A down market would do this.  That is, bring out a debate on the benefits of hedge fund-like investing.  With indexing and ETFs, one would think it’s all about gaining exposure to markets (hopefully on the upside) and reducing or eliminating exposure when required as a defensive measure.  You can call that effectively tweaking the asset mix or full out market timing.

However, today’s ETF industry is one that has evolved.  With inverse ETFs, any investor can now literally “build their own hedge fund”.  Shorting and the use of options requires a margin account which is not a big deal but now as long as one can open a trading account of the most basic kind, there’s not much to it to gain short exposure.
So this brings me to an email I received today care of Google Alerts which is a pretty amazing service.  You can basically tell Google to email you when anything new appears on the web related to a specific search.  Of course, for this blog something like “ETF” and “exchange traded fund” would do it.  The bad side to the service is you can easily have a big pile of emails in your inbox.

Anyway, here’s what I received today:

So on one side we have Bill Schmick and the other is John Bogle, the latter care of Tom Lydon at ETF Trends.  With Schmick and Bogle, it seems more appropriate to consider this debate as David and Goliath.  Although I understand Bogle’s comments regarding the newly filed Direxion ETFs with 300% market exposure, let’s be real … their appeal will be limited.  There will be no domino effect with new or existing ETF providers following up with leverage of 400% or higher.  If by chance they do, shame!  I’m certain market forces will simply laugh such products off the street.  Let me be clear:  Investors of all types will generally pass on Direxion or anyone else who goes down the path of even higher leverage than what we seen in the ETF marketplace today.

Is there demand for extreme leverage?  Of course.  Hedge funds play this game all the time.  Part of the basic reasoning is simply to juice the returns of strategies that don’t have the same bang they once did (crowded markets).  But these market participants use the derivative markets where they can better fine tune their required exposures, not simply some multiple of 100.  And of course, we know the difference between the returns provided from futures markets compared to the “daily return” limitation of levered/inverse ETFs.  Truly sophisticated investors will understand when to use levered/inverse ETFs and when to go to the futures market, swap market or other market for their required exposure needs.  So Bogle’s worries about extreme levered ETFs, I believe are in themselves, extreme.

Schmick on the other hand seems quite reasonable in his comments.  Unlike Bogle who might find some degree of the sector ETF universe unnecessary, I would side with Schmick on the benefits of sector ETFs for defensive strategies.  It’s unclear what Bogle would deem as “reasonable” as opposed to “absurd” in sector ETFs but I’d guess that the lineup from HealthShares would be the example given for the latter.  Since assets in this family of ETFs is relatively small, the point is moot.  But whether it’s the exposures provided by HealthShares ETFs or other rather new and esoteric areas like nanotech or cleantech, there are many reasons why investors implement sector based exposures, defensive or otherwise.  I wouldn’t want to take that away from them.  Market forces will take away the undesirables as required.

To reiterate what I’ve said many times before: In today’s highly correlation markets, diversification is the first line of defense but can only get you so far in addition to shifting the asset mix to increased cash holdings when markets decline for a prolonged period.  Sector rotation is one of the few defensive strategies left to investors.  The use of put options as an insurance policy to be bought in extreme up markets is another good one.  The use of inverse ETFs to join in on the momentum on the downside thereafter is good as well.  It would seem that the most classic of index/ETF proponents would want to stick with the strict buy-hold, rigid asset allocation philosphy which is fine.  But not for everyone.

A tough stomach is required in times of distress.  I’d hope that in today’s market (not meant to mean short-term oriented “today”), investors do not make rash decisions and completely overhaul their game plan.  My cynical views on active management and hedge fund performance still lead me to believe that there’s something to be learned from Bogle and those in his camp including not just Vanguard but DFA.  However, I think that investors, either with or without financial counsel, should consider what degree of non buy-hold thinking applies to their portfolio.  How much deviation from the policy asset mix should be allowed?  What alternative asset classes and strategies should be considered if any, and at what price?

