In Oct 1989, Yale became the first institutional investor to define absolute return strategies as an asset class, beginning with an allocation of 4.5%. It was one of the most unconventional investment decisions David Swensen made over the last 4 decades of his tenure...
This post is so interesting, and really made me think.
Since most of the celebrated, iconic hedge funds started before they were treated as an asset class by institutions, and the consensus view is that most HFs perform less well than the market, would you say the "institutionalization" of the source of capital for HFs has some impact on the asset class's overall under-performance, while only large multistrat firms, e.g. Citadel, Point72, which are a subset of the asset class have performed well? Putting it differently, if you were to start a more classic, stock-picking hedge fund today, drawing lessons from history, would it be best to delay institutional funding for as long as possible, if the goal is out-performance not asset accumulation?
This post is so interesting, and really made me think.
Since most of the celebrated, iconic hedge funds started before they were treated as an asset class by institutions, and the consensus view is that most HFs perform less well than the market, would you say the "institutionalization" of the source of capital for HFs has some impact on the asset class's overall under-performance, while only large multistrat firms, e.g. Citadel, Point72, which are a subset of the asset class have performed well? Putting it differently, if you were to start a more classic, stock-picking hedge fund today, drawing lessons from history, would it be best to delay institutional funding for as long as possible, if the goal is out-performance not asset accumulation?