Quote from darkhorse:
Thanks for that article.
The big boys have been treading water for years, eking out t-bill like returns and living off the management fees.
The problem has just been exceptional amounts of hard-to-quantify risk. How do you handle markets that can scream higher or lower via random statements from a third-tier European politician?
At the same time, the "big questions" all seem to be in Schrodinger's cat mode. Recession or global growth? Inflation or deflation? Eurozone survival or eurozone breakup? Yes, no, nobody knows.
It's just an epically shitty time to be running huge sums in the classic macro style. What these guys are best at is finding opportunities to make large asymmetric bets WITHOUT taking on a large degree of risk.
There are gamblers that win, but you see what happens to them. Paulson is a riverboat gambler at heart, something that was made clear early on. Look how he's wound up. The genius from JAT capital, whose huge bets are killing him this year. Kyle Bass, another subprime winner, betting huge against Japan and now that too-big-bet is squashing his returns. I'm betting that Chase Coleman, the multi-billion-dollar Tiger cub who killed it in 2011 going long out the wazoo on social media stocks pre-IPO, is the next big thud.
So instead of the ballers who gamble and either win big or lose big, seasoned old pros like Jonesy, Bacon, Kovner etc (though Kovner is retired now) keep their risk small and cards close until they can find great opportunities. There just haven't been any in this central bank dominated, fucked up government intervention fest we call a market. I don't blame Bacon at all for giving capital back.
Re, a fund strictly in U.S. stocks, that depends a lot on the style. Short-term trading, value investing, special situations, merger arb, quant, HFT, a mix of various... capacity depends more on strategies than asset class. Though I would say as a general rule guys with $100 million or less can still do pretty okay.