Quadriga Superfund - Managed Futures

I can't believe I'm getting involved in this mess again. But here we go. Hedge funds usually charge what they can get away with charging. It's a very efficient system. If you make the returns, you charge high fees, if you don't, you are out of business. Adam Smith would be very proud of this model.

There are some funds out there, like SAC and Renaissance Capital that take 50% of the net profits!!!!!!

Why do they do this? Because they can! It's pretty simple really. Quadriga for 9 years now has outperformed just about every CTA on the street. They have earned the right to charge whatever the hell they want. When they stop performing, either they will have to lower fees, or people will get out. It's very simple. Why people on ET, a trading website for crying out loud, don't understand this is beyond me.

I say let Steve Cohen and James Simmons buy their Porsches and their mansions, they have earned it. They have given their investors the opportunity to make fortunes. Nothing in this country comes without a cost. If you want join the club, you have to pay the dues. If you don't want to pay the dues, stick your money in a mutual fund or an ETF.

I applaud the John Henry's, the Aaron Schindler's, the Steve Cohens, the James Simmon's, and yes, even the Quadriga's of the world. They played the game, played it well, and are being rewarded. God bless capitalism.
 
amen, maverick.

Quote from Maverick74:

I can't believe I'm getting involved in this mess again. But here we go. Hedge funds usually charge what they can get away with charging. It's a very efficient system. If you make the returns, you charge high fees, if you don't, you are out of business. Adam Smith would be very proud of this model.

There are some funds out there, like SAC and Renaissance Capital that take 50% of the net profits!!!!!!

Why do they do this? Because they can! It's pretty simple really. Quadriga for 9 years now has outperformed just about every CTA on the street. They have earned the right to charge whatever the hell they want. When they stop performing, either they will have to lower fees, or people will get out. It's very simple. Why people on ET, a trading website for crying out loud, don't understand this is beyond me.

I say let Steve Cohen and James Simmons buy their Porsches and their mansions, they have earned it. They have given their investors the opportunity to make fortunes. Nothing in this country comes without a cost. If you want join the club, you have to pay the dues. If you don't want to pay the dues, stick your money in a mutual fund or an ETF.

I applaud the John Henry's, the Aaron Schindler's, the Steve Cohens, the James Simmon's, and yes, even the Quadriga's of the world. They played the game, played it well, and are being rewarded. God bless capitalism.
More...
 
Quote from ElectricSavant:

P.S. Why not get it over with... and state that they make a bigger portion of the profits than their clients.
More...

Because it's totally irrelevant and makes no difference to investors or hedge fund rankers.

No one, except some people on this board with a passionate hatred for Quadriga, cares about Quadriga's profits. What's important is profits made for clients, which have been phenominal.
 
Ok you convinced me - every CTA should be able to charge whatever they want. I also apologize for using the word "screw". I was just in a state of panic when i saw their C fund down 44 % in 2005 and i saw their high fees also.

However, can someone tell me whether they charged the below fees also when performance was good or did they raise it lately as the good times ended ?

Their good performance (long term track record ) comes from the Superfund Q-AG which is up 24 % in 2003, 10.98 % in 2004 and down 12.97 % in 2005. There they charge 0.4 %pm and 20 % incentive fee. Were these fees charged from the beginning of track record or were they constantly raised ???

It seems that while the above flagship was up 10 % in 2004 most other Superfunds lost money in 2004. Do they use the flagship to promote good returns and then put their small investors with the smaller funds where they charge higher fees ? - see below

Here are their costs for their Superfund A Eur SICAV:

4.5 % upfront fee
0.5 % p.m -- I guess thats management fee per month !!
25 % incentive fee
30 $ round turn

IN Superfund C Genussschein :

0.5 % p.m
35 % incentive fee
 
....and if someone can somehow prove that more than 75 % of investors are institutionals then i invest myself. If however more than lets say 80 % are small investors .....

I heard rumours its even more than 90 % small investors and like 10 % some small austian banks .. i wish i had numbers on that
 
Quote from trillenium:

Ok you convinced me - every CTA should be able to charge whatever they want. I also apologize for using the word "screw". I was just in a state of panic when i saw their C fund down 44 % in 2005 and i saw their high fees also.

However, can someone tell me whether they charged the below fees also when performance was good or did they raise it lately as the good times ended ?

Their good performance (long term track record ) comes from the Superfund Q-AG which is up 24 % in 2003, 10.98 % in 2004 and down 12.97 % in 2005. There they charge 0.4 %pm and 20 % incentive fee. Were these fees charged from the beginning of track record or were they constantly raised ???

It seems that while the above flagship was up 10 % in 2004 most other Superfunds lost money in 2004. Do they use the flagship to promote good returns and then put their small investors with the smaller funds where they charge higher fees ? - see below

Here are their costs for their Superfund A Eur SICAV:

4.5 % upfront fee
0.5 % p.m -- I guess thats management fee per month !!
25 % incentive fee
30 $ round turn

IN Superfund C Genussschein :

0.5 % p.m
35 % incentive fee
More...

This information is completely false.

All their funds were up in 2004. In fact, the AG fund was the lowest performing fund in 2004 as it is their lowest leverage fund.

And yes, they raised their fees as they went along. They did this by re-introducing new funds not by raising fees of existing funds. Perfectly legal, I have no problem with that.

Your idea that they are luring people into one fund by showing the performance of other funds is liable on your part and irresponsible.

Also, regardless of how high the fees are, their performance numbers are all NET of fees. This keeps going over your head for some reason. Their Superfund B which is their most aggressive fund in America was down only 24% at its worst levels this year. The A fund was down 12% or so at its worst levels.

And buddy, if you are in a state of panic when you get your statements, maybe you should not be invested in hedge funds. You know they are for sophisticated individuals only.
 
Quote from trillenium:

Funny - seems their flagship with lower fees and higher returns is even closed to new investors -- isnt that strange ?
More...

Why is this strange. These funds are issued as private placements for a fixed amount of capital. When they reach that limit, no more can be sold to the public. You obviously don't have a series 7 do you?
 
Quote from trillenium:

....and if someone can somehow prove that more than 75 % of investors are institutional then i invest myself. If however more than lets say 80 % are small investors .....

I heard rumours its even more than 90 % small investors and like 10 % some small austian banks .. i wish i had numbers on that
More...

These funds target individual investors, not institutional investors. That was done on purpose. They wanted to carve a niche market and they did. I see nothing wrong with how they chose to market their funds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top