[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] HEDGE FUNDS AND SYSTEMIC RISK IN THE FINANCIAL MARKETS ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ MARCH 13, 2007 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 110-13 ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 35-405 WASHINGTON : 2007 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MAXINE WATERS, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York PETER T. KING, New York MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina EDWARD R. ROYCE, California GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma JULIA CARSON, Indiana RON PAUL, Texas BRAD SHERMAN, California PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS MOORE, Kansas DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas Carolina WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut JOE BACA, California GARY G. MILLER, California STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West BRAD MILLER, North Carolina Virginia DAVID SCOTT, Georgia TOM FEENEY, Florida AL GREEN, Texas JEB HENSARLING, Texas EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee RICK RENZI, Arizona ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas RON KLEIN, Florida TOM PRICE, Georgia TIM MAHONEY, Florida GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky CHARLES WILSON, Ohio PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado JOHN CAMPBELL, California CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut ADAM PUTNAM, Florida JOE DONNELLY, Indiana MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota ROBERT WEXLER, Florida PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois JIM MARSHALL, Georgia KENNY MARCHANT, Texas DAN BOREN, Oklahoma THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan Jeanne M. Roslanowick, Staff Director and Chief Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on: March 13, 2007............................................... 1 Appendix: March 13, 2007............................................... 49 WITNESSES Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Brody, Kenneth D., Co-Founder and Principal, Taconic Capital Advisors, LLC, and Chairman, Investment Committee, University of Maryland.................................................... 9 Brown, Stephen J., David S. Loeb Professor of Finance, Stern School of Business, New York University........................ 18 Chanos, James, Founder and President, Kynikos Associates, LP, on behalf of The Coalition of Private Investment Companies........ 10 Corrigan, E. Gerald, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs & Company; Former President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York....... 7 Golden, Andrew K., President, Princeton University Investment Company........................................................ 16 Hall, George, Founder and CEO, Clinton Group, on behalf of The Managed Funds Association...................................... 13 Matthews, Jeffrey L., General Partner, Ram Partners, LP.......... 14 APPENDIX Prepared statements: Bachus, Hon. Spencer......................................... 50 Castle, Hon. Michael N....................................... 52 Waters, Hon. Maxine.......................................... 54 Brody, Kenneth D............................................. 57 Brown, Stephen J............................................. 71 Chanos, James................................................ 73 Corrigan, E. Gerald.......................................... 97 Golden, Andrew K............................................. 111 Hall, George................................................. 119 Matthews, Jeffrey L.......................................... 135 HEDGE FUNDS AND SYSTEMIC RISK IN THE FINANCIAL MARKETS ---------- Tuesday, March 13, 2007 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barney Frank [chairman of the committee] presiding. Present: Representatives Frank, Maloney, Watt, Moore of Kansas, Capuano, Clay, Lynch, Scott, Green, Cleaver, Sires, Ellison, Klein, Murphy, Wexler, Marshall; Bachus, Baker, Pryce, Lucas, Gillmor, Manzullo, Jones, Shays, Feeney, Hensarling, Garrett, Neugebauer, Davis of Kentucky, Campbell, Bachmann, and Roskam. The Chairman. This hearing of the Committee on Financial Services will come to order. This is the first in a series of hearings we will be having on hedge funds and systemic risks in the financial markets. I do want to make a point that may encounter some skepticism, but it will not be the first time I have encountered skepticism. Sometimes congressional committees have hearings because they want to find things out, but I acknowledge that is not the normal reason for having hearings. Usually, we have hearings to make a point, to embarrass somebody, or to reinforce a position, but there are times when there is a genuine acknowledgment on our part that we need to know more about things. We are now going to have a series of hearings on the linked topics of hedge funds, private equity, and the role of derivatives. Those are conceptually separate things; they get merged. One of the things I hope we will do as a result of these hearings is to help people to understand that these topics are not all the same thing, and we will unbundle conceptually some issues. We will have two hearings with people from the private sector. The last hearing we are currently scheduled to have will be with the members of the Presidential Working Group. We thought it made sense, they having made their report, to then have some discussion of that, and then have them come back and respond to the conversation. We will at that point, too, be talking to some of the regulators, particularly in the bank area, who are given certain responsibilities under the approach of the President's Working Group. I just have some preliminary comments to make here. First, I believe there is strong support on the committee--it may not be unanimous and people can obviously speak for themselves--for the efforts the SEC has recently made in the area of investor protection. Among things we want to sort out is the question of investor protection versus the question of systemic risk. This hearing is called, ``Hedge Funds and Systemic Risks,'' not because we are assuming that there is a systemic risk, but because that is the question we intend to look at. This series of hearings is not going to be primarily about investor protection. The SEC has moved in that direction, I think, with some appropriateness. There is one sub-set of the investor protection issue, though, that we do plan to look at and that is the interaction between pension funds and the hedge funds. That one is not entirely within our jurisdiction, in fact, that became an issue last year when the pension bill was being voted on and that bill, of course, did not come to our committee at all, I believe, certainly not in any major way. There is interest in that in the Education and Labor Committee, which has jurisdiction over ERISA, and the Ways and Means Committee. Now, I will confess, and I have asked people to be looking into this, one of the concerns I have is the extent to which public pension funds get involved in hedge funds. It was not clear to any of us who exactly had jurisdiction over public pension funds. That may become an issue now because you have some of the States concerned about their GASB requirements regarding the accounting but there is some concern about public pension funds and hedge funds. Once you have that concern, of course even if you had it, it is not clear if you are going to put any protections in there, restrictions, on whom do they go? Do they go on the fund which receives the investment? Do they go on their investor? These are all questions that we will be examining. I will say from the systemic risk standpoint, it does seem to me that the form in which investments are made is less important by far than the type of investments. In particular, I think it is time for us to look into the question of derivatives. Now, I said that sometimes Members of Congress have hearings to try to find things out and not because there is a strong position. I am very proud of the level of the discussion that goes on in this committee. In fact, I think if people had been at the mark-up we recently had on the question of how to respond to the hurricane, they would have been very impressed with the degree of knowledge. I am not prepared to argue that if we got into a serious discussion of derivatives, that we would dazzle anybody with the depth of our knowledge and understanding. I have previously expressed the view, particularly with regard to accounting for derivatives when that has become an issue from time to time with Fannie Mae or elsewhere, that the current state of that appeared to me to be somewhere between alchemy and astrology. I undoubtedly do a lot of people an injustice when I say that, and I am prepared to be further educated. I just want to stress again that these are hearings that we are going to have because there is a new development in the American financial world to some extent, in the hedge funds, and there is also private equity. I should have added, I ask for just 30 more seconds. With regard to private equity, the concern here is not so much systemic risk as what the social implications are. In fact, our colleague from Florida, Mr. Feeney, commented the other day when we were having the executive compensation hearing that he worries about people going private because constituents that he represents could lose the opportunity to make good investments. That was an issue that the gentleman from Florida raised in terms of the implications of private equity. Many of us are also very concerned about the implications for private equity on the workers, and on employers. If you have in fact an increase in debt and the takeover of companies, what is the impact, short term and long term? Those are the questions that we want to look at. And, as I said, I personally have no pre-conceptions about this. Indeed, to be honest, in some cases I barely have conceptions much less pre-conceptions. It is a very important set of questions and it is the job of this committee to help I think both ourselves and our colleagues in Congress, and indeed many in the country to understand it. The gentleman from Alabama is now recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Bachus. I thank the chairman. And let me reiterate what the chairman said: the purpose of this hearing is informational; the purpose of the hearing is not to legislate. I think it speaks well that in reading your testimony, it seems that all of the witnesses are pretty much in agreement, although I noticed that two of them want a greater level of maybe more disclosure and transparency and that is even a controversial subject. In executive compensation, one of the reasons I believe that executive compensation has grown as fast as it has is the SEC requirement that you disclose CEO pay. Warren Buffett, speaking last night, said that it was not greed that was driving executive compensation, it was envy. They see what each other makes and that actually that disclosure, which everybody thought was a good thing, may actually be the cause of a lot of the growth in executive compensation. One reason it is very important for the committee to understand the hedge fund industry and other alternative investment vehicles like private equity and venture capital is because of the tremendous growth we have seen in hedge funds and these other alternatives. There are over 9,000 hedge funds today. That is an explosive growth. They manage over 400 percent more assets than they did in just 1999--$1.4 trillion of assets under management, 60 percent of that is just in the 100 largest hedge funds. They also are generating an increased amount of trading volume. Some experts have represented that up to 50 percent of the trading in our markets in certain circumstances is hedge funds. The strategies employed by hedge funds vary significantly, although most of them hedge against down-turns in markets, which I think is good. The primary goal of many hedge funds is to reduce volatility and risk and simultaneously provide liquidity, preserve capital and deliver positive returns under all market conditions. We found that during our hurricanes in the past few years that it was hedge funds that actually provided the liquidity for insurance, property insurance coverage, a very positive benefit of our hedge funds. We all know hedge funds use complex, sophisticated strategies to achieve their investment goals. I suppose the first time most Americans heard of hedge funds, and many Members of Congress as well, was with the implosion of long- term capital management in 1998. And you will recall that resulted in a bail out orchestrated by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department and other regulatory bodies, although it was a private bail out. And since that time the subject of systemic risks posed by the operation of large hedge funds has been a concern of financial regulators and members of this committee, and rightly so. Systemic risk is not theoretical, and if not properly contained and managed, it can threaten the stability and soundness of our financial markets. There is always the potential for a single event, such as a massive loss at a large complex financial institution to trigger a cascading effect that could impact the broader financial markets and ultimately the global economy. For this reason, and I think this is the right approach and I know that the witnesses have said this, last month's announcement by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets of the Principles and Guidelines of Private Pools of Capital is a welcome development. The President's Working Group appropriately focused on systemic risks to investor protection. Private pools of capital are a sophisticated investment used by sophisticated market participants. I am confident that these market participants, hedge funds and others, understand they must engage in constant due diligence and ongoing evaluation of market exposure and risks created by their relationship with hedge funds. I applaud Secretary Paulson, Chairman Cox, and other regulators who developed this guidance, and I am glad to hear the chairman also say that he thinks that this is the way to approach this, and that relies on market discipline and sound risk management techniques rather than the heavy hand of government regulation to achieve the desired objective. This is how I will sum up. The bottom line is that I believe an overly prescriptive rules-based approach to regulating these private pools of capital could stifle innovation and drive hedge funds and their capital offshore. Such an approach would not benefit the competitive standing of our capital markets, something we are very concerned about. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I would just like to make it clear that in regard to hedge funds, I have come to no conclusion. My mind is pretty open on this. Next, we will hear from the gentlewoman from Ohio for 2 minutes. Ms. Pryce. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today and for the promise of continued hearings on private pools of capital. I want to take a moment to thank the panel, also. This is very important information for us. These are very complicated issues that you can help shed some light on as we start today and continue down this series of hearings. There is really no doubt that the hedge funds provide significant economic benefits to the market and the Federal Reserve Chairman has cautioned against any heavy-handed regulation of the $1 trillion industry. We all know that the President's proactive Working Group recently took steps to issue guidelines for hedge fund participants. I agree with the Working Group that the regulators' continued role must be to promote market discipline on hedge funds and to ensure that proper risk management is being followed. I think in this committee it is important that we closely examine why hedge funds do fail on occasion and why some failures are different than others. Why was the collapse last September of Amaranth advisors, which lost $6 billion in a matter of weeks, different from the failure of long term capital management in 1998 that sent shockwaves through the system? Is there systemic risk posed to our economic system today? And, if so, what are those risks? Are the protections that are in place adequate to provide market actors and regulators with the information needed to make informed decisions? Should we be doing more to protect unsophisticated investors? All are important questions that I hope we will begin to answer today and in future hearings. Just once again, Mr. Chairman, and our ranking member, Mr. Bachus, thank you for holding these hearings, I will look forward to all of the testimony, and I yield back. The Chairman. I thank the gentlewoman again, working off the list that the ranking member gave me, the gentleman from Delaware is recognized for 2 minutes. Is he here? Well, the gentleman was not recognized. Someone was posing as him. The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized for 2 minutes. Mr. Shays. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I also thank my ranking member. I live in a district, in the greater New York area--we say that about 60 percent of the hedge funds exist and in my district there is a claim that one-fourth to one-third of all assets under management are in actually the district I represent. I tell people that if you are from Iowa, you want to get on the Agriculture Committee, and if you are from Fairfield, Connecticut, you want to get on the Financial Services Committee. I would like to welcome all of our witnesses, but in particular a personal friend, Jeff Matthews, and also his wife is here, Nancy. Nancy is the chancellor of the diocese of Bridgeport. They are quite a force. Jeff is an accomplished hedge fund manager. He is an active member of his community, having served in Fairfield, Connecticut, not the county, on the board of finance and on the board of education. I love him for his good nature, his sharp, insightful mind, his candor, and his honesty. He is just a very welcome guest on this panel. Jeff, thank you for being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Next, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Garrett, is recognized for 1 minute. Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. Thank you to the witnesses for being with us today. For those I have met previously, good to see you again. Also, I would like to thank my colleague who is not here, the gentleman, Congressman Castle, for his work and focus on this issue in the past term as well. Hedge funds, as you all know, are now at $1.2 trillion, truly a high stakes, high-risk investment. It originally started out for, I guess, the super wealthy or the very wealthy and have now extended to the pension funds, as the chairman says, both public and private. And it is for that reason that it is important, it impacts more on the middle class, millions of middle class Americans as well, that we have this involvement here today. I also would like to point out, just as a more personal point of view from us coming from New Jersey. My friend from the other side of the aisle and I, Albio and I, represent districts that have a strong nexus to the financial markets and so just as the gentleman behind us from Connecticut has that connection, I know we do as well and take this from both perspectives of our constituents here at home and across America as well. And, as the ranking member had indicated, I think it is important that we are able to have the benefit of the President's Working Group on this, that goes all the way back I guess to 1987, the stock market crash when that was created to try to take a look at the financial markets and try to gather up all the information that they can. And since that time, obviously I don't think you were talking about hedge funds that much back in 1987 but now we have, and they have grown in importance. And like the chairman, I am still trying to get my mind around all the issues involved, so I very much appreciate the testimony at this hearing today. Thank you, and I yield back. The Chairman. I thank the gentleman and now I will ask unanimous consent since 10 minutes has been consumed on the minority side to extend the time for opening statements for an additional 3 minutes. Is there any objection? Hearing none, we will go forward. And the final recognition is for the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Baker, for 3 minutes. Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy. I think it important to recognize why we are actually here. Few people would trouble themselves if really wealthy people lose or make money, and so as long as this phenomena was relegated to a handful of sophisticated Wall Street types, there was no need for the Congress to be involved in this discussion. However, that has changed. As innovation has caused your reach of scope, economically and otherwise, to broaden, we are now concerned about the inadvertent consequence of a systemic- like event which causes pensioners, who have no idea their manager has invested in a derivatives currency arbitrage, to lose money as a result of a Russian currency crisis. I think it is not quite clear to me what really constitutes a hedge fund. Is that necessarily to the exclusion of private equity or venture capital or does it go more to the aggregation of large sums of capital, which are deployed in a sophisticated manner, which is not subject to the same rules as a public operating company, for which there could be adverse financial systemic consequences. So, one, I think we have to define who is it we are trying to constrain, why are we trying to do it, or what is it we are trying to find out about them. In reading through testimony, it became clear there are certain best practices that each of you may have suggested would be appropriate, and I think that is highly desirable as opposed to a governmentally-driven remedy for the industry to come to some conclusion as to how we should define those who are engaging in this practice in a professional manner. Beyond that, I think the valuation issue that has been referenced and how do we know from an investor perspective that there is consistency between Fund A and Fund B and the values associated with your position in that particular exposure, that is not clear to me either. Finally, the manner in which the disclosure occurs cannot be paper-based because by the time you get it on a piece of paper, it is out of date. There has to be some net-based disclosure, electronic disclosure, of the essentials that are determined by the industry to the regulator of importance and not public disclosure and certainly nothing proprietary. I only make these comments because as the chairman was talking about having reached no resolution thereon, this Congress will come to resolution thereon if there is an adverse event that drives a number of pensioners into bankruptcy because a hedge fund guy was fast and loose with his investment protocol. You will then get a ``Sarb-Ox'' like response, applicable to whatever is defined as the hedge fund industry, and you do not want us to do that. I think this is a window in which there is great opportunity for the industry to coalesce, to produce a document which is defensible, and give the appropriate regulator the insightful information you know he should have to help throw the circuit breaker when things go bad. Absent that, we are going to get into a policy arena that I think will be very difficult for the industry and not helpful to our world economy. Thank you. The Chairman. I thank the gentleman, and we will now begin with the witnesses. And our first, just in the order in which somebody sat them, is Gerald Corrigan, formerly a very distinguished leader of the Federal Reserve system and someone who has been working closely on this issue. He is now managing director at Goldman Sachs. Mr. Corrigan, please. Let me say that without objection, the written statements of all of the witnesses will be included in the record. Mr. Corrigan, please go ahead. STATEMENT OF E. GERALD CORRIGAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, GOLDMAN SACHS & COMPANY, AND FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK Mr. Corrigan. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I, and I think all of us, appreciate your calling this hearing and the timeliness with which you have done it. My statement, as the others, will be accepted into the record. In the interest of time, let me just highlight several of the major points that I tried to make in my written statement. The first part of the statement essentially tries to quickly trace and highlight the evolution of the hedge fund industry since long term capital in 1998, and I think that is quite straightforward. The only thing I would want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, is that I think it is entirely fair to say, as I do in my statement, that over recent years there have been very substantial improvements in business practices in the hedge fund industry in such areas as corporate governance, risk management, disclosures to investors, and operational infrastructure improvements. And in many cases, certainly not all, but in many cases, I think the capabilities in those areas within segments of the hedge fund community now has much in common with best practices across the financial system as a whole. The statement also does a little idle speculation about the future evolution of the hedge fund industry, which I will not go into except to say that, at least in my judgment, there is some prospect that the forces of competition probably will induce over time some further pressures on fees and therefore in my judgment the prospect of some further consolidation in the industry over time. I think it is very important for the committee to recognize that as the premium on performance intensifies what I will call the orderly attrition of under-performing funds may accelerate and inevitably a few funds will encounter serious financial problems. Such developments, as I see them, are a natural and healthy market-driven phenomenon, which need not have material adverse consequences for the stability of the financial system. The second part of my statement traces the relationship between hedge funds and large integrated financial intermediaries. The substance of that discussion, while obviously summarized, I think is indeed very important to this whole question about systemic risk. And what I try to illustrate is that the relationship between large financial intermediaries, which are typically major banks and securities firms, all of whom are subject to some form of consolidated supervision, it involves two separate but related phenomena, the first is the so-called prime brokerage phenomenon and that essentially involves a whole range of services, including providing credit by prime brokers to their hedge fund clients. And I do make the point that a well-managed framework within which prime brokers provide credit to hedge funds that is secured, following the procedures that I have outlined in my statement, is a relatively, I emphasize relatively, low-risk activity. The second class of activities that characterize the relationships between hedge funds and major financial institutions is the totality of what I call their counter-party relationships and those counter-party relationships are very, very complex and involve a whole range of activities and risk taking on both the part of the intermediary and the hedge fund. I take that discussion into a little sidebar discussion about risk management. And I think the fundamental point that I want to stress in terms of risk management, whether it is at a major intermediary or at a hedge fund, is that the foundation for effective risk management rests on what I like to call a ``culture'' of sound corporate governance, collective analysis and decisionmaking, and above all, sound judgments by experienced business leaders. And it is in this sense, Mr. Chairman, that I believe that risk management is much more an art than it is a science. And I go on to illustrate in my statement some of the reasons why I think that is true. The next part of my statement talks about systemic risk. And I think that what I have tried to do here is in a very summary fashion try to help ensure that the committee realistically understands what systemic risk is and what it is not. And the characterization that I have used for years and years to describe systemic risk of a financial nature is to call it a financial shock that brings with it the reality or the clear and present danger of inflicting significant damage on the financial system and the real economy. And I draw a sharp distinction, as I have for years, between what I call ``financial shocks'' and ``financial disturbances,'' the latter of which occur with some regularity. I stress the point when I began the work of the Counter- Party Risk Management Policy Group a year-and-a-half ago, that the whole effort was shaped around three threshold conclusions about systemic financial risk. The first was that over time the already low statistical probabilities of the occurrence of systemic financial shocks had declined further but they were still well short of zero. The second, and this is the one that worries me, is that while the probabilities of shocks are lower, the potential damage that could result from such shocks is greater due to the increased speed, complexity, and tighter linkages to characterized a global financial system. And then finally, that our collective capacity to anticipate the specific timing and triggers of future financial shocks is extremely low, if not nil. Indeed, I argue that if we could anticipate these things, they would not happen. Now in those circumstances-- The Chairman. Mr. Corrigan, we need you to get to a conclusion. Mr. Corrigan. The last thought, Mr. Chairman, that I have put emphasis on, strengthening what I call the shock absorbers of the system, and I do think that the President's Working Group exercise on hedge funds and private pools of capital is a very constructive move in that direction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Corrigan can be found on page 97 of the appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you. Our next witness is one who has appeared before us in other capacities when he was the head of the Export-Import Bank, over which this committee has jurisdiction, and he is now with Taconic Capital Advisors, Mr. Kenneth Brody. STATEMENT OF KENNETH D. BRODY, CO-FOUNDER AND PRINCIPAL, TACONIC CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, AND CHAIRMAN, INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND Mr. Brody. I thank Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for the opportunity to testify. In my former life as a public servant, under the jurisdiction of this committee and Chairman Frank, I have learned to be brief, to the point, and succinct, so let's go. I wish to address two issues, systemic risk and investor protection. The President's Working Group and virtually all knowledgeable professionals agree that systemic risk is best controlled by regulators overseeing the providers of credit. These providers of credit are primarily the large financial institutions, commercial banks and investment banks. Turning to investor protection, I believe it is another story. I am going to take a very unusual view for an industry participant. I believe that mandatory registration is good policy. It provides for better investor protection, and I think it should come about because the nature of the investors have changed. It is not just wealthy individuals but it is institutions of all stripes, including pension funds, who are getting more and more into investing in hedge funds. And with pension funds, the ultimate beneficiaries are regular working people. What registration primarily provides is a self-discipline and a self-policing because that comes with the threat of SEC examination. In my testimony, I have included many of the elements of such protections that are provided by registration with the SEC. Having said that, a better way to do registration is to introduce a principles approach instead of a ``tick the box'' regime. A principle approach will provide better investor protection and with greater efficiency. We are registered and a substantial number of hedge fund managers are registered. We think it is good policy for all. I thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Brody can be found on page 57 of the appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Brody, for your testimony and your example of how to testify. [Laughter] The Chairman. Next, we have James Chanos, who is chairman of the Coalition of Private Investment Companies. And, Mr. Chanos, please proceed. STATEMENT OF JAMES CHANOS, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, KYNIKOS ASSOCIATES, LP, ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION OF PRIVATE INVESTMENT COMPANIES Mr. Chanos. Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, and members of the committee, my name is Jim Chanos, and I am president of Kynikos Associates, an SEC-registered New York private investment management company I founded in 1985. I am appearing today on behalf of the Coalition of Private Investment Companies, whose members and associate managers advise more than $60 billion in assets. I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for inviting us to participate today. The Coalition welcomes the attention of this committee on our industry. Rapid growth in all alternative investment funds, whether they call themselves hedge funds, private equity, or venture capital, has brought significant rewards to investors and the financial markets. But to paraphrase the great Stan Lee, ``With great growth comes great responsibility.'' This responsibility derives from the industry's more prominent roles in various parts of the financial markets and perhaps most importantly the trust placed on our managers to properly invest the assets of pension funds and endowments, institutions whose ultimate beneficiaries are not themselves wealth individuals. Consequently, hearings such as this present a unique opportunity for our industry to explain the way it works, dispel some of the myths and misconceptions that surround it, and make clear our commitment to work with policymakers in the Congress and in the financial regulatory agencies in order to improve those areas where the system of oversight may not be keeping pace with the growth of the sector. The Coalition would like to suggest a few ideas that may be useful in thinking about the issues associated with private pooled investment vehicles. First, almost all private investment pools, whether a hedge fund, a venture capital fund, or private equity fund, share many common characteristics in terms of their disclosures to their investors and counter- parties without detailed government mandates. Consequently, we would suggest that policymakers, instead of creating distinctions between these types of entities, treat all private pool investment vehicles similarly, regardless of their underlying investment strategies. Even though we may all use the term ``hedge fund'' in the context of today's hearing, the most accurate phrase is not ``hedge fund'' but ``private investment company. Second, in terms of investment activity, the buying or selling of securities or commodities or derivatives, hedge funds are but one type of many market participants engaged in the same activity. Again, in order to gain the most complete understanding of the subprime mortgage market, to use a recent example, one should not focus solely on a single segment of the market but should look at all participants engaged in that activity. Looking at mortgage securitizations solely through the prism of hedge funds without looking at banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and other types of dealers and investors will create a distorted picture of how and why that market operates as it does. This is not to say that hedge funds should not be included at all in such a distinction, quite to the contrary, we are an important part of the equation. But hedge funds are not nearly so significant in and of themselves that they should be the focus of attention to the exclusion of other market participants doing the same thing. A focus on the activity, not the actor, is more likely to yield the information desired by policymakers in assessing the appropriate level of oversight and regulation. Third, the phrase, ``lightly regulated,'' which typically is applied to hedge funds and other alternative investment vehicles, is somewhat misleading as it really only applies to governmental regulation of the relationship between the fund and its investors. In this area, sophisticated or institutional investors are deemed by the government to have the capacity and equal footing to obtain the requisite information from fund managers on their own instead of relying on standardized government-mandated disclosures. In almost all other aspects of the U.S. financial system, hedge funds are subject to the same web of statutory and regulatory requirements as all other