sponsored by: july 2013 -...
TRANSCRIPT
©Copyright 2013. Infovest21 LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Infovest21, LLC T 212.686.6440
267 Fifth Avenue, Suite B104 F 212.686.6289
New York, NY 10016 E [email protected]
www.infovest21.com
Infovest21 ’40 Act Survey:
Hedge Fund Use of ’40 Act Registered Investment Funds
Sponsored by:
July 2013
2
Disclaimer:
This publication has been prepared for general information and does not constitute professional advice. You should
not act upon information herein without obtaining specific professional advice. No representation or warranty is
given to the accuracy or completeness of the information herein. The content of the publication is based upon
information currently available. As a result, certain aspects of this publication may be superseded as new
information emerges.
3
Table of Contents
Topic Page
I. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………... 4
II. Major Findings ………………………………………………………………..…. 6
III. Profile of All Respondents ………………………………………………………. 8
IV. ’40 Act Fund Usage ………………………………………………………………. 11
V. Structures Used and Service Providers Selected …………………………….…… 16
VI. Start-Up Considerations ………………………………………………………….. 21
VII. Costs and Fee Structure ……………………………………………………….….. 23
VIII. Marketing Efforts…………………………………………………………………. 26
IX. Concerns and Challenges …………………………………………………..…….. 27
X. Going Forward ……………………………………………………………..…….. 29
XI. Sponsors and Commentator Biographies…………………………………………. 30
XII. Organizer………………………………………………………………………….. 34
4
I. Introduction
Since 2008, the “year of the gate” in the hedge fund world, a growing number of investors have
come to appreciate alternative strategies in liquid fund structures or “liquid alternatives” as a
viable alternative to hedge funds.
Liquid alternatives, defined as alternative strategy mutual funds registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (’40 Act funds), potentially offer noncorrelated returns to traditional
investments along with transparency and regulatory oversight associated with mutual funds.
They solve some of the issues investors may have with hedge funds by providing better liquidity,
a more aligned fee structure, simplified tax reporting (i.e. using 1099s instead of K-1s), and
lower investment minimums.
A ‘40 Act registered fund offers more regulatory and governance safeguards such as oversight
and accountability of an independent board, protection of the physical integrity of assets,
guarding against conflicts of interest, and ensuring that investors receive transparency about the
fund, its strategies and its managers.
Robust growth
Total net liquid alternative assets grew 19% year-to-date through May 31, according to
Morningstar data. Assets in the first five months of 2013 totaled $107.8 billion.
Moreover, alternative strategy mutual funds as a percent of all US mutual funds represented
1.06% for the first five months of 2013, up from 0.98% in 2012.
New liquid alternative fund launches continue. 22 liquid alternative funds were launched in the
first five months of 2013 compared with 64 for all of last year. Morningstar has 339 distinct
mutual funds that are classified as alternatives.
Product is coming from a number of different sources
Liquid alternative funds continue to be launched as multi-manager and single manager funds.
Multi-manager funds use multiple sleeves and sub-advisors to provide access to hedge fund
managers and strategies in a lower cost ‘40 Act wrapper with daily liquidity.
Product is coming from a number of different sources. Some major distribution platforms created
their own custom multi-manager vehicles (e.g. Fidelity joined up with fund of funds manager,
Arden Asset Management, to create a multi-manager alternative mutual fund exclusively for
5
Fidelity’s Portfolio Advisory Service). Some large private equity firms (e.g. KKR) are
developing product, while large asset management firms (e.g. Blackstone Group) have also
launched product.
An interesting migration is also occurring from the qualified plan and pension arena into
alternative mutual funds. For example, Palmer Square has recently launched an alternative
strategy ’40 Act Fund, the Palmer Square SSI Alternative Income Fund.
It is against this backdrop that Infovest21 conducted this survey in June 2013 in which 133 hedge
fund and fund of funds managers responded. The goals of the survey were to determine how
many managers have launched or are considering launching ’40 Act products; what their
motivations were; how they determined the structure and service providers used; their
considerations regarding cost, time and other required resources; challenges and concerns in
managing a mutual fund; and finally, an assessment from the managers on whether the effort and
cost required to launch a ’40 Act fund was worth it.
