Market Wizards

Quote from OddTrader:

Q

GABRIEL BURSTEIN, PhD, was a macro proprietary trader with Goldman Sachs. He currently heads Specialized Equity Sales & Trading at Daiwa Europe Ltd., London, a group he set up to sell European equity products to hedge funds based on long/short macro and relative-value ideas. He is a frequent speaker on new long/short macro strategies and the EMU at worldwide alternative investment and hedge fund conferences. Dr. Burstein received his PhD in mathematics from Imperial College of the University of London. He has had several papers published in mathematical control theory and in mathematical modeling in neurology, neuroendocrinology, and HIV immunology.

UQ

Would like to understand anything wrong with his macro approach, as you know. :confused:


He sounds brilliant; I probably should have kept my mouth shut. But, since I didn't... my initial reaction was to the reviews. When you have phrases like "new, lower-risk" combined with a lot of jargon and hype about innovative observations, it's usually a warning sign.

The first reviewer noted that "The entire work could be 2-3 chapters in normal prose and outline."

A lot of books that bill themselves as groundbreaking or heavy duty are built on simple, straightforward ideas with a lot of padding around them. Others of this type are filled with independent chunks of data rich information that don't actually lead to a broader understanding of anything, like a meal where you only get a single bite of each course.

I'm a fan of simplicity whenever possible because you'll usually get as much complexity as you can handle simply through the act of information intake and decision making, and the time for drilling down is after you know the lay of the land, not before.

Far better to start with the basics and ask yourself questions, in my opinion, than to jump into complexity from the start and neglect your foundation.
 
Quote from OneHipCat:

If he uses macro/fundemental stratagies then it would be the same field. For instance, if he thought the Bank of England would lower interest rates then he could buy property or short the GBP.

Well, I understand that real estate is in the same world of finance as trading and that it all links together at the macro level. And I also understand that switching from one instrument to real estate is somewhat like going long to short for a trader.

But, that said, the devil is always in the details. This guy has succeeded fantastically as a businessman, real estate developer and trader. Imho each of these would require many different skill/knowledge sets.

I always admired Buffett for going cross-sector and making one great investment decision after another. The research, the attention to detail, the mastery over his personal psychology, etc., etc. that he must have gone to is mind boggling to me. (And poor Buffett - only 8,000 shares of BRKA exchanged one day last week...)

If there are macro futures guys doing well in multiple commodities (which I know there are), I feel the same way. But Lewis is in the top tier as well for going into completely different financial instruments if you ask me.

Let me ask this question: if this is relatively straightforward, why has noone else done it? I think the guy may be the Da Vinci of the financial world...
 
Quote from OddTrader:

Actually Cutten has already mentioned a very good idea on this possibility.

Q

As a trader, unless you are involved fully in stocks, you have loads of cash sitting around doing nothing. You can put say 50% into property deals and investments, and use leverage to crank up the returns. Then you have trading return on capital, in addition to real estate return on capital. That can result in extremely high compound rates.

UQ

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=477864#post477864

:cool:

I know virtually nothing about real estate, but isn't all leverage highly risky? If the guy was leveraged, then undoubtedly he made one "coincidentally" brilliant decision after another or he would have blown himself out just like some in futures/forex or anything else highly leveraged, right?
 
Quote from darkhorse:

I'm a fan of simplicity whenever possible ...

Me too. :cool:

PS: I'm also a firm believer of : "One learns the most from mistakes, not successes." --- Paul Tudor Jones (Market Wizards by Schwager) :confused:
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I know virtually nothing about real estate, but isn't all leverage highly risky? If the guy was leveraged, then undoubtedly he made one "coincidentally" brilliant decision after another or he would have blown himself out just like some in futures/forex or anything else highly leveraged, right?

I would believe they both are dealing basically and chiefly "Control of Risks".

Q
ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS IN THE INSTITUTIONAL PORTFOLIO
Schneeweis/Karavas/Georgiev (AIMA, updated 2002)

Originally created in 1998, this is the first research paper to take a range of possible portfolio compositions - from equal stock and bond to stock, bond, real estate, commodities, and other alternative investments - and provide proof that alternative investments can assist in risk diversification and return maximisation.
UQ
http://www.aima.org/aima.asp?id=40



Q
The CAIA exams cover both traditional (real estate, private equity and commodity) and modern (hedge fund and CTA) alternative investment vehicles with current emphasis on hedge funds.
UQ
http://www.caia.org/certification/index.htm

:confused:
 
U know whats really annoying is how some people look at these market wizards as if they are gods or some type of idol. PTJ said this and he said that... wow... like that junk is really gonna make me a great trader. So PTJ said cut losers fast... u learn more from mistakes... wow.. ground breaking stuff. Most of the stuff is common sense and wont mean shit. I hear PTJ uses Elliot wave.. also Fibs.. blah blah. What makes him money will not make any of us any money at all.

Yea some of them made fortunes.. could of been pure luck. PTJ is no different. Yea he is a good money manager and has a good track record.. but again he also could of had a lot of luck throughout his career that gave him the edge. The best example of why most of the stuff is bullshit is Richard Dennis. Yea he made tons of $.. but the truth is much of it was based on luck. He happened to be trading commodities in the most inflationary environment of the century. Then later the guy completely blows up. After the blow up his long term track on a risk to reward basis looks like shit. The truth is he was at the right place at the right time.. did huge size and made a killing. Then his bag of tricks of donchian breakouts didnt work well and his game was over... he went into politics and crap and failed miserabely.

