The Dodd-Frank Act and Hedge Fund Operational Risk

Key Question Being Explored in This Insight:

How did the 2011 post-Dodd-Frank changes to Form ADV impact hedge fund disclosures, operational risk prediction, and investor decision-making?

View the page of: William N. Goetzmann

Institution: Yale University

Explore more insights in:

Finance Professional

Media Literacy Toolkit

Faculti's Media Literacy Toolkit helps viewers critically engage with academic insights by analyzing the research context, identifying perspectives, and encouraging thoughtful evaluation.

Critical Questions to Consider ▼

What assumptions does the research make?
Are there alternative perspectives not explored?
What are the limitations of the research method?

Bias and Perspective Awareness ▼

This research comes from Yale University . Reflect on how the institution's academic focus and research partnerships may shape the questions being explored.

Further Reading ▼

Read the Study

How did the 2011 post-Dodd-Frank changes to Form ADV impact hedge fund disclosures, operational risk prediction, and investor decision-making?

Image courtesy of interviewee. December 4, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video discusses the regulatory environment surrounding hedge funds following major financial scandals, particularly the Bernard Madoff case, which highlighted the risks of operational fraud. It emphasizes the need for enhanced information collection from hedge funds, a response shaped by the Dodd-Frank Act aimed at preventing similar disasters. A research team examined data collected post-Dodd-Frank to assess its efficacy in predicting adverse outcomes in hedge funds.

Key findings show that certain variables, such as relationships with external investors and connections to companies in futures and swap markets, can help predict the likelihood of regulatory violations or fund failures. The study utilized machine learning techniques to filter through extensive data, concluding that the SEC's updated information requirements were valuable in enhancing predictive capabilities. The results indicate that there are significant implications for systemic risk in the hedge fund sector, justifying continued regulatory oversight.

Additionally, the text touches on the potential of using non-numeric data, like text analysis and personal interviews, in enhancing fraud detection and understanding behaviors that could lead to exploitation of investors. Overall, there's a strong recommendation for utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data to protect investors and improve trust in financial systems.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are five key points from the video:

1. **Bernard Madoff and Operational Risk**: The video highlights the Madoff scandal as a significant case that brought attention to the potential for operational risk in large funds, emphasizing the importance of identifying and avoiding fraud in investment opportunities.

2. **Dodd-Frank Act and Information Gathering**: The Dodd-Frank Act was introduced after the financial crisis to enhance transparency in the hedge fund industry. It required more extensive data collection from hedge funds to assist in predicting negative outcomes, raising questions about the balance between the burden of data reporting and the benefits of the information collected.

3. **Predictive Analysis using Machine Learning**: The authors used machine learning techniques, specifically the Lasso method, to analyze extensive variables collected post-Dodd-Frank. This approach aimed to identify key predictors of potential adverse outcomes for investment funds.

4. **Importance of Ownership and External Relationships**: The analysis revealed that certain ownership structures and external relationships with related firms could increase the risk of adverse outcomes, such as regulatory violations and fund failures, hinting at the need for careful scrutiny of hedge fund partnerships and affiliations.

5. **Trust and Predictability in Hedge Funds**: The study found that historical information, regulatory sanctions, and new reporting variables introduced by the SEC significantly aid in predicting fund outcomes. The data suggested that understanding the convideo of hedge funds and their regulatory history could improve investor trust and decision-making in the financial markets.

Export as PDF
Here are the key quotes distilled from the video:

1. **Bernard Madoff's Scandal**:
- "Bernard Madoff, ... one of the biggest scandals in financial history,... alerted everybody to the possibility that, even really large funds, might be subject to ... Operational Risk."

2. **Purpose of Collecting Information**:
- "Use information to help investors avoid the next Bernie Madoff scandal."

3. **Regulatory Balance**:
- "The Securities Exchange Commission has to balance between gathering a lot of information, which is expensive, and… thinking about what's the benefit that all of this new information's gonna be to investors."