institutional market participants engaged in the same activity. And even with the interaction of the fund, the manager and the fund investors, despite lack of regulation, does not yield a lack of transparency, either to investors or to the counter- parties providing credit and other financial support. In the case of my funds, for example, investors or their financial managers generally require us to provide answers to detailed questions regarding our background, strategies and research, personnel, returns, compliance programs, risk profile, and accounting and valuation practices. Prospective investors also review terms such as liquidity restrictions, management performance fees, and any applicable lock-up periods for their capital. Depending upon the nature of the investor, a person may meet an institution's portfolio managers or compliance officers. Some investors also ask to speak to our lawyers, auditors, and prime brokers for references. The process usually also includes any number of on-site visits by the potential investor or their representatives. The right to on-site visits continues after the investment is made as well as continued oral and written communication on a regular basis so that the investor can assure himself or herself that the representations that we made at the outset are being followed. Fourth, much of the secrecy surrounding hedge funds is frequently a consequence of both the proprietary nature of the investment strategies employed and of the mandates of the SEC itself. The Commission's restrictions on general solicitation and public offerings, under which all hedge funds operate, prohibit fund managers from discussing their strategies and performance in any venue or in any way that could be construed as a solicitation or investment from the general public. Certainly, it means that fund managers must limit the content of or access to their Web site and limit public interviews about their funds and investment strategies that could be viewed as designed to attract the interest of the general public to invest in the funds. Accordingly, most fund managers prefer to err on the side of less public discussion rather than risk running afoul of the SEC. Fifth, if there are gaps in the system of regulatory oversight, then there should be ways to address them consistent with the principles and guidelines recently issued by the President's Working Group. Such deficiencies are best addressed without trying to shoe-horn the institutional business and the statutes that were designed primarily for the interaction of investment professionals and the general public. In this regard, we have some suggestions for consideration that may provide some commonsense approaches to answering at least some of these concerns without re-engaging in the unproductive debate from 2 years ago surrounding mandatory registration requirements. Mr. Chairman, do I have another minute to give that suggestion? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Chanos. As an example, the SEC in proposing the Hedge Fund Advisor Registration Rule hoped to gather census information about hedge funds. The SEC could, however, without mandatory registration obtain much of the information it seeks by amending Form D, a basic document used by issuers of private placement of securities to acquire some additional information if the issuer is a pooled investment vehicle. The form could include a variety of basic information that I set out further in my written testimony. The SEC could also require that the form be kept current or updated annually. With this kind of information, the Commission, and policymakers generally, would be in a better position to answer the question, ``Who is out there?'' With respect to best practices, we believe that most investors already demand practices of their funds that are equal to or exceed the requirements of the Investment Advisors Act. Fundamentally, we believe the institutional investors operate on a fairly equal footing with hedge funds and by simply taking steps to protect their own assets and investments produce the desired effect. However, if there is a belief that certain practices are so commonsense, such as third-party custodianship of client funds or annual outside audits, that they deserve the added strength of SEC authority behind them, we believe the Commission could consider using its anti-fraud authority under the Advisors Act to require certain measures to be taken by both registered and unregistered votes in order to protect fraud. And with that, I will make the rest of my comments in the written testimony. [The prepared statement of Mr. Chanos can be found on page 73 of the appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chanos. We have that and of course, there will be questions from the members. Next, we have Mr. George Hall, who is testifying on behalf of the Managed Fund Association. Mr. Hall? STATEMENT OF GEORGE HALL, FOUNDER AND CEO, CLINTON GROUP, ON BEHALF OF THE MANAGED FUNDS ASSOCIATION Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. I am here on behalf of the Managed Funds Association, the largest U.S.-based association representing the hedge fund industry with more than 1,300 members in the United States and around the world. In addition to being a director of MFA, I am the founder and chief investment officer of Clinton Group, an investment advisor for a diverse group of institutional and high net worth individual investors. We greatly appreciate the interest of this committee in considering public policy issues relevant to our industry and the opportunity to share our views with the committee. Hedge funds have been closely monitored and reviewed by Congress and Federal regulators in the recent years. This intense review has led to a clear recognition that hedge funds play a critical role in the success story of the U.S. capital markets. Hedge funds have helped to disburse risks, enhance market liquidity and resilience, and increase overall financial stability. With this vital market role comes important responsibilities. We agree with the President's Working Group on Financial Markets that the hedge fund industry and other market participants, along with financial regulators, have a shared responsibility for maintaining the vitality, stability, and integrity of our capital markets. I would like to briefly address four points. First, the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. MFA fully supports the recent agreement of the President's Working Group issued in late February. The Working Group addressed both systemic risk and investor protection concerns in its agreement and concluded that, and I quote, ``Market discipline most effectively addresses systemic risks posed by private pools of capital.'' The agreement stated that a combination of market discipline and regulatory policies that limit direct investment in private pools of capital to more sophisticated investors would be the most effective way to address this issue. MFA not only agrees with the Working Group's conclusions, but has been working with its members to address these issues for a number of years. We are committed to working closely with regulators, counter-parties, investors, and our own industry to do our part to remain ever vigilant. Second, systemic risk. MFA has worked proactively with its members to develop very specific risk management and internal control guidance set forth in Sound Practices for Hedge Fund Managers first published in 2000. Our sound practice guidance has been revised and enhanced to take into account market developments and is currently undergoing its third revision to be issued later this year. The President's Working Group principles will be a guiding blueprint for this effort. MFA members have also worked extensively with the major derivatives dealer firms and Federal Reserve Bank of New York to improve market practices for credit derivatives and other derivatives in order to reduce systemic risk concerns. Third, investor protection. MFA supports increasing the accredited standard. We applaud the SEC for considering this issue and for its recent proposed rule. Based on all available data, hedge funds remain chiefly an investment vehicle for institutional investors and high net worth individuals. We support a significant increase in the financial thresholds for entry into hedge funds. Finally, pension plans. MFA endorses efforts to increase the understanding of hedge funds among pension plan fiduciaries and trustees and is committed to helping promote investor financial literacy through the development of due diligence materials. In conclusion, hedge funds have proven to be attractive investment vehicles for institutional investors seeking to diversify risk and enhance portfolio strength. They also play a key role in our capital markets. To assure that these benefits continue, and that any associated risks are fully addressed, MFA believes that the proactive efforts of its members to enhance market practices are vital. MFA pledges to continue these efforts and to work with all market participants, financial regulators and Congress. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall can be found on page 119 of the appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you. Next we have Jeffrey Matthews, previously introduced by the gentleman from Connecticut. Mr. Matthews is general partner at Ram Partners. STATEMENT OF JEFFREY L. MATTHEWS, GENERAL PARTNER, RAM PARTNERS, LP Mr. Matthews. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, good morning, and thank you for inviting me to speak. My name is Jeff Matthews, and I am general partner of Ram Partners, a hedge fund I formed in 1994 after working at another hedge fund for 4 years and starting my career at Merrill Lynch in 1979. My fund is small relative to the others represented here and rather old-fashioned. We buy stocks for the long term, we hedge against short term market fluctuations, and we do not do any derivatives. Nevertheless, 18 years in the hedge fund world does make me something of an old timer, and I do have views on the issues that you have raised. To understand the growth in hedge funds you might ask, why do people start them in the first place? The answer is quite simple: Hedge funds are private partnerships whose investors are wealthy individuals and large institutions. That private structure and more sophisticated investor base gives us flexibility to pursue alternative investments, take greater risks, and reap greater rewards than a more strictly regulated mutual fund. Furthermore, as a private partnership, hedge fund managers can charge what their investors are willing to pay, including a share of the profits the business generates. So a successful multi-billion dollar hedge fund manager can earn hundreds of millions of dollars while her mutual fund counterpart could not. And that is why people start hedge funds and that is why this industry has exploded. In fact, the single biggest change I have witnessed since I started is size. In 1994, the biggest hedge fund I knew about had $6 billion in assets; $6 billion today would not rank in the top 50 hedge funds, and the three largest U.S. hedge funds now have over $30 billion each. Along with that explosive growth has come diversity. Hedge funds no longer focus mainly on stocks, bonds, and currencies but have branched into subprime debt, distressed securities, real estate, uranium ore, and even grain silos. In fact, there are hedge funds that do nothing but invest in other hedge funds. The flood of money has also caused many so-called hedge funds to no longer actively hedge against market declines because hedging has been a drag on returns during the bull market. It has been like paying a premium for an insurance policy you never needed. However, the most significant change I have witnessed in 18 years in this business is the increased use of leverage, meaning borrowed money to start new hedge funds. A $400 million hedge fund today, for example, might actually have only $100 million of equity. The rest, the other $300 million, might come from a bank that sells a preferred class of equity that looks, acts, and smells like debt. That structure works fine if the value of the whole thing goes up, everyone makes money, and the bank gets paid back. But if it goes down, that equity gets wiped out, much like a house bought with no money down. What type of risks might this pose? Could the graded leverage cause another long term capital type catastrophe that brings the markets? Well, we had just such a catastrophe last year. Amaranth was a $10 billion hedge fund with sophisticated investors, run by intelligent people using computerized trading systems, and it collapsed in just 20 days after a huge complex bet on natural gas went wrong. What does that tell us? Number one, that hedge fund managers can do stupid things just like any money manager only in much bigger size. Number two, even sophisticated investors do not necessarily mind this kind of risk taking until it goes wrong and when it does, they pull the plug very quickly. Number three, the more exotic the investments, the harder it is for any outsider to know what is going on inside a hedge fund. After all, if Amaranth's general partner did not realize his business was at risk, how would the Fed or SEC have seen what was coming and act to stop it? There is, however, a fourth and more positive lesson from Amaranth, which was not foreseen by many observers at the time, it is this, a $10 billion fund could evaporate in a matter of months and yet aside from a couple of wild weeks in the natural gas pits, the system did not blink. Unlike long term capital in 1998, which had to be bailed out by the Fed, other hedge funds stepped in, bought Amaranth's positions at a deep discount and the firm was liquidated. It is true that Amaranth's investors included public sector pension funds, and they lost a great deal of money, but the people who manage those funds should have known the risks they were taking. As I said, I run a smaller, old-fashioned fund, we do not do derivatives, and I am not defending my own business model generally represented here but these are my real-world observations, nor am I acting as a cheerleader for all hedge funds. There will be failures again, and they could get ugly. However, the presence of so many large hedge funds today, specializing in so many aspects of the world markets, means in my view that the systemic risk of broad failure is probably much lower than I have ever seen it in the last 18 years. I was there when long term capital blew up, I was there when Amaranth blew up, and luckily for us Amaranth turned out to be no long term capital. Thank you for inviting me to speak. [The prepared statement of Mr. Matthews can be found on page 135 of the appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Matthews. Next, we have Andrew Golden, who is president of the Princeton University Investment Company. STATEMENT OF ANDREW K. GOLDEN, PRESIDENT, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY INVESTMENT COMPANY Mr. Golden. Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective today as someone who has been an institutional investor in hedge funds for almost 2 decades. For the past 12 years, I have been the president of Princeton University Investment Company, the university office that has responsibility for investing Princeton's $14 billion endowment. With a staff of 25, we develop asset allocation plans, and select and monitor a roster of 140 external managers. We essentially act as a large fund of funds. Princeton's hedge fund investment approach illustrates that taken by a number of sensible investors for whom hedge funds need not entail great risk. Indeed, for us hedge funds can be an important tool for reducing risk. Princeton has enjoyed success as an investor with annual returns during the past 10 fiscal years of 15.7 percent versus 8.3 percent for the S&P 500. We have enjoyed particular success as an investor in hedge funds, but before going any further, let me say that all my comments today are complicated by the fact that hedge funds do not represent a distinctive asset class like real estate or venture capital. Rather, hedge funds are a relationship format defined by the nature of the contractual arrangement between an investment manager and his or her clients. At Princeton, we use the hedge fund format to pursue a broad variety of strategies across a spectrum of markets. Roughly 45 percent of the endowment is invested via the hedge fund format. One-third of that amount is invested in 14 funds that pursue traditional, unleveraged, long-only investment strategies. These funds tend to walk and quack like mutual funds, albeit ones managed very, very, very well with superior track records. The hedge fund format entails a higher fee schedule than that of traditional institutional accounts, yet it better aligns the manager's interest with their own, creating an environment for superior returns net of fees. Notably, Princeton's hedge fund managers are dis-incentivized from taking inappropriate risks as all have a significant share, typically the vast majority of their personal net worth, invested side by side with us. Approximately 30 percent of the endowment is invested in 16 hedge funds that do pursue less traditional strategies, including for example selling short and investing in bankrupt companies. We categorize these managers as independent return managers. They seek returns that are equity-like but with correlation to most broad market moves. This low correlation means that our independent return program has been particularly effective at reducing the endowment's total risk. We do not invest with managers pursuing inherently opaque strategies. Our managers do not employ significant leverage, yet our low octane independent return program has generated a very strong 16.4 percent 10 year annualized return with half the volatility of the stock market. While we have some natural advantages of the hedge fund investor, our success largely reflects hard work. We spend at least 400 person hours in our due diligence process before investing in a hedge fund. Post-hire we spend for each manager 70 person hours per year monitoring activities. The single most important factor behind our success, however, has been that we have always been guided by a simple over-arching rule: we will not invest in something we do not understand. Princeton requires that our hedge funds provide substantial transparency. No one has ever been forced to invest in any particular hedge fund. I do not believe that sophisticated investors who willingly invest in anything without assuring that they have adequate information and understanding deserve any sympathy, let alone any additional regulatory safeguards. Indeed, I believe that fiduciaries who fail to assure their own understanding of investments may deserve to be sued or prosecuted. Understanding investment, however, does not guarantee happy results. It is a certainty that at least some investors will suffer significant losses in their hedge fund investments. However, for perspective, it should be remembered that when the tech bubble burst, U.S. stock investors collectively lost almost $7 trillion. Among the losers were sophisticated and unsophisticated investors. The losses were suffered through the entire spectrum of relationship formats including mutual funds. The $7 trillion losses give interesting context to worries about the hedge fund industry, to which we have all been estimating total investor exposure is between $1- and $2 trillion. I suspect that there are some hedge funds using imprudent leverage with likely unpleasant consequences for their investors at some point in the future. However, when I think about the important systemic risk facing markets today, hedge fund leverage is less of a concern than say mortgage or Federal debt levels. The markets for institutional client money provides some discipline with regard to what a particular hedge fund manager will flourish but then again not so much to prevent an Amaranth. However, as others have noted today, the resolution of Amaranth was quite orderly. The Chair asked that I comment on current levels of risks in the markets, and actually could I have one more minute to deal with that? