No, but I believe Ackman has around 6 (13F) positions. I believe he has typically had very few positions, so likely Sharpe ratio would make the performance worse.
Yes, if you are a fund of funds pension fund manager, you cannot just argue to park the equity investment in SPY. That would ultimately cost you the job, because there is no need for you. That is the basis for "The Emperor's New Clothes" in the world of investment.
Two out of the three guys are activist investors and I would not compare them to a retail investor. Their investment strategy has nothing do to with S&P in reality. I personally think index funds are an amazing invention. They track a certain index (such as S&P) and instead on outperformance they focus on lowest possible costs. Meaning you get the market return for tiny costs. For a small investor who is not interest in active investment strategies there is nothing better in my opinion.
10. The positions are undisclosed. Sharpe is meaningless. He's swashbuckling. He's an incredbily astute investor - but some of the times he gets it wrong too. Did you compare PSH to SPX over different time periods? Like if you invested in 2016? or earlier? i tihnk i read somewhere he's long term track record is like 30%/year.
Ackman and Icahn are indeed partly activist investors. But I still believe it is valid and meaningful to compare their returns with that of the market. By the look of it the volatility of their partly activist investment style seems much higher than the market, and their returns judging from what is publicly available are not better than the market when looking past their early years. Remember I get full frontal exposure to survivorship bias by looking at a couple of the most succesful investors of all time. And what I get is at par returns with higher volatility after they became famous.
Well, I'm not a fund manager or an investor in those funds, but I read articles. The 2015 CEPR study found that actively managed funds with higher fees tended to underperform their benchmarks, suggesting fee maximization as a priority https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/costs-and-benefits-performance-fees-mutual-funds The 2014 ESMA study revealed that up to 15% of active European equity funds were closet index funds, charging active fees while following a passive strategy https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esmawp-2020-2_closet_indexing.pdf 12b-1 fees: These marketing and distribution fees charged by some mutual funds add to the expense ratio, potentially prioritizing attracting new investments over outperformance https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s70904/lwalsh042604.pdf A 2016 study by the Financial Times found that many funds maintained high fees despite underperformance, suggesting a focus on fee generation https://www.ft.com/content/dd27df44-05a7-11e7-ace0-1ce02ef0def9
And yet the topic is about a specific, very nichy hedge fund. You listed a few articles which are all mutual funds-related. I assume you are aware of the difference between the two types?
I don't think the type defines manager's honesty, trustworthiness, and ability to generate alpha. And I assume before expressing your assumptions you saw that it was an answer to a person who said I was wrong.
Ability to generate alpha is very different in the two types of funds. Talking about honesty and trustworthiness...I dont see how it would be different than other professions? Bottom line is if the investors believe in the fund, that is all that matters to fund managers. In my personal opinion there is more honesty and trustworthiness in investment management profession than for example street vendors and other sales professions.