> Ackman's underperforming fund...[is] still probably not as bad as a lot of "actively" managed mutual funds that charge incredible fees to track similar index funds
Ackman's fund is an actively-managed fund. I think these articles are appropriate for putting guardrails on what public controllers, e.g. of state pension funds, should and should not accept in terms of fees. Nobody is calling for regulating investment vehicle fee structures for wealthy individuals.
This is not realistic in terms of how power works.
When you have a wiz-bang asset allocator like Swensen (Yale) or Bronner (RSA), no one is going to have enough political juice to put restraints on them, and even if they did, typical legislators/administrators are largely too ignorant of the process and fee structures to come up with restraints in the first place.
> No one is forced to put money in his hedge fund.
...except the people represented by those "legislators and regulators" that you sneer at for being ignorant, and thus can be educated by articles like this.
Your posts in this thread feel like libertarian position-staking more than anything coherent.
Haven't met many libertarians who complain about regulatory capture.
My complaint is that this article is a distraction.
People who deal with hedge funds (especially public pensions) are loaded with consultants, attorneys, and analysts. If they get hoodwinked, it is probably due to their own lack of due-dilligence.
I think the effort would be better spent covering one of the many cases where ordinary people without consultants, attorneys, and analysts are in a "Heads We Win, Tails You Lose" situation.
That's fair; I withdraw the libertarian comparison and I apologize. But what's to say we can't pay attention to both at once? I feel like this is kind of a false economy.
Any article crying boo-hoo for hedge fund investors is up to something. People who can invest in hedge funds are big boys who can look out for themselves.
At the same time, there are so many bogus mainstream investment vehicles (like so many heavy-load, low-performance mutual funds that a lot of employees are stuck with because that's what their 401k offers), advertised in newspapers and television, that are far more deserving of media scrutiny. I can't help but suspect that part of the reason why they are not scrutinized is that they are well-paying advertisers.
Ackermann is probably getting a colonoscopy here because he is not an advertiser.
Yale is a private institution, i am not familiar with RSA. I personally would like to reatrict all gov pension investments to passive, low fee only.
The impact on actual dollars would average nationally to be positive. The impact on accountability would be absolutely amazing. The accountability would happen because everyone (all gov pensions) would have to assume similar future returns.
"other than the obvious don’t-defraud-public-pensions one – is that if you’re going to accept recreational drugs and sex services from state contractors, be sure to properly disclose it all to the relevant authorities." Good words to live by.
Provided an entertaining read on my morning commute on the MTA.
Ackman's fund is an actively-managed fund. I think these articles are appropriate for putting guardrails on what public controllers, e.g. of state pension funds, should and should not accept in terms of fees. Nobody is calling for regulating investment vehicle fee structures for wealthy individuals.