Memorandum Of Understanding Of The Management Of The: Fill & Download for Free

Short version: We turn over every stone, and keep turning before, during, and after an investment is made.Long version: I perform hedge fund due-diligence (DD) for family office and institutional investors so this topic is quite near and dear to me. I’m proud to have steered our clients away from several funds that turned out to either be fraudulent or blew up for operational reasons. We’re dealing with allocation sizes in the tens of millions so the stakes are obviously very high. I’ll try to be as detailed as possible but this will really only scratch the surface at best.There are several objectives to hedge fund DD (and it’s not all about making sure the manager isn't a Madoff.) It helps to recognize from the outset that each hedge fund is first and foremost a business, and for businesses to be successful they need to have a differentiated product, a repeatable process for creating that product, and as a potential client you need to evaluate your own need for the product. In other words, what is the manager's differentiating 'edge' (see Nate Anderson's answer to As a fund manager, what’s the best response to, "What is your edge?" when asked by a potential investor? I talk about the differentiated strategy approach and team experience. I’m not sure there’s a genuine structural edge in the investment business.), what is the process for exploiting that edge, and how does it fit into your portfolio?To answer these questions investors must gain a deeper understanding of all of the following: (a) the strategy, (b) the investment process, (c) the people involved in the fund, (d) the ‘business’ operations of the fund, and (e) the performance track-record.Initial ReviewTypically, the DD process starts with an initial document review to glean the basics and see if its worth taking the meeting. I generally start with the tearsheet, presentation, and recent investor letters. Every investor has their own limiting criteria, but depending on the investor some will pass right away due to factors such as:Size of the fund. Some investors want the sense of ‘safety’ from a large fund, while others prefer smaller funds due to their higher return potential. (My diligence is generally focused on smaller funds, which may have higher operational risk, so the research burden tends to be higher.)Undifferentiated strategy or an unfavorable strategy for the market environment.Lack of a track record. Many institutions and investors require 3 years of track-record or a ‘portable’ track record from a manager's previous firm in order to get comfortable with their historical ability to perform. Again, I have some investors who are comfortable being 'day-1' money which raises the due-diligence threshold.Poor relative or absolute historical performance.High volatility or large drawdowns.Poor quality of investor communication. The only thing that differentiates a 'black-box' from a transparent fund is communication. If the communication from managers is sparse or uninformative it is tough to get comfortable with a strategy. We generally like to see monthly performance updates with quarterly commentary. Anything more frequent may mean the manager is spending too much time writing, and anything less means we are in the dark for too long.Lack of credible third-party service providers (auditor, independent fund administrator, prime broker, legal counsel.) Third-party service providers are the checks and balances on a manager's operations. Investors do not get compensated for taking on unnecessary operational risks, so if we don't see auditors, administrators, and prime brokers in place we will pass immediately.MeetingIf the manager passes our initial document review we'll take a meeting. The first meeting(s) are usually the standard pitch, a walk-through of the presentation, and a high-level Q&A. Though we'll have an idea going in on what we want answered and what we'd like to discuss, we let the manager start with their pitch and always end up free-forming after a while. The idea is to get a sense of the manager, personality, and to probe on different areas of interest or concern and get a sense of whether it holds up.If the strategy, performance, fund structure, and people all pass the initial smell test and merit further interest, due-diligence begins in earnest. An initial document list is requested which generally includes:Marketing materials:Investor letters since inception. These give us a sense of the quality of communication, investment ideas, research, and insight into the manager’s personality and approach.Relevant PR such as interviews, press releases, and published articles.Due-diligence questionnaire aka the ‘DDQ’. This is a key document that asks 100+ detailed questions about the fund. The AIMA (Alternative Investment Management Association) version is the most common DDQ. We review the DDQ provided by the manager and compare it with the AIMA DDQ to see if the manager deleted any questions from the list. Usually, when a question is missing from a DDQ it's because it was irrelevant to the strategy, but sometimes a deleted question can be HIGHLY relevant and show what questions the manager doesn’t want to answer. (Here's a random completed DDQ off Google in case you’d like to get a sense of what that document looks like: Page on opcvm360.com)Research samples. Again these