
2022 Southeastern Hedge Fund Competition
Win a scholarship and connect with hedge fund professionals!
The Southeastern Hedge fund Competition offers participants the opportunity to apply theory to practical strategies.
Student teams submit hedge fund strategy proposals that are evaluated by a panel of investment professionals. The top five teams will be invited to Atlanta for the final competition in April. The finalists will share an anticipated $20,000 in scholarship prizes as follows:
- First Place
- $10,000
- Second Place
- $5,000
- Third Place
- $3,000
- Two Finalists
- $1,000 each
Important Dates
Declaration of Faculty Coordinator
Tuesday, February 1, 2022
Submissions Due
Friday, March 4, 2022
Notification of Finalists
Tuesday, March 29, 2022
Final Competition
Thursday, April 28, 2022
Eligibility
- The Southeastern Hedge Fund Competition is open to teams of students at all colleges and universities in the world.
- All students enrolled at the university at any point during the 2021-2022 academic year are eligible to participate.
- Each team is composed of one to five undergraduate and/or graduate students and a faculty advisor from the students’ college or university.
2022 Winners
First Place
University
University of St. Gallen
Team Name
Shiny Square Capital
Strategy Name
Supported Gold Miner
Team Members
Killian Gerding, Rasmus Schraut
Second Place
University
University of Memphis
Team Name
IQ Titans
Strategy Name
Digital IQ Value to Growth Transformation with Hedged Risk Mitigation
Team Members
John Herin, Naitik Kaythwal, Nathan Miskell, Priyanka Singh
Third Place
University
LUISS Guido Carli
Team Name
ROBO-Capital
Strategy Name
Stationary Alpha
Team Members
Federico Cappuccio, Niccolò Fabbri
Finalist
University
University of South Carolina
Team Name
Bocagrande Capital
Strategy Name
A Safer Momentum
Team Members
Sean Dolan, Jordan Fowler, Benjamin Swanson
Finalist
University
University of York
Team Name
UpOnly
Strategy Name
Pool Hopping
Team Members
Kaiyan Ali, Andrew Doherty, Hamza Mushi, Rashed Rahmani, Ramsey Shallal
2021
Winners
First Place
University
London Business School
Team Name
Deepwater Partners
Strategy Name
Unsupervised Stochastic Arbitrage Discovery
Team Members
Valeria Fedyk, Darcy Pu, Hogan Tong
Second Place
University
University of Texas at Austin
Team Name
Three Sigma Investments
Strategy Name
MIM2
Team Members
Eric Chen, Alexander van Geenen, Jeremy Krill, Shaan Parekh, Raj Solanki
Third Place
University
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Team Name
AIM Alpha
Strategy Name
Dynamic Common Trend
Team Members
Zhizhuo (Ellen) Wang, Xuanying Dong, Corey Alexander, Mitchell Forss
Finalist
University
Sungkyunkwan University
Team Name
GBA: Gangnam Billionaire Association
Strategy Name
Boosting Short-Term Reversal with ESG Included Quality Factors
Team Members
Junhyeok Cheong, Chiseung Ahn, Jewon Moon
Finalist
University
University of St. Gallen
Team Name
Deep Dive Capital
Strategy Name
VolaOptopus
Team Members
Kilian Gerding, Kevin Jörg, Marvin Scherer
2020
Winners
Finalist
University
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Strategy Name
Egg Industry Chain Arbitrage
Team Members
Xin Huang, Zji Zhou
Finalist
University
University of St. Gallen (HSG)
Strategy Name
Gold Covered Carry Trade
Team Members
Lars Hostettler, Dominik Ess, Giulia Dubler
Finalist
University
York College of Pennsylvania
Strategy Name
"Quantamental" Portfolio Allocation
Team Members
Andrew Rhodes, Seth Rickrode, Collin Brandt
Finalist
University
The University of Texas at Austin
Strategy Name
Multi-factor Accounting Credit-Risk Optimization (MACRO)
Team Members
Arun Krishnaraj, Zander Van Geenen, Eric Chen, Michelle Lin, Alexander Nelson-Groocock
Finalist
University
University of Notre Dame
Strategy Name
Small-Cap Follow the Money
Team Members
Colin Gutzmer, Christopher Albanese
Finalist
University
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Strategy Name
Decem Venari Approach (DVA)
Team Members
Justin Peek, Dawn Murray, Tyler Yaw
2019
Winners
First Place
University
University of Texas at Austin
Team Name
Alpha Betters
Strategy Name
Multi-Dimensional Quality Among the S&P 500
Team Members
Catherine Cheng, Matthew Hopp, Wesley Klock, Eric Sun
Second Place
University
University of Oregon
Team Name
Anabolic Asset Management
Strategy Name
Systematic Short Volatility Fund
Team Members
Connor Jackley
Third Place
University
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Team Name
Penta Capital
Strategy Name
AF Score
Team Members
Ziyi Wen, Da Xu, Yi Ching Yam, Yufan Yang, Zian Zhuang
Finalist
University
Indiana University
Team Name
