Victor Niederhoffer: Lessons of Making and Losing a Fortune
- Thread starter dealmaker
- Start date
Victor Niederhoffer sounds like a smart and accomplished wise guy/trader in this interview and elsewhere,
But he blew up in 1997 and 2007,
Losing, or dieing, in war...is basically losing, or dieing, in war. and Trading is a war battlefield.
It's your job as a fund manager of yourself or anyone else's money...is to be able to manage and foresee all variable risks,
War history books mainly only cover, and care about, the winners,
There's a fine line in trading between deciding to chase big returns and be a Maverick Joker...or a conservative War General,
I'm not necessarily saying which side is better to choose -- but you just have to know and be aware of the market and battlefield you're playing in, along with all of its potential pitfalls and whammies and surprises and other elements,
All it takes is just one fuck up, to virtually overshadow everything else of your accomplishments and polished history.
Kind of like Bill Clinton -- everyone virtually knows him, or recalls him, for his appetite for that pussy scandal,
I'm sure Victor Niederhoffer is/was an excellent market speculator...but also a jackal,
Who was bitten by a snake that left him crippled, or surprised by a bigger cat,
The market is essentially a War Zone with humans and terrain and strategic planning and assumptions and equipment.
Or...it's the African Savannah with animals. or a South American jungle with various animals.
(don't leave nothing to chance or assume anything for Survival)
I know all these words may sound like Hindsight... generic theory mumbo jumbo -- But it's all about how you apply it, and personally interpret it, and foresee it,
But he blew up in 1997 and 2007,
Losing, or dieing, in war...is basically losing, or dieing, in war. and Trading is a war battlefield.
It's your job as a fund manager of yourself or anyone else's money...is to be able to manage and foresee all variable risks,
War history books mainly only cover, and care about, the winners,
There's a fine line in trading between deciding to chase big returns and be a Maverick Joker...or a conservative War General,
I'm not necessarily saying which side is better to choose -- but you just have to know and be aware of the market and battlefield you're playing in, along with all of its potential pitfalls and whammies and surprises and other elements,
All it takes is just one fuck up, to virtually overshadow everything else of your accomplishments and polished history.
Kind of like Bill Clinton -- everyone virtually knows him, or recalls him, for his appetite for that pussy scandal,
I'm sure Victor Niederhoffer is/was an excellent market speculator...but also a jackal,
Who was bitten by a snake that left him crippled, or surprised by a bigger cat,
The market is essentially a War Zone with humans and terrain and strategic planning and assumptions and equipment.
Or...it's the African Savannah with animals. or a South American jungle with various animals.
(don't leave nothing to chance or assume anything for Survival)
I know all these words may sound like Hindsight... generic theory mumbo jumbo -- But it's all about how you apply it, and personally interpret it, and foresee it,
Last edited:
You are basically right Lawrence-Lugar.
Victor Niederhoffer actually proved that he has never managed to become a profitable trader, and still he wants people to "learn" from him. What he is teaching is how to be a trader that blows up big time, not how to be a trader that is a winner.
Victor Niederhoffer actually proved that he has never managed to become a profitable trader, and still he wants people to "learn" from him. What he is teaching is how to be a trader that blows up big time, not how to be a trader that is a winner.
The Ed Thorp interview is probably more interesting. As a HF manager he never had a losing QUARTER! In May 1998, Thorp reported that his personal investments yielded an annualized 20 percent rate of return averaged over 28.5 years.
Ed Thorp, the Man Who Beat the Dealer and the Market
Interesting tid bit from his latest book's review:
"This section also contains a jarring discussion of Thorp having extensively vetted Bernie Madoff’s fund in 1991 and then conclusively proving that it was a fraud. Then, shockingly, other than telling an investor client to withdraw his funds, he sat on this information for 17 years despite having located investors who had entrusted at least $500m to Madoff, and likely being aware of far more. The SEC ignored Harry Markopolous, but it seems much more likely that they would have taken Thorp, a distinguished academic and well-connected public figure, seriously. It is hard to take Thorp’s moralizing on much smaller issues seriously when he seemingly sat on information that could have saved hundreds of investors their life savings. Thorp then describes a similar situation with a smaller $200m Ponzi scheme in 1982. Many of us may have failed to speak up as well, but Thorp devotes no time to the ramifications of his failure to act."
Ed Thorp, the Man Who Beat the Dealer and the Market
Interesting tid bit from his latest book's review:
"This section also contains a jarring discussion of Thorp having extensively vetted Bernie Madoff’s fund in 1991 and then conclusively proving that it was a fraud. Then, shockingly, other than telling an investor client to withdraw his funds, he sat on this information for 17 years despite having located investors who had entrusted at least $500m to Madoff, and likely being aware of far more. The SEC ignored Harry Markopolous, but it seems much more likely that they would have taken Thorp, a distinguished academic and well-connected public figure, seriously. It is hard to take Thorp’s moralizing on much smaller issues seriously when he seemingly sat on information that could have saved hundreds of investors their life savings. Thorp then describes a similar situation with a smaller $200m Ponzi scheme in 1982. Many of us may have failed to speak up as well, but Thorp devotes no time to the ramifications of his failure to act."
Last edited:
you moralize too much.
Harry Markopolos first submitted evidence to the SEC in May 2000, eight years before the Madoff fraud was revealed.
who needs the headache of being a whistle blower? "failure to act" implies a moral duty. there was none here.
Then the point of him discovering the Ponzi 20 years early is moot altogether. Also, he could have tried to do it anonymously and at least he could say now: hey, I tried.
By the way that was from an Amazon review not from me. And I could argue that if you are in the finance business keep it clean for everyone is in everyone's best interest. You are right, it isn't easy to be a whistle blower, maybe that is why we call them HEROES....
that is a good lesson for you to mention your sources.
Sorry for the offtopic, but....(well, the Niederhoffer horse has been beaten to death, and you can learn from losses too)
Which part of this sentence was hard to understand?:
"from his latest book's review:"
The whole paragraph was between quotation marks.
That is a good lesson for you to pay attention when reading. Alright, just messing with you, I am right and you are wrong, that is the lesson here...
Which part of this sentence was hard to understand?:
"from his latest book's review:"
The whole paragraph was between quotation marks.
That is a good lesson for you to pay attention when reading. Alright, just messing with you, I am right and you are wrong, that is the lesson here...
There were a number of other financial advisers who also urged their clients to pass on the investment, why didn't they report? Ponzi are very difficult to flush out until someone can't get their money out and report to authority.
I remembered a Ponzi scheme called Zeekreward. Many friends were involved and urged me to join for the excellent returns. I found it too good to be true and passed. Two years later it collapsed. Should I report to the SEC but if I did I am sure they would ignore me.