The risk, as I see it, is that much of the most classical portfolio theories and methods we read in textbooks are based on a time when we didn’t have all the information or the tools to properly handle the information.  Today it’s different.  Sure, we have the tools to compute with greater speed and power than the early days of Markowitz and Sharpe.  These tools can even fit in a thin letter size envelope.  But despite all the information out there, it’s tough to manage it effectively so as to lead to a more thoughtful, elegant and even effective portfolio.  Until ETFs came around.
Maybe the new “active management” of investing does not revolve around picking managers but allocating among beta exposures.  That’s what institutions like CalPERS are doing by internalizing passive mandates (by first reducing active exposures where there’s more beta than alpha to be had).  I’m not trying to lead this thought to the “All ETF portfolio” but something rather close to this, with a healthy balance of traditional and alternative exposures, access to developed and developing markets, customized for income requirements and volatility tolerances.  Clearly, this thought process would seem to be elegant and “true to form” as just described if implemented mainly through ETFs and similar instruments.  15-20 positions might seem like a lot but without passive exposures, a more traditional “old school” portfolio built under the same premises would likely hold a couple of hundred securities at a minimum.  I’m assuming that someone who wanted some inflation indexed bond exposure wouldn’t just buy one bond.  Same with emerging market equities.  Or US small cap.  Or REITs.  Or even non-ETF related possibilities like hedge fund … well, maybe if it was a fund-of-funds but for some investors, even one of these might not be enough.

In my previous blog post (whoa … two posts in one week … easy there), I focused my attention on diversification.  That’s definitely what ETFs are about despite all the recent product development on narrow sectors and relatively small countries.  But ETFs are first and foremost about innovation.  This is good because it gives anyone access to ideas (water as an asset class), new regions (frontier markets) and a wide variety of capital markets that may not be as easy (logistically, cost wise, etc.) for many investors to reach.  This is also bad because the risk is that the ETF industry focuses too much on ideas rather than the true economic need for capital to be allocated in that “idea”.  I don’t see the ETF industry going down this latter path similar to the dot-com craze however, as in everything, a healthy balance is all that’s required.  Somewhere between Schmick and Bogle - they likely aren’t even the extremes on the spectrum - is the right balance for each and every investor.  Dictating what’s right and what’s wrong, limiting choice by not allowing for certain products (ETFs, hedge funds or whatever) and thus not allowing investors to choose where they lie on that spectrum in NOT the answer.  ETFs provide choice by allowing access in a meaningful and efficient manner.  The allowance for choice will be dictated by the user as in any market.

I’m surprised that it’s only now that we’re starting to hear the term “contagion” used more often in the financial press about the current predicament seen globally and especially in the US. Over the past couple of years, I’ve mentioned in passing to different people my concerns regarding the economic outlook of the US. The way I see it, the typical American consumer (”super consumer” may be more appropriate) who is feeling the noose tighten from their mortgage obligations could soon make decisions that would have an effect on other forms of credit. Car payments are one area. We’ve seen GM trim operations yet again and with good reason … why would any sane person by a Hummer? I doubt that the typical buyer of an H2 has child seats in the back row and strollers folded behind them. That large demographic of young families would likely buy a minivan, smaller crossover or wagon. I can see the benefits of a pickup truck for many buyers but there’s a large group of models from the domestic automakers that simply have to go given that their target market is so small. High gas prices is just the final reason to adapt and the rationale for GM to make such maneuvers now while the Japanese and Korean automakers seemed to figure this out at least 5 years earlier gives good reason for top management in Detroit to be given the boot. Perhaps management wanted to take action long ago but government incentives and strong union action simply delayed the inevitable.

