Daniel Gross of Slate writes about Harvard's endowment.
« Hedge Fund Shareholder Letter | Main | The Denominator Effect: Skewness in Reverse »
November 18, 2008
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Categories
- BMMT Capital Partners: the Economics of New Media Investing (19)
- Book Reviews (11)
- Buffett on Valuation (14)
- Case Studies and Long Posts (9)
- Consigliere Role Models (10)
- Could you please explain . . .? (2)
- Due Diligence Questionnaire (23)
- Family Foresight Thought Experiment (24)
- Financial Crisis of 2008 (90)
- First Post (2)
- Great Investors Of Today (8)
- Hedge Fund Wizards--of Oz (28)
- How to Invest (45)
- How to Learn about Business (43)
- Investment Ideas (14)
- Investor Due Diligence (43)
- Investor Seduction Theory (23)
- Investor-Owner-Operators (7)
- Investors I Like (54)
- Investors in Investors Hall of Fame (11)
- Investors Who Write (6)
- Judging Investment Pitches (3)
- Manager Hall of Fame (5)
- My Job Search (5)
- Private Banks (15)
- Private Equity (12)
- Real Estate (6)
- The Rules of the Game (28)
- The Search for Sticky Capital (1)
- Venture Capital (2)
So misleading to draw any conclusion from a tiny part of the portfolio.
11% long-term allocation to emerging markets doesn't seem so exaggerated considering their weights in the global economy.
What we learn from the 13F filings is that, unlike I understand other asset classes, Harvard prefers the low cost alternative (ETFs) to hiring external managers to get this exposure.
This suggests they have little confidence in EM managers' ability to provide value added on a consistent basis. Striking since these markets would be considered highly inefficient...
Posted by: Paul | November 18, 2008 at 08:09 PM