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Golden. And I think you cannot refer to risk without referring to price. If prices are high, likely investors are not getting compensated for the risk present today but who knows if the resolution of that will be a sharp down draft or more prolonged periods of mediocre results? I was also asked to comment on market practices since the issuance of the CRMPG II report, and I can echo others' comments that market practices have matured with much greater discipline in trade documentation. Finally, let me give my views on the appropriate role of government with regard to hedge funds, their activities and markets. And, basically, the bottom line there is I think the President's Working Group essentially has it right. I would wonder whether or not the minimum wealth test should be set even higher than what has been anticipated. With respect to the regulation of hedge fund activity in the markets, I think the PWG again has it right, to assure fair markets and control systemic risks, it makes most sense to focus regulatory and private oversight bandwidth on large financial institutions that act as counter-parties and lenders. Perhaps we should accept guidance from the bank--and direct our activities to where they keep the money. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Golden can be found on page 111 of the appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you. Our final witness is Stephen J. Brown, who is a David S. Loeb professor of finance at the NYU Stern School of Business. We have appropriately thanked all the donors here, the Loebs and the Sterns. They all have their names in it. Please go ahead, Mr. Brown. By the way, the business schools practice what they preach. Most medical schools and law schools are not named for people. Every business school is. They do understand marketing and put it into practice. [Laughter] STATEMENT OF STEPHEN J. BROWN, DAVID S. LOEB PROFESSOR OF FINANCE, STERN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY Mr. Brown. Absolutely. I agree 100 percent. It is a very distinct honor to be invited to testify before this committee, and I really thank Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for this honor. The President's Working Group on Financial Markets tells us that private pools of capital bring significant benefits to the financial markets. What are these benefits? Some would tell us that their only objective is to enrich themselves and their rich clients. The industry needs to show that these benefits outweigh any problems they might cause. A premise of the PWG is that hedge funds do not pose a systemic risk for the financial markets. What is a ``hedge fund?'' The term actually comes from Carol Loomis, a Fortune journalist writing in 1966 about the strategy of AW Jones who invested in under valued companies financed in part by short positions in companies he felt were over valued. In this sense, the investment was ``hedged'' against general market movements. The term ``hedge fund'' was a stretch even for AW Jones, as his short positions never equalled in size or economic significance of his long positions. Subsequent funds adopted the regulatory form of AW Jones but not his investment philosophy. Indeed, the term ``hedge fund'' belies their considerable risk. Sophisticated investors ought to be allowed to do as they please, provided they not hurt innocent bystanders. Unfortunately, the industry interprets the general solicitation ban as limiting all kinds of public disclosure. Indeed, some view the lack of transparency as part of the business model the very reason for their success. I argue that it is this lack of information, this lack of transparency, at an industry level, that is of greatest concern. Absent industry-wide disclosure, the only reliable information we have is a purely voluntary disclosure to data vendors, such as Lipper TASS. According to their numbers, U.S. domiciled funds have grown from close to $20 billion under management in December 1995 to $131 billion today, although the growth has leveled off recently. I should add that the trillion dollar number that people cite includes both domestic and foreign funds. The data show remarkable diversity of styles of management under the ``hedge fund'' banner. The AW Jones long/short strategy captures about 30 to 40 percent of the business. The style mix has been fairly stable, although there has been a dramatic rise in assets managed by funds of funds. These diversified portfolios of hedge funds are attractive to an ever increasing institutional clientele, which a decade ago did not exist, but now is about 52 percent of the total. Event driven funds focusing on private equity, mergers and acquisitions and such, have risen in market share from 19 to 25 percent over the past decade, while the global macro style popularized by Soros has actually fallen from 19 to 3 percent. There is a concern of the committee about the role of hedge funds in the credit derivatives and CDO markets. How big is this issue? We do not know since the industry is not required to tell us, but based on TASS, fixed income arbitrage, which involves these kinds of strategies, is just 4 percent of the business. I think the industry should make the case that entering this market, their ``rich clients'' are taking on significant risk, which would otherwise fall on the banking system. They are thus reducing systemic risk, not increasing it. What about leverage? According to TASS, the fraction of funds that use leverage has fallen from 69 percent in 2002 to 57 percent today. In addition, there are vast differences in degree of leverage across funds. Strategies that report the highest degree of leverage have quite small market share. More information would certainly help. Does this detract from due diligence of sophisticated investors? With colleagues, I studied the recent controversial and ultimately unsuccessful SEC attempt to increase hedge fund disclosure. We examined disclosures filed by many hedge funds in February 2006. Leverage and ownership structures as of the previous December suggest that lenders and hedge fund equity investors were already aware of hedge fund operational risk revealed in these forms. However, operational risk does not mediate the naive tendency of investors to chase past returns. Investors either lack this information or regard it as immaterial. What is the role of government? Perhaps Congress needs to re-visit the 1940 Act. The ``sophisticated investor'' exemption seems quaint these days. Industry argues that the ban on direct solicitation inhibits disclosure, and perhaps it does. However, Congress can mandate any level of selective disclosure necessary for 3C1 or 3C7 exemption. There is no need to know proprietary trading information. However, by being just a little bit more forthcoming, the industry could allay public concern about systemic risk and operational risk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown can be found on page 71 of the appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you. I thank all the witnesses. I think many of us will be reading in detail particularly what you have submitted. Let me begin with Mr. Corrigan. Obviously, our job is to think about whether or not there is any public policy implications. You talked about the need or the desirability of increasing the shock absorbers. What would they be and would we have any role in trying to do that? That would seem to me to be what we ought to be focusing on to the extent that there was something for us to do. Mr. Corrigan. Certainly, to answer your last question first, I think your oversight role is very important. As to the shock absorber concept that I have used, I have tended to put my favorite shock absorbers, if you will, into basically six categories. One is corporate governance. I cannot begin to underscore how important the details of what corporate governance really means is for this purpose. It is a lot more than having a few independent directors. The second is risk management and risk monitoring. The third is what I call financial infrastructure, and these are some of the problems that we encounter with backlogs of derivatives and so on and so forth. The fourth is better understanding in managing these highly complex products. The fifth is a multiple four legged table of enhanced disclosure, and the sixth is what I like to call reputational risk management. The Chairman. Let me go to the one that may potentially involve us, number five, the disclosure. Would you change the disclosure regime that we now have? Mr. Corrigan. Most of the time when we talk about disclosure, we are thinking about public disclosure. One of the issues that I raised in my statement in terms of suggesting some enhancements to the President's Working Group approach is to better recognize that in the context of financial stability issues. Disclosure is a four legged table. The first has to do with disclosure of a bilateral confidential nature say between a hedge fund and its prime broker. The second has to do with disclosures that are made by hedge funds or private equity funds to their investors or prospective investors. The third has to do, and this is very important, with what I like to call voluntary informal exchanges of largely confidential information between hedge funds or private equity funds and regulated institutions with the regulatory community. The last is public disclosure. I firmly believe, Mr. Chairman, that again, in the context of shock absorbers and financial stability, there is more pay dirt in those first three legs than there is the last, in part because public disclosure is suffering from a very chronic information overload problem. The Chairman. I accept that. Is there a role for the government? Again, I ask this without any preconception. ``Public'' can mean two things. It can mean public in that it is to some extent compelled by public agencies, and it can also mean that the actual information is made public. Is there a role for the government in increasing the flow of information in the first three categories? Mr. Corrigan. Yes, there is. Again, one of the suggestions in my statement, Mr. Chairman, was that in the context of the so-called systemic risk principles of the President's Working Group, I suggest in my statement that one thing I would like to see happen would be an effort to quickly develop best practices, make them public, so that we have benchmarks, including in this area of transparency-- The Chairman. Would you recommend that any public agency have the responsibility to monitor whether or not the best practices were being followed? Mr. Corrigan. I would expect in this context that the supervisory authorities would indeed do that. I believe, if I take as a point of reference the recommendations of our risk management policy group, that has happened. The Chairman. That would be the supervising authorities obviously for the depository institutions. Would that also mean by anybody for the hedge funds themselves? I understand on the counterparties. Would you recommend there be any governmental responsibility to monitor whether best practices were being followed by the investment entities themselves? Mr. Corrigan. I think that it is in the best interest of the hedge funds themselves to put themselves in a position in which they voluntarily make their practices public. The Chairman. I understand. Every time people tell me something would be good if it was done voluntarily--if everybody did everything voluntarily, I would be out of a job. Maybe that would be a good thing. We are in the involuntary part of this. If people do not do it, should somebody at least be checking to see who does and who does not do it voluntarily? Mr. Corrigan. I think that will happen; yes. The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Bachus. Mr. Bachus. Thank you. Let me ask all the panelists. We have talked about the President's Working Group and they are going to come up with some recommendations. Would your advice to us be to wait on their final recommendations before we considered any action? I will start with Mr. Corrigan. Mr. Corrigan. Yes. I would suggest, and I don't think that is going to take all that long. I think there is enough in the pipeline right now that the committee, in my judgment, should continue to exercise its oversight function as it is doing today. I do not see the need for anything beyond the continued effective exercise of that oversight function. Mr. Bachus. Mr. Brody? Mr. Brody. I guess it would depend upon how long it takes. If it is done in a sensible and timely way, I think it is absolutely appropriate for the committee to wait. If it takes an extensive period of time, then it is probably proper to move without it. Mr. Bachus. All right. Mr. Chanos? Mr. Chanos. I would echo Mr. Brody's comments on that. I think if we are looking at a long process, I think it would behoove the committee to keep moving at all due speed. I suspect the report will be out relatively soon. Mr. Bachus. Is 6 months a reasonable amount of time? Mr. Chanos. If there are no financial hiccups, I would say yes, 6 months seems reasonable. Mr. Bachus. We probably would not know until after the hiccup, I guess. By ``hiccup,'' you do not mean a failure of a hedge fund. You mean? Mr. Chanos. A broader market problem that would include but not be exclusive to hedge funds, that would move things quicker. Mr. Bachus. Some of the things that have been advised still would not prevent that, would it? Mr. Chanos. Absolutely not. I am a realist as well as an idealist. I understand, as one of the members said earlier, that the industry will come under greater scrutiny should there be such a hiccup. Mr. Bachus. Mr. Hall? Mr. Hall. I would agree with that, that the committee should wait for the President's Working Group. We believe they are on the right track. They have identified what we think are the important issues, and they have also identified what the potential failures could be of aggressive regulation. I think, as Mr. Baker pointed out, overreaction based on a hiccup is in the long run not going to serve the industry or the economy as well either. We need to be very careful and hopefully they will move quickly and get it taken care of. Mr. Bachus. Mr. Matthews? Mr. Matthews. I agree with my colleagues. Mr. Bachus. To wait? Mr. Matthews. Yes. Mr. Bachus. A reasonable amount of time? Mr. Matthews. Yes. Mr. Bachus. Mr. Golden? Mr. Golden. There is a downside to being on this end of the table. It's all been said before. Mr. Brown. I agree also. Mr. Bachus. Thank you. Mr. Brody, you mentioned registration with the SEC. What does that mean? In your mind, what is registration with the SEC? Mr. Brody. It gives oversight by the SEC. Let me just tick off some of the things that are required in registration, realizing that I would have the SEC go to a principles-based approach. Some of the things they do now is they require a chief compliance officer. They require a set of written compliance policies and procedures. They require a code of ethics. They require a filing of a public information form. They require independent custodian requirements, which leads to a financial audit, and they do on-site inspections and examinations, and they require retention of books and records. There are obviously more things, but those are key elements of registration that give protection to the more unsophisticated investors. Mr. Bachus. Some of you mentioned the traditional hedge fund and then the ones that are private equity, and then the ones that are leveraged that are borrowing a lot of their money from financial institutions. One thing that should be happening right now at the Federal Reserve, Mr. Corrigan, you were on it, is that the Federal Reserve should be looking at our financial institutions and seeing their investments. In that regard, that is already a regulated part of the process, is it not? Mr. Corrigan. It is. That is correct. One of the very constructive things that has happened just in the recent past that I might add is consistent with this whole notion of principles based oversight is that the Federal Reserve, in cooperation with the SEC, and interestingly with the U.K. FSA, went through an exercise, again, in a largely principles-based approach. They spent a very substantial amount of time with each of the major banks and securities firms that have prime brokerage activities, in an effort to systematically review and understand the nature of those relationships, out of which they will be developing a statement of best practices to be used prospectively in order for them to be able to better judge how individual institutions perform this function. This, to me, is a terrific example of adapting the approach to prudential oversight to the real world in which we live, and I think it is enormously constructive. I think it provides a framework for the future that can be applied in other areas as well. Mr. Bachus. My final question, if I can, Fortress Investment Group, which is the first IPO of a hedge fund, at the New York Stock Exchange, that is an example of a hedge fund that is