The real credit concern I have for Main Street however is when mortgage and auto related obligations lead to greater use of credit cards as a safety net. Maybe it’s just me but “credit card” and “safety net” are opposites. About as far apart “opposite” as Stephen Hawking and Homer Simpson despite their link to quantum mechanics. Yet, what are their options? Bank loans will be clearly harder to come by. Methods of the past such as home equity loans are no longer available. We’re quickly in a different world. The pressures to consume will have to be restrained but I’m no sociologist and I only wonder if the real fear of “losing it all” will curb spending patterns. I foresee trouble with auto loans affecting the domestic auto industry as similar problems with credit cards would affect Walmart, restaurants, leisure/gaming/travel and so many components of the economy. Banks will try to stimulate spending just like homebuilders are now pushing “buy one house get one free” deals. At the end of the day, I think it will be market forces that hit the consumer with the final blow of reality. Unfortunately, I feel like mortgages are just the beginning. It could be the first of many domino trails that fall in sequence and all we can do is watch. It’s the growing social fear that should help in increasing the average savings rate even a little which I think is all we need … nothing too drastic. Or maybe I’m just keeping expectations in check.

As an aside, I should add that the consumerism of North America is clearly growing globally to other markets. It’s not just Dubai but major centres all over the emerging world be it East Asia, the Mideast, Latin America or Russia/Central Eastern Europe. We’re hearing constant reminders these days of rising food, fuel and housing prices globally and this includes the developing world. Yet there is simultaneous high growth in the sale of luxury goods. Hand made Swiss watches, Italian cars/motorcycles, designer handbags, cigars … the necessities of life I suppose. Or you’d think that by visiting these regions. There are some neighborhoods in large North American cities dominated by high end automobiles. However, I’m always surprised at how this pales in comparison to what I can only say are the new centres of influence around the world. Dubai was a bit of an eye opener but now I’m interested in seeing what Moscow is like. Of course, the spread between the “haves” and “have nots” is very significant in the developing world but it’s surprising just how wide the disparity is. But all things eventually swing back the other way. The typical middle class US consumer will learn to adapt just like the typical Japanese worker figured out that the concept of lifetime employment with one organization is over.

So what other areas of the credit space will hit the everyday consumer not just in the US but for the growing “big spender” global citizen? Like auto loans and credit cards, each of these other potential chain of dominos are all part of a growing credit contagion that would have far reaching implications to the capital markets. To what degree and for how long, no one can say now and the economists will have to build new models to figure this out. I wonder if the parallels to the depression era will continue and be a basic assumption in these models.

Since this is “The Beta Brief”, I’d like to link the above commentary to the industry of beta oriented instruments. Both the ETF and derivative markets will have to be less US centric and gain further access to international markets and especially the developing world. Perhaps we’ll see the same result of redundant product offerings. With all the unnecessary, overlapping exposures in the ETF space that are especially focused on the US equity markets I can only assume that many of these funds will close down or merge. At this point, the recent closures at Ameristock of five Treasury bond ETFs in addition to those from Claymore a few months earlier are a telling sign of the excess of product growth that has been a defining story in the relatively short ETF saga. Well, it’s actually about 15 years. But if the writings of Fareed Zakaria and Mohamed El-Erian give insight into the future significance of the US economically and politically, the real attention of investors … and ETF providers … should be internationally. In the US, there are just about enough ETFs available to establish any sort of international diversification by region/country, sector, market cap or theme with very few holes remaining. However, we certainly don’t have that full availability of products in other jurisdictions. It may never get to be as crowded elsewhere as it is in the US now. It’s just a matter of time before the ETF industry expands in a more robust way to other parts of the world.

The current volatile environment with strong up days like yesterday (June 5th) but with even more down days does not seem like the best of times for passive instruments except perhaps for levered long and inverse exposures … basically, derivative markets and ProShares ETFs (I know, there are other providers now with levered long and inverse ETFs aside from ProShares and Rydex). The past year has been the time for hedge funds. Like the bear market of 2000-2002, we should see many hedge funds, but certainly not the majority of them, perform well but many investors in them come away somewhat unsatisfied. My guess is the final result in this downturn will be even less palatable for the vast majority of investors in hedge funds. Of course, those that do find success will have it big. It’s black swans and higher moments to the extreme. But I wonder if the strength in the ETF market which took place since 2003 was the result of investor dissatisfaction with the performance of active managers during the preceding market declines. And if so, will there be the same result at the conclusion of this rocky period?

