http://seekingalpha.com/article/193415-the-15-worst-stock-fund-managers-of-2009 Check out the stats for # 1 and # 2. I cannot stop but wonder about their portfolios. Seems like they shorted Snp on Jan 1 and went to bed. Woke up on new year’s only to realize the strategy didn’t pay off!! Note: The S&P 2009 returned 26.46% (source: SA)
Are those all pure large cap equity managers? I think the worst manager of all time may be John Meriwether (blew up LTCM, sunk another HF, and is currently on his 3rd hedgie). Somehow people continue to dump money into his funds knowing all well his past history. The guy’s a warrior.
It’s funny you should say that. Wikipedia describes him as “…as a pioneer of fixed income arbitrage. John Meriwether earned an undergraduate degree from Northwestern University and an MBA degree from the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business…” Some people know to never quit!
That’s because when you have a new idea for a fund, all that matters is that you have experience. What kind of experience doesn’t seem to matter, as long as it was also at a fund. “He blew up three times, so he’s clearly a good choice since he must now know what not to do.”
Chuckrox8 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are those all pure large cap equity managers? I > think the worst manager of all time may be John > Meriwether (blew up LTCM, sunk another HF, and is > currently on his 3rd hedgie). Somehow people > continue to dump money into his funds knowing all > well his past history. The guy’s a warrior. Third time is a charm? The guy is no doubt intelligent but his inability to mitigate risk would make anyone with half a brain think twice about handing him money. LTCM had tremendous success initially because they took on tremendous risk (leverage & exposure).
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That’s because when you have a new idea for a > fund, all that matters is that you have > experience. > > What kind of experience doesn’t seem to matter, as > long as it was also at a fund. > > “He blew up three times, so he’s clearly a good > choice since he must now know what not to do.” Exactly! 1. Start fund and call it (insert snazzy word here) Capital 2. Raise money 3. Lose 25% of clients money 4. Close fund 5. Repeat Ahhh the life of a HF manager…
They pay these guys the big bucks to invest in ETFs? ------------- Fund: Bell Worldwide Trends (TRNDX) 2009 Annual Return: +16.85% YTD: +2.50% The S&P 500 YTD: 3.6% Top 5 holdings: SPDR S&P International Dividend, Rydex S&P 500 Pure Growth, PowerShares FTSE RAFI Europe, PowerShares FTSE RAFI Dev Mkts ex-US S/M, and PowerShares FTSE RAFI US 1500 Small-Mid.
I actually like the worst one; Z Seven. With a little over $4m in AUM and a 4%+ expesnse ratio this dude is a baller. On top of that, the manager’s bio says he performed course work to Arizona State. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=ZSEVX
This dude is frickin’ loco!! This is an excerpt from his shareholder report filed with the SEC. Dear Shareholder: We would like to express our appreciation for the confidence you have shown in our investment philosophy. In addition, we are thankful for the love, strength, and wisdom given to us by our heavenly creator and caring shepherd. 2009 SIX-MONTH RESULTS In the six months ended June 30, 2009, our NAV decreased nearly 16% versus an approximately 3% increase in the S&P 500 during the same time period. As a reminder, last year’s first half NAV likewise declined but rebounded smartly in the last half of 2008. 2009 SECOND QUARTER RESULTS Our NAV decreased approximately 8% from $5.33 at March 31, 2009 to $4.92 at June 30, 2009. Last year’s 2nd quarter NAV declined over 5% but rebounded in the following quarter, during one of the most difficult quarters in stock market history. As a new update, the S&P has been up approximately 14% thus far in the third quarter, from June 30, 2009 through September 10, 2009, while, like last year, our NAV has started the 3rd quarter and 2nd half strong, up more than 9% to $5.35 at September 10, 2009 and has now more than fully recovered the decline in the second quarter. OUTLOOK It is my opinion that the worst for the stock market may not be over yet. As outlined in our 2002 annual report and placed in historical perspective, I then believed we would have a cyclical bull market that would last a few years into 2005 and possibly even 2006, but would then ultimately give way to the likelihood of a greater secular bear market. Well, it had stretched longer (into 2007) than originally expected but, with all-time record low mutual fund cash, now again, of 3.9% of assets, there is little potential demand from this important source. We have prepared well thus far for what I believe to be only the beginning of a potentially very long and very deep bear market. After the current rally, should the secular bear market resume, as I believe it shall, market indices, which may later fool people by extending their string of new recovery highs, possibly throughout the remainder of the year, or even into early 2010, have the potential to resume last year’s decline through the remainder of the decade or even into 2011, and may ultimately drop below the March 2009 lows. We shall be eagerly searching, as always, for new investment opportunities which meet our stringent 7 Criteria for Stock Selection, looking forward to making investments which our criteria help to guard us against numerous risk factors, while having the potential to be unusually profitable over the long term. Sincerely, Barry Ziskin September 10, 2009
lol, this guy is out of control. he probably hit up his church for investors… on another note, SRI funds have outrageously high MERs as well
>>In addition, we are thankful for the love, strength, and wisdom given to us by our heavenly creator and caring shepherd. << LOL
This is one of the stupider articles i have ever read. Looking at 2009 in a vacuum is really not smart. Look at 2008+2009 to get a more intelligent view of the world. For example, if I had $100 in a fund that lost 30% in 2008 but then made 40% in 2009, I would still be under water at $98 given the lower asset basis at the start of 09. If I had $100 in a fund that lost 0% in 2008 and made anything in 2009, I would be much happier, not only because economically it would be worth more, but also because the correlation to the S&P is what you would expect from a hedge fund. Because you want low correlation, you would also expect to underperform the S&P when the S&P has an usually strong year. Also, the S&P is a really crappy benchmark for multi-strategy diversified hedge funds.
Some of those “worst” performances don’t seem that bad. A lot of them are up around 18% for 2009 and are beating the SPX for 2010.