m*********h
发帖数: 5449 | 1 Carl Richards has a post over at the New York Times' Bucks blog in which he
puzzles over the enduring appeal of hedge funds, despite the fact that they
have historically underperformed the S&P 500. Why, he asks, are people
paying exorbitant fees to hedge-fund managers who don't even make money for
them?
Richards takes a stab at the answer in a few ways. First, he implies that
there's an element of groupthink in Hedgistan, with investors all chasing
increasingly complex hedge-fund strategies because "the more complicated and
secretive and exclusive it is, the better." He also gets at the false
correlation between exclusivity and superior returns: "People want to
believe there’s a better way of investing that’s only available to a
select few."
I think those are both true, to an extent. But I don't think it's correct to
draw the sweeping conclusion that rich people are dumb and desperate to get
richer, and therefore easily fooled by hedge-fund managers bearing
Powerpoint decks and sleek Brioni suits.
First, I question Richards's assumption that "people" — as in individual,
high-net-worth investors — are flooding into hedge funds unabated. Look at
this chart from a Citi report last year, for example, which shows that the
percentage of hedge-fund assets coming from individuals and family offices
is actually down since the crisis, while the amount of money hedge funds get
from institutional investors like pension funds and endowments has
overtaken it.
What this tells us is that the money flooding into the likes of Greenlight
Capital and Pershing Square and SAC Capital (well, until recently) is
increasingly coming from sources that are forced to invest in those firms.
If you're the chief investment officer of CalPERS, a huge California pension
fund, and your hedge-fund allocation is 2 percent — meaning that your
board has said that 2 percent of your total assets must be invested in hedge
funds — you don't have a choice to invest in other stuff instead. You can
pick one manager over another, but you're not "choosing" to be in hedge
funds as a category, except at the yearly meetings where you and other board
members shift around the fund's allocations. (Of course, these allocations
rest on their own tenuous logic. But that's another post.)
And contra Richards, who believes that investors are happy to be "paying
through the nose for the privilege of investing in hedge funds," I think it'
s clear that most hedge-fund investors are averse to huge fees and are using
their leverage to knock them down. Look at the way Réal Desrochers of
CalPERS has used the huge size of his fund to hammer out special fee-
lowering arrangements with his private-equity managers. This kind of thing
is becoming more prevalent among institutional investors as hedge funds
continue to underperform, and it shows that most of the people who invest in
hedge funds do care how much they're being charged for the privilege, and
are actively trying to bring those fees down in line with performance.
Individuals seem to care about fees, too, a phenomenon best evidenced by the
way that the fund-of-funds — a horrible, fee-heavy way of investing in a
fund that then invests in other hedge funds, taking its own fees in addition
to the ones the hedge funds charge — is mostly dying out. This Citi chart
(which Felix Salmon pulled last year) shows the declining popularity of the
fund-of-funds, and perhaps implies that investors are wising up:
So, to answer Richards's question ("Why do you think people still invest in
hedge funds?"), I think you have, on one hand, a bunch of pension funds and
sovereign wealth funds that are duty-bound to make a certain amount of money
for their members, and would rather use a single-digit fraction of their
cash pile to swing for the fences in Hedgistan (investing in a fund that
might gain 80 percent in a year) than eke out 5 or 6 percent gains in plain-
vanilla funds. I think you have, on the other hand, a set of high-net-worth
individuals who want to invest in hedge funds because it makes them feel
special and exclusive and gets them invited to cool parties, but are
increasingly trying to scale back their obviously stupid investments (funds-
of-funds) in favor of slightly less stupid investments.
There's another obvious part of the hedge-fund equation, which is that hedge
-fund managers are — on the whole — pretty smart, and really, really, good
at selling you their ideas. Look, for example, at the way Ray Dalio of
Bridgewater Associates explains the concept of "risk parity," which he says
allow Bridgewater's investors to use leveraged bond derivatives to offset
equities losses. It's very convincing, and even though I don't know what
risk parity is or how it functions, if I'm the CIO of a midsize pension fund
, I'm inclined to give my money to Dalio even if I don't fully understand
what he's going to do with it. Investing at the scale of a pension fund is a
division of labor, and if I can't fully get my head around Sector X or Bond
Derivative Y, I'm inclined to pass that responsibility off to someone who
does understand it deeply.
