Vague language in institutional investing

Keywords Opinion

Kathleen McLaughlin’s [July 28] story about state fund investing reminded of a problem in institutional investing today: vague and imprecise language. Terms such as “stocks,” “bonds” and “commodities” have reasonably well-defined meanings. “Hedge funds,” “risk parity” and “private equity” do not. A competent observer cannot understand precisely what transpires in these asset classes. “Real estate” is more widely understood, but rates of return in this asset class are approximate at best because values are based on educated guesses (appraisals).


John Guy

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Story Continues Below

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our updated comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}