Key Takeaways
- • Wirehouse adoption of liquid alternatives halted in 2015, according to a Money Management Institute and Dover Financial Research study, despite growing systemic risks in traditional 60/40 portfolios and significant under-allocation among retail investors relative to target allocations.
- • New York Life's Marketfield Fund (MFLDX) experienced catastrophic redemptions, collecting over $20 billion in AUM through 2013 before losing 90 percent of assets by end-2015, forcing the insurer to divest the fund back to Marketfield Asset Management.
- • Fidelity withdrew from multi-manager liquid alternatives after initial commitment, seeding two funds (ARDNX and BXMMX) with more than $2.5 billion in 2012-2013 before reversing course and exiting entirely in 2015-2016.
- • Structural constraints embedded in mutual fund wrappers degraded strategy performance by hundreds of basis points, undermining the core value proposition of liquid alternatives pitched as "better than hedge funds" with equivalent returns, liquidity, and lower fees.
- • First-generation liquid alternatives suffered from marketing overreach versus operational reality, with multi-manager mutual funds facing regulatory and structural impediments that traditional hedge funds operating without such constraints do not encounter.
Summary
The liquid alternatives market entered a period of strategic reassessment in 2016, marked by halted distribution momentum and high-profile reversals by institutional sponsors. According to research cited by Andrew Beer, Managing Partner of Beachhead Capital Management, adoption of liquid alternatives through wirehouses ground to a complete halt in 2015, a sharp reversal after years of robust growth. This stalling adoption has left most retail investors significantly under-allocated to alternative strategies relative to their stated targets, despite escalating risks embedded in conventional 60/40 equity-bond portfolios.
The retreat by major institutional players underscores the structural challenges facing first-generation liquid alternative products. New York Life's experience with the Marketfield Fund exemplifies this trajectory: the insurer acquired the fund in October 2012 and built it to over $20 billion in assets under management through 2013, only to see investors withdraw 90 percent of those assets by the end of 2015. New York Life subsequently divested the fund back to Marketfield Asset Management. Similarly, Fidelity seeded two multi-manager mutual funds (ARDNX and BXMMX) in 2012-2013 with cumulative investments exceeding $2.5 billion over the following two years, then abruptly reversed course and exited the space entirely during 2015-2016. Virtus abandoned its partnership with institutional consultant Cliffwater, shutting down three multi-manager mutual funds (VATAX, VSAIX, and VAICX) after initial launch.
The fundamental disconnect between marketing claims and operational outcomes drove these reversals. Multi-manager liquid alternative mutual funds were positioned to investors as superior to traditional hedge funds—offering equivalent returns alongside daily liquidity and substantially lower fees. However, this narrative glossed over a critical reality: mutual fund regulatory constraints fundamentally impair strategy execution. Strategies designed for hedge fund structures, which operate without such limitations, experience significant performance degradation when forced into mutual fund wrappers. Beer illustrated this constraint problem through an analogy comparing the situation to "asking a mixed-martial artist to step into a ring with a boxer but not use kicks or holds." As predicted by skeptics at the time, these structural constraints reduced performance by hundreds of basis points, destroying the return profile that justified the products' existence.
The combination of hype versus reality, unfulfilled return expectations, and operational friction between strategy design and regulatory framework created a credibility crisis for the entire first-generation liquid alternatives space. For institutional investors and advisors, the market correction signals a need for more rigorous manager selection and deeper due diligence on how strategy constraints impact actual versus promised performance.
The retreat by major institutional players underscores the structural challenges facing first-generation liquid alternative products. New York Life's experience with the Marketfield Fund exemplifies this trajectory: the insurer acquired the fund in October 2012 and built it to over $20 billion in assets under management through 2013, only to see investors withdraw 90 percent of those assets by the end of 2015. New York Life subsequently divested the fund back to Marketfield Asset Management. Similarly, Fidelity seeded two multi-manager mutual funds (ARDNX and BXMMX) in 2012-2013 with cumulative investments exceeding $2.5 billion over the following two years, then abruptly reversed course and exited the space entirely during 2015-2016. Virtus abandoned its partnership with institutional consultant Cliffwater, shutting down three multi-manager mutual funds (VATAX, VSAIX, and VAICX) after initial launch.
The fundamental disconnect between marketing claims and operational outcomes drove these reversals. Multi-manager liquid alternative mutual funds were positioned to investors as superior to traditional hedge funds—offering equivalent returns alongside daily liquidity and substantially lower fees. However, this narrative glossed over a critical reality: mutual fund regulatory constraints fundamentally impair strategy execution. Strategies designed for hedge fund structures, which operate without such limitations, experience significant performance degradation when forced into mutual fund wrappers. Beer illustrated this constraint problem through an analogy comparing the situation to "asking a mixed-martial artist to step into a ring with a boxer but not use kicks or holds." As predicted by skeptics at the time, these structural constraints reduced performance by hundreds of basis points, destroying the return profile that justified the products' existence.
The combination of hype versus reality, unfulfilled return expectations, and operational friction between strategy design and regulatory framework created a credibility crisis for the entire first-generation liquid alternatives space. For institutional investors and advisors, the market correction signals a need for more rigorous manager selection and deeper due diligence on how strategy constraints impact actual versus promised performance.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.