If you say so. See, I always thought it was a risk/reward thing. While the direct clients of the outperforming funds will get to enjoy the intended risk/reward trade-off, Mr. Insana's clientele will get all of the risk and a smaller slice of the reward. If you are that brand loyal and have no qualms about overpaying for your purchases, then who am I to argue? Mr. Insana's idea may have been a good one on the face of it. His pricing, however, was audacious.
Of coarse they will answer the phone, moneys tight, they may have lowered the bar by nowâ¦.. ever thought of that smart guy.
Unless, of course, I'm willing to be hosed with double management fees which, as Landis82 assured us, don't matter, irrespective of how inflated they may be. Do all of you guys wear leather when you post like this?
Short version: Insana closed shop because most of the funds he picked sucked ass all year long. Instead of picking past winners he should try to find the next superstars - but then that would take more skills than simply opening his Rolodex.
Not exactly. I am merely acknowledging the audacity of someone charging so much as a "connection" fee, and the stupidity of those who support it. (Was I not being clear enough for you?)
As usual, Mr. Copulation is late to the show . . . perhaps you should stop pissing on your leg every time you open your mouth. Already discussed nearly 11 days before the thread that you currently find yourself pissing on your leg in: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133625&highlight=Insana August 8th, 2008
With all due respect, it was his ability to place funds from the "small" investor in the hands of people like SAC, Renaissance, Perry Corp, Third Point Capital, Omega Advisors, Icahn Management, etc. - - - that was his niche. I wouldn't have a problem with any of those Funds, especially if I only had to meet a 500k minimum.
That's half of the story. The breaking point seems to be that the likelihood of him raising $500m in the current environment - combined with his lackluster 12 month track record he compiled - is pretty much zero. That would leave him charging his 1% on his $100m (1m a year) without performance fees for another 12-24 months, while having to pay fees for staff, office and marketing. He would need anywhere from $500 to $1bln to have a viable business model. Many fund of funds operations are much larger. $2bln, $5bln etc. And regarding his fees being 'too high', as somebody mentioned above. If your returns are good, nobody - read: NOBODY WITH MONEY - will ask about your fees. If you can return 25% net of fees year in year out with very low volatility nobody will care if you charged 50% performance fees.
Actually, I was referring to people like you. And wouldn't those "extremely intelligent, ultra high net worth, sophisticated people and firm" be able to deal directly with the funds, thereby sidestepping Mr. Insana's "connection" outrageous fees?