Richard Dennis and Turtles In Chicago Tuesday
- Thread starter Trend Following
- Start date
He was refunded the money ? Who was your source on that piece on info genius? He and Refco settled. While he might have gotten something back, no way in hell he got anything close to the 100 million he was looking for.
Keep up the good work moron.
But in 1999, Niederhoffer filed a lawsuit against the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME - commentary - Cramer's Take), seeking $100 million in damages for losses he claimed the futures exchange had helped cause. Niederhoffer claimed that problems with the exchanges trading system had led to some of his losses. In the lawsuit, said it and Refco "suffered substantial losses" on and after Oct. 27, 1997.
The lawsuit was settled in 2002, the same year that Refco says its financials stopped becoming reliable. A lawyer for Niederhoffer declined to disclose the terms of the settlement, saying they were sealed.
you guys are still arguing over who's better....victor or dennis?!?!?
This is typical useless ET bullshit.
This is typical useless ET bullshit.
Quote from Landis82:
Given your logic, the traders in the S&P were responsible for the index cratering 110 points in roughly a week.
Good luck with that "conspiracy" theory.
already been down that pAth. Take a look what happened right after they knocked him out. Facts are. Serious bad shit happened to nieder. Clowns even come on here saying my friend took the money. They never tell you he had to pay it back. Bozo chuckleheads!
Weird thread.
Without quoting every post made thus far, I'll just throw out some random bullets.
1. Dennis had the most remarkable career of anyone in the history of the business. He should be an ET'er wet dream. 2k to 200mil in 16 years.
2. The awesome success of Dennis and a few other big play traders like Seykota or even Ricky Barnes is not trend following itself but in adding to the position. I'd imagine, over an infinite sample that trend following systems using constant one unit position sizing, fare no better than mean reverting systems. However Dennis wouldn't just buy a modest amounts of beans on a breakout-he'd go all in. And as soon as that profit produced enough money to margin even more-he'd double up. And it wasn't all breakouts bs. His biggest percentage trade-it took him from a few mil to eight figures as a 26 year old-was shorting sugar into a tulip-mania spike high. Just think how sophisticated a 26 year old floor trader in Chicago had to be to even partake in a New York trade over the telephone doing size circa mid-70's.
I was in the Bond pit during the mid 80's when he made 50mil catching the rally from the high 50's to par. Scott Mistretta who was C&D's floor broker in the Bonds would bid the market on air through resistance levels. Dennis was trading 200 lots at the infancy of the move and had 5000 on by the end.
3. Neiderhoffer (and I'm the guy here who knew weeks before it was published that Matador had folded) might be a very bright guy but his trading strategy was simplistic and flawed. Clearly. And if indeed he sold it as something more cerebral or discretionary than just a short puts index fund, then he was fraudulent. He certainly wasn't a trader. He just sold naked far otm premium. That's fine-for four years better that than buying puts-but it doesn't prove a fund manager to be some prescient speculator. I mean in retrospect the guy looks like a HUGE duchebag. He was short puts that are STILL 250 ES points deep in the money. Hell at least Lehman made it to late 2008-Vic was done on a break before the new Oct/07 high was even made!!
Without quoting every post made thus far, I'll just throw out some random bullets.
1. Dennis had the most remarkable career of anyone in the history of the business. He should be an ET'er wet dream. 2k to 200mil in 16 years.
2. The awesome success of Dennis and a few other big play traders like Seykota or even Ricky Barnes is not trend following itself but in adding to the position. I'd imagine, over an infinite sample that trend following systems using constant one unit position sizing, fare no better than mean reverting systems. However Dennis wouldn't just buy a modest amounts of beans on a breakout-he'd go all in. And as soon as that profit produced enough money to margin even more-he'd double up. And it wasn't all breakouts bs. His biggest percentage trade-it took him from a few mil to eight figures as a 26 year old-was shorting sugar into a tulip-mania spike high. Just think how sophisticated a 26 year old floor trader in Chicago had to be to even partake in a New York trade over the telephone doing size circa mid-70's.
I was in the Bond pit during the mid 80's when he made 50mil catching the rally from the high 50's to par. Scott Mistretta who was C&D's floor broker in the Bonds would bid the market on air through resistance levels. Dennis was trading 200 lots at the infancy of the move and had 5000 on by the end.
3. Neiderhoffer (and I'm the guy here who knew weeks before it was published that Matador had folded) might be a very bright guy but his trading strategy was simplistic and flawed. Clearly. And if indeed he sold it as something more cerebral or discretionary than just a short puts index fund, then he was fraudulent. He certainly wasn't a trader. He just sold naked far otm premium. That's fine-for four years better that than buying puts-but it doesn't prove a fund manager to be some prescient speculator. I mean in retrospect the guy looks like a HUGE duchebag. He was short puts that are STILL 250 ES points deep in the money. Hell at least Lehman made it to late 2008-Vic was done on a break before the new Oct/07 high was even made!!
Doubt they listen to this Pabst, but u just gave em the grail.
thanks, pabst.
just want to clarify--the 2k to 200 million was without zero OPM?
if so, that is indeed remarkable. it seems it could have just as easily blown out totally, if LUCK wasn't smiling.....
want to come clean on the niederhoffer saga and your information on the second blow up. i was provided DISINFORMATION prior to the actual story from someone as close as you can get to the situation. hence my adament denial of your story--- i had nothing else to go by and sincerely trusted the provider of my information--- perhaps it was innocent, perhaps it was a last ditch effort to stay afloat, perhaps it had more notorious reasons--- regardless, i was merely acting as advised via email from a high ranking source. as a financial journalist, this was a big breaking story so of course i "wanted to believe" my source.
surf