being basically offered to anyone. Should there be maybe a different rule for that, or would you depend on the New York Stock Exchange? Mr. Corrigan. Others, I am sure, will want to comment. It is important to keep in mind that in the Fortress case where there is an IPO, by definition, as part of the IPO process. Fortress and the new public entity is subject to a whole further raft of regulations that apply to listed companies in general. Not only do they have the regulations that others talked about earlier, but in addition, they now are subject to all of those regulatory requirements as well. Mr. Bachus. Mr. Brody? Mr. Brody. There is an important distinction to make between a public offering of the fund and the public offering of the management company. In the Fortress case, it was a public offering of the management company. That is the entity that is responsible for advising the funds. I think, so far in the United States, we have not had significant, or even any, public offerings of hedge funds. In Europe, there have been. Mr. Bachus. This was the management company, not the participating hedge fund. Mrs. Maloney. [presiding] The gentleman's time has expired. Thank you, and I thank all of the witnesses. Coming from New York, I certainly appreciate the significant role that hedge funds have come to play in our markets and our economy. I want to thank the chairman for holding this hearing to review the growth in hedge fund activity and whether that growth needs additional transparency or constraints. Certainly, hedge funds operate in a regulatory scheme that has not been adjusted much to reflect their new activity. Many of you testified to the tremendous growth in hedge funds, the change in leverage, and this may well be out of date. The SEC is taking a few small steps to tweak the rules, such as raising the threshold for individual investors, but such investors are only a very small part of the hedge fund market, so these are very minor adjustments. I would like to go back to Mr. Brody's statement and support of requiring all hedge funds to register as investment advisors. I would like to go down the panel and see if you support this idea, yes or no. Would you support that, having Mr. Brody's strong statement in support of having them registered as investment advisors? Mr. Corrigan, would you support that or not? Mr. Corrigan. I would not. At this juncture, I would not. Mrs. Maloney. You would not. Why would you not support that? Mr. Corrigan. Because I think that the central thrust of the approach suggested by the President's Working Group can achieve what we really need to achieve. Many of the witnesses have suggested this idea that hedge funds are unregulated, and it is a bit misguided. There is a lot of regulation. I do not see any need at this point to go that distance, and I would emphasize, Congresswoman Maloney, that I have debated this thing with myself for years. What always stops me from going there is the so-called moral hazard problem, the danger that by going to that place, we effectively encourage people to believe that the government will protect these organizations, even in very dire circumstances. Philosophically, I am just not ready. Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. Mr. Chanos, yes or no? Mr. Chanos. No. I believe that through-- Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. Mr. Hall, yes or no? Mr. Hall. No. Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Matthews, yes or no? Mr. Matthews. I think if you take public pension money, you should. If you do not, why should you. You are no different than a partnership that invests in a shopping mall, and those are not regulated. Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. Mr. Golden? Mr. Golden. No, I would say no. I would note that we do the same extensive due diligence on registered advisors as non- registered's. It gives no real protection. Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Brown? Mr. Brown. I would say no in the current way the registration works because my research shows that sophisticated investors already understand what is in those forms. Unsophisticated investors either did not know or did not care. Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. I would like to ask anyone on the panel, starting with Mr. Brody, about the credit derivatives, the credit default swaps. They have been criticized as unduly risky and have raised issues of systemic risk, which regulators worked to resolve in the 2005 Novation Protocol. Maybe these credit default swaps are the canaries in the mine of the subprime lending which we are reading about in the Tsunami Daily as it unravels. A few months ago, the ABX Index that tracks the credit default swaps suggested that the subprime market was headed for a fall and now we have seen that is now taking place. Do you think the CDS investments can soften the impact on the markets of events such as the subprime challenge or crisis that we are seeing today, or do they inherently aggravate market swings, or are they neutral in their impact? Mr. Brody. Let me first make a comment on derivatives, CDS' and hedge funds. The reality is that these instruments are used throughout the investment community. They are used substantially by investment banks. They are used substantially by commercial banks. In general, these instruments serve the laudable purpose of dispersing risk, putting risk in many hands. However, that dispersion of risk does not prevent failure. We are seeing right now in the subprime market some degree of failure. Mrs. Maloney. Anyone else? Mr. Hall. I would be happy to comment. I agree their purpose is to disperse risk. I think they are really no more risky than the underlying investment. If you can buy the underlying investment, the derivative is a more efficient way to take advantage of that. It can be used as a hedging instrument and as you pointed out with the ABX Index, it can lead to price discovery that might not as readily be seen in the underlying prices of illiquid bonds. I think they are an important risk mitigator in the system. Mrs. Maloney. Would anyone else like to comment? Mr. Brown. The hedge funds are actually taking the risk away from the financial system. They are giving it to the high net worth individuals who are in the best position of society to afford that risk. The other thing is that they are such a small part of this business. There is a real problem, I think, in the public perception of seeing all the hedge funds as the same, that the danger is that the sins of the few will be visited upon the many, and if there is a problem in that little section of the market, it may affect public perception of the whole market. No. The whole purpose is to take risk away from them. Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Chanos? Mr. Chanos. I would like to make two points on that. The derivative swap market, which has grown dramatically, has not only dispersed risk but it has given us new informational content. Over and over again, we see the credit default swap market show us prices ahead of the rating agencies, pointing out risks that the market may not have completely understood. I would also point out that hedge funds themselves, through their effort of shorting the ABX market, were sending an important signal back in the fall that the subprime market was headed for problems. Again, this was more information, not less, for those who wanted to look at it and draw the proper conclusions. Thank you. Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. Yes, sir? Mr. Corrigan. One thing I would want to emphasize is that there have been several comments earlier about leverage. Most of those comments deal with what I think I would consider to be balance sheet leverage, equity to asset ratio's and things like that. Credit default swaps are in the family of what I would consider to be fairly complex financial instruments. One of the reasons why they are complex is that depending upon market conditions, they can have the characteristics of what I like to call ``embedded leverage.'' Embedded leverage is different than balance sheet leverage because it is a measure of how a given instrument, like a credit default swap, can change in value based on a shock. When we talk about these complex instruments, we have to recognize the distinction between balance sheet leverage on the one hand and so-called embedded leverage on the other. Having said that, I want to emphasize credit default swaps have been a tremendously constructive innovation for the financial markets generally. The Chairman. The gentleman from Louisiana. Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hall, I am going to address my sort of series of questions to you, since you are representing an association. Generally, what happens within a fund, and I am not even going to call it a ``hedge,'' I am just going to say a private investment opportunity company, is of no concern to anyone as long as it is operating in an expected and anticipated way. We are dealing with a circumstance where there is an unanticipated loss that brings about consequences that are adverse financially to other parties. That is the focus of what we are about. If you limit those who participate in that activity, that is one way to stem the scope of adverse consequences. It has been mentioned by several that the current definition of sophisticated or qualified investors does seem inadequate. My observation is that a dollar figure does not necessarily equal sophistication, as in a young person who is the beneficiary of a substantial trust. They will be relying upon a third party to make investment decisions on their behalf, whether hedge fund or otherwise. The suitability of that person in conducting that financial or fiduciary responsibility is pivotal in this case. That goes to the pension fund question and whether the school bus driver ought to be exposed to some derivative transaction with embedded leverage. Beyond the question of who gets in, it is the elements that constitute the organizational activity of that fund itself, going to the question of leverage defined broadly. Someone in a sophisticated regulatory position needs to understand that leverage position so we do not have an LTCM like event, and I do not mean that somebody loses money. I mean when people showed up in the work out room, everybody was surprised by who was at the table, that there is some sense of systemic scope of what that hedge fund is engaged in, and that gets you to the counterparty risk. Although there is a counterparty risk management policy group that Chairman Bernanke referenced in recent testimony, and generally speaking, if we are going to constrain the hedge fund activities by limiting their access to capital, which is not true equity, then we really begin to sit heavily around the neck of these operations and potentially minimize the systemic risk potential that everyone seems to express concern about. Is there anything inconsistent with your view of market function about those areas of focus? Who gets in a regulatory responsibility to understand leverage, embedded or otherwise, and counterparty risk management tools to watch? In my judgment, registration does not work. All that does is just say you have a label on your door and you can still be a bad actor. Mr. Hall. I appreciate your comments and I thank you for addressing the question to me. I am happy to discuss this. I think you have isolated two very important points. Effectively, what is it that lawmakers have to worry about? You pointed out investor protection, who loses the money, and is it okay if it is wealthy people or retail investors. You make a very good point. An example that I use many times is that finance professors probably would not be able to pass the net worth test, even though they are qualified to invest in these instruments. Mr. Baker. For some folks, you could move their Bentley and they would not be able to find it. Mr. Hall. That is true. There are other wealthy people who should not be investing. I think ultimately the link between sophistication and wealth is really not the basis for this, even though many times people say that. The real link is who can afford to lose it. If you have a Bentley, you probably also have a Rolls Royce. If you lose the Bentley, you are still going to be okay. It is not the best system for determining who is sophisticated enough, but it is really the best we have to prevent things from coming across your desk that you need to worry about. The second issue, aside from investor protection, is the systemic risk. I firmly believe the President's Working Group believes is best handled at the counterparty level, through the banking system, the brokerage system. Mr. Baker. Excuse me for interrupting. Does that not necessitate a more standardized methodology of disclosure and a disclosure of values to that counterparty for them to be able to make appropriate judgments about risk? Mr. Hall. I think that already happens. I think the relationship between hedge funds or private investment pools and their prime brokers, if they are borrowing money, the prime brokers and the counterparties demand an enormous amount of information and transparency. Mr. Baker. What I am getting to is that methodology for oversight will vary from practitioner to practitioner. There is not some kind of standard boilerplate. If I am at Bank ``X'' which is generally viewed as a good management team, but their practices are a little weak in this arena, is there any advisability, not in Congress but in a regulatory overview of the consistency of those practices? That is what bothers me, not just from hedge fund to hedge fund, but from bank to bank. How capable are those folks in asking the right questions? Mr. Hall. My own experience is it is relatively consistent across the sophisticated brokerage firms and banks. The most important shock absorber, I think, for the system is capital. The capital charge against these types of loans that banks and brokers would make is in the regulations, and ultimately they will evaluate whether making a loan gets them the appropriate return on capital. I think there is a reasonably consistent methodology that has been put in place by the capital charges. Long term capital comes up a lot. Prior to Amaranth, that was the last big blow up in a hedge fund. We have had more blow up's in the stock market since then. The President's Working Group of 1999 pointed out that long term capital had enormous amounts of leverage relative to their peer group. They were on a plateau of their own in terms of their ability to get leverage, and frankly, I think the message is that even the banking and brokerage community overextended themselves to long term capital. Mr. Baker. My point exactly. Thank you. Mr. Hall. If I have answered your question, I am finished. Thank you. Mr. Baker. Thank you. The Chairman. The gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me focus, if I can, on two areas. One of the witnesses raised the question of whether the Working Group's proposal about who qualifies as an accredited investor is or is not the appropriate definition. I cannot remember which witness it was. Maybe Mr. Brown, Dr. Brown. I wanted to follow up on Mr. Baker's question and be a little bit more pointed on that issue. Is that the appropriate level or should it be a different level? Dr. Brown, was it you who made that point? Mr. Brown. I made it, as well as another gentleman. Mr. Watt. Let's start with you and get the perspective of the other gentlemen on the panel. Mr. Brown. When I teach, I often have aggressive students who say, you know, if you are so smart, why are you not rich. The temptation is always to say well, how do you know I am not rich. Another possible response is you know, if you are so rich, why are you so stupid. Wealth and intelligence, particularly in investment matters, is not at all related. I can point to many anecdotes and many cases. Mr. Watt. I think I did accept the proposition that the monetary figure is appropriate as opposed to--how are you ever going to evaluate somebody's sophistication and evaluate their financial well being or worth or ability to lose. Mr. Brown. That is right. You have exactly the point. Mr. Watt. It is the monetary figure that I am zeroing in on more than the sophistication issue that Mr. Baker was zeroing in on. Is the net worth figure an appropriate figure? Mr. Brown. I have various thoughts about this. For a high net worth individual, they know what they are doing and there is no real business for us to be too concerned about what they do. I must confess to some concern about the level of involvement of pension funds and the ability of the pension benefit guarantee corporation and absorbing any potential losses that come through investing in these vehicles. The issue is really to look at risk, I think, and to understand what the financial resources are of the sponsoring organization of the pension, any defined benefit pension plans. I am concerned about that. Mr. Watt. Let's start with Mr. Golden and go all the way down. What do you say in response to the question I asked, and to Dr. Brown's comments? Mr. Golden. I commented earlier that I think the capital test should be raised. I do not know how high they should go. That is something that I think could be derived through a lot of conversations with the participants. I do wonder about this issue of assuring that people can afford to lose money in this. I am not convinced that any particular hedge fund investment is any more risky than a single stock investment in a single company. We do not have the same kind of concerns about people losing money in those particular investments. Mr. Watt. You are not advocating to lower the threshold? Mr. Golden. Absolutely not. I think it should be raised. The fact of the matter is people--we need to make the bite size with which they invest to be small enough that they can weather the storm. The diversified portfolio is a really important measure of protection. Mr. Watt. You all may need to speed up your responses if I am going to get all the way down the panel. Mr. Matthews, Mr. Hall, Mr. Chanos. Mr. Matthews. Personally, my feeling is that the question is, can you afford to lose it? That is the question that should be asked. I do not know what that means in terms of the level you set. Mr. Hall. That is correct. It is an issue of net worth. It is an issue of income. It is an issue of investing experience. I think actually some of my colleagues at the MFA have done some work and we would be happy to present you with some more definitive information on our recommendations. Mr. Watt. That is consistent with the Working Group or different from the Working Group? Mr. Hall. Consistent with the Working Group. Mr. Chanos. I would echo most of these comments with the one exception that we do have members in our Coalition who make the very good point that, for example, the people who were made very wealthy by a man named Warren Buffett, who ran his partnership as a hedge fund for 20 years, would not have been accredited investors under the standard. It is a good point. We have to understand that these numbers are arbitrarily policy driven numbers, not economic numbers. The industry and the proper authorities have to coalesce around figures that broadly represent the ability of investors to shoulder the risk, as my colleague said. Mr. Watt. Mr. Brody? Mr. Brody. It is probably not a bad number. It is hard to determine what it should be. I think nobody has great wisdom on this score. The number serves as an imperfect proxy for understanding, and the reality, as has been mentioned earlier, is hedge funds in general are not riskier than most other investments. Mr. Watt. Mr. Corrigan? Mr. Corrigan. I would raise the limit to at least what is being contemplated by the SEC's current proposals. These standards are not perfect, but they are easy to understand. We have standards like that in a lot of places. That is probably the best we can do. Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I do have to interject for 30 seconds, as we talk about the level at which we protect people. I am going to propose with regard to the bill that we passed last year that prevents anybody from betting on blackjack, that maybe if you can invest in a hedge fund, we will at least let you gamble. This committee decided that we would protect people from gambling at all; maybe we can link the two. The gentleman from Texas. Mr. Hensarling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate you calling this hearing. It is an important hearing. Clearly, I think the committee has identified several areas of legitimate concern. First, are investors possibly being misled? Do we have the proper level of transparency? Second, is there a legitimate issue of systemic risk? Third, as the gentleman from Louisiana has pointed out, we certainly have a concern about the institutional investor represented by pensions, and what could happen to individual pensioners, much less the American taxpayer who might have to bail out the PBCG. Having said all of that, although I am not a physician, I am reminded of the Hippocratic Oath; first, do no harm. It should also apply to Members of Congress. I recently came across a couple of statements of our present and former Fed Chairman, and apparently Chairman Greenspan said it would be counterproductive to directly regulate hedge funds. I know that Chairman Bernanke has been quoted as saying that direct regulation of hedge funds would impose costs in the form of moral hazard and the likely loss of private market discipline, and possible limits on funds' ability to provide market liquidity. My first question, which is kind of tossing the ball up in the air for anybody who wants to take a strike at it, is if we do not get the regulation right, what harm might we do, and particularly if you could comment on Chairman Bernanke's statement about possible moral hazard. Dr. Brown, it looked like you were reaching for the button first. Mr. Brown. There is an issue with the tendency of the industry to be more expanded overseas than it is here. I have different views on this. I do not hold with the view that industry is going to disappear any time soon. The plain fact is that other jurisdictions have a much more significant regulatory environment than we do here. I do not think there is any danger of this industry going anywhere very soon. Mr. Hensarling. Anybody else care to comment? Mr. Hall. The one thing to be cognizant of is if there is regulation that keeps hedge funds from doing their business, which is out of the ordinary. One of the great things about what I think private pools of capital do is they do things that are out of the mainstream, like investing in insurance risk after the hurricanes. If there is regulation and it is inappropriate regulation or if it overly restricts the ability to make these types of one off investments or out of the mainstream investments, then the economy will overall suffer from that. Mr. Hensarling. The investment capital represented by the hedge fund industry, just how fluid is it? Some of us have been concerned about certain provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley that might be helping drive capital to overseas markets, the number of IPOs that have taken place on domestic markets versus international markets. Just how easy is it to locate these investment vehicles overseas and if it is easy, is that something that Congress should be concerned about? Mr. Chanos? Mr. Chanos. I can speak personally to that, because I set up an operation in London a few years ago to complement our New York office. There is a lot of concern about capital moving overseas. We hear about this. Capital can move overseas at the flick of a button and does so all day long all around the world. Capital moves around. The bigger issue, I believe, and have told my New York political friends this, is the human capital that moves. When I set up an office in London, I am now paying people overseas. All of those effects of economy are benefitting the U.K. directly and not the United States. I am more worried about that and losing our competitiveness of keeping good people and keeping our financial primacy in the United States from the human side and the organizational side than the capital side. Capital flows very freely across borders all day long, 365 days a year. Mr. Hensarling. If I could hit the risk issue again. I certainly hold myself up to be no expert, but for a couple of years in the early 1990's, I was actually an officer in a hedge fund. It basically ran a very classic AW Jones kind of operation, classic stock pickers, long, short, they levered it up 2:1. I was able to invest in the fund as an officer, and during the time I was there, I discovered that our investment fund, number one, gave a greater rate of return to my family than my alternative investments at a low correlation to the market and had less volatility. I am kind of asking the question, what is wrong with this picture? Is there anything inherently risky, since I think it was Mr. Golden who said that hedge funds are not a distinctive asset class, it is more of a structure, is there anything about the structure of having a private investment vehicle that has a performance fee that leads these investments to be more risky than alternative investments that might be found in the mutual fund industry? Mr. Matthews? Mr. Matthews. Absolutely. It is the 20 percent performance fee. If you can make 20 percent on $50 million that you earned for your investors, that is pretty good. If you can make 20 percent on $50 billion, that is even way better. The inclination is to take on more investors, more leverage, and greater risk to try to hit the jackpot. That is why hedge funds occasionally do fail, and mutual funds never fail. Mutual funds do not take the leverage but a hedge fund does. Mr. Corrigan. We get a little bit bogged down here because we use this term ``hedge fund.'' There is an enormous dispersion in terms of the behavioral characteristics of hedge funds, and in particular, the extent to which individual hedge funds take more risk, have higher risk profiles than other hedge funds. I think it is fair to say that if you look at the universe as a whole, the characterizations that have been made by several of the other witnesses are correct. It is not so true that to the extent one or more individual hedge funds are reaching for extraordinary returns, by definition, they have to be taking extraordinary risk. That is where the dilemma lies. How do you square the circle in terms of performance in general with outliers? I want to add, if I could, very quickly, Mr. Chairman, a point about Amaranth. Several people have noted that Amaranth worked itself out in a very, very successful fashion, and it did. I, like others, take a lot of comfort from that. In my statement, I have identified several factors associated with the Amaranth event which I think warrant a fairly high degree of caution as to how one should judge the Amaranth episode in a vacuum compared to a similar type of episode under different circumstances in the future. The Chairman. We will go to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to thank you and the ranking member for having this hearing, and also thank the panelists for helping us with our work. To begin with, I think that we all take the position that the best regulation is self-regulation. As the chairman indicated before, it actually allows us to focus on some other things. Given the size of these hedge funds and the possibility that at least in the currency exchanges, there is a possibility of hedge funds working in concert, not necessarily deliberately, but their impact could be multiplied, and the sort of mercenary strategy, it could be good mercenaries, but it is definitely geared strictly to the investor, and the OPIC nature of these hedge funds, the secretive way in which they operate, it does raise some concerns in a number of areas. The chairman mentioned in his opening remarks the situation with our pension funds, and while the Amaranth work out might have been suitable for some, I am not sure that the pensioners who were affected would come to the same conclusion. I know that Mr. Matthews raised the possibility that it might be good to look at some limits, not necessarily on hedge funds, but on pension funds that would invest in a hedge fund, and maybe put some limits on either a percentage or based on their unfunded liabilities, their exposure. We might do that. The other area I am concerned about, and this goes to the mortgage issue and somewhat the subprime market, but in the area of mortgage backed securities held by hedge funds and what could happen if a hedge fund dumps those securities back into the market, putting downward pressure on those securities, what could happen to the distribution of capital available for housing. That is an essential good in terms of affordable housing, that I am concerned about. The last dimension of this that concerns me is I also wear another hat sort of ancillary to my work on this committee, and that is as the chairman of the Taskforce on Anti-Terrorist Financing. I work a lot with Treasury. I work a lot with FinCen and a number of our counterterrorist organizations. They say that it is very difficult to track and to scrutinize these hedge funds to make sure that the proper anti- money laundering and anti-terrorist financing protocols are in place. That concerns me greatly, given the amount of money that is flowing here. I will just let the panelists take a crack at what might we do, with your cooperation, rather than acting upon the hedge fund industry, what can you give us? We would rather have the suggestions come from you as to ways to address these concerns rather than us trying to do it from whole cloth from this side of the table. Mr. Brown? Mr. Brown. I think first of all, you have to understand the international nature of this business. This body cannot even in principle examine the very important issues you raise about terrorist financing through vehicles of this kind because the international business is far greater than the national business, the U.S. domiciled business-- Mr. Lynch. I am not talking about just us. We are working with the Egmont Group, which is made up of FIUs from all over the globe, 94 countries. I would not suggest us doing it alone; we would work with our international counterparts. Mr. Brown. Okay, great. I am also a little concerned about the anecdotal evidence on systemic risk that you referred to. My own research, for example, for the most obvious example is the Asia currency crisis in 1997, and the allegation that Mahathir Mohamad, the Prime Minister from Malaysia, made that George Soros had engineered the whole affair for his benefit. I looked at the numbers, and it turned out that the hedge funds actually were very risk adverse during that period and had pulled out of the markets, and in fact, George Soros had lost 10 percent, hemorrhaging 10 percent right through that period. The anecdotal evidence of massive systemic risk, I would argue, is just not there. Yet, a lot of central banks, in particular, the Australian Central Bank, were trying to get actively involved. Mr. Lynch. I appreciate that remark. If you could focus on the question, the pension funds. Two, mortgage backed securities. Three, anti-money laundering protocols that are not in place right now with hedge funds. If you could just address that question. Mr. Brown. I am sorry. The pension funds, I do agree there is an issue there and we have to examine the amount or the at- risk status of pension funds with regard to any kind of high- risk investment, in particular, hedge funds, and we may have to look at ERISA to do that. On mortgage backed securities, I am less concerned because that is not a huge amount of this business. The hedge funds are only involved in about 4 percent of that business. It is not a big thing. That is about all I have to say. Mr. Hall. If I may. Mr. Lynch. Sure, Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall. In this hearing, we have talked about Amaranth in 2007, and long term capital in 1998, two high profile blow up's that were terrible for a lot of investors. We really have not talked at all about the fundamental risk of the stock market. If you look at the 2001 crash of the stock market, and you look at the fact that it was only recently that the S&P actually recovered all the losses over the last 6 years, ultimately, it has not made much money in the last 5 or 6 years, whereas hedge funds have actually generated positive returns, with much less volatility than the stock market. In terms of investments in hedge funds, if we look at the pension market, which you asked about, no one disagrees, or very few disagree, that pension funds should not be investing in common equities. Unfortunately, I think the reality is--I should not say unfortunately--I think the reality is that common equities in most cases may be more risky than the overall hedge fund market. The Chairman. We are going to have to wrap this up. Mr. Hall. In terms of the housing issue, I will address it quickly. I think it will probably be if a hedge fund blows out, as you point out, of securities, it will be another hedge fund. It has the flexibility to enhance their leverage and buy these assets and provide that shock absorber for any liquidations that will occur. The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Shays of Connecticut. Mr. Shays. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you for holding this hearing, and I thank the ranking member, as well. Long term capital and Amaranth were both from the Fourth Congressional District, one from Greenwich and one from Westport. I wrestle with memories of savings and loans, and I wrestle with memories of when we changed the tax laws, what happened to real estate, and it kind of stared us in the face, and we all kind of knew it was going to happen. I think all of us are just trying to look for assurances that you will not just see another day like that. What I wrestle with is long term capital basically was dealt with with a proactive--as you point out, Mr. Matthews-- effort on the part of the Fed. How did Amaranth resolve itself, Mr. Matthews? What took place and why would I feel comfortable that would happen again? In other words, that people would buy a lesser position? What happened? Mr. Matthews. The prime broker for Amaranth, J.P. Morgan, the prime creditor, that had the most at stake, took over the natural gas portfolio and re-sold it. They made a low ball bid that Amaranth was forced to take because Amaranth needed to liquidate and pay back other creditors. J.P. Morgan turned around and re-sold the same positions to other hedge funds. Those other hedge funds provided the liquidity that caused it to not spread. Mr. Shays. The question I have, and I would ask all of you, is when that happens again, and it will happen again because there will be foolish mistakes done by foolish people or very smart people who do foolish mistakes, which model is most likely to occur, the long capital or Amaranth? Tell me what model is likely to occur in the future. Mr. Corrigan. I will take a stab at that. The answer is we do not know. I think one can argue about probabilities, but we do not know. As I said before, if you look at Amaranth and you contrast it with long term capital, the world of long term capital does not exist any more, in terms of the way that fund was run and the mesmerizing effect-- Mr. Shays. Then let me ask you this. What is the likelihood then, instead of one company going under, and evidently, I guess they both were from Greenwich, not Westport, but what is the likelihood that instead of one, you would have three, four, or five? What would be the kind of circumstance that would create it happening for more than one company? Mr. Corrigan. Let's look at the characteristics of Amaranth for a minute in terms of why that worked out as well as it did. There are a couple of things that I think are very important. One, the instruments that were used to construct those natural gas trades, by today's standards, were relatively simple and straightforward. Mr. Shays. I need you to give me as short an answer as you can, because I have another question. Mr. Corrigan. The short answer is I cannot tell you the probability--low, but not zero. Mr. Shays. Let me ask you this. Are any of you concerned that you could have three or four companies go down at the same time and then would we still see the Amaranth model working out or would the Fed or someone else have to step in, if you had two or three companies go down at once? Mr. Brown. I think the important thing you have to note is the incredible diversity of the fund business. I think the industry is not doing itself a service in really explaining this to the world, and the fact that we have so focused on Amaranth and long term capital management and assume this is the whole industry-- Mr. Shays. One answer is just diversity? Mr. Brown. Diversity. Incredible diversity of this business is a great protection, I think. Mr. Shays. Can anyone else give another reason or diversity would be the biggest? Mr. Matthews. Diversity and size of capital. As I point out in my testimony, there are three hedge funds in the United States alone with $30 billion or more in assets. That did not exist in Amaranth and long term capital's day. It just did not exist. Mr. Shays. One of my friends owns a hedge fund and they had three partners. They bought out one because one partner wanted to keep expanding and they were happy making millions and millions of dollars, but they did not want to keep adding because they did not think they could service their clients as well. I frankly thought it was remarkable. Obviously, he makes about $10 million a year, each of them do. It is not like they are suffering. They had a chance of making more, but they honestly could not service their customers as well the larger they became. Why is it the larger you become sometimes you cannot get as good a return? I do not understand that. Mr. Hall. If I may, the answer to that is an important part of the distinction between the classic mutual fund long only business and hedge funds. Hedge funds, because they have an incentive fee, they look at the opportunity set and they have no interest in increasing assets under management unless it is in fact going to yield an appropriate marginal return. When that marginal return decreases, they have no incentive. Hedge funds for years and years have been giving back money, closing, not taking any new money. If you contrast that to the long only business, frankly, they are asset gatherers, in my view, and they pretty much take as much money as they can because as they take new money, it is greater fees, but not necessarily greater marginal opportunities to invest in. Mr. Brown. I can address that issue as well. The evidence does show that there is some economies of scale that hedge funds face. Interestingly enough, if you look at funds of funds, there is actually economies of scale, because of the important due diligence function that they serve in vetting out the funds under their management, and the funds that have the greatest amount of assets under management are the ones that can afford to do the greatest amount of due diligence on behalf of the institutional clients they serve. Mr. Shays. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a fascinating hearing on the evolving topic of hedge funds. My understanding of hedge funds, I want to make sure I am right on this, and if I am not, you all correct me, is that they are massive unregulated investment pools that are typically invested in only by institutional investors or wealthy individuals, that try to hedge the value of assets it holds and provides returns to investors that are not correlated to those of traditional stock or bond markets. Is that a fairly good assessment there? Mr. Matthews. My only correction would be they are not necessarily all massive. It is like the retail business. You have Wal-Mart, Target, and Home Depot, but you also have a lot of local mom and pop's, like myself. Mr. Scott. I am very glad that you said that, because that leads into my question in terms of the retail. As many of the particularly retail industry giants move closer to departure from this traditional form of long-standing traditional industry practices, it has somewhat created an interest and an apprehension for what is on the horizon for some of these companies. Let me give an example of what I am talking about. If we take Sears, for example, Sears is now being classified as more of a hedge fund over its traditional role. Granted, Mr. Lambert, who was the chairman of Sears, has done a great job for the company as far as investments and the like. Are you worried that more and more of our Nation's stores, especially retailers, will turn more to hedge funds and unrelated investment strategies to survive, and do you believe that more and more corporations whose sales are hurting will move in this same direction? Do you believe we have a worrisome trend here? This is kind of a lead in to that. Is there a concern that the more unpredictable ventures like hedge funds may lead to yet other problematic issues in corporations? Should they stick to what they were formed to do and work on inventive and further creative ways of bringing in the customers instead of focusing more on unrelated investments like hedge funds? Are they counting more primarily on these hedge fund investments over store performance, as sales decline, stores lose customers, and those customers are finding other places that address their needs or the prices. This way of doing business is good for shareholders, but what about retailers? Do you believe this will further become the ongoing trend, retailers taking their focus off the classic focus of same store growth, market share, and store spending, and substantial losses in the long run? What I am asking is the impact of this trend on some of our retail giants, like Sears. Mr. Brody or Mr. Chanos or Mr. Hall? Mr. Brody. I will give it a quick try. The rationalization of businesses really has little to do with hedge funds. What we see over time is that some businesses are successful and some businesses are not successful. Some retailers are successful and some retailers are not successful. When a retailer has ``X'' number of stores and a bunch of them are not successful, if the retailer is to survive, it needs to rationalize itself, get out of some stores, and change its merchandising. We have seen that in the retailing business and we have seen that in many, many industries in the United States. I guess what I would say is that sound management is needed for all businesses and it has little to do with hedge funds. Mr. Scott. Do you believe that down the road, some sort of reform will need to take place to address hedge funds with respect to their size and scope? Mr. Brody. Let me just make a comment on size. Many of the top 10 hedge funds by assets are terrific performers, and I think it just depends upon hedge fund by hedge fund, their management, the activities that they invest in, and each, in my view, in our capital system, should be free to make the economic choices that they do. Mr. Scott. Am I being over cautious or overreacting in my concern that a lack of transparency in the current hedge fund market could lead to volatility down the road? Am I seeing something that is not there? Is there anything to worry about with this move towards hedge funds? Mr. Brody. I think there are always plenty of things to worry about, not just with hedge funds, but probably everything else in life. Mr. Scott. Is there volatility? Mr. Brody. The hedge fund world actually has less volatility in the aggregate than the stock market world does, and Mr. Corrigan went through a very useful notion of transparency and transparency to whom, to the regulators, to the prime brokers, to those who are lending you money, to the institutions that are investing in you, and to the general public. I think the major point is that where the transparency is needed, it exists. Mr. Scott. Was it hedge funds that--my final question, my mind is foggy. Did hedge funds play a role in the situation regarding Fannie Mae? Mr. Brody. No. The Chairman. If the gentleman will yield to me, I think Fannie Mae got in trouble over their own accounting for derivatives. It was their own derivative investments and the dispute over the accounting standard that was the last straw. The gentleman from Illinois. Mr. Corrigan. Mr. Chairman, can I just see if I can help a little bit. The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Corrigan. I am one of the world's great worriers. I worry about those things, too. If you look at the size of hedge funds, the threat of retailers going amuck via financial activities, those risks really are very, very small. I appreciate your concern. There are more important things I think in this area to worry about than those. The Chairman. The gentleman from Illinois. Mr. Roskam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to follow up briefly on what Mr. Shays was bringing up and to put it in a context. I apologize. I went out for three constituent meetings in the hallway that started with your testimony, Mr. Corrigan, and I came in, Mr. Brown, as you were clearing your throat at the end basically. I missed all your good stuff. That being said, could you comment--I will just open it up for anybody who has anything interesting and insightful to say--could you comment on the characterization of long term capital management, the environment where the Fed obviously came in and intervened, the Amaranth situation--which I think the best phrase today, by the way, was that it worked itself out. I just thought that was a brilliant nice use of language, that it sort of worked itself out. What is different today in terms of the sophistication in the marketplace so that we do not have to have that sort of intervention that we saw in the late 1990's? I think, Mr. Matthews, you mentioned diversification, and then you also referenced the size of several funds. Could you go further on that? I did not follow what you meant by that. Mr. Matthews. It is those two issues, diversification and size. Back when long term capital blew up, I think they lost $4.5 billion. I think that was the number. There were no other $4.5 billion funds around that either could or had the ability to or wanted to step in and help. They could not do it. You needed the Fed to step in. Today, we have three funds alone that have $30 billion each in the United States. There is one in London that has $60 billion, I believe. There is tons of capital around. They do a lot of different things. They have branched into all kinds and all different classes of financial instruments and commodities and markets around the world. It is simply not at all the kind of environment that long term capital was. They were the biggest and there was nobody out there who could rescue them. Mr. Roskam. The old notion of being too big to fail is really the marketplace has matured since then, and now there are others who would be big enough to assume that market share? Mr. Matthews. It has. There is an issue that gets back to Mr. Scott's question about are they not too big or can they get too big. There is a very Darwinian factor to our business model. The person who runs the management firm gets 20 percent of the profits. The investors know this. They are paying that money. If they are not getting a return on that investment, they are out of there very quickly. A fund cannot keep growing forever just for the heck of it. The investors have to be satisfied or the money will go elsewhere. It is a very efficient marketplace. Mr. Roskam. Could someone comment on the failure of hedge funds? I assume it is the natural thing, right? Some flourish. Some diminish. They do well and they stumble, like normal, and we ought not overreact to hedge fund failures? Mr. Hall. One of the things that I think the President's Working Group points out is that there is responsibility on the part of investors themselves. I think there was clearly a failure in the long term capital situation on the part of the counterparties, but it was not a system wide failure. There is clearly long term capital, I think, arrangements that were extended credit that other people did not get, so it was not a systemwide problem. The Amaranth problem is strictly investors losing money. I do not think there was any threat to the system. Ultimately, due diligence is important and investors have to focus on due diligence, and keep in mind that Amaranth advertised and achieved extraordinarily high returns in the years subsequent to that. You get higher returns from taking high risk. Investors knew that going in, I would assume. If they did not know, then we really need to focus on the due diligence aspect. It is really going to be difficult to regulate the due diligence process, and the MFA is doing the best it can with creating standardized due diligence forms and processes. Mr. Roskam. Mr. Chanos? Mr. Chanos. I would like to point out that hedge funds actually are very fragile vehicles. I would like to amplify what Mr. Matthews said; 10 to 20 percent of all hedge funds go out of business every year. It is a very large number. They do not because of stupendous losses, but for the very Darwinian thing that he mentioned, investors are constantly looking for the best return in this area, even though the evidence is exactly the opposite, that returns have been relatively high with less risk in aggregate. However, investors are shopping for the best returns in a very high fee world and tend to move very quickly out of something that is not performing, and therefore, keeping the market disciplined in that way. Mr. Roskam. Thank you. Mr. Brody. I think an important thing is to make sure that the investors get a fair shake. I think that is what registration does, it surely does not guarantee investors that they cannot lose their money. Mr. Corrigan. Just very quickly on long term capital. We should not forget the circumstances in which long term capital happened. Long term capital was horribly mismanaged, the fact of the matter is that coming off the Asian crisis and the Russian crisis, that combination of circumstances in 1998 made long term capital a hell of a lot harder to deal with than it would have been had it happened in a more tranquil environment. The Chairman. We should make sure that there are no hedge funds around when we have a crisis? [Laughter] Mr. Corrigan. We are not going to be that lucky. The Chairman. The gentleman from Texas. Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses for your testimony. Our friends, it seems to me that every failsafe system is failsafe until it fails to be safe. And before long-term capital, there was no long-term capital. And my suspicion is that there is something else out there that we cannot prognosticate currently that may manifest itself, and then that will be the pariah paradigm that we'll have hearings about and talk about. So, it seems to me that we do have to concern ourselves with the taxpayers in this paradigm, because the taxpayers are at the very foundation of the payout, because we now have the commingling of sophisticated and unsophisticated capital, and that occurs through the pension funds. The sophisticated investor, as Mr. Golden said, is one that you may have little sympathy for. But I have a great deal of sympathy for the pension fund that happens to have pensioners who are unsophisticated investors who happen to be a part of this system that necessitates sophistication. And I might add also that sophisticated investors make some very unsophisticated decisions, and I think we have to be mindful of this. So, if the--just to take us through it, if the sophisticated investor puts his money in the hedge fund, that's great. The pension is in the hedge fund. At some point, the pension fails. And at this point, the person who receives his benefits from the pension then relies on the taxpayer, perhaps through some sort of social program. So in the final analysis, the taxpayers have a vested interest in what happens with funds that are supposed to be entirely supported by sophisticated investors. So the question for me becomes this, that I'd like to have each of you address. Do you agree, each of you, that something must be done about the commingling of sophisticated and unsophisticated funds? And I'll start with Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown. Thank you. Mr. Green. If you could start with a yes or a no. And I say this only because sometimes when folks finish, I don't know whether they've said yes or no. Mr. Brown. I think there is an issue, and I think that there are a lot of hedge fund salespeople out there who will tell you about S&P returns and Treasury bill risk and that you need to be sophisticated in terms of your ability to understand the markets, although-- Mr. Green. Mr. Brown, if I may, would you then say yes is the answer, that there should be something done about this commingling of sophisticated and unsophisticated funds? Mr. Brown. I'm concerned about it, but I'm not sure what to do. Mr. Green. Okay. In a world where something can be done, would you do something? Mr. Brown. I think I probably would. Mr. Green. Okay. Mr. Golden? Mr. Golden. I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. Mr. Green. Well, it gets to the pensions. The pensions. The guy who happens to be a pipefitter who happens to have his pension fund invested in the hedge fund, he, by definition, may not be a sophisticated investor. You could have a Ph.D. and not be a sophisticated investor. So, he's not a sophisticated investor. What about him? What about the fact that the taxpayer eventually picks up the tab if that pension fund loses money and he then has to have some sort of social benefit that taxpayers cover? Mr. Golden. I think the answer is no. I think it's definitely no at the level of the hedge fund. I think we have concerns about the safety of pension funds, and we should be focusing attention on those who manage the pension funds, and seeing whether or not they are operating in a prudent fashion, using proper elements of diversification. Mr. Green. But your answer is that we should not do anything with reference to the commingling of the sophisticated and unsophisticated money? Mr. Golden. I guess I'm not sure that the pension fund money is unsophisticated, because there is a fiduciary involved at that point. Mr. Green. Well, the guy who manages the pension fund, we're going to assume that he's sophisticated. But the guy who benefits, the person who receives the pension, I think we all agree that the overwhelming majority of them would not be classified as sophisticated investors, correct? Mr. Golden. Yes. Mr. Green. All right. So they're the people who lose. And then the taxpayers pick up the tab. Should we do something to avoid that type of occurrence? And your position is you'd do it with the manager as opposed to with the fund itself? Mr. Golden. Right. Right. I agree with that. The manager of the San Diego pension fund that invested in Amaranth made a bad decision. They put too much money in Amaranth. Something people should be asking--the pipefitter should be asking the pension fund manager for San Diego why did you do that? And I-- Mr. Green. I agree with you, sir, that the pipefitter should pose this question, but the problem becomes the pipefitter still needs the social services. He has a family; he has children, and they need the social services that we, the taxpayers, seem to provide. So we still get back to the taxpayer having a vested interest in what happens to the pipefitter who had a manager who made an unsophisticated decision who is a sophisticated investor. Mr. Golden. So--and I understand completely, and I think the regulation should--the concern you should have is who is running these funds? If they're making bad decisions regularly, that's a real problem. The hedge fund is just doing its job, and I don't know if you can regulate that. Mr. Green. Well, tell me this. How would you manage the managers such that we can do exactly what you're talking about? Mr. Golden. It's a great question. Off the top of my head, I don't know. Mr. Green. Does anybody have an answer? Yes, sir? Mr. Chanos. Aren't we really talking about an ERISA issue here? Mr. Green. Say again? Mr. Chanos. Aren't we really talking about an ERISA issue here, which is the way in which pension funds are managed and how those pension funds are advised? For example, self-directed pension plans and 401(k)s, which we be more direct to what you're saying, aren't investing in hedge funds. So really, that pipefitter is getting advice, or should be under ERISA, getting fiduciary responsible advice from an advisor, and that's always the case, for example, in our fund. We never talk to the underlying investor directly. There's always an advisor. That is where the nexus of this concern should be, and I think it is a really good question. But I think we're looking at it from the wrong side of the telescope. Mr. Green. Do you really think that the majority of people who are pension investors, they have money in pension plans, do you really think that the majority of these persons are receiving the level of advice that they need in terms of what a sophisticated investor is and how that impacts their investments? Mr. Chanos. Well, if they're in a defined benefit plan, generally, yes, they are. I don't know of any pension, large pension funds that have failed due to one hedge fund investment. Mr. Green. But we're not talking about the ones that have. We're looking to the future. Eventually we'll have that discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. And I would also note, one of our concerns is the public pension funds, so that you don't have the ERISA rules, and that is something we'll be looking at. Mr. Campbell? Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Matthews and Dr. Brown, both of you in your presentations talked about leverage in hedge funds, and I don't mean the leverage in the investments, Mr. Corrigan, but the actual leverage in the fund investment itself. Is the degree and amount of that leverage transparent to the investors? Mr. Brown. To the informed investor, there's a whole industry out there for people to investigate and do due diligence. And if I were investing--I'm not a qualified investor--if I were investing a substantial portion of my wealth, I would certainly investigate. And the investor has every right to demand any kind of information they need to make an informed decision. Mr. Campbell. So I guess my question is that's not information that is readily available to an investor so an investor could be, I think Mr. Matthews had talked about a three to one leverage fund. Mr. Brown. Right. Mr. Campbell. So someone investing in that might not know-- a sophisticated investor, I realize, or pension fund? Mr. Brown. My evidence is that sophisticated investors, as indicated by people who grant the leverage, the counterparties, they know and they have access to that information already, and it's evidenced by the fact that if you look at the ADV filings, and I've looked at 2,270 of them, that the sophisticated investors lending money already knew of the operational risk characteristics that were revealed in those forms. So they've done their homework, and the people who are lending money, and that's really the systemic risk concern that we have is what effect this is going to have on the financial system as a whole. Mr. Campbell. Does anyone else want to comment? I mean, just from my perspective, obviously, we're talking about multiplying the risk-- Mr. Brown. Right. Mr. Campbell.--dramatically when you take what hedge funds invest in and add to that degrees of leverage. Yes, Mr. Brody? Mr. Brody. There's a wide range of sophistication among investors, and some will have a very good idea of what they're getting into and what the leverage is, and some will not. My view on the proper kind of registration is that a principles- based registration would require the disclosure of the important items to all investors, and that kind of disclosure then would benefit the unsophisticated-- Mr. Campbell. Do any of you disagree with that? Mr. Hall. Well, I'd put that in perspective. I think ``leverage'' is too simple a term to really have a whole lot of meaning. If you leverage Treasury bills or if you leverage Internet stocks, you have--or Internet stocks without leverage can be significantly more risky. So I'd be concerned about providing rules-based disclosure as opposed to principle-based regulation that makes people feel comfortable but they're really not. Mr. Campbell. Do any of you believe there's a proprietary issue there? I mean, part of the reasons that hedge funds don't disclose, as you said, is because they're using oftentimes proprietary methods. Yes, Mr. Chanos. Mr. Chanos. I think there's a big proprietary issue at work here, and we need to make the distinction between disclosure of leverage and positions to our investors and our counterparties and our custodians, and disclosure of positions to the general public. Mr. Campbell. Right. Mr. Chanos. And I think that's an important distinction, and I think that the committee understands, but I want to emphasize it. But quite frankly, and I know a number of people in the written testimony have touched upon this, I run a fund in addition to being an industry person, and our investors all have on-site inspection ability, and they take advantage of it. They routinely come in, look at our books, look at our positions, query us over and over and over again. Talk to our counterparties, talk to our prime brokers. This type of due diligence is done all the time and increasingly so both from high net worth individuals, public and private pension funds. These people are doing their work. When we have these blow-ups, they are very much the exception to the rule. Mr. Campbell. Okay. The second question is about accredited investor. Do any of you, and anybody, you can answer this. Should that be changed? Is it right? Do you support the SEC's proposal to change the threshold? Anybody want to take that? Mr. Hall. Well, I would support it. On behalf of the MFA, we would support it. Mr. Campbell. You support the SEC's proposal? Mr. Hall. Yes. Mr. Campbell. Anybody else? I mean, do we have the right definition of accredited investor, or should it be changed? Mr. Corrigan. I think the definition is as good as it's going to get. There's no way to perfectly define these things. Mr. Campbell. And the threshold is okay? Mr. Corrigan. The threshold proposed by the SEC is a big improvement. I actually might go a little bit further, but that's another story. Mr. Brown. As one of the members said, it's not an issue of intelligence about such matters, it's about the degree to which you can afford any losses that you may incur. And that's the reason for that standard. Mr. Campbell. Okay. And then one last question. Mr. Golden. Can I just add? Mr. Campbell. Sorry. Mr. Golden. I'd like to see the threshold raised as high as is politically feasible, at least as high as the SEC's. Mr. Campbell. And one last little question for Mr. Chanos. We talked about this fortress company that went public and you said it was the management of the hedge fund. I'm just curious. People access the public markets for capital. Why would a manager of a hedge fund require capital? Mr. Chanos. Well, I think that it's not only for requiring capital but to possibly use their stock as currency for possible acquisitions, or to incentivize their senior and mid- level people perhaps through stock options. There are all kinds of reasons why companies go public that don't necessarily need the capital, so I think that's sort of a broader issue, perhaps beyond the purview of this panel. Mr. Campbell. All right. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Thank you. I did just want to add one thing to Dr. Brown and the very useful and interesting questions Mr. Campbell is asking about what people know. Did I read you correctly as basically saying that even if you tell them, they don't pay any attention, they just chase returns? I mean, is that an accurate statement? Mr. Brown. That's an accurate statement. The Chairman. So that you tell them that, but they don't-- even the sophisticated ones, don't factor into account and just, as you say, chase returns? Mr. Brown. That's what the evidence seems to suggest. Either they don't know the information and they can't have access to it, which I find rather unusual, or they do have access to it and it's immaterial. The Chairman. The gentleman from Missouri. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one question for the entire panel. Mr. Chanos, you earlier brought up Warren Buffett and his hedge fund history. He's fond of using the adage in describing hedge funds if a man with money proposes a deal to a man with experience, the man with money ends up with the experience and the man with the experience ends up with his money. That's kind of the theme of what's been going on, and Mr. Buffett has become very critical of the hedge fund fee arrangements, as you may or may not know, and he calls the managers the 2 and 20 crowd. And I frankly think that he raises some very pertinent issues. How would you characterize the fairness and the accuracy of Mr. Buffett's comments? Mr. Chanos. Well, I don't want to put words in Mr. Buffett's mouth, but I-- Mr. Cleaver. No, I'd like to give an exact quote. Hold on just a second. ``It is a lopsided system whereby 2 percent of your principal is paid each year to the manager even if he accomplishes nothing, or for that matter, loses you a bundle and additionally, 20 percent of your profit is paid to him if he succeeds, even if his success is due simply to a rising tide.'' Mr. Chanos. All right. Well, I think those, while factually accurate, and he's entitled to his opinion, I would point out Mr. Buffett ran a hedge fund for 20 years, just about. The Chairman. Well, it takes one to know one. [Laughter] Mr. Chanos. So, again, perhaps he's speaking from personal experience, I don't know. But every hedge fund is different. Every business is different. Everything should be judged on the merits of its management team, its performance, and its fee structure, and to make blanket statements about every single hedge fund, something like that seems to me to be a bit strong. It's like saying, well, all of corporate America is not performing well for its shareholders, or every corporate executive is making too much money. I mean, these are individual cases, and I think that while there's plenty of examples of hedge funds that aren't probably doing a good job and are charging fees that are too high, as one of my panelists said here that this market is pretty Darwinian, and it weeds out those people pretty quickly. If you're not performing, you don't tend to keep those assets very long. Mr. Cleaver. So the 2 and 20 crowd is actually a small crowd? Mr. Chanos. It's not a small crowd. In fact, it's a growing crowd. Mr. Cleaver. Or is it the in crowd? Mr. Chanos. But there's a reason it's growing, Mr. Cleaver, in that there is a reason. No one here has asked the question, why are we having this--because of the growth of the industry, obviously something must be happening here where relatively sophisticated investors want to put more money with these managers. It's not because simply they're hanging out a shingle in front of their house. There is good performance being done with less risk. That's why it's attractive in the aggregate. But individually and specifically, there will always be, as one of our members said, the fools and the frauds are going to make things difficult for most of the good actors. Mr. Hall. If I may, it's important in my view, a semantic issue about the 2 percent of the 2 and 20 is on capital. And that doesn't, if you look at--if someone manages $100 million and takes a smaller fee, but 90 percent of their fund is coincident with the index, then they're really--their marginal benefit is only on a small portion of that $100 million, $100 billion. So a hedge fund may manage a smaller amount of capital and charge a higher fee on a smaller amount of capital, then they also manage leverage, they manage short positions, they manage hedges. So, you really have to look at the services that one is providing for that fee, and percentage of fee on capital is not necessarily what the manager is ultimately getting compensated for. Mr. Brown. I need to make one clarification point on the 2 and 20 issue. You only earn the 20 once you've won back any losses that you've incurred in the past. It's called a high water mark provision. It's that high water mark provision that really enforces the Darwinian aspect of it, and, in fact, hedge funds are like radioactive substances. They have a half-life of 2\1/2\ years, typically, because, you know, you lose, you lose, you die in this world very quickly because you just aren't earning any returns. Mr. Cleaver. I yield back my time. The Chairman. Thank you. Let me just ask two quick questions. One, we will be talking next time about--we were talking about how these things should run and do run in general. There are always aberrations with anything. The insider trading issue is one of the issues that we will be looking at next time, the SEC has been involved in. One of the questions is, record retention for entities that are otherwise unregulated. Is that an issue? Should we look at that? That is, over and above everything else, there is an argument for record retention to be able to help law enforcement for the aberrant cases. I'd be interested in any comments. Would there be objections to some kind of record retention requirement that for those--and I realize a lot of them already have them, because they're otherwise regulated. But would there be any objection to a generalized sort of record retention requirement for entities that otherwise didn't have them? Mr. Chanos? Mr. Chanos. I don't think our members would have--we have not canvassed them, but I don't think our members would have a problem with that. The Chairman. Mr. Hall? Mr. Hall. I think we would have no objection. The Chairman. All right. I'm quitting while I'm ahead. The next question is one of the ones that some of the staff have suggested, and that is on the counterparty issue, the--who's in charge of the aggregates? I mean, obviously, you have each individual counterparty, but is anybody looking at the aggregate counterparty responsibility, and is that something that somebody should be looking at? Mr. Corrigan? Mr. Corrigan. That--the short answer to that is no, because-- The Chairman. Nobody's looking at it or nobody should look at it? Mr. Corrigan. Well, we should look at it, and we are making efforts through the regulatory process to better look at it through the regulated institutions, yes. But it's not easy. The Chairman. Again, would there be objection if there was a way to do that that did not impinge on proprietary concerns? Mr. Brown. I would agree with that. The Chairman. Mr. Chanos? Yes? Mr. Chanos. Let me just point out. We could look across the pond to our financial cousins in the United Kingdom who have a very interesting process through their FSA. Their FSA, it's my understanding, occasionally canvasses all of its major prime brokers and then canvasses them separately in relation to their specific hedge fund exposure and looks for cross-- The Chairman. So that would be a good thing to do? Mr. Chanos. I think it would be-- The Chairman. Well, good. If the FSA is-- Mr. Corrigan? Mr. Corrigan.--here, too, right now. The Chairman. What's that, Mr. Corrigan? Mr. Corrigan. We do that right now here. The Chairman. Well, we might want to improve on that. These days if the FSA is doing it, one of the great passionate love affairs in the world today is between the American financial community and the FSA, except where it comes to executive compensation. I understand no love affair is perfect, and the lover may have a blemish. And in fact, McCarthy was here the other day and said, yes, he is enjoying being the flavor of the month through the FSA. So both of those are areas I think we would pursue. If you'll indulge us, the gentleman from Louisiana had one last question. Mr. Baker. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Corrigan, I went back and looked at the written statement relative to Amaranth, and what I drew from your comments was had Amaranth occurred in an illiquid market, or where there was a crowded trade going on, the unwinding of it all may have been less pretty. Mr. Corrigan. That's correct. Mr. Baker. And so the cautionary tale was, although we escaped it, let's not assume our system is functioning exactly as we would like to that end. I just wanted to do a quick wrap- up of sort of the elements I've drawn from this. Limitation on who gets in needs to be reviewed whether it's the individual's net worth standard, or whether it's pension fund management capability. And I'm adding one to the list which I don't think I've heard, and that is limitations more restrained on the fund of funds, the $25,000 entry fee into that, I think, is highly inappropriate in today's world. Then establishing a benchmark of best practices, not only for the private investment company side, but--and I'm asking here--but shouldn't we do that as well on the counterparty side with the broker-dealer community, financials, insurance, whoever is playing with these guys needs to be required. And then last would be some sort of formal and/or informal exchange. For example, I'm not clear today, if I'm the counterparty and I see something that I think is ill-advised, when am I obligated to notify my regulator as to the hedge fund conduct, not my conduct, which I think is a lower standard of responsibility? If we were to address those issues, do you feel that is an appropriate litany of steps to take in light of the relatively low systemic risk potential we think is likely to be in the near term? Mr. Corrigan. I think the list is approximately right, and so long as we do it in a way that honors this more principles based as opposed to checking boxes approach, I think that's right. Mr. Baker. Thank you. Anybody want to comment? Mr. Hall? Mr. Hall. I would agree with that. Mr. Baker. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. I thank you all. This is very useful in advancing our understanding, and the hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X March 13, 2007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5405.088