There is one problem with relentlessly ramping markets (whether due to four years of liquidity injections by the Fed, or due to four years of liquidity injections by the Fed) - they make all those who by definition have to be hedged, seem stupid by comparison. In this case, this means that for the fifth year in a row, the vast majority of brand name hedge funds are once again underperforming the S&P, even though most of them have shifted to the highest net long exposure in history, while charging their increasingly more angry investors 2 and 20 for the privilege of underperforming the most micromanaged asset of all - the S&P500, and its unpaid portfolio manager, Ben Bernanke. And while there are three certain things in life: death, taxes and Paulson being one of the worst performers in the world (perhaps he is moving to Puerto Rico not to avoid paying taxes but to escape furious LPs), as he indeed is for the third year running...
... what is most surprising is that through the middle of March, according to HSBC, every single brand name hedge funds is once again underperforming the S&P. And while hedge funds are supposed to be hedged in cases of "downside risk" one wonders - with the downside no longer a possibility thanks to the biggest asset manager of all, the Federal Reserve, does this mean hedge funds are no longer necessary?
Complete YTD performance via HSBC: