability of the study at the time it was conducted This study period was then divided into two sub-periods: January 2001 - 31 December 2007, January 2008 - 31 December 2013, to observe if the results produced for this study may be affected by the 2008 global financial crisis 3.2 Two Regional Samples of Hedge Funds To fulfil the objective set for this study - to examine the impact of characteristics of a hedge fund on its performance -, we excluded hedge funds without information on their fund characteristics, and/or hedge funds that were closed by 31st December 2013, and/or hedge funds that not have full monthly return data for the entire period of 1st January 2001 – 31st December 2013 With the self-imposed criterion in this study, the three samples chosen consist of 325 NAHFs and 166 EHFs, respectively 3.3 Testing for Possible Data Bias for the Chosen Three samples To ensure that the chosen samples can represent well the two hedge fund industries in North America and European, a two-sample t-test to test is carried out to test if there is any statistically significant difference between the average monthly returns of each sample of hedge funds and its population present in each of the regional databases 3.2 Performance Measure – Omega Ratio In this study we adopt a new performance measure named “Omega ratio", which was first proposed by Keating and Shadwick (2002) According to Keating and Shadwick (2002), the Omega ratio takes into account the entire distribution of returns for individual hedge funds As compared with other traditional performance measures such as alpha, average return, and sharp ratio, the omega ratio is therefore, perceived to be a better performance measure for hedge funds, whose return distributions are often non-normally distributed The Omega function is constructed with regards to the quality of a bet that returns of a hedge fund would be above a predetermined threshold denoted as “r” percent The bet is successful if returns of the fund are in fact above “r” percent and vice versa The formula for the Omega ratio at the threshold of “r” percent is given below The above Omega function for the distribution F(x) is obtained by taking all possible returns, r, between two boundaries of “a” and “b” This function is mathematically equivalent to the distribution itself as it contains all of the information entailed The interpretation for an Omega ratio is quite straight-forward At a given threshold of “r” percent, a hedge fund with a higher Omega ratio is preferred over a hedge fund with a lower Omega ratio A flatter Omega curve implies a higher risk In this study, Omega ratios for all NAHFs and EHFs in the samples are computed at a chosen threshold of zero percent The use of zero percent as a threshold is based on the assumption that the targeted minimum return ought to be a positive return For hedge funds in the study samples, omega ratios are computed for individual funds throughout the sample period of 1st January 2001- 31st December 2013 The threshold "r" of 0% is chosen for this study based on a very basic rationality that positive returns are always preferred to negative returns for hedge funds 3.3 Hypothesis The general hypothesis for testing in this study is that “Fund characteristics not have any significant impacts on the performance of hedge funds in North America, and Europe” 3.4 Testing Methods The Proposed Testing Model Following Koh et al (2003) and Agarwal et al (2007), to test the impact of fund characteristics of NAHFs and EHFs on their performance, a cross-sectional regression model is employed, where omega ratios of hedge funds from the three samples are regressed against their fund characteristics as mentioned above The cross-sectional regression method is the most appropriate method since most of the fund characteristics of hedge funds are fixed over the years The dependent variable for the three regression models is the omega ratio Independent variables are 14 fund characteristics, i.e (1) fund size, (2) subscription frequency, (3) redemption frequency, (4) redemption notification frequency, (5) hurdle rate, (6) high-water mark provision, (7) management fee, (8) performance fee, (9) being listed in a stock market, (10) fund age, (11) leverage, (12) dividend, (13) penalty, and (14) fund strategies The following models will be run for our samples of hedge funds + β10 (Equation ) + β10 (Equation 2) Where is omega ratio for NAHF i; is omega ratio for EHF i; ln(FSi) is the natural logarithm of fund size for fund i; SUBi is the subscription frequency for fund i; REDi is the redemption frequency for fund i; REDNOTi is the redemption notification frequency for fund i; HRi is the hurdle rate for fund i; HMi is the high-water mark for fund i; MFi is the management fee for fund i; PFi is the performance fee for fund i; LSEi is being listed in a stock exchange for fund i; FAi is the fund age for fund i; LEi is the leverage for fund i; DIVi is dividend for fund i; PEi is the penalty for fund i; Sik is the dummy variable for strategies k for fund i, when k takes a value from to n n is the number of strategies Gik is the dummy variable for geographical mandates k for fund i, when k takes a value from to m m is the number of geographical mandates Si1 and Gik are the dummy variables that is omitted in the above equation to avoid dummy trap that causes perfect collinearity problem in the regression equation (Gujarati & Porter, 2009)1 In addition, they served as the terms of comparison for other strategies For the For the NAHF sample, Si1 and Gik are Arbitrage strategy and Asia including Japan geometrical mandate For the EHF sample, Si1 and Gik are Arbitrage strategy and Asia excluding Japan geometrical mandate The above models are used to test for the full sample period of 1st January 2001 - 31st December 2013, and also for two sub-sample periods: (1) 1st January 2001 - 31st December 2007 and (2) 1st January 2008 and 31st December 2013 Test results produced for the two sub-sample periods may shed light on the effect of the 2008 global financial crisis on the performance of both NAHFs and EHFs a Tests for Model Fit The main potential problem in a cross-sectional model is correlation in space or spatial autocorrelation caused by possible misspecification in the model (See Gujarati and Porter, 2009) Autocorrelation can occur as correlation in time series data and in space for cross-sectional data.2 In other words, autocorrelation is the lag correlation found in a given series with itself When the autocorrelation is believed to exist among the disturbances denoted as ui, it can be expressed as follows E (ui, uj) ≠ (Equation 3) Where: i ≠ j To tackle the autocorrelation problem and to ensure the fitness of two models specified in this study, a number of tests namely R-squared, F-statistic, Autoregressive Conditional Gujarati and Porter (2009) suggest that to avoid dummy variable trap for each qualitative repressor, the number of dummy variables introduced must be one less than the categories of that variable Gujarati and Porter (2009), “Basic Economics”, Firth Edition, Mc Graw Hill Inc., Singapore, p 413 Heteroscedasticity (ARHCH) Test, Breusch Godfrey (LM) Test, and Normality test, are carried out FINDINGS 4.1 Data Bias Testing for the Three Samples P-values of two-sample t-test statistics shown in Table are all greater than 0.05, suggesting that the two selected samples of NAHFs and EHFs for this study are good representations for their respective hedge fund industries present in the EurekaHedge databases Table 1: Results of Two Sample t-test for the Three Samples In this table, results of two sample t-test are presented for the three samples: sample of 325 NAHFs, and sample of 166 EHFs The difference between each sample's and its population's average monthly returns is given in the second column of the table Results of the respective t-statistics and its p-value are given in the last two columns of the table Pair Samples Sample of 325 NAHFs & Population of NAHFs Present in the Database Sample of 166 EHFs & Population of EHFs Present in the Database Difference in sample average returns t-statistics p-value 0.154 -0.757 0.449 0.110 -0.947 0.3443 4.2 Cross Sectional Analysis 4.2.1 Results for the Sample of NAHFs In Table shows the results for only fund characteristics (subscription period and 12 fund strategies) that have significant impacts on the omega ratios of NAHFs over the full sample period of 1st January 2001 – 31st December 2013 Subscription period is found to have a significant positive impact (0.077) on the performance of the NAHFs at the 1% level, implying that NAHFs with longer subscription frequencies seem to have higher omega ratios as compared to those with shorter