Dev
Did you read the part about hedge fund data being incomplete because
reporting is voluntary?
Do you expect a manager with shitty returns to report, if he does not have to? How about funds that closed down? Where is that data? You won't find it anywhere, because withot regulation, there is no reporting structure. The data we
both cited is
best case. So in the past 5 years, the S&P hedge fund index averaged 4% better than the S&P 500?
(Again, loser funds were not included)
So the average Joe that bought a house did better than the average hedge fund.
LOL at "old data" about investing. Markets are cyclical. read Buffett's letter to shareholders; he divides the market in 17 year cycles. Why? because markets are cyclical.
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2005ltr.pdf
You guys crack me up.
Did you understand the piece about low interest rates and cheap borrowing? Do you understand why that matters - and that even with every possible advantage, hedge funds returned AT BEST 5%? Let me borrow money at 1% and put it in a CD at 3% and I'm equaling hedge funds.
Here's some more good shit from the EF finance squad:
That's because you evidently know not too much about investing and less than zero about hedge funds. Hedge funds play the absolute return game, so it doesn't matter (or it shouldn't) what the economy as a whole is doing. Furthermore - again - for the 5th time, markets are cyclical.
And now for putzz numero uno:
Brian,
let's try this in pieces
1. reporting is voluntary. Losers are not reporting unless they want to. Funds that closed up are not included in any data. The best case since 2001 is hedge funds doing 4% better than the S&P. Include the losers and the funds that closed, and I am sure that number will drop to a negative.
2. If your hedge fund (absolute returns) is outperformed by an index, then you're losing money.
For those of you who want to do something other than read your own posts on the screen, hope that was helpful. For the rest of you, good luck.