NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > IronMan Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > NakedPuts Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > IronMan Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > If being a trader and working for a pioneer > > in > > > the > > > > options industry isn’t much of a position, > > then > > > > okay. > > > > > > I never type stupid stuff like this on the > > > internet, but ROTFLMFAO! This is better than > > > Lion2004! You barely understood what was > > > happening when you shorted a single put! > Trade > > > settlement isn’t “trading” kiddo. You post > way > > > too much on here for me to believe you’re any > > sort > > > of trader, not to mention the frequently > silly > > > things you post. > > > > Listen up son, trading naked puts in a regular > > brokerage account with 10,000 capital is much > > different than trading vol at a hedge fund. If > I > > need to elaborate on that, then clearly you are > > the one in trade settlement. > > This is basically my post, only rewritten and put > back at me. First, you insinuate the other person > has no idea what they are talking about. Then, > you demean them with some “junior” put down. > Finally, you imply they work in trade settlement. > At least come up with something original. It was put back at you since you don’t quite understand what you’re talking about. Show a little more tact on the board and you’ll get better responses.
Let’s reexamine this gem for a second, from a guy who tells me I don’t understand what I’m talking about. "I work in the industry and know exactly what I am talking about folks. Firms with a huge reputation won’t, but they don’t even make up 2% of the industry. The largest estimates I’v heard for industry AUM were about $2T. Therefore, any firm with $20B alone makes up 1% of the industry. According to the (unfortunately wildly out of date) Alpha rankings, 14 firms have this level of AUM, the smallest being Citadel. “The rest, who don’t have a sterling reputation, have nothing to lose.” Rounding out the top 50 of the Alpha list are Baupost and Maverick. No reputations there, right? For the record, they were each reported at $12B AUM. “If they risk and lose big, they will just close shop and start again somewhere else. It’s either that or stick it out and get no bonus… they will go with the former.” Right, that kind of AUM just grows on trees, especially in the current environment. At the bottom of the top 100 are little firms like Pequot, Appaloosa and Chilton, each with roughly $7B. Alpha reports the top 100 manage about $1.3T or (under their math) 74% of industry assets. The point being, EVERYONE has a huge reputation and they make up the entire industry. Perhaps you do work for a hedge fund, but you clearly have no idea what’s going on in the industry.
Now how is that different than "a) The top 200 hedge funds control about 80% of > the assets in hedge fund land and those are the > ones with the “huge reputations”. The 2% number > is wacky. "? You just took my post and put it back. Damn I hate it when people do that.
All I know is the HF I started at our CEO/CIO used to tell me (the trader) to do things that I had to run past a risk manager who would usually tell me not to do them. The CEO/CIO would say do it anyway. After working in this industry for 10 years now I generally view see risk managers treated like Toby from The Office.
So the CIO would tell you to run something pats the risk manager, who would say bad deal, but the CIO having told you to run it past him would ignore it? What was this, some way of showing the risk manager how powerful he was? Probably, you misunderstood the interaction that was going on there. When the CIO told you to talk to the risk manager about it, it was likely to make sure that you had a conversation about the risks with someone whose job it was to be devil’s advocate. If you are all ga-ga about a trade and the risk manager can’t talk you out of it, then it might be a good trade. In addition, the risk manager now knows about a new position and a new risk source and can incorporate it into his view of firm risk.
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So the CIO would tell you to run something pats > the risk manager, who would say bad deal, but the > CIO having told you to run it past him would > ignore it? What was this, some way of showing the > risk manager how powerful he was? > > Probably, you misunderstood the interaction that > was going on there. When the CIO told you to talk > to the risk manager about it, it was likely to > make sure that you had a conversation about the > risks with someone whose job it was to be devil’s > advocate. If you are all ga-ga about a trade and > the risk manager can’t talk you out of it, then it > might be a good trade. In addition, the risk > manager now knows about a new position and a new > risk source and can incorporate it into his view > of firm risk. Joey, you’re currently a risk manager right?
