I'm referring to this part of the article > That's cheap! It’s cheap in the sense that you can run Pershing Square with a relatively small staff; you only need

I'm referring to this part of the article > That's cheap! It’s cheap in the sense that you can run Pershing Square with a relatively small staff; you only need so many analysts to pick 12 stocks. It’s also cheap in the sense that you can scale up easily: If PSUS really does raise $25 billion of new money, it will just put that money into the same 12 stocks. It won’t take any more analytical work (they’ve already picked the stocks), and it probably won’t be that expensive (these are liquid large-cap stocks so the trades have more capacity). Charging 2% management fees on a low-turnover portfolio of large liquid public stocks seems like a better business model than charging 2% and picking new stocks each day. This is non sensical since most of the work they do is convincing board members to enact their changes and figuring out how to fix the company. Its obvious that Matt Levine thinks they just pick stocks and sleep