Dynamic Capital
Strategy Name
Diversified Emerging Market (DEM) Instruments
Team Members
Rahul Amin, Jacob Cannizzo, Irene Lin, Peter Wu, Terry Xiao
Finalist
University
University of Toronto
Team Name
Bullwhip Capital Partners
Strategy Name
"Bullwhip Effect"-based Long-Short Strategy
Team Members
Huy Dam, Anop Pandey, Kristina Roderos, Yi Shi
2018
Winners
First Place
University
University of Tampa
Team Name
VCRM Capital
Strategy Name
Ironclad Portfolio
Team Members
Nick Koen
Second Place
University
University of York
Team Name
White Rose Investments
Strategy Name
G Score
Team Members
Thomas Armstrong, Edward Bottomley, Jasmine Gotobed, Theo Wilson, Gabriel Zedda James
Third Place
University
University of Delaware
Team Name
Lyapunov Technologies
Strategy Name
Tactical Risk Adjustment Controller (TRAC) for S&P 500 Trend Capture
Team Members
Anthony Rossi, Duanyi Wei
Finalist
University
University of South Carolina
Team Name
Prestige Capital
Strategy Name
Better without Beta
Team Members
Eden Gurlitz, Daniel McLaren, Benjamin Romski
Finalist
University
University of Tampa
Team Name
EV Capital
Strategy Name
An Advanced Macroeconomic Allocation Model with a Leverage Twist
Team Members
Edward Morris, Victor Philaire
2017
Winners
First Place
University
University of Memphis
Team Name
PARSEC
Strategy Name
Modified Drift
Student Names
Brock Ballard, C. Jared Rodgers, Joseph Pascarella, Eithel McGowen
Second Place
University
University of Tampa
Team Name
Excalibur Capital
Strategy Name
Advanced Economic ETF Screener with Volatility Twist
Student Names
Adam Baals, Nicholas Koen, Alex Pichler
Third Place
University
University of Kentucky
Team Name
Passing Alpha
Strategy Name
More Alpha, Less Beta
Student Names
Tyler Harris, Eric Winkler, Benjamin Smith, David Rubenstein, Benjamin Beausir
Finalist
University
Florida Atlantic University
Team Name
Culebra Capital
Strategy Name
Python Core
Student Names
Jon Taylor, Jonathan Ray, Mike Nolan
Finalist
University
University of Kentucky
Team Name
The Alpha Creators
Strategy Name
Reverting to Mean Reversion
Student Names
Eric Johnson, Rex Bray, Ross Hildabrand, Andrew Brueggeman
Finalist
University
Emory University
Team Name
S&B Capital Partners
Strategy Name
Opportunistic Value Tax Strategy
Student Names
Bert Subin, Ben Beller
Rules
Teams
The competition is open to teams of students at all colleges and universities in the world. Each team will consist of between one and five undergraduate and/or graduate students and a faculty advisor from the students’ college or university. All students enrolled at the university at any point during the 2021-2022 academic year are eligible to participate. At most, two teams from any college or university may submit to the competition. If more than two teams from a college or university want to submit, the faculty coordinator (different position from but potentially same person as the faculty advisor—see below) must decide which two teams will submit. The same faculty member may serve as advisor to both submitting teams.
Submissions
All submissions must be made through the competition’s website. On the submission page, you will be asked to complete a form indicating the college or university represented by the team, a team name, a title for the proposed investment strategy, the names of the students on the team, the email addresses and academic programs of the students on the team, the name and email address of the faculty member advising the team, and an email address to which all correspondence related to the submission may be sent. You will also be asked to submit a “blind” pdf file that describes the investment strategy. This document may have at most six pages of writing. An additional four pages of tables and figures, including captions, may be included in the document. This document should have the team name and title of the investment strategy at the top of the first page. No other identifying information, such as school name, team member names, or faculty member names, should be indicated on this document. The document must be written so as not to indicate or hint at the submitting team’s school affiliation. This means that the team name and investment strategy title should not hint at the school represented by the team. Guidance on the content of a good submission is given here.
Selection of Finalists
The submissions will be reviewed by a panel of judges chosen by SEAFA. A detailed discussion of the evaluation process can be found here. The top five submissions will be chosen as finalists and invited to the final competition. Teams will be notified of the results of the finalist selection process.
