So we’re in agreement only LTCM was bailed out? Glad we agree on something.
Says the guy who thinks distressed debt and merger arbitrage is comped to the SPX. Lol, I appreciate you helping me with a good laugh. When you figure out what a risk adjusted return is, let us all know.
Okay, I can understand that. Does the diversification of a conservative index pad an average person enough against risk? What I’m getting at is the clientele that would need these protections be your average Joe?
Lol. Ok. “No those places didn’t get bailed out because before that they got bought by people who got bailed out!” I don’t want to split hairs. It has to be frustrating to know with all your jargon hedge funds have a history of fucking up and losing people’s money in spectacular fashion.
At least if I lose my money I won’t have to pay you a fee AND lose it. But I’m sure a guy with your intelligence isn’t like any of the failures.
Well, to give you an example, we’ve had more downgrades to CCC in the last month than the financial crisis. Diversification isn’t going to help that and the forced selling it causes from CLOs getting back onside their bucket limits to not fail their junior OC tests. This will cause panic selling in diversified loan funds like BKLN.
We’re not splitting hairs, you made something up and got called out on it. Simple as that. Tell Occupy Wall Street I said hello.
So to me it seems like the people who would most benefit from this would not be the ultra wealthy. Even in a down turn, they would have plenty of money? If the market takes a shit, and you have 100 million, you might have 50 in a terrible downturn. That is still a lot of money left. An older average Joe can’t afford to loose half.
Basically with a lot of money I would go ultra aggressive because statistically the expected value long term is better, and I would never risk actually being poor.
Well it depends really. The majority of our LPs are not high net worth individuals, they’re charities, endowments, pensions, etc. So in that case, the not so wealthy are benefitting albeit indirectly. But I understand your point.
Okay, in that situation I can buy that your firm could provide a good value for those type of clients. Pension fund is more like a lot of average Joes, and likely need the pension, so they would be risk adverse.
I’m not saying that I fully support that strategy, but that I think it’s possible to be better.
“According to Bloomberg News, hedgies and other trading firms have been taking cues from their accountants and lawyers and making bids for some of that $350 billion.“
Sounds like tax eating leeches to me…Fuck off with your wannabe occupy Wall Street bullshit no ones talking about that in here. God damn I’d rather you owned the mistakes of the past than pretended like your ilk isn’t littered with them.
So think of the pension - let’s say that have a bunch of money allocated to corporate bonds or syndicated loans. Wouldn’t the pension want allocation to a distressed debt fund? Of course, because when credit markets implode those investments get hammered but distressed debt is rolling around in gold coins like Scrooge McDuck. Same with passive equity paired with hedge funds. It’s a risk management tool above all else. The funds charge money because there’s extraordinarily high overhead costs: office space, sell side research, bandwidth, data services, terminals, legal and compliance, hiring talent in a highly competitive environment, etc. I think many people don’t understand this.
I never said hedge funds didn’t fail, I said no fund aside from LTCM actually received bailout money. Hedge funds like all businesses can and do fail. Your flustered Googling is adorable.
Fail spectacularly. It’s just weird to call other people tax leeches. I’m not asking for “small business” bailout money. Like I said when you google hedge fund managers the first thing that comes up is “are crooks.” But I bet they told you to trot out that “we make charities money” on day one. Maybe like t said your boss can get on here and speak a little better than you? No one’s envious. But whatever you gotta tell yourself kid.
I’m just happy we agree you made up the bailout thing. Pissant nobody filled with envy. “Muh Bernie Sanders narrative!”. Lol, thanks for the laugh.
No ones envious of you. You’re a scam artist at best. Best of luck with your bailout money.
Ok, nobody, have the last word. All flustered about something he doesn’t understand. Have a good night sweetheart.
You already told us you’re a easily replaceable nobody on the street. Hope those hot dog cart people don’t get your bailout money.
He’s easily replaceable in his own department. He said the company’s client base was charities, endowments, etc. No senior director is ever going to put some Napoleonic know-it-all in front of those clients - because they’d immediately move their money somewhere else.
These guys are a dime a dozen, and add little value. No one wants to work with them in the real world.
“I’m going to open my own fund soon!” - hilarious.
I love how a conversation about UBI has turned into a pissing match about hedge fund investment like it’s even relevant.
I’ve got a BS and an MS in accounting, am a certified management accountant, and am a financial analyst for a large manufacturer that has analyzed the cost/benefit of large scale automation and AI (in ways that would probably surprise everyone).
I’ll take my cookie now, thanks.
5 Likes
For sure, back to UBI - I don’t support it, but I’m glad it was raised as an idea, because it forced a conversation on the coming dislocations caused by automation, etc. I think the dislocations will be real, but I’m not as big of a pessimist long-term - any new automation infrastructure will need people to build, service, and fix it. That’s new jobs that weren’t there before.
Also, the workers that are dislocated are prime candidates to retool and step into the skilled trade shortage we have (and that will get worse).
I’m not all rosy about it - I do think it will hurt. But if we invest the right way before it happens, I think we’ll be fine.
1 Like