Surely there isn't a shortage of competition? Does everyone just want in on the big names?
DOGE-Backed Halt at CFPB Comes Amid Musk's Plans for 'X' Digital Wallet - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43003636
And
The biggest microcode attack in our history is underway - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43001730
The difference though is that a nuking from orbit has less chance of retaliation since the aggressor is no longer on the same planet (unless the victim has ASAT weapons).
Either that or they've switched business model to mostly making money on the management fee. It's easier to grow the assets than the returns.
[0] If you can get money into one of the top multi-managers, in peacetime you are basically looking at somewhere between a nice and very good return every year. Where peacetime could well include a big bear market in stocks e.g. Millennium made 35% in 2022 despite a big draw down in the SP500.
This of course isn't magic, illiquidity, big spikes in (say) funding costs, or just foolishness can still kill them.
A certain famous Italian gentleman had the same realization.
Yes. Generating consistent returns is hard. Proving you can do it is harder. Investors may be rationally willing to cede most of the upside in exchange for less exposure to the downside. (Part of the problem is the political pressure on public fund managers to avoid losses.)
These are not single strategy hedge funds. The places mentioned are doing something different not inexpensively duplicated, that returns a different investment profile.
Random Google: https://www.eatonvance.com/insights/articles/how-multi-manag...