The success of hedge funds

　　對沖基金的成功

　　Two books analyse what makes hedge-fundmanagers greatand reach very differentconclusions.

　　兩本介紹對沖基金的成功之處的書其結論大相徑庭。

　　The Alpha Masters: Unlocking the Genius of the World s Top Hedge Funds. By Maneet Ahuja.

　　阿爾法大師：揭秘世界頂尖對沖基金的智慧，Maneet Ahuja著。

　　The Hedge Fund Mirage: The Illusion of Big Money and Why It s Too Good To Be True. BySimon Lack.

　　對沖基金的海市蜃樓：巨資的幻象及其難以置信的原因，Simon Lack著。

　　Forget the one percent denounced by the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Hedge-fundmanagers have made so much money for themselves that they are in the top percent of theone percent. The billions they have raked in make bankers bonuses look titchy. Theirvaunted success trading stocks, bonds and other instruments has helped to transform acottage industry into a behemoth; today hedge funds oversee more than $2.1 trillion. Aclass of moneymen who once only managed funds for buccaneering, rich families now countthe world s largest public pension funds and endowments as clients.

　　忘記 占領華爾街 運動中所詆毀的那百分之一。對沖基金經理幫自己賺的錢足以讓其成為這百分之一中的佼佼者。他們撈回來上百億的資金讓銀行家的分紅顯得寒磣。他們在股票，債券和衍生品交易上取得了令人贊賞的成績，這也幫助產業從一家庭作坊式的產業成為龍頭產業。今天對沖基金管理著超過2.1萬億美元。曾經為喜歡投機的富翁家族理財的金融家，現今已讓世界上最大的公共養老金，基金會成為其客戶。

　　Have hedge funds succeeded because of their investment genius, or their craftymarketing? Two new books disagree on whether the hedge-fund managers golden chaliceis half-full or half-empty. Maneet Ahuja, a CNBC producer who worked briefly on Wall Streetbefore taking a job at the Wall Street Journal, has written a homage to hedgies. She was inawe of Wall Street already when she was an intern at Citigroup . She has never shed it. The Alpha Masters profiles 11 of theindustry s best-known bosses, and looks at their investment philosophies and their famoustrades. John Paulson made billions predicting the bursting of America s housing bubble;James Chanos, a short-seller, disrobed Enron; and Ray Dalio, the boss of Bridgewater, theworld s largest hedge fund, makes a killing for his investors and keeps calm doingtranscendental meditation.

　　對沖基金的成功真的是因為他們投資的智慧么?還是因為他們處心積慮的市場企劃?兩本新書在對沖基金經理們的金杯里究竟是半桶水還是半桶空氣的問題上產生異見。曾短暫任職于華爾街而后加入華爾街日報的CNBC制片人Maneet Ahuja，向對沖這幫家伙寫了篇致敬。在她在花旗實習的時候就十分敬畏華爾街。他至今沒有改變這一印象。《阿爾法大師》列舉了11位業界最知名的總裁，并分析他們投資哲學和經典案例。約翰?保爾森因預測到美國房地產泡沫而賺了幾十億美元;賣空家James Chanos剝光了安然公司;世界上最大的對沖基金Bridgewater總裁Ray Dalio，為其投資者抓住獵殺機會而通過冥思竟作來保持冷靜。

　　Throughout her book Ms Ahuja seems to be in a trance herself, in thrall to the glamour of hersubjects. She never questions the judgment of her alpha-men and always gives them thelast word. She devotes dozens of pages to Mr Paulson s rise in the hedge-fund industry, butglosses over his poor performance in 2011. His results have led some to speculate that hemay have the unfortunate record of both earning and losing the most money in hedge-fundhistory. She quotes one of his 2011 letters to investors asserting that bank stockswhosestruggles pulled down his funds performancewould rebound when the economy improves,never criticising what he did or pointing out that investors will have to wait ages to claw backsuch massive losses. Nor does she grasp at bigger themes or the many common factors thathedge-fund managers share. Is it ego, courage, good networks or charisma that hasbrought them more success than their fellow financiers?

　　Ahuja在她的整本書里都好似被催眠，完全被其采訪對象的成功所迷住。她從來沒有質疑她書中的阿爾法大師的判斷力，視他們的話為至理名言。她為保爾森在對沖基金行業的冉冉升起洋洋灑灑寫了十幾頁，而對他在 2011年的糟糕表現則一筆帶過。一些人懷疑保爾森可能會創造一個悲劇性紀錄對沖基金史上既是盈利最高也是虧損最多的經理。她引用了保爾森2011年寫給股東信件里的話，他堅稱連累該基金業績的銀行股在經濟狀況恢復時將反彈。而她從來沒指責過他的所作所為，也并沒有指出投資者需要等到天長地久才能從如此之深的虧損里爬出來。她也并沒有抓住整個大環境或其他一些對沖基金經理的共通因素。究竟是自信，勇氣，有關系還是魅力使得他們比金融業同行更成功?

　　The Hedge Fund Mirage attacks the Wall Street worshippers blind adulation. Simon Lack,who spent 23 years at JPMorgan, an investment bank, selecting hedge funds to invest in,grew tired of the free hand that investors all too often gave managers. He has written aprovocative book questioning a central tenet of the hedge-fund industry: itsperformance is always worth paying for. The promise of superior performance is wrong,he says. Of course some investors make a killing, but on average hedge funds haveunderperformed even risk-free Treasury bills. This is because the bulk of investors capitalhas flooded in over the past ten years, whereas hedge funds performed best when theindustry was smaller than it is now. What is more, it is hard to know how hedge fundsactually fare, since indices that track industry performance tend to overstate the returns.Funds that do badly or implode are not usually included in the indices at all.

　　《對沖基金的海市蜃樓》對華爾街追隨者的盲目崇拜進行了攻擊。曾在投資銀行摩根大通工作23年的Simon Lack，當時的任務是分配在對沖基金的投資。后來厭倦了投資者常常給予管理者過多的自由。他寫了本具有挑釁性的書來質疑對沖基金的核心：它的業績是物有所值的。他寫道，這些對優秀業績的承諾是錯誤的。當然一部分投資者是會有所獵獲的，但平均來說對沖基金的表現連無風險的美國國債都不如。這是因為大部分投資者的資金都是最近這十年才涌入的，而對沖基金表現最佳的時候是比現在小的時候。更有問題的是不知道對沖基金的表現究竟如何，因為追蹤業界表現的的指數通常夸大回報。那些表現很差或破產了的通常都不包括在這些指數里。

　　Why would any client continue to pay for such mediocre returns? One reason is that hedge-fund managers are incredibly good salesmen. In addition, industry insiders who are all tooaware of hedge funds shortcomings choose not to expose them, Mr Lack argues. Moreover,the common fee structure, in which hedge-fund managers keep 2% of assets as amanagement fee to cover expenses and 20% of profits generated by performance, hasmade many managers rich, but not their clients. Mr Lack calculates that hedge-fundmanagers have kept around 84% of profits generated, with investors only getting 16% since1998. Where are the customers yachts? is the title of one chapter. What is worse, thedisastrous dive of equity markets in 2008 may have wiped out all the profits that hedgefunds have ever generated for investors.

　　為什么客戶要繼續為如此普通的回報付費呢?其中一個原因是對沖基金的經理都是不可思議的優秀銷售人員。同時 Lack認為，非常了解對沖基金軟肋的業內人士選擇不披露它們。再加上通用的費用結構使得許多經理變得富裕，而非他們的客戶。這些費用包括對沖基金經理每年保留總資產的2%作為支付開銷的 管理費 和盈利業績的20%。Lack計算自1998年起，對沖基金經理大約保留了84%的總利潤，而投資者只拿到了16%。 客戶的游艇去哪里? 是第一章的標題。更可惡的是2008股票市場災難性跳水可能已經把對沖基金為投資者賺的所有利潤都抹殺掉了。

　　Mr Lack places a good deal of the blame for this on investors who fail to ask tough enoughquestions and have not grasped that they want yesterday s returns without yesterday s risk.They invest money with the biggest, best-known funds that look nothing like those whoseaggregate performance they want to emulate. Instead investors should stand up tomanagers, negotiate more favourable terms and put their money into smaller funds, whichtend to perform better.

