Starting a fund / raising capital

Quote from Busta21:

Oh really? I know a fund in Scottsdale, AZ that runs $100M with no grad degrees, ya herb.

Secondly, those returns, would, in fact, raise eyebrows. You don't know what your talking about. Now be off cretin!

You talking about that dude who didn't graduate highschool and works out of an attic type office?
 
problem is eveyrone knows that its hard to continue those gains as your pot size gets bigger.. people do well on average like 6 or 7 years before they blow up.. at least thats the Random walker take on it..
 
Quote from newwurldmn:

You talking about that dude who didn't graduate highschool and works out of an attic type office?

If you're talking about Longboard, yes.
 
Quote from clerk:

Neither the SEC nor state regulators will allow you (or any advisor using you as a sub) to promise or hint that investors should expect anything other than possible loss of principal. Nevertheless, investors have very few tools to assess the abilities of discretionary (non-mechanical) traders. They will run an ordinary-least-squares regression of your returns over market returns. If you trade a narrow basket of specific securities, they will regress your returns over the returns of those exchange-traded products. A longer track-record will better reveal the actual contribution of your market-insight to your returns, and reduce the possibility that your excess returns are a result of good fortune.

But, there is a market for start-up managers. You have a competitive advantage when you enter the marketplace over established managers - your flexibility with fees. And investors willing to allocate a small fraction of their risk assets to start-up managers will potentially benefit from superior fee-adjusted returns. An advisor able to allocate a portion of their clients assets to a diverse stable of start-up managers will benefit, on an expected value basis, from greater performance-fee income. It isn't as if there are that many good money managers out there to choose from, who haven't yet begin to demand exorbitant fixed-fees.

It is totally ridiculous to say that a 2yr record will yield you bupkiss.

How many client relationships can you handle? If you could raise $1M each from 100 people, do you have the cardiovascular health to handle servicing 100 clients? Consider the possibility that you can start with 5 $1M, and go supernova on them such that you drop your smallest client when a bigger client comes along.

Fill out a form. Take a test. Write a disclosure document. Keep books and records. Buy a Policies & Procedures manual designed for a one-man-shop. I'm in compliance, and my brain is wired for this; I think this is all really easy.

Look at the form http://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formadv-part1a.pdf and instructions http://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formadv-instructions.pdf then practice filling it out. Specifically, take a look at the civil/criminal/disciplinary disclosures to see if you will have to disclose something embarrassing. (eg getting busted with a blunt back in college, and now you're a very different 29yr old)

Take a look at the Series 65 syllabus http://www.nasaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Series-65-Exam-Specification.pdf and see if the topic you are unfamiliar with would be overwhelming to learn. There are some things they need you to know so you can perform financial planning, even though you only want to perform investment management work.

I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to keep the books and records of the advisory business, as you will need them to be complete and organized for a variety of personal and business reasons. See the Rule 204-2 section of http://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/advoverview.htm

From what I have read here you are exploring trading OPM in order to make money (for yourself) off the money you make for your clients. You don't have any intention to make money off your clients, i.e. at their expense. You will have no problems disclosing your conflicts of interests (or lack thereof) or adhering to a code of ethics.

If you only manage private funds, you will not need to register. However, you may someday manage in excess of $150M, in which case you will sign up as an Exempt Reporting Advisor. An ERA is not a registrant, and is not subject to some of the rules governing RIA's. Nevertheless an ERA needs have books and records subject to inspection. In effect, an ERA will need to structure their business substantially along the same lines as an RIA will. If you begin an advisory business without implementing the policies and procedures applicable to RIAs, it is much harder to remedy your ways in the future. You will want to consider dressing up like an RIA even if you don't need and want to register.