The chart above would provide a more useful picture if the vertical axis was logarithmic. However, we can see that the current market declines of the past 11 months or so are still relatively small in comparison to what occurred earlier this decade. The same is true for the DJIA and the Nasdaq as well as international markets.

Who knows what the maximum drawdown will be from the highs of July and October ‘07? I’m starting to think that we might be in a longer term sideways market where the S&P bounces somewhere between 1,200 and 1,600 for a few years with continued high volatility … again, hedge fund heaven. If we have anything close to this scenario in our highly synchronized global market - well, actually anything other than a strong bull market like we saw from early ‘03 to mid ‘07 - then this should be a great time for active management as opposed to passive. In this scenario, passive management will be seen as something for old “has beens” and we’ll hear the same arguments against indexing as we heard in 2002. However, I think that the ETF industry has become, and will continue to be, less about buy-hold and a Vanguard-like philosophy but rather about the use of passive instruments within active strategies. Deb Fuhr (formerly of Morgan Stanley … anyone heard where she’s headed?) recently came out with a report noting that hedge funds are the 2nd biggest users of ETFs after financial advisors. Clearly, the active trading of ETFs, like it’s been in the derivative markets, will be hot and I see a growing list of managers of all types employing the use of ETFs in addition to single securities. I’m surprised how many managers I find today who use ETFs only within highly active mandates.

Funny enough, I hear these managers asking for more product related to foreign exposures and more niche offerings. It’s exactly where the industry has been headed in the past couple of years. We can see evidence of this with the continued success of ProShares and their move to foreign markets. Their levered long and short exposure funds are catered to the active investor. For those of you who are wanting some similar instruments that access certain commodity markets, ProShares manages ETFs for Horizons BetaPro here in Toronto providing long and short exposures to gold, oil, natural gas and agricultural grains. [Note: This isn’t a recommendation in any way. Just pointing it out to you.]

Like the Asian contagion of ten years ago, this is a time of serious crisis providing opportunity for the most active of active managers to shine. The long-term oriented investor will have to conduct a serious gut check to determine how their asset mix pie will deviate, if at all, should they consider the next five years or so to be anything but an up market similar to the past five years ending this past December. Another term making the rounds in the financial press recently is “depression”. Since I don’t see the US economy or the world as a whole going down to that degree (one of the reasons for my view of a sideways market over the next few years) the only form of depression I find applicable today is that related to mental health given the fear and then realization that the “American Dream” for many might be delayed and unfortunately for many more in the middle class, quite unattainable. This sad situation applies globally due to the spread of this credit and liquidity crisis beyond the US. However, the real key problem is the US. Fareed Zakaria’s article notes that the global shift we see today is less about the decline of the US and more about the rise of everyone else. His argument make sense given its lead in innovation, among other advantages, that come out of the robust economy that is the US juggernaut. But it will be the resiliency of the US consumer (along with their government and central bank to assist them) and their ability to adapt to this credit/liquidity crisis that will determine the course of things to come in the next few years.

For the most basic investor, the simple hedge might be increased allocations to international and especially emerging market exposures via decreased US exposures. That likely won’t be enough though and the importance of alternative investments, skill in picking successful active managers ahead of time and the ability to wrap this within an effective risk protocol might be what’s required. It’s a tough world.

Taking advantage of downside market action in international and emerging markets can now be implemented through new ETFs from ProShares. No comments on this from me as I’ve already said for a while that the market has needed this so here’s the press release:

ProShares Launches First Short International ETFs

BETHESDA, Md.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–ProShares, the fastest-growing ETF provider this year, announced today the launch of the first-ever short international ETFs, designed to go up when a foreign market goes down. ProShares, the nation’s only short and magnified-exposure ETFs, recently crossed $9 billion in assets under management.