　　Lack將大部分指責都指向投資者，因為他們沒有問足夠深入的問題，并且沒有意識到他們自己是在祈求 獲得以前的回報卻不希望承擔對應的風險 。他們投資給最大，最有名的基金，而這些基金的累積表現跟投資者所希望模仿的表現相差甚遠。投資者應該挑戰經理們，跟他們協商一些更有利的條款，并將他們的錢放入小型基金里，因為這些小基金往往表現更好。

　　Mr Lack points out that large institutional investors always like to invest in bigger hedgefunds. That way they need not worry about being the bulk of a small fund s investor-base.But he offers no solution for these large investors, who cannot put big sums into the small,nimble funds that he touts. Nor does he analyse how hedge-fund performance compareswith other asset classes, such as private equity. As a result, the reader is left with a naggingunanswered question: would investors do better to avoid hedge funds altogether and, if so,where should they put their money in future?

　　Lack還指出大型機構投資者都喜歡投資大型對沖基金。這樣他們不需要擔心自己成為小基金的主要客戶。大型機構不可能將大額資金放入他所推崇的那些敏捷的小基金里，而他并沒有提出如何解決這些大型投資者所面臨的問題。同時他也沒有進行對沖基金跟其他基金的表現對比，例如私募基金。因此，這給讀者留下了一個令人困惑的問題：投資者如果完全退出對沖基金，表現是不是會更好呢?如果是的話，他們以后又應該把錢投到哪里呢?

　　In his conclusion Mr Lack argues that most hedge-fund books are written by theirproponents. His ambition was to spark debate and help to change the industry. Whetherhe succeeds or not remains to be seen. Hedge-fund executives have already reacted angrilyto The Hedge Fund Mirage, which suggests that looking into the mirror may be painful. Theyrightly worry the days of easy praise are over.

　　在他的總結里他寫道，大多數關于對沖基金的書都是由它的 擁護者 寫的。他的野心在于將這場辯論點燃，并寄希望于此以改變整個行業。至于他在這一點上是否成功了，還有待考證。對沖基金總裁們已經對《對沖基金的海市蜃樓》一書表示憤怒，這顯示了要面對鏡子里的自己是痛苦的。他們擔心民眾對其慷慨贊美的日子已經終結，這倒不是杞人憂天。

　　The success of hedge funds

　　對沖基金的成功

　　Two books analyse what makes hedge-fundmanagers greatand reach very differentconclusions.

　　兩本介紹對沖基金的成功之處的書其結論大相徑庭。

　　The Alpha Masters: Unlocking the Genius of the World s Top Hedge Funds. By Maneet Ahuja.

　　阿爾法大師：揭秘世界頂尖對沖基金的智慧，Maneet Ahuja著。

　　The Hedge Fund Mirage: The Illusion of Big Money and Why It s Too Good To Be True. BySimon Lack.

　　對沖基金的海市蜃樓：巨資的幻象及其難以置信的原因，Simon Lack著。

　　Forget the one percent denounced by the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Hedge-fundmanagers have made so much money for themselves that they are in the top percent of theone percent. The billions they have raked in make bankers bonuses look titchy. Theirvaunted success trading stocks, bonds and other instruments has helped to transform acottage industry into a behemoth; today hedge funds oversee more than $2.1 trillion. Aclass of moneymen who once only managed funds for buccaneering, rich families now countthe world s largest public pension funds and endowments as clients.

　　忘記 占領華爾街 運動中所詆毀的那百分之一。對沖基金經理幫自己賺的錢足以讓其成為這百分之一中的佼佼者。他們撈回來上百億的資金讓銀行家的分紅顯得寒磣。他們在股票，債券和衍生品交易上取得了令人贊賞的成績，這也幫助產業從一家庭作坊式的產業成為龍頭產業。今天對沖基金管理著超過2.1萬億美元。曾經為喜歡投機的富翁家族理財的金融家，現今已讓世界上最大的公共養老金，基金會成為其客戶。

　　Have hedge funds succeeded because of their investment genius, or their craftymarketing? Two new books disagree on whether the hedge-fund managers golden chaliceis half-full or half-empty. Maneet Ahuja, a CNBC producer who worked briefly on Wall Streetbefore taking a job at the Wall Street Journal, has written a homage to hedgies. She was inawe of Wall Street already when she was an intern at Citigroup . She has never shed it. The Alpha Masters profiles 11 of theindustry s best-known bosses, and looks at their investment philosophies and their famoustrades. John Paulson made billions predicting the bursting of America s housing bubble;James Chanos, a short-seller, disrobed Enron; and Ray Dalio, the boss of Bridgewater, theworld s largest hedge fund, makes a killing for his investors and keeps calm doingtranscendental meditation.