ones Interestingly, that all the twelve NAHF strategies, i.e (1) bottom up, (2) CTA/managed futures, (3) distressed securities, (4) event driven, (5) fixed income, (6) long short equities, (7) macro, (8) multi-strategies,(9) relative value, (10) top down, (11) value, and (12) others, are found to have significantly weaker impacts on the omega ratios of NAHFs as compared to that of the arbitrage strategy Surprisingly, many fund characteristics such as fund size, 10 management fee, performance fee, geographical mandate, leverage ratio, hurdle rate, highwater-mark provision, fund age, redemption period, redemption notification period, dividend payout are found to have no statistically significant impact on the omega ratio of NAHFs The adjusted R-square statistics shows that 49.7% of omega ratios of NAHFs in the sample can be explained by all their fund characteristics P-values of F, LM, and ARCH tests certify the fitness of the model In Table 2, results for the sub-sample period of 1st January 2001 - 31st December 2007 show more fund characteristics with significant impacts on the omega ratios of NAHFs Fund size is found to have a significant positive impact (0.212) on the omega ratio of NAHFs at the 1% level, implying that large funds may allow their managers to gain larger diversification effects, and thus perform better This finding is consistent with the findings in Liang (1999), Fung, Xu, and Yau (2002), Liang (2000), Brown, Goetzmann, and Liang (2004), Kouwenberg & Ziemba (2004), Do, Faff, and Wickramanayake (2005), and Nguyen et al (2011) In addition, performance fee is found to have a positive impact on the performance of NAHFs at the 10% level, suggesting that NAHF managers are motivated by the performance fee, and thus perform bettter In terms of liquidity, redemption period and redemption notification are also found to have positive impacts, i.e.0.003 and 0.016, on the performance of NAHFs at the 1% level, respectively This suggests that longer redemption frequency and redemption notification period allow hedge fund managers to have more time to unwind their position so that further positive performance can be achieved before the fund is liquidated Similar to the results found for the full sample period, 12 above-mentioned strategies are also found to have significantly weaker impacts on the omega ratios of NAHFs as compared to that of the arbitrage strategy In terms of the goodness of fit, the adjusted R-square statistics suggest that 90.8% of the performance of NAHFs during 1st January 2001 – 31st December 2007 can be explained by all the fund characteristics P-values of F test, LM test, and ARCH test also certify the goodness of fit of the model Findings for the crisis and post-crisis sub-sample period of 1st January 2008 – 31st December 2013 shown in Table 3, are somehow similar to those found for the full sample period, from which only subscription frequency and the 12 strategies are found to have significant impacts on the performance of NAHFs The impact of longer subscription frequency during the crisis and post-crisis sub-sample period may suggest that a careful scrutiny over new subscription to NAHFs, and thus leads to a longer subscription period, may generate positive impacts on the performance of NAHFs during this period The adjusted R-square statistics suggest that 100% of omega ratios of NAHFs in the sample can be explained by all their fund characteristics This may suggest that the internal structure of NAHFs allow them to be “under-control” not only during the non-crisis period, but also during the crisis and post-crisis period P-values of F test, LM test, and ARCH test confirm the goodness of fit for the crosssectional regression model run for this period 11 Table 1: Model -Regression Results of the Impact of Fund Characteristics on the Omega ratio of 325 NAHFs for the Period of 1st January 2001 – 31st December 2013 In Panel A table, the coefficients for variables of two cross sectional regressions for NAHFs’ omega ratios on their fund characteristics, and strategies, are reported for the full sample period of 1st January 2001 – 31st December 2013 Fund size is measured in US$ million and transformed to natural logarithm Age is measured in years Management and incentive fees are measured in percentages The rest of other variables, such as leverage, hurdle rate, high water