对冲基金费用分散的神话

IF 0.4 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Fei Meng, D. Saunders, L. Seco
{"title":"对冲基金费用分散的神话","authors":"Fei Meng, D. Saunders, L. Seco","doi":"10.3905/jai.2019.1.077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many innovative hedge fund fee structures have been introduced in recent years in response to concerns about both the level of hedge fund fees and the incentives they may provide. A traditional fee structure consists of a flat fee charged as a percentage of the assets under management, together with a performance fee consisting of a percentage of the profits earned. A fee structure that has become more popular recently is the first-loss structure, in which the manager receives a higher performance fee in return for providing some downside protection to investors by insuring some of their losses. Combinations of these fee structures have also been proposed, with the possibility that investors may benefit from some diversification among the fee structures. By considering the investors’ risk–reward trade-off, the authors show that there is in fact very little benefit from such fee diversification. TOPICS: Real assets/alternative investments/private equity, performance measurement","PeriodicalId":45142,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Alternative Investments","volume":"22 1","pages":"35 - 45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Myth of Hedge Fund Fee Diversification\",\"authors\":\"Fei Meng, D. Saunders, L. Seco\",\"doi\":\"10.3905/jai.2019.1.077\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many innovative hedge fund fee structures have been introduced in recent years in response to concerns about both the level of hedge fund fees and the incentives they may provide. A traditional fee structure consists of a flat fee charged as a percentage of the assets under management, together with a performance fee consisting of a percentage of the profits earned. A fee structure that has become more popular recently is the first-loss structure, in which the manager receives a higher performance fee in return for providing some downside protection to investors by insuring some of their losses. Combinations of these fee structures have also been proposed, with the possibility that investors may benefit from some diversification among the fee structures. By considering the investors’ risk–reward trade-off, the authors show that there is in fact very little benefit from such fee diversification. TOPICS: Real assets/alternative investments/private equity, performance measurement\",\"PeriodicalId\":45142,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Alternative Investments\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"35 - 45\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Alternative Investments\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3905/jai.2019.1.077\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Alternative Investments","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3905/jai.2019.1.077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

近年来,为了应对人们对对冲基金费用水平及其可能提供的激励措施的担忧,引入了许多创新的对冲基金费用结构。传统的费用结构包括按管理资产的百分比收取的固定费用,以及按所赚利润的百分比支付的绩效费。最近越来越流行的一种费用结构是第一种损失结构,在这种结构中,经理可以获得更高的绩效费,以通过为投资者的一些损失投保来为投资者提供一些下行保护。还提出了这些费用结构的组合,投资者可能会从费用结构的多样化中受益。通过考虑投资者的风险-回报权衡,作者表明,这种费用多元化实际上收效甚微。主题:实物资产/另类投资/私募股权、绩效衡量
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Myth of Hedge Fund Fee Diversification
Many innovative hedge fund fee structures have been introduced in recent years in response to concerns about both the level of hedge fund fees and the incentives they may provide. A traditional fee structure consists of a flat fee charged as a percentage of the assets under management, together with a performance fee consisting of a percentage of the profits earned. A fee structure that has become more popular recently is the first-loss structure, in which the manager receives a higher performance fee in return for providing some downside protection to investors by insuring some of their losses. Combinations of these fee structures have also been proposed, with the possibility that investors may benefit from some diversification among the fee structures. By considering the investors’ risk–reward trade-off, the authors show that there is in fact very little benefit from such fee diversification. TOPICS: Real assets/alternative investments/private equity, performance measurement
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Alternative Investments (JAI) provides you with cutting-edge research and expert analysis on managing investments in hedge funds, private equity, distressed debt, commodities and futures, energy, funds of funds, and other nontraditional assets. JAI is the official publication of the Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst Association (CAIA®). JAI provides you with challenging ideas and practical tools to: •Profit from the growth of hedge funds and alternatives •Determine the optimal mix of traditional and alternative investments •Measure and track portfolio performance •Manage your alternative investment portfolio with proven risk management practices
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信