IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jacrfn/v20y2008i1p121-123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who Charges More: Hedge Funds or Mutual Funds?

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Kritzman

Abstract

Explicit mutual fund fees are typically less than 1% of the assets under management. By comparison, the typical hedge fund charges a base fee of 2% plus a performance fee equal to 20% of net profits. Thus, hedge funds appear to charge far more for even comparable performance—unless one takes account of the following: • For most mutual funds, a very high percentage of performance is driven by its passive exposure to the market, even though the fee is applied to the total fund. • Many hedge funds are designed to provide returns that are completely independent of market performance. Using these two assumptions, the author provides a simple example that shows that a representative mutual fund's performance can be replicated by combining an index fund, which represents the mutual fund's passive component, with a hedge fund, representing the mutual fund's active component. When analyzed in this way, the fee of the combined fund turns out to be remarkably close to the actual fee of the mutual fund. This in turn suggests that the implicit fee for the mutual fund's small active component is comparable to the fees of the hedge fund.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Kritzman, 2008. "Who Charges More: Hedge Funds or Mutual Funds?," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 20(1), pages 121-123, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jacrfn:v:20:y:2008:i:1:p:121-123
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6622.2008.00174.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2008.00174.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2008.00174.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jacrfn:v:20:y:2008:i:1:p:121-123. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1078-1196 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.