Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012 - Ernst & Young

Global hedge fund and
investor survey 2012

Finding common
ground
Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012
The survey juxtaposes views of investors with those of managers,
highlighting where they are in accord and where they disagree. If this
report plays even a modest part in bringing the manager and investor
communities closer together, it will have served a useful, even
powerful, purpose.

1
Executive
summary
4
12
Contents
Investor demand
and hedge fund
selection
Headcount,
infrastructure,
outsourcing and costs
24 30
36
Eurozone
considerations
Regulations and
reporting
Compensation
structure
42
45
Background and
methodology
47
Contacts
Future landscape

Executive summary
Welcome to this, our sixth and most extensive, survey of
the hedge fund industry. We start with a vote of thanks
to all those who so generously gave up their time and
who made such an effort to respond in depth to the
questions. The response has been overwhelming, not only
in numbers — 100 of the largest hedge fund managers in
the world and 50 major institutional investors with some
of the largest allocations to hedge fund assets — but also
in the depth, richness and color of the comments and
feedback. We believe it makes for our best survey yet as
we continue to make our contribution to, and investment
in, this varied, vital and vigorous industry. A particular
word of thanks to our senior panel of managers and
investors, who helped design the questions and shape
the survey, without whose depth of understanding of the
industry and readiness to participate, this study would not
have been possible.
The survey has highlighted some interesting themes, a
few of which we note here.
First, investor demand is by no means satiated although
the investors we spoke to broadly intend to maintain
their allocations to hedge funds. Further examination
is revealing: a much larger number of investors than
anticipated have increased their allocations to emerging
and start-up funds, which flies in the face of conventional
wisdom that the largest managers are gathering all the
assets. More particularly, a significant majority of funds
of funds say that they are investing in a “fund of one.”
Both these trends attest to a thriving and continually
reinvigorating industry. It is difficult to assess whether
there is a causal relationship between this trend and a
squeeze on margins, but there appears to be conclusive
evidence that in each case, funds of funds, as investors,
are demanding, and getting, a variety of concessions from
fund managers, particularly on fees, and often in return
for larger mandates, lock-ups or liquidity restrictions.
While the selection criteria of investors and the managers’
perceptions of them coincide far more than they did
previously, there remain notable differences between
the two groups on what they regard as “red flags” during
the due diligence. Poor performance is cited by both
investors and managers as being, overwhelmingly, the
trigger for redemptions.
Secondly, for the first time and at the request of senior
industry figures, we delved into some aspects of the
headcount, infrastructure, outsourcing and costs of
managers. We might develop this topic more thoroughly
in subsequent surveys. Unsurprisingly, the findings show
the benefit of economies of scale and how operationally
leveraged hedge fund firms are, but the extent of it is
remarkable. Full-time equivalents (FTE) in the front office
for every US$1 billion of assets under management (AUM)
tapers down from 27 for managers below US$1 billion to
4.5 for managers with more than US$10 billion while the
back-office slope is even more dramatic: from 32.8 FTE for
managers with less than US$1 billion to 4.6 FTE for those
with more than US$10 billion. The back to front ratios are
1 | Finding common ground Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012

interesting, most particularly for managers between
US$5 billion and US$10 billion in assets under
management. While it tracks at approximately 1:1 for
firms with US$1 billion to US$5 billion and those with
more than US$10 billion, in the US$5 billion to US$10
billion bracket, it is nearer 1 FTE in the front office to 1.6
in the back. This is partly due to the number of managers
in this category with credit strategies, but there are likely
additional reasons — the arrival at the threshold of a major
build-out; the transformation to running multi-strategies;
the need to scale up; and the confidence to re-invest in
the business are but a few. Interestingly, managers are
adding to their headcount, most notably in the front
office, particularly in the largest firms. The expenses per
FTE again demonstrate a clear correlation with size: the
largest managers are showing the greater operational
leverage. There are some interesting differences between
the costs typically picked up by the funds and those that
investors think they should pick up. In fact, investors have
less appetite for costs to be charged to the fund than
they did a year ago. Similarly, investors value shadow
accounting very highly but, perhaps unsurprisingly, are
less willing to pay for it.
Thirdly, the Eurozone crisis has, where applicable,
caused investors to ask a number of questions about
exposures, counterparty and liquidity risks, clearing
and settlement and, in a number of cases, practices
have changed, but there are no signs of a wholesale or
permanent withdrawal.
On the regulatory front, the burden continues to grow
and the groans do not cease. Managers continue to
invest in their regulatory infrastructure, compliance and
technology, and costs increase to accommodate the rules.
Major intrusions, such as the preparatory work on
Form PF, continue although its results are unlikely to be
widely shared with investors, who remain comfortable
that it can be incorporated into the due diligence
questionnaire. Most notably, a tiny minority of investors,
only 10%, believe that this overwhelming weight of
regulation will be effective in protecting their interests
and an even smaller proportion believe that they will be
of help in preventing the next crisis. This fairly clearly
endorses the prevailing view that regulation has now
become a self-serving and self-perpetuating industry.
Finally, investors believe that compensation structures
are less well aligned with their objectives than managers
do. This gap in perception between the two groups has
widened over the last two years. Cash compensation
dominates, but investors would apparently prefer a
greater use of equity in both the management company
and funds, accompanied by deferrals and clawbacks. Most
markedly, investors feel that a far greater proportion of
the assets in the funds in which they invest should be
owned by the employees of the manager.
We normally conclude by asking participants to do
some soothsaying, and this year was no exception.
Both managers and investors feel that there will be a
consolidation of funds and managers. This is, of course,
true of participants in the asset management industry
and, like all received wisdom, should be challenged. It
remains true of most members of most clubs that, once
admitted, they put up the shutters, restrict newcomers
and feel ever more exclusive — which only makes them
moribund, a fate that we would never wish on this
industry. In order to survive and thrive, the industry
will undoubtedly see closures, mergers and takeovers
but, we hope, will continue to be refreshed by new
and enterprising managers developing innovative and
sustainable propositions for investors.
Ratan Engineer
Global Asset
Management Leader
Arthur Tully
Co-Leader, Global Hedge
Fund Services
2

Investor demand and hedge fund selection
The global hedge fund industry is in the midst of a profound
transformation. Against lackluster performance, investor
expectations and regulatory scrutiny have risen sharply
since the financial crisis. We set out to find out what the
appetite for investments in hedge funds was under the
current market conditions.
In this section we explore the following topics:
• Allocation to funds
• Obstacles to allocation
• Fee breaks in return for concessions
• Manager selection criteria
• Triggers for redemption
4

