Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Why a Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund Investment Might Look Attractive
Commenter tinbox has an interesting take on the news that Goldman Sachs is injecting liquidity into its own hedge funds:
It's wildly implausible that anyone looked at Goldman's fund and suddenly decided it is the best investment opportunity on the planet. That simply didn't happen. Funds down 15%+ do not attract new investors for a whole variety of reasons and this self-serving announcement addresses none of them.
Well, there's at least one good reason why a fund down 15%+ should address new investors, and it's called the high-water mark. If you think that hedge funds are a good investment, you think that they're a good investment after they've taken out their 20%-of-the-profits performance fee. Which means that they're a really good investment if you don't have to pay that fee for the first 35% that your investment goes up.
If the Goldman funds are down 26% from their high-water mark, then they will have to rise more than 35% from their present levels just to get back to it and start earning performance fees again. Which makes investments in these funds some of the cheapest hedge-fund investments available right now.
I reckon there's a very good chance that the $3 billion of liquidity being injected into Goldman's funds won't pay any performance fees unless and until those funds reach their high-water mark. If that's the case, I imagine that quite a few hedge-fund investors would be extremely interested in buying cheap exposure to what has historically been a very high-performance fund.