A special thanks to McGladrey LLP and Atlantic Fund Services who sponsored the survey,
helping in the design of the questionnaire as well as the analysis of the results. Their qualitative
views appear in the comment boxes throughout the text.
6
II. Major Findings
Over one-half of the managers surveyed have launched or are in the process of launching a
’40 Act fund
Over one-half of the surveyed managers have launched a ’40 Act mutual fund, are in the process
of launching a ’40 Act fund or are considering doing so. Another 25% are a subadvisor to a ’40
Act fund or considering becoming a subadvisor. 8% have decided not to launch a ’40 Act fund.
Another 14% opted for “None of the above.”
The respondents said their primary motivation to launch a ’40 Act fund was investor demand.
Broadening their investor base and building assets were also motivations.
Hedge fund managers’ use of ’40 Act funds is more widespread than most expect
While launching a liquid alternative fund is considered by most to be a recent development,
almost 30% of the respondents have been managing a ’40 Act fund for more than 10 years.
In fact, 42% of those surveyed have more than one ’40 Act mutual fund.
Hedge fund performance outperforms liquid alternative performance
As one would expect, the managers generally reported that their hedge fund performance has
been higher than its mutual fund counterpart. On a year-to-date basis (January –June), hedge
funds have returned 6.8% compared with 4.1% for the ’40 Act fund.
Start-up considerations
For 57% of the respondents, it took 6-12 months to launch a ’40 Act fund.
43% of the respondents said the start-up costs ranged between $50,000 and $99,999.
The average estimated breakeven assets under management for the flagship ’40 Act fund was
$39 million.
Cost is top criteria for selecting a service provider
Cost was the top criteria for managers selecting their service provider while culture/fit came in
second at 77% and 69%, respectively.
7
Series trust is the preferred structure
Almost 80% of the respondents used a series trust structure as opposed to a stand-alone trust.
Their main reason for using this structure was that series trusts offer a turnkey solution that
provides ready access to the incremental infrastructure required to manage and operate a mutual
fund. Economics was a distant second choice.
Those who selected stand-alone trusts primarily did so to customize their needs.
Wealth managers are the most-cited type of investor client
Wealth managers make up the largest percentage of clients.
36% of those surveyed are marketing their funds on a distribution platform.
Asset raising is the biggest challenge
Asset raising is the biggest challenge, as cited by 47% of those surveyed. Lack of investor
education and performance were each cited by 35% of those surveyed.
Costs and cannibalization of existing product were the other primary concerns with establishing
and managing a mutual fund.
Going forward
Over three-quarters of the managers said launching a ’40 Act fund was worth the time and effort.
The remainder of respondents said it was too early to tell.
8
III. Profile of All Respondents
Of the 133 hedge funds and funds of funds surveyed, the average assets under management
(excluding ’40 Act assets) were $1.98 billion in hedge funds, $1.79 billion in funds of funds,
$1.13 billion in separately managed accounts and $900 million for “other.” “Other” included
assets managed in commodity trading advisors, commodity pool operators or private equity
vehicles.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
1.98
1.79
1.13
0.90
Assets Under Management ($B)
Hedge Funds
Fund of Funds
Separate Accounts
Other
9
The managers listed a wide range of strategies used. Equity long/short was most frequently cited
by 37% of those surveyed. Managed futures were highlighted by 18% while funds of funds were
mentioned by 17%. Another 16% cited multi-strategy.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Capital structure arbitrage
Gold
Sector-real estate
Short-biased
Convertible arbitrage
Sector-energy
Volatility arbitrage
Activist
Country specific
Currency trading
Merger arbitrage
Options
Commodities
Sector-technology
Other
Private equity
Relative value
Sector-healthcare
Statistical arbitrage
Fixed income arbitrage
Long-only
Distressed
Mortgage backed securities
Special situations
Event driven
Credit long/short
Market neutral
Emerging markets
Global macro
Multi-strategy
Funds of funds
Managed futures
Equity long/short
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
7
8
8
8
10
11
11
12
14
16
17
18
37
What is your primary strategy? (%)
10
82% of the respondents are based in the United States. Of those, 53% were on the east coast.
Another 11% of the respondents were from Europe and 1% were from Asia.
US
82%
Europe
11%
Asia
1%
Other
6%
Headquarter Location (%)
David Sandrew, Atlantic: “The demographics and investment style are no surprise.