4. **Dodd-Frank Act**:
- "The Dodd-Frank Act ... was put in place to try and avoid some of the worst problems... said, let's collect a lot more information from hedge funds."

5. **Effectiveness of New Information**:
- "We said, let's look before and after this Dodd-Frank Act and see whether the new information... predict different kinds of outcomes."

6. **Machine Learning Application**:
- "We used a machine learning tool called Lasso... Let's just focus on those [important variables]."

7. **Key Insights on Ownership Structures**:
- "It turns out that if you do have an ownership structure with another interested party,... that party seems to be more ... a constraint on whether or not something bad could happen, like a regulatory violation."

8. **Risk and Relationships**:
- "The more opportunity there might be for conflicts of interest... you're maybe buying and selling securities, that the hedge fund itself owns on behalf of clients."

9. **Historical Convideo Matters**:
- "Our big picture history matters for those... for bad outcomes."

10. **Significance of New Variables**:
- "It appears to us... that these new variables were extremely useful compared to just using the old things..."

11. **Takeaway on Predictability**:
- "...when we made some calculations about what we call the value at risk in terms of fund failure, ... it's a large number."

12. **Need for Regulatory Scrutiny**:
- "The amount of institutional and individual money in hedge funds would require the SEC to take a hard look at it."

13. **Text Information in Analysis**:
- "The new dimension of analysis in academia is, video information and non-numeric information."

These quotes encapsulate the main themes of fraud prevention, regulatory balance, the importance of new information, and predictability in the convideo of investment risks.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP=LOCAL:00:00:00.000,MPEGTS:90000

1
00:00:00.185 --> 00:00:05.045
One easy thing to point to is Bernard Madoff, eh,

2
00:00:05.385 --> 00:00:09.845
one of the biggest scandals in financial history, maybe

3
00:00:09.845 --> 00:00:11.205
of the last 30 or 40 years.

4
00:00:11.745 --> 00:00:14.725
It alerted everybody to the possibility that,

5
00:00:14.795 --> 00:00:19.645
even really large funds, might be subject to,

6
00:00:20.085 --> 00:00:21.965
euphemistically called Operational Risk.

7
00:00:22.025 --> 00:00:24.405
But in that case, it was a massive fraud.

8
00:00:24.945 --> 00:00:28.445
And, that's something that the everybody would like

9
00:00:28.445 --> 00:00:30.485
to avoid when they're investing.

10
00:00:30.945 --> 00:00:35.725
And, we, we focused on how to

11
00:00:36.385 --> 00:00:40.845
use information to, to help investors,

12
00:00:41.095 --> 00:00:42.885
avoid the next Bernie Madoff scandal.

13
00:00:43.025 --> 00:00:46.685
The Securities Exchange Commission has to balance between

14
00:00:47.715 --> 00:00:50.525
gathering a lot of information, which is expensive,

15
00:00:50.585 --> 00:00:53.565
and I guess you'd say it's, it's onerous for the,

16
00:00:53.565 --> 00:00:55.205
investment companies to provide.

17
00:00:56.225 --> 00:00:59.725
Uh, and, and then also thinking about what's the benefit

18
00:01:00.195 --> 00:01:03.565
that all of this new information's gonna be to investors.

19
00:01:04.465 --> 00:01:08.925
And so, that, that trade off is what, the,

20
00:01:09.265 --> 00:01:13.365
the Dodd-Frank Act, which is an act that, was,

21
00:01:14.465 --> 00:01:15.885
you know, something that

22
00:01:16.055 --> 00:01:19.965
after the financial crisis was just, was put in place to try

23
00:01:19.965 --> 00:01:22.005
and avoid some of the worst problems.

24
00:01:22.705 --> 00:01:24.965
Um, that act said,

25
00:01:24.975 --> 00:01:28.525
let's collect a lot more information from hedge funds.

