Hacker News Reader

Comment by blazespin | Hacker News Reader

Not really. If Index funds become more popular than regular trading becomes more profitable. The opposite of what you say is actually true.

View on HN

It may make regular trading more profitable, but most asset managers are paid for getting more assets under management, not their fund's profits.

So siphoning money away to index funds does put a direct crimp on active managed fund managers' compensation.

> asset managers are paid for getting more assets under management, not their fund's profits.

I've always wondered why they aren't paid a percentage of profits? That would align their interests with the customers'.

They're generally paid both. They often charge "two and twenty" meaning 2% yearly of the assets under management and 20% of the profit. (Of course they don't absorb 20% of the losses in a bad year)

That's only hedge funds, which are a small fraction of total fund capitalization.

What are the percentages of the market occupied by different fund types? Where would I go to look that up?

http://www.hedgefundfacts.org/hedge/wp-content/uploads/2009/...

Page 4

"Hedge funds as a percent of total: 1.1%"

Or even a percentage that increases by the percentage of profit.

If you trade with your own (possibly leveraged) funds, sure. If you're trading with other people's money and rely more on asset management fees than profit-sharing, then your personal expected profits fall when index funds become more popular.

However, running a consumer-facing actively managed fund and taking a percentage fee becomes less profitable if demand shifts from that product to index funds, because there is less money to take a percentage fee out of.

Not really. The "who stands to lose" is money managers/financial advisers, assuming they don't want to become a trader or fund manager.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com