Survival to sustainability and now, the need for growth from
new channels of investors
Notwithstanding lackluster performance, two-thirds
of pension funds and endowments plan to stay the
course, and another one in five expects to increase
hedge fund allocations over the next several years.
Investors point to hedge funds’ need to improve riskadjusted
performance and overall high fees as key
impediments to increasing allocations. The allure of
outperformance has waned as hedge funds’ returns
have been far more correlated, and in some cases
underperforming, with the overall market.
Given the modest proportion of current investors
that expect to increase their hedge fund allocations,
industry growth will need to come from new
channels of investors that have not yet invested in
hedge funds.
Investors (pensions/endowments)
Do you plan to increase, decrease or maintain your
current target allocation to hedge funds in the next
three years?
Figure 1. Expected allocation change in 3 years
Increase
allocation
Decrease
allocation
20%
13%
67%
No change
Investors (pensions/endowments)
What is the single biggest obstacle to allocating a
Figure 2. Biggest obstacles
greater proportion of assets to hedge funds?
Performance
Fees
Liquidity needs
Risk tolerance
30%
30%
20%
17%
Regulations
10%
*Note: where numbers do not add up to 100%, respondents were permitted
multiple responses.
Complexity
7%
5 | Finding common ground Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012

The investor conundrum — the prospect for better returns,
yet the desire for stability
On average, investors currently allocate 5% to
6% of their assets to emerging or start-up
hedge funds.
Funds of funds are far more likely to increase their
allocations to emerging or start-up hedge funds
than pension funds and endowments.
Investors
In the past year, have you increased the proportion of
Figure hedge 3. Increase fund AUM in allocation invested in emerging/start-up hedge
funds?
Investors
If yes,
Figure
why have
4. Reasons
you increased
for increase
the proportion of assets
in emerging/start-up hedge funds?
Investors that expect to increase their allocation
to emerging hedge funds point to the prospects
of improved performance and negotiating
better terms.
“The terms of investment are often
far better … and the expectation of
better performance in the early years
is also greater.”
Funds of funds
42%
58%
Better returns
More nimble
Better terms
27%
36%
45%
— Investor (North America)
“[We] prefer nimble managers under
certain conditions (pedigree, strategy,
market opportunity).”
— Investor (North America)
Other investors
3%
12%
85%
More talented
personnel
More focused/
specialized
9%
9%
Investors’ desire for institutional infrastructure
and governance suggests that established hedge
funds have the ability to leverage their advantages
to compete with emerging managers.
Yes No Don’t know
6

Fee breaks for larger mandates, emerging managers and the fund of one:
the evolving fund of funds business model
This year, more than 90% of hedge fund
managers expressed a preference for direct
investments from institutional investors
over investments from funds of funds. In
addition, nearly two-thirds of pension funds
and endowments report they prefer to invest
directly into hedge funds, half of those
through the use of investment consultants.
Managers’ preference for direct investors
has been growing over the past several
years and is challenging the fund of funds
business model. This is not surprising given
that capital from institutional investors tends
to be “stickier” than capital from funds of
funds, which may be faster to redeem when
performance does not meet expectations or
their own liquidity needs merit withdrawal.
Investors
Has a hedge fund offered fee breaks in return for
concessions on your part?
Funds of funds
Other investors
Figure 5. Fee breaks
5%
21%
79%
95%
Investors
If yes, what concessions did you have to make for
lower fees?
Figure 6. Concessions
Larger mandates
Longer lock-ups
Limitations on
the frequency
of redemptions
22%
33%
56%
67%
83%
83%
Nevertheless, it is clear that one in three
institutional investors — and over 50% in
EMEA — still rely on funds of funds for their
hedge fund investments, at least in part
because funds of funds have been more
successful in negotiating fee breaks and
special terms.
Yes
No
Limitations on the
amount of
redemptions
Pass additional
costs to the funds
6%
6%
17%
Funds of funds
Other investors
7 | Finding common ground Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012

Selection criteria are continuing to become more aligned, yet people
and process, not just performance, are paramount
Hedge fund managers continue to point to
long-term performance as key in selection, and
overall, the top five criteria they point to remain
the same as last year’s — even as the gap among
the top five criteria has narrowed.
A hedge fund’s management team continues
to be investors’ top concern, followed by
risk management and clarity of a manager’s
investment philosophy. Only then does past
performance enter the list.
It is interesting to note that hedge funds
still believe recent investment performance
is important more often than investors
do. Although investors clearly look at past
performance (long-term and current),
confidence in the people who will generate
future returns is more important, and
confidence in the processes that will
appropriately manage risk-taking is at least
equally important.
Transparency continues to be important to
investors. Leading hedge funds have shown that
transparency means more than reporting on
holdings and performance and now differentiate
themselves from peers by communicating
proactively and providing high levels of access
to key personnel during due diligence.
Which of the following are the five most important
screening criteria [for investors] in the initial rounds of
manager selection?
Figure 7. Top selection criteria
Long-term investment
performance (3-5 years)
Hedge fund
management team
Clarity and consistency
of investment philosophy
Risk management
policies and oversight
Recent investment
performance (1-2 years)
Transparency of portfolio holdings
and performance attribution
Fees and liquidity terms
16%
Hedge funds/investors
40%
39%
44%
55%
53%
53%
54%
60%
68%
66%
70%
76%
82%
Hedge fund
rank change
2011 vs. 2012
Investor
rank change
2011 vs. 2012
Hedge funds
Investors
8

Performance is a key trigger, but the lack of proactive and transparent
communication of change and risk is an equally important reason for redemptions
Performance will always be a key factor that
investors consider when deciding to remain
committed to a manager.
However, investors place a heavy emphasis
on the continuity of the investment team and
operational risk (particularly funds of funds)
whereas managers are less likely to see them
as contributing factors to redemptions. Instead,
managers are more apt to point to market
risk (that is, changes in the market dictate
reallocation of investments).
Hedge funds
Aside from factors that a manager cannot control,
which Figure two 9. or Primary three of triggers the following for asset are redemption the most (hedge funds)
common triggers for redemption?
Performance
86%
Investors
Aside from factors that a manager cannot control,
which Figure two 9. Primary or three triggers of the following for asset redemption would cause (investors) you redeem assets?
Performance
86%
Investors remain wary of operational failures
on the part of hedge funds. Although most
managers surveyed have already developed
an infrastructure to mitigate many of these
concerns, managers would be wise to ensure
they actively communicate about changes in
personnel — including their plans for long-term
succession — and the operational controls they
put in place to mitigate disruptions.
Market risk
Change in
key personnel
Operational risk
10%
30%
51%
Market risk
Change in
key personnel
Operational risk
32%
56%
84%
9 | Finding common ground Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012

“ Investors will always track performance,
look at the firm’s reputation, operational
strengths, clear segregation of assets and
systems risks, strong internal compliance
systems, lack of conflicts of interest and
lack of frequent staff turnover.”
— Hedge fund (Asia)
“ They look for anything involving integrity,
ethics and code of business, making sure
that you have an untarnished background,
not just as an investor, but with people
you’ve worked with — reputationally.
Also, and this is increasingly important,
depending on your size, not investing in
your business operations would be a red
flag. It’s important for them to see that
you’re investing in the business, in your
systems, in technology, in your operations.”
— Hedge fund (EMEA)
10

