Quadriga Superfund - Managed Futures

Discussion in 'Financial Futures' started by USAtrader, Mar 22, 2004.

  1. You would need to ask him. He is probably reading this now with his new handle. Your guess seems reasonable.

    Michael B.


     
    #351     Jul 19, 2004
  2. jem

    jem

    I have to disagree about funds not having problems with redemptions when they go into drawdown.

    Having invested in some high profile futures fundS and talking with some people who place and run money. (I do note that some people on this thread have more experience than I on in this subject) We know that the people who place money into funds -- run after drawdown exceeds certain parameters say 25 to 30 percent drawdown. Something to do with their awareness of the risk fund managers take when they are far from their high water mark and the big payday.

    We know when the core money runs all sorts of things get out of whack. Transaction fees, expenses, taxes and yes positions get all screwed up. Many large funds spiral down.

    I have read very good articles about how this happens in the managed futures industry. It is very common.
     
    #352     Jul 20, 2004
  3. braye

    braye

    page 47
    still waiting for an answer

    where are all the bullish baha ha ha ha ha investors who were posting


    k k k k k kwah ah ah ah ahd riga circles the sewer drain
    bye bye
     
    #353     Jul 20, 2004
  4. Mav does not work for Quadriga.
     
    #354     Jul 20, 2004
  5. If this isn't Maverick, I'll take MyTwoCents out for a night of wild drunken sex! :D

     
    #355     Jul 20, 2004
  6. mind

    mind

    a sharpe ratio of 1 that shall produce 25%+ pa will have draw downs like the current. this is not the concern about the fund, but there are others IMHO.

    actually i think every reasonable trading operation of these days will know about this board. why should Q be the exception?


    peace
     
    #356     Jul 20, 2004
  7. Cutten

    Cutten

    It will be interesting to see what retail investors do now. A 20% decline is one thing, but 50% in 4 months is another.

    It will also be interesting to see Quadriga's response. They now need a 100% return before they even begin to earn performance incentives again. Maybe they will just start a new fund so they can earn 25% per month again from their rather reduced level.
     
    #357     Jul 20, 2004
  8. ktm

    ktm

    There are a number of other funds managing over 100M that are going through the same thing. Funds that have been around for years and done well until this stretch. It will be interesting to see what happens, whether the markets "change", or if we stay in this lethargy of slow moves and the funds adapt to the current conditions.
     
    #358     Jul 20, 2004
  9. mind

    mind

    current thing is pretty normal. look at twenty years of history of cta business. this is the game.
    Q is w e l l above 100m.
     
    #359     Jul 20, 2004
  10. Cutten

    Cutten

    The problem is that Quadriga is a retail fund, not an institutional one, and they do not mention this possibility in their marketing. You can't really expect mom & pop to know the exact history of the CTA business for the last 2 decades. And not only do they not mention it, they in fact market the idea that they can make money in all types of markets, and have less risk than the stockmarket (Christian Baha said this many times on CNBC, Bloomberg TV etc).

    I don't recall the last time the S&P fell 50% in 4 months?

    It is a question of misleading marketing to inexperienced retail investors. If they had said "we are very aggressive, a 50% drawdown is a definite possibility at some point", then fair enough, but they don't do this. So mom & pop are left holding the bag.

    I don't see how you can say that this misleading marketing is "par for the course". Of course guys like us are aware that trend-followers have blowups, especially if they gun for big returns, but I doubt the average customer with his $5k investment is aware of this, especially not when the fund touts itself in this way.
     
    #360     Jul 22, 2004