| Stephen Mandel |
"I would choose Lone Pine because it achieves...results with a very small group of professionals, while maintaining little turnover," said Adam Herz, president of Hunter Advisors, a New York headhunter firm. "Their tight knit group of exceptionally talented [personnel] should sustain their ability to continuously provide superior alpha." Last year, Mandel's two main strategies, Lone Cedar and Lone Pinon, returned 25.08% and 27.76%, respectively--stellar numbers for any 12-month period, much less one where some of the industry's big names failed to match the rate of inflation (AIN, 12/27). Moore Capital's returns were also impressive in '05--about 16% across its main strategies--and are indeed ahead of Lone Pine's this year; about 3% through March 9 versus Lone Pine's 1.6% through March 10.
Perhaps smarting from new lockup requirements--three years, instead of one--instituted by Louis Bacon last year, Moore Capital investors were slower to express their enthusiasm than Lone Pine's. In one instance, a direct competitor--Cliff Asness of AQR Capital Management--even wrote in to express his support of Mandel's firm (AIN, 3/27). After succumbing to Lone Pine in a tough first round match-up, Asness boldly--and it turns out, correctly--predicted that Mandel's shop would take home the title.
Besides AQR, Lone Pine also vanquished ESL Investments and Bridgewater Associates in its march to the final four, where it defeated Farallon Capital Management. Moore Capital's path to the finale was no less impressive; Caxton Associates, D.E. Shaw Group and Gartmore Investments were ousted by Bacon's firm.
The AIN tournament was created as a tribute the real-life March Madness that grips the U.S. each year. As with the real-life version, "teams" were divided into four regions; in this case Connecticut, Europe, New York and Other Ports. Like the NCAA, AIN took geographic liberties in assigning firms to regions, so that the largest 32 funds--by estimated assets under management--were represented. Asset size also determined the ranking of firms and corresponding match-ups. Winners were determined by quantifiable data, where available; asset in- or outflows, performance, favorable or negative press, appearances in the Securities and Exchange Commission's enforcement log and/or on police blotters, etc. The process was rarely, if ever, objective and does in no way reflect a recommendation to invest in or pull money from, a particular firm.
>>Click here to view the completed bracket.
