And another trading documentary...

Maverick74 said:
For example, the most famous of them, David Tice, has very few short stock holdings. A majority of his holdings were actually in hard assets like Gold, Bonds, or other alternative assets.
More...

And Gold took a drive from 1800 to 1200, a loss of 30%! When you adjust to volatility, the number is huge. Beta of Gold is 0.22. If one were to normalize returns to volty of Gold vs. SPY, the 30% loss would as if more than 60% loss in equities.
 
You gotta respect a fund that sells past issues of playboy's and t-shirts.


It looks like the bulk of the outperformance came before 2004. Did he pare down the risk or did he "dilute" the trading as his fund received more capital.
 
newwurldmn said:
You gotta respect a fund that sells past issues of playboy's and t-shirts.


It looks like the bulk of the out performance came before 2004. Did he pare down the risk or did he "dilute" the trading as his fund received more capital.
More...

it doesn't even compare to the record of blow me up niederhoffer. why don't you ask a true expert like helmhotz formerly known as marketsurfer before getting kicked off ET>
1982 to 1996 -- 30% per year compounded is one hell of a track record. Perhaps the best verified record of all time for a hedge fund manager. <http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?p=3967513&highlight=1996#post3967513>
Looks like Victor Niederhoffer blew up again - Page 23 - Elite Trader <http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?p=3966288&highlight=1996#post3966288>

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?p=3965823&highlight=1996#post3965823

he keeps raising money without giving away playboy.
 
Maverick74 said:
Wow, a lecture in data mining. Neat, teach me more. Yeah I can play that game too. Had you bought his fund last March, you would be up 50% now. Spare me the data mining. Either look at the total population set or none at all. Otherwise we can cherry pick any data point in the set to produce whatever figure we want.
More...

That still means 6 years without a return, the stuff that died in 2009 typically doesn't come back. Drawdowns are quite bad as well. Would you invest with him? I know I definitely wouldn't.
 
That people don't like these kinds of equity curves is not at all surprising. Only savy investors see something in it.

Most investors get impressed by safe and smooth curves without big drawdawns. Like Madoff's. That's how you attract the big money.
 
newwurldmn said:
You gotta respect a fund that sells past issues of playboy's and t-shirts.
More...

I thought that was some Atticus-like jargon, but nope, I went to the site and the guy actually sells old Playboys and T-shirts.

I glanced at the auditor's report and at the end of 2012, he had $17 million under mgmt. I'm not an expert, but if that throws off 2% in fees, it seems those would quickly be consumed by legal, accounting, marketing, investor communications and so on. Not much left to live on, especially if you add a couple thousand a month for something like Reuters Eikon, Bloomberg or more Playboy subscriptions.

And the home page - one photo of people standing on the edge of a high rise and one photo of them sitting on a ledge. What kind of message does that send to prospective investors?
http://capitalistpig.com/
 
Rimping said:
That people don't like these kinds of equity curves is not at all surprising. Only savy investors see something in it.

Most investors get impressed by safe and smooth curves without big drawdawns. Like Madoff's. That's how you attract the big money.
More...

Not every smooth equity curve has a Madoff behind it. In my personal experience, there was a paradigm shift after 08-09 and the things that stopped working won't be coming back.
But as I understand, you'd add to his AUM.
 
d08 said:
That still means 6 years without a return, the stuff that died in 2009 typically doesn't come back. Drawdowns are quite bad as well. Would you invest with him? I know I definitely wouldn't.
More...

Sure. I wouldn't invest all my money with him, but 5%? Maybe. The only reason I would ever invest in a fund is if it was an absolute return style fund that would invest in things that I normally would not find on my own. If I want to be long risk I'll buy an index fund. I don't know the guy well but I've met him a few times in Chicago and followed him way back in the day pre-2000. All I can really gleam from him is he tends to look for stuff off the beaten track. For example, when equities were booming here, he was looking for value in other countries in the small cap space. When he was buying debt, he wasn't long our treasuries but long emerging market debt, etc. He is an investor, not a trader. If I ever were to allocate money, it would be to guys "like" him, not necessarily him in particular. And guys "like" him are not going to have smooth returns or follow the S&P 500.

There was a guy on ET, forget his name who ran a small stock fund. He actually was buying equities in Mongolia. The dude went years without making money but finally when the oil boom took over in that part of the world, his equities made a killing. The kid was clever. He had an idea, it was off the beaten path and was not correlated to the S&P 500 but went years without making money. See, that is where I would put some money. Because it's stuff I would never find on my own. And a little fyi, despite the beat down he took, the guy actually got Bill Fleckenstein to make an investment. Not bad for a local boy. Oh, Praeterian was his ET handle.

Anyway, this thread got way off topic. Not sure what any of this has to do with the documentary. But yeah, I like his style. I look for niche stuff like that. I have no interest investing in someone who is just going to sell option premium, fade moves or be long risk. I can do that on my own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top