Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by foota 3638 days ago
Thanks for the reality check. aab0 seems to have the right of it, they cite a different article that goes into more detail about the funds in question http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/business/dealbook/3-more-p...

edit: I'm still wrong, but it seems British mutual funds are an appreciable fraction of total global wealth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_institutional_investor...)

double ninja edit: that's not right. I don't really understand what the figures on that page are supposed to represent... anyone want to try clearing it up for me?

1 comments

I will clear it up for you: The numbers on that page are meaningless and misleading.

Firstly, the AUM column in the table doesn't represent anything. It overstates their _global_ AUM by 2 to 20 times for the companies I checked.

Secondly, this is by no means an exhaustive list of institutional investors in the UK. There are, well, I don't know but there are a huge number of small nameless investors sitting in the UK investing private funds globally, that are not and never will be on this list and whose assets will never be known, only estimated.