26
00:01:29.465 --> 00:01:31.565
And, and why,

27
00:01:31.565 --> 00:01:34.685
because we would like to avoid, some

28
00:01:34.685 --> 00:01:36.445
of the disasters that we had seen.

29
00:01:37.425 --> 00:01:41.245
And, so, the question arises,

30
00:01:41.465 --> 00:01:43.885
are they just collecting too much information?

31
00:01:43.985 --> 00:01:47.005
Is it onerous? Uh, is it redundant,

32
00:01:47.065 --> 00:01:48.325
or is it useful for

33
00:01:48.845 --> 00:01:52.925
forecasting bad outcomes like funds crashing and burning,

34
00:01:53.265 --> 00:01:57.965
or funds, committing, offenses in the market,

35
00:01:58.585 --> 00:01:59.965
those kind of things.

36
00:02:00.065 --> 00:02:02.085
So that, that's the context.

37
00:02:02.945 --> 00:02:07.725
And so, we have, together, as,

38
00:02:07.745 --> 00:02:12.125
as a research team, we have spent years studying,

39
00:02:12.545 --> 00:02:15.165
the, the information that's available

40
00:02:15.305 --> 00:02:18.285
to investors about, about, hedge funds.

41
00:02:19.175 --> 00:02:23.605
And, what we did was we said,

42
00:02:24.055 --> 00:02:28.085
let's look before and after this Dodd-Frank Act

43
00:02:28.225 --> 00:02:30.845
and see whether the new information,

44
00:02:31.265 --> 00:02:35.315
see if we can do some tests to see about, do some tests

45
00:02:35.335 --> 00:02:37.835
to see whether these new variables

46
00:02:38.185 --> 00:02:40.515
that the SEC has required,

47
00:02:40.905 --> 00:02:42.555
predict different kinds of outcomes.

48
00:02:42.725 --> 00:02:46.775
We're putting in a lot of variables,

49
00:02:47.595 --> 00:02:50.975
and we're looking for some outcomes in the model.

50
00:02:51.385 --> 00:02:55.255
After the Dodd-Frank Act, we had a massive number

51
00:02:55.275 --> 00:02:58.815
of variables that the SEC had required, 44

52
00:02:58.845 --> 00:03:01.085
Different quantitative variables.

53
00:03:01.345 --> 00:03:05.125
And then within some of those variables that there were,

54
00:03:05.125 --> 00:03:07.605
there was text information and so forth.

55
00:03:07.785 --> 00:03:10.365
So, you know, we call that kind

56
00:03:10.365 --> 00:03:13.885
of model a kitchen sink model because you have everything

57
00:03:14.065 --> 00:03:16.605
but the kitchen sink in the predictor.

58
00:03:17.345 --> 00:03:22.285
Um, and so we used a machine learning tool

59
00:03:22.825 --> 00:03:24.965
called Lasso, which says,

60
00:03:25.355 --> 00:03:27.605
give me just the really important variables,

61
00:03:27.935 --> 00:03:29.245
let's just focus on those.

62
00:03:30.025 --> 00:03:33.725
And, when we lassoed those important variables up,

63
00:03:34.065 --> 00:03:36.445
we found a few that were really important.

64
00:03:37.425 --> 00:03:42.365
Um, one of, well, the top three, one of them has to do

65
00:03:42.955 --> 00:03:47.845
with whether or not a hedge fund, has a, an external

66
00:03:48.525 --> 00:03:50.245
investor that might be another company.

67
00:03:50.985 --> 00:03:53.725
Um, and, that was a bit of a puzzle,

68
00:03:53.865 --> 00:03:57.085
but it turns out that if you do have,

69
00:03:57.585 --> 00:04:02.565
an ownership structure with another interested party, in

70
00:04:02.565 --> 00:04:07.325
that case, that party seems to be more, I guess a,

71
00:04:07.345 --> 00:04:09.365
a constraint on whether

72
00:04:09.365 --> 00:04:11.165
or not something bad could happen,

73
00:04:11.315 --> 00:04:13.045
like a regulatory violation.