　　對沖基金的成功真的是因為他們投資的智慧么?還是因為他們處心積慮的市場企劃?兩本新書在對沖基金經理們的金杯里究竟是半桶水還是半桶空氣的問題上產生異見。曾短暫任職于華爾街而后加入華爾街日報的CNBC制片人Maneet Ahuja，向對沖這幫家伙寫了篇致敬。在她在花旗實習的時候就十分敬畏華爾街。他至今沒有改變這一印象。《阿爾法大師》列舉了11位業界最知名的總裁，并分析他們投資哲學和經典案例。約翰?保爾森因預測到美國房地產泡沫而賺了幾十億美元;賣空家James Chanos剝光了安然公司;世界上最大的對沖基金Bridgewater總裁Ray Dalio，為其投資者抓住獵殺機會而通過冥思竟作來保持冷靜。

　　Throughout her book Ms Ahuja seems to be in a trance herself, in thrall to the glamour of hersubjects. She never questions the judgment of her alpha-men and always gives them thelast word. She devotes dozens of pages to Mr Paulson s rise in the hedge-fund industry, butglosses over his poor performance in 2011. His results have led some to speculate that hemay have the unfortunate record of both earning and losing the most money in hedge-fundhistory. She quotes one of his 2011 letters to investors asserting that bank stockswhosestruggles pulled down his funds performancewould rebound when the economy improves,never criticising what he did or pointing out that investors will have to wait ages to claw backsuch massive losses. Nor does she grasp at bigger themes or the many common factors thathedge-fund managers share. Is it ego, courage, good networks or charisma that hasbrought them more success than their fellow financiers?

　　Ahuja在她的整本書里都好似被催眠，完全被其采訪對象的成功所迷住。她從來沒有質疑她書中的阿爾法大師的判斷力，視他們的話為至理名言。她為保爾森在對沖基金行業的冉冉升起洋洋灑灑寫了十幾頁，而對他在 2011年的糟糕表現則一筆帶過。一些人懷疑保爾森可能會創造一個悲劇性紀錄對沖基金史上既是盈利最高也是虧損最多的經理。她引用了保爾森2011年寫給股東信件里的話，他堅稱連累該基金業績的銀行股在經濟狀況恢復時將反彈。而她從來沒指責過他的所作所為，也并沒有指出投資者需要等到天長地久才能從如此之深的虧損里爬出來。她也并沒有抓住整個大環境或其他一些對沖基金經理的共通因素。究竟是自信，勇氣，有關系還是魅力使得他們比金融業同行更成功?

　　The Hedge Fund Mirage attacks the Wall Street worshippers blind adulation. Simon Lack,who spent 23 years at JPMorgan, an investment bank, selecting hedge funds to invest in,grew tired of the free hand that investors all too often gave managers. He has written aprovocative book questioning a central tenet of the hedge-fund industry: itsperformance is always worth paying for. The promise of superior performance is wrong,he says. Of course some investors make a killing, but on average hedge funds haveunderperformed even risk-free Treasury bills. This is because the bulk of investors capitalhas flooded in over the past ten years, whereas hedge funds performed best when theindustry was smaller than it is now. What is more, it is hard to know how hedge fundsactually fare, since indices that track industry performance tend to overstate the returns.Funds that do badly or implode are not usually included in the indices at all.