Now, this approach to portfolio management contains flawed logic all its own
. But it's hardly as simple as wanting to feel like a VIP at all costs. | m*********h
发帖数: 5449 | 2 "I don't think it's correct to draw the sweeping conclusion that rich people
are dumb and desperate to get richer, and therefore easily fooled by hedge-
fund managers bearing Powerpoint decks and sleek Brioni suits." | m*********h
发帖数: 5449 | 3 敝人大概是股版第一个认真调查这个问题的人：为什么美国人大多数都买基金，越有钱
的人越买，而华人却很少买基金？是因为华人还不够有钱，还是因为华人很难说服自己
相信别人？
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t0/Stock/35791481.html | a****h
发帖数: 6153 | 4 美国人一般相信术业有专攻这个道理。中国人都梦想当玩票高手。 | r*m
发帖数: 16380 | 5 很简单，如果要买基金，当然买指数基金，或是401K里面那种混合型的基金。稳健保守
很低的cost，长期beat绝大多数主动管理型基金。事实上中国人大多数都在401k里面定
存这类基金。
不想麻烦的人自然选了上述的基金，而想自己玩的自然要自己炒股，好歹自己控制还有
乐趣，输也是自己手里输出去，明明白白。去让别人管理是被人卖了还替人数钱的节奏
。 | m*********h
发帖数: 5449 | 6 有道理。
另外，我觉得华人还不够有钱，反正我是没那么多钱。如果手里的钱到处投资，时间都
不够用，那么必然想雇个人来帮自己炒股，要雇就雇基金经理了，跟人家分成那是必然
要付出的工资。
【在 a****h 的大作中提到】
: 美国人一般相信术业有专攻这个道理。中国人都梦想当玩票高手。
| m*********h
发帖数: 5449 | 7 有道理。
其实咱俩都是穷人，理由是：自己的钱自己还有时间管。
【在 r*m 的大作中提到】
: 很简单，如果要买基金，当然买指数基金，或是401K里面那种混合型的基金。稳健保守
: 很低的cost，长期beat绝大多数主动管理型基金。事实上中国人大多数都在401k里面定
: 存这类基金。
: 不想麻烦的人自然选了上述的基金，而想自己玩的自然要自己炒股，好歹自己控制还有
: 乐趣，输也是自己手里输出去，明明白白。去让别人管理是被人卖了还替人数钱的节奏
: 。
| v***n
发帖数: 5085 | 8 simple, trading is fun!
he
they
for
and
【在 m*********h 的大作中提到】
: Carl Richards has a post over at the New York Times' Bucks blog in which he
: puzzles over the enduring appeal of hedge funds, despite the fact that they
: have historically underperformed the S&P 500. Why, he asks, are people
: paying exorbitant fees to hedge-fund managers who don't even make money for
: them?
: Richards takes a stab at the answer in a few ways. First, he implies that
: there's an element of groupthink in Hedgistan, with investors all chasing
: increasingly complex hedge-fund strategies because "the more complicated and
: secretive and exclusive it is, the better." He also gets at the false
: correlation between exclusivity and superior returns: "People want to
| p*********r
发帖数: 7944 | 9 hedge fund门槛高是为了保护中产阶级不受欺骗。 | p*********r
发帖数: 7944 | 10 美国是一个骗子横行的国家，大家只看到美国的法律保护普通人，不知道为什么这样的
法律多如牛毛。
因为，如果没有这些法律，穷人，中产阶级，会被盘剥到连渣都剩不下。 | | | m*********h
发帖数: 5449 | 11 我真心觉得美国人只瞒不骗，特别是商人，只要嘴上答应了一般不会反悔。
而中国碰到很多人是明着骗，嘴上答应的事可以随时反悔。
【在 p*********r 的大作中提到】
: 美国是一个骗子横行的国家，大家只看到美国的法律保护普通人，不知道为什么这样的
: 法律多如牛毛。
: 因为，如果没有这些法律，穷人，中产阶级，会被盘剥到连渣都剩不下。
| W***n
发帖数: 11530 | 12 Hedge funds mgrs are opportunistic speculators, they r one of the main
driving forces to make t market works like a casino. | p*********r
发帖数: 7944 | 13 放屁。
比如现在美国开发商，合同签了都可以搞amendment，就为了吃你的定金。
【在 m*********h 的大作中提到】
: 我真心觉得美国人只瞒不骗，特别是商人，只要嘴上答应了一般不会反悔。
: 而中国碰到很多人是明着骗，嘴上答应的事可以随时反悔。
| m*********h
发帖数: 5449 | 14 我告诉你一件事，如果你签了合同，他违反合同了，你去告他，必胜。
如果他要补充合同，你看不惯别签。
生活常识要积累啊。
【在 p*********r 的大作中提到】
: 放屁。
: 比如现在美国开发商，合同签了都可以搞amendment，就为了吃你的定金。
| m*********h
发帖数: 5449 | 15 钱多了可以影响股市。这是个客观规律，连SEC都没办法阻止。
当然对钱少的小散，没法控制股市，那就没办法了。
【在 W***n 的大作中提到】
: Hedge funds mgrs are opportunistic speculators, they r one of the main
: driving forces to make t market works like a casino.
|
|
