Paulson does it again! loses his customers another 18%

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by KINGOFSHORTS, Mar 8, 2013.

  1. heech


    In *one* of his funds, a tiny % of his overall firm's AUM.

    He's up nicely YTD and MTD in the vast majority of his funds.
  2. Which ones is he doing well?

    What is the 3 year returns on those funds?
  3. down 18% and so what?
    he is still a baller in vegas or any other place
  4. Its not his money, he is cashing in like a king. the losses are OPM.

    Some of his other funds are down like 40+ %
  5. Bob111


  6. It's not fair if you can't rig the other side of your trade!!

    It's NOT FAIR!!! :mad:

  7. “Despite the volatility and drawdown of our gold equity positions, we believe in the long-term outlook for these positions as quantitative easing programs continue around the world, credit expands in the United States, and gold equities continue to trade at a significant discount” to historical average valuations, the hedge fund said in a letter sent yesterday to investors, which was obtained by Bloomberg News.

    John Paulson is as stupid as an amateur investor. I stronly suspect that he will start a ponzi scheme. Maybe he has already started a ponzi.
  8. OK. we got it. .he did make billions in 2008 betting against the MBS. housing CDS. etc etc.. but that was it.. no more once in a lifetime opptys are around. he is as average as any other investor

    Nowhere is the attribution of genius and success more misleading than on Wall Street.

    For 15 straight years, Bill Miller, portfolio manager of the Legg Mason Value Trust, outperformed the S&P 500. Money magazine showered Miller with accolades by calling him "the Greatest Money Manager of the 1990s." Morningstar followed suit by naming Miller "Fund Manager of the Decade" and Smart Money magazine referred to him as one of the top 30 most influential people in investing from 2001 to 2006.

    Mlodinow deconstructs Miller's performance as a random streak and not rare genius. He writes: "There were more than 30 12-month periods during his streak in which he lost to the S&P's weighted average, but they weren't calendar years, and the streak was based on the intervals from January 1 to December 31." In a sense, the streak was artificial to begin with and one that by chance was defined in a manner that worked to Miller's favor. Given Miller's recent fall from grace and subsequent market underperformance, the author's point makes sense. Mlodinow provides other compelling mathematical evidence to prove his point.
  9. +1
    #10     Apr 1, 2013