I don’t think the money managers still on the Forbes list are really exceptions. The whole point, if I understand, is that it has gotten significantly harder to generate sustained outsized returns.
A manager like the type you describe - 3-4% on 10b aum - is less a ‘billionaire investor’ than a ‘billionaire entrepreneur’ in the capital…
I don’t think the money managers still on the Forbes list are really exceptions. The whole point, if I understand, is that it has gotten significantly harder to generate sustained outsized returns.
A manager like the type you describe - 3-4% on 10b aum - is less a ‘billionaire investor’ than a ‘billionaire entrepreneur’ in the capital raising business. Not to be cynical or dismissive, but that’s where the wealth is generated - an outsized ability to raise capital. Outsized returns, whether sustained (Klarman?) or one-time (Paulson?) is only a related factor.
I don’t think the money managers still on the Forbes list are really exceptions. The whole point, if I understand, is that it has gotten significantly harder to generate sustained outsized returns.
A manager like the type you describe - 3-4% on 10b aum - is less a ‘billionaire investor’ than a ‘billionaire entrepreneur’ in the capital raising business. Not to be cynical or dismissive, but that’s where the wealth is generated - an outsized ability to raise capital. Outsized returns, whether sustained (Klarman?) or one-time (Paulson?) is only a related factor.
(ps great read. Just found you via theDiff)