-------------------
Sign the Market Reform Petition now. Click here to view it.
-------------------
The WSJ had a pretty good article on the US markets' loss of competitiveness, citing the fact that we are losing IPOs at an alarming rate. I would link it, but you need a subscription. So for the cheap seats, I'll summarize: Nobody wants to do IPOs in the US anymore, and many are questioning the wisdom of being listed here. Woe is us.
Of course, the WSJ arrives at the erroneous conclusion that it is all because of TOO MUCH REGULATION!!!!
You know, on account of how it is stifling the market.
Not, mind you, because nobody in their right mind wants to take a company public in an environment where the rule of law has broken down, and even the NYSE has been on the SHO list forever.
Nope. Ignore the massive delivery failures, hundreds of millions of 'em, and instead insist that it is because of all the burdensome regulation.
For instance, consider how uncompetitive we are in our regulation of hedge funds. Er....uh....Oh, that's right, we don't regulate them at all. There's nothing to cite.
Huh.
But Wall Street has long been of the mind that rules governing its behavior are bad, and freedom to do whatever it wants is good.
The problem is that the world is voting with its feet. The business is going elsewhere. Companies are taking their opportunities, and moving abroad.
It's just a matter of time until the dollars follow. Nobody wants to play in a rigged casino - that's the problem, in a nutshell. It's not that all those restrictions are cutting into anything - consider the record profits Wall Street has "earned" year after year. It's that the planet is getting tired of making 500 guys on Wall Street bazillionaires at the expense of everyone else. Pretty simple.
Of course Wall Street, which owns much of the media one way or another, would never dare breath a word of that. It has to be something else - like the regulations that create at least a pretense of lawfulness to the operation of the market.
What a complete crock.
-------------------------
I wanna be a hedge fund when I come back as something besides a bunny.
Sam Kinison had a great line about dog psychologists, and how he would love to get in on some of that easy money.
I feel the same way about hedge funds. Specifically, about short-oriented hedge funds.
Why do I say that? Aren't they supposed to be victims of persecution, underdogs, freedom fighters vigilantly targeting evil and tyranny?
Well, maybe. But here's what I know. You can make a boatload of bucks, become famous, dine at the best restaurants, be quoted as a luminary, and completely fail at your core competency.
That's why I always snicker when I hear references to hedge funds as "The smart money" taking a position against whoever. Smart? I've met planks with better investment acumen than some of the biggest.
Example. Jim Chanos. Expert. Pundit. Wall Street Icon. Rich, famous, celebrated, quoted.
And a black hole for any profit for his investors, unless they got REALLY lucky in their timing.
Here's the return of his fund, versus the S&P 500, since he created his fund in 1985, through the end of 2005. And remember, this is compounded return, best case, and does NOT include the fees or bonuses for all his performance. Someone could probably calculate it, but it's gotta be a significantly negative number for any meaningful period.
The numbers speak for themselves.
Since 1985, Chanos' Ursus Partners has delivered a whopping 2.1% return.
The S&P 500 has delivered 12.7% return for the same period, including dividend reinvestment.
That 2.1% doesn't include the annual management fee. It doesn't include the 20% or greater slice of any "profit" it generates in a good year.
That's just the actual ROI, pre-load.
To put that into perspective, the inflation rate has been at least double that during the same period. So just the loss of value due to inflation has been significant.
And yet this is one of the icons of short selling hedge funds. A noted authority, whose words can move markets, and who the NY press holds in the highest possible regard. He's doubtless a very smart guy, with a team of very smart guys, but he really, really sucks at his gig, if even being in the same county as the S&P return, over the life of his fund, is a measurement.
I've gone 3-4 times the money on good years with my own funds. On bad years, don't ask. But the point is, on a good year, I could have taken massive amounts of my investors' money and pocketed it for a job well done, never to have to return it, or apologize, if I lost it the next year.
That's my kind of gig. Bring it on. Where do I sign up for the easy frigging money? Give me a hung, I'll make it into 5, take a hung or two and pocket it, and then cry you a river when I piss it away the next few years. All the time touting my past performance to bring in new bucks to replace the ones I've lost, and restart the clock.
2.1% before fees?
Hell, I'll put it into T-Bonds and double that.
I'll let everyone know when I have my BVI fund set up, right next door to Compass or Helmsman. I won't ask where the money came from, or if I do, I'll believe whatever you tell me. Point is to get the money into play.
Yikes.
So, what is really going on? Why are some of these funds seeing so much cash running through them, in spite of that sort of performance?
A very good question. |