Posted: December 29th, 2011 | Author: Wayne Weddington | Filed under: Opinion | Tags: emerging managers, hedge funds, investing | Make a Comment »
The institutionalization of the hedge fund industry has forever changed the business. In the early days, speculative investment in the nascent hedge fund stratosphere consisted of the individual rogues. The outsiders. The CTAs. The floor traders. The CPOs.
They used various techniques: technical analysis, stochastics and momentum…. More often than not they traded “paper”, taking positions in a commodity knowing that other natural hedgers were taking a position.
But the pension funds caught return envy, particularly when comparing their own returns to their counterparts who were early adopters of alternative investment strategies…. executed deftly by Harvard University endowment, or Marvin Damsma at Amoco Corporation.
And so the also-rans increased their allocations to alternative strategies, exposing their constituents to risks they did not always understand. And when they did not, they would use the compulsion of their gorilla size to impose upon a manager’s investment style.
What has happened to absolute returns is that as institutional investors started to enter the game, and as hedge funds managers were happy to clip coupons in management fee, the institutions demanded risk controls that make the large hedge funds look a lot more like mutual funds.
The hedge funds’ “victim” in the early days used to be the plodding, long-only, slow-moving institutional players; and to some extent retail investors. Now the predators have become the prey. The ultra-big hedge funds have become the market participants that they used to take advantage of…. slow-moving, plodding, ‘market-noisy.’ Now that the majority of the $2 trillion in hedge fund assets is controlled by 300 hedge funds, the new, new “smart money” is allocating to the smaller hedge funds, where they are the beneficiaries of nimbleness and an out-performance on average 3% – 4% annually.
Posted: December 21st, 2011 | Author: Wayne Weddington | Filed under: Opinion | Tags: China, economy, Holidays, imports, Made in China, Made in USA, shopping | Make a Comment »
I have been frustrated to find products Made in the USA for my holiday shopping. I have not heretofore been a commercial activist for Made in America products — the thought being that superior products are the best way to sustain customer loyalty — but as citizens all over ponder the detailed consequences of globalization, I thought this year, all things being equal, I would like to buy American.
It has been very difficult.
Nearly every product I have sought to purchase has been Made in China. They have been, admittedly, consumer household products, mostly: Christmas ornaments, coats, shoes, briefcases, electronics. But it has been a shocking Orwellian realization that Americans do not make anything anymore.
I decided to do (some not very scientific) research to see if we are in fact simply doomed to cede the skill of “making things” to our Chinese counterparts and all of the economic production that goes with it.
It is an accepted factoid on the blogosphere that Americans spend an average of $700 on Christmas gifts and that if each person spent $64 on products made in America, it would create 200,000 jobs. But the story is not so simple.
The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco writes in a recent research paper that 89% of all consumer purchases are products that are Made in America. And at least 55% of the dollars spent on Chinese-made goods redounds to American business:
“Obviously, if a pair of sneakers made in China costs $70 in the United States, not all of that retail price goes to the Chinese manufacturer. In fact, the bulk of the retail price pays for transportation of the sneakers in the United States, rent for the store where they are sold, profits for shareholders of the U.S. retailer, and the cost of marketing the sneakers. These costs include the salaries, wages, and benefits paid to the U.S. workers and managers who staff these operations….
…Whereas goods labeled “Made in China” make up 2.7% of U.S. consumer spending, only 1.2% actually reflects the cost of the imported goods. Thus, on average, of every dollar spent on an item labeled “Made in China,” 55 cents go for services produced in the United States. In other words, the U.S. content of “Made in China” is about 55%. The fact that the U.S. content of Chinese goods is much higher than for imports as a whole is mainly due to higher retail and wholesale margins on consumer electronics and clothing than on most other goods and services.”
It suggests that even when we purchase goods and services supplied by foreign manufacturers, the majority of those dollars redounds to the US economy. Nonetheless, it is clear that the US manufacturing sector has far less jobs than it once did.
So I will spend a little more time in the aisles, and patronize smaller businesses. This year I will buy American products when I can. And when the global product is the only one available (or in some cases the better one) I will assuage my guilt knowing that 55 cents of each dollar is supporting the economy.
–Wayne Weddington