74
00:04:13.265 --> 00:04:17.045
Now, there other two variables have to do with,

75
00:04:17.385 --> 00:04:21.525
how you're related to, firms, whether

76
00:04:21.525 --> 00:04:24.445
or not your, your company is connected to a firm

77
00:04:24.445 --> 00:04:27.645
that deals in the futures markets in the swap markets

78
00:04:28.235 --> 00:04:30.365
that seems to heighten the probability

79
00:04:30.545 --> 00:04:34.125
of an adverse outcome, like, future regulatory sanctions

80
00:04:34.185 --> 00:04:38.125
or even, even the crash

81
00:04:38.145 --> 00:04:39.245
and burn outcome.

82
00:04:39.945 --> 00:04:42.325
And, so why would that be?

83
00:04:42.395 --> 00:04:45.965
Well, that seems to be, well,

84
00:04:45.965 --> 00:04:49.965
could possibly be related to the fact that, the more

85
00:04:50.545 --> 00:04:54.085
of these ex more of these external relationships

86
00:04:54.115 --> 00:04:55.845
that you have with companies

87
00:04:55.845 --> 00:04:59.205
that are dealing in other capital markets,

88
00:04:59.585 --> 00:05:02.245
the more opportunity there might be

89
00:05:02.545 --> 00:05:03.925
for conflicts of interest.

90
00:05:03.985 --> 00:05:05.765
In other words, you're maybe buying

91
00:05:05.765 --> 00:05:10.725
and selling securities, that, the hedge fund itself,

92
00:05:11.385 --> 00:05:14.685
owns on behalf of clients.

93
00:05:15.505 --> 00:05:19.445
Um, and, so that might be a hint

94
00:05:19.445 --> 00:05:21.245
that something could go wrong in the

95
00:05:21.245 --> 00:05:22.405
whole operational process.

96
00:05:22.735 --> 00:05:26.645
We're not saying that those are signs of,

97
00:05:27.065 --> 00:05:28.205
of wrongdoing,

98
00:05:28.625 --> 00:05:30.125
but they have an association

99
00:05:30.155 --> 00:05:32.325
that might reflect these opportunities

100
00:05:32.395 --> 00:05:35.325
that could arise in a complex trading environment where,

101
00:05:35.505 --> 00:05:38.685
and sometimes, sometimes you're, you're, you're acting

102
00:05:38.745 --> 00:05:43.325
as a broker, on with one hand as an investor,

103
00:05:43.325 --> 00:05:48.135
with the other hand, task regulatory, sanctions,

104
00:05:48.915 --> 00:05:51.415
are, are not a good sign.

105
00:05:52.075 --> 00:05:54.615
Um, and, that's a simple notion,

106
00:05:54.635 --> 00:05:58.125
but when you're looking at a fund, you might wanna look

107
00:05:58.145 --> 00:06:00.685
and see whether they have been sanctioned in the past.

108
00:06:00.905 --> 00:06:05.245
Uh, so our big picture history matters, for, for those,

109
00:06:05.465 --> 00:06:06.965
for bad outcomes.

110
00:06:07.425 --> 00:06:11.605
For some outcomes it does very well, particularly if the,

111
00:06:11.745 --> 00:06:14.085
you know, the crash and burnout outcome of disappearance.

112
00:06:14.745 --> 00:06:16.605
Um, other ones, it's a bit marginal.

113
00:06:16.745 --> 00:06:18.085
Um, any,

114
00:06:18.105 --> 00:06:21.885
but anything you can find that might help you predict,

115
00:06:22.305 --> 00:06:25.415
future risk adjusted return,

116
00:06:26.395 --> 00:06:27.575
or, whether

117
00:06:27.595 --> 00:06:32.335
or not there is trust in the system for these, funds,

118
00:06:32.825 --> 00:06:35.015
which we measure by whether somebody lends them money

119
00:06:35.555 --> 00:06:38.855
or not, anything you can find

120
00:06:38.855 --> 00:06:42.015
that will help you predict those, outcomes is helpful.

