Talk:Fund of funds

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)

There is no good reason in the world to invest in a a fund of funds. The marginal cost of truly and properly managing an instrument that contains more than 40 underlying positions outweighs the incremental benefit that is derived from any marginal diversification. To think otherwise is to disregard the research of Miller and Modigilani...and others...that paved the way for modern portfolio theory. There is, however, plenty of good reason to manufacture funds of funds. Chief of these good reasons is the fact that an ignorant and unsuspecting consumer population seems ever more willing to be parted from its hard earned money with the assistance of advisors that are willing to rationalize thier fees for service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughmurf (talk • contribs) 05:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

New section on selecting hedge funds for a fund of fund.

Hi guys, this is my first attempt at this stuff so I would appreciate your help. I was thinking of adding a section on the issues involved in trying to select funds for a fund of funds. The current article seems to imply that selecting hedge funds is easy: you just look at who has the best track record. I would agrue that it is hard. I think a section like this might pervent some investors from doing something stupid. (Not that I haven't do some stupid things...) Does this seem reasonable or should this be put somewhere else, such as the section on hedge funds.ThatOldOldInvestor (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

First sentence =

Shouldn't the first sentence compare the FoF strategy to the strategy of investing in an individual fund, as well as that of investing in individual equities etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.96.210 (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

caution

Respected Sir

Dont link the pages that dont exist

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courage respect (talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Needs work

I removed some big blocks of uncited text that didn't seem to contribute anything to the article. This article needs more cites. Currently, hedge funds aren't doing that well [1] and hedge funds of hedge funds are doing even worse. “While the hedge fund industry has generated fabulous wealth and created many fortunes, it has largely done so for itself.” [2] --John Nagle (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fund of funds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.prequin.com/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.prequin.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060214180726/http://www.altassets.com/casefor/sectors/2003/nz3258.php to http://www.altassets.com/casefor/sectors/2003/nz3258.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213082551/http://www.altassets.com/pdfs/FW-280-0609.pdf to http://www.altassets.com/pdfs/FW-280-0609.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070204024412/http://www.altassets.com/pdfs/piper_jaffray2004.pdf to http://www.altassets.com/pdfs/piper_jaffray2004.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)