Treatise on Equity Risk Premium

Howard Marks recently wrote a letter focusing almost exclusively on equities (March 2013 Letter). Within the letter, he thoroughly explores the equity risk premium – a concept usually taken for granted or as a given figure – in such a thoughtful and intuitive way, that the usually esoteric concept becomes nearly graspable by people (like me) with far less intellectual processing power.

Equity Risk Premium, Risk Free Rate

“The equity risk premium is generally defined as, “the excess return that an individual stock or the overall stock market provides over a risk-free rate.” (Investopedia) Thus it is the incremental return that investors in equities receive relative to the risk-free rate as compensation for bearing the risk involved.”

“…I strongly dislike the use of the present tense...‘The long-term equity risk premium is typically between 4.5% and 5%.’ This suggests that the premium is something that solidly exists in a fixed amount and can be counted on to pay off in the future…

The equity risk premium can actually be defined at least four different ways, I think:

1. The historic excess of equity returns over the risk-free rate.
2. The minimum incremental return that people demanded in the past to make them shift from the risk-free asset to equities.
3. The minimum incremental return that people are demanding today to make them shift away from the risk-free asset and into equities.
4. The margin by which equity returns will exceed the risk-free rate in the future.

The four uses for the term are different and, importantly, all four are applied from time to time. And I’m sure the four uses are often confused. Clearly the import of the term is very different depending on which definition is chosen. The one that really matters, in my opinion, is the fourth: what will be the payoff from equity investing. It’s also the one about which it’s least reasonable to use the word 'is,' as if the risk premium is a fact.”

“There are problems with at least three of the four meanings. Only number one can be measured…What matters for today’s investor isn’t what stocks returned in the past, or what equity investors demanded in the past or think they’re demanding today. What matters is definition number four, what relative performance will be in the future.”

“The bottom line: given that it’s impossible to say with any accuracy what return a stock or the stock market will deliver, it’s equally impossible to say what the prospective equity risk premium is. The historic excess of stock returns over the risk-free rate may tell you the answer according to definition number one, with relevance depending on which period you choose, but it doesn’t say anything about the other three…and especially not number four: the margin by which equity returns will exceed the risk-free rate in the future.”

Marks’ comments touch upon a sensitive nerve in the investment management industry. If existing calculation methods for equity risk premiums are incorrect (ahem, let’s not even get into the calculation for a “normalized forward looking” risk-free-rate), what is implication on discount rates used in so many DCF models around the world?

Alas, false precision is as dangerous as inaccuracy. But this advice doesn’t make for good analyst training manuals.

Portfolio Management

“As Einstein said, in one of my favorite quotes, ‘Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.’”

This quote beautifully summaries why portfolio management is more art than science.

Expected Return

“To me, the answer is simple: the better returns have been, the less likely they are – all other things being equal – to be good in the future. Generally speaking, I view an asset as having a certain quantum of return potential over its lifetime. The foundation for its return comes from its ability to produce cash flow. To that base number we should add further return potential if the asset is undervalued and thus can be expected to appreciate to fair value, and we should reduce our view of its return potential if it is overvalued and thus can be expected to decline to fair value.

So – again all other things being equal – when the yearly return on an asset exceeds the rate at which it produces cash flow (or at which the cash flow grows), the excess of the appreciation over that associated with its cash flow should be viewed as either reducing the amount of its undervaluation (and thus reducing the expectable appreciation) or increasing its overvaluation (and thus increasing the price decline which is likely). The simplest example is a 5% bond. Let’s say a 5% bond at a given price below par has a 7% expected return (or yield to maturity) over its remaining life. If the bond returns 15% in the next twelve months, the expected return over its then-remaining life will be less than 7%. An above-trend year has borrowed from the remaining potential. The math is simplest with bonds (as always), but the principle is the same if you own stocks, companies or income-producing real estate.

In other words, appreciation at a rate in excess of the cash flow growth accelerates into the present some appreciation that otherwise might have happened in the future.”

A great explanation for why expected return figures should be ever forward looking, and not based on past performance.