The six new ProShares, each to be listed on the American Stock Exchange, are:

The Short and UltraShort MSCI EAFE ProShares launched today; the remaining four are slated for release in November. After these launches, the Short ProShares lineup—providing short exposure to a wide range of domestic and international markets, capitalization sizes and investment styles—will number 35.

These launches follow ProShares breaking though $9 billion in assets under management after a significant market drop on Friday October 19. Initially launched in June 2006, ProShares had the most successful first year of any ETF company in history.¹

“The dramatic acceptance of ProShares has been fueled by investors looking to go beyond the basics and expand the strategies they employ in their portfolios. Shorting strategies have been used by serious investors such as institutions and hedge funds for years,” said ProShares Chairman and CEO Michael Sapir. “By introducing short ETFs to the marketplace—first on domestic market indexes and now on international—we have opened up opportunities for more investors to use short strategies to manage risk or to seek to benefit from market declines.”

Short and UltraShort ProShares offer many advantages over shorting baskets of stocks, individual stocks or ETFs. Investors can achieve short exposure without opening a margin account—buying short exposure is as convenient and simple as purchasing an individual stock. In addition, investors can lose only the amount that they invest, whereas when they short stocks, stock baskets or ETFs, their losses are theoretically unlimited. Moreover, these ETFs can be employed in vehicles that do not permit margin accounts—IRAs for instance. And finally, these ETFs can easily be tracked throughout the day.

Investors seeking to hedge gains should understand that they may need to make adjustments to their holdings to maintain a specific level of short exposure over time. Also, the funds have fees, expense and tax consequences of their own. These short ETFs are structured to provide the inverse of the daily performance of the market indexes that they track; that is, if MSCI EAFE declines by 1% in a day, the Short MSCI EAFE ProShares should gain 1%; if the index goes up by 1% in a day, the ETF should lose an equal amount. The UltraShort ProShares are designed to deliver twice the inverse of daily performance; in the above instance, where MSCI EAFE declined by 1% in a day, the UltraShort MSCI EAFE ProShares should appreciate by 2% and if the benchmark rose by 1%, the ETF should decline by 2%.

Today, I had a last minute invitation to speak on Canada’s Business News Network … that’s not a description, that’s its actual name. The channel was formerly known as “Report on Business Television” so you’ll have to decide if their name change was an improvement or not. The six and a half minute clip will be available for viewing online here until sometime late Monday evening of next week (when you click on this link I’ve provided, a small window with a built-in media player should pop open). If this doesn’t work, then go here and scroll down to the 4:40pm “After Hours” program. Hopefully, I will be able to have the clip viewed directly here on this blog at some point.

The opening shot of me appears to be my poker face or I’m about to enter the octagon for combat or it’s the once-a-month event when I screw up WordPress and lose a big chunk of my blog posting. Either way, it’s my “death stare” and I can only imagine that I felt pretty lousy running from my car to the building entrance of the studio in what has to be Toronto’s heaviest rain storm so far this year.

Anyway, the discussion was on market volatility but unfortunately the focus was almost entirely on VIX. I say “unfortunately” only because VIX can be (well, it is) a dry subject due to its rather technical nature. Despite being on the channel several times before, you’ll note that the topic of VIX was not quite enough to get me really loosened up until just a tiny bit near the end.

Well, here are two charts which I discuss during the interview:

3 Year VIX Chart

17.5 Year VIX Chart

I was hoping to get into a discussion on emerging markets, gold and oil markets, and a broader geopolitical debate. But at the end of the day, VIX is a tool worth considering for the defensively oriented investor so there’s merit in its discussion. Along with outright shorting and inverse ETFs, there’s not much out there in terms of true diversifiers/stabilizers available in this high correlation world.

