Did Niederhoffer Lie To Baron?

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Pa(b)st Prime, Sep 26, 2007.

  1. Had a feeling we'd hear more Pabst. Too bad you got squelched in the first instance. I'll be watching WSJ.
    #21     Sep 26, 2007
  2. pabst, you must really have some connections...all the way from fla. (or chi) too!

    anyway, i am also interested in him for many reasons. keep up the good work, and thanks for sharing it with us.

    it would be amazing if baron was lied to and you are right. if true, i think it is horrible that vic mislead baron so blatantly.
    #22     Sep 26, 2007
  3. Countdown until MarketSurfer comes here to defend his boy...3...2...1...
    #23     Sep 26, 2007
  4. If true, So much for Niederhoffer's self imposed British Navy Discipline, it sure worked like a charm, until it hit the fan! I wonder if his investors will be able to administer corporal punishment for failure to force disipline upon himself? I'd suggest a good ole' fashioned keelhauling.
    #24     Sep 26, 2007
  5. Maverick1


    Either way, if true, it's a horrible end to the comeback story...investors would not withdraw 93% of their funds if they had not sustained a very large drawdown in all likelihood.. And I wouldn't put it past him to lose nearly the whole fund via trading losses because it's happened in the past.

    I wonder, if this has leaked out already, how come so many wannabes keep posting gibberish on his website? Would they keep doing it if they knew that the above has happened (if true?)
    #25     Sep 26, 2007
  6. Pekelo


    Well, there is a SLIGHT (!!!) difference between the two.

    Now people, let's use logic here. (OK, I am asking too much). Vic was actually up a decent amount (I forgot the exact %) before the May meltdown, and he had a cushion to lose from. It is not an excuse, just an explanation. If I recall with that huge loss he went back to breakeven or so YTD. But as Surf stated earlier, the investors got scared and withdrawn their money basicly ending the fund. This is an educated guess based on the information tid-bits. Feel free to correct me if anyone knows better.

    Now if somebody takes a look at the chart, the investors ended the fund just exactly when Vic's strategy would have payed off, the SPX rallying for the rest of the year.

    Well, the irony....

    Edit: Time goes so fast, I forgot that the big loss was in 2006 May. There was another dip in June, one more in July so I guess 3 scares in a row were just too much for the investors. But a big rally did come after that....
    #26     Sep 26, 2007
  7. Excellent reporting Pabst!

    I believed you when you first broke the story, so i'm glad it's now coming out. But are you sure they were 1000 puts? Seems very far out of the money, 1300 or 1400 puts sounds more plausible for a big loss.
    #27     Sep 26, 2007
  8. Tums


    #28     Sep 26, 2007
  9. I posted at the time (market bedlam), that VN was notably absent from posting on his board.

    Either he was making so much money he needed all his spare time to count it,or something else was going on.

    Why is it taking so long for the truth to out?
    #29     Sep 27, 2007
  10. Until I hear it from VN himself, this is HOG WASH.

    WSJ leaked the news to some one? Are you kidding me.

    I am a member of the SPEC-LIST and this is an unfair post towards him.

    VIC is nobel, honest and goes out of his way to help people. If this is true, which I highly doubt, then VIC will addrease this issue with the WSJ and the rest.

    To read this non-sense on Elite Trailor where 1% actually trade is suspect in and of its self.
    #30     Sep 27, 2007