Quote from dragonman:
This logic sounds correct, so do how people really start managing OPM and making money from that? Even if you have a 10 million fund you can earn only a modest amount after you consider the expenses, and I assume that money managers don't start with a 10 million but with much less.
But if they start with much less, how do they make a living from that (if at all) during that period and at least don't loss money after all of the expenses? It sounds to me like a catch-22 -- no one will give you substantial amounts of money to manage unless you have a great and long track record of successfully managing substantial amounts, but you just can't start by managing substantial amounts and with managing small amounts you may just breakeven (if not loss money) and have a huge administrative and legal headache.
Therefore I don't understand how there are people who succeed to make millions a year from managing OPM, could you please explain it?
You are absolutely right about the catch. There are a few managers who started with under $1 mln fund and grew it to a billion size, but as a rule they started up 10 years ago or earlier when the hedge fun industry wasn't so crowded, they produced stellar returns in the first year (over 50%), they also usually had industry connections. So, there were rich people who they knew personally and to whom they'd go marketing.
The above is still a very adventurous route.
As the article linked by newwurldmn suggests, a popular way to start a hedge fund is by securing "seed" capital. Search the forums. There are a few threads with in-depth discussion.
Typically, in exchange for providing capital the "seed" investor would request a share of the fund fees. There might be additional conditions like the new fund manager may be required to take teh first loss on the fund etc.
The advantage of this route is most peopel who specialise in providing "seed" capital also run a massive marketing machine. So, the fuind manager gets lots of support in this department. Also note that the interests are aligned. The investor participate in the fees the fund earns.
Another route is "CTA", where there is no fund and the manager trades in accounts that belong to individual clients. Fees from this approach are not necessarily any higher. However, CTA may have more sources of earnings. They may earn commission from selling 3rd party investment products. They may offer consulting for people who want to set-up autotrading operation. All depends on the individual's skill. There are a few prominent posters on these formus who've gone this route.
In practice, most people who start a hedge fund are people who have already managed money either as a trader in bank or as a fund manager for another fund management company. So, a better route could be securing a job with one of the big fund management companies.
Quote from dragonman:
Are you sure that C2 is appropriate also for long-term investing and not just for trading based on "signals"?
collective2 has a different business model. If you already have clients there is absolutely no reason to share the fees with collective2, as in this case c2 doesn't provide any value whatsoever.
collective2 is also useless for generating a track record. All record it can demonstrate is "paper trading" and there is no means to verify how much or actual money is managed or if the real-money performance is anywhere near the paper trading performance.
Further to trade using collective2 one needs some kind of auto-trading solution. If you sell both auto-trading solutions and strategies to run in them, arguably, you are managing people's money directly irrespective of whether you distribute trade signals via local network or via c2.
collective2 has an option to send trades from systems directly into brokerage accounts... but I would think twice about giving brokerage account logon to people who only have a web-site and don't answer a phone. Especially after collective 2 was hacked a year or so ago and credit card details got stolen.