the variance between funds in the same strategy is very high, so the indices don't necessarily make great samples i would think.
With the sample size involved, sampling error (even with high population variance) is low enough that we know the great majority of funds must be in the red this year. And actually, variance isn't as high as you'd think, as correlation in fund returns have gone up quite a bit over the past few years.Quote from newwurldmn:
the variance between funds in the same strategy is very high, so the indices don't necessarily make great samples i would think.
It's an idle observation, not related to the indices. I follow the HSBC HF Performance weekly stats and, because it groups funds by strategy and then averages the numbers across groups, Paulson's number does horrible things to all the averages.Quote from heech:
Not sure why you say that. Most indices are not weighted by assets, so Paulson shouldn't have an outsized effect on results.
Quote from heech:
With the sample size involved, sampling error (even with high population variance) is low enough that we know the great majority of funds must be in the red this year. And actually, variance isn't as high as you'd think, as correlation in fund returns have gone up quite a bit over the past few years.
And speaking as someone who observes the population directly (by following many individual managers numbers), I *know* that's the case.