Trending Now
Commercial Slingshot Capital Special Features

Portfolio Theory in the Context of Litigation Finance (pt. 1 of 2)

By John Freund |

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. 

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

For those new to the commercial litigation finance sector, one aspect worth discovering from an investment perspective is the existence of unique risks attributable to this asset class.  For investment managers looking to get started in the industry, it is critical to understand the implications of the risks inherent in the asset class, especially for those with a limited track record in litigation finance.  Accordingly, significant attention should be paid to portfolio construction and diversification, in particular during the early stages of the life cycle of an industry where investments possess both idiosyncratic and binary risk, and where there is much less empirical data to guide investment decisions.  Portfolio risk is generally influenced by three main factors: volatility of results, correlation (of outcomes within a given portfolio) and the size of the portfolio.  For the purposes of this article, I have assumed that correlation within a portfolio is non-existent, as each case stands on its own and is not influenced by others in the portfolio. However, to the extent correlation does exist, it can have a significant impact on the value of portfolio theory. 

As the industry evolves so too will its data requirements

When the litigation finance industry first originated, the concept of portfolio theory was less important, given the recognition within the industry of a requisite level of experimentation (i.e. risk) to be assumed in order for a conclusion to be drawn about the attractiveness of the asset class. Therefore, the industry attracted the appropriate level of risk capital correlating to the risk/reward promise of litigation finance.  As the asset class matures and managers prove out the return profile, the early risk money is being supplemented with institutional capital, which is less inclined to assume the same level of risk as that of high net worth and family office investors.  Accordingly, in order to attract such capital, an element of data and analysis will need to be captured and compiled to assist the investor in understanding the dynamics inherent in the industry (returns, duration, volatility, correlation, etc.), which is partly why I believe the concepts in this article will grow increasingly significant in the near future.

Portfolio Theory Concepts

Before we discuss the applicability of portfolio theory to litigation finance, let’s dig into some portfolio theory concepts.

While an in-depth study into portfolio theory is beyond the scope of this article, the following will provide readers with some theoretical concepts that have been developed and refined over the last 70 years.  Multitudes of research studies and articles have been published over the years and are publicly available.

  1. Modern Portfolio Theory (“MPT”)

Modern Portfolio Theory was developed by Harry Markowitz and published under the title “Portfolio Selection” in the journal of Finance in 1952, and remains one of the most important and influential economic theories dealing with finance and investment.  In essence, the theory suggests that investors can reduce risk through diversification.  Risk, in the context of modern portfolio theory, is the concept of the standard deviation of return as compared to the average return for the markets.  The theory states that the risk for individual stock returns has two components:

Systematic Risk – These are market risks that cannot be diversified away. Interest rates, recessions and wars are examples of systematic risks in the context of public equities.

Unsystematic Risk – Also known as “specific risk,” this risk is specific to individual stocks, such as a change in management or a decline in operations. This kind of risk can be diversified away as one increase the number of stocks in one’s portfolio. It represents the component of a stock’s return that is not correlated with general market moves.

One of the limitations of MPT is the fact that it assumes a normal distribution of outcomes in the shape of a ‘normal bell curve’, which may be applicable for markets where there is perfect information, but not applicable to many private market investments where there is a meaningful information asymmetry among market participants (thereby resulting in skewed performance distributions and potentially heavy tails).  Essentially, MPT is limited by measures of risk and return that do not always represent the realities of the investment market. Nonetheless, it laid the foundation for additional theories which have served to refine the original, underlying one.

  1. Post-modern Portfolio Theory (“PMPT”)

The term ‘post-modern portfolio theory’ has its roots in research undertaken at the Pension Research Institute at San Francisco University in 1983, and was created in 1991 by software entrepreneurs Brian M. Rom and Kathleen Ferguson, in order to differentiate the portfolio-construction software developed by their company from those provided by traditional MPT.  The PMPT theory uses the standard deviation of negative returns as the measure of risk, while MPT uses the standard deviation of all returns as a measure of risk. The authors determined that the normal distribution curve which represents the basis for MPT does not accurately reflect all markets and is merely a subset of PMPT. Essentially, different than MPT which tends to focus on risk in the context of derivation from mean market returns, PMPT focuses on risk and reward relative to an expected Internal Rate of Return (“IRR”) required for a given set of risks, which is more of a risk-adjusted return philosophy.  However, a key limitation of both MPT and PMPT is that they are both premised on the assumption of efficient markets, being the theory that all participants in a market have the same access to information. Enter Behavioural Finance…

  1. Behaviour Finance (“BF”)

I think we can all agree that most financial markets are anything but rational, which means there must be something else influencing their behaviour and, hence, their performance.  Behavioural Finance is a conceptual framework to study the influence of psychology on the behavior of investors and financial analysts. It also recognizes the subsequent effects on markets. BF focuses on the fact that investors are not always rational, have limits to their self-control, and are influenced by their own biases.  BF believes that investors are subject to a variety of judgment errors or biases, which are broadly defined as Self-Deception (you think you know more than you do), Heuristic Simplification (information processing errors), Social Influence (how our decisions are influenced by others) and Emotion (your mood’s impact on rational thinking at the time of investment).  The applicability of BF cannot be overstated in the context of litigation as there is the potential for many biases to enter the decision-making process, especially by litigators who’s own experience may be impacting their decisions.

While many theories exist to explain market behaviour and how investors should position their portfolios to address risk, I have focused on the three above as they are among the most prominent.  While they serve as a guide to address risk in the context of portfolio construction, they also serve to highlight an investor’s inherent limitations, and give rise to questions litigation finance managers should be asking themselves: are my biases working their way into my portfolio construction?  Of course, much of the research on which these theories are predicated relate to the public equities marketplace, which simplifies analysis via transparency and quantum of data.  In the context of litigation finance, we have a private market which is not large and not very transparent.  In addition, it is a market that is very inefficient due to the confidential nature of litigation – because it is a private market – and due to its relative nascency.  This is, in part, one of the reasons that I am presently pursuing the Slingshot Data Project (more to come in future articles) through a “Give to Get” model, where value (in the form of analytics) will be provided to a variety of participating constituents.

Application to Commercial Litigation Finance

Before we can discuss the application of portfolio theory to commercial litigation finance, it is important to determine the risks that are inherent in the asset class.

The litigation finance asset class exhibits a significant number of unique risks, some of which are Systematic and others Unsystematic, and some which fall into both categories.  As an example of a dual risk, collectability risk is inherent in any piece of litigation where one party is suing another (i.e. a Systematic Risk). In addition, there is the specific collection risk associated with a given defendant (are they more likely to settle and pay quickly, or delay, appeal and negotiate a settlement over a protracted period of time), which may be higher or lower than the overall risk inherent in litigation (i.e. an Unsystematic Risk)).

Generally, I find the level of Unsystematic risks to be high in litigation finance given that the outcome of each case is idiosyncratic to the aspects of the case (case merits, credibility of the witnesses, the credibility of professional witnesses, the litigious nature of the defendant, legal counsel effectiveness, defense counsel effectiveness, judiciary effectiveness, jurisdiction and collectability – to name some of the more significant risks).  However, litigation finance also has a number of Systematic exposures (binary outcomes, duration, liquidity, counter-party, collectability, case precedent, regulatory, legislative, etc.) which may not be fully addressable through the application of portfolio theory.

With respect to the influence of binary risk, I would add that while each case possesses binary risk at the outset, very few cases in fact are determined by a judicial decision (as with most litigation, the vast majority of cases are settled out of court). So, while binary risk (a Systematic risk) is endemic to the asset class, its application – in particular in the context of a portfolio – should not be overstated, because it rarely influences the performance directly – unless there is a series of highly correlated cases embedded in a portfolio (although the threat of a judicial outcome is a significant factor in any settlement).  In addition, certain case types have a higher propensity to be settled via a judicial decision (e.g. International Arbitrations) as opposed to others (e.g. Breach of Contract). Having said that, if one is only looking at the tail end of a portfolio, binary risk can be disproportionately higher, as those cases within the tail likely have a higher probability of being decided by a judiciary simply because they have had longer case durations which may indicate that neither side is willing to negotiate a settlement, or that the case is heading toward a trial decision. This proves that correlations – and thereby a degree of diversification – are not constant across a spectrum of case distributions.

In the second part of this article, which can be found here, I apply the portfolio theories outlined above to the commercial litigation finance marketplace and offer some perspectives on responsible portfolio construction.

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
Commercial Special Features

Key Highlights from the Inaugural LF Dealmakers European Edition

By John Freund |

Last week, the LFJ team attended the inaugural LF Dealmakers European Edition, held across two days at the Royal Lancaster in London. Building on the longstanding success of Dealmakers’ New York event, the first edition of the European conference brought together an impressive selection of leaders from across the industry.

Spread across two days, LF Dealmakers featured an agenda packed with insightful conversations between some of the most prominent thought leaders in the European litigation finance market. An array of panel discussions covered everything from the looming potential of regulation to the increasing corporate adoption of third-party funding, with these sessions bolstered by a keynote interview between two of the key figures in the Post Office Horizon litigation.

A long road to justice for the postmasters

In a conference that managed to fill every single panel discussion with speakers engaged in some of the largest and most influential funded disputes taking place in Europe, the standout session of the two days provided unparalleled insight into one of the most famous cases of recent years. The keynote interview on ‘The Future of Litigation Funding in the Wake of the Post Office Horizon Scandal’ saw James Hartley, Partner and National Head of Dispute Resolution Freeths, and Neil Purslow, Founder & CIO, Therium, offer up a behind-the-scenes tale of the sub-postmasters campaign for justice.

Going back to their first involvement with the case, James Hartley reminded attendees that whilst those looking at the case post-judgement “might think it was a slam dunk”, this was not the viewpoint of the lawyers and funders who first agreed to lead the fight against the Post Office. As Hartley described it, this was a situation where you had “a government owned entity who would fight to the end”, with a multitude of potential issues facing the claimants, including the existence of criminal convictions, the limited amounts of documented evidence, and the fact that the Post Office was the party that had ninety percent of the data, documents, and evidence.

Hartley also offered his own perspective on the legal strategy adopted by the Post Office and its lawyers, noting that at every stage of the litigation, “every single issue was fought hard.” He went on to explain that whilst he was “not critical” of the defendant’s strategy in principle, there remains the underlying issue that “the arguments they made were not consistent with the evidence we were seeing.” Hartley used this particular point to illuminate the issues around defendant strategies in the face of meritorious litigation that is being funded. He summarised the core issue by saying: “There is nothing wrong with fighting hard, but it’s got to be within the rules, and in a way that helps the court get to a just outcome.”

Offering praise for the support provided by Purslow and the team at Therium to finance the case, Hartley stated plainly that “without Therium’s funding it would not have gone anywhere, it would not have even got off the ground.” Both Purslow and Hartley also used the case to highlight problems around the lack of recoverability for funding costs and how that incentivises defendants such as the Post Office to prolong litigation and inflate legal costs. Hartley said that he would welcome a change to rules that would allow such recoverability, arguing that in this case “it would have neutralised the Post Office’s strategy to just keep driving up costs on the claimants side.”

What problem is regulation solving?

It was unsurprising to find that questions around the future of regulation for the litigation funding industry were a regular occurrence at LF Dealmakers, with the event taking place only a few days on from the House of Lords’ debate on the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) bill. From the opening panel to conversations held in networking breaks between sessions, speakers and attendees alike discussed the mounting pressure from government and corporate opponents of third-party funding.

The view from the majority of executives at the event seemed to revolve around one question, which was succinctly put by Ben Moss from Orchard Global: “What are the specific issues that require regulation, and what is the evidence to support those issues?”