On the other hand, I have actually noticed lately that a lot of hedge funds (fund-of-funds, multi-strategy funds and even some single strategy funds) have had better than decent performance in 2007 YTD. Could it be a result of the VIX spike up since late February? I’m sure it’s more than that but this good performance comes after a fairly long period of so-so returns.

On a separate note, after my interview, I had dinner with one of the ProShares directors who was up here in conjunction with Horizon BetaPro’s launch of their new Canadian energy sector index levered and inverse ETFs. This follows up BetaPro’s launch last week of similar long and short exposure ETFs for the Canadian financial sector.

Based on this BetaPro press release from April, it’s safe to say that we’ll be seeing the gold sector ETFs sometime soon as well.

For review, this is BetaPro’s lineup as of today:

Horizons BetaPro S&P/TSX 60 Bull Plus ETF - HXU
Horizons BetaPro S&P/TSX 60 Bear Plus ETF - HXD
Horizons BetaPro S&P/TSX Capped Financials Bull Plus ETF - HFU
Horizons BetaPro S&P/TSX Capped Financials Bear Plus ETF - HFD
Horizons BetaPro S&P/TSX Capped Energy Bull Plus ETF - HEU
Horizons BetaPro S&P/TSX Capped Energy Bear Plus ETF - HED

The Canadian ETF marketplace has basically doubled in a very short time especially due to the recent product development efforts at both BetaPro and Claymore. Unlike in the US, we don’t have as robust - some may say saturated - ETF marketplace here in Canada. Frankly, we don’t have the broad acceptance of ETFs here like there exists in the US so there is some balance there. I would guess by looking at reports, such as those from Deb Fuhr at Morgan Stanley, that all other markets outside of the US also have a rather small but growing ETF industry and that is likely where we’ll see significant growth as the ProShares, PowerShares, WisdomTree and other smaller participants do the same as BGI, SSGA and Vanguard with their already established global expansions.

I won’t get into the discussions I had with the gentleman from ProShares except for the fact that I asked the question that I think many want to have answered: When do we get the international exposures?

I’ll just leave you with a “let’s wait and see”. Let me be blunt as usual … I’d kind of like to see them, specifically inverse exposures for EAFE and emerging markets available before the end of the summer. Certainly before the end of the year.

Oh, and one last thing to consider for those of you who want to get some inverse exposure to emerging markets. I don’t know if that’s the right call (bearish on emerging markets) but considering the strong run up in China, central/eastern Europe and basically all subgroups in the developing world, it’s worth making preparations. But what to do when there’s no inverse ETF and shorting EEM or VWO is the only reasonable alternative? I suggested to my dinner partner from ProShares that the BetaPro S&P/TSX 60 Bear Plus Fund might be a good choice especially considering the relatively high correlation between the Canadian equity market (TSX 60) and a broad emerging market ETF like EEM. I would only guess that the new inverse energy sector ETF from BetaPro would be an even better proxy for a short EEM strategy. There’s not enough historical ETF data but your friendly neighborhood Bloomberg terminal, Thomson Datastream or similar data source should provide you with data for the underlying index as the evidence you need.

It’s a tough, high correlation world. But perhaps there are ways like this to use high correlations to your advantage. The problem is correlations change in time. I’d much rather have the inverse ETF.

A lot of news on the web on regarding Rydex Investments’ filing last week for 96 ETFs. Plans are for three ETFs to track each of the 32 benchmark U.S. indices. Like the ProShares line of ETFs managed by ProShare Advisors, there will be:

· An ETF that seeks to track double the return of the index

· An ETF that seeks to track the inverse return of the index

· An ETF that seeks to track double the inverse return of the index

Essentially, with the first ETF you have a long position in the index and would hope to get double the return of the underlying index. With the other two, you essentially have short exposure to the index through a long position in the ETF.

You would think that Rydex will have to be competitive on price as ProFunds has had several months of edge in terms of being “first to market”. No news on fees but according to the various sources on the web, the ETFs will be linked to various S&P and Russell US equity indices with the usual style tilts (growth/value, small/mid/large cap and combinations thereof).

