> No one is forced to put money in his hedge fund.
...except the people represented by those "legislators and regulators" that you sneer at for being ignorant, and thus can be educated by articles like this.
Your posts in this thread feel like libertarian position-staking more than anything coherent.
Haven't met many libertarians who complain about regulatory capture.
My complaint is that this article is a distraction.
People who deal with hedge funds (especially public pensions) are loaded with consultants, attorneys, and analysts. If they get hoodwinked, it is probably due to their own lack of due-dilligence.
I think the effort would be better spent covering one of the many cases where ordinary people without consultants, attorneys, and analysts are in a "Heads We Win, Tails You Lose" situation.
That's fair; I withdraw the libertarian comparison and I apologize. But what's to say we can't pay attention to both at once? I feel like this is kind of a false economy.
Any article crying boo-hoo for hedge fund investors is up to something. People who can invest in hedge funds are big boys who can look out for themselves.
At the same time, there are so many bogus mainstream investment vehicles (like so many heavy-load, low-performance mutual funds that a lot of employees are stuck with because that's what their 401k offers), advertised in newspapers and television, that are far more deserving of media scrutiny. I can't help but suspect that part of the reason why they are not scrutinized is that they are well-paying advertisers.
Ackermann is probably getting a colonoscopy here because he is not an advertiser.
You're criticizing an article for bringing attention to something you claim cannot be changed because nobody pays attention to it?