RENO, Nev. (HedgeWorld.com)–Although many hedge fund databases seem to be alike, a new survey found that databases differ significantly in the information they contain, especially in the funds they list. Also, while many in the industry assume that databases are full of “dead” names or funds that are no longer reporting, the company that conducted the survey, Strategic Financial Solutions, found that most database funds are alive and reporting.
The software firm completed a study of the hedge fund listings from 12 of the major hedge fund databases and found that more than 90% of the included funds had updated their database information within the previous 90 days.
“The 90% figure is a very good thing for the industry in that the quality and timeliness of the data is there,” said Meredith Jones, director of market research at SFS.
The databases examined in the study were: Alternative Asset Center; Altvest from InvestorForce; Barclay’s Global HedgeSource; Center for International Securities and Derivatives Markets; Cogenthedge; Eurekahedge Asian Hedge Fund Database; Eurekahedge European Hedge Fund Database; Eurekahedge Fund of Hedge Funds Database; HedgeFund.net, Hedge Fund Research, MSCI Hedge Fund Classification Standard indexes and database; and Tremont* TASS (Europe) Ltd.
The databases have a combined headcount of 24,627 funds. The SFS researchers found, though, that about 8,100 hedge funds and funds of hedge funds were distinct to each database once all the duplicate funds were removed. Of that number most were single-manager hedge funds; only 2,600 were funds of funds.
Most of the funds were “clone” funds, with 900 being managed in a similar fashion to original funds in either an onshore or offshore structure.