121
00:06:42.915 --> 00:06:47.015
So we use measures called R Square, which is the

122
00:06:47.555 --> 00:06:50.055
amount of variation that is explained

123
00:06:50.055 --> 00:06:51.655
by these, indicators.

124
00:06:52.515 --> 00:06:56.375
And, they range anywhere from about

125
00:06:57.235 --> 00:07:00.375
5% to 80%, depending on which one of those outcomes

126
00:07:00.445 --> 00:07:02.615
that you, are interested in.

127
00:07:03.275 --> 00:07:07.775
The data that's supplied now with the updated form A DV

128
00:07:08.435 --> 00:07:10.175
is significant.

129
00:07:10.395 --> 00:07:14.175
And, and, and in that matter, in that sense, very helpful,

130
00:07:14.795 --> 00:07:16.455
to predicting outcomes.

131
00:07:16.755 --> 00:07:21.735
The SEC, when they redesigned their form,

132
00:07:21.925 --> 00:07:25.095
figured out in questions that added value.

133
00:07:25.355 --> 00:07:28.415
In other words, you know,

134
00:07:28.795 --> 00:07:30.975
the SEC must have had suspicions

135
00:07:31.115 --> 00:07:33.215
before the revision of the form about

136
00:07:33.215 --> 00:07:35.375
what variables might be useful for investors.

137
00:07:36.235 --> 00:07:38.735
It appears to us, and we did that formal test,

138
00:07:38.765 --> 00:07:43.375
that these new variables were, extremely useful compared

139
00:07:43.375 --> 00:07:47.375
to just using the old things that, that funds had to,

140
00:07:48.195 --> 00:07:50.615
the, funds had to report.

141
00:07:51.035 --> 00:07:55.335
So my takeaway is that, the re the regulators,

142
00:07:55.605 --> 00:07:58.015
were doing their job and,

143
00:07:58.475 --> 00:08:01.775
and so we should, trust,

144
00:08:02.105 --> 00:08:04.055
their, insights.

145
00:08:05.035 --> 00:08:09.115
Um, and, then the other,

146
00:08:09.395 --> 00:08:14.235
takeaway is that, well, you know, we asked, is this

147
00:08:15.075 --> 00:08:17.795
phenomenon, is this predictability relevant?

148
00:08:17.935 --> 00:08:19.835
Um, how, how big a deal is it?

149
00:08:20.455 --> 00:08:23.275
And so when we made some calculations about

150
00:08:23.785 --> 00:08:27.355
what we call the value at risk in terms of

151
00:08:27.965 --> 00:08:32.195
total dollars that are exposed to the probability of,

152
00:08:32.225 --> 00:08:35.795
fund failure, for example, it's a large number.

153
00:08:36.015 --> 00:08:37.355
In other words, we're not talking

154
00:08:37.355 --> 00:08:38.555
about things at the margin.

155
00:08:38.765 --> 00:08:42.075
We're talking about issues that could affect,

156
00:08:42.075 --> 00:08:45.115
concerns about systemic risk in, in terms

157
00:08:45.115 --> 00:08:46.355
of the next to big crash.

158
00:08:46.975 --> 00:08:50.755
And also just in general, the amount of institutional

159
00:08:50.755 --> 00:08:54.995
and individual money in hedge funds, would require

160
00:08:55.065 --> 00:08:58.805
The SEC, to take a, a hard look at it and,

161
00:08:59.145 --> 00:09:02.405
and to, continue this regulatory oversight with, with,

162
00:09:02.435 --> 00:09:04.605
with this kind of data collection process.

