Search results

It's all about your career goals and expectations. IMO, if you aspire to be "great", and one of those talking heads on CNBC, no reason to put off what would be inevitable and necessary. Doesn't matter how great your track record is, if no one believes you.

Pretty sick! Keep that up and no reason to ever take outside money. That said, no harm in forming some kind of structure and tracking numbers that way more professionally. I'd get the licenses out of the way, get registered, and get normal annual audits. Don't worry about raising money...

I fully agree with what hilojack said above.... it's been largely my experience as well (minus expensive investment in attorney fees). For a rational investor, paying you 30% of gains is very worthwhile.... versus blindly reverse engineering your system. But can I say, I love the idea of...

Now now, don't be so harsh! They're probably not lying... ... it's perfectly possible they're just incompetent. (I fully agree this is a hard story to swallow!)

Well, it sounds like you and sle were thinking more along the same lines, in terms of some form of profit sharing... ... I'm a little more skeptical. I think I could be sold on the idea, and your argument makes sense. But just the idea of tying my fortunes to the performance of others...

What I read was "third data party integration" and reporting. That would make more sense from a pure text point of view. Various trading platforms/tools are still reporting positions + trades in non-standard formats, and having something to integrate that together is always nice. But no, I...

That's an interesting concept... are you referring to actually sharing returns? I personally would find the idea of emerging managers cooperating very attractive... although sharing performance seems like it would be difficult to coordinate. Other obvious ways to cooperate: - fund raising /...

Those numbers do make sense. There's only so much profit being generated off of 20% returns off of a $100 million book... and it really seems to suggest that in this industry, just as is the case in many others, the biggest money comes from managing productive people rather than producing yourself.

But help me understand this... for whoever is managing the trade desk at the banks and is generating alpha independent of other bank business... why wouldn't they go into business looking to manage OPM? Bank traders certainly make decent money, but nothing approaching top money managers.

Appreciate the insight. Color me naive, but I assumed that these PMs/traders working at top funds were taking back very large paychecks. If their bosses (the Cohen/Paulson/Jones of the world) are making hundreds of millions a year, I would have thought these actual producers directly...

$10-50 million gross in trading gains per annum...? Just backing out the numbers there... if 2/20, then the fund as a whole would make roughly $2-10mm in fees per "sub" PM? And aren't most of these "sub" PMs taking home something like 20-40% of fees earned? That seems low to me...

And that's something I've been meaning to ask about, actually... what's the typical capacity found in any one of these strategies / managers? I've also heard similar numbers (a few hundred million) per manager/strategy at SAC, for example. Is that pretty common? Are most of the billion...

Tutor's Tensor Fund has a Sharpe of 0.33 (start date is 2005). Smaller Momentum Fund has a Sharpe of 0.00 (start date is 2009). I think PDJ was always a beta guy. He just happened to nail a few big trades... much of the '80s-'90s was all about big trades. Look at John Henry, for another...

But, why bother? By and large, the people with a few billion to allocate don't actually benefit personally from out-performance. It's not *their* billions actually being put to work. The pension advisors I've met are largely nice enough people... but their bottom line is their own paychecks...

In terms of the sle and smoker discussion... - capacity is not the same thing as size. Large funds arguably must have high capacity, but doesn't imply currently small funds can't have high capacity as well. - statistics consistently prove that smaller, emerging managers as a whole...

Looking at IS intra-day, and the spread looks reasonably tight. I don't know how it trades during a big move (if it's being arb'ed right on the ask/offer to CBOT)... but frankly, this looks like a no-brainer. If the CBOT gets this wrong, changing over to the ICE requires that I do nothing...

LOL. In my email to the CME, I asked rhetorically why they'd let dinosaurs dictate policy. That comment reaffirms the point.

Unbelievable. I'm sending them an email right now. I'm not a huge customer... but I traded roughly 4000 RTs in the grains this past month, and I'm growing. I'll take all of that to ICE if they cut their trading hours significantly, ESPECIALLY around report hours.

No way! That article made it sound like the CME wouldn't be going back. That would be a ridiculous change. The fact that the ICE is taking over the NYSE should be all the proof the CME needs that the floor is dying, and sooner rather than later.

No, that's not correct... despite what ICE's own website shows as trading hours, I don't show any evidence of trades after 2:00 PM CST on the ICE beans futures.