Final Competition
The final competition will be held at Georgia State University’s Buckhead Center in Atlanta. Each finalist team will present their investment strategy to a panel of SEAFA judges. It is anticipated that the presentation will be an enhancement of the information provided in the initial submission. Each team will have 8 minutes to present. The presentations must be done in a manner that does not indicate the school represented by the team. The judges will then have up to 7 minutes to ask questions of the team. After seeing all teams present, the judges will confer to determine the first, second and third place teams. The winners will be announced during a closing ceremony and reception the night of the competition.
Prizes
Scholarship prizes will be awarded to the top five teams. Hotel accommodations (but not travel) for students on non-local finalist teams will be provided.
Faculty Coordinator
Each participating school is asked to select a faculty member to serve as a faculty coordinator. The faculty coordinator will serve as a point of contact for the distribution of information related to the competition. In the case that a school has more than two teams that want to submit to the competition, the faculty coordinator is responsible for determining which two teams from that school will submit. The faculty coordinator for each school is listed here. If your school is not listed, this means that your school does not yet have a faculty coordinator. Teams at schools without a faculty coordinator should find a faculty member at their school who is willing to serve as the faculty coordinator and inform the competition organizers of who the faculty coordinator will be via email. The faculty coordinator may also serve as a faculty advisor to one or both submitting teams.
Submission Evaluation
Each submission will be reviewed by several hedge fund professionals and evaluated according to the following six criteria on a scale from 1 to 5, with a score of 1 indicating that the reviewer strongly disagrees with the statement and a score of 5 indicating that the reviewer strong agrees with the statement. The submission’s overall score will be calculated by averaging the scores for each criterion across reviewers, and then taking the average criterion-level score across all six criteria. The teams whose submissions receive the highest five overall scores will be invited to the final competition in Atlanta.
The criteria used by the reviewers to evaluate the submission are as follows:
- The proposed investment strategy is based on a sound economic hypothesis.
- The proposed investment strategy is reasonably novel and distinct from well-known and commonly used investment strategies.
- The proposed implementation of the investment strategy is well-designed to generate alpha if the underlying economic hypothesis holds.
- The submission has a plan for mitigating risks associated with the investment strategy and for dealing with the situation when the economic hypothesis underlying the proposed investment strategy is proven false.
- The submission is thorough in assessing the liquidity and capital considerations associated with the investment strategy. This in no way implies giving preference to more liquid or less liquid strategies.
- The proposal uses appropriate methodologies to qualitatively or quantitatively evaluate the prospects for the proposed investment strategy, and the results of these analyses provide evidence of the viability of the strategy.
Submission Guidance
This section is intended to provide guidance for teams submitting to the Southeastern Hedge Fund Competition. The objective is to help teams understand what a good submission might look like. The section has two parts. The first part is intended to give participating teams an idea of what sort of trading strategies the competition might value. The second part is intended to provide suggestions for the components of a good submission. Before reading this section, it is suggested that the readers familiarize themselves with the scoring rubric that will be used by the reviewers to evaluate the submissions, and interpret the content of this guidance within the context of that rubric.
Types of Strategies
The objective of submissions to the Southeastern Hedge Fund Competition is to propose an investment strategy that is attractive to a hedge fund. The types of investment strategies that are of interest to hedge funds are extremely wide-ranging, covering all asset classes and markets. However, participants should keep in mind that this is a hedge fund competition. Therefore, in-depth analysis of a single stock with a proposed strategy of being long (or short) that stock is unlikely to score highly.
Additionally, the proposed strategy should be able to deploy enough capital to make it of interest to a small hedge fund. For example, a strategy that earns 20 percent per year on $100,000 but cannot be scaled to deploy more than $100,000 is unlikely to score well. As a general guideline, the strategy should be able to deploy at least $10 million. Finally, the competition is particularly geared toward innovative and novel trading strategies. Participants are encouraged to be creative.
Components of a Submission
The remainder of this section provides guidance on the components of a good submission. As discussed in the rules, the submission document can have up to six pages of written text with up to an additional four pages of tables and charts. The guidance provided here is not intended to provide a strict outline for a proposal. It is merely intended to give some ideas as to the issues that a good proposal should address, along with simple (although by no means complete) examples. The hedge fund strategy used as an example is a simple pairs strategy. A simple pairs strategy is chosen as the example for two reasons. First, it is sufficient to be illustrative of the suggestions made below. Second, it is too well-known and commonly used to be considered a strong submission. That is not to say that a pairs strategy could not possibly score well. However, a well-scoring pairs strategy would need to be sufficiently different from well-known and commonly used pairs strategies such as the one discussed here to warrant a high score. It should also be noted that the examples given here are intentionally short. An actual proposal will likely want to go into more depth on several of the points discussed below. Finally, it should be noted that all numbers in the example are completely made up.