As the manager of a private fund, you may have 35 non-accredited investors if you keep your investor limit to 100. Alternatively, you can have a fund with up to 499 investors if they are all qualified purchasers. For the purposes of this exemption, they will aggregate funds with similar strategies; since you run one strategy these will be your aggregate limits. If you elect not to register as an investment advisor, you will not be subject to the rule limiting performance-fees to qualified clients.
(JOBS act lifts the 3c7 limit to 999 but I don't think regulations have been promulgated to implement the new law)

Before you disavow investment advisor registration, I urge you to consider whether - in practice - the additional flexibility that comes with not-being-registered has meaningful benefits to you. If you don't follow the custody rule as required of RIA's, premiums for your e&o/d&o insurance + fidelity/crime bond will skyrocket. If you take performance fees from unsophisticated low net worth investors, fewer carriers will underwrite your risk. And if you live in a place like California, state law will bar you from taking performance fees from non-qualified-clients anyway. If you don't have conflicts of interests, criminal/civil/disciplinary/ history to disclose, then you don't have any practical benefit from not having to disclose them. Finally, by not being registered, some institutional investors will shun you, and all private-wealth advisors will shun you. If you are not registered you can't advertise, and you're going to be in a rough spot marketing your fund directly to investors. That is a job unto itself and a very tough job indeed (sales).

This is an oldie but goodie http://www.akingump.com/files/Publi.../caf459bc-edc5-45c3-9e82-ae35634ba36c/912.pdf keep in mind that the $ limits have been raised since Dodd-Frank

Thanks..quite useful.
 
Let me try summarize my impression of some of the advantages and disadvantages of the managed account vs private fund structure. These are just my impressions, much of which have been gleaned from ET, so I could be wrong. Anyone with knowledge on the subject please chime in.

Managed account structure
-Greater transparency and control makes certain investors much more comfortable investing their money.
-Relatively easy to get started using IB's family and friends system, with IB handling your reporting, fee deductions, tax reporting, etc.
Disadvantages:
-Must become a registered investoment advisor to manage more than a very small number of accounts. However, the difficulty and compliance requirements of becoming an RIA may not be that onerous.
-Since account still remains under the name of the investor, there could be compliance issues that restrict my friends from investing under this structure (most of my friends work in finance and are subject to trading restrictions. not sure if managed account structure bypass these).

Private fund structure
-Do not have to register, but not being registered reduces your marketability with larger clients.
-Can have potentially 35 non-accredited investors if you keep your investor limit to 100.
-Can have up to 499 accredited investors if everyone is accredited.
-Private fund gives the manager ability to increase the level of secrecy surrounding his strategies.
-Owner can potentially take advantage of carried interest's favorable tax treatment (??)
-Fund's trackrecord seems to be more institutionalized and may therefore be more valuable (??)
Disadvantages:
-More complicated start up costs (??) There are turn key fund services that can do this work for 20k (I'm not sure why you don't need some of the legal contract work for a managed account structure).
-Cost of E&O insurance is much higher.
-Reporting is an hassle. I believe a previous poster mentioned the need to file tax reporting documents for every state a LP resides in. Accounting is a hassle and needs to account for whenever someone puts in or takes out money. Not sure what other issues there are on this front.
 
Managed account structure Disadvantage:
-in the context of IB F&F Must become a registered investment advisor to manage more than a very small number of accounts.
There is no longer an exemption under federal law for advisors of a few accounts. The exemption only applies when all clients are private funds (with no limit of client#). Yes, IB will facilitate you charging fees to 5 accounts that need not be private funds, but it would be unlawful for you to do so. So with respect to your train of thought, it would be more precise to say "must become a registered advisor to manage accounts that are not private funds". And no, asking clients to drop their cash into a SMLLC does not make it a private fund, because of the statutory definition of a private fund (IAA40-202-29: "that would be an investment company but for ICA40-3c1/3c7")
Managed account structure Disadvantage:
-Since account still remains under the name of the investor, there could be compliance issues that restrict my friends from investing under this structure (most of my friends work in finance and are subject to trading restrictions. not sure if managed account structure bypass these).
The compliance issue is the same whether it is in a separate account in the investors name, in a separate account under your name as nominee, or is pooled with other investors in an LP/LLC/trust/corp structure. Arguably, it is harder to get compliance to sign off on Private Security Transactions. If they are only allowed to maintain securities accounts with their employer, you may have to use their employer as custodian (and worse, broker as well). If you have six friends working for six Wall St firms… well you can see why you would want to explore executing at IB and using each of their employers as prime brokers for each respective accounts. What a hassle but this has nothing to do with this thread. I have some insight into this: my employer is regulated by FINRA & SEC, and my wife's employer is regulated by FINRA, SEC, and the Federal Reserve.
Private fund structure Advantage:
-Can have up to 499 accredited investors if everyone is accredited.
Can have up to 499 qualified purchasers if everyone is a qualified purchaser.
Private fund structure Advantage:
-Private fund gives the manager ability to increase the level of secrecy surrounding his strategies.
You essentially get two choices: let clients get statements from the custodian, or you pay for an audit. However, this is true of both a hedge fund and a separate account. (in this case the separate account will be held in your name as agent for the client)
Private fund structure Advantage:
-Owner can potentially take advantage of carried interest's favorable tax treatment (??)
You can do so as well with separate accounts. This is quite popular with fiduciary clients (pension plan administrator, municipal/corporate treasurers, endowment trustees) Ask me about the mechanics if this interests you, but essentially you and your investor enter into a general partnership (you 0% capital interest 20% profit interest, client 100% capital interest 80% profit interest) and your investor maintains the account in his name as agent of the general partnership. A tax return will need to be filed.

