« meet the new boss, same as the old boss? | Main | What can I do with an economics major?? »
Are hedge funds worth it?
Here is Dave Leonhardt's stimulating piece. Here is the key fact:
Last year, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index jumped 14 percent, while the average hedge fund returned less than 13 percent, after investment fees, according to Hedge Fund Research in Chicago...Since 2000, the average hedge fund hasn’t done any better, after fees, than the market as a whole, according to research by David A. Hsieh, a finance professor at Duke.
My guess is that a small number of very bright individuals can in fact beat the market on a systematic basis. Today the world can mobilize enough capital so that these people become very very rich and have a larger impact on market prices than in times past. These individuals also spawn overconfident imitators, which lead to subnormal returns for the non-superstars. On average the gains and losses are a wash, but the true stars must limit the amount of capital they manage, for fear of pushing around market prices too much. Some set of insiders thus continue to gain wealth whereas most outsiders are playing the usual efficient markets game, with slightly subpar returns, due to the informed trading of the insiders. The geniuses are in effect taxing the uninformed trading of the non-genuises, but I do not see the trading volume of the latter group falling in response. In that model, in the first best, it is the trading of the losers -- not the winners -- which should be taxed.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 23, 2007 at 12:31 PM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
Note that the winners get people interested. Since they cannot buy the winners they "buy the segment", i.e., anyone calling themselves hedge funds. Many of them are former mutual fund people doing the same thing for far bigger commissions. Irrational investors, yet again. (They will probably sell low when demand for hedge-funds crashes :)
Posted by: David Zetland at May 23, 2007 1:37:23 PM
The comparison to the S&P is misleading, because only a fraction of hedge funds invest in equity. If the bond/ABS/structured/etc. market were included (say a 6% return) and weighted, hedge funds would beat the index. There are investment style indices which are be used to compare like-minded funds, I'm not sure the results, but the 14% of the S&P is arbitrary and pointless.
Posted by: cb at May 23, 2007 1:42:16 PM
What makes you think that anyone can consistently beat the market, other than through luck?
Posted by: Justin at May 23, 2007 1:46:53 PM
You've covered the larger issue, but also note that, large investors refer the simplicity and privacy of a nonregulated investment vehicle. 5% plus shareholders face onerous reporting requirements if they buy an S&P ETF, but none if their hedge fund replicates the same basket. Private equity investors are especially interested in this aspect.
Posted by: guy in the veal calf office at May 23, 2007 1:50:42 PM
It's not a misleading comparison. Investing in a no-load S&P 500 index fund is (or should be) the default option of anyone wishing to commit capital to the public markets.
Guys like Ken Griffin and Louis Bacon seem to have what it takes to beat stellar returns year in and out, but they are quite likely to be exceptions to the rule.
Posted by: Ali Choudhury at May 23, 2007 1:57:30 PM
The S&P delivered a 14% return with a risk index (or beta) of 1.0. (Betas of more than 1 mean an investment is riskier than the market average, between 0 and 1 are less risky.)
If hedge funds, on average, deliver a 13% return but are less volatile (volatility = risk) than the market means the hedge funds have indeed accomplished their task - delivering returns while hedging risks.
Posted by: Mike D. at May 23, 2007 3:13:27 PM
The risk issue is key here. If you simply leverage up financial asset returns you will have higher returns during bull markets, but you will have taken more risk. The return/risk ratio will be constant. A lot of institutional investors will pay for the ability to access leverage alone. The average hedge fund has a correlation with the SP500 of about 60%.
Even if you are creating current returns through other trading strategies besides simple leverage, the amount of risk being taken is not always transparent in the short run. Writing options [or the equivalent] and collecting premiums is one way to hide implicit risk, while measured risk remains low.
Finally, large hedge funds have the ability to create trends in the market, and capitalize on others chasing these trends, especially less sophisticated individual electronic day traders. This is one manifestation of what Tyler is getting at I think.
Posted by: JPC at May 23, 2007 3:31:27 PM
ali,
If you walk into any investment advisor's office in the country and say what should I do with my savings, exactly zero of them will say 'all of it in S&P 500 index fund'. It depends on many factors. Why else would the bond market exist. If you're 25, maybe.
And besides, that's not my main point, which is, that many hedge funds don't even play the equity market, so comparing all hedge funds combined to the S&P 500 is, as I said, inappropriate.
Posted by: cb at May 23, 2007 4:58:15 PM
I can believe the average fund has generate a return equal to the S&P500...but that is *after* fees, and with less volatility, so that suggests more hedge fund growth.
