Why 2022 Was Wild Year for Traders Who Bet on Dealmaking
An unusually volatile dealmaking environment meant merger arbitrage traders needed a higher-than-average tolerance for risk this year.
December 16, 2022 at 01:41 PM
5 minute read
It was one of the wildest years ever to be a merger arbitrage trader, but betting on 2022's megadeals still turned out to be worth it … just.
Several arbitrage funds, which make — and lose — money based on their traders' ability to predict the outcomes of dealmaking among public companies, managed to eke out gains this year, despite broader market turmoil that's left major equities indexes nursing double-digit losses. While their profits were modest compared to recent years, it's a dramatic turnaround from midyear, when many looked poised to follow the benchmarks down.
The Merger Fund, which manages $4.4 billion in assets, is up 0.8% this year through Thursday, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. At its lowest point in June it had slipped more than 3% since the start of 2022. BlackRock's Event Driven Equity Fund, with $8.2 billion of assets, is higher by 0.2%, but has bounced back from a similar midyear low. Both are open-ended funds that disclose real-time results and are often used by traders to gauge the health of the strategy.
Anecdotally, other arbitrage traders said their average returns this year were in the low single digits.
Five-year averages for the funds detailed above were around 4%, but in a year where the S&P 500 so far has fallen about 18% and an index tracking the U.S. bond market has slipped 11%, even funds that lost money often did better than more general strategies.
"In a normal environment, it wasn't a great year, but compared with almost any other asset class, including those traditional haven ones, this performance is not bad," said Brett Buckley, an event-driven strategist at WallachBeth Capital LLC. "Merger arb funds delivered what they advertise — market neutral returns."
An unusually volatile dealmaking environment meant merger arbitrage traders needed a higher-than-average tolerance for risk this year. Increased regulatory scrutiny and antitrust enforcement threw major transactions into doubt, fear of buyer's remorse stalked deals as valuations plummeted, and a dearth of M&A in general left funds more exposed to a smaller pool of situations.
While betting on merger outcomes is rarely predictable, arbs are used to most deals following a similar trading pattern. A target's stock shoots upward once a deal is leaked or announced, but usually stays below the offer price unless a counterbid is expected. That gap — or spread — narrows as the transaction moves toward closing, a process that can take anywhere from a couple of months to well over a year.
Those rules were thrown out the window in 2022. In the most high-profile deal of the year, Twitter Inc., arbs endured a months-long roller-coaster ride in the stock as Elon Musk tried to back out of the takeover. But the reward was huge for those traders that stuck around: Twitter's shares fell roughly 40% below the offer at one point, providing huge upside to anyone betting the deal would close.
Meanwhile a string of leveraged buyouts, from Tenneco Inc. to Citrix Systems Inc., saw their spreads blow up before eventually making it to closing, as banks struggled to offload the debt they'd financed for the deals.
Antitrust regulators also delivered a slew of enforcement actions. The Federal Trade Commission challenged Lockheed Martin Corp.'s purchase of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc., while the Justice Department sued to block UnitedHealth Group Inc's acquisition of Change Healthcare Inc. Only the UnitedHealth-Change deal ultimately made it, and not every arbitrage fund was able to weather the volatility.
"Even if a deal ultimately closes, some investors might have to sell or trim positions as the deal progresses if the spread widens materially and downside risk or probability of closing changes," said Frederic Boucher at Susquehanna International Group. "The volatility has been hard to stomach."
East53 Capital, a merger arbitrage-focused strategy at Izzy Englander's mega hedge fund Millennium Management, shuttered in July after its bets on M&A involving companies such as Twitter performed poorly.
The average arb spread in the U.S. — the gap between the deal price and the share price — rose from 9% annualized at the start of the year to 18% at one point in July. In recent weeks, the average spread has stabilized at around 12%, according to data from Alpharank.com.
Going into 2023, all eyes are on Microsoft Corp.'s $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard Inc., which the FTC has sought to block. Other competition regulators, including in the UK and European Union, have also raised concerns. While the video-game company's shares are trading around 20% below the offer price, Activision is still generating analyst buzz even if it stays as a standalone company. That risk-reward profile makes it a compelling bet for arbs.
"Activision has replaced Twitter as the deal du jour that everybody is interested in," said Roy Behren, co-chief investment officer at Westchester Capital Management. The ultimate outcome will serve as a key clue for dealmakers and investors assessing the regulatory landscape for big tech M&A going forward, he said.
Above all, what arbs really want next year is more deals to trade. A flurry of transactions this week added about $34 billion of M&A involving U.S. public-traded targets, bringing the total number of deals worth more than $500 million to 132 as 2022 draws to close. That's still down from the 187 transactions that arbs were likely to wager on last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
"The focus will be antitrust. Spreads right now, and particularly in deals with second requests, are very wide," said Neetu Jhamb, an event-driven focused portfolio manager at Versor Investments. "The embedded returns in a portfolio holding all these deals is very attractive if they all close."
Yiqin Shen reports for Bloomberg News.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Mulls Big Changes to Banking Regulation, Unsettling the Industry
CFPB Orders Big Banks to Limit Overdraft Fees to $5. But Will Its Edict Stick?
3 minute readUS Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
4 minute readGreenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
Trending Stories
- 1Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 2Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
- 3Foreign-Company Lobbyists Would Need to Register Under Proposed DOJ Regulation
- 4'Fancy Dress': ERISA Claim Accuses Plan Administrator and Cigna Affiliates of Co-Pay Maximizer Scheme
- 5The American Lawyer's Top Stories of 2024
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250