Headcount, infrastructure, outsourcing and costs
Increased regulation and investor scrutiny have resulted in
significant changes in how the industry operates, increasing
costs for compliance, regulatory reporting and other
infrastructure areas. These increases and the trend toward
outsourcing and shadowing, are elevating costs and
resulting in margin compression. We set out to find out
what investments hedge fund managers were making on the
people, process and technology fronts.
In this section we explore the following topics:
• How much has the cost of running a business changed?
• Where are managers making headcount investments?
• Where have capital expenditures to technology been made?
• Which functions are likely to be outsourced?
• What are the perspectives on shadow accounting?
• What costs are being passed on and what are investors’ reactions?
12

Nearly half of hedge fund managers say the cost of business has
increased in the past year
Nearly half of hedge fund managers globally
say the cost of running their business has
increased, but a higher proportion of managers
in North America — nearly 60%, compared with
44% in Asia and 36% in EMEA — say their costs
have increased.
This is not surprising given recent changes in
the regulatory environment in North America.
The primary drivers cited by the respondents
for these cost increases were additional
infrastructure (headcount and technology) to
meet the regulatory burden and improve risk
management and increases in personnel to keep
pace with the growth of the business.
Those managers that decreased costs cited
better expense management (particularly among
managers in EMEA), increased outsourcing,
technology efficiencies and reductions in
headcount to correspond with decreases in AUM
and exiting from certain strategies.
Hedge funds
By how much has the total cost of running your
business (expenses of the management company and
funds), excluding front-office compensation, changed
over the past one year?
Figure 10. Changes in cost of running business Figure 10. Changes in cost of running business Figure 10. Changes in cost of running business
58%
21% 21%
North America
36% 36%
EMEA
28%
Figure 10. Changes in cost of running business
For those whose costs have increased over
the past year, the average increase in costs
was 15%.
For the managers who decreased costs, the
average decrease was 21%.
Figure 10. Changes in cost of running business
44%
12%
Asia
44%
49%
24%
27%
Increased
Decreased
Remained the same
Total
13 | Finding common ground Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012

There are clearly economies of scale as firms become larger
On average, the hedge fund managers who were
interviewed employ approximately 11 front-office
personnel and 13 back-office personnel per billion
dollars of AUM.
There are clearly increasing economies in both the
front office and back office as firms become larger
and achieve scale. The AUM at which efficiencies
are realized vary according to the strategies
employed by the funds.
Economies in the back office are not as consistent
as they are in the front office. Hedge funds between
US$5 billion and US$10 billion AUM appear less
efficient than hedge funds between US$1 billion
and US$5 billion because a higher proportion of
these funds offer credit or distressed strategies.
These strategies are back-office intensive, and
therefore, critical scale is not achieved until they
become much larger. Efficiencies are regained
when AUM exceeds US$10 billion.
Overall, hedge fund managers in Asia have yet to
reach critical economies of scale relative to hedge
funds in other regions at least in part because
they remain smaller. Hedge funds in EMEA appear
highly efficient, largely because that segment is
overweighted to equity long and short strategies.
Average number of FTEs per US$1 billion in AUM
Functional area
Overall
North
America
Region
EMEA
Asia
Less than
US$1b
Assets under management
US$1b-
US$5b
US$5b-
US$10b
More than
US$10b
Front office 11.12 7.28 9.81 22.75 27.03 8.06 6.01 4.50
Back office* 13.03 8.20 9.50 31.04 32.75 8.02 9.29 4.61
Ratio back to front 1.17 1.13 0.97 1.36 1.21 1.00 1.55 1.02
By strategy
Functional area Quantitative Equity long/short
Fixed income/
credit
Global macro
Distressed
securities
Ratio back to front 1.10 1.18 1.25 1.26 1.34
*Back office includes: back and middle office, risk management, and legal and compliance
14

Yet hedge funds are adding headcount across the front and back
offices to support growth ...
Nearly two in three hedge fund managers
have either added headcount in the front
office or expect to in the near future, largely
to support asset growth and expansion into
new strategies. A number of managers say
hiring has been opportunistic, particularly
given the upheaval at banks.
Overall, roughly 40%–45% of hedge funds
are adding headcount in support functions —
middle office, back office, risk management
and legal and compliance — to support
expected growth, client demands for
transparency and the increased regulations.
Though the largest hedge funds are actively
investing in technology and looking to
increase outsourcing, a higher proportion
of these managers are adding headcount
in the middle and back offices to
accommodate growth.
These findings suggest that a meaningful
proportion of hedge funds continue to
operate inefficiently, under-leveraging
technology and outsourcing solutions. As
the industry continues to see consolidation,
additions to the front office are a trend that
will likely continue. It is critical that hedge
funds build a scalable operating model to
support such growth in an efficient manner.
Hedge funds
Figure For each 11. Total of the funds following functions, have you (or do you
plan to) increased or decreased headcount?
Total funds
66%
57%
42% 45%
45%
51%
34%
22% 33% 37%
24%
15% 19%
6%
4%
Front office Middle office
Figure 12. Greater than US$10 bn in assets under management
Back office Risk management Legal and compliance
Greater than US$10b in assets under management
86%
69%
63%
56%
50%
43%
38%
23%
14%
6%
8%
7%
6%
0%
31%
Front office Middle office Back office Risk management Legal and compliance
Increase Decrease Remain the same
15 | Finding common ground Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012

... even as they make capital investments in technology across
functional areas
In addition to headcount investments, hedge
fund managers are making technology
investments to support both the front office
and back office.
More than half of hedge fund managers
are making technology investments in risk
management, compliance and investment
management systems. A significant number
are also investing in sales support systems and
client reporting. The need for consistency in
data across risk, compliance, marketing and
investor reporting makes the technology spend
critical in this regulatory environment.
Hedge funds
Investors
In which of the following have you recently (past
In which of the following areas, if any, should the
12 months) made or do you expect to make capital hedge funds in which you are invested make additional
expenditures Figure 13. in Capital technology? expenditures in technology (hedge funds) capital
Figure
investments
14. Capital
in technology?
expenditures in technology (investors)
Compliance
Risk management
58%
54%
Compliance
Risk management
51%
68%
Investors generally recognize the value of these
investments. Two-thirds say that their managers
need to invest in risk management technology,
and nearly 60% say their managers need to
invest in investment management systems.
Unsurprisingly, the one clear point of divergence
is that relatively few investors think that
hedge funds need to invest in their marketingsupport
systems, but would rather see the
investment in client reporting systems.
Investment
management systems
Sales and marketingsupport
system,
including website
Client service/
reporting
None of the above 9%
44%
40%
52%
Investment
management systems
Sales and marketingsupport
system,
including website
Client service/
reporting
None of the above 4%
19%
47%
57%
Refer to page 21 for geographical breakdown.
16

