Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
A "fund of funds" (FOF) is an investment strategy of holding a portfolio of other investment funds rather than investing directly in shares, bonds or other securities. This type of investing is often referred to as multi-manager investment. There are different types of 'fund of funds', each investing in a different type of collective investment scheme (typically one type per FoF), eg. 'mutual fund' FoF, hedge fund FoF, private equity FoF or investment trust FoF.
Contents
[hide]
1 Features 2 Considerations 3 Private equity fund of funds 4 Fund of hedge funds 5 Fund of venture capital funds 6 See also 7 References
Features
Investing in a collective investment scheme may increase diversity compared to a small investor holding a smaller range of securities directly. Investing in a fund of funds may achieve greater diversification. According to modern portfolio theory, the benefit of diversification can be the reduction of volatility while maintaining average returns. However, this is countered by the increased fees paid on both the FoF level, and of the underlying investment fund. An investment manager may actively manage with a view to selecting the best securities. A FoF manager will try to select the best performing funds to invest in based upon the managers past performance and other factors. If the FoF manager is skillful, this additional level of selection can provide greater stability and take on some of the risk relating to the decisions of a single manager. As in all other areas of investing, there are no guarantees for regular returns. As a fund of funds invests in the scheme of other funds, it provides a greater degree of diversification. Instead of investing in different stocks of mutual funds and keeping records of all of them, it is much easier to invest and track only one fund which in turn invests in other mutual funds.
Considerations
Management fees for Funds Of Funds are typically higher than those on traditional investment funds because they include the management fees charged by the underlying funds.[1] As in the case of schemes of mutual funds, FOF schemes also work under the due diligence of a fund manager. This gives the scheme an additional expertise. It also helps to provide access to information which may be difficult to obtain information by an investor on a case by case basis. Every fund manager has a particular style of diversification. This diversification has a perfect correlation with the number of managers involved. Once a FOF reached a certain level of managers, adding more flattens return curve and diversifies away alpha (Harry Prasun Kat2). Since a fund of funds buys many different funds which themselves invest in many different securities, it is possible for the fund of funds to own the same stock through several different funds and it can be difficult to keep track of the overall holdings. Funds of funds are often used when investing in hedge funds and private equity funds, as they typically have a high minimum investment level compared to traditional investment funds which precludes many from investing directly. In addition hedge fund and private equity investing is more complicated and higher risk than traditional collective investments.[citation needed] The lack of accessibility favors a FoF with a professional manager and built-in spread of risk. Pension funds and other institutions often invest in funds of hedge funds for part or all of their "alternative asset" programs, i.e. investments other than traditional stock and bond holdings. After allocation of the two levels of fees payable and taxation, returns on FoF investments will generally be lower than single-manager funds. The due diligence and safety of investing in FoFs has come under question as a result of the Bernie Madoff scandal, where many FoFs put substantial investments into the scheme. It became clear that a motivation for this was the lack of fees by Madoff which gave the illusion that the FoF was performing well. The due diligence of the FoFs apparently did not include asking why Madoff was not making this charge for his services.[2] 2008 and 2009 saw fund of funds take a battering from investors and the media on all fronts from the hollow promises made by overeager marketers to the strength (or lack) of their due diligence processes to those carefully explained and eminently justifiable extra layers of fees, all reaching their zenith with the Bernie Madoff fiasco.[3]
Rank
Headquarters
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
AlpInvest Partners AXA Private Equity AIG Investments Goldman Sachs Private Equity Group Pantheon Ventures Pathway Capital Management Capital Dynamics Partners Group Lehman Brothers HarbourVest Partners PCG Asset Management Credit Suisse Customized Fund Investment Group LGT Capital Partners Adams Street Partners Horizon21 Alternative Investments SL Capital Partners Allianz Private Equity Partners Portfolio Advisors Commonfund Capital Horsley Bridge Partners SVG Capital European Investment Fund Macquarie Funds Management Group Abbott Capital Management Natixis Private Equity
(billions of USD) $42.3 $34.9 $24.6 $24.0 $22.6 $20.6 $20.0 $19.6 $19.0 $17.8 $15.0 $14.0 $13.5 $12.0 $11.5 $9.3 $7.9 $7.5 $7.5 $7.1 $7.0 $6.8 $6.1 $6.0 $5.7
Amsterdam Paris New York New York London Irvine, California Zug, Switzerland Baar-Zug, Switzerland New York Boston, Massachusetts San Diego, California New York Pfaeffikon, Switzerland Chicago, Illinois Pfaeffikon, Switzerland Edinburgh Munich Darien, Connecticut Wilton, Connecticut San Francisco, California London Luxembourg Sydney New York Paris