Are you a solo investor trying to imitate the big boys? It may not be such a good idea. You may have seen hedge funds, institutional investors, and big university endowments delve into “alternative” investments, meaning esoteric low-liquidity products that ordinary people wouldn’t have access to. Financial service providers, hoping to capitalize on a trend, created mutual funds and ETFs allowing ordinary people to buy into these supposed hot new strategies. Warning: they just want to charge high fees.
The performance has been dismal. As the chart on the link shows, a boring tried and true approach with stocks and bonds has outperformed all of these newfangled products.
The article goes on to explain the reason for the discrepancy:
Ben Johnson, Morningstar’s director of global ETF research, says many alternative ETFs have serious flaws. “Those guru-type portfolios are just equity strategies taking the long side of some well-known hedge-fund managers’ positions and following them on a lagged basis,” he told me.
“Oftentimes what you see in these ‘mimicking’ strategies is the derivative of the underlying asset that is many times watered down or is otherwise not directly connected to the…real asset.”
In other words, the ETFs are very poor substitutes for the real thing. Institutions like Yale get to pick the best private equity and hedge funds, and can buy, say, actual timberland rather than the WOOD ETF.
So yeah, if you can buy and operate an acre of farmland and know how to run it profitably, you may do ok. But for the rest of us, just stick with a diversified collection of stocks and bonds.