Ruane Cunniff Goldfarb 2012 Annual Letter

Portfolio management highlights extracted from Ruane Cunniff Goldfarb's Sequoia Fund 2012 Annual Letter. These letters always make for pleasant reading, with candid and insightful commentary on portfolio positions and overall market conditions. Risk Free Rate, Discount Rate

“Valuations for stocks are heavily influenced by interest rates, and particularly by the risk-free rate of return on 10-year and 30-year United States Treasury bonds. Relative to the current return on Treasury Bonds, stocks continue to be quite attractive. However, the current risk-free rate of return is not a product of market forces. Rather, it is an instrument of Federal Reserve policy. As long as these policies remain in place, and stocks trade at higher levels of valuation, it will be more difficult for us to find individual stocks that meet our criteria for returns on a risk basis that incorporates substantially higher interest rates than exist currently. Just as we think it would be a mistake for investors to buy bonds at current levels, we believe it would be a mistake for us to buy stocks on the assumption that interest rates remain anywhere near current levels.”

People often equate interest rate risk with bonds, not with equities. As the quote above points out, all assets are to some degree sensitive to changes in interest rates for a variety of reasons. For more on the relationship between equities and interest rates, be sure to read Warren Buffett’s 1977 article How Inflation Swindles the Equity Investor. 

Diversification, Sizing, Volatility

“Though it contradicts academic theory, we believe a concentrated portfolio of businesses that has been intensively researched and carefully purchased will generate higher returns with less risk over time than a diverse basket of stocks chosen with less care. However, a concentrated portfolio may deliver results in an individual year that do not correspond closely to the returns generated by the broader market.”

Diversification (or concentration) and sizing decisions will materially impact the expected volatility of a portfolio, but not always in the manner that academic theory predicts. 

Cash, Expected Return, Volatility

“If it is not already abundantly clear, you should be aware that our large cash position could act as an anchor on returns in a prolonged bull market. Conversely, in a bear market the cash might cushion the fall of stock prices and provide us with flexibility to make new investments.”

Portfolio cash balance is a double edge sword – providing cushion in down markets and acting as performance drag in up markets. In other words, a material cash balance will most definitely impact the expected return and expected volatility of the portfolio, for better or for worse.

Baupost Letters: 1997

Continuation in our series on portfolio management and Seth Klarman, with ideas extracted from old Baupost Group letters. Our Readers know that we generally provide excerpts along with commentary for each topic. However, at the request of Baupost, we will not be providing any excerpts, only our interpretive summaries, for this series.

Mandate, Trackrecord, Expected Return

For the past several years, Klarman had invested heavily into Baupost’s international efforts/infrastructure because he believed that opportunities in the U.S. marketplace were less attractive than those found abroad, due to increased competition and higher market valuations.

Did Baupost’s flexible investment mandate give it an advantage in trackrecord creation and return generation?

For example, a healthcare fund cannot start investing in utilities because the latter provides better risk-reward, whereas Baupost can invest wherever risk-reward is most attractive.

The trackrecord creation and return generation possibilities for those with more restrictive mandates are bound by the opportunities available within the mandate scope. Baupost, on the other hand, has the freedom to roam to wherever pastures are greenest.

Cash, Expected Return, Risk Free Rate

In the category of largest gains, there was a $2.2MM gain for “Yield on Cash and Cash Equivalents” which at the end of Fiscal Year 1997 (October 31, 1997) consisted of $39MM or 25.5% of NAV.

In 1997, cash earned 5-6% ($2.2MM divided by $39MM) annually, in drastic contrast to virtually nothing today. I point this out as a reminder that historically, and perhaps one day in the future, cash does not always yield zero. In fact, cash interest rates are often highest during bull markets when it’s most prudent to keep a higher cash balance as asset values increase.

For those who fear the performance drag from portfolio cash balances, or those who feel the pressure to “chase” yield in order to boost portfolio returns, this serves as a reminder that cash returns are not static throughout the course of a market cycle.

Hedging, Cash

At 10/31/97, value of “Market Hedges” was $2.0MM, or 1.4% of NAV. Hedges were also the source of his second largest loss that year, declining $2.1MM in value.

That’s a whole lot of premium bleed worth $2.0MM or ~1.5% of NAV! Interestingly, this is almost the exact gain from portfolio cash yields (see above). Coincidence?

If you believe that the phenomenon of the last 20 years will continue to hold – that interest rates will increase as the underlying economy recovers and equity markets move higher, then one can roughly use interest rates (and consequently portfolio cash yields) as a proxy to determine how much hedging premium to spend.

Theoretically, this should be a self-rebalancing process: higher cash yields in bull equity markets = more hedging premium to spend (when you need it most) vs. lower cash yields in bear equity markets = less hedging premium to spend (when you need it least).

