-
John Arnold@JohnArnoldFndtn 6h6 hours ago
Poker analogy explains hedge fund underperformance. In 2000, there was 1 pro for every 9 amateurs. Now it's reverse.
John Arnold@JohnArnoldFndtn 6h6 hours agoThat's the average of all hedgefunds correct?
Hedgefunds should be roughly a zero-sum game... so the close to 0 profits would be correct. However, you will always have top traders at top hedgefunds... which will make money, hence why those traders earn a lot.
That's the average of all hedgefunds correct?
Hedgefunds should be roughly a zero-sum game... so the close to 0 profits would be correct. However, you will always have top traders at top hedgefunds... which will make money, hence why those traders earn a lot.
To use poker parlance, hedge funds use to be able to sheer tourists of their hard earned money when they sat at the table. Now the family man from Ohio that use to sit down at the table has been replaced by a machine that always optimizes their bets perfectly and carefully plays each hand. Much tougher game.
I'm not sure whether hedge funds take retail traders' money.. I doubt that is/was their goal. That's more the HFT and MM's. Which are a bit different, although there are overlapping strategies.
Pure hedge funds don't trade against mum and dad.
But I think @sle is right. Bigger funds might adapt slowly to rapidly changing market situations. And that never works... it's been a difficult market altogether, with policies in uncharted territory and no real strong forward guidance etc. That would IMO do hedge funds harm....