PopMuse: Hedge Funds http://popmu.se Musings of stuff en-us Copyright 2007-2020 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Hedge Fund Test http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HedgeFund/~3/V2H5ChyaPcE/hedge-fund-aptitude-test.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HedgeFund/~3/V2H5ChyaPcE/hedge-fund-aptitude-test.html Thu, 23 Apr 2020 15:08:00 UTC Hedge Fund at Hedge fund Top performing hedge fund managers score 10/10 on Hedge Fund Test. What is your score?1) Risk management: If global thermonuclear war, an ultra-contagious 100% fatal virus, several Richter 11 earthquakes, a new ice age, an alien invasion, numerous category 8 hurricanes, another zombie apocalypse and a giant asteroid vaporizes this miserable little planet, you:A) I pick stocks by analyzing companies, studying income statements, balance sheets and cash flows to find value in a glorious vacuum immune from macro factorsB) I didn't expect my "event-driven" hedge fund to be driven by eventsC) Ridiculous scenario so I haven't stress tested for that particular set of factors and my 95% VaR and cVar I cooked up tells LPs and their clueless consultants all they need to knowD) Would be up a lot. Always have many shorts and puts. I run an absolute return fund. It's my job to anticipate and prepare for and deliver alpha in every possible scenarioE) Might take an initial hit but make it up trading subsequent turbulent markets. I've also been diversifying into Space. Planetary bias is almost as dumb as national bias. Almost.2) Quantitative analysis: Today you were thinking about the turbulence and viscosity in the markets when you stumbled onto the complete solution to the Navier-Stokes equations. YouA) Publish to worldwide acclaim, another Fields medal and the $1 million Clay mathematics prizeB) Only a day's pay? I'd prefer to keep it to myself and perhaps use the ideas in an algorithm to gain an edgeC) Viscosity? Navier-Stokes? What's that got to do with making money?D) Intellectually satisfying but I already solved the specific cases I needed numerically with a large eddy simulationE) Forget about it. Just not into quant/math geek mumbo jumbo. If it looks cheap I buy, if not I short sell. Fundamental analysis and gut trading work3) You receive a term sheet for AAA rated 20% yield CLO cubed SPAC, SIV-lite, PIK-toggle, Venezuelan Bolivar quanto, digital Bermudan rainbow knockout spreadtion, synthetic mortgage-backed subprime CPDO, lumber correlated, rock-salt linked, orange juice variance swap, carbon credit, catastrophe reinsurance PRDC cliquet reverse floating callable convertible preferred Argentine Peso denominated Z-tranche. You:A) Mentally price it up yourself and arbitrage the bank's derivative mispricing modelsB) Take all they've got but ask them to restructure the coupon up to 30%, reminding them of the need for mark to - your idea of a - marketC) Pull the line, inform the SEC, change your fund's name, email address, Bloomberg ID and phone numberD) Call your favorite recruiter and poach the bank's structured products teamE) Tell them to email "sophisticated" investors craving high yield toxic waste "securities" declared AAA by clueless ratings firms bribed to do so. Start with david.swensen@yale.edu4) Deductive reasoning: Hint: A googol is 10^100, a tiny number. A googolplex, 10^googol, is also very small. Most numbers are much, much bigger than them, including TREE(3)A) A googol of hedge fund managers are asked to choose a whole number between zero and a googol. They are each told they will get to manage USD 1 googol for googol year lockup if the number they choose is half the arithmetic mean of all numbers that were selected. What number should you pick?B) A googol of monkeys type at a googol of computers for googolplex years. What is the probability of a monkey typing out the exact content of all hedge fund Berkshire Hathaway's annual letters to investors from 1957 in sequence?5) Human resources: You need to recruit a performance rainmaker. Your shortlist comprises the following candidates. You can only hire one. Who?A) "Nobel" prize laureate in Economic "Sciences"B) machine learning computational astrophysicist with no financial knowledgeC) day trader, uneducated, illiterate, made over +100% audited return after 3 and 30 fees in each of past 30 years with no negative monthsD) psychologist with no financial knowledgeE) proprietary trader with many years "profitable" experience at bulge bracket Wall Street investment banks, front running client deal flow, analyst upgrades over the "Chinese Wall" and prime brokerage trade data6) Portfolio management: Today your ten biggest long positions all went bankrupt and your ten largest shorts were bought out for enormous premia by overcapitalized private equity firms. YouA) smash your phone, trash