Quote from ellokn:
Yes, different legal structures for different countries is easy enough to understand. What Nija and others in investing community question is why some funds are closed to new investment and new ones then launced using the same trading strategy. There is no sence in that.
Managers close funds to new investment when they feel that the size under management will have a negative effect on execution of their trading stategies and overall performance. If Quadrigia uses the SAME strategy for all products, why new ones?
And then new ones are marketed with the performance of previous funds. Just because you say that is illegal does not mean it is not done. It is done and is not illegal in Europe.
All products offered in Europe now do not have more than two or three years behind them, yet they are heavily marketed with data going back to 1996. This data is based on a "Genusschein," which is a certificate on a fund, but not a share. These certificates, which are common in Europe, are often offered in a savings plan.
Quadrigia markets itself in Euope as Hedge Fund, when in fact, it is not a Hedge Fund. But that is cool, this is marketing and everyone things they want to be in a Hedge Fund. It sounds better and sells better for the retail investor I guess.
There are managed futures funds available to the retail market. Most have multiple managers and not a single manager such as Quadrigia.
There are some absoutely great managers out there who put lots of work and $$ in their trading infrastructure, operations and on-going research. You won't find them with a big marketing organization or on Park Avenue, but maybe out in some industrial park in Texas or on the Chesapeake Bay. They adhere to industry standards that all understand all over the world. They are respected by their colleagues and competetors. I wish I had the money to give to them.
Institutions tap these managers for their own funds or to construct a multi-manger fund to be sold to people like you and me.
But I do not find a Quadrigia fund in any of these multi manger funds and I wonder why that is? As a potential investor it is a question.
Maverick, my question is fair and like any investor you've got to ask the right questions, keep your green shades on, and never fall in love with your investment because it does not love you.
OK, again, when these funds are issued, they are issued like private placements in that they have a set amount of capital, say 500 million. That's it. That means once that 500 million is reached, if it's reached, the fund will then be closed. Even if they wanted to put more money in, they couldn't. So what do they do then. They issue another private placement and do another offering for 500 million. I have explained this at least five times on this thread and I really think either you get it or you don't by now.
Now as far as why they are not doing fund of funds and going after the insitutional crowd, well I asked them that in NY. First of all, fund of funds is a crap way to go. I know a lot of people in that business and it becomes all about the smooze, typical wall street. Taking out sales guys to get laid, taking them out on the town, all so they push their clients into their fund of funds. Trust me when I say its a joke. The best funds never get in their fund of funds and it's all politcal.
As for the institutional crowd, Quadriga use to market towards them but they found it very time consuming and very expensive and felt it was not worth the return to do so. Again, very typical wall street, you have to deal with all the BS just to get UBS to buy a 200 million dollar portion of the fund and then you get to listen to them make demands when the fund has a drawdown and they think they want to trade it for you. I know guys in this business and it's pretty cut throat. Quadriga just said the hell with it and focused on the retail side. I admire them for that decision. As soon as you see a fund manager sell out to the institutional money, that typically marks the top in his fund and the good years are over.
As far as them being on Park AVE, dude they call that street hedge fund row due to the number of hedge funds in that area.
Now here is my problem with you and some others on here that are not even in this fund yet you are bashing it. First question, why? I'm not a broker, I'm not selling the fund, I'm an investor in the fund. You are not, so why are you so worried about what I do with my money. I trade options for a living and have for 7 years. I don't need some moron from ET giving me a lecture on risk. I could write a book on Risk and probably teach risk at the University of Chicago.
Second, have ever heard of the old adage, don't argue with success? My parents taught me this when I was young. And that is, when somone is doing something right, you don't argue with them. If it ain't broken don't fix it belongs to the same familiy of adages. Their funds have been up every year since 1996. They are up very nicely this year as well. They average about 30% a year in the convervative AG and Superfund A while the B is more aggressive. So what exactly are you worrried about? Do you have any idea how many managed future funds have blown up the last 5 years and hedge funds? Very very few make it 5 years. These guys are making money month after month, year after year, and here comes a whole gang of people warning me and others about the dangers of this fund.
Something is not adding up here. Either you have an agenda which you have not made public or you are a freaking moron preaching risk on a message board dedicated to guys that take risks for a living. You see the contradiction? I'll stay in the fund until I no longer am satisfied with the performance, then I will look elsewhere. In the meantime, why don't you enlighten me as to what your goal is here so that everyone else can make an educated decision about what they want to do with their money. Fair enough?