Main Idea
The proposal should clearly state the main idea behind the trading strategy.
Example: The main idea underlying our proposed trading strategy is to identify pairs of stocks whose firms are highly similar but whose stocks appear to be priced differently, and to profit from the differential pricing. Specifically, the strategy will take long positions in stocks that appear to be cheap relative to the paired stock and short positions in stocks that appear expensive relative to the paired stock. The strategy will then realize a profit when the differential pricing is corrected.
Economic Hypothesis
The proposal should state the economic hypothesis underlying the proposed investment strategy and provide economic arguments as to why the hypothesis should hold.
Example: The strategy is based on the idea that stocks of similar firms should be valued similarly. This hypothesis should hold because stocks of similar firms are likely to generate similar cash flows and have similar risk. Since cash flows and risk are the two primary determinants of the value of an investment, if two stocks are similar along these two dimensions, the stocks should be valued similarly.
Implementation
The proposal should describe in detail how the proposed investment strategy will be implemented. This should include a discussion of how trading signals are calculated, how the securities to trade are selected, how the position sizes are determined, the timing and execution of the trades, and all other aspects relevant to the implementation of the strategy.
Example: The first step in implementing our pairs trading strategy is to identify pairs of similar firms. We define two firms to be similar if the firms are in the same industry, have similar leverage, and have a high correlation between their stocks’ returns. Specifically, at the end of each month, we look at all firms in the S&P 500 index. For each stock we calculate the leverage of the stock as the ratio of the book value of the firm’s debt divided by the market capitalization of the firm’s stock. We then examine pairs of firms that have the same 4-digit SIC and have a difference in leverage that is less than 0.1. Finally, we use daily returns over the past year to calculate the correlation between the returns of the stocks of each of the pairs of firms that satisfy the same-industry and similar-leverage criteria. We retain only pairs with correlation greater than 0.6.
Having identified the pairs of similar stocks, we then determine whether the stocks are similarly valued using the price-to-earnings ratios of each stock. For each stock in each pair, we take the price-to-earnings ratio to be the price of the stock divided by forecast earnings over the next year. We require that there be at least a difference of 1.0 between the price-to-earnings ratios of the stocks in the pair. Pairs not satisfying this criterion are discarded.
Finally, for each remaining pair, we will take a $1 million long position in the stock with the lower price-to-earnings ratio and a $1 million short position in the stock with the higher price-to-earnings ratio. We will hold the positions for the duration of the next month, at which point the current pairs will be liquidated and we will repeat the process.
Risks
The proposal should describe in detail the risks associated with the strategy and how any unwanted risks will be mitigated.
Example: There are two main risks associated with this strategy. First, there is the possibility that the stocks that the strategy has long positions in have, on average, different betas than the set of stocks the strategy is short. This would result in the portfolio having exposure to moves in the overall market. To remove any potential exposure to moves in the overall market, we will calculate each stock’s beta with respect to the S&P 500 index using daily data over the past year. We will then take the portfolio’s beta to be the average beta of the stocks the portfolio is long minus the average beta of the stocks the portfolio is short. If the portfolio’s beta is not zero, we will hedge the portfolio’s exposure to overall moves in the market using S&P 500 index futures.
Second, it is possible that our pairs selection strategy has overlooked something about the firms chosen as pairs and that the firms are not truly similar. To mitigate the possibility that a single pair experiences a large loss, we will monitor the profits of each pair and liquidate the pair if the total losses on the long position and the short position in the pair add up to more than $100,000, or 10% of the initial long (or short) position size.
Liquidity and Capital Considerations
The proposal should discuss how liquidity may affect the implementation of the trading strategy and how much capital the trading strategy might be able to deploy.
Example: Since we will implement our trading strategy only on stocks in the S&P 500 index, the stocks we will trade are very liquid. We therefore expect that we should be able to scale up the strategy quite easily. Since almost all S&P 500 index constituent stocks have more than $100 million in dollar trading volume every day, trading $1 million in any stock should have very little price impact. While the trading strategy as we propose it would take $1 million positions in each stock, there are many ways the proposed trading strategy could be scaled to take on more capital. Specifically, instead of only trading at the end of the month, we could initiate new positions each day, and then each day only liquidate the positions that were initiated one month prior. Assuming 20 trading days per month, this would scale the strategy from approximately $1 million in each stock to $20 million in each stock. Since each month we identify on average 50 tradable pairs, this would enable us to grow the portfolio to have total long positions of $1 billion and short positions of the same size.