mark, lock-up, listed in stock exchange, redemption frequency, redemption notification frequency, subscription frequency, penalty, and all strategies are dummy variables These dummy variables take a value of if fund process the respective characteristic, and otherwise All results for model-fit tests are presented in Panel B table The following is equation of the regression + β10 Panel A: Independent Variables Subscription Period Bottom up CTA/Managed Futures Distressed Securities Event Driven Fixed Income Long Short Equities Macro Multi-strategies Relative Value Top Down Value Others Coefficient 0.077 -142.826 -151.739 -151.514 -152.220 -153.245 -151.640 -153.256 -152.370 -152.387 -152.217 -150.501 -151.397 t-statistics 2.619 -15.147 -15.194 -16.028 -14.994 -16.137 -15.916 -16.343 -15.712 -15.782 -15.459 -11.410 -11.755 Probability 0.009*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** Note: *, **, and *** are referred the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance level Panel B: Model Fitness Tests Statistics Adjusted R-squared Statistics F-statistics Jarque-Bera Statistics F-statistics for Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM test F-statistics for Heteroskedasticity Test: ARCH 0.497 9.338*** 644168*** 0.057 0.134 Table 2: Model -Regression Results of the Impact of Fund Characteristics on the Omega ratio of 325 NAHFs for the Period of 1st January 2001 – 31st December 2007 In Panel A table, the coefficients for variables of two cross sectional regressions for NAHFs’ omega ratios on their fund characteristics, and strategies, are reported for the full sample period of st January 2001 – 31st December 2007 Fund size 12 is measured in US$ million and transformed to natural logarithm Age is measured in years Management and incentive fees are measured in percentages The rest of other variables, such as leverage, hurdle rate, high water mark, lock-up, listed in stock exchange, redemption frequency, redemption notification frequency, subscription frequency, penalty, and all strategies are dummy variables These dummy variables take a value of if fund process the respective characteristic, and otherwise All results for model-fit tests are presented in Panel B table The following is equation of the regression + β10 Panel A: Independent Variables Coefficient t-statistics ln(size) 0.212 3.548 Performance Fee 0.0405 1.796 Redemption Period 0.003 2.898 Redemption Notification Period 0.016 3.469 Bottom up -78.924 -45.257 CTA/Managed Futures -80.809 -43.823 Distressed Securities -81.066 -46.187 Event Driven -77.255 -40.832 Fixed Income -80.609 -45.814 Long Short Equities -75.704 -43.027 Macro -81.345 -46.827 Multi-strategies -80.902 -45.104 Relative Value -80.206 -45.019 Top Down -80.310 -44.072 Value -79.906 -32.876 Others -82.122 -34.718 Note: *, **, and *** are referred the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance level Probability 0.001*** 0.074* 0.004*** 0.001*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** Panel B: Model Fitness Tests Statistics R-squared Statistics F-statistics Jarque-Bera Statistics F-statistics for Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM test F-statistics for Heteroskedasticity Test: ARCH 0.908 80.264*** 644168*** 0.058 0.134 Table 3: Model -Regression Results of the Impact of Fund Characteristics on the Omega ratio of 325 NAHFs for the Period of 1st January 2008 – 31st December 2013 In Panel A, the coefficients for variables of two cross sectional regressions for NAHFs’ omega ratios on their fund characteristics, and strategies, are reported for the full sample period of st January 2008 – 31st December 2013 Fund size is measured in US$ million and transformed to natural logarithm Age is measured in years Management and incentive fees are measured in percentages The rest of other variables, such as leverage, hurdle rate, high water mark, lock-up, listed in stock exchange, redemption frequency, redemption notification frequency, subscription frequency, penalty, and all strategies are dummy variables These dummy variables take a value of if fund process the respective characteristic, and otherwise All results for model-fit tests are presented in Panel B table The following is equation of the regression + β10 13 Panel A: Independent Variables Coefficient t-statistics Subscription Frequency 0.037 2.827 Bottom up -6.90E+12 -1.62E+12 CTA/Managed Futures -6.90E+12 -1.53E+12 Distressed Securities -6.90E+12 -1.61E+12 Event Driven -6.90E+12 -1.49E+12 Fixed Income -6.90E+12 -1.60E+12 Long Short Equities -6.90E+12 -1.60E+12 Macro -6.90E+12 -1.62E+12 Multi-strategies -6.90E+12 -1.57E+12 Relative Value -6.90E+12 -1.58E+12 Top Down -6.90E+12 -1.55E+12 Value -6.90E+12 -1.16E+12 Others -6.90E+12 -1.19E+12 Note: *, **, and *** are referred the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance level Panel B: Model Fitness Tests Statistics Adjusted R-squared Statistics F-statistics Jarque-Bera Statistics F-statistics for Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM test F-statistics for Heteroskedasticity Test: ARCH 1.00 9.00E+22*** 497416*** 0.022 0.108 Probability 0.005*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 4.2.2 Results for the Sample of EHFs Results for the cross-sectional regression run for the sample of EHFs over the full sample period are shown in Table For the sample of EHFs, fund size is found to have a significant positive impact (0.077) on the omega ratios of EHFs in the sample at the 10% level over the full sample period However, the impact of fund size was found to be insignificant for the two sub-sample periods (Table and 6) Redemption frequency is found to have a positive significant impact, i.e 0.004 and 0.023 on the performance of the EHFs in the sample for only the full sample period (Table 4) and the sub-sample period of 1st January 2001 - 31st December 2007 (Table 5) at the 10% and 1% levels, respectively This may suggest that EHFs with longer redemption frequencies may not perform better during a global financial crisis period; however, they would certainly during the non-crisis period and in a longerterm period In addition, subscription frequency is found to have a significant negative impact, i.e -0.11 and -0.038, during the full sample period (Table 4) and the sub-sample period of 1st 14 January 2001 - 31st December 2007 (Table 5), implying that EHFs with longer subscription frequency not perform well during the non-crisis period, and also in a longer term period This finding is contradicting the results found earlier for NAHFs during the full sample period and the crisis and post-crisis sub-sample period, suggesting that during the non-crisis period shorter subscription period would encourage the inflow of funds, and thus, allow EHF managers to generate positive performance for their funds As shown in Table and 5, many fund strategies (top-down, value, bottom-up, CTA/managed futures, dual approach, event driven, and long/short equities) are found to have significant impacts on the performance of EHFs in the sample for both the full sample period and the non-crisis sub-sample period However, there are more fund strategies that have significant impacts on the performance of EHFs during the non-crisis period as compared to that of the full sample period During the crisis and post crisis sub-sample period of 1st January 2008 – 31st December 2013 (Table 6), all fund characteristics except relative strategy is found to have no significant impact on the performance of EHFs This clearly indicates that the performance of EHFs is unpredictable during the crisis period During the non-crisis sub-sample period (Table 5), two additional fund characteristics, i.e fund age and management fee, are found to have significant positive impacts, i.e 0.053 and 0.399, on the omega ratios of EHFs in the sample at the 5% and 10% levels, respectively This may imply that during the non-crisis period (Table 5), well-established funds tend to perform better and management fee is not necessarily a motivating factor for EHF managers to perform better For the full sample period, the adjusted R-squared statistics indicate that 45.5% of the omega ratios of EHFs can be explained by all of their fund characteristics However, the explanatory power of fund characteristics for the performance of EHFs in the sample appears to be stronger during the non-crisis sub-sample period (60%) and lower during the crisis subsample period (31.5%) Except for Jarque-Bera normality test, p-values of F test, LM test, and ARCH test indicate the goodness of fit of the three regression models run for the full sample period (1st January 2001 - 31st December 2013), the non-crisis period (1st January 2001 - 31st December 2007) and the crisis