Few managers see opportunities to increase outsourcing
Few managers have identified opportunities
or willingness to outsource more than they
already have. Over 70% of hedge fund managers
do not expect to increase outsourcing in the next
two years. Half of those that do expect to
outsource further point to middle-office and
back-office functions.
Hedge funds
In which categories do you expect to outsource more
of the Figure function 15. Outsourcing the next of functional two years? areas
The majority of investors noted that it would be
unacceptable for the hedge funds they invest in
to outsource front-office or risk management
activities, and although some express concern about
outsourcing middle-office functions, the majority
see managers’ operations and legal and compliance
functions as acceptable for outsourcing.
The findings suggest that outsourcing may have
reached a saturation point. However, in light of
continued scrutiny of fees charged by funds,
managers may want to re-evaluate opportunities
to outsource as outsourcing providers continue to
develop their service offerings and demonstrate
successful track records.
Middle office
Back office
Legal and
compliance
Risk management
4%
10%
13%
16%
17 | Finding common ground Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012

Increased shadow accounting in the past year?
Nearly 90% of the hedge fund managers in this
year’s study perform shadow accounting on at
least some functions, a marginal increase from
84% last year.
One in four said this year that they had increased
the amount of shadowing they do. As managers add
strategies to grow, the volume of processing and
accounting they shadow increases. However, we
don’t believe that managers are shadowing
new processes.
Hedge funds
[Of hedge funds who perform shadow accounting]
Have you increased or decreased the amount of
shadow accounting or processing in the past year?
Figure 16. Change in amount of shadow accounting in the past year
Decreased 4%
In light of the greater focus on fund expenses
and the shrinking margins of most managers, the
industry will need to coalesce around an industry
standard that is both cost-effective and within a
reasonable risk tolerance.
The challenge will be to develop an effective
oversight and shadowing structure that
recognizes the cost efficiencies of using an outside
administrator while providing both managers and
investors with confidence in the areas outsourced.
Refer to page 21 for a geographical breakdown of
areas of shadow accounting.
Increased
23%
73%
Remained
the same
18

Investors value shadowing, but just over 50% say it is worth the
additional costs if passed on to the fund
Though it is virtually a must in today’s
market to employ an independent
administrator to maintain a fund’s books and
records, most managers elect to maintain a
significant degree of in-house operations to
oversee their administrators.
Investor perceptions reinforce the value of
this oversight. Nine in 10 investors believe
that shadow accounting is highly beneficial
to accurate valuation and reporting.
Though almost 90% of investors say shadow
accounting is beneficial, only half say it is
worth the additional costs if passed on to
the fund. Interestingly, pension funds and
endowments are more likely to say the
benefit outweighs the potential cost than
funds of funds investors are.
This is an area that is constantly challenged
and may not, in all cases, be a license to
pass on the cost of shadowing to the fund.
Typically, passing additional costs to the fund
increases downward pressure from investors
on management fees.
Investors
Figure 17. Value of shadow accounting
How beneficial do you believe shadow accounting is to
accurate valuation and reporting?
7%
89%
4%
Not at all beneficial
Neutral
Very beneficial
Investors
Do you feel that the shadow accounting hedge funds
perform is worth the potential costs that may be
passed on to the fund?
Figure 18. Shadow accounting worth costs
Total
Funds of funds
Other investors
6%
7%
17%
30%
29%
44%
53%
50%
64%
Yes
No
I don’t know
19 | Finding common ground Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012

To respond to cost pressures, hedge fund managers are passing on an
increasing array of costs, but investors are becoming less tolerant
Despite the increases in the cost of running the business,
90% of managers say their management fees adequately
cover the expenses of the management company.
This is due in part to the fact that hedge funds have
increased the costs being passed along to the funds over
the past year, particularly in the areas of regulation and
compliance. Fewer than half of the investors believe that
the management fees should cover such expenses.
Hedge funds
To the contrary, there are certain costs that have been
under a great deal of scrutiny when passed along to the
funds. In particular, 80% of investors believe the costs of
shadow accounting should be covered by management
fees, and generally, the hedge funds are less likely to pass
on the costs to the funds than they were a year ago.
Investors
There will continue to be a push and pull on this issue for
the foreseeable future as investors increasingly believe
that many of the costs currently passed on to the funds
should be covered by the management fee even as the
cost of doing business in the industry increases.
Refer to page 21 for a geographical breakdown.
Which of the following costs do you currently pass on to the funds?
Figure 19. Costs currently passed on
Which of the following costs should management fees
cover/not Figure pass on 20. to Management the fund? fees should cover
D&O insurance
Regulatory registration and
compliance for fund
Non-travel research
expenses
Tax examinations
Research-related travel
Regulatory examinations
Costs of shadow
accounting/processing
Marketing expenses
Trader compensation
6%
11%
5%
9%
15%
60%
34%
47%
42%
35%
38%
34%
32%
24%
25%
26%
2012
2011
70%
68%
D&O insurance
Regulatory registration and
compliance for fund
Non-travel research
expenses
Tax examinations
Research-related travel
Regulatory examinations
Costs of shadow
accounting/processing
Marketing expenses
Trader compensation
33%
46%
38%
43%
36%
45%
33%
58%
62%
58%
76%
76%
80%
64%
82%
71%
78%
57%
20

Geographical differences
In which of the following have you recently (past
12 months) made or do you expect to make capital
expenditures in technology?
Hedge funds
Which of the following costs do you currently pass on to
the funds?
For which of the following do you perform shadow
accounting?
North
America
Asia
EMEA
North
America
Asia
EMEA
North
America
Asia
EMEA
Investment management
systems
49% 31% 67%
D&O (director and officer)
insurance
72% 61% 73%
Trade booking and
reconciliation
78% 83% 84%
Risk management 57% 31% 60%
Regulatory registration and
compliance for the fund
60% 89% 70%
NAV calculation 71% 78% 87%
Compliance 73% 19% 53%
Tax examinations 48% 33% 13%
Investor allocation 51% 39% 55%
Sales and marketingsupport
systems,
including website
37% 44% 57%
Research-related travel 54% 22% 7%
Regulatory examinations 34% 17% 13%
General ledger 67% 33% 29%
No shadow accounting 14% 11% 10%
Client service/reporting 45% 25% 40%
None of the above 8% 19% 7%
Outsourcing of middleoffice
functions
Costs of shadow
accounting/processing
22% 22% 20%
22% 6% 10%
Marketing expenses 10% 6% –
Trader compensation 10% – –
21 | Finding common ground Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012

“ Better management of expenses is the key
driver, but we also did some outsourcing,
which contributed to the decrease in the
cost of running the business.”
— Hedge fund (EMEA )
“ Main drivers for the change in cost were
infrastructure build-outs for capital
expenditures in investment management
systems and risk management.”
— Hedge fund (North America)
22