Analysis of Strategy Prospects
The proposal should provide some analysis of the expected returns and risk associated with the investment strategy. In cases such as this pairs trading example, this can be done by simulating the strategy historically. However, for a wide range of strategies, it may not be possible to historically simulate the strategy. For example, the strategy may be particular to current market conditions that have not existed in the past, or the data necessary to simulate the strategy may not be available. If the strategy cannot be simulated, then alternative techniques should be used to, as best as possible, assess the risk and expected returns of the strategy. It may be a good idea to tabulate the results of your analysis. In the example, it is assumed that there is a table accompanying the text.
Example: To assess how the strategy has performed historically, we simulate the strategy during the period from 1980 through 2017. The data used for the simulation come from Bloomberg. The results of the simulations are shown in Table 1. The strategy generates an average monthly excess return of 0.4%. The standard deviation of the monthly excess returns of the strategy is 2.0%. The annualized Sharpe ratio of the strategy is therefore 0.69. The worst drawdown experienced by the strategy began in August 1994. The low point of this drawdown was realized in February 1996, at which point the strategy had lost 14% from its previous high. The drawdown ended in April 1997, at which point the strategy overcame its previous high-water mark.
FAQs
1. Who is eligible to be on a team?
The competition is open to teams of students at all colleges and universities in the world. Each team will consist of between one and five undergraduate and/or graduate students and a faculty advisor from the students’ college or university. All students enrolled at the university at any point during the 2019-2020 academic year are eligible to participate. At most two teams from any college or university may submit to the competition. If more than two teams from a college or university want to submit, the faculty coordinator must decide which two teams will submit. The same faculty member may serve as advisor to both submitting teams.
2. How many teams from one school may apply to the competition?
At most two teams from any school may submit a proposal to the competition. If there are more than two teams at a given school that want to submit, the faculty coordinator for the given school will decide which two teams will submit.
3. What is the difference between the faculty coordinator and the faculty advisor?
The main role of the faculty advisor is to guide a specific team in its effort to put forth a strong investment strategy proposal. The main role of the faculty coordinator is to decide which two teams from a school will submit in the event that there are more than two teams that would like to enter the competition. The faculty coordinator has no role in advising any of the teams submitting to the competition. However, a single faculty member may serve as both faculty advisor and faculty coordinator.
4. Does my school have a faculty coordinator?
Each participating school is asked to select a faculty member to serve as a faculty coordinator. The faculty coordinator will serve as a point of contact for distribution of information related to the competition. In the case that a school has more than two teams that want to submit to the competition, the faculty coordinator is responsible for determining which two teams from that school will submit. Teams at schools without a faculty coordinator should find a faculty member at their school who is willing to serve as the faculty coordinator and inform the competition organizers of who the faculty coordinator will be via email. The faculty coordinator may also serve as a faculty advisor to one or both submitting teams.
5. How do I make a submission to the competition?
All submissions must be made through the competition’s website. On the submission page, you will be asked to complete a form indicating the college or university represented by the team, a team name, a title for the proposed investment strategy, the names of the students on the team, the email addresses and academic programs of the students on the team, the name and email address of the faculty member advising the team, and an email address to which all correspondence related to the submission may be sent. You will also be asked to submit a “blind” pdf file that describes the investment strategy. This document may have at most six pages of writing. An additional four pages of tables and figures, including captions, may be included in the document. This document should have the team name and title of the investment strategy at the top of the first page. No other identifying information, such as school name, team member names, or faculty member names, should be indicated on this document. The document must be written so as not to indicate or hint at the submitting team’s school affiliation. This means that the team name and investment strategy title should not hint at the school represented by the team.
6. How are finalists selected?
Submissions will be reviewed by a panel of judges chosen by SEHFA. The top five submissions will be chosen as finalists and invited to the final competition.
Each submission will be reviewed by several hedge fund professionals and evaluated according to the following six criteria on a scale from 1 to 5, with a score of 1 indicating that the reviewer strongly disagrees with the statement and a score of 5 indicating that the reviewer strong agrees with the statement. The submission’s overall score will be calculated by averaging the scores for each criterion across reviewers, and then taking the average criterion-level score across all six criteria. The teams whose submissions receive the highest five overall scores will be invited to the final competition in Atlanta.
The criteria used by the reviewers to evaluate the submission are as follows:
-
- The proposed investment strategy is based on a sound economic hypothesis.
- The proposed investment strategy is reasonably novel and distinct from well-known and commonly used investment strategies.
