Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (92276)	8/19/2005 2:38:38 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

So, what part of that makes my figures not come to an 18.9% annualized return after fees? Or make that level of performance "pitiful"? One thing I think you badly need to understand is that a comparison to "the market" over the short-term is meaningless. The reason they're called "hedge" funds is because they hedge against market volatility -- they are designed to provide relatively consistent returns regardless of what the overall market is doing. So you figure to get your 2% in a month whether the market is up 5%, flat, or down 5%. So yes, in months where the market is up 5%, hedge funds are going to "underperform". And those are before you consider the hedge funds that have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Yes, and there have been bad actors in mutual funds (remember the "late trading" scandal) and individual corporations, too. Is one group really all that much worse than another? I guess they are all wonderful individuals <Reagan>There you go again.</Reagan> Every time I dissent from one of your broad-brush generalizations that something must be wrong with "hedge funds" in general (rather than specific bad actors), you attribute the exact opposite over-generalization to me. He's grown a very successful company judged by an objective standard. And what standard would that be, exactly? The company has yet to show it can consistently turn a profit. And didn't you just say a few posts earlier that you hadn't studied the company's financials enough to make just that kind of assessment? I don't have any problems with him as a spokesman. You don't have any problem with this "Sith Lord" business? The claim that the government made up a connection between him and Al Qaeda as an excuse to start their investigation? The blanket reference to WSJ reporters as "crooks"? The false pretense that "Bob O'Brien"'s first appearance on his company's conference call wasn't pre-arranged? None of that bothers you even a little? The details of investment agreements between private individuals, on the other hand, seem to bother you no end.