the Bloomberg and jump out of the windowB) write op-eds for the WSJ and FT on "broken markets", appear on CNBC and schedule several conference keynote gigsC) some noise in the markets today - good thing my diversified hedge fund actually is diversified and properly hedgedD) move the "distressed" longs to the illiquid special situations side pocket and make higher offers on all the LBOsE) shut down my fund, go on a month vacation, then start a new fund with a fresh name and high water mark7) Basic market knowledge:A) What is your favorite stock on the Armenia Stock Exchange?B) Is the Bhutan Ngultrum overpriced or undervalued?C) What price would you pay for Cuban sovereign yen denominated debt?D) Denmark's DONG issued a 1,000 year hybrid. At what price would you short?E) Long Estonia/neutral Egypt/short Ecuador or vice versa?8) Market outlook: Investors are urged to bet on equities for the long haul. Stock indices in some countries have actually risen over time. In several others they fell to zero, wiping out passive pimps.A) What is the likeliest price for the Dow Industrials index in one billion years? B) What is your bid today for a Dow 25,000 strike call option expiring then?9) Forecasting: To make consistent absolute returns at low risk the one thing that is truly necessary is:A) To be really, really intelligent. ReallyB) To use common sense since it is not so commonC) To be a brash, brilliant, street smart, genius star trader who does "size"D) To work harder and more effectively than 99.99% of "professionals"E) To follow closely what the strategists, economists and analysts are saying10) Experience: From memory what were your ten best and ten worst investments and the exact levels of entry and exit and precise ex ante reasons for the trade? Also from memory what are your ten largest current positions, their average entry price, percentage of total portfolio, level of conviction on each trade and what hedges do you have in place?******** End of Test ********In the unlikely event you score six sigma above the Minkowski mean we might contact you. If not the examiners wish you all the best for your plan B career in private equity where fees you "earn" will be vastly higher than the manipulated IRRs and hidden beta dependence that you will claim to be alpha.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------To source employees technology companies often use such questions; Google has the Google job test and Microsoft asks people how they would move Mount Fuji. The Hedge Fund Test does similar psychometric analysis for hedge funds. by Allen Veryan. Copyright http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Hedge fund joke http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HedgeFund/~3/FmkS4XnkBTk/hedge-fund-blog.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HedgeFund/~3/FmkS4XnkBTk/hedge-fund-blog.html Sun, 12 Apr 2020 12:07:00 UTC Hedge Fund at Hedge fund Index fund genius, a long only guru and a data scientist are flying in to deliver investment presentations to an institutional client in New Zealand. As the plane comes in to land they see one purple sheep alone in a field.Professor Passive says "Every kiwi sheep is purple! I must buy them ALL, now. At ANY price owners ask, no matter how high or overvalued. It's not my money. No need to know ovine business or earnings. Forget about analysis or due diligence. Ignore risk! Prices are always correct as markets are efficient. I have academic tenure and Swedish taxpayers awarded me a fake 'Nobel' in economic 'sciences' which I've been using for asset gathering marketing ever since. Risk free...for me."Beta Bandit says "Some kiwi sheep are purple but the professor says they all are. I am benchmarked to the index so I must also buy that purple sheep no matter how expensive. Can't risk tracking error and not being fully invested or the conflicted advisers/consultants I paid to be on their lists might try to remove me. It's not my money either. I get same fees whether muppet customers win or lose."Data Doctor says "That sheep may seem purple but my machines have deep learnt that nothing should ever be sold short or bought without regard to value or price. My clients are retirees, widows, orphans, university endowments awarding student scholarships and foundations funding good causes so I MUST do much deeper analysis. Our interests are aligned as all my wealth and family and friends savings are in the fund. I study potential investments very closely so that ABSOLUTE pension liabilities and foundation grants can be paid from ABSOLUTE RETURNS.It's my fiduciary duty, unlike asset gatherer salesmen like you. I'm only paid well if, and only if, I make absolute money for clients. Unlike you I invest as a prudent man. You guys are breaking suitability and fiduciary rules for your unfortunate investors. Doing no analysis or due diligence before buying an alleged purple sheep at any price? What are the outrageous fees you charge for your so-called "work" actually for?There seems to be a sheep, one side of which appears to be temporarily purple. This may be due to chemicals in the sheep-dip, an accident with dye or paint, an optical illusion, a practical joke or a smudge on the airplane window.