Posted by: eric at May 23, 2007 5:07:04 PM
Yeah, a multi-asset approach based on David Swensen's Yale model does seem to be the way to go. I'm 28 and that's what I'm doing. :)
I'm just skeptical of active management strategies being able to beat passive ones after taxes, charges and performance fees. I'd be interested in large-scale studies of how hedge funds perform. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few stellar performers and a lot of mediocre ones who're only able to justify their fees because that's the going rate.
Posted by: Ali Choudhury at May 23, 2007 5:08:58 PM
There are three things one has to look at allocating money to different investment choices: return, risk and correlation to current portfolio (which is related to the risk piece).
Looking at returns alone can be highly misleading. For example on a pure returns basis I could have "beaten" the S&P last year by simply borrowing some money and investing along with my own money in the S&P. I would have taken a lot more risk (as measured by standard deviation of returns). Conversly, I would have lost my shirt if the market went down last year instead of up.
So you have to incorporate risk. All things equal you want a manager who gives you more return for each unit of risk that you take. With one exception...correlation.
I can easily show many cases where I would rather include a manager who has much worse return per unit of risk than the S&P but you might still invest with that manager if her correlation to your portfolio is lower than the S&P.
If you are someone like me who invests in Vanguard index funds your portfolio is highly correlated to the market. The appeal of hedge fund is that they claim to be market neutral (i.e. 0 correlation to the market and my portfolio).
If they can reliably do that, then I would want to allocate my marginal dollar to them despite lower returns and even in the case of lower returns to risk rate (technically it should be excess returns over the t-bill rate to risk ratio).
At the end of the day I think a lot of hedge funds (in fact the vast majority) are not market neutral. We just havent seen a down market in a few years...
Posted by: ay at May 23, 2007 6:16:49 PM
I thought the problem was that it's hard to find reliable information about the set of all hedge funds, specifically because of their privacy. Otherwise, we wouldn't need to wait for some academic paper to find out, you could just scour the internet for a while.
Posted by: Person at May 23, 2007 8:39:54 PM
I think part of the reason for the debate here is that "hedge funds" have no clear definition. Just about any unregulated investment fund can be called a hedge fund even if it does not engage in actual hedging. Tyler is talking about that class of funds run by people who made $1 billion in income last year and that charge 20% of the upside. These are clearly designed to convince people they can earn supernormal returns (and beat all of those suburb-dwelling, middle-class mutual fundies).
Posted by: Ricardo at May 24, 2007 12:28:07 AM
Market neutral funds should not be included in this comparison. A 14% return on a 0-Beta portfolio is superb and should be compared to the risk-free rate of about 5%, not the S&P.
-Mercy
Posted by: Mr. Mercy Vetsel at Jun 8, 2007 6:03:33 PM
数控机床数控机床。。数控改造。。
数控机床。。
数控机床改造。。
数控机床仿真软件数控机床改造。。
数控机床。。
数控机床。。
数控机床。。
数控车床数控车床。。
数控车床。。
华中数控车床。。
大连数控车床。。
无锡数控车床山东数控车床。。
南京数控车床。。
数控车床。。
数控车床。。
广州数控车床数控车床。。
广州数控车床。。
华中数控车床。。
数控车床。。
数控车床北京数控车床。。
数控车床简介。。
教学车床。。
教学数控车床。。
数控铣床南通数控铣床。。
数控铣床。。
数控铣床。。
数控铣床。。
教学数控铣床教学铣床。。
数控机床实训设备。。
加工中心。。
加工中心。。
加工中心加工中心。。
微型加工中心。。
数控加工中心。。
加工中心。。
加工中心加工中心。。
加工中心。。
上海加工中心。。
加工中心
Posted by: 南京北春 at Aug 21, 2007 3:21:12 AM
大家好，我是臺灣人，從臺灣一個人搬家來到美國，環境很陌生，感覺很孤單。以前在臺灣幾家知名的徵信社工作過，我是一個優秀的徵信工作者，希望早點找到適合自己的工作。希望通過貴站，認識更多的朋友。
Posted by: 謝文豪 at Apr 2, 2008 4:12:29 AM
In that model, in the first best, it is the trading of the losers -- not the winners -- which should be taxed.
And they are -- in the form of higher transactions costs.
I couldn't agree more with the world view expressed in this post. This is almost exactly how I view the capital markets.
Posted by: Michael F. Martin at Jun 9, 2008 3:49:34 PM
