These asset based rankings are useless for investors. In fact, often the highest ranked asset based firms are the lowest ranked performance based firms, as it is more difficult to manage larger sums of money. How about adding some value for us? We want performance based rankings - period!
marketfolly
· 7 months ago
True points indeed. At the same time, Alpha releases this list on a yearly basis and it usually costs money so we're merely presenting it to readers for free. Plus, the list was interesting in the sense that in our follow up post "top 10 asset losers" we found out which firms suffered the most in terms of poor performance and withdrawals. All that data was derived from the list.
But I would agree with you that performance rankings are obviously a better metric. Problem is, those are much harder to procure since everyone has different inception dates etc. Barron's tries to do this by using a rolling 3 year annualized period, but even then that's not a very long-term record.
All Comments
But I would agree with you that performance rankings are obviously a better metric. Problem is, those are much harder to procure since everyone has different inception dates etc. Barron's tries to do this by using a rolling 3 year annualized period, but even then that's not a very long-term record.