Circle T trader looses 12 mil on google

[range]

Circle T gets a do-over?

When Cirlce T publishes their record in the future, will it include the negative effect of the "unauthorized" trade, or will it exclude the unauthorized trade, assuming it is reimbursed? (Awesome way to incubate a brand new fund!)

If the record excludes the trade, then that would seem to be a do-over.

If the trader had made $12MM on the trade, would that have been deemed "authorized"?

 

[stock777]

Quote from range:

How many other funds, banks, etc. have inadequate controls?

Probably all of them

And you can't have do overs, because then some jackasses will try to game THAT.

They only void trades when the impetus for the trade was fraudulent (as in the phony PR a few years ago) and some computer malfunctions. Plus the usual out of bounds breaks.

 

[Ebo]

Perhaps Seth-ee-poo will open another fund and name it "Circle Jerk partners LLC"!

 

[Lefty62151]

Excuse me

Its not the same thing. The game is played in a specific way. Do you think that the news byte that came out was written that way by chance? This news report was written for public consumption by a reporter who is knows Tobias. The reporter knows that if the report is written differently, they will cease to have access to information about the fund. Its a shame really. But as I am writing this, I figure "who am I to worry about it"?

Good luck,

Lefty

 

[max401]

Quote from Copernicus:

nice trade!

I'm having trouble believing this "news" story. How about a real link on the red, i.e. "rouge," trader?

 

[sammybea]

I'm a little perplexed on how this is a news story. When did losing less than 5% on a fairly small hedge fund become news? I would think there are trades in all hedge funds that break their internal risk/reward parameters. Personally, if you can't risk 5% once in a while, I don't want to be part of that fund.

 

[max401]

Quote from sammybea:

I'm a little perplexed on how this is a news story. When did losing less than 5% on a fairly small hedge fund become news? I would think there are trades in all hedge funds that break their internal risk/reward parameters. Personally, if you can't risk 5% once in a while, I don't want to be part of that fund.

Good point. At today's closing price the loss would occur from a swing of just $14.52. In other words, they would have canned the guy for a $1.80 drop in GE. I'm having my doubts this story is true.

 

[nicholaf]

Quote from max401:

Good point. At today's closing price the loss would occur from a swing of just $14.52. In other words, they would have canned the guy for a $1.80 drop in GE. I'm having my doubts this story is true.

you're saying that bloomberg reports false news? :eek:

 

[max401]

Ok, here's the real story from the WSJ:

"A trader at the firm bet against highflying Internet-search company Google Inc., among other moves that led to losses. As Google shares soared recently, the rogue trading led to losses of about $12 million for the firm, which manages about $250 million, according to Mr. Tobias, the firm's general partner."

The total managed assets were $250M, the GOOG trade loss must have been a higher percentage than the 5% previously believed; this makes more sense.

 

[max401]

Quote from nicholaf:

you're saying that bloomberg reports false news? :eek:

Actually, I misread the original news bite shown in the first post. It said $250m fund, not trade.