Executive Summary
● 2025’s 9.8% composite returns mask a 52% performance dispersion; the “average” hedge fund is a meaningless metric. Top decile managers returned 34.5% whilst bottom decile experienced -17.6% losses.
● Capital flows are concentrated into 5% of funds; emerging managers with superior technology and returns remain capital-starved due to career risk and operational due diligence barriers, not performance gaps.
● 62% of allocators negotiated for capacity rights in 2025 (up from 17% prior year); best-performing funds are effectively closed, transforming allocation from meritocratic to relationship-dependent.
● Pass-through fees compress net returns to 41 cents per dollar of alpha; Tier 1 platforms ($50bn+) underperformed Tier 2 peers (10.2% vs. 16.7%), signalling diseconomies of scale.
● The $1.85 trillion in Treasury basis trades, currently financed with minimal repo spreads, will face mandatory central clearing by December 2026. This mandate will inevitably trigger a deleveraging cycle. The transmission risk this cycle poses to global markets is substantial.
● Success demands surgical manager selection across uncorrelated strategies, forensic fee analysis (target: <50bps pass-throughs), explicit leverage transparency, and abandonment of passive index allocation.
The Deceptive Ascent
The investment industry opened 2026 with a collective sigh of relief. Hedge funds had delivered their strongest validation in a decade. The HFRI Fund Weighted Composite Index achieved a respectable 9.8% annualized return in 2025. This performance surpassed long-only fixed income on a risk-adjusted basis. The Sharpe ratio stood at 0.85 despite persistent market volatility. Bridgewater’s flagship Pure Alpha fund surged 34%, its finest performance in years. D.E. Shaw’s Oculus delivered 28.2%. The “pod shop” giants, those industrial multi-strategy platforms that dominate boardroom conversations, posted double-digit returns despite operating in an environment theoretically hostile to leverage-dependent strategies.
Yet beneath this narrative of resurgence lies a fundamental deception that sophisticated allocators must interrogate with rigour.
The widely accepted notion, one requiring systematic deconstruction, suggests that robust absolute returns indicate a healthy sector poised for a new epoch of accessible capital. The corollary thesis holds that because hedge funds have navigated 2025 effectively, capital will rush in, diversification will normalise, and the asset class will restore itself to pre-2008 prominence as a default allocation.
The reality is far more textured and considerably more precarious.
The hedge fund industry does not exist as a monolith. It has bifurcated into access classes, and this distinction is the defining variable for 2026. While aggregate assets approach $5 trillion, the distribution of capital flows is aggressively concentrated. The vast majority of net inflows are funnelled into a shrinking cadre of capacity-constrained, fee-intensive platforms that restrict entry even to institutional capital. The emerging manager ecosystem enjoys technological parity with incumbents and often delivers superior risk adjusted returns.
However, it remains marginalised by a trust gap. This gap is rooted not in performance metrics but in career risk and operational opacity.
Simultaneously, the industry is perched atop a systemic leverage engine. Treasury basis trades now represent $1.85 trillion in gross notional exposure, and the regulatory clock is ticking: the SEC’s Treasury Clearing Rule takes effect 31 December 2026, fundamentally restructuring the economics of this carry trade.
For UHNW and institutional allocators, 2026 presents not a moment of confidence but a moment of precision. The traditional allocation model relying on hedge fund diversification to capture alpha is obsolete. Success now demands surgical manager selection, forensic fee analysis, and explicit leverage transparency. The next twelve months will separate the sophisticated from the sanguine.
Why Returns Disguise Deterioration
The Bifurcation of Returns
The reported 9.8% composite returns mask a dispersion that renders the figure statistically irrelevant for strategic planning. The gap between the top decile of managers and the bottom decile was 52.1% in 2025.
An allocator positioned in the top decile realised returns of approximately 34.5%, while one in the bottom decile experienced losses approaching -17.6%.
This is not a marginal spread.
It is the difference between wealth compounding and capital erosion, and it collapses the premise of passive index allocation.
The performance hierarchy reveals where alpha is actually generated:
- Global Macro Funds averaged 15.4% returns, driven by the resurgence of policy divergence across the G7. The European Central Bank cut rates aggressively to stimulate a lagging Eurozone. The Federal Reserve held rates higher for longer to combat sticky service inflation. The Bank of Japan began tightening. These differences created sustained directional trends in FX and fixed income. Short Yen positions, US yield curve steepeners, and Gilt positioning generated outsized alpha for discretionary managers with conviction in these macro dislocations.
- Equity Long/Short Strategies delivered 18% average returns, but here the driver was fundamentally different. For the first time since 2010, both the long and short books of major equity funds contributed positive alpha simultaneously. This suggests a regime shift away from the “rising tide lifts all boats” dynamic of QE and liquidity-driven rallies. As the cost of capital normalised, the dispersion between high-ROIC companies and leveraged “zombies” facing refinancing cliffs widened. Short books could actually realise gains, rather than being perpetually squeezed.
Yet here lies the paradox: the largest multi-strategy platforms materially lagged the nimbler, more focused strategies. Citadel’s Wellington fund returned 10.2%. Millennium returned 10.5%. ExodusPoint, a mid-tier platform, returned 18%. Balyasny delivered 16.7%. This inversion of the size-return relationship signals a potential diseconomy of scale at the very pinnacle of the industry, where $60 billion+ asset bases force managers into less efficient trades or compel them to remain more hedged, dampening upside capture.
The investment implication is not subtle: scale is now a drag on alpha generation.
The size that once signaled safety and stability, traditionally justifying Citadel’s fee premium, now yields only average returns among mega-managers. Smaller, more flexible platforms are capitalising on the dispersion opportunities characteristic of 2026.
| Strategy | 2025 Avg Return | Key Driver | Outlook |
| Global Macro | 15.40% | G7 policy divergence, FX trends | Sustained: policy divergence persists |
| Equity L/S | 18% | Corporate dispersion, short alpha | Strong: margin compression creates opportunities |
| Multi-Strat (Tier 1, $50bn+) | 10.20% | Diversification, leverage constraints | Challenged: scale penalties evident |
| Multi-Strat (Tier 2, $10-30bn) | 16.70% | Selective positioning, tactical edge | Favourable: sweet spot of scale + agility |
| Event/Distressed | 12.10% | Limited opportunities, capital recycling | Cautious: deal flow normalising |
The Data Behind the Myth
The irony is that individual manager performance has genuinely improved. Hedge fund liquidation rates hit historic lows (approximately 138 closures in the first half of 2025, vs. 1000+ annually during the 2015-2018 “winter”). New launches accelerated to 262 in the first half, representing the highest rate since 2021. While survival is becoming widespread, genuine success remains concentrated.
Yet this performance strength has not translated into broad-based capital flows.
Of the $142 billion in industry net inflows during 2025, approximately 90% was allocated to a mere 5% of funds. These were the established platforms that practice capacity gating. For emerging managers and Tier 2 platforms, despite outperforming on a net-of-fees basis, capital remains scarce.
This disconnect is the true story of 2026.
Why Desire Doesn’t Translate to Deployment
The Capacity Trap
In 2025, 62% of institutional allocators reported negotiating for “capacity rights”, essentially an option to invest future capital with a specific fund. This figure was 17% just one year prior. The reversal is stark and reveals the true constraint facing the industry: not performance, but access.
The best-performing funds are effectively closed. Capital gains from 2025 returns have fattened asset bases to capacity-constrained levels. Rather than opening to new investors, these platforms are accepting only capital replacements from existing LPs. This transforms allocation from a merit-based selection process into a relationship-based access game, where proximity to decision-makers and historical pedigree determine opportunity, not current alpha generation.
Capacity constraints mandate a strategic shift for Ultra High Net Worth allocators. The optimal funds yesterday, such as Millennium or Citadel, are now the most challenging to access. The prudent response is not to lobby for entry, which is futile, but to systematically evaluate the Tier 2 opportunities currently driving performance dispersion.
The Private Equity Denominator Trap
Yet even if capacity existed, institutional allocators face a silent constraint: the private equity distribution drought. This is critical and often overlooked. Institutional portfolios operate with strict asset allocation targets (20% PE, 10% Hedge Funds, etc.). These allocations are rebalanced not only when returns deviate but also when the denominator shifts.
Consider a pension fund with $1 billion in AUM. Its 20% PE allocation ($200m) has not distributed cash in two years because portfolio companies have not exited. Meanwhile, public equities (60% of the portfolio) have underperformed due to tech volatility and rate repricing. The fund’s actual allocation is 24% in Private Equity and 55% in equities. This represents an overweight position in illiquid assets and an underweight position in liquid assets. To rebalance and generate the necessary cash for upcoming pension benefit payments, the fund must liquidate its liquid alternative investments. Hedge funds become the sacrificial allocation, not because they are underperforming, but because they are liquid and private equity is not.