- The proposed implementation of the investment strategy is well-designed to generate alpha if the underlying economic hypothesis holds.
- The submission has a plan for mitigating risks associated with the investment strategy and for dealing with the situation when the economic hypothesis underlying the proposed investment strategy is proven false.
- The submission is thorough in assessing the liquidity and capital considerations associated with the investment strategy. This in no way implies giving preference to more liquid or less liquid strategies.
- The proposal uses appropriate methodologies to qualitatively or quantitatively evaluate the prospects for the proposed investment strategy, and the results of these analyses provide evidence of the viability of the strategy.
7. What happens at the final competition?
Scholarship prizes will be awarded to the top three teams. In addition, hotel accommodations (but not travel) for students on non-local finalist teams will be provided.
Declare a Faculty Coordinator
Faculty Coordinators
University | Last Name | First Name | ||
University at Albany, SUNY | Wladkowski | Mary | mwladkowski@albany.edu | |
Auburn University | Wang | Albert | yzw0088@auburn.edu | |
Brandeis University | Osler | Carol | cosler@brandeis.edu | |
Brooklyn College of the City University of New York | Park | Hyuna | hyuna.park38@brooklyn.cuny.edu | |
California State University, Los Angeles | Danso | Charles | cdanso@calstatela.edu | |
Carnegie Mellon University | Bittel | Jessica | jessicabittel@cmu.edu | |
University of Central Florida | Ramanlal | Pradipkumar | pramanla@ucf.edu | |
University of Chicago | Weber | Michael | Michael.Weber@chicagobooth.edu | |
Chinese University of Hong Kong | Zhan | Xintong | xintongzhan@cuhk.edu.hk | |
University of Connecticut | Kopeliovich | Yaacov | yaacov.kopeliovich@uconn.edu | |
Cornell University | Stewart | Scott | sds58@cornell.edu | |
Duke University | Hughes | Linsey Lebowitz | linsey.lebowitz.hughes@duke.edu | |
Emory University | Baks | Klaas | klaas.baks@emory.edu | |
University of Florida | Brown | David | david.brown@warrington.ufl.edu | |
George Mason University | Horstmeyer | Derek | dhorstme@gmu.edu | |
Georgetown University | Rossi | Alberto | agr60@georgetown.edu | |
University of Georgia | Kohler | Johannes | johannes.kohler@uga.edu | |
Georgia State University | Murray | Scott | smurray19@gsu.edu | |
Georgia Tech | Weagley | Daniel | daniel.weagley@scheller.gatech.edu | |
Gustavus Adolphus College | Dean | Kathy Lund | lunddean@gustavus.edu | |
HOFSTRA University | Zychowicz | Edward | edward.j.zychowicz@hofstra.edu | |
Hong Kong Polytechnic University | Kang | Byoung | byoung.kang@polyu.edu.hk | |
University of Houston | Stewart | Marcus | mcstewart@central.uh.edu | |
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur | Bhowmick | Bhaskar | bhaskar@see.iitkgp.ernet.in | |
University of Illinois at Chicago | Chen | Hsiu-Lang | hsiulang@uic.edu | |
University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign | Zhang | Tony | qingquan@illinois.edu | |
Indiana State University | Zaher | Tarek | Tarek.Zaher@indstate.edu | |
Indiana University | Weakley | Kenneth Raymond | kweakley@indiana.edu | |
Kansas State University | Sardarli | Sabuhi | ssardarli@ksu.edu | |
Kennesaw State University | Hariharan | Govind | gharihar@kennesaw.edu | |
Kent State University | Pelleg | David | dpelleg@kent.edu | |
University of Kiel | Klos | Alexander | alexander.klos@qber.uni-kiel.de | |
London Business School | Naik | Narayan | nnaik@london.edu | |
University of Liege | Lambert | Marie | marie.lambert@uliege.be | |
Louisiana State University | Ogunc | Kurtay | kurtay@lsu.edu | |
Louisiana Tech University | McCumber | Bill | mccumber@latech.edu | |
LUISS Guido Carli | Vitale | Paolo | pvitale@luiss.it | |
University of Lynchburg | Schnur | Michael | schnur_m@lynchburg.edu | |
University of Maine | Jurich | Stephen | stephen.jurich@maine.edu | |
University of Maryland | Pavlovsky | Julie | jpavlovs@umd.edu | |
Massachusetts Institute of Technology | Kritzman | Mark | mkritzman@mit.edu | |
University of Memphis | Jain | Pankaj | pjain@memphis.edu | |
Miami University | Salem | David | salemda@miamioh.edu | |
University of Michigan | Dittmar | Robert | rdittmar@umich.edu | |
National Central University | Yeh | Jin-Huei | jhyeh@ncu.edu.tw | |
New York University | Segram | Haran | hsegram@stern.nyu.edu | |
