I don't mean to pile on. I know looking at your 401(k) statement is so painful these days many employees don't bother to open it.

History tells us that markets recover over time. Your 401(k) will increase in value, but it will still be far short of what you will need to retire. Why?

Because of hidden costs that enrich 401(k) providers. These costs are totally unnecessary and could be easily eliminated if only your employer cared enough to do the right thing. Most don't.

There is no end of research indicating that index funds outperform funds that try to "beat the markets." I call these funds "hyperactively managed funds." Index funds are also far less expensive.

While "less expensive" is good for employees, it is bad for brokers and advisors to these plans because it deprives them of excessive fees. The porky pig fees in most 401(k) plans include undisclosed trading costs, the payment of excessive brokerage commissions, the practice of subsidizing record-keeping services with high fund management fees and the payment of marketing fees for selling the high-cost funds in the plan, among many others.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting on the development of the hedge fund clone concept being created by big Wall Street firms. These clones basically try to earn the returns of hedge funds without paying the normal 2/20 fee structure.

For those unfamiliar with it, 2/20 refers to an annual "management fee" of 2% and a performance ("incentive") fee of 20%. When compared to any index fund, and even mutual funds, these fees seem ridiculous. However, there are many funds in the hedge fund industry that do in fact justify these fees.

The goal of these funds is basically to mirror the hedge fund index, or a group of hedge funds pooled together to be more diversified than investing in a single hedge fund. While this strategy has its benefits in reducing volatility and the chance of a blow-up, it also has its downsides. According to my friend James Altucher, fund of funds manager and president of StockPickr.com:

"Hedge fund clones are fine because they are all mediocre (i.e., like the average hedge fund). The real reason to go into hedge funds is to find the next SAC."

Basically, the returns of the "clones" will not match the returns of the best and brightest hedge funds on the street, such as SAC, Moore, or Tudor.

While this seems like an interesting proposition, the minimum investments remain very high at this point so the concept doesn't really bring much to the table for investors who are not accredited. As the WSJ said, this seems like another investment for the yacht-club set.