163
00:09:05.305 --> 00:09:09.685
The new dimension of analysis in academia,

164
00:09:10.145 --> 00:09:12.045
is, text information

165
00:09:12.305 --> 00:09:15.365
and non quanti, non-numeric information.

166
00:09:16.265 --> 00:09:19.565
And, so, that's something that,

167
00:09:19.995 --> 00:09:21.685
that I've been working on my, my,

168
00:09:21.745 --> 00:09:23.485
my co-authors have been working on.

169
00:09:23.945 --> 00:09:27.605
You know, how much can we learn from what people say,

170
00:09:27.915 --> 00:09:32.605
what else they do, the broader social context, you know,

171
00:09:33.275 --> 00:09:38.085
detection of fraud, in certain circumstances is

172
00:09:39.015 --> 00:09:43.605
DeVol has devolved, to, to

173
00:09:44.245 --> 00:09:48.885
personal interviews and, even to, nonverbal cues,

174
00:09:49.145 --> 00:09:50.685
that might be relevant.

175
00:09:51.185 --> 00:09:55.325
So, how much, that kind

176
00:09:55.325 --> 00:09:59.925
of information could be adapted to, to,

177
00:10:00.195 --> 00:10:02.925
helping investors avoid, people

178
00:10:02.945 --> 00:10:04.245
who are gonna take advantage of them.

179
00:10:04.505 --> 00:10:06.125
That's a really exciting thing.

180
00:10:06.745 --> 00:10:08.725
And I know that in our field

181
00:10:08.825 --> 00:10:12.085
and, the field of, academic finance,

182
00:10:13.115 --> 00:10:16.085
this has just been, there has just been an explosion

183
00:10:16.085 --> 00:10:17.965
of research to use this kind of data.

Preventing Future Financial Scandals: Insights from the Madoff Case

00:00:00 - One easy thing to point to is Bernard Madoff, eh, one of the biggest scandals in financial history, maybe of the last 30 or 40 years. It alerted everybody to the possibility that, even really large funds, might be subject to, euphemistically called Operational Risk. But in that case, it was a massive fraud. And, that's something that the everybody would like to avoid when they're investing.

00:00:36 - use information to, to help investors, avoid the next Bernie Madoff scandal. The Securities Exchange Commission has to balance between gathering a lot of information, which is expensive, and I guess you'd say it's, it's onerous for the, investment companies to provide. and, and then also thinking about what's the benefit that all of this new information's gonna be to investors.

00:01:09 - the Dodd-Frank Act, which is an act that, was, you know, something that after the financial crisis was just, was put in place to try and avoid some of the worst problems. that act said, let's collect a lot more information from hedge funds. And, and why, because we would like to avoid, some

Evaluating the Impact of Dodd-Frank on Hedge Fund Risk Prediction

00:01:37 - And, so, the question arises, are they just collecting too much information? Is it onerous? is it redundant, or is it useful for forecasting bad outcomes like funds crashing and burning, or funds, committing, offenses in the market, those kind of things. So that, that's the context. And so, we have, together, as,

00:02:12 - the, the information that's available to investors about, about, hedge funds. And, what we did was we said, let's look before and after this Dodd-Frank Act and see whether the new information, see if we can do some tests to see about, do some tests to see whether these new variables

00:02:40 - predict different kinds of outcomes. We're putting in a lot of variables, and we're looking for some outcomes in the model. After the Dodd-Frank Act, we had a massive number of variables that the SEC had required, 44 Different quantitative variables. And then within some of those variables that there were, there was text information and so forth. So, you know, we call that kind

Identifying Key Variables Through Machine Learning

00:03:14 - but the kitchen sink in the predictor. and so we used a machine learning tool called Lasso, which says, give me just the really important variables, let's just focus on those. And, when we lassoed those important variables up, we found a few that were really important. one of, well, the top three, one of them has to do

00:03:48 - investor that might be another company. and, that was a bit of a puzzle, but it turns out that if you do have, an ownership structure with another interested party, in that case, that party seems to be more, I guess a, a constraint on whether or not something bad could happen, like a regulatory violation.

