Last year, 25 hedge fund managers earned a combined $22 billion
economist.com
economist.com
If I were a major shareholder, the first thing I'd demand is that a test of managers' worth be done. Set up a few theoretical funds with spreadsheets, full of what-ifs such as how much money is invested in total, and with goals for each fund (such as a certain amount of gain, or safety). Then, take some people with minimal finance experience, like new college grads, and pay them $50000 a year each; pit them against the hedge fund managers for the same funds.
For a few months, everyone has to try to work those fake funds; they must use real market values and suggest decisions based on real data, but obviously the funds contain no real money and the effects would just be calculated. Here's the best part: since the real managers are making over 100 times what the grads would make, they had better have some pretty damned impressive results. If the grads come anywhere near what the managers do, the managers will automatically have their pay docked accordingly. In other words, if they aren't astronomically better when applying their "experience" to a few simple tests, why the hell would any investor continue to tolerate paying these managers so much?
Suppose you find that the hedge managers are only 0.1% better than the grads.
Is it still a good idea to pick the hedge manager?
When you're talking about billions dollars -- it might be.
Let's take a hedge fund manager who's making $10m a year. If he's managing a $5b fund, even if his performance is 0.2% better than that of someone who works for free, he has "earned" that $10m in terms of value added.
Now, why they charge over 1% is another question...
What's the justification for management fees at all, let alone such a steep one? Their cut of the profit in fat years should be enough to keep the doors open in lean ones. Such fees also create a perverse incentive to simply get as much money under management as possible.
On the other hand, how much of the money that goes into D. E. Shaw is invested by folks who aren't actually investing their own money? (eg managers of pension funds, et cetera).
The justification is that people are willing to pay it.
Of course, you're probably asking not whether people pay it, but whether it's a fair price. The answer is no in general; hedge funds historically have underperformed the market.
That is, of course, how hedge funds ought to work -- smoothing out the dips (2008) at the cost of being slightly conservative in the booms.
That is why I think comments like yours should be discouraged.