Cash, Opportunity Cost

Klarman comments that cash provides protection in turbulent times and ammunition to take advantage of newly created opportunities, but the act of holding cash involves considerable opportunity cost in the form of foregoing attractive investments in the interim – but investors must keep in mind they cannot earn investment returns without actually investing.

After a temporary hiccup in the markets, Klarman discusses portfolio repositioning: adding to some positions while reducing or deleting others, to take advantage of the shifts in the market landscape.

It’s a delicate balance determining when to deploy capital, and when to hold it in the form of cash. You can’t run an investment management business holding cash forever – that would make you a checking account with extremely high fees.

The second point serves as an excellent reminder that the “opportunity cost” calculation involves not only the comparison between cash and a potential investment, but also between a potential investment and current portfolio holdings.

Derivatives, Leverage

Klarman held a wide variety of options and swaps in his portfolio, such as SK Telecom equity & swaps, Kookmin Bank equity and swaps, etc.

In Klarman’s writings, you’ll generally find warnings against using leverage, and equity swaps definitely constitute leverage. I wonder if the derivative swaps were a product of his interest in emerging markets. For example, perhaps Baupost was not able to trade directly in certain markets, and therefore utilized swaps to gain exposure through a counterparty authorized to trade in those countries.

When To Buy

In a market downturn, momentum investors cannot find momentum, growth investors worry about a slowdown, and technical analysts don’t like their charts.

In extreme market downside events, patterns & trends in liquidity, trading volume, sales growth, etc. – that may have existed for years – disintegrate. Therefore, investors who rely on those patterns and trends become disoriented, which then fuels and reinforces more market chaos. This is what we witnessed in 2008-2009, and the time for fundamental investors, and those with intuition and foresight, to shine.

Capital Preservation, Compounding,

Over time, by again and again avoiding loss, you have taken the first step toward achieving healthy gains.

Volatility

Toward the end of the December 1997 letter, Klarman praises his team of analysts and traders who, like himself, hate to lose money, even temporarily, for any reason at any time.

So let it be written! Klarman acknowledges that he doesn’t like to lose money, even temporarily in the form of volatility. 

Mauboussin on Portfolio Management

Michael Mauboussin, author & former Chief Investment Strategist at Legg Mason, recently joined Consuelo Mack for an interview on WealthTrack (one of my favorite resources for interesting conversations with interesting people; the transcripts are economically priced at $4.99 per episode). Their conversation touched upon a number of relevant portfolio management topics. For those of you with more time, I highly recommend listening/watching/reading the episode in its entirety. Luck, Process Over Outcome, Portfolio Management, Psychology

“MAUBOUSSIN: …luck is very important, especially for short-term results...everyone’s gotten better, and as everyone’s gotten better, skills become more uniform. There’s less variance or difference between the best and the worst. So even if luck plays the same role, lesser variance in skill means batting averages come down…So I call it the paradox of skill, because it says more skill actually leads to more luck in results…

MACK: So what are the kind of skills that we look at that would differentiate an investor from the pack, from the rest of the Street?

MAUBOUSSIN: …when you get to worlds that are probabilistic like money management where what you do, you don’t really know what the outcome is going to be, then it becomes a process and, to me, successful investing has three components to the process. The first would be analytical, and analytical to me means finding stocks for less than what they’re worth, or in the jargon means getting an investment edge, and second and related to that is putting them into the portfolio at the proper weight. So it’s not just finding good investment ideas, but it’s how you build a portfolio with those investment ideas. And by the way, a lot of people in the financial community focus on buying attractive stocks, but the structure is actually really important as well…the portfolio positioning, I think there’s room for improvement there.”           

When dealing with probabilistic predictions, such as in investing, one must focus on process, not outcome. (For more on this, be sure to check out Howard Marks’ discussion on “many futures are possible, but only one future occurs.”)

As our Readers know, PMJar seeks to emphasize the importance of portfolio management within the investment process. We are glad to see validation of this view from a premier investor such as Michael Mauboussin – that successful investing requires “not just finding good investment ideas, but how you build a portfolio with those investment ideas.”

One other corollary from the quote above – investing is a zero sum game. In order to make profits, you need to be better than the “average” market participant. But over time, ripe investment profits have lured the brightest talent from all corners of world professions and consequently, the “average” intelligence of investors has increased. This means that the qualifications necessary to reach “average” status has inconveniently increased as well.