This question became somewhat of a rallying cry throughout the conference, with suggestions of increased scrutiny and oversight being turned back on the industry’s critics who make claims of impropriety without citing evidence to back up these claims. Whilst several speakers referenced the recent LFJ poll that found a broad majority are open to the potential for new regulation, Ben Knowles from Clyde & Co described a lot of the discourse around the issue as “a fairly partisan debate.”

Among the few speakers in attendance who offered a contrasting view on regulation, Linklaters’ Harriet Ellis argued that “regulation done right would be good for the industry.” However, even Ellis acknowledged that any rules would have to be carefully crafted to provide a framework that would work across the wide variety of funded disputes, saying that a “one size fits all approach does raise issues.”

Regarding the government’s own approach to the issue through the draft legislation making its way through parliament, all of the executives in attendance praised lawmakers’ attempts to find a solution quickly. Alongside these government-led efforts, there was also a feeling among legal industry leaders that funders and law firms have to be part of the solution by promoting more education and understanding about how litigation finance works in practice. Richard Healey from Gately emphasised the need for firms to engage in “hearts and minds work” to change wider perceptions, whilst Harbour’s Maurice MacSweeney emphasised the need to “create the environment where law firms and funders can flourish.”

Innovation through collaboration

Outside of the narrow debate around legislation and regulation, much of the conference was focused on the speed at which litigation finance continues to evolve and create new solutions to meet complex demands from the legal industry. This was perhaps best represented in the way speakers from a variety of organisations discussed the need for a collaborative approach, with executives from funders, insurers, law firms, investors and brokers, all discussing how the industry can foster best working practices.

The interplay between the insurance and funding industry was one area that offered plenty of opportunity for insightful discussions around innovation. Andrew Mutter from CAC Speciality noted that even though “insurers are not known for being the fastest and moving the most nimbly,” within the world of litigation risk “the insurance markets are surprisingly innovative.” This idea of an agile and responsive insurance market was backed up by the variety of off the shelf and bespoke products that were discussed during the conference, from the staples of After-The-Event and Judgement Preservation Insurance to niche solutions like Arbitration Default Insurance.

Delving into the increasingly bespoke and tailored approach that insurers can take when working with funders and law firms, Jamie Molloy from Ignite Speciality Risk, described how there are now “very few limits on what can be done by litigation insurers to de-risk.” Whilst there is sometimes a perception that insurers are competing with funders and lawyers for client business, Tamar Katamade at Mosaic Insurance offered the view that it is “more like collaboration and synergy” where all these parties can work together “to help the claimant and improve their cost of capital and reduce duration risk.”

Class action fervour across Europe

Throughout both days of the LF Dealmakers conference, the volume and variety of class actions taking place across the European continent was another hot topic. However, in contrast to an event focused on the American litigation finance market, the common theme at last week’s forum was the wideranging differences between large group claims across individual European jurisdictions. In one of the most insightful panels, the audience were treated to an array of perspectives from thought leaders practicing across the UK, Spain, and the Netherlands.

The example of Spanish class actions provided an incredibly useful view into the nuances of European claims, as a country that is still in the process of implementing legislation to comply with the EU’s collective actions directive, but has already evolved routes for these types of actions over the last decade. Paul Hitchings of Hitchings & Co. described how the initiative to innovate has come “more from the private sector than the legislature”, with domestic law firms having become “experienced with running massive numbers of parallel claims” as an inefficient, yet workable solution. Hitchings contrasted Spain’s situation with its neighbouring jurisdiction of Portugal, which he argued has been comparatively forward thinking due to the country’s popular action law.

Speaking to the Dutch class actions environment, Quirijn Bongaerts from Birkway, argued that the “biggest game changer” in the country was the introduction of a real class actions regime in 2020. Bongaerts explained that the introduction of this system allowed for “one procedure that fits all types of claims”, which allows not only claims for damages, “but also works for more idealistic cases such as environmental cases and ESG cases.”

LFJ would like to extend our thanks to the entire Dealmakers team for hosting such an engaging and insightful event, which not only offered attendees a view into the latest developments in litigation finance, but also created a plethora of networking opportunities throughout both days. LFJ has no doubt that after the success of the inaugural LF Dealmakers European edition, a return to London in 2025 will cement the conference as a must-attend feature in the litigation funding events calendar.