�I will closely study sheep fundamentals and talk to many shepherds, shearers and wool merchants with extensive domain expertise.My data wrangling team will gather petabytes of global ovine data and conduct rigorous statistical analysis, mathematical modeling, stress tests and scenario simulations. Perhaps, after exhaustive research, I might be able to decide whether to short sell or even buy that apparently purple sheep, depending on its value and risk.The Nobel Foundation, the professor's university endowment and long only dude's pension plan are my clients because they need the absolute returns I deliver irrespective of market direction or beta factors. You can't buy food, pay faculty or meet liabilities with relative returns in bear markets. Professor Passive's employer is able to offer student scholarships and pay his vast, tenured salary because it avoids his beloved, high risk passive funds. Too volatile."Which manager should YOU invest with? Who should get the NZ$200 million mandate? Who is most likely to generate RELIABLE risk-adjusted returns? Whose fees represent the best VALUE for the work? What manager is really the "cheapest"? Which fund offers alignment between client and manager interests? "Cheap" index funds are the joke.Would an investor truly following the prudent man rule choose a passive fund given the fiduciary duty for due diligence in selecting appropriate investments for beneficiaries? Passive funds that do no security analysis or risk management are a clear breach of fiduciary duty. Too expensive for anyone. by Allen Veryan. Copyright http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Hedge funds 'raking in billions' during coronavirus crisis https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/09/hedge-funds-raking-in-billions-during-coronavirus-crisis https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/09/hedge-funds-raking-in-billions-during-coronavirus-crisis Thu, 09 Apr 2020 18:05:22 UTC Rupert Neate Wealth correspondent and Jasper Jolly at Hedge funds | The Guardian Managers are pocketing large sums while care workers can barely scrape by, says TUCCoronavirus – latest updatesSee all our coronavirus coverageHedge funds have been accused of raking in billions from market bets during the coronavirus crisis while care workers in high-risk environments can barely scrape by.Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the TUC trade union body, launched a stinging attack on hedge fund managers on Thursday after it was revealed one London hedge fund had made �2.4bn betting on market moves as investors panicked over a global economic shutdown. Continue reading... http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Mark Barnett, a Neil Woodford protege, sacked from investment trust https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/06/mark-barnett-a-neil-woodford-protege-sacked-after-20-years https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/06/mark-barnett-a-neil-woodford-protege-sacked-after-20-years Mon, 06 Apr 2020 18:24:51 UTC Kalyeena Makortoff at Hedge funds | The Guardian Invesco Perpetual board says decision follows ‘extended period of underperformance’Mark Barnett, the protege of fallen investment star Neil Woodford, has been sacked as manager of a �400m investment trust for poor performance.Barnett has been handed six months’ notice by Invesco Perpetual Income and Growth Investment Trust after more than 20 years as its manager. Continue reading... http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ 'Hell is coming': how Bill Ackman's TV interview tanked the markets and made him $2.6bn https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/27/hell-is-coming-how-bill-ackmans-tv-interview-tanked-the-markets-and-made-him-26bn https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/27/hell-is-coming-how-bill-ackmans-tv-interview-tanked-the-markets-and-made-him-26bn Fri, 27 Mar 2020 14:16:05 UTC Rupert Neate Wealth correspondent at Hedge funds | The Guardian US hedge fund manager’s doom-laden TV appearance about coronavirus crisis sparked frenzied sellingCoronavirus – latest updatesSee all our coronavirus coverage“Hell is coming,” the billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman told millions of Americans in a 28-minute near-hysterical TV interview 10 days ago. He said the US was underestimating the severity of the coronavirus