give us a sense of the depth and focus of the investment process.Legal:Private Placement Memorandum. This is the legal doc outlining key terms of the fund. This is generally where all the nuances on fees and fund structure are found. See How do you describe, calculate, and interpret management and incentive fees and net-of-fees returns to hedge funds? for more detail on nonsense to be aware of surrounding hedge fund fees.Subscription documents. We review to make sure everything is consistent with the PPM.Partnership agreements. These detail terms of the business structure and can also detail nuances of the fund structure.State certificate of organization/LP certificate/state registration doc, IRS W-9 tax ID form. These are mostly just confirmatory documents.Other:Audits since inception. The independent auditor’s report is of critical importance, as it will reconcile assets, portfolio balances, performance, and often provide insights on portfolio construction, liquidity of underlying assets, and back-office protocols.Independent prime brokerage report as of last completed audit. This allows us to see even more detail on the portfolio from the time of last audit and allows us to reconcile the audit with the actual portfolio. If anything doesn’t line up with the audit it means either we or the auditor are missing something.Reference list. They will all obviously be glowing references, but the choice of references can be very important. Who they leave out of the reference list is often more instructive than who is included. That being said, sometimes good information can be found through the references.Service provider contact information. We verify the relationship with each service provider, and perform due-diligence on the service providers to get an understanding of the terms and length of the relationship with the fund.Any external or internal risk reports. These give us a sense of how they measure risk, what risks they control for, and how they fall within those parameters.Regulatory registration documents such as form ADV for advisers. This is more confirmatory information but can also show critical pieces of information such as assets under management as of a particular date, key principals, number and type of clients, and compliance with the law.Once the document review is completed, you’ll likely have a better understanding (and many new questions) about key issues surrounding the 3 P’s: people, process & performance. The next step is to dig on areas of interest or concern to learn more on each of these three areas.PeopleOne of my favorite stories on manager due-diligence came from a well-known investor who passed on a hedge fund because of a raincoat:The investor wanted to get to know the manager better, so they agreed to go on a hike. Halfway up the mountain it began to downpour. Unfortunately, the manager hadn’t checked the forecast and spent the latter part of the hike completely drenched. The (dry) investor realized at that point that the manager was a little too focused on the adventure ahead of him and not at all focused on managing the predictable risks along the way. The investor passed due to concerns over risk management.We haven’t passed on any managers over rain gear, but I think the point is relevant. In poker, you must observe everything about a player; betting patterns, style of play, tolerance for risk, and personality. You piece together an understanding of the person from the data in order to get a sense of their tendencies. The same applies to due-diligence on people. Fortunately we have a lot more data to work with than at a poker table:Background checks. We use a service that looks for criminal, regulatory, and civil infractions, including Anti-Money-Laundering checks on all principals and key employees of a prospective firm.Regulatory checks. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has a very comprehensive database of brokers and investment adviser firms that shows whether individuals or firms have had any regulatory infractions, their registration status, whether they’ve had any arbitration awards issued against them, and the full employment record of registered individuals (among other things). It also ties into the SEC database which is often relevant for larger firms. All of this is obviously extremely valuable background information. One little trick we use is to match up the employment record of the principal with the bio in their marketing materials. Often they will leave firms out of their bio if they had a bad experience there, though they'll include it on their regulatory filings. It may bring up points that require further digging: BrokerCheck: Research Brokers & Investment AdvisersBack-channel reference checks. This is probably one of the hardest things to do effectively, particularly for industry outsiders, but this can be a source of absolutely critical information. This is the scuttlebutt; the “I’ll talk to my guy who worked in this manager’s Deutsche Bank division when he was a portfolio manager...” This approach is often how you get the ‘real’ story behind a manager.Regular ol’ reference checks. You have to cut through the glowing praise and ask the right questions to really get a sense of the truth, but these can be helpful.Direct interviews with the manager. This doesn’t have to be a cross examination but during the meetings there should be a component of confirmatory