18 year 10% annualized net return is not bad but not good enough to grow to as big as $50b. How did they grow to that AUM size with those returns?
The Legend of David E. Shaw: Hiding in Plain Sight
- Thread starter ETJ
- Start date
18 year 10% annualized net return is not bad but not good enough to grow to as big as $50b. How did they grow to that AUM size with those returns?
Really? How much do you make, year in year out over 18 years? How many times did you have to refund your broke account in the past 5 years alone? Have you ever traded even 10 million dollar notional positions, let alone 100 or 200 million dollar positions? Asking, because you seem to have no friggin clue about what it takes to generate such returns on this level, consistently and without needing to get bailed out. This guy produced a 5 fold return for his long term investors. Not on a 2000 dollar account like yours but at a level not even conceivable to you.
Goodness. Dumb and dumber
And so you understand how guys collect 50bln on 10% annual returns: consistency, low risk, the fact that 13% of European government bonds now offer negative yields, the fact that Fed is heading for zero yields as well. And the fact this stagnation in returns for large accounts has been going on for years now. Or that the ytd hedge fund index return stands at around 5%, which is actually one of the better performance figures of this index in recent years.
Goodness. Dumb and dumber
And so you understand how guys collect 50bln on 10% annual returns: consistency, low risk, the fact that 13% of European government bonds now offer negative yields, the fact that Fed is heading for zero yields as well. And the fact this stagnation in returns for large accounts has been going on for years now. Or that the ytd hedge fund index return stands at around 5%, which is actually one of the better performance figures of this index in recent years.
Didn’t Bernie Madoff offer 10% per year and everyone wanted to invest because those were such incredible results, almost impossible to obtain through anyone else?
How many $10B+ funds can produce 10% per year? And wouldn’t they attract most of the money (besides Rentech and likes that don’t need anyone’s money)?
Oh, maybe if people were amazed with getting 10% from a crook like Madoff then they should be even more amazed with getting such amazing returns from an actual legit fund. And maybe that’s why David Shaw returns not only justify their AUM but make them the only game in town.
(I don’t know much about consistency of David E Shaw returns every year, but I can’t fathom why someone would frown upon 10% returns for many years - you’d be managing $billions if you could get that much).
Last edited:
Rentech still has an open fund, the closed fund is because they are at capacity for the strategies.
price action when moving 50 billion..lmfao..whers mr. shaw..last i saw him he was marking that double bottom after the doji candle and the higher high on the 1 min and 5min..lmfao!!!! omg... bahaaaaaa
That’s crazy and naive. $1B+ funds are the ones that create TA and price action that everyone else is feeding off of. When they need to spend or rotate $100M-$1B+ over several hours or days - that’s when everyone else is seeing all kinds of price action and indicators crossing various thresholds.
You can’t have price action with a few guys buying less than 1000 shares of anything at home and then big funds trying to feed off of them...
Yup, their open fund(s) are more in line with some other funds out there, while I understand and agree that their internal funds don’t need and can’t use anyone else’s money because of limited capacity.
This is a stupid opinion not backed by facts. Madoff would be an obvious counter example.
Sounds stupid now that I read back what I wrote and comments from other members. Thanks for your feedback. Keep them coming.