Eurozone considerations
We set out to find out how the Eurozone crisis has impacted
the industry, what changes, if any, managers have made to
their business and operations and whether they meet the
investors’ expectations.
In this section we explore the following topics:
• What concerns investors most about the Eurozone crisis?
• What questions are investors asking?
• What changes have been made by managers due to the crisis?
• What changes do investors want managers to make?
24

The focus is on counterparty exposure, safekeeping and access to liquidity
Over half of the investors are highly
concerned with operation-related risk,
such as their hedge funds’ exposure to
European counterparties, as well as to
changes in where cash is held. More than
two in five are concerned about exposure to
currency redenomination and any resulting
market impact.
Over half of the hedge fund managers
report that investors are asking them a
number of questions about the response to
the Eurozone crisis. Clearly, investors are
concerned about the financial viability of
European banks and financial institutions.
Investors in EMEA are generally more
sanguine about these issues than their
counterparts in North America and Asia.
Investors
How concerned are you about each of the following as it
Figure 21. Concern with Eurozone crisis
pertains to your hedge fund investments and the ongoing
Eurozone crisis?
16%
28%
56%
27%
19%
54%
26%
30%
44%
33%
32%
35%
37%
33%
30%
Not at all concerned
Neutral
Highly concerned
Exposure to
European
counterparties
Changes to where
cash and liquidity
are held
Exposure to euro
break-up and
currency
redenomination
Changes to
investment
strategy
Changes in
clearing and
settlement venues
25 | Finding common ground Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012

Geographical differences
Investors
How concerned are you about each of the following as it
pertains to your hedge fund investments and the ongoing
Eurozone crisis?
North America
EMEA
Highly
concerned
Neutral
Not at all
concerned
Highly
concerned
Neutral
Not at all
concerned
Exposure to European
counterparties
Changes to where cash and
liquidity are held
Exposure to euro break-up and
currency redenomination
Changes to investment
strategy due to Eurozone crisis
Changes in clearing and
settlement venues
65% 25% 10% 43% 31% 26%
64% 7% 29% 39% 39% 22%
49% 31% 20% 36% 28% 36%
41% 33% 26% 27% 31% 42%
34% 35% 31% 22% 31% 47%
26

Hedge funds are evaluating operational and market risks
Interestingly, half of those investors that are very
concerned believe their managers still need to take
action to reduce exposure to European counterparties.
Though many managers have determined to make
minimal or no changes in response to the Eurozone
crisis, more than 30% have changed where cash and
liquidity are held. Of these, a higher proportion of the
largest funds have made changes. And, on balance,
managers are trading with fewer counterparties
and allocating business to European counterparties
perceived to be stronger.
A high proportion of managers are confident that
their risk management is sufficient to manage
their exposure.
Interestingly, 53% of managers in EMEA have reduced
exposure to the Eurozone, compared with fewer than
40% in North America.
Hedge funds
Have Figure you 23. made Changes changes or take in any action of the following areas
due to the Eurozone crisis?
Exposure to European
counterparties
Changes to where cash
and liquidity are held
Changes to investment
strategy
31%
39%
47%
Investors
[For Figure those 24. that Need are to highly take concerned action about the
Eurozone crisis] Do you believe that your hedge funds
need to take action?
Exposure to European
counterparties
Changes to where cash
and liquidity are held
Changes to investment
strategy
27%
44%
50%
Just over 5% of managers say they have increased
exposure to the Eurozone. These managers view
the crisis as an opportunity to invest, widening bond
exposure to Eurozone sovereigns and expanding
trading in foreign exchange.
Changes in clearing
and settlement venues
9%
Changes in clearing
and settlement venues
25%
Managers should be more actively communicating to
their investors to ensure they are aware of the steps
managers have already taken to manage risk.
27 | Finding common ground Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012

“ The Eurozone crisis has made us more
tactical in how we trade and at times have
lowered our risk levels — especially when
we have less conviction in our trading
ideas. Over certain times this year, we have
had a risk view and have expressed this as
short euro-exposure and short equities to
take advantage of this view.”
— Hedge fund (North America)
“ I think managers should be thinking
about counterparties and settlement
arrangements and contingencies routinely.
They shouldn’t be looking at the Eurozone
crisis in particular. They should be looking
at those things wherever they operate
around the world.”
— Investor (EMEA)
28

Regulations and reporting
The regulatory demands on the hedge fund industry have
increased significantly. The industry is feeling pressure to reduce
its opaqueness to alleviate investor and regulator demands and
concerns. These requirements are forcing managers to change
the way they manage their operations, as well as increasing the
cost of doing business.
In this section we explore the following topics:
• What significant changes have regulations forced managers
to make?
• What changes do investors expect managers to make?
• How effective are regulations at protecting investors’ interests
and preventing the next crisis?
• Views on Form PF?
30

Hedge fund managers expect regulations to force investments in
compliance and technology and result in higher costs
At most hedge funds, compliance is ultimately
responsible for regulatory reporting. With the
increasing burden of regulatory reporting, it is not
surprising that a majority of hedge fund managers
have invested or are investing in compliance
functions dedicated to reporting.
A key area for investment has been in technology
and data management to facilitate reporting.
Investors also expect increased costs because
of regulation, and they fear these costs will be
passed directly on to the funds. But, beyond the
additional costs, 20% expect that regulations will
force hedge funds to rationalize their product
offerings and increase transparency.
Hedge funds
Investors
What are the most significant changes you expect to What are the most significant changes you expect to see
Figure 25. Significant changes expected due to regulation
make to your business as a result of regulation?
in the hedge fund industry as a result of regulation?
Increased investment
in compliance function
Increased regulatory
cost(s) passed on
Investments in technology
Reduction in number of
strategies offered
Use of third-party
administrators
Move locations/domiciles
Improve transparency
Barriers to entry (increased costs
for smaller funds/consolidation)
Nothing
2%
0%
6%
6%
4%
6%
2%
0%
0%
6%
16%
24%
17%
20%
20%
16%
22%
34%
Hedge funds
Investors
31 | Finding common ground Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012

Yet few investors perceive regulations as effective in protecting their
interests or preventing the next crisis
Despite a number of regulatory initiatives since
the financial crisis — mandatory registration,
AIFMD and Form PF — few investors, and
far fewer than two years ago, believe that
regulations will be effective in protecting
their interests.
Investors
How effective do you believe the current regulations will be at protecting your interests
as investors? How effective do you believe the current regulations will be at preventing
the next crisis?
Figure 26. Protecting interests
Figure 27. Preventing next crisis
Furthermore, 85% of investors don’t believe
regulations will be effective at preventing the
next crisis.
Investors in EMEA are less cynical. Just one in
four investors in Europe says regulations will be
ineffective at protecting their interests versus
nearly two-thirds in North America.
Protecting interests
21% 49%
38%
Preventing next crisis
85%
41%
41%
Ineffective
Neutral
Effective
Ineffective
Neutral
Effective
2010
10%
2012
13%
2012
2%
32

