Fund-of-Funds Model is 'Broken'? That Negates the Whole Point 2 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
New York lawyer Eric Roper, in Friday’s Wall Street Journal
The fund-of-funds model is good when it's working, but I think now for many funds it's broken, at least temporarily.
Now he tells us. The whole point of fund of funds, I thought, was that the model was supposed to always work, no matter how extreme the environment became. The idea was that FofF managers would vet the ablest hedge fund managers they could identify, and then put together well-diversified portfolios that would provide attractive, balanced returns no matter what—even at times like now. In the event, it turns out that more than a few managers only did cursory due diligence, and gave the money to Bernie Madoff or some functional, non-crooked equivalent.
And the ones who did do the work they promised to do still ended up being hit by a wave of redemptions, and in turn redeemed their own investments more or less willy-nilly, at whatever manager could provide liquidity, regardless of performance--which in turn caused a cascade of random selling that only made things worse.
If FoFs added value this cycle, I don’t see it—and this was exactly the sort of cycle in which FofFs should have thrived. . . .
Related Articles
|
























This article has 2 comments: