Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

  • MJG September 2016
Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Barry Ritholtz: Harvard Does a Trade You Should Never Make

FYI: (This is a follow-up article)
The Harvard Management Co., which oversees Harvard University’s endowment and other investments, just released its 2016 annual report. It's grim reading: The fund had a negative return of 2 percent and was worth about $2 billion less than a year earlier, underperforming its benchmarks by a significant margin.

At $35.7 billion, the university's endowment is the biggest in the world. And let's get it out of the way quickly -- anyone can have a bad year. But here's what should be of greater concern to alums and donors: the processes that the university and the management company use to look after this huge pile of money.
Regards,
Ted

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-23/harvard-does-a-trade-you-should-never-make

Comments

  • MJG
    edited September 2016
    Hi Guys,

    In a convoluted way, the subpar performance of Harvard's investments as directed by high paid professional teams should make us relatively uninformed amateurs happy. In the investment universe we can compete and win against heavy weight pros. That is not possible in a football contest. A professional football team would easily wipe us off the field.

    There are several lessons embedded in Harvard's bad luck. Note that I said bad luck. Investing results are dependent upon luck, skill, and timing. And even the skill set is not fully dependable. What works in one timeframe may be a disaster in another period. I'm sure Harvard hired the very best team of pros with very distinguished performance records. Yet it was not enough.

    What is enough? Perhaps keeping costs under tight control by being simple is a key characteristic. Exotic options like those pursued by Hedge fund operatives are a double edged sword, sometimes yielding oversized returns, but sometimes generating heart-stopping losses. Such is the current Harvard situation.

    "Some you win, and some you lose, and the winners all grin and the losers say deal the cards again." That line is from a song called "The Devil" by singer/songwriter Hoyt Axton.

    EDIT: If you like folk music you might give Hoyt Axton and the referenced song a try at:

    https://www.google.com/search?sclient=tablet-gws&site=&source=hp&q=hoyt+acton+the+devil+song&oq=hoyt+acton+the+devil+song&gs_l=tablet-gws.3..30i10k1.3959.22310.0.26966.25.25.0.0.0.0.236.4092.0j22j3.25.0.foo,bruas=1,brua=1,brapml=1...0...1c.1.64.tablet-gws..0.25.4084...0j0j0i131k1j0i10k1j0i13k1j0i22i30k1.RmPaam7eSFk

    Best Wishes to both the winners and losers. Over time places will change. There is considerable merit to a diversified portfolio of Index products. That's keeping things simple while controlling costs.
Sign In or Register to comment.