What’s going on here? Just a couple of weeks ago, Bill Ackman was aiming to raise $25 billion with the initial public offering of his US investment fund Pershing Square USA – but now he’s shortened that target by a mile. What does this mean? The hedge fund manager says he’s now looking to gather just $2.5 billion to $4 billion – a far more reasonable ballpark. Shares of investment vehicles like this one usually trade at a discount compared to the assets they hold. But the billionaire “finfluencer” had hoped his new US fund might trade above its fair value instead, catapulted by demand from the legions of retail investors who follow him on social media. Why should I care? Zooming in: Boring is better. It’s not easy to raise money, but Pershing’s downshift likely isn’t instilling confidence in any would-be investors. And it’s not just retail investors who are snubbing the firm’s latest offering: big institutional investors like pension firms prefer to invest in diversified asset funds that are managed by a team. The ones run by Millennium, Citadel, and Blackstone, for example, have more people and more strategies, so they’re covered if someone leaves or something goes wrong. Meanwhile, Pershing is more of a one-man band, which means a lot of risk rests with Ackman. For you personally: Cheap tricks. Many ETFs give you exposure to the US big-fish stocks that this investment is targeting, but at much lower prices. Sure, Ackman’s waving the firm’s 2% fee for the first year, but that seems like the least he could do: an S&P 500 tracker ETF costs a fraction of that, with fees typically below 0.1%. Pershing’s latest vehicle would have to outperform the index for a long time to make up that difference. So it’s no wonder active funds, like Ackman’s, are losing out to cheaper passive ones. |