Here’s an exercise in self-awareness: where do you fit in – below, at, or above average – versus other fellow investors?

Luck, Process Over Outcome, Sizing, Psychology

“MAUBOUSSIN: This is such an interesting question, because if you look into the future and say to people, “Hey, future outcomes are a combination of skill and luck,” everybody gets that. Right? Everybody sort of understands that’s the case, but when looking at past results, we have a much more difficult time, and I think the answer to this comes from actually neuroscience. Brain scientists have determined that there’s part of your left hemisphere in your brain which they call the interpreter, and the interpreter’s job is when it sees an effect, it makes up a cause and, by the way, the interpreter doesn’t know about skill and luck, so if it sees an effect that’s good, let’s say good results, it says, “Hey, that must be because of skill,” and then your mind puts the whole issue to rest. It just sets it aside. So we have a natural sort of module in our brain that associates good results with skill. We know it’s not always the case for the future, but once it’s done, our minds want to think about it that way.

MACK: Therefore, do we repeat, when we’ve had a success that we attribute to our skill, do we constantly repeat those same moves in order to get the same result?

MAUBOUSSIN: I think it kind of gets to one of the biggest mistakes you see in the world of investing…this is a pattern we’ve seen not only with individuals but also institutions: buying what’s hot and inversely often getting rid of what’s cold, and that ultimately is very poor for investor results. It’s about a percentage point per year reduction in long-term results for individual investors because of this effect of buying high and selling low.

…one would be over confidence. We tend to be very over confident in our own capabilities. You can show this with simple little tests, and the way that tends to show up in investing is people, when they’re projecting out into the future, they’re much more confident about the range of outcomes, so they make a very narrow range of outcomes rather than a much broader range of outcomes. So there would be one example, over confidence, and its manifestation...

...try to weave into your process tools and techniques to manage and mitigate them. I don’t think you can ever fully eradicate them, but just be aware of them and learning about them. So for example, in the over confidence, you can start to use tools to better calibrate the future, for example, using past data or making sure you’re pushing out your ranges appropriately. So there are, in every case, some tools to help you manage that."

An interesting observation on our brain’s inability to distinguish between luck vs. skill in a historical context, which explains our natural tendency to chase performance return trends.

In addition to projecting a narrow range of outcomes, overconfidence is deadly in another way – overconfidence in sizing. For example, after hitting a couple winners (mostly due to luck), an investor says “Hey, I’m really good at this. I really should have made those previous investments bigger bets. Next time.” And so, the overconfident investor sizes up the next few investments. But luck fails to appear, and the damage hurts far more because these bets were sized greater.

But worry not, salvation does exist. If investors are able to identify and become aware of their behavioral biases, they can work to control and counter the associated negative effect.

Macro

CONSUELO MACK: What’s interesting is we’ve just come through a period where we’ve heard over and over again that macro matters...I’ve had a lot of value investors come on who have very good long-term track records, saying, ‘You know what? I didn’t used to pay attention to the macro. Now I really have to pay attention. It really matters.’

MICHAEL MAUBOUSSIN: The first thing I would say about this, is this is an area of prediction that’s been very well studied, and my favorite scientist on this is a psychologist named Phil Tetlock at University of Pennsylvania who did an exhaustive study of predictions in social, political, and economic outcomes, and what he found, I think, beyond a shadow of a doubt is that experts are very poor at predicting the future. So while I know people are worries about getting whipsawed by macro events, the evidence that anybody can anticipate exactly what’s going to happen next is very, very weak. So that’s the first thing, is just to be very reserved about your belief in your ability to anticipate what’s going to happen next…Obviously, you want to be mindful of macro. I don’t want to say you be dismissive of it. I would say macro aware, but in some ways macro agnostic.”

Risk Free Rate, Equity Risk Premium

“The most interesting anomaly that I see continues to be what is high equity risk premium. So in plain words, you think of a risk-free rate of return. In the United States, a 10-year Treasury note is a good proxy for that…about a 1.8% yield. An equity risk premium is the return above and beyond that you would expect for taking on additional risk on equities. Now, over the long haul, that equity risk premium has been about three or four percent, something like that, and today, by most reckoning, it’s a lot closer to six percent. It’s very, very high.”

Historically (depending on time period examined), equity risk premium is normally 3-4%, versus ~6% today. But does this mean that today’s equity risk premium is abnormally high? Or was the historical equity risk premium just abnormally low?