This “denominator effect” is estimated to suppress hedge fund inflows by 2-3% of industry AUM annually. In simple terms: successful PE funds are actually destroying the market for hedge fund allocations by failing to distribute.
The Trust Gap
The final structural barrier is the “trust gap”. Despite 45% of allocators recognising that smaller managers possess institutional-grade technology, including risk systems, cybersecurity, and derivatives infrastructure comparable to established firms, they remain unwilling to commit significant capital. The stated reason is “operational due diligence concerns”, but the actual reason is career risk.
For an investment officer at a large pension fund, allocating $50 million to a $500 million emerging manager that subsequently fails due to operational failure is a career-ending error. Allocating $50 million to a $50 billion platform that underperforms is a defensible market outcome. This asymmetry creates a structural preference for scale that persists independently of actual operational quality.
Emerging managers must invest in credentialing. This includes Tier 1 cybersecurity certifications, independent audit protocols, and dedicated compliance officers. These requirements raise operating costs and ultimately compress net returns. Smaller funds effectively subsidise the peace of mind premium that large allocators pay for established incumbency.
The Multi-Strategy Paradigm Shift
The Economics of “Pod Shops”
The hedge fund industry transformed from a fragmented collection of expert stock pickers into a complex of integrated multi-strategy platforms. Firms like Citadel, Millennium, Point72, and Balyasny operate as “pod shops”, consolidating hundreds of trading teams under unified capital and risk management. This structure proved effective when increased size equated to greater efficiency.
Currently, that scale represents a significant vulnerability.
The fundamental issue is pass-through fees. The traditional “2 and 20” model theoretically aligns management fees with operational costs and incentive fees with alpha generation. In stark contrast, multi-manager platforms directly pass operational costs to their investors. This burden encompasses technology infrastructure, data feeds, legal expenses, and, most importantly, Portfolio Manager compensation.
The financial consequence is severe.
In 2023, institutional investors retained only 41 cents of every dollar of gross alpha generated by multi-strategy funds, down from 54 cents in 2021. The erosion is not hypothetical.
A multi-strategy fund generating 15% gross alpha, with 4% in pass-throughs and netting drag, delivers a net return of 6.2%. An investor that believed they were earning “25% of alpha spread” discovers they are retaining 41%, a material compression.
The second risk is netting inefficiency. If Pod A generates strong returns and Pod B loses money, the platform nets the two for the investor’s benefit. But costs are passed through on a gross basis. The investor pays the bonus for Pod A’s talent while bearing the capital drag from Pod B’s underperformance. A deterioration in netting efficiency typically causes the gross-to-net spread to widen substantially during market stress.
The Tier 2 Opportunity and Peak Pod Thesis
There is growing consensus that the industry has reached “Peak Pod”. The competition for talent has driven portfolio manager compensation to unsustainable levels relative to the alpha generated. Tier 1 platforms like Millennium and Citadel are unwisely responding to the deleveraging environment. They are attempting to mitigate this through lower profit margins and increased leverage expectations.
Tier 2 platforms (ExodusPoint, Schonfeld, Balyasny) are currently positioned in the “Goldilocks zone”: large enough to offer institutional infrastructure, small enough to find capacity in niche strategies without market impact. Data from 2025 shows Tier 2 managers on average outperformed Tier 1 managers (15.8% vs. 10.3% through Q3).
For allocators, this signals an explicit recommendation: construct a hedge fund allocation that includes 40-50% allocation to one Tier 1 platform (for stability and liquidity), with the remainder diversified across 3-4 Tier 2 specialists focused on distinct alpha sources (macro, credit, event-driven, niche L/S).
| Platform Class | AUM | Typical Return 2025 | Pass-Through Costs | Capacity Status | Risk Profile |
| Tier 1 (Mega) | $50bn+ | 10.20% | 50-120 bps | Closed/Restricted | Lower volatility; scale drag |
| Tier 2 (Large) | $10-30bn | 16.70% | 30-80 bps | Partially open | Moderate volatility; alpha available |
| Tier 3 (Mid) | $3-10bn | 18.50% | 20-60 bps | Open | Higher volatility; emerging opportunity |
| Emerging | <$1bn | 21.20% | 10-40 bps | Open | Operational risk; highest dispersion |
Leverage, Bases, and the 2026 Clearing Rule
This is where the narrative shifts from allocation mechanics to systemic risk. The hedge fund industry is not merely a portfolio asset anymore. It has become a critical intermediary in the sovereign debt market, and the leverage it employs is now a matter of central bank concern.
