Quote from SethArb:
I have news for some of you guys ... the dream and success of running a HF under your name is
just that ... a dream ...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1592954,00.html
some excerpts ...
- thinks funds need to be at least $75m in size to break even, given the regulatory and administrative costs, yet 72 per cent of hedge funds have less than that under management. Indeed, a survey by accountants KPMG found that a fifth of all hedge funds close each year due to business, not investment, failure.-
- A survey by accountants KPMG found that only 15 per cent of fund managers are clear stars capable of generating the returns clients expect; a further 55 per cent are what KPMG describes as 'wannabes', who have yet to prove that they can perform and the rest are 'has-beens', whose performance is not good enough for them to survive.-
I couldn't agree more, but SA, isn't that the way it is in trading in general?
Most guys flop in the markets.
no different just because they trade other peoples' money.
It's been my whole point all along: The majority of HF Managers/Traders shouldn't be in the business.
They're fkn the pay structure for Competent Traders.
Only the top traders
in the world should be running public money.
And those guys
don't have mediocre returns.
If anything, I think the SEC should require prospective HF managers to
prove their track record for a 3-year period (audited records) trading an account
before being allowed to open a HF.
And if they do NOT return a
minimum of 30% a year on average they should be classified as "unfit" to run public money and
restricted from opening a hedge fund.
Could you imagine what would happen if the SEC required that now from the 8,000 HFs that are out there?
Over 90% of them would be shut down.
That would be the best thing for the industry.