Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Soultrader

Goldman Global Alpha Fund Fell 22 Percent in August

Recommended Posts

Article here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNuaC.IG9pWs&refer=home

 

"We still hold our fundamental investment beliefs that sound economic investment principles coupled with a disciplined quantitative approach can provide strong uncorrelated returns over time,'' Goldman said in the unsigned report.

 

Wait... didnt they say this about the Global Equity Opportunities quant fund when it lost 28%?

 

"Goldman blamed its losses on too many quantitative funds making the same trades, and said in mid-August it would have to develop new strategies."

 

You would expect Goldman to figure this out before losing money. Ive had it with funds blaming liquidity problems, other quant funds, etc... Didnt we all learn in trading that we must be reponsible for our actions?

 

Alot of hedge funds seem to be still losing money. Bank and securities numbers are coming out this month with fed rates next week. Are we likely to see further decline if these funds start unwinding their positions? Expect a volatile week next week. Should be a whole lot of fun for private traders. You get to take the big boys (funds) money!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should rename this thread...When Automated Systems go Wrong during Income Distribution Quarters!

 

Those guys got hit hard when the markets turned against them and their rigid systems couldn't cope. Then on top of that they are up for income distribution payments to investors at the start of the September quarter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You would expect Goldman to figure this out before losing money. Ive had it with funds blaming liquidity problems, other quant funds, etc... Didnt we all learn in trading that we must be reponsible for our actions?

.......... Should be a whole lot of fun for private traders. You get to take the big boys (funds) money!

If only if it is that easy, GS had one of the best quarters ever .... the press has a way of reporting at a time when it is the worst to take a position based on the reporting .. that is by the time the retail reader gets the news and acts, it is usually the time to fade (trade against) the retail. The only thing you should do is to trade the price action and not what some press or guru says is the news.

 

Commentary: Goldman Sachs textbook case of contrarian analysis in action

By Mark Hulbert, MarketWatch

Last Update: 12:01 AM ET Sep 21, 2007

ANNANDALE, Va. (MarketWatch) -- The time to buy, Nathan Rothschild famously said, is when the blood is running in the streets.

But how to put this apocryphal advice to actual use? What does it look like in practice?

For an answer you need look no further than what Goldman Sachs Group Inc. did in mid August, when it looked like the capital markets might dry up completely and the stock market appeared to many to be on the verge of a meltdown.

The blood most definitely was running in the streets.

So what did Goldman do? It invested $2 billion (that's billion with a "b") of its own money in one of its hedge funds that was hemorrhaging. See Aug. 13 story

The payoff? Its $2 billion investment has grown by a cool $320 million in the short time that has elapsed since then a 16% return in just one month.

In the newsletter arena, the closest analogy to Goldman's contrarian coup, at least that I can think of, is what the late Al Frank did on Oct. 20, 1987. Frank was the editor of The Prudent Speculator, and his letter's model portfolio, like most hedge funds today, was highly leveraged. (The newsletter is edited today by John Buckingham, who employs much less leverage than did Frank.)

And Oct. 20, 1987, of course, was the day after Black Monday, the worst single-day crash in U.S. stock market history, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average falling some 22%. Frank's highly leveraged portfolio fell 57% on that day alone, according to the Hulbert Financial Digest's calculations.

That's a whole lot of blood.

What did Frank do? Far from running for the hills, which was what almost everyone else was doing, he urged subscribers to buy.

That took guts, and his newsletter's ranking was amply rewarded for having them.

Since then, the Prudent Speculator is far and away in first place for performance among the newsletters tracked by the Hulbert Financial Digest. Over the nearly 20 years since Frank's post-Crash buy advice, the newsletter's portfolios have gained 3,857%, in contrast to "just" 825% for the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 index On an annualized basis, this is the difference between 20.4% and 11.9%.

To be sure, opportunities such as the one facing Al Frank in October 1987, or the one facing Goldman Sachs last month, don't come along every day. An integral part of the job of being a contrarian is being patient, waiting for those occasions in which panic has come to dominate investor emotions and brought prices down to fire sale levels.

Being a contrarian is not for the faint of heart. But outsized profits can be earned by those who have the fortitude. End of Story

Mark Hulbert is the founder of Hulbert Financial Digest in Annandale, Va. He has been tracking the advice of more than 160 financial newsletters since 1980.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<<So basically they just robbed Bear Stearns >>

 

The Goldman Sachs prop traders also basically robbed the Goldman Sachs Alpha Fund. Alpha Fund was -30% and Goldman Sachs trading desk kicked serious arse. Feasting on your own -- a Wall Street tradition.

 

I really have to think there is more to the story of the Alpha Fund than meets the eye. It really doesn't make sense to have 2 very, very smart guys running many different strategies and they all go bad at the same time.

The fund was designed to have uncorrelated strategies and they somehow ALL got correlated. These guys either totally dropped the ball in execution of their top-down strategy -- in which case they should be fired -- or something very major happened here that is non-public, material information. This one just doesn't add up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unexpected events do happen. I don't think they saw the subprime problem and hasn't happened in a long long time (I may be mistaken here) due to laxed legislation over the industry. I think credit liability has never been this extended. Be that as it may, even it comes to crashes or mini-crashes, many strategies don't take this into consideration to minimize the damage. LTCM was caught in a tech bubble burst, something that's happen before but not 9/11 to push it down further. The other issue is size, elephants can't drop pop without others smelling it, especially dung bettles. It takes a while to unload else others will catch on and make the situation worse. So instead of 30%, could be 50% or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.