The Times article didn't mention the other characteristics tested by the study: "We first construct probably the most comprehensive dataset on manager characte

The Times article didn't mention the other characteristics tested by the study: "We first construct probably the most comprehensive dataset on manager characteristics based on more than 4,000 hedge funds covered by TASS between 1994 and 2003.4 The dataset covers a wide range of information on personal, educational, and professional backgrounds of managers of most hedge funds. Specifically, we collect information on the following six characteristics of the lead manager of each fund if such information is available: the manager's age (AGE), the total number of years of working (WORK), the number of years of working at the specific hedge fund (TENURE), the composite SAT score for the manager's undergraduate institute (SAT), whether the manager has a CPA or CFA, and whether the manager has an MBA degree. Broadly speaking, the six characteristics can be divided into two groups: SAT, CFA/CPA and MBA dummies represent intelligence and education;5 AGE, WORK, and TENURE could represent working experience and career concern." Their conclusions: "Specifically, we find that managers from higher-SAT institutes tend to take less risks (measured by either overall return volatility or loadings of hedge fund returns on systematic risk factors) and have higher raw and risk-adjusted returns. On the other hand, we find that managers with longer years of working tend to have lower raw and risk-adjusted returns and take less risks. We also find that younger and better-educated managers tend to attract more capital inflows. These results are very robust to the different risk-adjustment benchmarks, sample periods, and types of funds (funds of funds vs. regular hedge funds) we consider." The way they constructed their database raises some red flags for me: "Out of the 4,000 funds covered by TASS, we are able to identify most of the characteristics of the lead manager for 1,002 funds." I wonder about biases introduced by the rejection of 3/4 of the funds due to insufficient data. Did managers of successful funds tend to preferentially withhold information, e.g. not mentioning a non-"elite" education if they wanted to emphasize just the results of their funds?