questions along with getting a sense of the manager’s personality, background, and approach.Google. (Never underestimate!) I was asked by a family office to diligence a manager and I googled the manager before anything. Past investors had posted on a forum that the manager lost 90%+ of their money by making risky bets then doubling down when the original bets didn’t work out.Skin in the GameAlso worth noting is that it's incredibly important to know that the manager has invested in their own fund, and that they are risking their assets alongside yours. Most investors want to know what percentage of the manager's liquid net worth is in the fund, and will often request documents to prove it.Operational and Investment ProcessNow that you understand more about the people you’re working with, you want to understand the structure and processes that constrain them.A hedge fund, like any other business, creates a product (a portfolio). In order to generate consistent portfolio performance you need to understand the sausage factory, including both the investment process AND the operational processes in place.I know what you’re thinking—operations are boring. The sexy stuff is how people come up with their brilliant investment ideas. Unfortunately, the operations and business side of the fund are not trivial matters; research has shown that over half of all hedge fund blow-ups occur due to operational issues that have nothing to do with the investment process. As unappealing as it is to try to figure out the nuances of how Net Asset Value is calculated and reconciled with the fund administrator, it’s even less appealing to lose a billion dollars because you didn’t take the time. (Yes, turning over every stone means turning over the ugly ones too.)I’ve seen institutional investors pass on funds for reasons which may not be immediately obvious problems to a new hedge fund investor. Below are some examples. If you can think through the issues or potential issues with each real-life scenario below then you are off to a good start:A small fund required a single signatory on cash transfers.A fund had legal entities for their marketing, deal sourcing, and investment divisions of the firm.A large, well-known fund has used a big-4 firm as their auditor since inception, and worked with several offices of the firm over the course of their relationship.The same fund in #3 managed their fund administration internally.A fund was down 3% one month.A fund had rehypothecation agreements in place with their Prime Broker, a major, well-respected Wall St. bank.I imagine some of the above might not even sound like English. So what does it mean and why were these all problems for the prospective investors?Single signatory. Like any other business, embezzlement can be a problem for hedge funds. Requiring a single signatory to move cash, particularly for a small fund, means that a founder/key employee can potentially loot the place without limits. It’s not unheard of for a business owner to get served divorce papers then decide it's time for an early retirement in a tropical, non-extradition friendly country. On a less major scale, an employee may embezzle smaller amounts systematically over time. Hedge funds generally have much higher asset liquidity than traditional businesses, and therefore cash stewardship is of utmost importance. For these reasons, institutions usually require double signatories on cash transfers, often with one signatory being a credible, independent fund administrator.Multiple legal entities. Separate legal entities are put in place to limit liability (and potentially transparency) between entities. Whenever a manager puts legal shields in place between different operational aspects of a fund the investor should have a very clear understanding of why that is the case. In this case the reasons didn’t pass the smell test, and were likely in place to obscure important information for investors.Using several offices of the same accountant. Accountants understand the concept of multiple legal entities all too well. For example, each office of PWC may have its own separate legal entity which protects the greater organization and other offices from shared liability. In other words, working with 3 different offices of the same firm can be like working with 3 completely different firms. Another fact about accountants: If they find a problem with a fund (or a company) they will often resign rather than report their suspicions. In this particular example, 3 offices of the same accounting firm resigned over the course of the life of the fund. Unfortunately, most investors just thought: "Well, the manager has used a credible firm since inception, therefore it’s all kosher." Wrong.In-sourced administration. Approximately 90% of all hedge fund frauds would be eliminated through use of a credible outside fund administrator to manage valuation, NAV reporting, subscriptions/redemptions, and the back-office functions of a hedge fund. Madoff (again) in-sourced his administration. He couldn’t have reasonably pulled off his fraud had he used a credible outside administrator.Fund down 3% in a month. This by itself isn’t a problem. Some funds have high volatility and +/- 5% or more in a month isn’t unusual. The problem was that this particular fund’s investment strategy was expected to generate a slow, consistent half percent a month. A drawdown in one month