Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Uh I would I would not get excited about so-called alternative Investments there's you can get all kinds of different figures but there may be there's probably at least a trillion dollars committed uh two buying in effect buying businesses and if you figure they're going to leverage them you know two for one on that you may have three trillion of buying power trying to buy businesses in a well the U.S market maybe something over 30 trillion now but there's all kinds of businesses that aren't for sale and that thing so the supply demand situation for buying businesses privately and leveraging them up has changed dramatically from what it was 10 or 20 years ago and I'm sure it doesn't happen with your Winnipeg operation but but we have seen a number of proposals uh from private Equity Funds where the returns are really not calculated in a manner that uh well they're not calculated in a manner that I would regard as honest and uh so I it's it's it's not something if I were running a pension fund I would be very careful about what was being offered to me if you have a choice in Wall Street between being a great analyst or being a great salesperson the salesperson is the way to make it if you can if you can raise 10 billion dollars in a fund and you get a one and a half percent see and you lock people up for 10 years you know you and your children and your grandchildren will never have to do a thing if you were the dumbest investor in the world but Charlie well I I think what we're doing will work more safely than what he's doing and but I I wish you well yeah Brandon you saw you sound actually you sound like a guy that I would hope would be working for a public pension fund because frankly most of the most of the institutional funds you know that well we had this terrible right here in Omaha and you can get a story of what happened with our with our Omaha Public Schools retirement fund and they were doing fine and until uh the manager started going in a different direction and the and the trustees hear them perfectly decent people and the manager done okay to that point and it became they were smarter in Winnipeg than they are here yeah well that was pretty bad here it's not a fair fight actually when I'm usually when a bunch of public officials are listening to people who were motivated to uh who really just get paid for raising the money everything else is gravy after that but but uh you know you if you want to fund it you get even one percent you know of of of a billion you're getting 10 million dollars a year coming in and if you've got the money locked up for a long time uh it's it's a very one-sided deal and you know I told the story of asking the guy one time in the past how in the world canoe why in the world can you ask for two and twenty when you really haven't got any kind of uh evidence that you are going to do better with the money than you're doing in the next fund and he said well that's because I can't get three and 30. you know what I don't like about a lot of the pension about investment is I think they like it because they don't have to mark it down as much as it should be in the middle of the panics I think that's a silly reason to buy something because you're given leniency and marking it down yeah and when you commit the money in the case of private Equity often uh you uh they don't take the money but you pay a fee on the money that you've committed and of course you really have to have that money to come up with at any time and of course it makes their return look better if you sit there for a long time and treasury bills which you have to hold because they can call you up and demand the money and they don't count that they count it in terms of getting a fee on it but they don't count it in terms of what the so-called internal rate of return is it's it's uh it's not as good as it looks and and I really do think that when you have a group sitting as a state pension fund where all they're doing is lying a little bit to make the money come in yeah yeah that that sums it up this man has this wonderful horse it's just a marvelous horse got an easy gate and good looking and everything it just works wonderfully but also occasionally just gets so he's dangerous ambitious and causes enormous damage and trouble and breaks arms and legs for others right here and so on and he goes to the vet and say what can I do about this horse the vet says that's a very easy problem and I'm glad to help you he says what should I do and the man says the next time your horse is behaving well sell it well think of how immoral that is and haven't I just described what private Equity has to do
1. Summary of the results
The original statement, which appears to be from an experienced investor (possibly Warren Buffett), raises several concerns about private equity investments that are partially supported by current data. While the speaker expresses skepticism about alternative investments, recent data shows a more nuanced picture with a 24% decline in fundraising but also a 14% increase in dealmaking to $2 trillion [1].
The speaker's primary concerns about fee structures and transparency are well-documented, with SEC investigations confirming issues with hidden fees and inadequate disclosure practices [2]. The "two and twenty" fee structure mentioned in the original statement remains a significant concern, with 60% of investors declining fund participation due to terms and conditions [3].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The original statement omits several important positive aspects of private equity:
- Private equity has historically outperformed public markets, particularly among top-tier funds [4]
- The industry offers benefits such as:
- Reduced concentration risk
- Exposure to emerging companies
- Smoother volatility
- Returns nearly doubling public market performance over 3-10 year periods [5]
The industry is showing signs of recovery, with improved financing conditions and increased confidence among sponsors [1], which isn't acknowledged in the original statement's more pessimistic outlook.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
While the speaker's concerns about fee transparency and calculation methods are validated by current investigations [2], the blanket dismissal of alternative investments might be overly negative given the documented benefits for certain investors.
The statement's focus on fee structures, while valid, potentially overlooks that investors are more concerned about understanding what they're paying for rather than the absolute fee amount [3]. This suggests the issue is more about transparency than fee levels themselves.
Who benefits:
- Traditional investment managers and public market advocates benefit from skepticism toward private equity
- Established private equity firms benefit from maintaining complex fee structures and limited transparency
- Top-tier funds benefit from historical performance data that shows their superior returns [4]
- Public pension fund managers and trustees might benefit from simpler, more transparent investment vehicles as suggested in the original statement