Trending Now
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

Portfolio Theory in the Context of Litigation Finance (pt. 2 of 2)

The following article is part of an ongoing column titled ‘Investor Insights.’ 

Brought to you by Ed Truant, founder and content manager of Slingshot Capital, ‘Investor Insights’ will provide thoughtful and engaging perspectives on all aspects of investing in litigation finance. 

In part one of this two part series, which can be found here, I explored a variety of portfolio theories and applied them to the litigation finance asset class. This second article continues the application to commercial litigation finance and discusses implications for portfolio construction.

Executive Summary

  • Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) – a mathematical framework based on the “mean-variance” analysis – argues that it’s possible to construct an “efficient frontier” of optimal portfolios offering the maximum possible expected return for a given level of risk
  • MPT states that assets (such as stocks) face both “systematic risks” – market risks such as interest rates – as well as “unsystematic risks” – mostly uncorrelated exposures that are characteristic to each asset, including management changes or poor sales resulting from unforeseen events
  • Post-modern Portfolio Theory (PMPT) adds a layer of refinement to the definition of risk
  • Diversification of a portfolio can mitigate the impact of unsystematic risks on portfolio performance – although, it depends on its composition of assets
  • Behavioural Finance (BF) introduces a suggestion that psychological influences and biases affect the financial behaviors of investors and financial practitioners, also applicable to litigation finance

Slingshot Insights:

  • Portfolio theory is important to the commercial litigation finance asset class due to its inherently high level of unsystematic risks
  • Slingshot’s Rule of Thumb: a portfolio should contain no less than 20 investments in order to provide the benefits associated with portfolio theory
  • Diversification is critical for every fund manager
  • Specialty fund managers may play a positive role in a comprehensive litigation finance investing strategy by assisting with meeting a particular performance objective when defined in the context of acceptable “mean-variance” targets
  • Diversification provides optionality for an under-performing manager to ‘live to fight another day’ if their first fund achieved sub-par performance
  • Portfolio theory is applicable to consumer litigation finance

How Big is Big Enough?

There are many theories about how large a portfolio should be to meaningfully benefit from the application of portfolio theory, with analysts suggesting anywhere from 20 to over 100 investments (typically in relation to public equities).  While I have yet to conduct a study to determine a more finite range applicable to litigation finance, I will say that there are a few elements that are critical to consider, which are specific to litigation finance.

First, litigation finance is by its very nature uncertain in terms of the amount of commitment the fund manager will ultimately deploy in relation to its financial commitment to a single case (i.e. while a manager may commit $5 million to a case, the legal team may only deploy $2MM by the time the case settles). Capital deployment (both quantum and timing) is an uncontrollable variable that makes portfolio theory difficult to apply, because portfolio theory assumes the dollars deployed in each investment are (i) known and (ii) of equal size (although weightings can be assigned).  Accordingly, in order to ensure that the portfolio is diversified on a dollars deployed basis, the portfolio needs to be sufficiently large to ensure that on a committed basis it is not skewed by a few cases which have deployed 100% or more of their initial commitment relative to those cases that have deployed less than 100%.  It is also not uncommon for managers to deploy nil or very little against their commitment as a result of an early settlement (perhaps brought on by the existence of litigation finance itself, or by virtue of the investment being in the form of adverse costs indemnity protection), which adds another element of complexity as relates to the application of portfolio theory.

Second, diversification in the context of litigation finance is not only a mathematical exercise of ensuring no one case represents a disproportionate amount of the fund, it also covers the types and extent of case exposures in the portfolio.  If one is investing only in a single manager, one wouldn’t necessarily want a fund that invests solely in Intellectual Property cases, as an example, because a Systematic risk that effects that sector (for example, litigation reform such as Inter Partes Reviews in patent litigation, or an important case precedent with broad implications) will likely effect all cases in the portfolio and hence diversification will not aid at all in terms of addressing the Systematic risk. Case types, defendants, jurisdictions, judges, plaintiff counsel, defense counsel, case inter-dependencies (where the outcome of one case has a direct impact on the likely outcome of another case in the same portfolio) are all important variables that a manager should consider when creating their portfolio.

Third, litigation finance portfolio financings (the concept of a funder investing in a portfolio of law firm or corporate cases) are, by their very nature, benefitting from the application of portfolio theory. Therefore, in constructing one’s portfolio, one should consider whether the committed capital is being invested in single case portfolios, cross-collateralized portfolio financings or a combination thereof, each of which having different risk-reward profiles.