Effectiveness of Form PF is in question, and a majority of managers do
not intend to share the form with investors
Most managers do not intend to provide the complete
Form PF to investors, and investors are generally
on board, provided that relevant information from
the Form PF is incorporated into the manager’s due
diligence documentation.
It would be prudent for managers to refrain from
providing the actual Form PF for a variety of reasons.
Hedge funds
Do you intend to provide Form PF to your investors?
Figure 1. Expected allocation change in 3 years
Investors
Would you accept (or be comfortable with) the
information in the Form PF being incorporated into the
firm’s DDQ that you receive instead of receiving the
actual Form PF itself?
Figure 29. Comfortable with Form PF being incorporated into DDQ
First, the information requested by the SEC is meant
to be used to identify systemic risk and reported at
the manager level. Therefore, it may not be meaningful
to investors.
Second, the interpretation of the requests and certain
information provided by managers will vary from
entity to entity, so comparisons across institutions will
be of limited value. Given the varying interpretations
possible, the reported information will likely require
a detailed explanation of assumptions and detailed
footnotes about disclosures.
Undecided
23%
54%
No
16%
All of it
7%
Edited version
Total
Funds of funds
7%
29%
17%
31%
54%
62%
Finally, the data presented in the Form PF may not align
well with typical investor reporting.
42%
Other investors
25%
33%
Yes
No
I don’t know
*Note: percentages are for North American respondents only.
33 | Finding common ground Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012

“ We have spent some money to build out a
centralized data warehouse to make sure
the data is consistent and that we are
able to process it on a timely basis. It’s to
make sure that what we are giving clients,
regulators and internally is timely and
consistent across the board.”
— Hedge fund (North America)
“ I expect to see more transparency in the
form of better disclosure of policies and,
therefore, fewer conflicts of interest.
However, I don’t see the regulations
being helpful at preventing the next
crisis because crises are unknown.
Regulations are basically meant to
solve last year’s wars.”
— Investor (North America)
“ Because of regulation, we have been
forced to register in a number of different
jurisdictions around the world, even
where we don’t have a physical presence.
We are doing some outsourcing in
this area, using more local regulatory
consulting firms.”
— Hedge fund (EMEA)
34

Compensation structure
Our 2010 survey showed gaps between managers’ and investors’
perceptions of how compensation should be aligned with risk and
performance. While the gap in views on compensation structure
is not new, we wanted to find out if there had been efforts at
reconciliation between the two groups.
In this section we explore the following topics:
• How well compensation schemes match investors’ expectations
• Views on senior executives’ annual compensation
• General partners’ and employees’ stakes in the game
36

Hedge fund managers still perceive greater alignment in
compensation than investors do
Though fewer hedge fund managers say their
compensation scheme aligns performance of
front-office personnel with investor objectives
than in 2010, the vast majority continue to see
strong alignment.
Investors are also less likely to say compensation
schemes align interests very well than they were
in 2010.
Compensation — a key issue for both managers
and investors — appears no closer to being resolved
because it has not caused material hedge fund
redemptions. Moreover, it is not one of the key
impediments to increasing allocations to hedge
funds, nor a key consideration in choosing a
hedge fund.
Hedge funds
Figure 30. Effectiveness at aligning
compensation with investor objectives
How well does your firm’s current compensation
scheme align risk and performance of individual
managers and traders with investors’ objectives?
13%
87%
Not well
Investors
Figure 31. Effectiveness at aligning
compensation with investor objectives
How well do you believe your hedge fund’s current
compensation scheme aligns risk and performance of
individual managers and traders with your objectives?
14%
44%
Not well
Neutral
Very well
42%
Neutral
Very well
2012
2012
37 | Finding common ground Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012

Investors would like less cash compensation for
senior executives …
It comes as little surprise that there has been
little progress in alignment on compensation.
Over two-thirds of hedge funds say that their
compensation structure has not changed in the
past three years. Just 14% say that less is paid
in cash, and just 10% say that compensation is
subject to longer deferral periods.
Hedge funds
On average, how much of senior executives’ annual
compensation is paid as:
Figure 32. Compensation structure — actual vs. preferred
Investors
What proportion of senior executives’ annual
compensation should be paid as:
On average, nearly 75% of senior executives’
compensation is paid in cash — a similar
proportion to that of 2010.
Cash
38%
74%
Investors, by contrast, say less than 40% of
compensation should be paid in cash. They
would like to see a larger proportion paid in
equity and deferred cash, subject to clawbacks.
It is unlikely that this gap will be closed in
the near future. Since the prohibition of
offshore deferrals, the types of available
tax structures that make it more mutually
beneficial for both the investor and manager
are significantly diminished.
Equity in the management company
or general partnership
Equity in underlying funds
Deferred cash compensation
subject to clawback(s)
Deferred cash compensation
subject to no clawback(s)
7%
7%
4%
5%
8%
15%
20%
19%
Hedge funds
Investors
Other
3%
0%
38

… and want the GP and employees to have more skin in the game
Overwhelmingly, investors would like to see
deferral periods of three years or more, and
three in four investors say they strongly believe
that hedge funds should employ clawbacks. Few
express concerns that this could limit a hedge
fund’s ability to recruit talent.
Hedge funds
What percent of assets under management across
your firm’s complex of funds is owned by the GP
and employees?
Investors
Figure 33. Percent AUM owned by GP and employees
What percent of assets under management across
a hedge fund manager’s complex of funds should be
owned by the GP and employees?
Furthermore, investors clearly want employees to
have a larger stake in the success and failure of a
hedge fund than they currently do.
More than 20%
9%
30%
10%–20%
20%
29%
Hedge funds
Investors
5%–10%
34%
32%
0%–5%
9%
37%
39 | Finding common ground Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012

“ For trading and portfolio management
personnel, more of their compensation is
tied to trading performance and a smaller
portion is based on overall performance.”
“ Portfolio managers eat what they kill and a
few are partners and also get small equity.”
— Hedge fund (North America)
— Hedge fund (North America)
40

Future landscape
Many hedge fund managers are reacting to demands put on
them by institutionalizing their operating models, reducing fees,
providing more reporting and expanding risk management. All of
these have increased the cost of doing business in a time period
when alpha generation has been a challenge, resulting in an
overall decrease in revenues and a squeeze on profit margins.
We asked managers and investors what they thought were
the biggest trends.
In this section we explore the following topic:
• Biggest trends in the industry in the next two years
42

