51–60 of 261 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
66% CAGR is impossible. That would mean every million dollars you invested turns into $4 Trillion.
Well, the thing is that they cap the size of the fund at $10B so it's not really a CAGR per se as the original capital isn't appreciating at that rate. It's just they have $10B invested and then they distribute $6.6B per year and that's it (i.e., the fund doesn't become $16.6B next year). Still take your point that it's an insane figure!
Note that RenTec also runs two other funds that are larger than the Medallion Fund, but both under perform the index. On a completely unrelated note, if I were interested in creating a fund that appeared to have market beating returns for decades and I wasn't concerned about the legal consequences, here's one way I might do it: I would create fund A and B and seed them with some initial capital. For fund A, I would c…
There are plenty of folks out there that will do this for you. Just don't get greedy.
Note that RenTec also runs two other funds that are larger than the Medallion Fund, but both under perform the index. On a completely unrelated note, if I were interested in creating a fund that appeared to have market beating returns for decades and I wasn't concerned about the legal consequences, here's one way I might do it: I would create fund A and B and seed them with some initial capital. For fund A, I would c…
To be frank, running this sham for 30 years sounds less plausible to me than beating the market the boring way. How would you stop investors in your two public funds (and their accountants) from asking pointed questions about disbursements from one fund to the others? Do you plan to fool them for this amount of time, or bring them into the conspiracy? And how will you sustain the conspiracy when your other two funds…
The net effect is that fund A sees increased returns and fund B sees decreased returns.
Note that RenTec also runs two other funds that are larger than the Medallion Fund, but both under perform the index. On a completely unrelated note, if I were interested in creating a fund that appeared to have market beating returns for decades and I wasn't concerned about the legal consequences, here's one way I might do it: I would create fund A and B and seed them with some initial capital. For fund A, I would c…
So much negativity in this thread. We fear or doubt what we do not understand I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be frank, running this sham for 30 years sounds less plausible to me than beating the market the boring way. How would you stop investors in your two public funds (and their accountants) from asking pointed questions about disbursements from one fund to the others? Do you plan to fool them for this amount of time, or bring them into the conspiracy? And how will you sustain the conspiracy when your other two funds…
There would be no disbursements from one fund to the other. Fund A would purchase an asset slowly over time. When it has finished purchasing the asset, fund B would purchase that asset quickly at a scale large enough to increase the market price of it. As the price rose, fund A would sell its position. The net effect is that fund A sees increased returns and fund B sees decreased returns.
Either really good math or really good insider trading.
Heres Numberphile interviewing James: https://www.youtube.com/watch?src_vid=gjVDqfUhXOY&v=QNznD9hM... He's a MIT/Berkley Math professor.
The Simons Center for Geometry and Physics has an art gallery and an associated lecture series, and James often shows up to participate in these events. Luckily, these events are free to enter for all graduate students. At one of these events, I'd commented that a particular piece reminded me of a crystalline structure I was interested in studying (as a li-ion cathode). James overheard me and came over to quiz me on some of my group's work. About 8 months later, I ran into him at another lecture. While he didn't remember my name, he asked how my hollandite simulations had turned out.
This anecdote doesn't really prove anything, other than that Dr Simons is a pretty cool dude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not run by Robert Mercer. He's no longer a co-CEO. And if that's your conclusion, you should probably reexamine your priors.
Right, it's run by his designated successor, whose wealth comes from Mercer's "trading strategy".
Note that RenTec also runs two other funds that are larger than the Medallion Fund, but both under perform the index. On a completely unrelated note, if I were interested in creating a fund that appeared to have market beating returns for decades and I wasn't concerned about the legal consequences, here's one way I might do it: I would create fund A and B and seed them with some initial capital. For fund A, I would c…