Heavy concentrations of funds are on the east coast and the data show an accurate
reflection of the private fund industry.”
Scott Mackey, McGladrey: “As managers continue to differentiate themselves from
the pack in order to seek capital, we expect to see more managers expand into other
North American and international geographies as well as more complex and
uncorrelated investment strategies.”
11
IV. ’40 Act Fund Usage
53% of the sample have launched a ’40 Act mutual fund, are in the process of launching a ’40
Act fund or are considering doing so. Another 25% are a subadvisor to a ’40 Act fund or
considering becoming a subadvisor. 8% have decided not to launch a ’40 Act fund. Another 14%
opted for “None of the above.”
I am considering
launching
24%
Yes
23% None of the above
14%
No, I am a
subadvisor
13%
No, I am
considering
becoming a
subadvisor
12%
No, I have decided
not to
8%
I am in the process
of launching
6%
Do you currently offer a '40 Act Fund? (%)
12
Over 63% of the respondents said their primary motivation to launch a ’40 Act fund was investor
demand while 51% said it was another way to broaden their investor base and another 44% said
it was a way to build assets.
Multiple responses accepted
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Transparency
Means to differentiate from peers
Liquidity
Another way to build assets
Another way to broaden investor base
Investor demand
10
15
24
44
51
63
Primary motivation to offer a'40 Act fund?
(%)
David Sandrew: “Investors in private fund managers request greater transparency and
prefer the reduced liquidity restrictions of ’40 Act funds. Increasingly, these investors
are being advised by wealth managers and RIAs reflecting captive distribution
channel which are accessible through registered funds.”
Scott Mackey: “The additional attraction of hedge-style mutual funds comes from the
combination of alternative strategies with the transparency, liquidity and regulatory
oversight of regulated investment vehicles.
Investors being advised by broker dealers and wealth managers are a new and captive
distribution channel accessible through registered funds.”
13
Of those who launched a ’40 Act fund, 59% of the managers have been managing a ’40 Act fund
for less than three years. Another 29% have been doing so for more than 10 years and 12% have
been doing so for three to five years.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
<3 3-4.9 5-9.9 >10
59
12
0
29
How many years have you been managing
'40 Act mutual funds? (%)
Scott Mackey: “Several recent survey results corroborate primary investor concerns of
credibility and track records when considering awarding mandates. Three years was
typically cited as the minimum number of years on the retail side. A recent McKinsey
study results showed 70% of RIAs citing historical fund performance as a critical
influencer in their selection of an investment manager.”
14
The average mutual fund assets under management were $1.2 billion in funds of funds, $633.6
million in single strategy funds and $154.5 million in other investment vehicles. These numbers
are lower than the average assets under management in hedge funds and fund of funds which are
$1.98 and $1.79 billion respectively.
About 58% of the respondents offer one ’40 Act mutual fund while 17% offer more than five.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1200.0
633.6
154.5
What are your current mutual fund
assets under management? ($M)
Funds of funds
Single strategy funds
Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
1
2
3
>5
58
17
8
17
How many '40 Act mutual funds do you
have? (%)
15
The average year-to-date performance of the manager’s oldest ’40 Act fund was 3.8% while its
hedge fund counterpart returned 6.8%.
85% of the respondents started a new ’40 Act fund while 10% converted a private fund. Another
5% converted from a separately managed account.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6.8
3.8
Average year-to-date performance (%)
Hedge fund counterpart
Oldest '40 Act fund
No, new fund
85%
Yes, private fund
asset conversion
10%
Separately
managed account
5%
Did you convert/are you converting assets
from an existing structure?
David Sandrew: “This indicates that managers tend to lead with a flagship fund
focused strategy and are establishing a beachhead with investors to take advantage
of the alternative registered fund opportunity. Fee revenue in the registered
product is generally lower and thus the predominant manager strategy is to launch
a new fund and maintain the existing revenue stream.”
16
V. Structures Used and Service Providers Selected
79% of the respondents selected a series trust structure while 21% used a stand-alone trust.
Series trust
79%
Stand alone trust
21%
Is the fund part of a series trust or a stand
alone trust? (%)
David Sandrew: “The series trust provides an efficient structure for entry into in the
mutual fund market.”
Scott Mackey: “The ease of the turnkey model provides both risks and rewards for
investment managers. The outsourcing of almost all aspects of operating a mutual
fund allows the manager to focus on its core operations, but also exposes managers to
reputational risk if the various service providers in the turnkey model are not acting
with the appropriate diligence. This makes the selection of the turnkey provider and
the other service providers within the turnkey model all the more important.”
17
62% of the respondents selected a series trust because it is a turnkey solution. Economics was a
far distant second choice cited by 39% of the respondents. Convenience and preference for
outsourcing tied for third place as cited by 31% of the respondents.
Multiple responses accepted
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Reputation of provider
Most convenient
Prefer outsourcing than doing it internally
Most economical
Turnkey suite of solutions
8
31
31
39
62
If you selected a series trust, why did you
select this structure? (%)
David Sandrew: “The data show that investment managers seek value. Reducing the
administrative, regulatory and compliance demands on adviser senior staff by
outsourcing fund infrastructure management allows advisers to focus on the core
aspects of their business – alpha generation and asset raising.”
18
Customization to fit the manager’s needs (67%) was the key ingredient for managers selecting a
stand-alone trust.
Multiple responses accepted
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Sufficient assets
Ability to select specific service providers
Fulfills my longer term goals
Streamline internal middle and back office functions
Fewer conflicts of interest
Customized to fit my needs
11
11
22
22
22
67
If you have a stand-alone trust, why did you
select this structure?
David Sandrew: “A stand-alone trust gives the manager more control of the service
model and governance. It is a benefit that typically provides more value to the larger
manager.”
Scott Mackey: “We have also seen more managers with strategies that don’t lend
themselves to daily liquidity use stand-alone closed-end fund structures to access
funding from capital markets.”
19
Cost was the top criteria for managers selecting their service provider (77%). Culture/fit came in
second (69%). Reputation and people were tied for third place (54%).
Multiple responses accepted
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Capacity for new clients
Comprehensive level of services
Size of firm
High-touch service
Quality of systems
Specialist in certain strategy
Reputation
People
Culture/fit
Cost
39
39
46
46
46
46
54
54
69
77
Why were these service providers
selected?(%)
David Sandrew: “The cost of setting up a mutual fund impacts performance, so it is
naturally a major consideration in selecting service providers.
Many of the factors that ranked highly address the advisor’s trust in their service
providers. This encompasses culture/fit, people and reputation. Trust is naturally an
important consideration as an administrator has a large impact on the success of an
adviser’s fund business.”
Scott Mackey: “The service providers’ reputation for quality may also impact a
manager’s ability to raise capital if there is a perception that the quality of the fund’s
critical functions is impaired. Thus choosing providers on price alone, may not be an
effective strategy in the long term.”
20
Only 7% of the respondents have changed service providers.
Most cited reasons for changing service providers included reputation, culture/fit, high touch
service, cost, people, and quality of systems.
No
93%
Yes
7%
Have you changed any of your service
providers? (%)
David Sandrew: “Series trusts tend to be less flexible than a stand-alone vehicle in
allowing advisers to change service providers as the administrator is the entry point to
the series trust. In addition, changing transfer agents, regardless of fund structure,
involves additional risk given the potential impact of a misstep with fund investors.
This natural lack of change should stress the need to make the best service provider
choice. Remember fees can be negotiated, trust is often impossible to recreate once
lost.”
21
VI. Start-Up Considerations
Almost 57% of the respondent said it took 6-12 months to launch the fund. For another 22%, it
took longer than 12 months.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
<4 4-6 6-12 >12
14
7
57
22
%
Months
Indicated time frame in months for launch,
either actual or projected (%)
David Sandrew: “Series trust new fund launches can be as short as 3.5 months, with
the prospectus drafted and filed with the SEC in 30 days and effective 75 days (day
105) thereafter.
Setting up a stand-alone trust requires additional time to select the board and develop
the fund’s compliance programs. Also, the first fund is not subject to 75 day
automatic effectiveness.
Major timing drivers are the due diligence process (of both advisor and service
providers), the clarity of the advisor’s fund strategy going into the project and raising
initial “seed” capital before the fund launch.”
22
For 58% of those surveyed, this time frame was as expected. For more than one-third of the
respondents, it took considerably longer than expected.