However, if substantial amounts of your trading profit will be short term capital gains, then receiving carried interest has no economic benefit to you. Well, I guess it would if the advisory business was owned by your siblings/girlfriends Roth IRA, with you as its mere employee. (IRC/DOL prohibited transaction rules prevent you from capitalizing more than 50.00% of the biz in your, your parents, your children's, or your spouse's retirement account)
Private fund structure Advantage:
-Fund's track record seems to be more institutionalized and may therefore be more valuable (??)
I don't believe in this one bit. Audited performance #s are the same to anyone who cares, whether the account audited is your IRA or some LLC/LP. Folks only care about the performance#, the provenance of the auditor, and reporting methodology (GIPS compliance or some other)
Private fund structure Disadvantage:
-More complicated startup costs (??) There are turn key fund services that can do this work for 20k (I'm not sure why you don't need some of the legal contract work for a managed account structure).
Good guys can do it for closer to $15k these days. You will need to incur the expense of developing advisory contracts, disclosures, and policies/procedures for managing both separate accounts and a single fund, which should run you $3k. In addition, a fund requires specialist work in partnership law, as well as securities laws in the context of issuing securities. That is what pretty much rings up the $15k tab.
Private fund structure Disadvantage:
-Reporting is an hassle. I believe a previous poster mentioned the need to file tax reporting documents for every state a LP resides in. Accounting is a hassle and needs to account for whenever someone puts in or takes out money. Not sure what other issues there are on this front.
It is false that a limited partnership will need to file tax returns in every jurisdiction in which its (the partnership) limited partners live. The partnership will only need to file tax returns in its jurisdiction of domicile, as well as every jurisdiction in which it does business. In practice, for an investment partnership, these will be the state in which the partnership gets its charter, as well as the states in which the managers, administrators, and advisors do business. As an example, let us say you live in New York, and I live in California. You serve as general partner, and I serve as limited partner. The limited partnership will file a federal tax return as well as a New York state tax return, and will send me my schedule K-1. I will use the K-1 you had sent me to prepare both my federal and California personal income taxes. You will use your schedule K-1 to prepare your federal and NYS personal income taxes.

Partnership accounting is not something you can do with Quicken. Partnership accounting, and the resultant tax preparation work, is not cheap. You can justify the expense when you have several partners and investment income to cover the expense. It is customary that these audit, accounting, and tax-prep expenses be borne by the fund itself and not the fund manager. Your investors would freak if the expenses allocable to them represented a significant fixed expense. The nice things about separate accounts is what is essentially free bundled accounting work. IB even will calc performance fees at no additional cost, if both you and the investor are comfortable with IB's accounting methodology for performance fees.
 
Quote from Busta21:

IB gives out 7X leverage? What amount of capital do you need to have in the account to get that rate?

8%-10% draw down on that size of capital is not that big of a deal. I would think the investors need to understand that you are trying to grow that account to start a fund not using it as a model for a future fund. Now that 8-10 percent on $100 Mill is a different story.

$125k IIRC, port-margin account.

And your comments re: newwurldmn are comical. He's one of about a half-dozen guys here who know of wtf they speak.
 
Can you give some those service provider names? I am very interested.

