Victor Niederhoffer in Vogue Magazine??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jem has hit the nail on the head in his assessment of not just VN, but the entire culture of bullshit we have witnessed over the better part of the past decade.

I honestly believed we would move beyond this crap after the past year and that we would not have to revisit this sort of thing (i.e. VN receiving some more press) this quickly. Besides, the Pabst thread addressed the last debacle with quite a bit of detail.
 
Quote from syswizard:

Sorry Dude, how can that be given his pre-blowup track record ?
His only fault was not converting those naked put positions to credit spreads. That would have capped his losses to a great degree.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda right? Are you one of VN's parasitic groupies as well or are you truly this ignorant?

His pre-blowup track record includes another blowup, so I have absolutely no idea what sterling record you speak of.
 
Quote from jem:

This has been turned over many times.

As you sell more and more premium you can look very profitable til you blow up.

LTCM was apparently selling premium til they blew up.

From what I read and the timing of the drawdowns and blow ups it seems VN followed the same business model. Sell premium promote your track record take out large management fees and hope the blow comes later rather than sooner.

All this was not so bad.... but then Wall street took that "business" con game model and put it on growth hormone. They the started selling the 2nd 20 percent to make 100 percent mortgages, Eventually option arms to anyone with a pluse.

Selling mortgages particular 2nd mortgages is the exact same concept as selling premium. Works great and you can take out billions in bonuses until the underlying goes down in value. Wall street was selling puts on real estate to the tune of trillions and trillions.

if you think it was a sincere mistake consider that Mortgages in California and some other western states are sometimes non recourse mortgages.
Those mortgages were puts plain and simple. The fed had statistics that show that when property goes down in value approximately 20 percent you have mass walkaways. And those stats were compiled when most people had to put 20 percent down.

I suppose even that would have been fine if they just blew up their shareholders money and their companies. But the bankers have destroyed america's future and sucked the tax payers dry.

Selling premium is fine with your own money. But blow up others while you pretend you are profitable and take out millions, billions and trillions is immoral in my opinion. In many cases it should be prosecuted as fraud.
Using the tax payers money is even more immoral.

Holding out premium sellers who pretend they could not see their blowup coming is pathetic.

Allowing wall street to pretend they are run by the best and brightest is something that must be stopped.

many of the recent dirtballs from wall street are parasites, Unfortunately they made so much money while running their scam they have purchased our government and many of the others.

There was a recent article which pointed out that in the old days Goldman Sachs had a motto of long run greedy. Long run greedy probably worked for america. They new model seems to be destroy america for large bonus.

what article were you referring to?


The Great American Bubble Machine : Rolling Stone
Jul 13, 2009 ... Goldman's mantra of "long-term greedy" vanished into thin air as the game became about getting your check before the melon hit the pavement. ...
www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the.../print - Cached -
 
"In short, a combined sequence of events � huge declines in individual Thai stocks,losses in the Thai currency and the closing of the U.S. stock market and extensive up moves in the prices of options the fund was short; all came together in one day, in a short and disastrous coincidence."

I particularly like this sentence.

Joe.
 
Quote from Thunderdog:

No. I don't know the man but I've read both of his books. I'd say he was condescending in his remark.

As a very close personal friend of Vic i can say with 100% certainty that he doesn't have a sarcastic bone in his body.
 
Quote from jem:

To me VN is sort of the poster child for the trillions wall street just cost us.

The old guys were greedy bastards but they new when to stop.

The specialists on the NYSE wanted something to pass on through the family.

The guys in Greenwich wanted their partnership to be lucrative forever.

These new guys put all the words out there - but when you examine them it is all bullshit.

The purple jacket looks preppy on a 20 year old. On 50 years old is reeks of poser.

Wall steet and Greewich have been hollowed out by posers and they have nearly destoyed our countries financial future.

Real traders make money.
Stand up guys pay back their what the lost.

They don't point to agreements - say I exchanged my assets for loses and pretend they are stand up guys.

What was the mark to market. What assets did you exhange.

You went to Harvard, you posses a powerful vocabulary - you can't figure out how much money you lost.

Give me break from the bullshit.


oh man, that purple jacket and his eccentric manner really bugs you, Jem?? Pretty funny, imho!

have you considered VN's side of the story that he was FORCED out of the postions by a cabal on the floor? A lawsuit was filed based on this allegation and settled in VN's favor. There were obvious shenanigans going on--- I am not privy to the exact details--- but one must consider this possible fact prior to casting judgement and comparing VN to your evil empire of wall street.

best,

surf
 
Quote from vulture:

Woulda, coulda, shoulda right? Are you one of VN's parasitic groupies as well or are you truly this ignorant?

His pre-blowup track record includes another blowup, so I have absolutely no idea what sterling record you speak of.

parasitic like monroe trout, roy niederhoffer, toby crabel among several other billion dollar fund managers plus top traders in many markets. Get a grip, man!


the record of accumulating massive wealth from the markets, maybe??

surf:confused:
 
Quote from nokomisjeff:

As a very close personal friend of Vic i can say with 100% certainty that he doesn't have a sarcastic bone in his body.
What about the tendons and cartilage? Any word on those? :D
 
Just a couple of comments:
I detect a lot of jealousy in some of these posts. None of these money managers including Vic were doing anything ILLEGAL.
So what do you want to do here ? More market regulation ?

Selling premium is just another strategy. We need active sellers for a liquid options market.

I wonder if Vic has cleaned-up once more by selling puts this past 6 months ?
 
Quote from syswizard:

Just a couple of comments:
I detect a lot of jealousy in some of these posts. None of these money managers including Vic were doing anything ILLEGAL.
So what do you want to do here ? More market regulation ?

Selling premium is just another strategy. We need active sellers for a liquid options market.

I wonder if Vic has cleaned-up once more by selling puts this past 6 months ?
I think there is the matter of moral hazard when managing OPM. It pays to swing wild for the fences when the trader shares a disproportionate piece of the winnings as compared to the potential losses. To the extent that the trader is looking to maximize his clients' risk adjusted returns, then all is well and the clients should know going in that they are in for a ride. However, the industry seems to be littered with traders who are principally seeking to maximize their own returns. Given the disparity in potential downsides between trader and client, they may find themselves at cross purposes. Since trading is all about risk and reward, the problem arises when the trader is more concerned about maximizing his own risk/reward equation than he is about maximizing the risk/reward of his clients. It may not be illegal to game the system in this manner, but...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top