Met expectations
58%
Took considerably
longer than
expected
34%
Took slightly
longer than
expected
8%
Was this time frame in line with your
expectations? (%)
David Sandrew: “Much of the fund launch process is procedural and relatively easy to
predict from a cost and timing perspective. Like any process, the key to success is a
well managed project plan with clearly delineated roles and responsibilities.”
23
VII. Costs and Fee Structure
43% of the respondents said the start-up costs were between $50,000 and $99,999. However,
another 29% said the costs were between $100,000 and $249,000 while another 14% quoted
$250,000 to $499,000.
79% of the respondents said the costs were as expected.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
$25,000-49,999
$50,000-99,999
$100,000-249,999
$250,000-49,999
14
43
29
14
Start-up costs (%)
In line with
expectations
79%
Slightly higher
than expected
21%
Are these costs in line with expectations?
(%)
24
The average management fee charged was 1.48%.
54% of those surveyed did not charge loads. However, 62% charged 12b-1 fees.
87% of those surveyed capped their expenses.
No
54% Yes
46%
Do you charge loads? (%)
Yes
62%
No
38%
Do you charge 12b-1 fees? (%)
Yes
87%
No
13%
Are your expenses capped?
25
43% of those surveyed offer more than three share classes.
The average asset level breakeven for the flagship ’40 Act fund was $39.4 million. This is the
minimum level of assets that a manager needs to maintain in order to meet operating expenses.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
1
2
3
>3
14
21
22
43
How many share classes? (%)
David Sandrew: “Multiple share class fund structures attract multiple types of
investors and different types of intermediaries.
Exacting breakeven analyses is crucial to launching your first mutual fund. Multiple
share classes increase the breakeven point; the series trust structure, with shared
economics, decreases the breakeven point (as well as start-up costs).”
Scott Mackey: “Prospective managers should be aware that if they are intending to
cap their fund expenses, if the fund were not to reach critical mass through asset
growth and performance, the manager will be effectively bearing the fund expenses
through waiver/reimbursement of advisory fees.”
26
VIII. Marketing Efforts
37% of those surveyed are marketing their funds on a platform. Another 30% use internal
marketers, 27% use wholesalers while 18% use third party marketers.
Multiple responses accepted
Investor Client Mix
89% of those surveyed have wealth managers as investor clients. One-third of the managers
surveyed have family offices/ high net worth investors and existing investors as clients.
Multiple responses accepted
Third party marketers
Wholesalers
Internal marketers
Platforms
0 10 20 30 40
18
27
30
37
How are you marketing your fund?
(%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Sovereign wealth funds
Foundations
Endowments
Funds of funds
Self
Family and friends
Pensions
Family offices/high net worth
Existing investors
Wealth managers
0
11
11
11
11
11
22
33
33
89
What is your client mix in the '40 Act fund (%)
27
IX. Concerns and Challenges
The biggest challenge is asset raising as cited by 47% of the respondents. Lack of investor
education and performance were each cited by 35% of those surveyed.
Multiple responses accepted
0 10 20 30 40 50
Lack of investor education
Performance
Asset raising
35
35
47
What are your biggest challenges? (%)
David Sandrew: “Raising capital remains a hurdle for both private and registered
funds. One difference is that registered funds can offer the governance, operating
efficiencies, transparency and transferability that is attractive to platforms with capital
investor assets. The largest concentration of investor assets for wealth managers and
RIAs is usually associated with designated platforms.”
28
The respondents said their main concerns about managing a mutual fund were cost (43%) and
cannibalizing an existing product (37%).
Multiple responses accepted
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Brand confusion
Other
Lower fees
Cannibalizing existing product
Cost
9
20
26
37
43
What are your main concerns about
managing a mutual fund? (%)
David Sandrew: “Managers should focus on solving the largest issues. Long term
partnerships with a fee trade-off and the use of series trusts help the overall P&L.
Similarly, tools to limit cannibalization include changing the risk parameters or
diversification, using a short beta book or becoming long biased within the investment
strategy.”
29
David Sandrew: “Private fund managers are seeing the benefits of positioning their
firm as asset managers offering different investment vehicles (products/strategies).
Despite the perceived difficulties and costs, clearly most managers recognize that
enhancing their distribution is worth the effort.”