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let’s reexamine this gem for a second, from a guy > who tells me I don’t understand what I’m talking > about. > > "I work in the industry and know exactly what I am > talking about folks. Firms with a huge reputation > won’t, but they don’t even make up 2% of the > industry. > > The largest estimates I’v heard for industry AUM > were about $2T. Therefore, any firm with $20B > alone makes up 1% of the industry. According to > the (unfortunately wildly out of date) Alpha > rankings, 14 firms have this level of AUM, the > smallest being Citadel. > > “The rest, who don’t have a sterling reputation, > have nothing to lose.” > > Rounding out the top 50 of the Alpha list are > Baupost and Maverick. No reputations there, > right? For the record, they were each reported at > $12B AUM. > > “If they risk and lose big, they will just close > shop and start again somewhere else. It’s either > that or stick it out and get no bonus… they will > go with the former.” > > Right, that kind of AUM just grows on trees, > especially in the current environment. At the > bottom of the top 100 are little firms like > Pequot, Appaloosa and Chilton, each with roughly > $7B. Alpha reports the top 100 manage about $1.3T > or (under their math) 74% of industry assets. The > point being, EVERYONE has a huge reputation and > they make up the entire industry. Perhaps you do > work for a hedge fund, but you clearly have no > idea what’s going on in the industry. If you’re looking at total assets fine, I was referring more to the number of hedge funds that currently exist in the world.
No you weren’t. That just doesn’t make any sense in the context of the conversation. Go re-read it. In any event, talking about just about anything hedge fund should always be done by weighting based on AUM. What some hedge fund with 12M under management does just doesn’t matter.
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No you weren’t. That just doesn’t make any sense > in the context of the conversation. Go re-read > it. In any event, talking about just about > anything hedge fund should always be done by > weighting based on AUM. What some hedge fund > with 12M under management does just doesn’t > matter. I think the investors in that fund would disagree. And it doesn’t have to be 12M. There are tons of funds with assets in the hundreds of millions that certainly have importance!!
IronMan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeyDVivre Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > No you weren’t. That just doesn’t make any > sense > > in the context of the conversation. Go re-read > > it. In any event, talking about just about > > anything hedge fund should always be done by > > weighting based on AUM. What some hedge fund > > with 12M under management does just doesn’t > > matter. > > I think the investors in that fund would disagree. > And it doesn’t have to be 12M. There are tons of > funds with assets in the hundreds of millions that > certainly have importance!! Well this thread started in the context of “superstar” talent leaving GS. Not many are going to leave GS to go to a $200M fund, as even a beaten down GS can pay them more than a $200M fund, assuming of course the $200M fund is above its HWM. Stating that the “investors in the fund would disagree” is completely meaningless in this context.
Maybe they’ll go start their own fund. My initial point before this thread took one big giant nosedive into hell, was that the talent has options if they desired. HFs, PE Firms, Venture Capital. If Goldman is forced to reduce risk and leverage, talent may bolt.
GS is already forced to reduce risk and leverage, they’re a BHC now! Is there a cohesive structure to your thoughts, or am I just getting random neural firings? I feel like I’m trying to trying to argue with a Faulknerian man-child.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > GS is already forced to reduce risk and leverage, > they’re a BHC now! Is there a cohesive structure > to your thoughts, or am I just getting random > neural firings? I feel like I’m trying to trying > to argue with a Faulknerian man-child. Re-read my initial post. You took this thread down the wrong path, and I mistakingly followed you. My initial thought remains the same.
Your initial thought remains wrong, which is why this thread persists.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your initial thought remains wrong, which is why > this thread persists. You haven’t presented any facts to disprove what I said. So try again, and take your time. This isn’t a race.
Really? What about all that stuff about how there’s nowhere else to go because no one is getting paid big bucks anymore?
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Really? What about all that stuff about how > there’s nowhere else to go because no one is > getting paid big bucks anymore? For the time being! In the long run, especially once all the clowns are forced to close, HF’s and PE firms are where you want to be. Not a pseudo investment bank. Come Jan, these firms are going to being laying off a TON of people… I expect there to be plenty of opportunities for talent, should they want it. And I predict they will.
And now I agree with IronMan if the time frame is long enough (but certainly not January). HF’s have gotten more than decimated (what would be the word for killing every other one as opposed to every tenth? semimated or something? bchadwick probably knows). But HF’s are the best vehicles for picking up all the obscure risks in the world and packaging them up for sale. A short time ago, there were too many hedge funds competing for these risks. Then these risks turned out to be short-term toxic. A short while from now, there will not be so many hedge funds competing and these risks will be profitable again. This will be a fine time for hedge funds since the money will quickly flow back into them when they start putting up 40% return numbers.
``The future of the hedge-fund industry looks set to be one in which leverage will not be used as aggressively, partially as a result of recent losses but also because the prime brokers will not provide it easily,’’ Levkovich said. Yeah, right. Levkovich is not a very insightful analyst. Why does anybody need this kind of “USA Today” analysis?