Read More
Commercial Regulatory Issues

The Dangers of Retrospective Legislation in Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

The debate around whether the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill should be retrospective is a complex one, with valid arguments on both sides. A recent op-ed makes the case that retrospectivity poses significant dangers and unfairness.

Writing in LegalFutures, Jeremy Marshall, Chief Investment Officer of Winward UK, argues that the core issue is whether it is unfair to allow litigation funders to rely on contractual agreements that were freely entered into by both parties, even if those agreements were based on a mistake of law.

Marshall claims that the common law right to recover money paid under a mistake only applies when the mistake led to one party receiving an unintended benefit. In the case of litigation funding, the only benefit that has accrued is the one that was explicitly drafted into the contract. Allowing retrospectivity would open the door to satellite litigation and unreal counterfactuals, according to Marshall.

Claimants who have already received funding and won their cases are now arguing for the "right" to renegotiate and keep all the proceeds for themselves. But what about the funders' arguments that cases may have gone on longer or become more expensive than intended? Fairness demands that both sides' positions be considered.

Marshall insists that the true drawback in retrospectivity is the inherent danger of prejudicing one party to the exclusion of the other, or conferring an unexpected benefit to one party at the expense of the other. Ironically, this is precisely what those challenging the bill are attempting to do. So while the debate is a complex one, one can make a compelling case that retrospectivity in litigation funding poses significant dangers and unfairness.

ReplyForward
Commercial Regulatory Issues

The CJC’s Review of Litigation Funding Will Have Far-Reaching Effects

By John Freund |

The following is a contributed piece by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer at Sentry Funding.

Reform is on its way for the UK’s litigation funding sector, with the Civil Justice Council firing the starting gun on its review of litigation funding on 23 April.

The advisory body set out the terms of reference for its review, commissioned by lord chancellor Alex Chalk, and revealed the members of its core working group.

The review is working to an ambitious timetable with the aim of publishing an interim report by this summer, and a full report by summer 2025. It will be based on the CJC’s function of making civil justice ‘more accessible, fair and efficient’.

The CJC said it will set out ‘clear recommendations’ for reform in some areas. This includes consideration of a number of issues that could prove very significant for funders and clients. These include:

  • Whether the sector should be regulated, and if so, how and by whom;
  • Whether funders’ returns should be subject to a cap; and if so, to what extent;
  • The relationship between third party funding and litigation costs;
  • The court’s role in controlling the conduct of funded litigation, including the protection of claimants and ‘the interaction between pre-action and post-commencement funding of disputes’;
  • Duties relating to the provision of funding, including potential conflicts of interest between funders, lawyers and clients;
  • Whether funding encourages ‘specific litigation behaviour’ such as collective action.

The review’s core working group will be co-chaired by CJC members Mr Justice Simon Picken, a Commercial Court judge, and barrister Dr John Sorabji. The four other members are:

  • High Court judge Mrs Justice Sara Cockerill, who was judge in charge of the commercial court 2020 – 2022, and who is currently involved in a project on third party funding for the European Law Institute;
  • Academic and former City lawyer Prof Chris Hodges, chair of independent body the Regulatory Horizons Council which was set up to ensure that UK regulation keeps pace with innovation;
  • Lucy Castledine, Director of Consumer Investments at the Financial Conduct Authority; and
  • Nick Bacon KC, a prominent barrister and funding expert who acts for both claimants and defendants

The CJC had said that it may also bring in a consumer representative, as well as a solicitor experienced in group litigation.

In a sign that the review seeks to be informed by a wide range of views, the CJC has also extended an invitation for experts to join a broader consultation group, which will directly inform the work of the review and provide a larger forum for expert discussion. Meanwhile the advisory body has said there will also be further chance ‘for all to engage formally with this review’ later this year.

Given the broad remit of the review and significant impact that its recommendations may have on the litigation funding industry, litigation funders, lawyers and clients would be well advised to make the most of these opportunities to contribute to the review.

Read More