Larks comments on [Link] Mutual fund fees - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (25)
That sounds extremely poor methodologically/deceptively and so unlikely.
I think this is very likely. When going to label funds, naturally currently existing ones come to mind - but these are the survivors. Failed activists funds don't leave much of a track record.
That's not how it works. See e.g. this and, in particular, this.
They don't mention being survivorship-bias free, which I would expect them to if they were.
I'm not commenting on that study which I have not read, but merely point out that it is possible to do such studies right.
Yes, I agree it's possible to do them correctly. But few people do, and finding positive results is so much more likely if you do them wrong that poor methodology should be the default explanation for any such positive result.
Why don't we turn the academic literature then. There, failures are just as interesting as successes.
However, would that explain all the variance? Possibly. But it's not the only nor most parsimonious explanation.
Say you picked the highest return indexes - generally emerging country indexes' risky industries. Consider what activists could do to those kinds of firms? Suddenly those indexes's businesses don't look so solid anymore..
But a conclusion in 'Marguerite Schneider and Lori Verstegen Ryan's "A review of hedge funds and their investor activism: do they help or hurt other equity investors?" where these quotes come from, is that hedge funds tend to be even more activist than be explained by that background noise. That suggests there is some sense in activism, at least among institutions (if regular high net worth individuals pooled their funds they might very well fuck up without great proxy advisors)