What is the qualitative explanation behind the figure for the “normal” equity risk premium? Must it hold true into perpetuity?

Howard Marks' Book: Chapter 6 - Part 2

Continuation of portfolio management highlights from Howard Marks’ book, The Most Important Thing: Uncommon Sense for the Thoughtful Investor, Chapter 6 “The Most Important Thing Is…Recognizing Risk” Marks does a fantastic job illustrating the impact of the (low) risk free rate on portfolio expected risk & return, position selectivity, hurdle rate & opportunity cost.

Expected Return, Hurdle Rate, Opportunity Cost, Risk Free Rate, Selectivity

“The investment thought process is a chain in which each investment sets the requirement for the next…The interest rate on the thirty-day T-bill might have been 4 percent. So investors, says, ‘If I’m going to go out five years, I want 5 percent. And to buy the ten-year note I have to get 6 percent.’ Investors demand a higher rate to extend maturity because they’re concerned about the risk to purchasing power, a risk that is assumed to increase with time to maturity. That’s why the yield curve, which in reality is a portion of the capital markets line, normally slopes upward with the increase in asset life.

Now let’s factor in credit risk. ‘If the ten-year Treasury pays 6 percent, I’m not going to buy a ten-year single-A corporate unless I’m promised 7 percent.’ This introduces the concept of credit spread. Our hypothetical investor wants 100 basis points to go from a ‘guvvie’ to a ‘corporate’…

What if we depart from investment-grade bonds? ‘I’m not going to touch a high yield bond unless I get 600 over a Treasury note of comparable maturity.’ So high yield bonds are required to yield 12 percent, for a spread of 6 percent over the [ten-year] Treasury note, if they’re going to attract buyers.

Now let’s leave fixed income altogether. Things get tougher, because you can’t look anywhere to find the prospective return on investments like stocks (that’s because, simply put, their returns are conjectural, not ‘fixed’). But investors have a sense for these things. ‘Historically S&P stocks have returned 10 percent, and I’ll buy them only if I think they’re going to keep doing so…And riskier stocks should return more; I won’t buy on the NASDAQ unless I think I’m going to get 13 percent.’

From there it’s onward and upward. ‘If I can get 10 percent from stocks, I need 15 percent to accept the illiquidity and uncertainty associated with real estate. And 25 percent if I’m going to invest in buyouts…and 30 percent to induce me to go for venture capital, with its low success ratio.’

That’s the way it’s supposed to work…a big problem for investment returns today stems from the starting point for this process: The riskless rate isn’t 4 percent; it’s close to 1 percent…Typical investors still want more return if they’re going to accept time risk, but with the starting point at 1+ percent, now 4 percent is the right rate for the ten-year (not 6 percent)…and so on. Thus, we now have a capital market line…which is (a) at a much lower level and (b) much flatter.”

“…each investment has to compete with others for capital, but this year, due to low interest rates, the bar for each successively riskier investment has been set lower than at any time in my career.” Most investors have, at some point, gone through a similar thought process:

• Should I make this investment?
• What is the minimum return that will compel me to invest? (For discussion purposes, we’ll call this the Hurdle Rate.)
• How do I determine my hurdle rate?

Based on the quotes above, the hurdle rate is determined based upon a mixture of considerations including: (1) the risk-free rate (2) the expected return of other available investments or asset classes, and (3) perhaps a measure of opportunity cost (for which the calculation opens a whole new can of worms).

In essence, this is a selectivity exercise, comparing the expected returns between possible investment candidates along the “risk” spectrum. After all, “each investment has to compete with others for capital” because we can’t invest in everything.

Howard Marks highlights a problematic phenomenon of recent days: the declining risk-free-rate pushing down the starting point for this exercise, and consequently the entire minimum return requirement (hurdle rate) curve for investors.

So the following questions emerge:

• Is your minimum return requirement (hurdle rate) curve relative or absolute vs. the crowd?
• If relative, do you join the crowd and lower your minimum return hurdle rate?
• Just a little, you say? Is there a point at which you draw the proverbial line in the sand and say “no further” because everyone has lost their minds?
• Do you then go to cash? Is there any another alternative? Are you prepared to miss out on potential returns (as other investors continue to decrease their hurdle rates and chase assets/investments driving prices even higher)?

Wait, this sounds very familiar. Remember our Part 1 discussion on “risk manifestation” due to irrational market participant behavior and high asset prices?