and post crisis period (1st January 2007 - 31st December 2013) Table 4: Model -Regression Results of the Impact of Fund Characteristics on the Omega ratio of 166 EHFs for the Period of 1st January 2001 - 31st December 2013 15 In Panel A, the coefficients for variables of two cross sectional regressions for EHFs’ omega ratios on their fund characteristics, and strategies, are reported for the full sample period of 1st January 2001 - 31st December 2013 Fund size is measured in US$ million and transformed to natural logarithm Age is measured in years Management and incentive fees are measured in percentages The rest of other variables, such as leverage, hurdle rate, high water mark, lock-up, listed in stock exchange, redemption frequency, redemption notification frequency, subscription frequency, penalty, and all strategies are dummy variables These dummy variables take a value of if fund process the respective characteristic, and otherwise All results for model-fit tests are presented in Panel B table The following is equation of the regression + β10 Panel A: Independent Variables Coefficient t-statistics Redemption Frequency 0.004 2.117 Ln(size) 0.077 1.939 Subscription Frequency -0.011 -2.009 Top-Down -1.158 -1.896 Value -1.388 -2.467 Bottom up -1.246 -2.355 CTA/Managed Futures -1.285 -2.867 Dual Approach -1.120 -2.074 Event Driven -1.497 -2.466 Long Short Equities -1.247 -2.817 Note: *, **, and *** are referred the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance level Probability 0.038** 0.057* 0.048** 0.062* 0.016** 0.022** 0.006*** 0.042** 0.016** 0.006*** Panel B: Model Fitness Tests Statistics Adjusted R-squared Statistics F-statistics Jarque-Bera Statistics F-statistics for Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM test F-statistics for Heteroskedasticity Test: ARCH 0.455 3.305*** 114.297*** 1.074653 0.211680 Table 5: Model -Regression Results of the Impact of Fund Characteristics on the Omega ratio of 166 EHFs for the Period of 1st January 2001 - 31st December 2007 In Panel A, the coefficients for variables of two cross sectional regressions for EHFs’ omega ratios on their fund characteristics, and strategies, are reported for the full sample period of 1st January 2001 - 31st December 2007 Fund size is measured in US$ million and transformed to natural logarithm Age is measured in years Management and incentive fees are measured in percentages The rest of other variables, such as leverage, hurdle rate, high water mark, lock-up, listed in stock exchange, redemption frequency, redemption notification frequency, subscription frequency, penalty, and all strategies are dummy variables These dummy variables take a value of if fund process the respective characteristic, and otherwise All results for model-fit tests are presented in Panel B table The following is equation of the regression + β10 16 Panel A: Independent Variables Coefficient t-statistics Age 0.053 2.125 Management Fee -0.399 -1.904 Redemption Frequency 0.023 7.142 Subscription Frequency -0.038 -4.143 Macro -1.898 -2.116 Relative Value -2.065 -1.848 Top-Down -2.821 -2.684 Value -3.419 -3.535 Bottom up -3.041 -3.341 CTA/Managed Futures -2.477 -3.213 Dual Approach -2.708 -2.915 Event Driven -3.497 -3.349 Fixed Income -1.611 -1.909 Long Short Equities -2.764 -3.630 Note: *, **, and *** are referred the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance level Panel B: Model Fitness Tests R-squared Statistics F-statistics Jarque-Bera Statistics F-statistics for Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM test F-statistics for Heteroskedasticity Test: ARCH Probability 0.037** 0.061* 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.038** 0.069* 0.009*** 0.000*** 0.001*** 0.002*** 0.005*** 0.001*** 0.060* 0.001*** Statistics 0.599 5.136*** 9.416*** 1.329 2.592 Table 6: Model -Regression Results of the Impact of Fund Characteristics on the Omega ratio of 166 EHFs for the Period of 1st January 2008 - 31st December 2013 In Panel A, the coefficients for variables of two cross sectional regressions for EHFs’ omega ratios on their fund characteristics, and strategies, are reported for the full sample period of 1st January 2008 - 31st December 2013 Fund size is measured in US$ million and transformed to natural logarithm Age is measured in years Management and incentive fees are measured in percentages The