of 3% in the context of that strategy was a red flag. The next month the fund was down 9% and subsequently lost another 20% before shutting down.Rehypothe-what?? Rehypothecation is when the fund lends their securities to their prime broker. The broker can then use the securities as collateral to lend against, and will generally pay the fund a small fee in return, which helps lower the fund’s brokerage expenses. Here’s bottom line: When Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, this small distinction determined who 'owned' the assets. It was the difference between blow-up or solvency for many funds. (Literally billions were lost or saved over this nuanced operational detail.)In addition to operational processes, the investor must understand the investment processes in order to get a sense of how the fund’s portfolio is constructed. How does the manager source ideas, and what does their own research consist of? What kind of risks does the fund take? Risks such as currency, security, sector, market, interest rate, volatility, and countless other risks can be a part of the portfolio construction process. How does the manager make sure they are adequately compensated for those risks? How do these risks fit into the investor’s broader portfolio? Professional portfolio managers must account for all of these factors with the funds they invest.Performance.On every disclaimer on every document you will read from a hedge fund it will say: "Past performance is not indicative of future results." I'm generally not a fan of legalese but this bit should be taken as gospel. Historical returns are in the past, and without understanding them in the context of the strategy, the risks taken, and the changing nature of the strategy in the market then those returns are meaningless. Statistics lie. At the very least they can mislead: Did you know that the Vatican City has 5.9 Popes per square mile? True fact.Lets go through another quick example. If a manager tells you “we returned 100% last year.” Are you:(a) Excited(b) Interested(c) Skeptical/unsure(d) Overwhelmed by feelings of inferiority over your own lousy returnsIf the answer is anything other than lots of ‘c’ with a little bit of ‘b’ then you need to learn more about what performance means. (If your answer is ‘d’ I suggest yoga.)Performance needs to be understood in context. What risks did you take to make 100%? What is the volatility an investor can expect on those kinds of returns? (No matter how great your returns are, you only need to lose 100% once to wipe it all out.) Statistics like Sharpe ratios, maximum drawdown, correlation, and volatility can only really be helpful in the context of the market and the strategy that contributed to that performance.I once met with a manager who returned 142% in 2009 and 55% in 2010. Those were eye-popping returns, and they had all the right service providers and statistical ratios to ‘prove’ how credible and great they were.The manager told me that their whole strategy was to analyze momentum price signals, because “when you focus on one thing all day you get pretty good at it.” They were a complete black box as far as their model and their investment process, but the manager shared one aspect of the model: “When the market goes up we are able to capture those returns, but as soon as the market starts to drop, the model shuts down in order to mitigate any losses.” Classic baloney. (Explanation: Unless you know whether the market will continue to go down or up you can't determine when to turn the model on or off. He was basically implying that they could perfectly predict the direction of future price action in the market.)I passed on the fund, and it literally blew up the next month. (To be fair, I didn’t realize it would blow up so soon, though I did know that it would inevitably blow up with those returns coupled with no credible explanation of how they produced them or why they would persist.) The moral is that it's hard to find an edge and generate consistent returns, and historical performance (whether good or bad) has to be understood in full context.OverallThis overview really just scratches the surface but hopefully the framework and actionable tips are helpful. Many institutions view their due-diligence process as proprietary, but personally I’d rather see all investors have a deeper understanding of the process. It’s bad for the industry when charlatans run around with impunity, and quality diligence helps lift the entire profession. Most hedge fund managers are good people (honestly), but even among good people there can be a lot of average performers and undifferentiated strategies. A good due-diligence process can be both informative and collaborative-- in addition to learning about the managers our DD process often leads to operational improvements among funds we work with.Take your time, and don’t be afraid to ask even seemingly stupid or awkward questions. The best questions are often a little bit awkward. Always keep in mind that the next stone you turn over could be the difference between gaining or losing everything. If a manager seems reticent to provide information or answer your questions its generally a sign of what the relationship will look like going forward. Investments in hedge funds are ultimately partnerships and the good managers will understand and appreciate your need to learn before investing. Good luck!