Scott Mackey: “Daily liquidity requirements, regulatory restrictions on investment
strategies, lower fees and margins, governance requirements (dealing with
independent broad members, holding regular board meetings), and issuing reports
that include quarterly portfolio holding statements and accompanying disclosures
all require a different way of thinking for alternative fund managers. Moreover,
managers have to learn a whole new way of marketing and distributing products.
Investors and advisors will also need to understand these new offerings and how
alternative strategies align with their portfolio performance goals.
Attaining success in this emerging area will not be easy as the blurring of the lines
between traditional and alternative investment offerings presents new risks as well
as opportunities for all. Thoughtful consideration of all aspects of this market
transition combined with shared insights and experiences will help ensure a
winning ride on this new wave growth.”
X. Going Forward
Over 76% of the respondents said launching a ’40 Act fund was worth the time and effort. None
said it was not. Another 24% said it was too early to make a determination.
Yes, 76%
Don't know, too
early to tell
24%
Was it worth the time and effort? (%)
30
Sponsors
Three Canal Plaza
Portland, ME 04101
Contact: David Sandrew
Phone: 212-828-3333
Website: www.atlanticfundservices.com
Email: [email protected]
Atlantic Fund Services is a global third party fund administrator with $18 billion in assets under
administration and operations in the US, Luxembourg and Poland. They provide comprehensive
fund start-up services and ongoing fund administration, fund accounting, transfer agency,
distribution and compliance solutions for registered and unregistered funds. Their clients include
advisors to mutual funds, closed-end funds, hedge funds, pension funds, UCITS, SIFs, common
and collective funds, ETFs and other pooled investment products. They are the administrator for
the Forum family of funds; series trust solutions for mutual funds and actively managed ETFs.
They provide customized fund start-up and conversion services. Fund launch services include
product analysis and design and advising on regulatory and operational requirements. They
provide detailed operating expense budgets and on-going projections that give advisors full
transparency into fund operating expenses and profitability. They manage the fund launch
process, coordinating deliverables and monitoring deadlines to ensure a fund’s launch or
conversion stays on track.
Their technology and personnel make customization and superior service possible. The
advanced core processing and information technology supports flexible, yet scalable and
redundant operating platforms. They provide expert administration support for ongoing
operations and works with advisors to develop and implement best practices and cost
management strategies to optimize fund operations. Our proven processes and controls,
supported by industry-leading technology, deliver the financial and regulatory information
advisors need to operate their funds.
Atlantic is dedicated to building sustainable, long-term relationships by providing superior
quality, personalized service and customized solutions for registered and unregistered investment
products.
31
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Contact: Scott Mackey
Phone: 617-241-1266
Website: www.mcgladrey.com
Email: [email protected]
With more than 50 years of experience serving the financial services community, McGladrey
professionals help organizations navigate complex reporting, governance and regulatory issues to
achieve their business objectives. We serve alternative investment companies, investment
advisers, and investment partnerships/hedge funds, commodity pools, private equity funds,
BDCs and SBIC funds, mutual funds, broker-dealers and futures commission merchants.
We understand how many mutual fund and registered investment complexes are constrained in
their selection of accounting, tax, audit and business consulting providers. Whether due to
potential independence issues, the desire to engage an internationally recognized firm, limited
expertise within a firm - or simply the desire for another point of view, we understand these
dynamics and can provide you with a broad range of assurance, tax and consulting services to
meet your needs.
As a national firm focused on investment companies, we have national resources dedicated to
monitoring industry developments while providing up-to-date information to our local practice
offices and our clients – a service unmatched by local or regional accounting firms. Our
publication, “Investment Industry Insights,” provides up-to-date information on emerging issues
while, on a biweekly basis, McGladrey’s National Professional Standards Group publishes
Insights, an electronic newsletter designed to communicate recent accounting, auditing and SEC
developments to our clients.
Industry advocates for your business
Our financial services professionals are leaders in their fields and often assist in shaping industry
regulations and tax legislation. We have testified before Congress, served as expert witnesses
and participated in the development and updates to authoritative guides and practice aids on the
audits of investment companies, broker-dealers and futures commission merchants. In addition,
many are regular speakers at key industry conferences like this one.