The Treasury Basis Trade
The “basis trade” is the engine of contemporary hedge fund leverage. The core mechanism is straightforward. Funds capitalize on minute pricing disparities between cash Treasuries and Treasury futures.
In normal market conditions, a Treasury future should trade at a slight premium to the cash bond, reflecting carry cost (repo financing) and the value of the “cheapest-to-deliver” option. When this premium widens, for instance, if the future is 5 basis points more expensive than the bond, an arbitrageur can execute a “basis trade”:
- Sell the expensive future
- Buy the cheap cash bond
- Finance the long bond in the repo market
If the position is held to convergence (delivery), the trader pockets 5 basis points. At first glance, this is pedestrian. The minuscule spread necessitates leverage, frequently 50x or greater, to achieve meaningful percentage returns. A 5 basis point spread, leveraged 50x, yields 250 basis points of return.
The scale is staggering.
Estimates from Federal Reserve data and proprietary hedge fund research place the gross notional exposure in these trades at $1.85 trillion. This figure exceeds the combined global assets under management of all hedge funds. It constitutes approximately 2 to 3% of global sovereign debt markets. This capital is concentrated in the highest-liquidity instruments such as US Treasuries and increasingly UK Gilts.
The Financing Risk
The entire structure depends on continuous access to repo financing at economical rates.
If repo rates surge, as seen in September 2019 during the Repo Crisis or March 2020’s Dash for Cash, the financing cost instantly surpasses the profit spread. The trade immediately becomes unprofitable, triggering margin calls for the funds. This cascade necessitates automatic unwinding: selling the cash Treasury and repurchasing the future. If a $1.85 trillion selling pressure simultaneously impacts the Treasury market, yields will spike uncontrollably, collateral valuations will crash, and losses will transmit globally through the prime brokerage system.
This is not a theoretical risk. It is the documented mechanism of the March 2020 crisis, when circuit breakers were triggered, Fed lending facilities were activated, and the central banking system moved to full emergency protocols.
The SEC Catalyst
The unique danger in 2026 is regulatory.
The SEC has finalised rules requiring mandatory central clearing for cash Treasuries effective 31 December 2026, and Repo effective 30 June 2027. This appears technical, but it is transformative.
Currently, hedge funds enjoy bilateral repo relationships with banks, often at zero haircuts (100% leverage). Central clearing mandates posting margin to a Central Counterparty. The CCP will impose haircuts, typically 1% to 2% for Treasuries. This mathematically reduces the maximum leverage a fund can employ.
Rational funds will not wait until year-end to adjust. They will begin unwinding or resizing Treasury basis positions throughout 2026 to avoid a rush for the exit. This creates a “pre-compliance deleveraging cycle” that could trigger volatility in Treasury yields and repo rates throughout 2026, independent of economic data or Fed policy.
The Bank of England has sounded an explicit warning: hedge funds hold approximately £100 billion in short-term borrowing against Gilts. This mirrors the setup of the 2022 LDI crisis, but with hedge funds as the leveraged actors. A sharp move in Gilt yields could trigger margin calls that force a fire-sale of UK debt, creating the feedback loop of rising yields and further margin calls.
Investor Implication
Due diligence on prospective hedge fund allocations must now include explicit questions about leverage capacity:
- What percentage of the fund’s gross notional exposure is in Treasury basis trades?
- What is the distribution of repo counterparties? (Concentration risk.)
- What is the stated unwind strategy for basis trades ahead of the December 2026 deadline?
- Does the fund maintain capacity to unwind without market impact, or is it underwater at current repo rates?
Avoid funds lacking a clear deleveraging strategy or those utilising a single prime broker for repo financing. The actual danger is not the fund loss itself. The threat lies in the fund becoming a conduit for a systemic margin call, thereby transmitting losses across the entire financial system.
Dispersion as the New Constant
The shift in the broader macroeconomic regime directly explains why 2025 favoured active management and why this persists into 2026.
Policy Divergence and Relative Value Opportunities
The “Great Moderation” and its successors (QE, synchronised central banking) are definitively over. The G7 is de-synchronised:
- The Federal Reserve is holding rates higher for longer, focused on sticky services inflation.
- The European Central Bank is cutting rates aggressively to stimulate a lagging Eurozone economy struggling with competitiveness and wage growth.
- The Bank of Japan is moving away from negative rates and quantitative easing, shifting toward tightening.
