2 Comments
User's avatar
Kevin Xu's avatar

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?

Expand full comment
Shinya Deguchi's avatar

Or, you don't really need a lot of institutional capital if your goal is to compound on your own capital with some supports in early days. You just need 2-3 long-term investors who can commit with you during the first 3-5 years.

Of course, Citadel, Point72, Millennium are great businesses to run for the owners (and less so for investors).

Expand full comment