Because they thought they were getting 10% to 12% per year. He attracted 50 billion in investment cash by obtaining a consistent 10% to 12% return, or so it was believed. What does that tell you about the performance of the rest of the fund 'managers?' Their performance must be pretty weak and spotty, huh? Yeah, I'd bet most don't even consistently return a net profit after fees, etc. are deducted, and that the name of the game for 97% of the managers is to lose less than the next guy, as it's all relative. If you've managed to return more than 6% in your own trading account, consistently, year after year, for any period of 4 years or more, you should be running your own fund. But most of you are too busy taking 12,000 to 1.7 million by year end.