　　《對沖基金的海市蜃樓》對華爾街追隨者的盲目崇拜進行了攻擊。曾在投資銀行摩根大通工作23年的Simon Lack，當時的任務是分配在對沖基金的投資。后來厭倦了投資者常常給予管理者過多的自由。他寫了本具有挑釁性的書來質疑對沖基金的核心：它的業績是物有所值的。他寫道，這些對優秀業績的承諾是錯誤的。當然一部分投資者是會有所獵獲的，但平均來說對沖基金的表現連無風險的美國國債都不如。這是因為大部分投資者的資金都是最近這十年才涌入的，而對沖基金表現最佳的時候是比現在小的時候。更有問題的是不知道對沖基金的表現究竟如何，因為追蹤業界表現的的指數通常夸大回報。那些表現很差或破產了的通常都不包括在這些指數里。

　　Why would any client continue to pay for such mediocre returns? One reason is that hedge-fund managers are incredibly good salesmen. In addition, industry insiders who are all tooaware of hedge funds shortcomings choose not to expose them, Mr Lack argues. Moreover,the common fee structure, in which hedge-fund managers keep 2% of assets as amanagement fee to cover expenses and 20% of profits generated by performance, hasmade many managers rich, but not their clients. Mr Lack calculates that hedge-fundmanagers have kept around 84% of profits generated, with investors only getting 16% since1998. Where are the customers yachts? is the title of one chapter. What is worse, thedisastrous dive of equity markets in 2008 may have wiped out all the profits that hedgefunds have ever generated for investors.

　　為什么客戶要繼續為如此普通的回報付費呢?其中一個原因是對沖基金的經理都是不可思議的優秀銷售人員。同時 Lack認為，非常了解對沖基金軟肋的業內人士選擇不披露它們。再加上通用的費用結構使得許多經理變得富裕，而非他們的客戶。這些費用包括對沖基金經理每年保留總資產的2%作為支付開銷的 管理費 和盈利業績的20%。Lack計算自1998年起，對沖基金經理大約保留了84%的總利潤，而投資者只拿到了16%。 客戶的游艇去哪里? 是第一章的標題。更可惡的是2008股票市場災難性跳水可能已經把對沖基金為投資者賺的所有利潤都抹殺掉了。

　　Mr Lack places a good deal of the blame for this on investors who fail to ask tough enoughquestions and have not grasped that they want yesterday s returns without yesterday s risk.They invest money with the biggest, best-known funds that look nothing like those whoseaggregate performance they want to emulate. Instead investors should stand up tomanagers, negotiate more favourable terms and put their money into smaller funds, whichtend to perform better.

　　Lack將大部分指責都指向投資者，因為他們沒有問足夠深入的問題，并且沒有意識到他們自己是在祈求 獲得以前的回報卻不希望承擔對應的風險 。他們投資給最大，最有名的基金，而這些基金的累積表現跟投資者所希望模仿的表現相差甚遠。投資者應該挑戰經理們，跟他們協商一些更有利的條款，并將他們的錢放入小型基金里，因為這些小基金往往表現更好。

　　Mr Lack points out that large institutional investors always like to invest in bigger hedgefunds. That way they need not worry about being the bulk of a small fund s investor-base.But he offers no solution for these large investors, who cannot put big sums into the small,nimble funds that he touts. Nor does he analyse how hedge-fund performance compareswith other asset classes, such as private equity. As a result, the reader is left with a naggingunanswered question: would investors do better to avoid hedge funds altogether and, if so,where should they put their money in future?

　　Lack還指出大型機構投資者都喜歡投資大型對沖基金。這樣他們不需要擔心自己成為小基金的主要客戶。大型機構不可能將大額資金放入他所推崇的那些敏捷的小基金里，而他并沒有提出如何解決這些大型投資者所面臨的問題。同時他也沒有進行對沖基金跟其他基金的表現對比，例如私募基金。因此，這給讀者留下了一個令人困惑的問題：投資者如果完全退出對沖基金，表現是不是會更好呢?如果是的話，他們以后又應該把錢投到哪里呢?

　　In his conclusion Mr Lack argues that most hedge-fund books are written by theirproponents. His ambition was to spark debate and help to change the industry. Whetherhe succeeds or not remains to be seen. Hedge-fund executives have already reacted angrilyto The Hedge Fund Mirage, which suggests that looking into the mirror may be painful. Theyrightly worry the days of easy praise are over.

　　在他的總結里他寫道，大多數關于對沖基金的書都是由它的 擁護者 寫的。他的野心在于將這場辯論點燃，并寄希望于此以改變整個行業。至于他在這一點上是否成功了，還有待考證。對沖基金總裁們已經對《對沖基金的海市蜃樓》一書表示憤怒，這顯示了要面對鏡子里的自己是痛苦的。他們擔心民眾對其慷慨贊美的日子已經終結，這倒不是杞人憂天。