I'm looking on the Quadriga website, and none of the funds' performance for the period in question approaches the figure you provided. I wonder if you could cross-reference the returns in your emails with the returns on the site to determine where the source of the discrepancy lies? TIA! jj
My E mails are from Quadriga to partners of the fund and I am not posting their contents on here. They are not public information. I obtained that result by subtracting the difference in NAV between the current NAV and the NAV on 10/1/2003 and divided accordingly. Here is the link of the "funds" audited information. http://www.superfund.net/ I know you are a CTA for a competing fund and I do not need continue this. I fully understand your M.O. Phone (212) 750-6300 Toll free 1.888.50.SUPER email: nyc@quadrigafund.com Have a nice day.
one year rolling 13.89 % Close but not 25%, and not enough for me to Jump up and Down and pull trading money out and pile it into Quadriga...But Quadriga seems to do a good job, and I will be watching, but not kicking... Michael B. P.S. sharpe ratio** 1.06
My M.O. is trying to understand where all these figures are coming from. My CTA does not compete directly with Quadriga. Quadriga is an offshore hedge fund with a very low minimum. I am a US-based CTA offering managed accounts exclusively to Qualified Eligible Participants with a significantly higher minimum. There is obviously a lot of confusion here regarding the performance of the various QSF funds and I was hoping to get it straightened out. You should keep in mind that I am not the one who posted performance information that contradicts information coming directly from the source. You are. What is your motive? Why are you substituting false accusation for facts? jj
I am an Accredited investor, May I ask what your minimum is and do you meet my Average Rolling Criteria? Michael B.
If the one year rolling is +13.89, then last Oct-Dec must have been strong, because I posted the (losing) numbers for Jan-Sept of this year. I think there is much confusion here.
To be completely fair, the difference between 39% and 22% is significant by any standards and not something that should be easily dismissed, is it? If you think that my desire for reasonably accurate representations of performance means that I have a "bug up my ass", well then that's something we'll both just have to live with. jj Edit: Nevermind the fact that the proper way to report annual or TTM returns is with monthly compounded RORs...
Well to make it more confusing the "rolling" could be an Average number too? I simply prefer the simple minimum criteria to be 25%..average is not necessary for the purpose of what rolling criteria is supposed to be telling me. But again, this is not a standard benchmark to the industry, just a thing of mine. Its sort of like getting married, make sure she is compatible (you can tell a lot from her parents, too). Michael B. P.S. You will need to change your handle soon, NEW to ET! (newtoet)