4 ms·

RenTec doesn't make money off "buy and hold." They're a quant firm that profits from small inefficiencies in the market, trading that with leverage. Their reall

RenTec doesn't make money off "buy and hold." They're a quant firm that profits from small inefficiencies in the market, trading that with leverage. Their really good secret is that they have superior data sources, and superior modeling (lowering their risk to almost nothing).

caminante 10y ago
Their secret sauce is less subtle. They harvest tax loopholes [0]. [0] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-21/how-rentec-made-more-34-billion-profits-1998-fictional-derivatives http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-21/how-rentec-made-mor...
- tptacek 10y ago
  That might be true, but you'd make your argument more credible if you cited Bloomberg (or anyone else, but BB is who ZeroHedge cites) rather than ZeroHedge, the InfoWars of finance.
  - caminante 10y ago
    > That might be true, but you'd make your argument more credible if you cited Bloomberg (or anyone else, but BB is who ZeroHedge cites)... Your statement's not "credible." ZH didn't just cite Bloomberg. The ZH post also includes excerpts from the 93 page report (not included in the Bloomberg article) released by the US senate subcommittee, which was highly relevant. Is anything in the ZH post false? Please add it to the discussion. Next time, please comment on the substance of ideas and arguments instead of ad hominem attacks. It was one of the first searches that came back for the topic I was looking for. It added more context than a brief Bloomberg article.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Pointing out that a source isn't credible isn't an ad hominem attack --- or, in my case, even an attack at all. I'm broadly sold on the idea that Renaissance profits largely through tax loopholes.
      - caminante 10y ago
        Respectfully, for the link, you're attacking ZH and not the substance of ZH's positions.
        tptacek 10y ago
        ZH isn't the argument. The argument is "does Renaissance succeed principally though tax manipulation".
- akvadrako 10y ago
  Although the tax loopholes could increase their income by about 15%, it doesn't explain all of it. Being able to increase their leverage from 1:2 to 1:20 could account for it, but it would require covering loses. If that's really all they did, it's basically a Ponzi scheme, because they would sometimes lose money.
  - caminante 10y ago
    Don't forget that 15% getting re-invested.

caminante 10y ago

Their secret sauce is less subtle. They harvest tax loopholes [0]. [0] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-21/how-rentec-made-more-34-billion-profits-1998-fictional-derivatives http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-21/how-rentec-made-mor...

tptacek 10y ago
That might be true, but you'd make your argument more credible if you cited Bloomberg (or anyone else, but BB is who ZeroHedge cites) rather than ZeroHedge, the InfoWars of finance.
- caminante 10y ago
  > That might be true, but you'd make your argument more credible if you cited Bloomberg (or anyone else, but BB is who ZeroHedge cites)... Your statement's not "credible." ZH didn't just cite Bloomberg. The ZH post also includes excerpts from the 93 page report (not included in the Bloomberg article) released by the US senate subcommittee, which was highly relevant. Is anything in the ZH post false? Please add it to the discussion. Next time, please comment on the substance of ideas and arguments instead of ad hominem attacks. It was one of the first searches that came back for the topic I was looking for. It added more context than a brief Bloomberg article.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Pointing out that a source isn't credible isn't an ad hominem attack --- or, in my case, even an attack at all. I'm broadly sold on the idea that Renaissance profits largely through tax loopholes.
    - caminante 10y ago
      Respectfully, for the link, you're attacking ZH and not the substance of ZH's positions.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        ZH isn't the argument. The argument is "does Renaissance succeed principally though tax manipulation".
akvadrako 10y ago
Although the tax loopholes could increase their income by about 15%, it doesn't explain all of it. Being able to increase their leverage from 1:2 to 1:20 could account for it, but it would require covering loses. If that's really all they did, it's basically a Ponzi scheme, because they would sometimes lose money.
- caminante 10y ago
  Don't forget that 15% getting re-invested.