Talk:Fund of funds
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Argument against FoF
I don't buy the idea behind fund of funds. My rationale is simple: A good money manager should be able to identify good investment target if he/she can identify good mutual/hedge funds. The article in Wikipedia has pointed out a major disadvantage of fund of funds: Fees. A high fee structure will take a big bite out of investors' gain. Investors will be charged no matter their fund of funds make money or not. So why should a good money manager pay extra cost to other money managers if he/she could have done a better job? User:Licardo 23:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- No. 1: Many HFOF portfolio managers do not purport at all to do what you imagine. Many HFOFs provide exposure to an array of strategies -- for instance, l/s equity, merger arb, conv. arb, short selling, stat arb etc -- that no one "money manager" could realistically claim to offer. The HFOF PM is a chef whose charge is to create an attractive stew of funds. An important goal is frequently to attain a non-correlated investment vehicle.
-
- No. 2: HFOFs can offer entre into funds which are not open to investors, or which have a huge minimum investment. A hedge fund is not generally open-ended, and will often close (it can either be a hard or soft close, with soft being one that will take more money if you twist their arm). HedgeFundBob 13:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This article should be called "Funds of Hedge Funds."
It seems primarily focused on FOHFs, as opposed to Funds of Mutual Funds.
There are probably as many if not more traditional FoF than fund of hedge funds in the world. simonthebold 23:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, FoHF and hedge funds in general are specialised investments and largely inappropriate for most investors. simonthebold 09:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
