Vision Hill Crypto Hedge Fund Returns: Third Quarter 2018
TL;DR. This piece builds on the work we started in Q2’18. According to Vision Hill Research, during the third quarter of 2018 crypto hedge funds outperformed the Bletchley20 and Galaxy Index by 2480 bps and ~200 bps, respectively, performed in line with the Bitwise Hold10 and underperformed bitcoin by 1260 bps. Vision Hill Research found the median quarterly return of its in-scope crypto hedge funds (43 data points used for this analysis) to be -9.2% during the third quarter of 2018, whereas bitcoin’s quarterly return amounted to +3.5% over the same time period (driven by a strong July). The Bitwise Hold10, Bletchley20 and Galaxy Index put up third quarter 2018 returns of -9.2%, -33.9% and -11.1%, respectively. We plan to continue to provide these reference points on a quarterly basis going forward segmented by fund strategy as well as fund type. It should be noted that these performance metrics are quarterly metrics as of a particular point in time (July 1, 2018 through September 30, 2018), that represents only a limited snapshot and should not be considered as long-term indications of performance. This analysis should only be used as of this point in time as a framework. The cryptoasset class remains highly volatile and in the early stages of development, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. As will be discussed herein, we do not believe we have a perfect solution for benchmarking, and are not trying to present this piece as such. Rather, we are seeking to continue improving our existing framework. We also continue to relay a call to action to the community to help us work on improving this framework so that it may one day become more widely adopted for benchmarking purposes by fund managers and institutional investors. For a quick recap of what attributes we believe a good benchmark should possess, as well as what challenges we are aware may arise over time in regard to benchmarking in this nascent asset class, we encourage you to review the Q2’18 publication. Let’s dig in.
An updated infographic (dynamically adjusted each quarter based on our market research) of what we believe to be the most popular investment strategies in the cryptoasset industry at present is illustrated below:
Long Only — these are managers that employ extensive, deep value research and experiment with quantitative and qualitative metrics to determine what cryptoassets have the potential to accrue large amounts of value over time. These managers find assets they have high conviction in, and buy and hold those assets for a certain period of time. This is popular in both liquid and illiquid strategies (e.g., both public and private markets). We have begun to see some development around a stack element focus (e.g., base-layer focus, layer 2 solution focus, middleware focus and/or application layer & UI/UX focus), but generally speaking still find most of these managers to invest across the entire ecosystem stacks at present.
Long/Short & Tactical Trading– these managers similarly undergo extensive research in the space, but instead of only buying and holding assets they believe will accrue value, they also short-sell and tactically trade assets that they believe are expected to decrease in value as a result of internal signals, sophisticated factor-based models and expected catalyst events. This is more popular in the public (liquid) crypto markets.
Hybrids — in certain cases, managers possess a hybrid strategy where they are investing in high conviction projects in both liquid and illiquid (public and private) crypto markets. Some managers choose to only be long in both markets, while others choose to actively short-sell and tactically trade where they are able to.
Directional — these are managers that run highly sophisticated quantitative models that produce either “risk-on” or “risk-off” trading signals that direct these managers to execute their discretionary investment strategies in an aggressive or passive way depending on the perceived market cycle. Momentum, sentiment, trend and some systematic algorithmic trading strategies also tend to be popular here. This strategy can be focused on a single cryptoasset, a basket of cryptoassets, or relative value trading between assets, but is largely reliant on a quantitative model.
Arbitrage / Market Neutral — these are managers that utilize strategies that remove or limit market risk while capturing alpha returns. Exchange arbitrage strategies capitalize on the price discrepancies between different exchanges geographically or on pair trades within the same exchange, while managed futures, developing derivative strategies, or HFT seek returns with minimized market risk. Systematic algorithmic trading strategies also tend to be popular here.
Long Volatility — We are seeing this as a developing quantitative strategy whereby managers focus on the Greeks, including Delta, Theta, Rho, Gamma and Vega to manage risk from the perspective of volatility. These managers typically enter into option positions that are long volatility whereby if volatility increases, the manager would be expected to outperform.
Credit — these are managers that are leveraging the traditional lending business model and applying it to this new asset class. Such managers purchase loans backed by crypto collateral and earn interest/yields on these cash loans. This has been growing in popularity lately as many holders of cryptoassets want liquidity but do not want to monetize their positions to trigger taxable events or give up the potential upside they believe these cryptoassets can achieve in the future.
Active Network Participation / Generalized Mining — We have continued to see this strategy develop since our last publication. We acknowledge cryptonetworks provide financial incentives whereby a community is catalyzed to pull together and provision a decentralized digital good or service, self-organize in a specific way and then remunerate for either the contribution of that resource or pay for a specific resource on a network. Thus, this strategy entails cryptonetwork investors providing more resources than just capital, governance and operational partnerships — we are seeing such investors also engage in mining, staking, validation, bonding, curation, dispute resolution, node operation, network routing, and more to help shape the direction of networks they are invested in. Some examples (not all-inclusive) of cryptonetworks in which these strategies are being executed (in addition to delegation) are:
Typically, in the private markets, we see a bifurcation between private token strategies and private equity strategies. On the private token side, we see managers investing in projects undergoing private presales, follow-on sales, and the like, whereas on the private equity side, managers are focusing on business models that do not warrant a token and instead invest in these businesses as you would in traditional venture equity. We typically see three sub-strategies here, but for the purposes of our framework, we refer to this strategy as simply venture.