The perfect storm: increasing regulation and accompanying costs with
lower fees are forcing consolidation
Hedge funds expect consolidation and increased
regulatory oversight with its accompanying costs
in the next few years. A number recognize the
continuing downward pressure from investors
on fees.
Investors also expect consolidation and clearly will
continue to pressure managers on fees.
Increasing costs and continued downward pressure
on fees mean a perfect storm for hedge fund
managers that will force consolidation — particularly
for managers that have not reached critical mass
in assets under management — and increase the
barriers to entry for the small and nimble start-ups
that some investors clearly seek out.
Of course, the stress of increased cost and
downward pressure on fees would be mitigated by
outstanding investment performance over the next
several years.
Hedge funds
What will be the two biggest trends or developments in
the hedge fund industry over the next 1–2 years?
Figure 34. Biggest trends
Consolidation of
funds/managers
Increased regulatory/
compliance oversight and costs
Downward pressure on fees
13%
43%
39%
Investors
What will be the two biggest trends or developments in
the hedge fund industry over the next 1–2 years?
Figure 34. Biggest trends
Consolidation of
funds/managers
Increased regulatory/
compliance oversight and costs
Downward pressure on fees
14%
28%
28%
Greater transparency
8%
Greater transparency
16%
43 | Finding common ground Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012

“ More bipolarization — the big players will
get bigger and will be more institutional
in nature — more like asset management
shops; the small are likely to consolidate
to survive. Increased regulation costs
and requirements will be a burden for
smaller firms.”
— Hedge fund (Asia)
“ Fee compression in that higher fees justify
exceptional performance, and if you can’t
deliver exceptional performance, you’re
going to have a hard time justifying higher
fees and your fees are going to have to
come down.”
— Investor (North America)
“ Managers have to re-invent themselves.
That’s because the market will be so
benign, and what with extra regulations,
they just cannot achieve their historical
performance. I do see a consolidation
in the market; the mavericks and niche
players will disappear.”
— Investor (EMEA)
44

Background and methodology
The purpose of this study is to record the views and opinions
of hedge funds and investors worldwide. Topics covered in the
study include manager selection, administration, regulation
and reporting, compensation structure, infrastructure, fees and
expenses, Eurozone considerations and the future of the hedge
fund industry.
Greenwich Associates conducted:
• One hundred telephone interviews with hedge funds
from July to September 2012, representing more than
US$710 billion in assets under management
• Fifty telephone interviews with institutional investors (funds of
funds, pension funds, endowments and foundations) representing
more than US$715 billion in assets, with over US$190 billion
allocated to hedge funds
North America
51
31
Hedge funds
Investors
45 | Finding common ground Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012

31
EMEA
19
Asia
18
Total respondents = 150
By type of investors
Pension funds
8
Hedge funds
Investors
23
Endowments
and foundations
Hedge funds
Funds of funds
19
46

Contacts
Global
Ratan Engineer
ratan.engineer@uk.ey.com
+1 44 207 951 2322
Arthur Tully
arthur.tully@ey.com
+1 212 773 2252
Canada
Leon Chin
leon.chin@ca.ey.com
+1 416 943 3311
Joseph Micallef
joseph.n.micallef@ca.ey.com
+1 416 943 3494
Alex Johnson
alex.johnson1@ey.com
+1 617 585 1930
Anthony Capela
Anthony.capela@ey.com
+1 617 375 2335
US (Chicago)
Scott Odahl
scott.odahl@ey.com
+1 612 371 6840
US (New York)
Donald MacNeal
donald.macneal@ey.com
+1 212 773 9153
US (Stamford)
Michael Estock
michael.estock@ey.com
+1 203 674 3137
Jacqueline Bloom
jacqueline.bloom@ey.com
+1 212 773 1872
Michael Serota
michael.serota@ey.com
+1 212 773 0378
Americas
Bahamas
Tiffany Norris-Pilcher
tiffany.norris@bs.ey.com
+1 242 502 6044
Bermuda
Jessel Mendes
jessel.mendes@bm.ey.com
+1 441 294 5571
Chad Critchley
chad.critchley@bm.ey.com
+1 441 294 5440
Brazil
Flavio Serpejante Peppe
flavio.s.peppe@br.ey.com
+55 11 2573 3290
Pedro Miguel Ferreira Custódio
pedro.custodio@br.ey.com
+55 11 2573 3035
British Virgin Islands
Rohan Small
rohan.small@vg.ey.com
+1 284 852 5450
Mike Mannisto
mike.mannisto@ky.ey.com
+1 345 814 9003
Gary A. Chin
gary.chin@ca.ey.com
+1 416 943 3427
Fraser T. Whale
fraser.t.whale@ca.ey.com
+1 416 943 3353
Cayman Islands
Dan Scott
dan.scott@ky.ey.com
+1 345 814 9000
Jeffrey Short
jeffrey.short@ky.ey.com
+1 345 814 9004
Curaçao
Fatima de Windt-Ferreira
Fatima.de-Windt-Ferreira@an.ey.com
+599 9 430 5020
Bryan Irausquin
bryan.irausquin@an.ey.com
+599 9 430 5075
US (Atlanta)
Matthew Epp
matthew.epp@ey.com
+1 404 817 4069
US (Boston)
Robert Glassman
robert.glassman@ey.com
+1 617 375 2382
Shaun Real
shaun.real@ey.com
+1 617 375 3733
Anthony Rentz
anthony.rentz@ey.com
+1 312 879 3957
Matthew Koenig
matthew.koenig@ey.com
+1 312 879 3535
US (Dallas)
Adrienne Main
adrienne.main@ey.com
+1 214 754 3226
Christine Jha
christine.jha@ey.com
+1 213 977 3399
US (Houston)
Brenda Betts
brenda.betts@ey.com
+1 713 750 5913
Brad Williams
brad.williams@ey.com
+1 713 750 8300
US (Los Angeles)
Joost Hendriks
joost.hendriks@ey.com
+1 213 240 7428
Michael O’Donnell
michael.odonnell@ey.com
+1 213 977 5858
US (Minneapolis)
Michele Walker
michele.walker@ey.com
+1 612 371 8539
Howard Leventhal
howard.leventhal@ey.com
+1 212 773 0574
Richard G. Barry, Jr.
richard.barry@ey.com
+1 212 773 3147
Alan Fish
alan.fish@ey.com
+1 212 773 6560
Samer Ojjeh
samer.ojjeh@ey.com
+1 212 773 6486
US (Philadelphia)
Robert Mulhall
robert.mulhall@ey.com
+1 215 448 5614
Robert Meiner
robert.meiner@ey.com
+1 215 448 5057
US (San Francisco)
David Sung
david.sung@ey.com
+1 415 894 8288
Stuart Furman
stuart.furman@ey.com
+1 415 894 8206
Mathew Urbina
mathew.urbina@ey.com
+1 415 894 8944
US (Washington, DC)
Alan Munro
alan.munro@ey.com
+1 202 327 7773
Europe, Africa &
Middle East
Bahrain
Gordon Bennie
gordon.bennie@bh.ey.com
+ 973 1751 4717
Jersey
David Moore
dmoore@uk.ey.com
+44 1534 288697
Dubai
Anthony O’Sullivan
anthony.osullivan@ae.ey.com
+971 4 312 9120
Michelle Kotze
michelle.kotze@ae.ey.com
+971 4 332 4000
France
Thierry Gorlin
thierry.gorlin@fr.ey.com
+33 1 4693 6212
Matthieu Dautriat
matthieu.dautriat@ey-avocats.com
+33 1 5561 1190
47 | Finding common ground Global hedge fund and investor survey 2012