©Copyright 2013. Infovest21 LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Infovest21, LLC T 212.686.6440
267 Fifth Avenue, Suite B104 F 212.686.6289
New York, NY 10016 E [email protected]
www.infovest21.com
Biography- Atlantic Fund Services
David Sandrew
Atlantic Fund Services
David Sandrew has over 20 years of experience. He serves as managing director of business
development responsible for sales and product at Atlantic Fund Services. He specializes in
marketing registered, unregistered fund administration services and solutions to investment
management companies. He has experience in sales, marketing and relationship management
supporting alternatives, capital markets, asset management distribution and investment
management services.
Prior to joining Atlantic, he was director of business development at The Conifer Group
responsible for marketing fund administration, middle office, execution services and prime
brokerage to hedge funds, asset owners and allocators in the alternative space. Previously he
was director of exchange traded funds distribution at State Street, director at Barclays’ Prime
Services Group, executive director at UBS, AG and vice president at Schwab Institutional and
Schwab Capital Markets and Trading.
33
Biography - McGladrey
Scott Mackey
McGladrey
Scott is a partner and leader of the financial services practice in New England. He is responsible
for all aspects of our delivery of assurance, taxation, risk advisory and IT consulting services to
the New England asset management and financial services sector.
He brings more than 16 years of public accounting experience to McGladrey. He has extensive
experience across the financial services and asset management industry, having served both the
alternative investment space, including hedge fund, private equity and fund of fund complexes,
where he gained exposure to hard to value securities and complex financial instruments,
registered investment vehicles including mutual funds and broker-dealers. In addition, Scott has
significant insights on operational and regulatory issues facing asset managers through the
performance of internal control reports, such as Soc1 and Chief Compliance Officer reports, as
well as advisory and risk management projects.
Prior to McGladrey, he spent nine years in Ernst & Young’s asset management practice,
performing a wide array of services to their alternative investment, registered investment
company, custodial banking and broker-dealer clients. Prior to E&Y, he was a manager at Arthur
Andersen.
34
Organizer
267 Fifth Avenue
Suite 104B
New York, NY 10016
Contact: Jingle Huang
Phone: 212-686-6440
Fax: 212-686-6289
Website: www.infovest21.com
Email: [email protected]
Infovest21 '40 Act Mutual Fund Products and Packages
Seminars
‘40 Act Funds – Considering the Subadvisory Route to ’40 Act Funds (September
27, 2013)
Seminar Recordings
‘40 Act Funds – ‘40 Act Alternative Assets for DC Plans (July 18, 2013)
‘40 Act Funds - Convergence of Mutual Funds and Hedge Funds (July 18, 2013)
Operating a ‘40 Act Mutual Fund Business (May 20, 2013)
How to Start a ‘40 Act Mutual Fund (April 30, 2013)
Tapping Innovative ‘40 Act Distribution Channels (April 23, 2013)
‘40 Act Mutual Funds - Manager Case Studies (March 7, 2013)
‘40 Act Funds - Game Changer for Funds of Funds? (February 7, 2013)
Special Research Reports
Selecting a Series Trust (July 2013)
Report Card: Assessing ‘40 Act Funds (July 2013)
Practical Considerations in Setting Up a ‘40 Act Mutual Fund (December 2012)
Surveys
Complimentary ‘40 Act Survey: Hedge Fund Use of ’40 Act Registered Investment
Funds (July 2013)
Complimentary ’40 Act Survey Part 2: Hedge Funds Subadvising ’40 Act Funds
(July 2013)
Contact Lists
Wealth Managers, Trusts and Multiple Family Offices
Build your own package - Select one special research report, one seminar, a contact list and get
News Provider for free.
1) Events Package
Attend two morning events
Attend unlimited afternoon events in 2013
Complimentary News Provider
35
Complimentary Survey: Hedge Fund Managers Who Have Started or Are Considering
Starting a '40 Act Mutual Fund
$600. Save $450 off the cover price!
2) Basic (1+1 package)
One Special Research Report
One contact list or seminar
Complimentary News Provider
Contact Lists: wealth managers, trusts, and multiple family offices
Complimentary Survey: Hedge Fund Managers Who Have Started or Are Considering
Starting a '40 Act Mutual Fund
$995. Save $450 off the cover price!
3) Premium (1+1+1 package)
One Special Research Report
One contact list
One morning seminar
Complimentary News Provider
Complimentary Survey: Hedge Fund Managers Who Have Started or Are Considering
Starting a '40 Act Mutual Fund
$1095. Save $550 off cover price!