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill | Gueltekin | Mustafa | mustafa_gueltekin@kenan-flagler.unc.edu | |
University of North Carolina at Wilmington | Richie | Nivine | richien@uncw.edu | |
University of North Florida | Davis | Sean | sean.m.davis@unf.edu | |
Northwestern University | Witte | Mark | mwitte@northwestern.edu | |
University of Notre Dame | Jones | Colin | cjones34@nd.edu | |
University of Oklahoma | Farnsworth | Heber | heber.farnsworth@ou.edu | |
University of Oregon | Gutierrez | Roberto | rcg@uoregon.edu | |
Penn State Behrend | Krause | Timothy | tak25@psu.edu | |
University of Pennsylvania | Kihlstrom | Richard | kihlstro@wharton.upenn.edu | |
Plymouth State University | Bradbury | Christina | cjbradbury@plymouth.edu | |
University of Puerto Rico | Carpenter | Charles | charles.carpenter1@upr.edu | |
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute | Shohfi | Thomas | shohft@rpi.edu | |
Roger Williams University | Melton | Michael | mmelton@rwu.edu | |
Seattle Pacific University | Beavers | Randy | reb@spu.edu | |
Simon Fraser University | McKay | Lesley | gradexp@sfu.ca | |
University of South Carolina | Stonitsch | Todd | todd.stonitsch@moore.sc.edu | |
University of Southern California | Joslin | Scott | sjoslin@usc.edu | |
University of Southern Denmark | de Oliveira Souza | Thiago | tsouza@sam.sdu.dk | |
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville | Jategaonkar | Shrikant | sjatega@siue.edu | |
University of St.Gallen | Adams | Zeno | zeno.adams@unisg.ch | |
Stony Brook University | Jiang | Danling | danling.jiang@stonybrook.edu | |
SungKyunKwan University | Kim | Andy (Y. Han) | ayhkim@skku.edu | |
University of Sussex | Tang | Qi | q.tang@sussex.ac.uk | |
University of Tennessee at Knoxville | Daves | Phillip | pdaves@utk.edu | |
University of Texas at Austin | Johnson | Travis | Travis.Johnson@mccombs.utexas.edu | |
University of Texas at Dallas | Treece | Alex | alextreece@utdallas.edu | |
University of Toronto | Chay | Ornthanalai | chay.ornthanalai@rotman.utoronto.ca | |
Tsinghua | Zhang | Xiaoyan | zhangxiaoyan@pbcsf.tsinghua.edu.cn | |
Tufts University | Manos | Christopher | Christopher.Manos@tufts.edu | |
Tulane University | Baumgarten Force | Mara | mara@tulane.edu | |
Union University | Manner | Christopher | cmanner@uu.edu | |
Utah State University | Fjeldsted | Paul | paul.fjeldsted@usu.edu | |
University of Virginia | Matos | Pedro | matosp@darden.virginia.edu | |
University of West Florida | Ma | Kwan Chen | kma@uwf.edu | |
Winona State University | Schrenk | Lawrence | lschrenk@winona.edu | |
Yale University | Zhang | Frank | frank.zhang@yale.edu | |
University of York | Anderson | Keith | keith.anderson@york.ac.uk | |
York College of Pennsylvania | Madhogarhia | Pawan | pmadhoga@ycp.edu | |
Stephanie Lang, CFA
principal and chief investment officer
Stephanie joined Homrich Berg in 2005 and was named chief investment officer in 2014. Stephanie oversees a team of professionals within the investment department of HB and is responsible for all investment matters including asset allocation, the selection and monitoring of traditional and alternative investments, as well as the research efforts for HB’s internal private fund-of funds. She also chairs the firm’s investment committee.
Stephanie earned an MBA from Georgia State University's Robinson College of Business and a bachelor’s degree in finance from the University of Georgia. Stephanie is a member of the CFA Institute, Atlanta Society of Finance and Investment Professionals and the Southern Capital Forum, and serves on the board for Atlanta Women in Alternatives.
Firm Description
Founded in 1989, Atlanta-based Homrich Berg is a national independent wealth management firm that provides unbiased, fee-only investment management and financial planning services, serving as the leader of the financial team for our clients including high-net-worth individuals, families, and not-for-profits. We have service offerings for small and large clients, from investments only up to full service comprehensive wealth management and family office. Homrich Berg manages over $4 billion for more than 1,400 family relationships nationwide with clients in 41 states. We have three local offices here in the metro Atlanta area that employ more than 80 employees including client service teams and dedicated investments staff focused on due diligence and investment strategy.
