Say I am an institutional allocator and I am being pitched by guys like Tiger, Altimeter, Dragoneer etc. Their product seems to essentially be levered long tech but I would think there are significantly cheaper ways of getting that exposure as an allocator?
I 100% understand L/S MM etc but the above seems like it's missing special sauce?
Also - let's ignore the private strategies for now. I get that side of it.
I texted a few friends who work in HF and their explanation was just that those funds are sexy but there must be more to it? lol
Your friend is correct. Some of it is to do with allocating to sexy managers who get looks on good deals and probably a case of the 'the devil you know' as well. They can be hard to access and allocators are quite happy to continue writing the cheques to stay in.
With exceptionally long investment horizons they can afford to take higher volatility over the short-term.
Same as with any other hedge fund strategy. Lets be real, its not the strategy that is the issue its that they grew too large too fast.
The problem is always growing at the right pace. Every strategy fits in a small box.
I imagine they all had a pretty compelling case for a long time as to why getting your tech exposure via them was worth the fees and it probably was. If you’re an allocator under pressure to reach for yield in fed driven bull mkt you might know the bet you’re making and sleep better knowing “no one gets fired for buying IBM”. That said when you get to a certain size and start loading up on some of the junk they had - you should be asking if there’s an explicit factor/rate bet or strategy drift. Some funds want to put up the best ROI, some want to produce the most dollar returns. We don’t really know why the fee structure or lockup was like or convos with LPs maybe they very clearly expressed: this crossover product is an index fund for pre-IPO tech - which is a unique product if you want to make that bet. Just guessing.
They're farts.
I find quant and macro funds much more sexy intellectually. Some arb strategies are pretty decent as well.
With equity, meh, see how this current market whack the shit out of those equity funds.
I mean, if you're an institutional investor, you're already have equity in your portfolio for growth, why would you allocating to alternatives to have even more equity exposure (but with excessive use of leverage)???
Bottom line:
L-only = PE but without the ability to shield from public market selloff
L/S = pretend to be more sophisticated than L-only guys but their short book drag return when market is bullish, and their long book implode when market tanks. Useless.
No respect for people in HF equity.
Macro funds also get crushed and have high volatility
Hard to believe you're a principal at a HF when you dont understand the benefits of a levered, beta neutral L/S strategy.
Name one L/S fund does well in current market carnage. Or any past event where market regime changed from rich liquidity to contracting liquidity.
Levered? What a stupid comment when macro hit you in the rear and asset correlation all goes to 1, coupled with leverage, that's when your fund blows up.
Most of the L/S platforms at the large MMs are up ytd.
Enim at ipsam laboriosam esse. Placeat excepturi delectus inventore temporibus itaque. Molestias sunt quos eaque ut totam perferendis odio. Commodi dolorum veritatis quis sed sed. Et quibusdam autem ipsum qui. Vitae iure nihil praesentium beatae.
Sunt odio amet aspernatur soluta doloribus. Tenetur nisi rerum accusantium voluptate excepturi consequatur.
Voluptates non velit distinctio nostrum. Quam soluta quis et earum impedit.
Et est consequatur est animi itaque dolores. Cum nobis ex amet sint mollitia. Et sed omnis et.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...