There is no graph in "history".
Jim Simons Trashes Trend Following
- Thread starter marketsurfer
- Start date
There is no graph in "history".
next thing, this guy kut2k's gonna say is that Simons & the bunch probably don't even understand SLA !!)
150 scientists - that's ONE COLLECTIVE SCIENCE MIND ! I wonder how many professors does for instance Harvard hire??
Great point. The market holds the greatest attraction to those least suited for it. I think this is evident in this thread.
surf
LMAO! You do realize that description applies to you more than anybody, right? No? Clueless as always.
For the graph you should try to use Google. And pictures.
You compare Simons BEFORE fee with anybody else AFTER fee? That is complete nonsense like I said. It is like comparing your profits before taxes with mine after taxes.
Who can be campared with him before counting fee?
" JS: ... Trend-following would have been great in the '60s, and it was sort of OK in the '70s. By the '80s, it wasn't."
A swing and a big miss!
The '80s is when the most famous trend-following system of all --the Turtle Trading System-- came to prominence.
This guy clearly is confusing TF with something different altogether.
Call me crazy, but looks like TF has worked pretty damn well since the 80's. These guys who criticize TF"s are just haters/jealous. The numbers below over the long term are tremendous. People who invested in funds like this have made a fortune.
http://www.iasg.com/Groups/group/du...m/World-Monetary-and-Agriculture-Program-WMA-
Your reply just shows how clueless you are.
Medallion did NOT return an annualized 80% what on earth are you clown smoking. Also, Medallion manages low single billion USD -- if it was open like Winton is its returns would suffer drastically. Harding manages $25bln. Plus you left out leverage. You have no idea what leverage Medallion is employing compared to Winton thus you're comparing apples to oranges.
What a bunch of simpleton non-sense.
If we assume they made exactly 35% every year after fees (say 40% performance fee and 5% management fee) and fees were deducted at the end of the year, then before fees they made 63.64% a year, over 11 years.
If they started with a billion dollars and just kept compounding at 35% a year, the fund value would be over $27 billion. Since it is not (says $3.3 billion below), i assume they distributed a lot of the gains back to investors.
from wiki:
Since its inception in 1988 to 1999, the company's $3.3 billion Medallion Fund claims to have averaged over 35% annual returns after fees. The Medallion Fund is closed to new outside investors since 1993.[4] Simons retired at the end of 2009.
Renaissance charges a management fee of 5% and a profit participation of, initially 36%, and now 44%, both of which are higher than the industry standard of 2% and 20%, respectively.[5]
If they started with a billion dollars and just kept compounding at 35% a year, the fund value would be over $27 billion. Since it is not (says $3.3 billion below), i assume they distributed a lot of the gains back to investors.
from wiki:
Since its inception in 1988 to 1999, the company's $3.3 billion Medallion Fund claims to have averaged over 35% annual returns after fees. The Medallion Fund is closed to new outside investors since 1993.[4] Simons retired at the end of 2009.
Renaissance charges a management fee of 5% and a profit participation of, initially 36%, and now 44%, both of which are higher than the industry standard of 2% and 20%, respectively.[5]
Any link to prove your point? I have already showed the math to prove it with links.