OECD: Locusts are good for the ecosystem
Aug 26th, 2007 | Filed under: Hedge Fund RegulationFor two organizations with very similar (and highly creative) logos, the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) have strikingly divergent views on the social redemption of hedge funds.
There was a time when “hedge fund” truly referred to a fund that hedged something. But as the years went by, hedge fund grew to mean any unconstrained private pool of capital. And today in some circles, hedge fund means basically anyone who allegedly sc**ws-over a trade union.
At least, so said the June report on hedge funds from the ITUC (see related posting, read full report). While the report was essentially about the rapid growth of private equity funds and the social impact of buying and selling companies, the term hedge fund seemed to make an awful lot of cameos.
The OECD released a report last week on basically the same topic (available here). As you might guess, it came out decidedly in favor of private equity and hedge funds on the grounds that they contributed positively to corporate governance. But this report made a careful and helpful distinction between activist hedge funds and all other types of hedge funds. In fact, the report was even titled: private equity firms and activist hedge funds.
To continue reading this article please login (at the right) or click here to learn more about accessing our archives.
Related Posts
- World’s Unions Debate: Are Hedge Funds “Locusts” or “Termites”?
- Two new studies reveal secret sauce used by activist hedge funds
- Regulatory pressure exposing cracks in alternative investment solidarity
- Now “Private Equity Replication”?
- How private equity and (activist) hedge funds can help by reducing agency costs