crisis. It would kill millions of people and devastate the global economy, he said.At the same time Ackman, a well-known Harvard-educated hedge fund manager, had quietly placed a bet that stock markets would tank. Those bets made his hedge fund $2.6bn (�2.2bn) – a near-10,000% return on his $27m stake.Ackman just halted the market.Mr. President, the only answer is to shut down the country for the next 30 days and close the borders. Tell all Americans that you are putting us on an extended Spring Break at home with family. Keep only essential services open. The government pays wages until we reopen.28 October 1929�The original Black Monday. The Dow plunged�13%, then a record, as the Great Wall Street Crash ended the bull market of the 1920s. Continue reading... http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Asset allocation http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HedgeFund/~3/jsFMJiX5nMs/alpha-or-beta.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HedgeFund/~3/jsFMJiX5nMs/alpha-or-beta.html Thu, 26 Mar 2020 03:08:00 UTC Hedge Fund at Hedge fund Asset allocation doesn't work. It does not drive portfolio returns. Easy, mathematically or empirically, to prove for all goals, market scenarios and risk tolerances, investors big and small should NEVER asset allocate. Experts were WRONG: take a look at the disastrous state of pensions and retirement savings. They are in that dire situation because of asset allocation.Asset allocation? If investors were required to put their entire portfolio in one stock of their choice, "experts" would conclude ONLY stock picking drives returns. If you flip a coin each month to be "100% stocks" or "100% cash" then market timing becomes the SOLE factor. Asset allocation is based on bad science. Good data science proves: 100% in skill strategies, 0% in asset classes.BAD SCIENCE: decide on conclusion you want - �then find a data set you know in advance will "confirm" your delusion. Brinson, Ibbotson etc studied investors that were ALREADY doing "asset allocation". If they�had confined themselves to market timers they would "discover" that market timing drove performance! Asset allocation had no influence. Is it valuable to "conclude" that asset allocators' returns and variances were driven by "asset allocation"? No.I've read the academic papers, heard all the gurus speak, met with the geniuses marketing to me. Safe in mediocrity and groupthink but empirical garbage and dangerously mistaken. Sadly most investors destroy their wealth and retirements obeying conventional "wisdom". As a data scientist I let facts and evidence speak. SKILL is the ONLY prudent long term investment.Naive asset percentages in various betas is a breach of the fiduciary standard. Truly "prudent" men do NOT invest like that. Some urge low fee, high cost, high risk dumb beta index funds but such speculative products have vicious volatility and devastating drawdowns. The prudent way to achieve goals for ALL long term scenarios is strategy selection NOT asset allocation.Was nothing learnt from 2008? The ludicrous losses of traditional portfolios in major drawdowns show "bet on betas" asset allocation fails.�Portfolio returns are actually decided by level of manager talent, security selection and competent (or not) factor hedging. Asset allocation dominated conventional "wisdom" and wrecked too many portfolios. Meanwhile the skilled thrived in those wonderful market conditions. Trillions are mis-invested due to asset allocation. Enough!60/40? Does x% in fixed income when bonds yielded 10% make sense even if they now yield 2% or less? Still x%? Of course not. Since client long term goals require the SAME absolute return no matter what, fixed income attractiveness varies as a function of interest rates. As for "high" yield, many junk bonds were yielding +15 to 20% when Michael Milken made his name. Today a measly 5%? "High" is absolute, not relative. Need a lot more coupons to absorb the defaults. Ignore arbitrary "asset class" beta labels.Check out "risk free" govt bonds during inflation. The "lower for longer" fools urge loading up on duration at these rates! Risk reward? Equity markets are usually either too cheap or overpriced. Asset class silos have no place in this dynamic, volatile, high frequency world. 100% in SKILL is what you need. Diversification is no free lunch and adds value only if it REALLY diversifies. Mostly it diworsifies.Focus on talent. Investors don't have the time or risk appetite to gamble on indices. Time slows for no-one so don't grow old riding out drawdowns and gambling on the idiotic ideas of the asset allocation crowd. Markets may rise - eventually - but that time CANNOT be recovered.