Seed/Early Stage — these are investors that finance the very early development of new products or services. Typically we see simple agreements for future tokens (“SAFTs”), simple agreements for future equity (“SAFEs”), pre-sales, and early stage private sales (typically Series A) as the investment structures in this strategy.
Growth — these are investors that finance expansion and help projects position for critical mass. Typically we see private sales (typically Series B, Series C, etc.) as the investment structures in this strategy. On the token side, we see larger private accredited investor rounds to increase distribution and participation.
Late Stage — these are investors that finance positions that are in the works of positioning themselves for public offerings. The projects can demonstrate significant growth but may or may not be showing value accretion. Projects have usually been in existence for more than three years. Typically we see later-stage private sales (Series D, and onward) as the investment structures in this strategy. On the token side, this might take the form of a public token sale, launch of the network, airdrop, or public listing of tokens on an exchange.
Active Indexing — these are managers that index to a certain benchmark but are overweighting or underweighting certain selected cryptoassets actively in an effort to outperform the benchmark.
Passive Indexing — these are managers that create a market-weighted index or portfolio in an effort to offer a diversified, low turnover, low cost alternative (e.g., basket funds and the like) to actively managed fund strategies. Usually there is a “smart” element to its genesis structural composition before it becomes fully passive.
The Vision Hill Benchmark Framework
Presented below (where sufficient data was available), are what we believe are comparison points of like-kind managers for the three-month periods ended September 30, 2018 and June 30, 2018. For confidentiality purposes, we are unable to disclose any specific performance numbers or specific manager names; we only present measures of central tendency and generalized brackets of performance to protect manager privacy. We also elected to solely present data for the full three months leading up to September 30, 2018 (July, August and September) and leading up to June 30, 2018 (April, May and June). At this time we are not including periods such as year-to-date given many funds launched at different points in time over the course of 2018. Returns below are net of all management & performance fees to the best of our knowledge.
*It should be noted that these performance metrics are quarterly metrics as of a particular point in time, which represents only a limited snapshot and should not be considered as long-term indications of performance. This analysis should continue to be used as of this point in time as a framework. The cryptoasset industry remains highly volatile and in the early stages of development, and past performance is no guarantee of future results.
For the purpose of this exercise, we had 43 data points to consider for the three-month period ended September 30, 2018. Out of our internal database of over 350 crypto funds and counting, we have diligenced approximately 80 funds so far as of the date of this report and found some funds were either pre-launch, or launched during the third quarter of 2018 (and thus didn’t have a full quarter worth of data). For data to be presented in the aforementioned quartiles, we decided a minimum of five data points must be available for a particular strategy.
As noted previously, we seek to provide points of reference for measuring performance among similar investment strategies, and we plan to deliver these performance statistics on a quarterly basis going forward by T+45. We are targeting mid-February 2019 for our release of the December 31, 2018 fourth quarter fund performance. We hope each quarterly publication continues to include more data points.
A Call To Action — Help Us Build a Better Benchmark
It should be noted that we do realize these benchmark comparison points are imperfect for a variety of reasons, hence we originally proposed this as a framework at best. First, the number of data points we have used in this exercise (43) continues to be relatively limited. While typically statistically significant sample sizes warrant a minimum of 30 variables, it is nonetheless our goal to continue to work with the community to collect more data over time so that future quarterly releases can grow more robust in size and fund managers can start comparing performance against reliable data points of like-kind managers and strategies. Thus, if you are a crypto fund that has not connected with us yet, are reading this, and want to contribute to helping us, please add us to your monthly and/or quarterly performance distribution list. We have set up email@example.com for this very purpose and will look to automate this over time. Moving forward, we will look to develop a transparent opt-in system of reporting and ranking guided by community consensus and traditional market best practices.
In sum, we understand benchmarking is a challenging topic in the crypto asset class given how early it still is. We do not believe we have a perfect solution for benchmarking, and are not trying to present this piece as such. Rather, we continue to build on our existing framework and hope to continue to work with the crypto community to improve this framework so that it may one day become more widely adopted by fund managers and institutional investors.
Additionally, if you have any feedback or comments surrounding how we can improve this developing benchmark, we’d love to hear from you. You can email us at firstname.lastname@example.org with “Benchmark” in the subject line.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Vision Hill Advisors is a crypto asset and blockchain focused fund of funds. Through a proprietary fund manager selection process and institutional level due diligence, Vision Hill aims to lead investors into the future of digital assets. Vision Hill brings together a team with extensive experience in traditional financial markets, a deep passion and understanding of crypto and digital asset markets, and a history of risk and portfolio management.
The content provided herein should not be considered investment advice, and is not a recommendation of, or an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy, any particular security, strategy, or investment product.