No.Maybe 5–10% of the points on the bar exam actually come from your knowledge of the rules. 15% tops.It may sound sacrilegious for me to say it, but that’s the truth, and I say that as a former bar exam instructor. I taught students how to pass the bar.The bar exam is a test of time management, ability to stay calm under extreme pressure, issue spotting, critical thinking, and fast-paced analysis.The bar has three parts, the MPT, MEE, and MBE, or some variation of those depending on jurisdiction.The MPTPart of the bar exam is “open book” in most jurisdictions, in the form of the Multistate Professional Test, or MPT. It’s a closed-universe part of the exam where you are given a case file and a library of research set in the fictional state of Franklin. The exam taker’s job is to read the assignment memorandum and produce a piece of work product analogous to what a first-year associate would likely have to draft.The key to the MPT is to remain calm, work at a steady pace, and keep an eye on the clock. From there, it’s just learning the local law, quickly, and then using it to figure out what the dispositive facts to the case are. With a little practice, this can be done quickly and easily.The MEEThen there is the Multistate Essay Exam, or state-level essay exam equivalent. The test taker is given a series of brief questions expected to take about a half-hour to answer.These do require an understanding of the broad level concepts of the law and maybe some specific nuances.But a good test taker understands that issue spotting is the key to the MEE.Why?Because you can’t lose points for getting the law wrong.You start at zero and work your way up. You don’t get penalized for having the law wrong, as in that the examiners take points away. There is no penalty for guessing.And if you’re close, they’ll usually give it to you. So, if you don’t know the law, make one up. The law is usually logical and geared towards “what would be a just outcome?” There’s a pretty good chance that if you make up a rule, it will be at least close to the actual law enough to get most of the points.And even if the law is flatly wrong, the analysis is where 50% of the points come from. The examiners aren’t worried about whether you get the “right” answer. They want to see whether you can distinguish the relevant facts and apply them to the rule to come to a logically supported legal outcome.You can come to the exact opposite conclusion as the exam writers and still get full points if you have a highly effective, logically supported argument.Just dumping the rules from memory is useless if you can’t show the examiners how it applies to the facts.The MBEThis is the multiple choice part of the bar exam. It’s six hours, 200 questions, and each question is about half a page. You have a minute and 48 seconds per question, effectively, and you can bet that the first minute of that is just reading the question and the answer choices.Memorization of the rules here is utterly useless if you can’t issue spot worth a damn. You have to be able to understand precisely what rule is called up by the facts of the question. From there, knowledge of the nuances of the rule is important, but less important than being able to rule out answer choices that are incorrect.This is a test of endurance, question prioritization, issue spotting, and lastly memorization.TimeTime is the number one enemy on the bar exam. You just don’t have it.An open book exam is a disaster on time if everything isn’t perfectly well organized. You need to find the page, look up the correct rule, and then go back to the answer choices. That’s just too much off the clock to do it on every answer that you’re stumped on if you only turned to it in an emergency. You’d never finish the test in the allotted time.I was one of the top scores in my jurisdiction. I flagged questions that I thought I knew and ones I didn’t know at all to come back to. Out of 200 questions, I think I flagged at least 75 as “don’t know off the top of my head” and at least an additional 30 that I flat out didn’t have a clue.Assuming I’m Lightning McQueen over here with the most well-tabbed outline in the history of humanity and I can find the rule and apply it in 30 seconds for each of those answers, that’s at least an additional 45–50 minutes of time required for the exam.Most students run out of time to even complete all the questions. Remember: one minute, 48 seconds for each question, on average.And the students who don’t know the rules well? The ones who think they can wing it? They’d be worse off.OverallThis is a norm-referenced test that gets curved. It’s like outrunning a bear. You don’t have to run faster than the bear, you have to run faster than the guy next to you.For the most part, that results in a passing score if you can get about maybe 60% ish correct out of the raw score, depending on jurisdiction.Everyone in the field knows that your bar score isn’t a measure of your knowledge of the law. Nobody will even ask you for it. As long as you passed, it’s assumed you will be at least competent at some point.But what the bar exam does measure is fortitude and the ability to think quickly and remain calm in doing quick, on the spot analysis.An open-book bar exam wouldn’t test that.So, no, the bar exam absolutely shouldn’t be open book/open notes.

The Chartered Accountants apex body, ICAI has signed a MoU with the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIM Ahmedabad) for conducting management training programmes for CAs.The objectiveThe objective of the initiative is to establish mutual cooperation between the institutes for offering and co-hosting open enrolment and customized training programs exclusively for Chartered Accountants (CAs).Mutual collaboration to provide opportunity for CAs"Mutual collaboration will bring a new dimension to the area of accounting and management education in the country. Courses conducted under the MoU will provide opportunity for chartered accountants to enhance their management skill sets required for key positions in business and industry," said Naveen N D Gupta, President, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI).The benefit of MoU signed between IIM Ahmedabad and ICAI"The MoU will benefit the chartered accountants in acquiring a number of skills required in today's digitised and fast-changing business environment.Participants will be exposed to emerging concepts, technology and business practices in achieving operational excellence," he said.As part of the MoU, a five-day residential programme 'Advanced leadership programme for Chartered Accountants' is being organised at IIM Ahmedabad from December 24 to 28.Source:- www.indiatoday.inDon't forget to upvote if you like.Share you opinions regarding this memorandum of understanding between ICAI and IIM-A.Follow me for more interesting Q&A.Regards,Anish Verma ✍️