�100% needs to be invested in skill so�I invest with the world's best managers. Why put a cent with anyone not good enough to run a hedge fund?Asset allocation has cost millions their retirement. It has also destroyed the spending budgets of university endowments and foundations. Liquid long only is bad but leveraged illiquid long only is crazy. Pension consultants call it "private equity". David Swensen is still being allowed to gamble away alumnae money at casino Yale, for now. Many pensions keep doing what they have always done and get what they always get: lower funded status. Why waste millions on consultants to do an asset/liability study when asset allocation is useless?Skill is necessary if you want consistent capital growth. Short positions are required; longs are optional. Those landmark�studies reached BIASED conclusions because asset allocation is what the CHOSEN investors already focused on. In contrast smart investors pay no attention to asset class labels and focus on security selection and tactical timing. Good fund managers analyze securities using skill. I have no interest in unskilled asset classes. Beta does not compensate for risk even in strong bull markets. Don't breach fiduciary duty to yourself or others you represent.A stock and bond asset mix determines variation of returns only if you focus on beta. It's easy to debunk the asset allocation "axiom". If you encounter any "consultant" claiming that asset allocation accounts for over 90% of returns, don't walk away, run. Risk averse people invest in alpha. The true determinant of superior risk-adjusted returns is investment SKILL not percentages in UNSKILLED asset classes. It's the manager mix NOT the asset allocation. Check out the dire funded status of DB and DC pensions that gambled on betas due to incompetent advisors and conventional "wisdom".It was a GREAT decade for the S&P. No beta for "passive" index funds but every day offered an opportunity set of fluctuating securities to capture alpha. It was an even better quarter century for the Nikkei. No beta since 1984 but vast alpha was generated from security selection and market timing by those with talent. Some "experts" say investors ought to have more in risky assets due to higher "expected" returns. Instead people would be wise to focus on 100% in skill. For those with liabilities to fund, intolerance of volatility or dislike of deep drawdowns, alpha is the prudent investment. Can't beat beta? Forget about beta.In aggregate, stocks can underperform bonds for decades. 60/40 sounds prudent until rephrased as 90/10 risk. Why have a high risk appetite when unhedged equity indices NEVER compensate with sufficiently high reward even in bull markets. Last century's 8% return on 16% volatility was an insult but a last decade's negative total return with even more risk is absurd. Most bonds also don't reward enough for their risk. Do not go near index fund garbage. It is for speculators NOT fiduciaries.Choose specific securities or hire�other people�with rare skill to do it for you. If your portfolio�lost money in 2008 or you spend less than 100 hours a week�dedicated to�manager due diligence, portfolio construction and security selection you need to re-evaluate WHO is making investment decisions for you and HOW to upgrade. The Greeks got it right: alpha�is before beta. If a manager is unable to make money or preserve capital in DOWN markets they aren't suitable for ANY portfolio.Alpha beta separation is trendy but beta tends to swamp alpha as we saw in the downs and ups of 2008/2009. That led to the mistake inherent in the crazy concept called portable alpha. It was a beta-centric way of getting some investors into hedge funds but failed because it kept asset allocation front and center. It diluted the absolute return attribute and changed it into just another relative return index based product. The alpha beta separation idea still has too much risk budget in beta. But why bother with beta at all? "Cheap" beta is expensive considering its risk. Cost and risk conscious investors favor alpha. It's a cheaper source of return.The more vituperative commentary on hedge funds, the more one should invest in alpha vendors. Why tie up precious capital in riskier beta when lower risk alpha is available? Better to identify mispricings and arbitrages than invest in "the market" itself. It is safer to minimize market exposure and analyze specific securities to buy and short sell that just gambling on benchmarks. Most portfolios are very beta biased while some investors implement a beta plus alpha model. The natural progression is to alpha only which has a much better efficient frontier. I do not understand why investors must surrender their wealth to the hazards of beta when superior alternatives exist. Selecting the RIGHT betas at the RIGHT time is a form of alpha anyway. Choosing the WHICH and WHEN of asset classes takes as much talent and expertise