4 ms·
Some corporations go pretty far to save money (reducing workforce, etc.), all apparently in the name of keeping investors happy. Shouldn't there be investors i
by makecheck 16y ago
Some corporations go pretty far to save money (reducing workforce, etc.), all apparently in the name of keeping investors happy. Shouldn't there be investors in banks asking questions about these managers' salaries?
If I were a major shareholder, the first thing I'd demand is that a test of managers' worth be done. Set up a few theoretical funds with spreadsheets, full of what-ifs such as how much money is invested in total, and with goals for each fund (such as a certain amount of gain, or safety). Then, take some people with minimal finance experience, like new college grads, and pay them $50000 a year each; pit them against the hedge fund managers for the same funds.
For a few months, everyone has to try to work those fake funds; they must use real market values and suggest decisions based on real data, but obviously the funds contain no real money and the effects would just be calculated. Here's the best part: since the real managers are making over 100 times what the grads would make, they had better have some pretty damned impressive results. If the grads come anywhere near what the managers do, the managers will automatically have their pay docked accordingly. In other words, if they aren't astronomically better when applying their "experience" to a few simple tests, why the hell would any investor continue to tolerate paying these managers so much?
- jacques_chester 16y agoIn the interests of being contrary: Suppose you find that the hedge managers are only 0.1% better than the grads. Is it still a good idea to pick the hedge manager? When you're talking about billions dollars -- it might be.
- orijing 16y agoI think it's partially because they manage so much money. I agree that they're overpaid, but maybe their funds don't think so. Let's take a hedge fund manager who's making $10m a year. If he's managing a $5b fund, even if his performance is 0.2% better than that of someone who works for free, he has "earned" that $10m in terms of value added. Now, why they charge over 1% is another question...