3 ms·

For example, there are US based asset managers with private funds that generate 20-30-40% per annum, for over 20 years. Pure Horseshit. Plain and simple. Or,

by shiven 10y ago

For example, there are US based asset managers with private funds that generate 20-30-40% per annum, for over 20 years. Pure Horseshit. Plain and simple. Or, in other words: "Pics. Or it didn't happen."

Gustomaximus 10y ago
I dont have pics, but insight. Typically these are funds exclusively for high net worth individuals. They are not advertised. They select who they let in and have limited pools of investment given they invest in areas/business that dont scale to trillion dollar levels type thing. They get to invest in business etc before the open market via their relationships which is I assume why they can get these returns. My source is a friend who is a partner in one of these funds. They average well over 20% return before fees. Typically they want people with $50m investable before your worth the conversation. And the sad thing for people like us is they are typically asked to preserve wealth (aka make sure I'm never poor) and and growth is secondary consideration.
- shiven 10y ago
  So, by its very nature, investing based on access to privileged opportunities. Who's to say it is not based on leveraging privileged information too? In other words, a type of insider trading. Or market pre-loading. Guess public sentiment hasn't caught up to such practices, yet, so they can get away with it. What is the failure rate for such private funds? Obviously, we may never hear of their failures, just as we don't hear of their successes.
  - Gustomaximus 10y ago
    > investing based on access to privileged opportunities I feel you really taking a bias stance here without understanding the mechanics. Yes privilege exists, the same as you friend might tell you a job is opening before its open knowledge. But deals will be shopped about. The big difference is many deals cant reasonably go to the public market. Costs for listing regulations would be significant and unnecessary. Consider, you need to be called as a 'sophisticated' investor even to trade options. This is to protect the public from unscrupulous pyramid schemes and business that carries high knowledge levels to understand what your buying into. It's as much about protecting the public keeping some deals away from open markets as being 'privileged'. > Obviously, we may never hear of their failures If your around this industry you hear plenty of both sides. Bigger ones go to public news like Madoff.
bkanber 10y ago
Warren Buffett, Carl Icahn, Michael Steinhardt, and arguably George Soros. And those are just the popular ones that I know of, as a passive investor.

by shiven 10y ago

Gustomaximus 10y ago

I dont have pics, but insight. Typically these are funds exclusively for high net worth individuals. They are not advertised. They select who they let in and have limited pools of investment given they invest in areas/business that dont scale to trillion dollar levels type thing. They get to invest in business etc before the open market via their relationships which is I assume why they can get these returns. My source is a friend who is a partner in one of these funds. They average well over 20% return before fees. Typically they want people with $50m investable before your worth the conversation. And the sad thing for people like us is they are typically asked to preserve wealth (aka make sure I'm never poor) and and growth is secondary consideration.

shiven 10y ago
So, by its very nature, investing based on access to privileged opportunities. Who's to say it is not based on leveraging privileged information too? In other words, a type of insider trading. Or market pre-loading. Guess public sentiment hasn't caught up to such practices, yet, so they can get away with it. What is the failure rate for such private funds? Obviously, we may never hear of their failures, just as we don't hear of their successes.
- Gustomaximus 10y ago
  > investing based on access to privileged opportunities I feel you really taking a bias stance here without understanding the mechanics. Yes privilege exists, the same as you friend might tell you a job is opening before its open knowledge. But deals will be shopped about. The big difference is many deals cant reasonably go to the public market. Costs for listing regulations would be significant and unnecessary. Consider, you need to be called as a 'sophisticated' investor even to trade options. This is to protect the public from unscrupulous pyramid schemes and business that carries high knowledge levels to understand what your buying into. It's as much about protecting the public keeping some deals away from open markets as being 'privileged'. > Obviously, we may never hear of their failures If your around this industry you hear plenty of both sides. Bigger ones go to public news like Madoff.

bkanber 10y ago

Warren Buffett, Carl Icahn, Michael Steinhardt, and arguably George Soros. And those are just the popular ones that I know of, as a passive investor.