Rydex was actually first in the market of leveraged long and short index funds. These mutual funds still exist today and I recall in a previous life managing accounts that was based on their Rydex (long 150% S&P 500) and Ursa (short 100% S&P 500) funds. ProFunds was built from some Rydex defectors and they are the two main providers in this unique space. Rydex is clearly playing catch up now.

I suppose there’s a market out there for the inverse ETFs, although I would have hoped for more international exposure. Luckily, there’s word of State Street Global Advisors bringing on some new ETFs and in this case the focus is on various international equity indices as well as a global REIT index. However, these ETFs don’t have the leverage and shorting available with Rydex and ProShares.

On top of this, there’s news on new ETFs as well from:

· WisdomTree: An additional 31 ETFs that like previous launched funds are based on fundamental weights rather than market cap weights.

· PowerShares: An additional 35 ETFs focused on international equities including country based funds.

· Barclays Global Investors: No word on the number of ETFs but a spread among bonds, commodities, and currencies.

More fuel for those saying that there are too many ETFs. According to Deb Fuhr of Morgan Stanley in her latest ETF Global Quarterly Review, there are 669 ETFs worldwide with 926 listings all totaling US$504.5 billion. For the US, the numbers are 303 ETFs at US$362.9 billion (all numbers as of the end of Q3 2006).

I think these numbers are fine, with assets under management well below mutual fund and hedge fund numbers. It’s the growth rate in the number of product offerings in the past couple of years that is of concern — and whether this is the beginning of a significant growth trend that could lead to similar problems found in both the mutual fund and hedge fund industries.

Facetious my title certainly is. Truth is, however, that with tools that exist today, and in the ever-expanding ETF world, any investor can be their own hedge fund.  [Interesting side note: News out recently has shown that regulation on the hedge fund industry may not be tightening at first thought: See “SEC Hedge Fund Registration Rule Struck Down by Court” from Bloomberg News.]

There have been numerous hedge fund debacles globally, leaving many investors, some of which should have never been in anything close to these instruments, completely devastated. A few serious ones have created big news up here in Canada over the past year. Despite this, hedge funds are proliferating like flowers (I was going to say weeds but it would be unfair to generalize). With recent evidence of no increased regulation on hedge funds, which I broadly define as mutual funds with fewer constraints, should we be getting worried?

Naaahhh, let’s all get out there and make tons of money! Seriously, we’ve all heard stories of ordinary people quitting their day jobs to become day traders back in the last 90’s. A similar migration has occurred in the past five years or so where traditional money managers have moved to start up or join hedge funds.

Why not? More freedom from reduced investment constraints. And the performance fees don’t hurt. Hey, I started in this industry managing directional strategies on equity index futures as well as long-short US equity programs. I’m not going to just flatly trash hedge funds. However, as I’ve said in an earlier entry, there is a clear problem in hedge funds that isn’t actually that new. Similar to many mutual funds that have been and are criticized for charging relatively high fees for what is essentially “closet indexing”, we now see hedge funds also providing more “beta” and less “alpha” than what was promised in their marketing material.

Unlike my previous “weed versus flower” comment earlier, I feel justified to generalize here: far too many mutual funds behave like indices. My fear: the same problem develops in hedge funds.

Many hedge funds state that they aspire to perform well in both good and bad markets. In other words, their performance should be independent to what’s going on in the market. The technical term is being “beta neutral”. The problem is that recent returns have shown that this may not be generally true. In fact, I observe that more and more, hedge funds as a whole have behaved more like “closet indexers”. I don’t think this problem existed prior to around 2003.

Here’s a recent story related to this problem from Sweden, but hedge fund industry watchers are noting this disturbing trend in other areas of the globe. (Note: registration to this site may be required but is worth it if you are interested in getting free news related to the hedge fund industry).