This policy divergence creates exploitable volatility in FX and interest rates. Short Yen, Long Dollar trades have been profitable throughout 2025 and remain structural. US-to-Eurozone yield curve steepeners, UK Gilt positioning, and Swiss Franc strength have all generated alpha for discretionary macro managers.
Importantly, this alpha does not depend on getting the global direction correct. It depends on correctly calibrating relative positioning between economies.
A fund need not predict whether rates rise or fall globally; it must position correctly on the differential. This is far more achievable than directional macro calls and explains the sustained outperformance of macro strategies in 2025 and likely 2026.
Geopolitical Friction and Supply Chain Dislocation
Tariffs and trade wars (specifically the Trump tariff shock referenced in institutional commentary) create idiosyncratic winners and losers in equities that a passive index simply averages. Companies protected by tariffs (domestic producers, infrastructure) see margin expansion. Companies facing tariff exposure (importers, exporters) see margin compression.
Equity long/short strategies that isolate these fundamental impacts substantially outperform passive indices that assume net neutrality. This favours active management.
The AI Cycle
The market remains bifurcated into “AI winners” (Magnificent Seven) and “Old Economy losers”.
However, 2026 marks a transition year from infrastructure build-out (capex intensity) to return-on-investment (ROI scrutiny). Data center investments must prove their utility. If ROI disappoints, or if adoption slows, the Magnificent Seven stocks that dominate passive indices could correct sharply.
Market-neutral hedge funds are strategically positioned to exploit valuation discrepancies within the technology sector. They favor established innovators while shorting overhyped companies. This approach generates a pure alpha stream for astute stock pickers by insulating the portfolio from broad market volatility.
The Institutional Allocation Framework
Decision Architecture
The traditional hedge fund allocation model was built on the premise that they would provide “downside protection with upside participation”.
In reality, they provide uncorrelated diversification with lower beta than equities.
The 2026 hedge fund allocation is not intended to outperform the S&P 500 during a bull market. That role belongs to inexpensive passive ETFs. The purpose is to deliver compounding returns uncorrelated with equity markets during periods of inevitable volatility and dislocation.
Optimal Sizing and Diversification
Allocations should be:
- Large enough to matter: 5-10% minimum of the total portfolio to meaningfully improve risk-adjusted returns.
- Diversified across distinct alpha sources: 3-5 uncorrelated strategies (e.g., one Tier 1 multi-strategy platform for stability; one discretionary macro manager for policy divergence trades; one credit specialist for idiosyncratic opportunities; one niche L/S manager for company-specific alpha).
- Weighted by conviction and access: Begin with the highest-conviction strategy where capacity exists, then layer in others.
Fee Structure Analysis
Institutional-grade due diligence must dissect fees with surgical precision:
- Pass-Through Cap: Does the fund impose a cap on pass-through expenses? (Target: <50 basis points; uncapped is a disqualifier.)
- Hurdle Rate Provision: Is there a hurdle rate? (Increasingly, LPs demand fees only on returns above the risk-free rate, currently 4-5%.)
- Transparency: Is the breakdown of pass-throughs (PM bonuses vs. tech infrastructure vs. other) disclosed? (Demand segregation.)
- Netting Efficiency: How does the fund measure and report netting efficiency? (Request quarterly disclosure.)
A fund claiming 10% net returns that generates 25% gross is fundamentally different from a fund generating 12% gross. The former is retaining 40% of alpha; the latter, 83%. Allocators systematically underestimate this distinction.
Implementation: SMA vs. Commingled Vehicles
Separately Managed Accounts (SMAs) offer full transparency, control over position sizing, and immunity from gate provisions or side pocket entrapment. Demand for SMAs has historically been high among UHNW allocators.
However, recent data suggests demand is cooling for multi-strategy platforms, where replicating the strategy in an SMA is prohibitively complex and expensive.
For straightforward strategies like Macro or Long-Short Equity, utilise Separate Managed Accounts because custody and operational duplication are simple. Employ commingled funds for multi-strategy platforms. However, aggressively negotiate for “Class A” terms or equity structures equivalent to founding partners.
Red Flags and Risk Scenarios
What Invalidates This Thesis?
Several scenarios would substantially alter the 2026 outlook:
- A “Goldilocks” Soft Landing: If volatility collapses, inflation vanishes, and rates drop uniformly without recession, the dispersion that fuels active alpha dries up. In this scenario, cheap passive beta outperforms expensive alpha.
- Aggressive SEC Implementation: If the Treasury Clearing Rule is implemented without phase-ins or grace periods, it could trigger the very liquidity crisis it seeks to prevent.