When we take all of the above into consideration, especially the uncertainty inherent in capital deployment, my general rule of thumb is for managers to target a minimum of 20 equally sized litigation finance case commitments within a portfolio. From there, I adjust based on a variety of factors including case types, financing sizes, jurisdictions, currencies, etc.  Other investors may have a different perspective.  Of course, the portfolio will never be comprised of 20 equally-sized cases due to deployment uncertainty, so I view this as a baseline. If the portfolio is made up of cases with a higher inherent volatility (class actions, intellectual property, international arbitration or large cases), then a larger portfolio would be more appropriate, such that the higher loss ratio in the portfolio – which is inherent in higher risk portfolios – will not disproportionately contribute to the portfolio’s overall performance.

Applicability to Consumer Litigation Finance

Portfolio theory suggests that diversification is exceptionally good at reducing Unsystematic risk; hence, it comes as no surprise that MPT should be more frequently applicable to the commercial litigation finance asset class given the high level of idiosyncratic case risk.  The consumer litigation finance market also exhibits similar idiosyncratic case risk, but I believe it has more Systematic risks related to defendants (usually, insurance companies with a common approach), regulation, and established case precedent where the damages are much more prescribed.  Accordingly, while portfolio theory may not be as critical in this segment of litigation finance, as an investor in the asset class I believe it remains an important value driver for the consumer litigation finance market, especially since the return profile of a single piece of consumer litigation finance is generally not as strong as those inherent in commercial litigation finance due to risk and regulatory differences.

Fund Managers’ Perspective

As an investor experienced with managing capital, deploying capital and portfolio construction, I offer a few observations for consideration.

First, don’t fall in love with your investments (i.e. don’t get caught with personal biases working into your portfolio construction).  It is easy for a fund manager to be attracted to certain cases thinking the particular case is a ‘no brainer’ (perhaps due to personal experience and/or comfort with the merits of the case) and allocate a disproportionate amount of the portfolio to finance that case. However, in the context of an asset class with binary and idiosyncratic risk, the portfolio manager would be taking on a disproportionate amount of risk in doing so.  Once a manager has determined that the case meets their rigid underwriting criteria, her or she must change their mindset to one of portfolio allocator and take a dispassionate view of the case to ensure the portfolio is optimized.  In fact, I would suggest splitting the functional role of underwriting and portfolio construction to ensure the underwriting doesn’t influence portfolio allocation decisions!

Second, do not insist on exceptions to concentration limits.  I have seen a number of fund documents where the manager has carved out exceptions to concentration limits (many of which are not appropriate for this asset class (10%, 15%, 20%) and have been derived from other PE asset classes with completely different risk profiles). By doing so, the manager is adding a lot of risk (and bias) to the portfolio that is both unnecessary and risky to the longevity of the fund, not to mention investor returns.  In my mind, the equation is quite simple: if one creates a diversified set of investments of relatively equal size, and one maintains a sound underwriting methodology, industry data suggests that one’s investment thesis should work. So why jeopardize a sound strategy?

Third, fund managers will live and die by their portfolio results, so why take unnecessary risk in haphazardly allocating capital?

To illustrate the second and third points, let’s consider four potential portfolio outcomes: (i) non-diversified portfolio with poor performance, (ii) non-diversified portfolio with exceptional performance, (iii) diversified portfolio with good performance and (iv) diversified portfolio with poor performance.

As an investor, I would look at situations (i) and (ii) and say “as a fund manager you are ‘dead in the water’”. Why? Situation (i) is self-explanatory: poor underwriting which impacts fund performance, and is buttressed by the fact that the fund manager isn’t astute enough to diversify the portfolio. Situation (ii) communicates the exact same thing, but in a different way. It tells an investor that the fund manager was ultimately successful, but in a way that was risky (in other words, the manager ‘got lucky’) and not likely repeatable (because fund performance was dependent on too few outcomes), which is not what attracts most investors who are looking for a measure of conservatism and persistence in their managers’ return profiles. I contend that this asset class should exhibit a return profile closer to that of growth or leveraged buy-out private equity (strong returns across the portfolio with a few losers for an overall strong return profile) and not venture capital (mostly losers with some exceptionally strong performers which contribute disproportionately to the overall portfolio return, which may be positive or negative).  Recent shifts toward portfolio financings by Burford and other private fund managers, suggest that there is a consensus as to the benefit of diversification on the volatility of portfolio returns.

