Review: Hedge Funds Score Big Gains

Hedge Funds Score Big Gains

After last week’s article on how hedge funds fail at a rate worse than New York restaurants (thanks to @Jessica_OGIQ for the funny comparison), it seems the newspapers decided to find a silver lining in their lackluster performance. The Wall Street Journal points out how “stock picking” hedge funds are doing much better than the S&P 500 and credits the outperformance to “booming M&A.” It seems like every market movement needs a reason and usually those reasons are applied post-hoc.

This article is either misleading or misinformed. Investors do not create returns. They simply capture returns across the different sections of the stock market that present themselves with varying levels of systematic risks. These different pockets of returns are true asset classes. The S&P 500 is utilized as a proxy for large companies. There are different sections of the stock market beyond the S&P 500 available for investors to passively capture. I have to think that the Wall Street Journal and hedge fund managers know that the stock market exists beyond a collection of 500 large stocks in the U.S.

Under this lens, “stock-picking” hedge fund managers would have been better off capturing market returns across different areas of the market rather than concentrating on picking winners. The Russell 2000, a small cap proxy, and the MSCI- EAFE, an international large stock proxy, have returned year-to-date 6.5 percent and 7.6 percent. Both were well above the “market beating” return of 4.99 percent.  (As a complete aside, even though the numbers fall in our favor, it is impossible to determine real skill based on a six-month year-to-date return, but for the purposes of reviewing the article, we’ll run with it.)

Why weren’t these passive very investable indexes mentioned in the article? It seems to me investors would have been better off dumping these alternatives in favor of a multiple asset class basket of funds capturing different systematic risk premiums across the global stock market. That mix is ultimately dependent on what you want to accomplish with your wealth.


McLean Asset Management Corporation (MAMC) is a SEC registered investment adviser. The content of this publication reflects the views of McLean Asset Management Corporation (MAMC) and sources deemed by MAMC to be reliable. There are many different interpretations of investment statistics and many different ideas about how to best use them. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. The information provided is for educational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell securities. There are no warranties, expressed or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, or results obtained from any information on this presentation. Indexes are not available for direct investment. All investments involve risk.

The information throughout this presentation, whether stock quotes, charts, articles, or any other statements regarding market or other financial information, is obtained from sources which we, and our suppliers believe to be reliable, but we do not warrant or guarantee the timeliness or accuracy of this information. Neither our information providers nor we shall be liable for any errors or inaccuracies, regardless of cause, or the lack of timeliness of, or for any delay or interruption in the transmission there of to the user. MAMC only transacts business in states where it is properly registered, or excluded or exempted from registration requirements. It does not provide tax, legal, or accounting advice. The information contained in this presentation does not take into account your particular investment objectives, financial situation, or needs, and you should, in considering this material, discuss your individual circumstances with professionals in those areas before making any decisions.