- Prime Brokerage Contagion: If a major multi-strategy fund fails due to leverage or netting inefficiency, prime brokers will immediately hike margin requirements across the industry, forcing a systemic deleveraging.
- Bank Failure Transmission: A regional or mid-market bank failure could restrict prime brokerage capacity and margin availability, amplifying basis trade unwinds.
The Sophistication Premium
The narrative of 2025 was one of hedge fund resurgence.
The narrative of 2026 must be one of allocator precision.
The industry has not returned to a state of broad-based health and democratic access. It has bifurcated into access classes, with the best-performing opportunities increasingly cordoned off by capacity constraints, high fees, and operational opacity.
The hedge fund allocation of 2026 is not a passive decision. It is a surgical exercise in manager selection, fee negotiation, and leverage transparency.
Success requires interrogating every assumption about scale, brand, and historical pedigree. It demands systematic scrutiny of pass-through expenses, netting efficiency, and unwind capacity ahead of the SEC’s Treasury Clearing mandate.
The allocators that prosper in 2026 will not be those that chase the headline returns of 2025. They will be those that construct disciplined, diversified allocations to uncorrelated alpha sources, negotiate ruthlessly on fees, and maintain explicit leverage oversight. This is the work of capital stewardship. It is also the competitive edge that separates the sophisticated from the sanguine.
Bancara’s institutional infrastructure serves this precise allocation architecture. This includes segregated account custody, independent risk oversight, and multi-asset deployment capabilities. As the easy hedge fund allocation “myth” dissipates, the infrastructure for precision capital management transitions from a luxury to an operational imperative.
Works cited
- https://www.evanstoncap.com/uploads/downloads/EC-2025-Hedge-Fund-Outlook.pdf
- https://www.fidelity.com/news/article/company-news/202601021452RTRSNEWSCOMBINED_L6N3Y30GT_1
- https://www.hedgeco.net/news/01/2026/macro-is-back-bridgewaters-best-year-d-e-shaws-momentum.html
- https://www.hfr.com/product/market-microstructure/
- https://www.withintelligence.com/insights/hedge-fund-outlook-2026/
- https://www.ai-cio.com/news/the-trends-that-will-define-hedge-funds-in-2026/
- https://www.thefinance360.com/bofa-reports-hedge-fund-investors-intend-to-raise-allocations-to-biggest-multi-strategy-funds-in-2026/
- https://www.hedgeweek.com/the-trust-gap-why-hedge-fund-operational-tech-improvements-havent-opened-allocator-wallets/
- https://navnoorbawa.substack.com/p/how-hedge-funds-really-trade-the
- https://www.hedgeweek.com/investors-push-back-on-multi-strategy-hedge-fund-fee-structures/
- https://www.cityam.com/bank-of-england-sounds-alarm-on-leveraged-hedge-fund-bond-bets/
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBI_vuObPB4
- https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/asset-allocators-likely-to-direct-more-capital-to-multi-strategy-hedge-funds-in-2026-bofa-says/
- https://www.hedgeco.net/news/01/2026/hedge-funds-pivot-and-wall-street-is-rebuilding-around-them.html
- https://www.msci.com/research-and-insights/blog-post/private-capital-in-focus-trends-to-watch-for-2026
- https://privatemarketsprofile.com/beyond-pes-distribution-drought/
- https://resonanzcapital.com/insights/the-total-cost-of-alternatives-a-fee-terms-budgeting-framework-for-absolute-return-allocations
- https://medium.com/@NEXVOLT/nexvolt-finance-academy-september-2025-hedge-fund-performance-regional-divergence-drives-returns-fed2ce81a70c
- https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2026/516
- https://scanx.trade/stock-market-news/global/leading-hedge-funds-post-strong-double-digit-returns-in-2025-amid-ai-market-rally/28959861
- https://www.hedgeweek.com/millennium-and-citadel-post-double-digit-2025-gains-but-lag-smaller-hedge-funds/
- https://www.hfr.com/media/market-commentary/hedge-fund-launches-accelerate-as-industry-capital-approaches-5-trillion-milestone/
- https://magistralconsulting.com/hedge-funds-2025-core-anchors-in-global-portfolios/
- https://thefullfx.com/hedge-fund-launches-accelerate-in-q2/
- https://thehedgefundjournal.com/private-funds/
- https://startupsapience.medium.com/the-next-decade-of-multi-strat-hedge-funds-8a47083e1d7a