as at the security level. I have no idea where "the markets" are going in the long term but will not take the chance of finding out. Asset and security selection, timing and hedging skill, though rare, are the only properties a conservative investor can rely on if they need adequate and consistent absolute returns. Beta is passive but do we really live in a world that rewards passivity in any activity? I don't think so which is why they are called ACTIVITIES. Alpha comes from acumen driven ACTION.Successful investing is about leveraging informational, structural and analytical advantages or hiring those that have them. Let's look at portfolios that did well over long periods but didn't asset allocate, instead focusing on security selection or timing. A low frequency trading firm like Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway identifies specific multiyear opportunities in currencies, commodities, stock and bond markets, derivatives and event driven special situations. In contrast the high frequency trading of Jim Simons' Medallion Fund times thousands of liquid securities over shorter holding periods down to microseconds. Producing alpha depends on your knowledge and technology edge applied to appropriate time horizons. Beta bets drive many portfolios because that is what most investors do. It is like those who assume carbon is necessary for life because the science they know and only lifeforms they have analyzed are carbon-based. The anthropic principle applied to finance. It is false logic similar to the "all swans are white because every swan I've seen is white" phenomenon. Asset allocation fit nicely into the established body of theory which is why it remains popular despite its woeful weaknesses. Efficient, unbeatable markets imply the non-existence of skill! Choose beta because alpha is just "random" luck in a zero sum game? The much cited Brinson Hood Beebower paper has cost too many investors too much money. Beta people advocate index funds since they want you to invest in "the market". But the optimal way to achieve absolute returns at the total portfolio level is to be alpha-centric.Beta vendors don't manage risk, don't market time and outsource ACTIVE security selection to benchmark construction firms. They even stay fully invested long only in bear markets! A beta-centric portfolio is where investors decide policy asset allocation and then hire managers to basically deliver the return from asset classes and hopefully a bit of alpha on top from tracking error constrained active mandates. Most long only funds have an R-squared with their benchmark over 70% - ie beta explains most of their returns. Alpha strategies and manager selection shouldn't be secondary but that is the result when beta bets dominate the allocation of investment capital.Alpha vendors see a market of securities offering long/short opportunities in many time horizons within and between asset classes. An alpha-centric portfolio is where investors hire managers to analyze, trade and hedge for absolute returns. Of course you have to be good and work extremely hard to find alpha. Any manager that depends on beta is NOT running a hedge fund. A truly efficient portfolio does not pollute itself with beta. Dismissing all hedge funds is like avoiding all stocks because Enron, General Motors and Nortel fell to zero. Don't invest in bonds because some default and there is no such thing as a risk free rate? Nortel stock lost -100% while a Nortel bond is up +700% but most missed it.Pure alpha sources do not fit well into the beta allocation process that some find so compelling. Since they are not assets, treating hedge funds as an asset class is wrong. The dispersion of returns across the industry is very high. So variable that AVERAGE performance has little meaning. 10,000 hedge funds, 10,000 strategies. People like to know if "hedge funds" were up or down each month. But what does that mean? Some made money and some lost money. Likewise I am often asked where I think "the market" is going. That is a beta question. Some stocks go up and others go down. Seek alpha.Do I want "hedge funds" that outperform? No. I look for hedge funds that make money which is a very different target. I know that good hedge funds will have high risk-adjusted returns and bad ones will not. Alternative beta is just another beta and is therefore to be avoided. Most betas are becoming more correlated whether by geography or the equity, credit and real estate correlation to the economy. I am not concerned whether a hedge fund is "market neutral" or not. But it must be able to deliver absolute returns that are "economy neutral".Alpha is the REAL diversifier because there are so MANY different ways of generating it. Focus on alpha if you want good returns regardless of the economy. Why pay