Michael W. Masters
founder and managing member, Masters Capital Management LLC
Michael W. Masters is the founder and managing member of Masters Capital Management LLC. Michael has led this Atlanta-based firm as its chief investment officer and portfolio manager since its inception in 1994.
Michael has presented expert testimony to the U.S. Congress, CFTC, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, and other foreign governments. Additionally, he has presented to institutions including OPEC, the Hyman P. Minsky Conference, the Energy Information Administration, Harvard Kennedy School, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Georgia Institute of Technology.
Firm Description
Masters Capital Management LLC (the “adviser” or “firm”) is an investment management firm registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The adviser’s principal place of business is located in Atlanta, Georgia.
The adviser provides discretionary investment advisory and management services to pooled investment vehicles intended for sophisticated and institutional investors. It provides advice to the pooled investment vehicles based on specific investment objectives and strategies surrounding investments in U.S. listed equities and derivatives.
Clay McDaniel
partner and director of research, BT Wealth Management
Clay is a partner and the director of research at BT Wealth Management and is responsible for leading the research efforts for the firm. He is a member of the investment committee and works closely with the CIO and wealth advisors on asset allocation and portfolio construction.
Clay has 15+ years of experience investing globally across all asset classes and has a strong background in private and alternative investments using hedge funds, private equity, managed futures, and private REITs, among others. He has performed full investment and operational due diligence on funds across a wide variety of sizes and strategies. Most recently, he worked as director and senior research analyst for Zurich Alternative Asset Management, a wholly owned subsidiary of Zurich Insurance Company. Additionally, he has built a broad sourcing network that encompasses asset managers, banks, brokers, and family offices, among others.
Clay is a chartered financial analyst (CFA) and holds a master's in economics and B.B.A. in finance from the Gatton School of Business & Economics at the University of Kentucky.
Jeffrey J. Vale
partner and chief investment officer, Infinity Capital Partners LLC
Jeffrey J. Vale is a partner and serves as chief investment officer at Infinity Capital Partners LLC. He is a member of the investment committee responsible for implementation of the investment policies and performing due diligence on fund managers. Prior to joining Infinity Capital Partners, Jeff was a senior analyst with Long Bow Capital Management LLC — a long/short equity hedge fund. Before joining Long Bow Capital, he served as an analyst at Wilshire Associates where he consulted with portfolio managers on risk analytics. Prior to Wilshire, he was an associate at Concord International Investments. Jeff has been active in the investment management field for more than 20 years. He holds the Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst designation. He earned a B.S. in finance and economics from New York University and an MBA from Emory University.
Firm Description
Infinity Capital Partners LLC (“Infinity”) is an independent, privately owned fund of hedge funds manager based in Atlanta, Georgia. Infinity’s primary goal is to consistently maximize returns relative to risk. Founded in 2002, Infinity is owned and managed by its principal partners. Infinity’s investors include high net worth individuals, family offices, wealth management firms, and institutional investors. The firm’s partners and professionals have significant industry experience and have amassed a track record of success managing alternative investment partnerships.
J.P. Vincent
managing director, Cowen Prime Services LLC
J.P. Vincent is a managing director at Cowen Prime Services LLC. Mr. Vincent joined Cowen as a result of Cowen’s acquisition of Convergex Global Clearing and Prime Services, at which he was the managing director of business development. Prior to his time with Cowen and Convergex, Mr. Vincent was head trader at Dorado Capital Management, a senior vice president of institutional sales at Neovest, and started his career at Bell Capital Management, an Atlanta RIA. Mr. Vincent earned a bachelor’s degree in management from Georgia Tech’s Scheller College of Business and holds multiple FINRA certifications. Mr. Vincent also serves as an advisory board member to private equity firm Buckhead Investment Partners, is a board member of the Southeastern Hedge Fund Association, and previously served on the board of Hedge Funds Care.
Firm Description
Cowen is a leading provider of integrated prime services and out-sourced trading to hedge funds, family offices, mutual funds, and registered investment advisors. The firm offers a full suite of prime brokerage services including customized, high-end execution solutions, multiple custody and clearing options, advanced pre- and post-trade analytics, enhanced reporting, access to securities lending providers and capital introduction services. Its many years of industry experience, coupled with the diverse background of the professional staff and unsurpassed customer service, give Cowen a unique perspective and expertise in the industry that continues to be a winning combination.
Sponsors

Submit Your Proposal
Contact Us
Looking for more info?
To view full competition details, such as the rules, FAQs and submission guidance, please view the desktop version of this page.