Aug 22 2008
12:30PM
EDT
Why Hedge Fund Fees Make Sense
Remember those evil hedge funds. It turns out that, overall, they did a really good job of avoiding the fallout from the credit crunch. The big reason for this, says Columbia University's Charles Calomiris, is the hedge fund fee structure:
The standard hedge fund fee arrangement balances two considerations: the importance of incentive alignment (which encourages profit sharing by managers), and the risk aversion of asset managers (which encourages limiting the downside risk exposure for managers). The result is that hedge fund managers share the upside of long-term portfolio gains but have limited losses on the downside. Because hedge fund compensation structure is not regulated, and because both investors and managers are typically highly sophisticated people, it is reasonable to expect that the hedge fund financing structure has evolved as an "efficient" financial contract, which may explain the superior performance of hedge funds.
The typical hedge fund compensation structure is not permissible for other, regulated asset managers. Other asset managers must share symmetrically in portfolio gains and losses; if they were to keep 20% of the upside, they would have to also absorb 20% of the downside. Since risk-averse fund managers would not be willing to expose themselves to such loss, regulated institutional investors typically charge fees as a proportion of assets managed and do not share in profits. This is a direct consequence of the regulation of compensation, and arguably has been a source of great harm to investors, since it encourages asset managers to maximise the size of the funds that they manage, rather than the value of those funds. Managers who gain from the size of their portfolios rather than the profitability of their investments will face strong incentives not to inform investors of deteriorating opportunities in the marketplace and not to return funds to investors when the return relative to risk of their asset class deteriorates.
See more in
Recent Blog Posts
- Should the Fed Go Long?
- Dec 1 2008 4:38PM EST
- Bernanke's Speech
- Dec 1 2008 2:58PM EST
- Even Nobel Economists Can Be Intellectually Dishonest
- Nov 30 2008 9:36AM EST
- A 5-Point Plan for Getting Out of This
- Nov 28 2008 1:24PM EST
- Do Markets Filter Irrationality?
- Nov 26 2008 11:25PM EST
- Are Percentages Really That Hard?
- Nov 26 2008 10:07PM EST
- Chart of the Day
- Nov 25 2008 3:27PM EST
- Highlights of the Citi Bailout
- Nov 24 2008 12:29AM EST
- 24 Hours in the Stock Markets
- Nov 23 2008 6:44PM EST
- Bloomberg Not Shy About Buts
- Nov 22 2008 12:55AM EST
- FDIC Not Insuring Fed Funds
- Nov 21 2008 10:30PM EST
- Counterparty Risk and Potential Losses from OTC Derivatives
- Nov 20 2008 4:27PM EST
- Dining Democracy
- Nov 19 2008 6:44AM EST
- Recession Dating
- Nov 17 2008 11:21AM EST
- The Best and Worst Restaurants in Manhattan
- Nov 17 2008 7:45AM EST
Categories
Links
- Email me

- Geary Behaviour Centre

- NBER Working Papers

- Social Science Statistics Blog

- Decision Science News

- Freakonomics

- New York Federal Reserve Research

- Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

- Marginal Revolution

- EconTalk

- MoneyScience

- VoxEU

- Journal of Interest

- Bluematter

- Economist's View

- Research Recap

- Social Science Research Network

- Institute for the Study of Labor

- EconPapers

- Real Time Economics

- Center for Economic Policy Research

- B.I.S. Working Papers

- C.B.O. Director's Blog

- Federal Reserve Working Papers

- Institute for the Study of Labor

- O.E.C.D. Factblog

- Philadelphia Fed Research

- St. Louis Fed Research

- Sabernomics

- Sabermetric Research

- Economic Principals

- Numbers Guy

- Econbrowser

- STATS Blog

- Jeff Frankel

- Junk Charts

- Predictably/Irrational

- Tim Harford

- TierneyLab

- Curious Capitalist

- DataPoints: The Dismal Scientist Blog










