Size: It's Complicated

January 14, 2016 |
2 minute read

Assets under management (AUM) among hedge funds has always been characteristically top-heavy, with the majority of capital in the hands of a relatively small number of managers. While the hedge fund universe has expanded from a few hundred in the mid-1990s to several thousand today, investors have voted in large numbers for what amounts to a handful of those managers.

It is not difficult to infer why thousands of allocation decisions made independently might, as an end-result, take this shape – numerous features of hedge fund markets may push allocators upstream. For one, sourcing hedge funds is resource-intensive, and finding that thousandth-largest manager can be significantly more expensive than finding the tenth-largest.

Such resource constraints alone, however, alone do not explain away the tendency to the largest managers.

Consider the figure below, showing the cumulative distribution of AUM for all USD-denominated hedge funds reporting to HFRI alongside all US equity and US fixed income mutual funds reporting to Bloomberg. On the x-axis (left-right) is a cumulative percentage of managers by number, from 1 to 100 percent; on the y-axis, percent of assets those managers control. For frame of reference, also shown is aggregate salary data for Major League Baseball – the highest-paid players earn multiples of league-average, but it looks almost egalitarian in comparison to the assets in the active management universes.


The lopsidedness of hedge funds in particular has its critics, particularly among skeptics who see it as representative of issues unique to the industry: misaligned interests induced by fee structures, a culture of overextended growth, the irrational draw of perceived star power.

For all the hand-wringing, though, and the assumptions about why hedge fund investors allocate as they do in large scale, it is notable that amid very different sets of constraints, investor scope, fees and culture, mutual fund investors ultimately show much the same tendencies.


Perhaps, then, it is better to think of manager size, in a macro sense, not as a default that investors tend to wander into, but rather as an attribute that they value positively, all else equal, and one that, perhaps, they are willing to pay for in terms of performance. There are a number of reasons why that would be, including those features common to the largest funds that are characterized as “institutional quality,” such as multi-personnel staffs of legal, compliance, operations, and risk management.

But how much are investors ultimately willing to pay, and what is that acceptable trade-off sensitive to? There may be clues to this question in how this distribution of assets has changed over time, as AUM has in the recent past only grown wobblier, investor preferences more pronounced.

It is, perhaps, not incidental that this recent growth in AUM among the largest managers has coincided with a large-scale exodus of capital from funds-of-funds. That is, as investors have migrated from funds-of-funds to direct selection of individual managers, investors acting independently may be in effect compensating for the risk-offsets formerly provided by funds-of-funds, including due diligence and diversification, with size.

It has become almost conventional wisdom that small hedge funds, on average, tend to outperform large. What was a provocative claim years ago – provocative, because it had the flavor not just of size but, by implication, top managers’ elite status and reputation – has by now been widely circulated. Chances are that anyone who allocates to hedge funds for a living is at least familiar with it.

On the face of it, then, investors routinely operate in opposition to the house advantage.

John Delano


John Delano

Managing Director, Head of Research and Analytics

John Delano


Kristofer Kwait

Chief Market Strategist

Stay connected with the Insights Blog

Popular Blog Posts

Market Commentary | Insights Blog

Chart of the Month | The Surprising Relationship Between Money Supply and Inflation

The potential for rising inflation is becoming a top concern for many investors and consumers. Many believe that inflation is already here as evidenced by price increases in commodities, homes,...
Perspectives | Insights Blog

The Case for Using the Higher Education Price Index® (HEPI) to Define Inflation for Colleges

When calculating return targets for an endowment portfolio, a conventional piece of the equation is often the Consumer Price Index (CPI). CPI plus 5% is the common short-hand formula for institutions...
Governance And Policy | Insights Blog

Endowment Management and the Three Primary Responsibilities of a Board

The fourth blog in the “Six Ps of Investment Stewardship” series addresses People, specifically how boards function within an organization. To learn more about the first four principles in the series...


Certain information contained herein has been obtained from or is based on third-party sources and, although believed to be reliable, has not been independently verified. Such information is as of the date indicated, if indicated, may not be complete, is subject to change and has not necessarily been updated. No representation or warranty, express or implied, is or will be given by The Common Fund for Nonprofit Organizations, any of its affiliates or any of its or their affiliates, trustees, directors, officers, employees or advisers (collectively referred to herein as “Commonfund”) or any other person as to the accuracy or completeness of the information in any third-party materials. Accordingly, Commonfund shall not be liable for any direct, indirect or consequential loss or damage suffered by any person as a result of relying on any statement in, or omission from, such third-party materials, and any such liability is expressly disclaimed.

All rights to the trademarks, copyrights, logos and other intellectual property listed herein belong to their respective owners and the use of such logos hereof does not imply an affiliation with, or endorsement by, the owners of such trademarks, copyrights, logos and other intellectual property.

To the extent views presented forecast market activity, they may be based on many factors in addition to those explicitly stated herein. Forecasts of experts inevitably differ. Views attributed to third-parties are presented to demonstrate the existence of points of view, not as a basis for recommendations or as investment advice. Market and investment views of third-parties presented herein do not necessarily reflect the views of Commonfund, any manager retained by Commonfund to manage any investments for Commonfund (each, a “Manager”) or any fund managed by any Commonfund entity (each, a “Fund”). Accordingly, the views presented herein may not be relied upon as an indication of trading intent on behalf of Commonfund, any Manager or any Fund.

Statements concerning Commonfund’s views of possible future outcomes in any investment asset class or market, or of possible future economic developments, are not intended, and should not be construed, as forecasts or predictions of the future investment performance of any Fund. Such statements are also not intended as recommendations by any Commonfund entity or any Commonfund employee to the recipient of the presentation. It is Commonfund’s policy that investment recommendations to its clients must be based on the investment objectives and risk tolerances of each individual client. All market outlook and similar statements are based upon information reasonably available as of the date of this presentation (unless an earlier date is stated with regard to particular information), and reasonably believed to be accurate by Commonfund. Commonfund disclaims any responsibility to provide the recipient of this presentation with updated or corrected information or statements. Past performance is not indicative of future results. For more information please refer to Important Disclosures.