Who will be stupid enough to let losing accounts be audited?
Whole Concept Of Track Record is STUPID!
- Thread starter virtualmoney
- Start date
At least this makes sense
Quote from virtualmoney:
I can hold 2 or 4 accts of opposite portforlios each say having 15 or more instruments (stocks, indices, FX).
As long as one of these accts goes up by 200% or more in 2 to 3 years, I stand a chance to enter an institute. Just square off and apply for your hedge fund manager job.
Whether I perform thereafter does not matter as long as I get my fund manager's pay, perks and carry my bosses (O.O) ,
Carry ON! just like housewives carrying trades
I generally find if someones does NOT have/post a track record, the chances of it outperforming are conisderably less likely
Not really .. economies of scale for one thing. The professional environment is a lot different too.
You could hook on at a chop shop who will work a deal with you for backing and a % with a nice record but you wont get any looks as a fund manager. There is nothing wrong with getting a good deal from a chop shop.
For example, if I had an account that was long aapl, short intc, long goog &
another account that was short appl, long intc, long goog over a course of 2 years, I will only show the first account even though the second account is also a net profit because goog outweighs aapl in cash returns and intc growth is insignificant compared to the other two. But if it had been a bear market last 2 years, I will probably show the second account.
another account that was short appl, long intc, long goog over a course of 2 years, I will only show the first account even though the second account is also a net profit because goog outweighs aapl in cash returns and intc growth is insignificant compared to the other two. But if it had been a bear market last 2 years, I will probably show the second account.