QUOTE(c0cac0la @ May 23 2009, 04:34 AM)
I am reasonably entertained by this thread, and makes me think a lot. Questions:
1) You are implying that Fund Managers are allowed and encouraged to take excessive risk, while I thought it is regulated. May be not in Malaysia, I suppose.
I also thought it has been well regulated when i started to work in this field 15 yrs ago but found out that regulators also dont know thoroughly about hedge fund cos this concept happened since 1990s only. Try to recall the situation in US in these 2 years, you would know even US people are so pro in investment, they still cant regulate hedge fund and investment banking.
QUOTE
2) If such a fund exist, given the higher risk taken, it tends to perform worse than other funds. If we believe in market with free competition, it will lose its client much faster than others, and soon out of business. Unless it is a monopoly or oligopoly market, such a fund should be and would be short lived. Again, is this very different in Malaysia ?
high risker usually means higher returns and these funds are usually outperform in bull markets and so they should not perform worse than the other funds. By the way, investors love risk so much. If you tell someone that you could generate 5-10% only "sure win" , guaranteed.....i think not many people are interested still.
QUOTE
3) All financial institution is governed and regulated on the amount of risk they took, basic measurement such as the Greek factors, and Value At Risk calculations should be reported to the central bank regulatory. Is that not the case for Malaysia ?
i can tell you i'm quite academic when i was studying in university and i knew every single formulae in finance. However, when i really work in finance, it seems like only myself or few people remember these formulae. Of course, fund managers will not be included.
QUOTE
4) Hedge funds does not operate based on 'hedging' per se, but rather they do delta hedging using Black Sholes formula. However, there are funds that don't and still call themselves hedge fund. Is there any hedge funds in Malaysia ? Without the ability to short the market, I would imagine delta hedging is impossible.
same as my answer for question 3. 80% hedge fund managers only use long/short gross net exposure method for hedging. This gross/net method is just a simple +-x/ calculation without even using a scientific calculator. i cant imagine if we require them to use Black Scholes to calculate hedging ratio, they will switch back to work in long fund. By the way, i dont quite agree with the black scholes as it assumed normal distribution but the reality is not.
QUOTE
5) The key concept of finance is all about opportunity cost. When a person hire a fund managers and pay him for transaction brokerage fees, you mentioned it is a 'head you win, tail I lose' situation, but do not forget the person frees up his time in doing those transactions and able to use those time to earn money. Some would argue that what is important is 'Can you earn more than the brokerage if you were to do it yourself?' rather than declare that paying brokerage mutual funds is not worth it. What is your opinion on this ?
no comment....but if you have enough trading knowledge, you should get rid of fund mgrs and trade for yourself and that is the main theme of my blog here.
QUOTE
6) The same opportunity cost goes on hiring a fund manager. If one were to spend time pick up finance and investment as a subject (depends on your maths and econs foundation, it can be done in 3 months to few years), and then willing to do analysis on all companies that he is tracking (which is time consuming) and also collect and consolidate market information (super time consuming for a normal person), I see a huge amount of time and effort invested. Time, is money. I would imagine the question is back to 'How much can you earn with those time spent on other areas, such as your job?". What do you suggest ?
"time consuming for normal person".....really right and that's why normal person cant win.
QUOTE
7) Imagine a person spent all the above time and effort and now become capable of managing his own investment, his cost is probably still higher than a fund manager, because fund manager would be able to spread his cost over larger amount of transactions (and more clients), compare to the individual. Can the individual really do it more cost effective than a fund manager ?
it depends.....you could argue that trading in a fund is actually not flexible cos you need to deal with liquidity of stocks and you can even buy tiny cap stock due to illiquidity.
QUOTE
8) Assuming both can do the same efficiency and effectiveness in investment, which would also translate to the fact that the chances of success is the same. The individual can make the same mistake as the fund managers. The only difference is how risk averse is the individual. If the individual is highly risk seeking, he/she will potentially bet bigger than the fund (which should be regulated on total risk committed). So I suppose your suggestion is for investor who is highly risk averse, who would bet lesser than the fund manager and therefore lost less money should the bet turn bad. What do you think ?
kind of agree.
QUOTE
9) Given the above, I would also think you may want to consider this: If the fund manager is more prone to taking higher risk, which has higher return, it is best to engage them during the bull time. When bear market comes, just withdraw your money and put it into bond or other fixed income product. Isn't it better to make use of fund managers for what they are good at, rather than discount them completely ? Would like to hear your opinion on this.
you can do that.....that make sense to me. Remember that involved a great skill and knowledge to determine whether it's bull or bear. If you can do that accurately, you dont need fund mgr at all.
This post has been edited by rockcrawler: May 27 2009, 09:20 PM