Someone like Buffet is in a different category. He doesnt trade on useless technical systems that go through cycles of boom and total bust... he has the ability to seek value and use his brains. He doesnt have motos or some type of magical indicator.. he just knows when something is really cheap and steps up to the plate. Something like that u actually have to have brains for.

--MIKE
 
Quote from Rearden Metal:

Soros & Steve Cohen are the absolute best in the world at what they do. Dennis is a washed up hack who I never should have entrusted with my capital in the first place. His little green reptile proteges make their money from selling their 'amazing money making system' instead of actually trading.

As for Tudor Jones, I'm really not knowledgeable enough to comment.

So do you agree with this :D ?

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31501&perpage=6&pagenumber=8

Quote from darkhorse:

I can't help but wonder if Mr. Dennis was the victim of a bad break from a macro standpoint.

The commodity bear market reached its nadir just as the equity bull reached its peak. If I recall correctly, 1999 was one of the worst years ever for commodities in general. 2000 was sort of no man's land and in 2001 we saw natural gas skyrocket and begin the turning of the tables, but it was still a long time coming.

David Druz is another respected name I recall turning in his chips around that time. I also remember hearing secondhand about a conversation Ed Seykota had at the Lone Eagle, where he reputedly said "I only make money in bull markets."

Point being, perhaps the fact that many aggressive CTAs went under then is a sign of what the commodity markets were going through while the equity markets peaked, rather than an underlying sea change in what constitutes successful money management.

The ironic thing is, we may now be heading into an environment that would favor gunslingers like Dennis once again. If we see the cycles continue to shift in favor of commodity inflation and equity stagnation, low risk arbitrage opportunities could dry up and upside volatility come back with a vengeance.

If this becomes the case, why couldn't guys like him do what they do best and simply offer deleveraged programs for the institutionals?
 
Quote from OddTrader:

I would believe they both are dealing basically and chiefly "Control of Risks".

Q
ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS IN THE INSTITUTIONAL PORTFOLIO
Schneeweis/Karavas/Georgiev (AIMA, updated 2002)

Originally created in 1998, this is the first research paper to take a range of possible portfolio compositions - from equal stock and bond to stock, bond, real estate, commodities, and other alternative investments - and provide proof that alternative investments can assist in risk diversification and return maximisation.
UQ
http://www.aima.org/aima.asp?id=40



Q
The CAIA exams cover both traditional (real estate, private equity and commodity) and modern (hedge fund and CTA) alternative investment vehicles with current emphasis on hedge funds.
UQ
http://www.caia.org/certification/index.htm

:confused:

Oooh. Aaah. Other than graduate work in astronomy, that CAIA sounds like the most intriguing course work I've ever heard about...

Anyway, I think we're probably thinking similarly but emphasizing different aspects. Here's another example: let's say you have a stellar actor that does incredibly well at directing and screen writing. You're emphasizing the similarities in the three achievements and I'm emphasizing the differences.

I don't want to be nauseatingly agreeable, but I think we're both right...
 
Quote from Trend Fader:

U know whats really annoying is how some people look at these market wizards as if they are gods or some type of idol.

Maybe I'm twisted, but I've always liked biographical material - I find it fascinating to see how successful people have achieved great things. I don't think that you gain much from the details of their life necessarily since the conditions of your life and culture will be significantly different. But I still think there's a lot to be gained from analyzing how they handled (or didn't handle) adversity, time management, risk, relationships, self-discipline, etc., etc.
 
This is marketing. It is a long time that they justify derivatives as to cover risks. This is laughable more leverage amplifies both gain and losses. When the hedge funds lose they don't lose their money they lose OPM (Others People Money) so sure they can promote that it is less risky :D. As for "proof" I will be extremely suspicious when it is pure stochastics and the fundamental law is unknown the law of probability cannot just apply as simply as in natural phenomena so that the term "proof" is largely overstated but the public is eager to believe what they want to believe. The public want to believe that risk can be eliminated whereas risk can only be transferred. When it is a zero sum game talent but also chance will intervene. Since people trust portfolio manager solely on marketing reputation well ... even if they don't they have low ability and/or miss datas to judge objectively since all they are shown are performance and I regret to say that performance (of course accompanied with their subsidiary stats which are useless because they don't take into account the fact that they don't know the underlying prob distribution) alone is not guaranteed of any reproductibility in the future. At the moment all the pretended proofs are based on performance not astonishing that funds explode and that people are astonished that they explode since they were made to believe that astonishing performance cannot turn into bad ones.


Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Oooh. Aaah. Other than graduate work in astronomy, that CAIA sounds like the most intriguing course work I've ever heard about...

Anyway, I think we're probably thinking similarly but emphasizing different aspects. Here's another example: let's say you have a stellar actor that does incredibly well at directing and screen writing. You're emphasizing the similarities in the three achievements and I'm emphasizing the differences.

I don't want to be nauseatingly agreeable, but I think we're both right...
Quote from OddTrader:

I would believe they both are dealing basically and chiefly "Control of Risks".

Q
ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS IN THE INSTITUTIONAL PORTFOLIO
Schneeweis/Karavas/Georgiev (AIMA, updated 2002)

Originally created in 1998, this is the first research paper to take a range of possible portfolio compositions - from equal stock and bond to stock, bond, real estate, commodities, and other alternative investments - and provide proof that alternative investments can assist in risk diversification and return maximisation.
UQ
http://www.aima.org/aima.asp?id=40



Q
The CAIA exams cover both traditional (real estate, private equity and commodity) and modern (hedge fund and CTA) alternative investment vehicles with current emphasis on hedge funds.
UQ
http://www.caia.org/certification/index.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Back
Top