If you don’t want to sign up and are willing to do some research, dig up some of the data available on hedge fund indices and see how they compare to the broad market indices. Long term they differ, but in the past year or so, you see the strong similarities.

Although generally I’ve seen that a lot of broad hedge fund indices (not sub-indices specific to a certain strategy like “long-short equity” or “convertible arbitrage”) have beaten the broad market indices (S&P 500, MSCI World Equity Index, Lehman Aggregate Bond Index) by anywhere from around 1% to 5% in the first five months of 2006, the trend of returns during the strong up movement in the first four months and strong down movement in May provides compelling evidence that hedge funds are following the indices.

I can only surmise that after roughly three years of poor returns, in what has basically been a straight line up in the equity markets, hedge funds have had no choice but to expose themselves to beta while alpha has been (perhaps temporarily due to low VIX or countless other reasons) hard to find. I hope this trend does not continue. Perhaps we will enter a new market environment that is more akin to earlier periods when hedge fund strategies were more viable. As with mutual funds, perhaps there are also simply too many hedge funds. The market (investors) will have to let their money do the walking. With limited alpha, many hedge funds will simply have to die.

* * *

Let me now shift gears and bring us back to the ETF world of today, and what is clearly a significantly different place than where we were just one year ago. We now have many more ways to play the domestic and international equity markets through the recent explosion in non-market cap weighted ETFs (quite a lot written about this in the past few weeks!). In a previous entry, I’ve stated how I think these are not that innovative since the research behind them is quite similar to what Dimensional Fund Advisors have spoken about for decades.

What I find more significant and interesting is the introduction of the new inverse ETFs from ProShares (PSQ, SH, DOG, MYY) … for those of you who know ProFunds, Rydex and the like, these are the ultimate “Futures for Dummies” tool. With these new ETFs, and I can only expect that Rydex will be following up with their own version, the ordinary investor can treat a part of their portfolio in a “hedge fund” like manner. Hey, it’s just leverage. And shorting. Or a combination of both. Hey, should we be getting worried?

Well no. Earlier I stated my worries for a hedge fund industry that has had numerous blow-ups and has too many participants striving to find this thing called alpha. The problem, just like when we bash mutual funds for underperforming some benchmark, is the effect of management fees (along with other costs within a fund like legal, audit, custody and other administrative expenses) on returns. For the do-it-yourself investor, these do not apply. So why can’t the DIY investor have the same tools as the pros? I can’t really think of a good reason. Institutions for decades have had the ability to program trade so that they could adjust a portfolio with just a few keystrokes. We don’t really think of it now, but selling QQQ and buying SPY basically does the same. So what should we expect now?

I think that investors should be able to play the emerging markets, commodities and other asset classes both ways (long/short). There’s nothing stopping them now from shorting EEM or DBC. But for the many investors who do not feel comfortable with the concept of a margin (leveraged) account, this is a good first step. I also wonder if particular investors, including certain institutions with constraints that do not allow them to hold short positions or use derivatives, will see this as an opportunity to make tactical decisions within their portfolio.

Bottom line: Through ETFs, investors have many means to have various broad market exposures. With short (and levered) ETFs, they can also allow certain parts of their portfolio to become “hedge fund-like”. But perhaps it doesn’t have to go to that extreme.

As Roger Nasbaum has recently suggested when discussing these ETFs, perhaps only as a short-term play and with relatively small proportional holdings within the total portfolio, these tools are enough of a hedging tool to add to the overall strategy menu. I would only add that for most investors, the use of this kind of tactical defensive strategy does not have to be used often: major market downturns should be the focus, not the common oscillations that are a common component of short-term market action.

Against what Wall Street, and in particular the self-direct brokerages will tell you, trading frequency is inversely proportional to a portfolio’s overall performance. I just don’t want to have a repeat of seven or eight years ago except it’s now: “Yeah, I’ve dumped that dead-end job. I’m now running my own money as a hedge fund.” Please.