rest of other variables, such as leverage, hurdle rate, high water mark, lock-up, listed in stock exchange, redemption frequency, redemption notification frequency, subscription frequency, penalty, and all strategies are dummy variables These dummy variables take a value of if fund process the respective characteristic, and otherwise All results for model-fit tests are presented in Panel B table The following is equation of the regression + β10 Panel A: Independent Variables Coefficient t-statistics Relative Value 1.863 3.743 Others 1.003 1.852 Note: *, **, and *** are referred the 10%, 5%, and 1% significance level Panel B: Model Fitness Tests Statistics Adjusted R-squared Statistics 0.315 Probability 0.000*** 0.068* 17 F-statistics Jarque-Bera Statistics F-statistics for Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM test F-statistics for Heteroskedasticity Test: ARCH 2.265*** 9.416*** 1.329 2.592 Conclusions In summary, results produced from the cross sectional regression analysis provide some explanations about the internal structures of NAHFs and EHF in the sample Fund characteristics that appear to have an important effect on the performance of both NAHFs and EHFs are fund strategies During the non-crisis sub-sample period, more fund characteristics have significant impact on the performance of NAHFs and EHFs as compared to that during the crisis and post-crisis sub-sample period As compared to NAHFs, the performance of EHFs is rarely affected by theirs fund characteristics during the crisis- and post-crisis subsample period All models are reasonably accepted to be fit based on the results provided by the F, LM, and ARCH tests Although the Jarque-Bera statistics suggest that the residuals of all models not follow a normal distribution, the selected sample sizes for NAHFs and EHFs are believed to be large enough to overlook the result of this test REFERENCES Agarwal, V, & Naik, NY 2000b ‘On Taking the Alternative Route: Risks, Rewards, and Performance Persistence of Hedge funds’ Journal of Alternative Investment, vol , pp.6-23 Agarwal, V, & Naik, NY 2000a ‘Multi-Period Performance Persistence Analysis of Hedge Funds’ Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, vol 35, no , pp.327-342 Baquero, G, Horst, JT, & Verbeek, M 2005 ‘Survival, Look-Ahead Bias, and Persistence in Hedge Fund Performance’ Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, vol 40, no , pp.493-517 Bares, P A, Gibson, R, & Gyger, S 2003 ‘Performance in the Hedge Funds industry: An Analysis of Short- and Long-Term Persistence’ The Journal of Alternative 18 Investments, Winter , pp.25-41 Brown, SJ, & Goetzmann, WN 1995 ‘Performance Persistence’ Journal of Finance, vol 50, no , pp.679-698 Brown, SJ, Goetzmann, WN, & Ibbotson, RG 1999 ‘Offshore Hedge Funds: Survival and Performance 1989-1995’ Journal of Business, vol 72 , pp.91-118 Brown, SJ, Goetzmann, WN, & Liang, B 2004 ‘Fees on Fees in Funds of Funds’, Working paper No 02-33 Yale International Center for Finance Capocci, D, & Hübner, G 2004 ‘Analysis of Hedge Fund Performance’ Journal of Empirical Finance, vol 11 , pp.55-89 Capocci, D, Corhay, A, & Hübner, G 2005 ‘Hedge Fund Performance and Persistence in Bull and Bear Markets’ European Journal of Finance, vol 11, no , pp.361-392 Carhart, MM 1997 ‘On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance’ Journal of Finance, Vol.52 , pp.57-82 Carpenter, JN, & Lynch, AW 1999 ‘Survivorship Bias and Attrition Effects in Measures of Performance Persistence’ Journal of Financial Economics, vol 54 , pp.337-374 Christensen, R 1997 ‘Log-linear Models and Logistic Regression, 2nd Edition’ USA: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc Christensen, R 1990 ‘Log-Linear Models’, 1st Edition, New York: NY: Springer-Verlag Droms, W G, & Walker, D A 2001 ‘Performance Persistence of International Mutual Fund’ Global Finance Journal, Vol 12, pp.237-248 Droms, WG, & Walker, DA 2001 ‘Persistence of Mutual Fund Operating Characteristics: returns, turnover rates, and expense ratios’ Applied Financial Economics, vol 11, pp.457-466 19 Edwards, FR, & Caglayan, MO 2001 ‘Hedge Fund Performance and Manager Skill’ Journal of Future Markets, vol 21, no , p.1003 Elton, E, Gruber, M, & Blake, C 1996 ‘The Persistence of Risk-Adjusted Mutual Fund Performance’ Journal of Business, vol 69, no.2 , pp.133-157 Fama, EF 1970 ‘Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work’ Journal of Finance, vol 25, no , pp.383-417 Fama, EF 1991 ‘Efficient Capital Markets: II’ Journal of Finance, vol 46, no , pp.15751617 Fung, HG, Xu, XE, & Yau, J 2004 ‘Do Hedge Fund Manangers Display Skill?’ The Journal of Alternative Investments, Spring , pp.22-31 Goetzmann, WN, & Ibbotson, RG 1994 ‘Do Winners Repeat?’ Journal of Portfolio Management, vol 20, no , pp.9-18 Gregoriou, GN, & Rouah, F 2002 ‘Large versus Small Hedge Funds: Does Size Affect Performance?’ the Journal of Alternative Investments , pp.75-77 Grinblatt, M, & Titman, S 1989 ‘Mutual Fund Performance: An Analysis of Quarterly Portfolio Holdings’ Journal of Business, vol 62, no , pp.393-416 Grinblatt, M, & Titman, S 1992 ‘The Persistence of Mutual Fund Performance Journal of Finance’, vol 47, no , pp.1977-1984 Gruber, MJ 1996 ‘Another Puzzle: The Growth in Actively Managed Mutual Funds’ Journal of Finance, vol 51 , pp.783-810 Harri, A, & Brorsen, BW 2004 ‘Performance Persistence and the Source of Returns for Hedge Funds’ Applied Financial Economies, vol 14 , pp.131-141 Hendricks, D, Patel, J, & Zeckhauser, R 1993 ‘Hot Hands in Mutual Funds: Short-Run 20 Persistence of Relative Performance, 1974-1988’ Journal of Finance, vol 48, no 1, pp.93-130 Herzberg, MM, & Mozes, HA 2003 ‘The Persistence of Hedge Fund Risk: Evidence and Implication for Investors’ Journal of Alternative Investment, Fall , pp.22-42 Horst, JR, Nijman, T, & Verbeek, M 2001 ‘Eliminating Look-Ahead Bias in Evaluating Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance’ Journal of Empirical Finance, vol , pp.345-373 Ibbotson, RG, & Patel, AK 2002 ‘Do Winners Repeat with Style?’, Yale ICF Working PaperNo 00-70 the USA.: Yale International Center for Finance Elton, EJ, Gruber, MJ, Brown, SJ, & Goetzmann, WN 2003 ‘Modern Portfolio Theory and Investment Analysis’, 6th Edition the U.S: John Wiley & Sons Reilly, FK, & Brown, KC 2003 ‘Investment Analysis Portfolio Management’, 7th Edition the U.S: Thomson South-Western Kat, HM, & Menexe, F 2003 ‘Persistence in Hedge Fund Performance: The True Value of a Track Record’ Journal of Alternative Investment, Spring , pp.66-72 Kat, HM, & Menexe, F 2002 ‘Persistence in Hedge Fund Performance: The True Value of a Track Record, Working Paper’ London, U.K.: Alternative investment Research Centre, Cass Business School, City University Koh, F, Koh, WT, & Teo, M 2003 ‘Asian Hedge Funds: Return Persistence, Style, and Fund Characteristics’, Working Paper Singapore Management University Kouwenberg, R, & Ziemba, WT 2004 ‘Incentive and Risk Taking in Hedge Funds’, Working paper Asian Institute of Technology and Erasmus University Rotterdam Liang, B 1999 ‘On the Performance of Hedge Funds’ Financial Analyst Journal, vol 4, 21 pp.72-85 Liang, X 2000 ‘Survivorship Bias in Mutual Fund Performance: Evidence in Canadian Mutual Funds’ Quebec, Canada : Thesis summated to Concordia University Montreal MacCrary, S A 2002 ‘How to Create and Manange a Hedge Fund: A professional's Guide’ Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, inc., Malkiel, B 1995 ‘Returns from investing in equity mutual funds 1971 to 1991’ Journal of Finance, vol.50 , pp.549-572 Nguyen, T.P.L, Cheng M Y, Hossain, S, & Sy, M.O 2011 ‘Effects of Fund Characteristics on the Peformance of Asian Hedge Funds’ Journal of Business and Policy Research, vol 6, no.2, pp.52-69 Schneeweis, T, Kazemi, H, & Martin, G 2002 ‘Understanding Hedge Fund Performance: ‘Research Issues Revisited - Part I’ Journal of Alternative Investment , vol 5, no 3, pp.6-22 Steri, R, Giorgino, M, & Viviani, D 2009 ‘The Italian hedge funds industry: an empirical analaysis of perforamnce and persistence’ Journal of Multinational Financial Management , vol 19 , pp.75-91 22 ... show evidence of the significant impacts of fund strategies on the performance of both NAHFs and EHFs More fund characteristics are found to have significant impacts on the performance of NAHFs and. .. set for this study - to examine the impact of characteristics of a hedge fund on its performance -, we excluded hedge funds without information on their fund characteristics, and/ or hedge funds. .. of North American hedge funds (NAHFs), and (23) a sample European hedge funds (EHFs) By November 2013, the total numbers of funds present in the three databases for NAHFs and EHFs are 6629, and