00:04:17 - how you're related to, firms, whether or not your, your company is connected to a firm that deals in the futures markets in the swap markets that seems to heighten the probability of an adverse outcome, like, future regulatory sanctions or even, even the crash and burn outcome. And, so why would that be? Well, that seems to be, well,

Conflicts of Interest and Predicting Hedge Fund Outcomes

00:04:50 - of these ex more of these external relationships that you have with companies that are dealing in other capital markets, the more opportunity there might be for conflicts of interest. In other words, you're maybe buying and selling securities, that, the hedge fund itself, owns on behalf of clients. and, so that might be a hint

00:05:21 - whole operational process. We're not saying that those are signs of, of wrongdoing, but they have an association that might reflect these opportunities that could arise in a complex trading environment where, and sometimes, sometimes you're, you're, you're acting as a broker, on with one hand as an investor, with the other hand, task regulatory, sanctions, are, are not a good sign.

00:05:54 - but when you're looking at a fund, you might wanna look and see whether they have been sanctioned in the past. so our big picture history matters, for, for those, for bad outcomes. For some outcomes it does very well, particularly if the, you know, the crash and burnout outcome of disappearance. other ones, it's a bit marginal. any, but anything you can find that might help you predict,

Enhancing Predictive Measures in Hedge Fund Regulation

00:06:26 - or, whether or not there is trust in the system for these, funds, which we measure by whether somebody lends them money or not, anything you can find that will help you predict those, outcomes is helpful. So we use measures called R Square, which is the amount of variation that is explained by these, indicators.

00:06:57 - 5% to 80%, depending on which one of those outcomes that you, are interested in. The data that's supplied now with the updated form A DV is significant. And, and, and in that matter, in that sense, very helpful, to predicting outcomes. The SEC, when they redesigned their form, figured out in questions that added value.

00:07:28 - the SEC must have had suspicions before the revision of the form about what variables might be useful for investors. It appears to us, and we did that formal test, that these new variables were, extremely useful compared to just using the old things that, that funds had to, the, funds had to report. So my takeaway is that, the re the regulators,

Evaluating Predictability and Systemic Risk in Hedge Funds

00:07:58 - and so we should, trust, their, insights. and, then the other, takeaway is that, well, you know, we asked, is this phenomenon, is this predictability relevant? how, how big a deal is it? And so when we made some calculations about what we call the value at risk in terms of

00:08:32 - fund failure, for example, it's a large number. In other words, we're not talking about things at the margin. We're talking about issues that could affect, concerns about systemic risk in, in terms of the next to big crash. And also just in general, the amount of institutional and individual money in hedge funds, would require The SEC, to take a, a hard look at it and,

00:09:02 - with this kind of data collection process. The new dimension of analysis in academia, is, text information and non quanti, non-numeric information. And, so, that's something that, that I've been working on my, my, my co-authors have been working on. You know, how much can we learn from what people say, what else they do, the broader social context, you know,

Utilizing Nonverbal Cues in Investor Protection Research

00:09:39 - DeVol has devolved, to, to personal interviews and, even to, nonverbal cues, that might be relevant. So, how much, that kind of information could be adapted to, to, helping investors avoid, people who are gonna take advantage of them.

00:10:16 - And I know that in our field and, the field of, academic finance, this has just been, there has just been an explosion of research to use this kind of data.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis

Data

Originals

Explainers

Podcasts

Faculti

New on Faculti

Idea Explorer

Definition

News Context

Exploratory Questions

Faculti AI Answers

Research Summaries

The Dodd-Frank Act and Hedge Fund Operational Risk

Media Literacy Toolkit

Critical Questions to Consider ▼

Bias and Perspective Awareness ▼

Further Reading ▼