Risk, Expected Return

“…the herd is wrong about risk at least as often as it is about return.”

We have often discussed the concept of expected return (a forward looking prediction on future return outcome), but we have been remiss in discussing the concept of expected risk (a forward looking prediction on future risk outcome).

Misguided predictions of either expected return or expected risk have the potential to torpedo investment theses.

Buffett Partnership Letters: 1963 Part 1

Continuation in a series on portfolio management and the Buffett Partnership Letters, please see our previous articles for more details. Clients, Leverage, Subscriptions, Redemptions

“We accept advance payments from partners and prospective partners at 6% interest from date of receipt until the end of the year…Similarly, we allow partners to withdraw up to 20% of their partnership account prior to yearend and charge them 6% from date of withdrawal until yearend…Again, it is not intended that partners use us like a bank, but that they use the withdrawal right for unanticipated need for funds.                                     

“Why then the willingness to pay 6% for an advance payment money when we can borrow from commercial banks at substantially lower rates? For example, in the first half we obtained a substantial six-month bank loan at 4%. The answer is that we except on a long-term basis to earn better than 6%...although it is largely a matter of chance whether we achieve the 6% figure in any short period. Moreover, I can adopt a different attitude in the investment of money that can be expected to soon be part of our equity capital than I can on short-term borrowed money.” 

“The advance payments have the added advantage to us of spreading the investment of new money over the year, rather than having it hit us all at once in January.”

Buffett allowed his investors annual windows for subscription and redemption (to add or withdraw capital). However, clients could withdraw capital early at 6% penalty. Clients could also add capital early and receive 6% return.

Paying investors 6% for their advance payments technically constitutes a form of leverage. However, as Buffett points out, not all forms of leverage are created equal. Margin lines are usually short-term with the amount of capital available constantly shifting, tied to value of underlying portfolio holdings which are usually marketable securities. Bank loans have limited duration until the debt must be repaid or terms renegotiated. In contrast to the two previous common forms of leverage, paying investors 6% (or whatever percentage depending on the environment) is most similar to long-term leverage with permanent terms (until the annual subscription window), since the capital will stay, converting from “debt” to an equity investment.

A friend recently relayed a story on Buffett giving advice to an employee departing to start his own fund. Apparently, it was a single piece of information: allow subscriptions and redemptions only one day per year.

The paperwork, etc. aside, I believe the true rationale behind this advice lies in the last quote shown above. Similar to how advance payments allowed Buffett the advantage of “spreading the investment of new money over the year,” having one subscription/redemption date would allow a portfolio manager to offset capital inflows against capital outflows, thereby decreasing the necessity of having to selling positions to raise liquidity for redemptions and scraping around for new ideas to deploy recent subscriptions. In other words, it minimizes the impact of subscriptions and redemptions on the existing portfolio.

Risk Free Rate, Fee Structure, Hurdle Rate

“…6% is more than can be obtained in short-term dollar secure investments by our partners, so I consider it mutually profitable.”

Not only was 6% the rate applicable to early redemptions or subscriptions, 6% was also the incentive fee hurdle rate, such that if the Partnership returned less than 6%, Buffett would not receive his incentive fee.

Based on the quote above, it would seem in 1963, 6% was approximately the risk free rate. Today (Aug 2012), the rate that can be “obtained in short-term dollar secure investments” is 1% at best.

Some funds still have minimum hurdle rate requirements built into incentive structure (I see this most commonly with private equity / long-term-commitment style vehicles). But most liquid vehicles (e.g., hedge funds) don’t have minimum hurdle rates determining whether they collect incentive fees in any given year.

This makes me wonder: why don’t most liquid funds vehicle fee structures have hurdle rates? It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that, at a minimum, these funds should have an incentive fee hurdle rate equivalent to the risk-free-rate in any given year.

Tax

“A tremendous number of fuzzy, confused investment decisions are rationalized through so-called ‘tax considerations.’ My net worth is the market value of holdings less the tax payable upon sale. The liability is just as real as the asset unless the value of the asset declines (ouch), the asset is given away (no comment), or I die with it. The latter course of action would appear to at least border on a Pyrrhic victory. Investment decisions should be made on the basis of the most probably compounding of after-tax net worth with minimum risk.”

Taxes made simple by Warren Buffett.

Sadly, many investment funds today fail to consider tax consequences because the clients who matter (the large pensions and foundations) don’t pay taxes. So their smaller taxable clients suffer the consequences of this disregard.