“债券之王”比尔•格罗斯上月宣布，他将要离开太平洋投资管理公司(PIMCO),加盟规模较小的骏利资产管理公司(Janus Capital)并推出一支新的债券基金（此前他曾与杰夫•冈德拉奇的Doubleline Capital接触）。未来我们肯定会听到各种关于阴谋和内斗的传闻，会有人说格罗斯是个很奇怪的人（这已不是秘密），跟太平洋投资管理公司的母公司安联(Allianz)的管理层合不来（这也不奇怪）。但根本原因可能在于业务上的问题，而非性格不合，因为太平洋投资管理公司的业绩低于普遍水平，在过去16个月内已有680亿美元的客户资金退出。

    很多人将太平洋投资管理公司的低回报归咎于格罗斯，这也没错。他曾在2011年中期高调表示股市已经过了峰值。他加盟骏利资产管理公司的消息使该公司股价涨幅超过30％，这表明投资者预期该公司将获得大量资金流入。如果他们的预期是对的，可能是因为有人认为问题更多地是出在太平洋投资管理公司，而不是格罗斯本人？也就是说，是因为太平洋投资管理公司规模太大而无法产生领先于市场的回报？

    如果你需要案例才能信服，那我就举几个例子吧。美国最大的公共养老基金加州公务员退休基金(CalPERS)近日表示将退出对冲基金领域，称它的规模太大而无法恰当投资于该资产类别。哈佛大学(Harvard University)的捐赠基金规模是全国最大的，但其回报水平并不突出，一位消息人士告诉我，哈佛基金规模太大，导致其无法与规模更小更灵活的同业基金相比。而现在我们可能会看到客户从规模最大的债券基金转向更小的基金，虽然基金经理是同一个人。

    还需要数据作为论据吗？由先锋集团(Vanguard)管理的世界上最大的共同基金在过去6个月的表现和过去1年内的表现都落后于标准普尔500指数(S&P 500)。考夫曼基金会(Kauffman Foundation)的一份研究（诚然备受争议）指出，一旦基金规模超过2.5亿美元，风险资本的回报率就开始下降。

    当然，这不是一个完美的理论。例如，加州公务员退休基金（姑且不论其对冲基金问题）在2014财年跑赢了所有其他大型公共养老基金。现在华尔街的基金公司不断追求规模，但格罗斯从太平洋投资管理公司离职，也许说明了规模大并非总是好的。（财富中文网）

    译者：Lina

    “Bond king” Bill Gross this morning announced that he was leaving Pimco, in order to launch a new bond fund at the much-smaller Janus Capital JNS 43.02% (after an apparent flirtation with Jeff Gundlach’sDoubleline Capital). I’m sure we’ll hear all sorts of palace intrigue over the next few days, including how Gross is a strange guy (not a secret) who couldn’t get on the same page with his bosses at Pimco parent company Allianz (not a surprise). But the real foundational issue is likely more about business troubles than personality clashes, as Pimco’s below-pedestrian performance has caused around $68 billion of customer money to walk over the past 16 months.

    A lot of the blame for Pimco’s poor returns has rightly been put on Gross, who famously suggested in mid-2011 that public equities had peaked. But Janus shares are up more than 30% on news of his hire, suggesting that they’re expecting major inflows. If these traders are proven correct, could it be that some view the problem more that Gross was at Pimco than that Gross was, well, Gross? Namely, is Pimco too big to produce market-leading returns?

    For those who believe in the law of threes, let me try this out on you: CalPERS, the nation’s largest public pension fund, recently said that it will pull out of hedge funds, arguing that it is too large to properly invest in the asset class. Then Harvard University, which features the nation’s largest endowment, reported mediocre returns, with one source arguing to me that size issues make it difficult for Harvard to match smaller, more nimble peers. And now we may be poised to see clients jump from the largest bond fund to a smaller one, even though the same laggard manager will be in charge.

    Need another data point? How about this: The world’s largest mutual fund, managed by Vanguard, is trailing the S&P 500 for both the past six months and for the past year. And then there is (admittedly controversial) research from Kauffman Foundation that argues venture capital returns begin to decrease once fund size surpasses $250 million.

    To be sure, this is not a perfect theory. As just one of many examples, CalPERS outperformed almost all other large public pension funds for fiscal 2014 (leaving aside its hedge fund troubles). But as all of Wall Street is constantly striving for size, Gross’s departure from Pimco may highlight that big isn’t always beautiful.