attention to asset classes when investing in SKILL-BASED STRATEGIES makes more sense? Others are welcome to unhedged beta bets but for conservative investors like me beta with a bit of alpha is inferior to an ALPHA ONLY portfolio. Making money is simple: do the opposite of "Nobel" Prize economists. by Allen Veryan. Copyright http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Bill Ackman claims firm made $2.6bn betting on coronavirus outbreak https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/25/bill-ackman-claims-firm-made-26bn-betting-on-coronavirus-outbreak https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/25/bill-ackman-claims-firm-made-26bn-betting-on-coronavirus-outbreak Wed, 25 Mar 2020 19:19:15 UTC Jasper Jolly at Hedge funds | The Guardian Hedge fund manager took advantage of market turmoil to make almost 100 times his outlay Coronavirus – latest updatesSee all our coronavirus coverageThe hedge fund manager Bill Ackman has claimed his firm made $2.6bn (�2.2bn) betting that the coronavirus outbreak would cause a market crash, barely a week after warning that “hell is coming” for US companies.Ackman took advantage of bond market turmoil to make almost 100 times his original outlay of $27m on bets on market movements, he said on Wednesday in a post on the website of Pershing Square Capital Management. Continue reading... http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Rishi Sunak took part in controversial US corporate raid case https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/08/rishi-sunak-took-part-in-controversial-us-corporate-raid-case https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/08/rishi-sunak-took-part-in-controversial-us-corporate-raid-case Sun, 08 Mar 2020 15:46:25 UTC Simon Goodley at Hedge funds | The Guardian New chancellor was part of team at aggressive hedge fund involved in US court case over a raid on rail freight firmProfile: The rising star, Rishi SunakThe new chancellor, Rishi Sunak, was part of a small team of hedge fund managers criticised by a US court for covertly acquiring an interest in a Wall Street-listed firm while working on a 2007 corporate raiding deal.Sunak was a partner of The Children’s Investment (TCI) fund when it threatened to “go to war” with the board of the American rail freight operator CSX, where the tactics included pledging to topple the company’s board after the hedge fund had surprised directors by amassing a secret interest. Related: Rishi Sunak: the bit-part hedge fund partner now managing the whole economy Continue reading... http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ US hedge fund calls for Prudential breakup as it takes near-$2bn stake https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/24/us-hedge-fund-calls-for-prudential-breakup-as-it-takes-near-2bn-stake https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/24/us-hedge-fund-calls-for-prudential-breakup-as-it-takes-near-2bn-stake Mon, 24 Feb 2020 19:41:49 UTC Joanna Partridge at Hedge funds | The Guardian Third Point, led by billionaire Daniel Loeb, says insurer should separate into two firmsThird Point, the US hedge fund and activist investor, has taken a near-$2bn (�1.5bn) stake in the London-based insurer Prudential and is calling for it to separate into two companies.Led by the US billionaire Daniel Loeb, Third Point has written to Prudential’s board of directors to explain that it has become the insurer’s second biggest shareholder, with a stake of almost 5%. Continue reading... http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Cliffhanger for small investors who poured money into Yorkshire mine https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/22/north-york-moors-potash-mine-sirius-anglo-american-shares https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/22/north-york-moors-potash-mine-sirius-anglo-american-shares Sat, 22 Feb 2020 16:00:27 UTC Rob Davies at Hedge funds | The Guardian Thousands of locals bought stock in a new potash mine near Whitby. But the money ran out and big business moved in, leaving shareholders with a tricky choiceFor the best part of a decade, North Yorkshire has been dreaming about gold hidden beneath the brooding beauty of the moors.A deep mine on the eastern edge of the North York Moors, the first in the UK for 40 years, promised to bring jobs, investment and spectacular returns for anyone who dipped into their pockets to help fund it. But in the end, no one but a handful of hedge funds and a global mining giant is likely to make any money out of North Yorkshire’s buried treasure.They’ve spent �1.1bn, there’s a big hole in the ground, and Chinese, Indian and American customers are signing agreements for millions of tonnes Continue reading... http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/