Taleb fund and how it profited

Pekelo said:
Just to go more into details on why people don't like him (and since you asked), here is an Amazon reviewer of his book:

"The author repeatedly reminds readers that he is well traveled, is a "voracious" reader, pursues his exercise routines "assiduously", and is from upper class Mediterranean roots. Further, at some points in the book, he writes from a bitterness and contempt (which he admits) for journalists, economics, others in his profession, and generally those who are not "literate persons"."
More...
What's wrong with that....
 
Pekelo said:
Just to go more into details on why people don't like him (and since you asked), here is an Amazon reviewer of his book:

"The author repeatedly reminds readers that he is well traveled, is a "voracious" reader, pursues his exercise routines "assiduously", and is from upper class Mediterranean roots. Further, at some points in the book, he writes from a bitterness and contempt (which he admits) for journalists, economics, others in his profession, and generally those who are not "literate persons"."

And this was a 3 stars review... Now here is a 1 star review:

"This author should be named Narcisist, not Nassim. The rest of the book is devoted to propping himself up in his own version of an occupational caste system, where he is on some higher plain because he fancies himself to be some sort of quant jock who knows basic statistics and probabilities. In the meantime, he manages to insult MBAs, academics, specific authors, people who live provident lifestyles, successful but "non-quant" traders, scientists (those with poor social and hygene skills), dentists, and on and on. Pompus, self-serving, and hollow."

I hope that answered your question... :)
More...

Complete non sequitur since Taleb is not managing the fund, Spitznagel is.
 
Pekelo said:
Just to go more into details on why people don't like him (and since you asked), here is an Amazon reviewer of his book:

"The author repeatedly reminds readers that he is well traveled, is a "voracious" reader, pursues his exercise routines "assiduously", and is from upper class Mediterranean roots. Further, at some points in the book, he writes from a bitterness and contempt (which he admits) for journalists, economics, others in his profession, and generally those who are not "literate persons"."

And this was a 3 stars review... Now here is a 1 star review:

"This author should be named Narcisist, not Nassim. The rest of the book is devoted to propping himself up in his own version of an occupational caste system, where he is on some higher plain because he fancies himself to be some sort of quant jock who knows basic statistics and probabilities. In the meantime, he manages to insult MBAs, academics, specific authors, people who live provident lifestyles, successful but "non-quant" traders, scientists (those with poor social and hygene skills), dentists, and on and on. Pompus, self-serving, and hollow."
I hope that answered your question... :)
More...

Sounds like a review of about half of the people that post here.
 
cdcaveman said:
What's wrong with that....
More...

I dunno, the book is not about what he likes or dislikes, that is what is wrong with it. If he wants to write a econo-scientific book, he should leave his personal grumblings out of it.

But as someone else said, he is a troll so nobody should take him seriously... :)
 
Pekelo said:
I dunno, the book is not about what he likes or dislikes, that is what is wrong with it. If he wants to write a econo-scientific book, he should leave his personal grumblings out of it.

But as someone else said, he is a troll so nobody should take him seriously... :)
More...

I disagree
 
Gambit said:
Taleb is trolling. Do not take him too seriously.
More...

As far as I'm concerned....Every fund manager is trolling...to push their cause/viewpoints on the markets...and boost their fund and performance by highlighting the positives. ;) o_O
 
Maverick74 said:
His strategy has been "loosely" explained in the past. One way to do this without bleeding to death is to take your Principal and invest in FRA (forward rate agreement) for some duration. Take the net present value of that sum and aggressively invest in outliers. You only use the forward interest cash flow to do this, not the principal. If nothing ever happens, you lose nothing but opportunity cost because at maturity you get your principal back. Of course you give up what you "could" have made by simply buying bonds or stocks.

Example. I'm going to make up numbers here for simplicity. Say you could get 5% interest in a year on your capital. The present value on a million dollars is roughly 950,000. That is what you are paying for a million dollars 12 months from now. You take the 50,000 and aggressively look for opportunities. In 12 months you get your million back plus whatever you made on the 50k. If nothing, then in 12 months you have your starting capital back.

I should point out they made a killing on the bond collapse from the 156 handle down to 125 a few years back. They've also done well on some outsized currency plays. They don't just invest in downside S&P. The above strategy is just a template. Obviously you can get creative with that. But it explains how one can do very well on tails and NOT get killed in the meantime.
More...

Hey Mav, I think there is a flaw in your argument. Namely, who would be stupid enough to take
the other side of a FRA that pays a billion on a measly 15% stock market drop? you? What
is your bid/ask?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top