Thanks for doing all this homework. A question if you don’t mind:
This is for an unlisted fund for accredited investors, right? I spent my career in retirement plans (pension actuary) and am wondering if these multiple layers of fees is what we’ll see if 401(k)s start investing meaningfully in alts. As I understand things, that would likely be effectuated with semi-liquid/evergreen alts funds used inside a target date fund. Would those evergreen funds have similar layers and levels of fees, do you think? (And then you’d add a small amount for the TDF.)
Hi there. Thanks for reading. Good question. Yes, this is for accredited investors. As far as what we'll see in 401ks, I'm not sure but am confident it will not resemble this. Plan sponsors/investment committees are already under intense scrutiny. They're not going to access private markets if it costs participants an arm and a leg and/or involves multiple/opaque layers. I expect the biggest providers that do this will carve out sleeves that gain exposure to private assets in pretty unfettered way. But I don't know for sure how they'll implement it. We shall see, I guess.
Thanks for the response. I hope you're right. For what it's worth, my bet is it doesn't catch on so much because of the scrutiny you mention. But where it does catch on, I don't see how it's possible to avoid multiple opaque layers. For example, I believe the Apollo/State Street 401k product involves an Apollo collective investment trust (CIT) layered into a State Street target date fund CIT. State Street is pitching it, so there must be something in it for them. And if the Apollo-managed assets are semi-liquid secondaries (shares of limited partnerships?), that's probably at least a couple of layers of fees? CITs are by nature opaque, and I have to believe they won't let all that opacity go to waste. I bet the 401k plaintiffs' bar is watching closely. As you say, we shall see. Thanks again
I was referring to the since inception figures they were showing for the S&P and Agg. I show the S&P gained 17.16% per year over that period. The Agg returned 2.34% p.a..
Thanks for doing all this homework. A question if you don’t mind:
This is for an unlisted fund for accredited investors, right? I spent my career in retirement plans (pension actuary) and am wondering if these multiple layers of fees is what we’ll see if 401(k)s start investing meaningfully in alts. As I understand things, that would likely be effectuated with semi-liquid/evergreen alts funds used inside a target date fund. Would those evergreen funds have similar layers and levels of fees, do you think? (And then you’d add a small amount for the TDF.)
Hi there. Thanks for reading. Good question. Yes, this is for accredited investors. As far as what we'll see in 401ks, I'm not sure but am confident it will not resemble this. Plan sponsors/investment committees are already under intense scrutiny. They're not going to access private markets if it costs participants an arm and a leg and/or involves multiple/opaque layers. I expect the biggest providers that do this will carve out sleeves that gain exposure to private assets in pretty unfettered way. But I don't know for sure how they'll implement it. We shall see, I guess.
Thanks for the response. I hope you're right. For what it's worth, my bet is it doesn't catch on so much because of the scrutiny you mention. But where it does catch on, I don't see how it's possible to avoid multiple opaque layers. For example, I believe the Apollo/State Street 401k product involves an Apollo collective investment trust (CIT) layered into a State Street target date fund CIT. State Street is pitching it, so there must be something in it for them. And if the Apollo-managed assets are semi-liquid secondaries (shares of limited partnerships?), that's probably at least a couple of layers of fees? CITs are by nature opaque, and I have to believe they won't let all that opacity go to waste. I bet the 401k plaintiffs' bar is watching closely. As you say, we shall see. Thanks again
Heartening to see how the gardens of hedge funds and PE is getting nurtured through elaborate and intricate money channels.
This is hitting Inception levels of confusing depths.
Yeah took a while to figure it out. Good learning experience though.
Jeff - are you sure the S&P return was misquoted in the filing? 17.52% is the S&P total return for 12m ending Oct 31 2025. 8.25% is 12m ending March 31, 2025. https://ycharts.com/indicators/sp_500_12_month_total_return.
I was referring to the since inception figures they were showing for the S&P and Agg. I show the S&P gained 17.16% per year over that period. The Agg returned 2.34% p.a..