3 ms·
It lost me with the first line. How does this make sense? Did word definitions shift on me again? > Most systematic hedge funds are a racket; they either got l
by drewcoo 5y ago
It lost me with the first line. How does this make sense? Did word definitions shift on me again?
> Most systematic hedge funds are a racket; they either got lucky, or have a strategy that only works in one market regime.
- pixelgeek 5y agoI believe he is trying to say that most multi-market hedge funds (systemic hedge funds) are a fraud because the models that get generated typically only work in the market that the data modelling was done for.
- Kranar 5y agoAre you objecting to the word racket? Most hedge funds are not legally fraudulent, but they are fraudulent in that they sell an expensive product that is by pretty much all measure worse than the cheap off-the-shelf product. Selling ion bracelets to give you increased energy is not legal fraud either, but most people would say it's a fraud nonetheless. The same goes for most hedge funds.
- FredPret 5y agoIt’s not really that simple. Some funds outperform the market consistently (BRK isn’t a hedge fund but is a good example of outperformance) Others stick to their name and hedge against certain things. It’s so hard to truly evaluate performance by all metrics, it might as well be impossible. For the average person, the best way is probably to stick their money in the S&P 500 and forget about it. But what about outliers, like founders with 95% of their wealth in company x? They might want to hedge their bets as it were.