Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: Weekend Economists Celebrate September 13-15, 2013 [View all]xchrom
(108,903 posts)43. MIT's Andrew Lo Explains Why Hedge Funds Are Incentivized To Decimate Capital
http://www.businessinsider.com/andrew-lo-explains-hedge-fund-risk-2013-9
Professor Krugman writes: Heads They Win, Tails We Lose
Many years ago MITs Andy Lo made a simple point (weirdly, I havent been able to track down the paper) about the distortion of incentives inherent in financial-industry compensation. Suppose youre a hedge fund manager, getting 2 and 20 fees of 2 percent of investors money, plus 20 percent of profits. What you want to do is load up on as much leverage as possible, and make high-risk, high return investments. This more or less guarantees that your fund will eventually go bust but in the meantime youll have raked in huge personal earnings, and can walk away filthy rich from the wreckage.
But surely, you say, investors will see through this strategy. They cant consistently be that stupid or naive, can they?
Hahahaha.
Andy Lo's article was published in the Financial Analysts Journal in 2001: Risk Management for Hedge Funds: Introduction and Overview. An online copy is available here.
Jim Hamilton at Econbrowser has a nice summary from 2005: Hedge fund risk
[L]et me tell you about one fund I do know about called CDP, which was described by MIT Professor Andrew Lo in an article published in Financial Analysts Journal in 2001.
1992-1999 was a good time to be in stocks-- a strategy of buying and holding the S&P 500 would have earned you a 16% annual return, with $100 million invested in 1992 growing to $367 million by 1999. As nice as this was, it pales in comparison to CDP's strategy, which would have turned $100 million into $2.7 billion, a 41% annual compounded return, with a positive return in every single year.
Read more: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/09/hedge-fund-risk-and-andy-los-capital.html#ixzz2ey4bzdrW
Professor Krugman writes: Heads They Win, Tails We Lose
Many years ago MITs Andy Lo made a simple point (weirdly, I havent been able to track down the paper) about the distortion of incentives inherent in financial-industry compensation. Suppose youre a hedge fund manager, getting 2 and 20 fees of 2 percent of investors money, plus 20 percent of profits. What you want to do is load up on as much leverage as possible, and make high-risk, high return investments. This more or less guarantees that your fund will eventually go bust but in the meantime youll have raked in huge personal earnings, and can walk away filthy rich from the wreckage.
But surely, you say, investors will see through this strategy. They cant consistently be that stupid or naive, can they?
Hahahaha.
Andy Lo's article was published in the Financial Analysts Journal in 2001: Risk Management for Hedge Funds: Introduction and Overview. An online copy is available here.
Jim Hamilton at Econbrowser has a nice summary from 2005: Hedge fund risk
[L]et me tell you about one fund I do know about called CDP, which was described by MIT Professor Andrew Lo in an article published in Financial Analysts Journal in 2001.
1992-1999 was a good time to be in stocks-- a strategy of buying and holding the S&P 500 would have earned you a 16% annual return, with $100 million invested in 1992 growing to $367 million by 1999. As nice as this was, it pales in comparison to CDP's strategy, which would have turned $100 million into $2.7 billion, a 41% annual compounded return, with a positive return in every single year.
Read more: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/09/hedge-fund-risk-and-andy-los-capital.html#ixzz2ey4bzdrW
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
55 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
IMF WARNS: China Is Taking Ever Greater Risks And Putting The Financial System In Danger
xchrom
Sep 2013
#11
1. The Economist does not like 'leftists' (editorial line supports 'free markets'
Ghost Dog
Sep 2013
#41
+ The Economist dates back to the beginning of big banking. Here's Bagehot (1873):
Ghost Dog
Sep 2013
#44
James Gabraith, Neil Barofsky, and John Coffee Discuss Lessons from Lehman Meltdown
antigop
Sep 2013
#45
IN CONCLUSION: 5 years after Lehman, Americans still angry at Wall Street--POLL
Demeter
Sep 2013
#51