On the other hand, situation (iii) is an ideal one, where the manager was prudent and the results illustrate underwriting and portfolio construction acumen, with portfolio returns not being disproportionately impacted by a few cases. Situation (iv) is interesting because it is a scenario where a manager can potentially ‘live to fight another day,’ since he or she was prudent with capital allocation, but perhaps something went awry with underwriting, or the portfolio was negatively impacted by a Systematic risk which was beyond the manager’s control. Every fund manager should ask themselves, “why take the risk” in creating a non-diversified portfolio, because it is a lose-lose scenario?  Diversification will always provide the optionality of raising a subsequent fund, even if returns are sub-par.

As we live in a dynamic world with a myriad of financial innovations being developed daily, managers should remain aware of new approaches to reducing risk in their portfolio (i.e. insurance, co-investing, risk-sharing with law firms), which may allow them to invest a smaller amount without taking on undue case concentration risk.  Of course, any instrument that reduces risk incurs a cost, and so one will need to assess the overall risk-reward equation to determine whether it is appropriate for both the manager and the investor.

Diversification is in the eye of the Investor

Managers should also keep in mind that each investor is different.  A manager may have one investor that has decided to maintain a single exposure to litigation finance through the manager, in which case the investor is likely counting on that manager to ensure application of portfolio theory.  On the other hand, an investor may be looking for specific exposures to complement his or her numerous allocations within the litigation finance sector, and so the investor is expected to apply portfolio theory to the various allocations within their portfolio and are less reliant on the fund manager for doing so in their specific fund.

What is critical for managers is that they deploy capital in a responsible manner and not acquiesce to the demands of a given investor with respect to their perspective on portfolio construction and portfolio theory. We are all here to create sustainable long-term businesses, and a given investor may have different objectives that could derail the manager’s own goals.

Slingshot Insights

Investing in a nascent asset class like litigation finance is mainly about investing in people.  Most managers simply don’t have the track record of a fully realized portfolio on which investors can base their investment decision.  Accordingly, much time and attention is spent on understanding how managers think about building their business and in particular their first portfolio.  In addition to the underwriting process, one of the most important considerations for investors to understand is how managers think about portfolio construction and diversification. Portfolio theory plays an integral role in terms of how managers should be thinking about constructing their portfolios from the perspective of the number of cases in the portfolio, but managers should also ensure their own personal bias is not entering into the portfolio and that they have thought about all of the systematic risks that can affect like cases. My general rule of thumb is that most first time managers should be targeting a portfolio of at least 20 equal sized commitments, appreciating that it is almost impossible to achieve equal sized deployments due to deployment risk. It is also not in the manager’s best long-term interest to take a short-cut on diversification for expediency sake (i.e. to raise the next larger fund) and to do so may be interpreted as poor judgment from an investor’s perspective!

As always, I welcome your comments and counter-points to those raised in this article.

Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc. and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.

Commercial

View All
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Scott Davis, Partner, Klarquist

By John Freund |

Scott focuses on intellectual property litigation, representing clients in courts throughout the U.S. He has had great success both obtaining relief for intellectual property owners and defending suits in a wide range of technical fields in cases involving patent, trade secret, unfair competition, employment agreement, copyright, DMCA, trademark, trade dress, product configuration, and false advertising claims.

Scott has litigated cases involving chemical, mechanical, medical device, internet, software, encryption, computer, clean energy, automotive, apparel, food, agricultural, and pharmaceutical technologies. Representing some of the largest companies in the world as well as smaller businesses and start-ups, he has succeeded for clients such as Adobe, British Airways, Columbia River Knife & Tool, Capsugel, Costco, Danner, DexCom, Intuit, Microsoft, Nightforce, Phibro Animal Health Corporation, SAP, SunModo, and Yelp.

Describing his past success and approach with the Klarquist litigation team, IAM Patent 1000 recently lauded Scott’s ability to assess the best strategies and his talent for understanding and simplifying complex technology, and noted that Scott will “always put your objectives first and act like a part of your team.”

Company Name and Description: Klarquist is a full-service intellectual property (IP) law firm with services including IP counseling, patents, trademarks, copyrights, litigation, and post-grant USPTO proceedings. Because we focus our practice exclusively on intellectual property, our prosecution professionals leverage a thorough understanding of our clients’ cutting-edge technology to an extent not seen in general practice firms. Our technical expertise covers biotechnology, physics and optics, chemistry, electrical and mechanical engineering, software and computer science, plants, and semiconductors.

Klarquist is one of the oldest and largest intellectual property law firms in the Pacific Northwest. For more than 80 years, the firm has provided intellectual property legal services to innovators of all stripes and sizes. The firm has over 60 attorneys and patent agents, more than 90% of whom hold technical degrees and many with doctorates in their respective fields. Klarquist professionals are adept at handling all phases of intellectual property matters, from procurement to transfer to litigation of disputes and post-grant review proceedings. Our roster of clients includes some of the most innovative companies and institutions in the world, from Amazon and Microsoft to the U.S. Government, which chooses Klarquist to procure its patents more than any other firm in the nation. As a full-service intellectual property boutique, Klarquist is uniquely equipped to handle any matter, for any innovator, in virtually every area of modern technology.

Website: www.klarquist.com

Year Founded: 1941

Headquarters: Portland, Oregon

Areas of Interest: Dispute resolution, litigation, and patent post grant proceedings.

Member Quote: "Litigation funding provides a key to unlock access to civil justice."

Case Developments Commercial

$170 Million Settlement Approved in Allianz Class Action

By Harry Moran |

A complex Australian class action that emerged through the consolidation of two separate group proceedings has reached a successful conclusion, with the court approving a large settlement and thereby marking a significant win for the litigation funder who backed the case. 

A post on LinkedIn from Balance Legal Capital highlighted the approval of the settlement in the Allianz class action, with the Supreme Court of Victoria approving the A$170 million sum to bring the group proceedings to a close. The class action, which Balance Legal Capital funded, was brought on behalf of over 200,000 Australian customers who purchased a vehicle and were then sold Allianz or Allianz Life “add-on” insurance products by the dealership, alleging that the insurers engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.

Johnson Winter Slattery (JWS) and Maurice Blackburn Lawyers jointly represented the plaintiffs in the class action. In 2021, the Court had ordered the consolidation of this group proceeding with a similar class action against Allianz, resulting in two representative plaintiffs: Ms Tracy-Ann Fuller and Mr Wilkinson.

The judgment approving the proposed settlement was made today, with the court approving a $30,000 payment to the two plaintiffs. The court also maintained the Group Costs Order (GCO) of 25% of the settlement, with a $42.5 million payment set to be divided between JWS and Maurice Blackburn, with a further sum of up to $4.72 million allocated to Maurice Blackburn for the administering of the settlement distribution scheme. 

On the costs incurred by the law firms, Justice Matthews wrote that they were, “satisfied that the costs are reasonable and proportionate to the issues in dispute and the overall amount in dispute.” The judge went on to highlight that the class action “was a very large and complex proceeding and it is unsurprising that the costs are substantial.”

The full judgment and settlement approval orders can be read here. More information about the case can be found on the Allianz Class Action website.

Case Developments Commercial

Judge Halves Funder’s Legal Costs in Mastercard Case

By Harry Moran |

The dispute between Walter Merricks and Innsworth Capital in the Mastercard claim has been one of the most visible examples of a rift between a class representative and litigation funder. 

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an update on the ongoing fallout from the settlement in the Mastercard litigation, as the acting president of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has described the funder’s legal costs of over £52,000 as “wholly disproportionate and unreasonable”. These comments came in a ruling on costs that Mr Justice Roth had ordered the class representative to pay, relating to the funder’s legal costs for responding to Mr Merricks’ application for a court order (‘Documents Application) that would have prevented the funder from using confidential documents in its intervention.

In his assessment of Innsworth’s submissions on costs, the judge accepted that the funder’s need to oppose the Documents Application was “critical to its ability to participate effectively in opposing the CSAO Application” and went on to say that he had “no criticism of the time spent by the solicitors.” However, Justice Roth did highlight the decision to instruct “both leading and junior counsel to advise on the response” and the fact that in this matter, “Akin Gump is charging at well over double, and in the case of the Grade B solicitor almost three times, the London 1 Guideline Rates.”

The ruling goes on to note that whilst Innsworth “may choose to agree with its solicitors to pay a much higher rate of fees”, it does not automatically follow “that costs incurred at those rates are recoverable from the other side”. Determining the final costs, Justice Roth settled on a reduction of the solicitors’ fees down from £26,355.50 to £12,000, and similarly reduced the counsel fees to £10,000, which he still described as “generous”. As a result, the final sum for Innsworth’s costs was set at £22,000.

The full ruling from Mr Justice Roth can be read here.