<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: BGI: Why Buy Pre-Packaged Alpha &amp; Beta?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://allaboutalpha.com/blog/2007/06/18/bgi-why-buy-pre-packaged-alpha-beta/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://allaboutalpha.com/blog/2007/06/18/bgi-why-buy-pre-packaged-alpha-beta/</link>
	<description>A finance blog about hedge funds, portable alpha and alternative investing.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:03:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: allaboutalpha.com: Welcome to AllAboutAlpha.com</title>
		<link>http://allaboutalpha.com/blog/2007/06/18/bgi-why-buy-pre-packaged-alpha-beta/comment-page-1/#comment-11993</link>
		<dc:creator>allaboutalpha.com: Welcome to AllAboutAlpha.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:56:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://allaboutalpha.com/blog/2007/06/18/bgi-why-buy-pre-packaged-alpha-beta/#comment-11993</guid>
		<description>[...] When you think about, this makes a lot of sense.Ã‚ Ã‚ Most costs (save performance fees) areÃ‚ unrelated toÃ‚ performance.Ã‚  They are essentially a guaranteed negative return withÃ‚ basically no volatility.Ã‚  If you removed the negative sign,Ã‚ it would be quite apparent that this return would be tantamount to (precious) alpha.Ã‚ Ã‚ Our example from a few days ago of the hypothetical fund charging 2% in a year when gross returns amounted toÃ‚ 2%, clearly illustrates that feesÃ‚ basically net-out against alpha.Ã‚  The numbers may be small compared to overall returns, but are gigantic compared to the typical amount of alpha delivered.Ã‚  In other words, cutting fees amounts to a serious alphaÃ‚ &#8221;gimme&#8220;. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] When you think about, this makes a lot of sense.Ã‚ Ã‚ Most costs (save performance fees) areÃ‚ unrelated toÃ‚ performance.Ã‚  They are essentially a guaranteed negative return withÃ‚ basically no volatility.Ã‚  If you removed the negative sign,Ã‚ it would be quite apparent that this return would be tantamount to (precious) alpha.Ã‚ Ã‚ Our example from a few days ago of the hypothetical fund charging 2% in a year when gross returns amounted toÃ‚ 2%, clearly illustrates that feesÃ‚ basically net-out against alpha.Ã‚  The numbers may be small compared to overall returns, but are gigantic compared to the typical amount of alpha delivered.Ã‚  In other words, cutting fees amounts to a serious alphaÃ‚ &#8221;gimme&#8220;. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

