With your situation, I can think of only two reasons to let others in. Social capital, and economies of scale. I'm not in your range, so I can't speak to the social capital benefits. However, the strategies I prefer, I believe, would suffer rather than benefit from large scale. Sounds to me like you are in a good place.
With his situation, he needs to be buying more peanuts for the circus elephants so that they don't trample his clown ass.
hows paycheck to paycheck life? jealous with envy i see --------- let me give u a small descrip of my daily life, wake up @ 10, get fucked by the girl, go out @ 12 with friendsfor mexican lunch, 3pm workout, 4pm, meet up with another girl, fuck her, 6 pm get a massage, 9pm premarket homework, 10pm put on a trade, 11pm late night snack week after = 50-80k NET++ in theaccount ================ puts your free time to shame, the coffee break u get in between shuffling papers like a bitch back to work fag! harharhar , I'd laugh in your face in real life, and u know it'll hurt.,
i wouldnt start a HF because of this post.. and if you do no one will invest.. you show signs of excessive risk taking.. low diversification and trade counter flow of the market
Thanks for your comment; can you please explain why you think I am taking excessive risk and low diversification? My account value is pretty stable (now standing at 550k) and has had appositive return for 8 of the 9 last quarters. My portfolio includes the following; S&P 500, Emerging market index, preferred shares, technology, MBS, Municipal bonds, some closed end funds, and some options and pharmaceutical companies. My strategy is usually buy and hold for a year or more. I would love to hear where do you see that I am taking excessive risk? (By the way I have some people that seem to like my performance and are really considering investing thru my fund). Thanks
hey, I deal with a multitude of funds in my business and see these pitches everyday.. I dont want to shoot down your ideas of opening a fund.. so dont think that I am. but here are some of the main problems I see with the idea of you being funded by more than friends and family.. generally you do not want friends and family to be vested in your fund.. especially as an newly formed fund with limited track record.. from the pitch on here you said.. nothing more than 10% in one vehicle .. generally max interest in one vehicle would be less than .3% of the entire portfolio.. and would be globally diversified not using an global etfs or emerging market etfs or passive indexing but actual diversification into global markets.. if you dont have a clearing firm lined up where you can buy off TSX/ASX/DAX/ etc... then you are at a disadvantage.. from calculating a lower cost basis than what aapl is at now @ 20 share the portfolio is heavily weighted into aapl at near 1%. its also best to leave the more risk enhancing and hedging strategies alone while establishing the portfolio and investors as you dont want to show signs of nonproper hedging and excessive risk taking. also the fund needs to grow in relation to the cash/equity fluctuation as a pair.. for example it look likes some funds are increasing wealth when they are not or if they are its extremely small.. to handle a load like this you need a team of trained traders..
I'm no expert, but I really don't think 0.3% in any one interest is some kind of industry standard. That sounds excessively over diversified, especially for a hedge fund. Many hedge funds I know take far larger single positions than 0.3%..
industry standard no.. but its around that number first off hedge funds should have access to more markets hedge funds should be buying in global and emerging markets so breaking it up ill list a basic standard set of markets china australia brazil argentina south africa canadian south korea new zealand indian to name a few .3% give 300 trades to full exposure average of 30 trades or so in each market to gain global exposure excessive over diversification leads to low profits.. generally what happens when diversification occurs is an increase of performance as a function of risk.. if you take a profit:risk ratio and decrease both but drop risk faster than profit through diversification .. you can leverage into enhancing profits.. and keeping risk relatively low.. if not lower through enhancement of leverage diversification. this is a funds job to create enhanced profit and reduce risk. 10% of funds portfolio in one thing is not managing risk.. 5% in one is not managing risk. altho you do need to weight costs against it..
There is an old saying about leaving well enough alone...if you are doing well trading your own account then why is there a need to change that model? I see many folks doing well at what they do, but then they get greedy and decide to make a drastic change only to fail. Sometimes change is not a good thing. Sometimes it is best to leave well enough alone and be comfortable with what you have. While there are many stories of success, there are also stories of failure and wreck. Actually, there are are far more stories of failure then success...you just dont hear the stories of failure. Not many people come out to say they failed at something. Instead, they brush it under the carpet and never mention it again. However, if they succeed then you never hear the end of it. So I say to leave it alone and keep going with the existing system. Some other cool key phrases: "If it ain't broke, dont fix it." "Never change a running system." "Dont change something that is working."