We have allocated $100k and will be doing $50k at the end of today, with $1.2m available at the end of next month. I am working on various points to increase that amount, when I have closed those deals I will announce them. Looking for trading that what's I DO.
As you will recall we launched our site in November last year by announcing an allocation of $1.2m to the top 5 traders on our Leaderboard at the end of March. RAPA has recently been appointed as consultant to Gleneagle Securities' seeding programme and we include these funds in "Capital Allocated" below. In due course funds that have already been allocated will recylce into "Capital Availbale" based on manager performance and other matters arising.
http://www.gleneaglesecurities.com/ who is the parent or partner firm (50% stake in the Rapa deal from what I could gather) is a very straight-up company from what I can tell. Since they have prime broker access, they come across quite a bit of talent; Rapa is only a more public gateway in which to scout for it. The argument that they could just use existing database or fund managers from other companies is a valid suggestion. But who says that Barclays or other databases are the end all and be all when it comes to performance? Are any of these hedge funds that you hold in such high regard guaranteeing earnings? With all the academic research and industry relations at Barclay's fingertips, I'm actually disappointed at the earnings % of their top funds. Oh wait, "past performance does not guarantee future results" So I guess it's ok when a hedge fund has losses "hey, it happens", but when a smaller trader loses it would be a much more cynical "i told you so" conversation. I've partnered with a few people and trade what would be considered to be smaller funds for them. The amount of AUM will grow with time; building reputation and solid risk strategies are more important fundamental steps imo. RapaCap has got to be one of the most transparent offering of this type of magnitude ever in the field for traders looking to break into the business in an honest manner. Those that are complaining about the fees; have you considered the other benefits that participants are getting? In addition to the opportunity to get capital if you prove yourself, what about contacts/networking, prime broker access, and other tools that even an experience trader would have a hard time finding on their own. It is very much a "Quid pro quo" relationship, with a small out of pocket expense on the trader's side (keep their trading systems running. Very refreshing, and it's "onshore" also (Australia). I'm sure the fees will come down as the capital grows and the management process is more efficient. And it seems like they place a separate premium on transparent risk management strategies vs [black box] predictive models; something I think will pay off long term. Too many investors are tempted to sort through a list of thousands of potential investments by ROI (descending) and pick those from the top with little reservation as to the design of the investment strategy. Ranking formulas can be gamed (to an extent); in a similar way that a job applicant can bs their way through an application (to an extent). Asking them to produce something practical during the interview is a great filter in addition to the initial ranking qualification. Can any of you suggest a "better" example of how real traders can break into the business without having to join a secret society or pay a large fee/deposit for some trading course? I wouldn't be surprised if other Australian capital management firms or other similar firms around the world didn't duplicate what Rapa is doing. There is nothing to lose, if investors are truly putting up risk capital.
If your question is "Would I participate in other capital firm's trading programs if they offered it in a similar way to Rapa?", the answer is I don't know. I'd have to look at their offering; see if it is a good fit.
The entire financial management industry is a profit-skimming rentier arrangement. It may seem uncharitable to note that only .4%--that's 4/10th of 1%--of mutual fund managers outperform a plain-vanilla S&P 500 index fund over 10 years, but that is being generous: by other measures, it's an infinitesimal 1/10th of 1%. read on...http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2013/04/wall-street-is-rentier-rip-off-index.html curious as to the ET feedback on this as such information may relate the investment decision making process relative funding traders and the probability of success. All things are possible, but this article seemed of interest, especially since this is an Elite trading community.
I would say that there is a major element of truth, that the management industry has way too many fingers in the pie, thus diluting investors after fees return. My complaint with the article is comparing the funds "performance" against the S&P500 "performance" is an unfair comparison if the fund has different risk factors. So one fund might perform half as well as the S&P500 but might only have 1/10th of the risk, is that considered under performing? The article needs to clearly define what is meant by performance so as to compare apples with apples. Me personally if I wanted market exposure I would simply buy the ETF as I agree the chances of outperforming the index consistently after fees are very slight.