Germany
Oliver Heist
oliver.heist@de.ey.com
+49 6196 996 27505
Rosheen Dries
rosheen.dries@de.ey.com
+49 6196 996 26163
Guernsey
Malta
Ronald Attard
ronald.attard@mt.ey.com
+356 2347 1510
Karl Mercieca
karl.mercieca@mt.ey.com
+356 2347 1119
Mauritius
Spain
Roberto Diez Cerrato
roberto.diezcerrato@es.ey.com
+91 572 73 74
Monserrat Turrado Alonso
monserrat.turradoalonso@es.ey.com
+91 572 72 15
Nordics
Asia Pacific
Australia
Mark O’Sullivan
mark.osullivan@au.ey.com
+61 2 8295 6044
Antoinette Elias
antoinette.elias@au.ey.com
+61 2 8295 6251
Japan
Kazuhiro Ebina
kazuhiro.ebina@jp.ey.com
+81 3 3506 2463
New Zealand
Graeme Bennett
graeme.bennett@nz.ey.com
+64 9 300 8191
Mike Bane
mbane@uk.ey.com
+44 1481 717435
Ireland
Eoin MacManus
eoin.macmanus@ie.ey.com
+353 1 221 2637
Donal O’Sullivan
donal.osullivan@ie.ey.com
+353 1 221 2455
Isle of Man
Paul Duffy
pduffy@im.ey.com
+44 1624 691818
Angus Gilmore
aegilmore@im.ey.com
+44 1624 691803
Italy
Mauro lacobucci
mauro.iacobucci@it.ey.com
+39 02 72212471
Paolo Zucca
paolo.zucca@it.ey.com
+39 02 8514938
Luxembourg
Michael Ferguson
michael.ferguson@lu.ey.com
+352 42 124 8808
Adam Miller
adam.miller@lu.ey.com
+352 42 124 7147
Daryl Csizmadia
daryl.csizmadia@mu.ey.com
+230 403 4707
Ryaad Owodally
ryaad.owodally@mu.ey.com
+230 403 4717
Netherlands
Remco Bleijs
remco.bleijs@nl.ey.com
+31 88 407 3935
Ton Daniels
ton.daniels@nl.ey.com
+31 88 407 1253
Russia
Marchello Gelashvili
marchello.gelashvili@
ru.ey.com
+7 495 755 9813
Petr Avramenko
petr.avramenko@ru.ey.com
+7 495 755 9700
South Africa
Anthony Cadman
anthony.cadman@za.ey.com
+27 21 443 0664
Peter Franks
peter.franks@se.ey.com
+46 8 5205 8973
Sven Tärnvik
sven.tarnvik@se.ey.com
+46 8 5205 9124
Erik Hultman
erik.hultman@se.ey.com
+46 8 5205 8973
Switzerland
Cataldo Castagna
cataldo.castagna@ch.ey.com
+41 58 286 4757
Christian Soguel
christian.soguel@ch.ey.com
+41 58 286 4104
UK
Robin Aitchison
raitchison@uk.ey.com
+44 20 7951 1083
Julian Young
jyoung2@uk.ey.com
+44 20 7951 2295
Russell Morgan
rmorgan1@uk.ey.com
+44 20 7951 6906
Matt Price
mprice1@uk.ey.com
+44 20 7951 2223
China (Hong Kong)
George Saffayeh
george.saffayeh@hk.ey.com
+852 2849 9290
Elliott Shadforth
elliott.shadforth@hk.ey.com
+852 2846 9083
Michael Stenske
michael.stenske@hk.ey.com
+852 2846 9865
Florence Yuen Fan Chan
florence.chan@hk.ey.com
+852 2849 9228
China (Shanghai)
Joyce Xu
joyce.xu@cn.ey.com
+86 21 2228 2392
Yeeckle Zhou
yeeckle.zhou@cn.ey.com
+86 21 2228 2833
India
Viren H. Mehta
viren.mehta@in.ey.com
+91 22 6192 0000
Hiresh Wadhwani
hiresh.wadhwani@in.ey.com
+91 22 6192 0000
Matthew Hanley
matthew.hanley@nz.ey.com
+64 9 377 4790
Singapore
Chong Lee Siang
lee.siang.chong@sg.ey.com
+65 6309 8202
Brian Thung
brian.thung@sg.ey.com
+65 6309 6227
South Korea
Justin (Junseo) Pak
justin.pak@kr.ey.com
+82 2 3787 6528
Jong-Yeol Park
jong-yeol.park@kr.ey.com
+82 2 3770 0904
48

Ernst & Young
Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory
About Ernst & Young
Ernst & Young is a global leader in assurance, tax,
transaction and advisory services. Worldwide, our
167,000 people are united by our shared values and
an unwavering commitment to quality. We make a
difference by helping our people, our clients and our
wider communities achieve their potential.
Ernst & Young refers to the global organization of
member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each
of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young
Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee,
does not provide services to clients. For more
information about our organization, please visit
www.ey.com.
Ernst & Young is a leader in serving the global
financial services marketplace
Nearly 35,000 Ernst & Young financial services
professionals around the world provide integrated
assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services to
our asset management, banking, capital markets and
insurance clients. In the Americas, Ernst & Young
is the only public accounting organization with a
separate business unit dedicated to the financial
services marketplace. Created in 2000, the Americas
Financial Services Office today includes more than
4,000 professionals at member firms in over 50
locations throughout the US, the Caribbean and
Latin America.
Ernst & Young professionals in our financial services
practices worldwide align with key global industry
groups, including Ernst & Young’s Global Asset
Management Center, Global Banking & Capital
Markets Center, Global Insurance Center and
Global Private Equity Center, which act as hubs for
sharing industry-focused knowledge on current and
emerging trends and regulations in order to help
our clients address key issues. Our practitioners
span many disciplines and provide a well-rounded
understanding of business issues and challenges, as
well as integrated services to our clients.
With a global presence and industry-focused advice,
Ernst & Young’s financial services professionals
provide high-quality assurance, tax, transaction and
advisory services, including operations, process
improvement, risk and technology, to financial
services companies worldwide.
It’s how Ernst & Young makes a difference.
© 2012 EYGM Limited.
All Rights Reserved.
1203-1341677 NY
EYG No. CK0582
ED None
This publication contains information in summary form
and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It
is not intended to be a substitute for detailed research
or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither
EYGM Limited nor any other member of the global
Ernst & Young organization can accept any responsibility
for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining
from action as a result of any material in this publication.
On any specific matter, reference should be made to the
appropriate advisor.