Quote from clerk:

Good guys can do it for closer to $15k these days. You will need to incur the expense of developing advisory contracts, disclosures, and policies/procedures for managing both separate accounts and a single fund, which should run you $3k. In addition, a fund requires specialist work in partnership law, as well as securities laws in the context of issuing securities. That is what pretty much rings up the $15k tab.
 
Quote from clerk:

There is no longer an exemption under federal law for advisors of a few accounts. The exemption only applies when all clients are private funds (with no limit of client#). Yes, IB will facilitate you charging fees to 5 accounts that need not be private funds, but it would be unlawful for you to do so. So with respect to your train of thought, it would be more precise to say "must become a registered advisor to manage accounts that are not private funds". And no, asking clients to drop their cash into a SMLLC does not make it a private fund, because of the statutory definition of a private fund (IAA40-202-29: "that would be an investment company but for ICA40-3c1/3c7")
The compliance issue is the same whether it is in a separate account in the investors name, in a separate account under your name as nominee, or is pooled with other investors in an LP/LLC/trust/corp structure. Arguably, it is harder to get compliance to sign off on Private Security Transactions. If they are only allowed to maintain securities accounts with their employer, you may have to use their employer as custodian (and worse, broker as well). If you have six friends working for six Wall St firms… well you can see why you would want to explore executing at IB and using each of their employers as prime brokers for each respective accounts. What a hassle but this has nothing to do with this thread. I have some insight into this: my employer is regulated by FINRA & SEC, and my wife's employer is regulated by FINRA, SEC, and the Federal Reserve.
Can have up to 499 qualified purchasers if everyone is a qualified purchaser.
You essentially get two choices: let clients get statements from the custodian, or you pay for an audit. However, this is true of both a hedge fund and a separate account. (in this case the separate account will be held in your name as agent for the client)
You can do so as well with separate accounts. This is quite popular with fiduciary clients (pension plan administrator, municipal/corporate treasurers, endowment trustees) Ask me about the mechanics if this interests you, but essentially you and your investor enter into a general partnership (you 0% capital interest 20% profit interest, client 100% capital interest 80% profit interest) and your investor maintains the account in his name as agent of the general partnership. A tax return will need to be filed.

However, if substantial amounts of your trading profit will be short term capital gains, then receiving carried interest has no economic benefit to you. Well, I guess it would if the advisory business was owned by your siblings/girlfriends Roth IRA, with you as its mere employee. (IRC/DOL prohibited transaction rules prevent you from capitalizing more than 50.00% of the biz in your, your parents, your children's, or your spouse's retirement account)
I don't believe in this one bit. Audited performance #s are the same to anyone who cares, whether the account audited is your IRA or some LLC/LP. Folks only care about the performance#, the provenance of the auditor, and reporting methodology (GIPS compliance or some other)
Good guys can do it for closer to $15k these days. You will need to incur the expense of developing advisory contracts, disclosures, and policies/procedures for managing both separate accounts and a single fund, which should run you $3k. In addition, a fund requires specialist work in partnership law, as well as securities laws in the context of issuing securities. That is what pretty much rings up the $15k tab.
It is false that a limited partnership will need to file tax returns in every jurisdiction in which its (the partnership) limited partners live. The partnership will only need to file tax returns in its jurisdiction of domicile, as well as every jurisdiction in which it does business. In practice, for an investment partnership, these will be the state in which the partnership gets its charter, as well as the states in which the managers, administrators, and advisors do business. As an example, let us say you live in New York, and I live in California. You serve as general partner, and I serve as limited partner. The limited partnership will file a federal tax return as well as a New York state tax return, and will send me my schedule K-1. I will use the K-1 you had sent me to prepare both my federal and California personal income taxes. You will use your schedule K-1 to prepare your federal and NYS personal income taxes.

Partnership accounting is not something you can do with Quicken. Partnership accounting, and the resultant tax preparation work, is not cheap. You can justify the expense when you have several partners and investment income to cover the expense. It is customary that these audit, accounting, and tax-prep expenses be borne by the fund itself and not the fund manager. Your investors would freak if the expenses allocable to them represented a significant fixed expense. The nice things about separate accounts is what is essentially free bundled accounting work. IB even will calc performance fees at no additional cost, if both you and the investor are comfortable with IB's accounting methodology for performance fees.

Thanks for the insights. Although I don't understand the details, this famework is useful.
 
Back
Top