You guys know so much about hedge funds, that you can summarily dismiss this guy's idea without even trying to read his paper. The news article, as usual, is a garbled interpretation of his idea and not surprisingly, doesn't really make much sense to people who knows something about trading.
I think he is onto something here. Put it plainly, he rediscovered the volatility BO in the performance of hedge funds. Since a mediocre fund rarely accelerate to the upside, more often than not, such BO in a fund means a breakdown. Read through the garbled article you can see that two technical signals proceed a breakdown: 1. slowing returns in the recent past; 2. ultrasmooth performance. This makes sense.
At the end of the day, he provides one insight (smooth performance does not equal to lower risk) and one observation (the two signals proceeding a breakdown have been given for the industry in the past few months). Of course, he didn't really do a backtest of these signals but only provided anecdotal evidences. But it was an academic paper so maybe they have a different standard there.
I don't understand why you guys/gals are so dismissive. I guess you all know a lot more than I do.