Goldmen Trading with pension funds

[oildaytrader]

Kick backs for investments ,corruption and robbing pensions is all part and parcel of trading .When you buy a investment manager and sell your investors, it is a form of trading.

California money manager Elliott Brody admitted last December to paying nearly $1 million in gifts in exchange for a $250 million investment from the pension fund.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/..._pension_L3O8438yCCcuh9DlIPL8PN#ixzz10ul3bcg8

 

[scose-no-doubt]

So you're complaining because someone paid 1million to get the the fund that was going to be outsourced anyway? You do realise that most pension funds (inc UK state and local funds) outsource most of the AUM to investment banks etc. It's called diversifying your risk and diluting control.
I agree it's unethical but it's also irrelevant if the funds weren't lost.
Would this still be a problem for you if the Brody made record returns for the fund and secured more pensions?

 

[oildaytrader]

So you're complaining because someone paid 1million to get the the fund that was going to be outsourced anyway? You do realise that most pension funds (inc UK state and local funds) outsource most of the AUM to investment banks etc. It's called diversifying your risk and diluting control.
I agree it's unethical but it's also irrelevant if the funds weren't lost.
Would this still be a problem for you if the Brody made record returns for the fund and secured more pensions?

Unethical people have no limits, if a crap fund manager is offered more corruption by a lousy fund manager,the ethics in manager selection are thrown out in favour of highest payer of kickbacks.It is greed for initial corruption and greed for more kick backs or greater paymasters.

All the managers suck anyway, any that performs might be lucky one hit wonders.

 

[oildaytrader]

Most of these fund managers are nothing more than thieves in suits.THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN THE 95% CLUB OF LOSERS.

http://www.fool.co.uk/news/investin...-eat-your-wealth.aspx?source=ufwflwlnk0000001

This can be demonstrated by taking very simple benchmarks. One example is the pension fund sector “UK All Companies” which has a total of 361 funds in it. The average performance over 5 years is +13.5% (2.5%) and over 10 years -3.5% (-0.5%); the figures in brackets are the annualised returns. Compare this to the FTSE All Share returns which are +22.92% (4.21%) over 5 years and +9.25% (0.89%) over 10 years. So in both cases (5 and 10 years) the average performance is about 1.5% below the market return and guess what? This is roughly the same as the charge on the average fund, so funds are dragging performance down, in this example, by their charges.

http://www.howmuchdoineedtoretire.co.uk/86ofpensionfunds_distributed.pdf

 

[cr6196]

i'm not going to incite your crazy bull**** tales but just to add another interesting metric:

if you invested $1000 with Warren Buffet in his partnership around early 1960s (the timing probablly isn't a coicendence) you would have $4.3mil now. If he charged a 20% performance fee, he would have $4mil you would have $300k. I'm not sure of the veracity of this as I haven't checked but it was in last weekends FT ( i believe )...maybe interesting.

 

[arabianights]

cr6196 that sounds plausible... and that the very reason why your typical stock market investor should get low cost index funds... not cause markets are efficient, but because they're efficient enough, and the savings on transaction fees justify it

 

[oildaytrader]

i'm not going to incite your crazy bull**** tales but just to add another interesting metric:

if you invested $1000 with Warren Buffet in his partnership around early 1960s (the timing probablly isn't a coicendence) you would have $4.3mil now. If he charged a 20% performance fee, he would have $4mil you would have $300k. I'm not sure of the veracity of this as I haven't checked but it was in last weekends FT ( i believe )...maybe interesting.

What would your $1,000 be worth today , if Richard Nixon and others hadn't abolished the gold standard?The S and P would have been 450 or lower.

Talk about the trillions of dollars losses of investors in failed public companies, hedge funds and other investments.These losses are never deducted from any performance figures of the S and P, the losing companies and losses are removed and losses are never accounted for in the the performance figures.The performance figures may not include losses ,management fees or exit values

So what is your pint?Point is nothing or isn't it?

 

[FX Bandit]

Most of these fund managers are nothing more than thieves in suits.THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN THE 95% CLUB OF LOSERS.

http://www.fool.co.uk/news/investin...-eat-your-wealth.aspx?source=ufwflwlnk0000001

This can be demonstrated by taking very simple benchmarks. One example is the pension fund sector “UK All Companies” which has a total of 361 funds in it. The average performance over 5 years is +13.5% (2.5%) and over 10 years -3.5% (-0.5%); the figures in brackets are the annualised returns. Compare this to the FTSE All Share returns which are +22.92% (4.21%) over 5 years and +9.25% (0.89%) over 10 years. So in both cases (5 and 10 years) the average performance is about 1.5% below the market return and guess what? This is roughly the same as the charge on the average fund, so funds are dragging performance down, in this example, by their charges.

http://www.howmuchdoineedtoretire.co.uk/86ofpensionfunds_distributed.pdf

This is meaningless drivel.

 

[FX Bandit]

cr6196 that sounds plausible... and that the very reason why your typical stock market investor should get low cost index funds... not cause markets are efficient, but because they're efficient enough, and the savings on transaction fees justify it

These are great for things like buying dotcoms in January 2000, buying banks in 2007, selling banks at the end of 2008...

 

[arabianights]

These are great for things like buying dotcoms in January 2000, buying banks in 2007, selling banks at the end of 2008...

So what?

 

[FX Bandit]

So what?

So buying and selling a stock according to where it fits into an index is not, in my view, a sound investment strategy.

If you disagree I have no problem with that. Finding the right investment strategy is as personal as finding a suitable trdaing strategy.

I wish you and any other investors good luck with index funds. I prefer some thought to be applied to stock selection, but each to his own.